(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bechoros 7

BECHOROS 7-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(a) We cite a Beraisa 'Beheimah Tehorah she'Yaldah Miyn Beheimah Temei'ah Asur ba'Achilah'.
What does the Tana conclude, assuming that it resembles its mother 'Rosho ve'Rubo'?

(b) How do we refute the proof from there that Rebbi Shimon requires a camel, the son of a cow, to resemble its mother Rosho ve'Rubo, regarding the Heter Achilah, like he does regarding the Bechorah?

(c) How do we attempt to prove this from the Beraisa itself?

(d) On what grounds do we refute the proof? Why did the Tana consider it important to change to the Din of Bechorah in the Seifa?

(a) We cite another Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Yehoshua.
Based on the Pasuk "Ach es Zeh Lo Sochlu mi'Ma'alei ha'Geirah ... ", what does he say about a Tamei that is born from a Tahor, provided its father is a Tahor, too?

(b) What does Rebbi Eliezer say about Rebbi Yehoshua's case?

(c) So what does he learn from the Pasuk?

(d) And what does he then learn from "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tocheilu, Shor Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim"?

(a) In any case, why is there no proof from here that Rebbi Shimon permits eating a camel the son of a cow, with even just one or two Simanim like its mother?

(b) Another Lashon queries Rebbi Yehoshua's statement 'Iburo min ha'Tamei' from a factual statement by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
What did Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi say about a Tahor animal becoming pregnant through a Tamei one (or vice-versa)?

(c) Besides a small category of animal from a large one (or vice-versa), which other opposing categories of animals cannot inter-breed?

(d) How do we reconcile Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi with the Beraisa? What precedent do we have for Rebbi Eliezer and his disputant?

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes Rebbi Eliezer ('Iburo min ha'Tamei') by a Kalut ben Parah.
What is a Kalut ben Parah?

(b) Like which later Tana does Rebbi Eliezer then hold?

(c) How do we refute the proof from here that Rebbi Shimon does not require Rosho ve'Rubo to permit the Kalut ben Parah to be eaten?

(a) How do we initially establish the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua (who argue over whether the father needs to be of a Kasher species too, or not).

(b) They also argue in a Beraisa, about the baby of a Tereifah, whose father is not a Tereifah, which Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies from the Mizbe'ach. What does Rebbi Yeshoshua say?

(c) What problem does this create?

(d) We answer that Rebbi ...

  1. ... Eliezer really holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Asur'.
    Then why in our Sugya does he permit a camel whose mother is a cow and whose father, a camel, to be eaten?
  2. ... Yehoshua really holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Mutar'.
    Then why in our Sugya does he forbid a camel whose mother is a cow and whose father, a camel, to be eaten?
(a) We finally resolve our She'eilah from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon clearly states his view in the matter.
After learning from the two "Gamal's" that even a camel that is born from a cow is forbidden, under what condition does he permit it?

(b) What does this prove?

(a) We ask whether the urine of a donkey is permitted.
Why did we not ask the same She'eilah about the urine of a camel or a horse?

(b) What are then the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c) How does Rav Sheishes resolve the She'eilah from 'Kol ha'Yotzei min ha'Tamei*' (in our Mishnah)?

(d) What would we have said had the Tana said 'Kol ha'Yotzei min Tamei, Tamei (see Shitah Mekubetzes)?

Answers to questions



(a) According to the second Lashon, we only ask about the urine of a donkey, and not about that of a camel or a horse - because it is drunk (and is not just pure waste, which the latter are). What do people drink it for?

(b) And how does Rav Sheishes then resolve the She'eilah?

(c) We query this however, from a Beraisa.
What reason does the Tana give for the Torah's concession to eat honey, despite the fact that it comes from a bee?

(d) What problem does this create for Rav Sheishes?

(a) Rav Sheishes, we reply, holds like Rebbi Ya'akov.
What is wrong with Rebbi Ya'akov's original D'rashah, that the Pasuk in Shemini "Ach es *Zeh* Tochlu mi'Kol Sheretz ha'Of" comes to forbid Sheretz Of Tamei" (i.e. flying insects)?

(b) Then what does he extrapolate from this Pasuk?

(c) On what grounds does Rebbi Ya'akov preclude the honey of wasps and hornets from the concession?

(d) What do we therefore comment about the author of the Beraisa which permits the latter?

(a) The Beraisa adds that the honey of wasps and hornets is Tahor.
What do we infer from there with regard to bees' honey?

(b) What do 'Tahor' and 'Tamei' mean in this context?

(c) What does another Beraisa say about this?

(a) What are 'Bei'i de'Yachmurta'?

(b) On what grounds did the Rabbanan want to declare them Asur?

(c) But Rav Safra informed them that they are permitted.
Why is that?

(a) Why does Rav Huna permit the skin-like substance (a sort of placenta) on the face of a baby donkey when it is born?

(b) Rav Chisda supports Rav Huna with a Beraisa.
What does the Tana say about such a skin that is found on the face of a human baby 'Bein Chai Bein Meis'?

(c) How does Rav Chisda explain 'Bein Chai Bein Meis'?

(d) How is this a proof for Rav Huna?

(a) Rav Huna rejects this proof.
How does *he* explain 'Bein Chai Bein Meis'?

(b) What did he retort when Rav Chisda pointed out to him that he (Rav Chisda) had merely quoted the words of another Beraisa?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about ...
  1. ... a Tahor fish that is swallowed by a Tamei fish?
  2. ... a Tamei fish that is swallowed by a Tahor one?
(b) When the Tana refers to a Tamei fish that swallowed a Tahor fish, he implies that we saw this happening.
What would then be the Din with regard to there where we did not?

(c) What distinction does the Beraisa draw between Tamei fish and Tahor fish in this regard?

(d) What problem do we now have with the Mishnah's original ruling?

(a) Rav Sheishes establishes the Beraisa where the Tahor fish was found in the fish's back passage.
How does this solve the problem? Where ought it to have otherwise been found?

(b) Where does Rav Papa claim they found it, to solve the problem?

(c) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, it is not a question of where they found it, but how they found it.
What does he say?

(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with the initial assumption, that we saw the Tamei fish swallow the Tahor one. According to him, it is not necessary to say that.
Why not?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,