(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 10

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


(a) What does Rabah now prove from the Beraisa (where Rebbi Shimon includes Peter Chamor in the list of things that are not a food, but precludes Basar be'Chalav, because one is able to feed it to Nochrim)? Why might he also have included a Peter Chamor?

(b) How do we establish the Beraisa, to refute Rabah's proof?

(c) The Rabbanan (Amora'im) explained in front of Rav Sheishes that the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Shimon, because they hold 'Isuro Chishuvo'.
What does that mean?

(a) The Mishnah in Taharos lists thirteen things in connection with Nivlas Of Tahor, one of them, that it requires Machshavah (another that it does not require Hechsher).
What problem does this create?

(b) The Mishnah in Uktzin says the same about the Neveilah of a Beheimah Temei'ah anywhere and Nivlas Of Tahor and (Cheilev [this does not appear in the Mishnah in Uktzin]) in the villages.
Why does the Tana restrict the latter to villages, but not the former?

(c) We have the same problem with the Rabbanan from this Mishnah as we just had from the previous one.
How do we solve both problems?

(a) Another Mishnah in Uktzin rules that Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah and Nivlas Of ha'Tahor and Cheilev (Shechutah) in the market-places (i.e. in town) require neither Machshavah nor Hechsher.
Why is Hechsher not required in ...
  1. ... all the current cases of Neveilah?
  2. ... the case of Cheilev Shechutah?
(b) Then why specifically in the market-place (why not in the villages too)?

(c) Why does Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah not require Machshavah (like Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah does)?

(d) Here again, we are faced with the same problem regarding Isuro Chishuvo, from the implication (that Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah does require Machshavah).
Why can we not establish the author as Rebbi Shimon, like we did in the previous cases?

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon say about the Neveilah of a camel, a hare, a rabbit and a pig?

(b) Why is that?

(c) What have we now proved from the Reisha of this last Mishnah?

(a) How does Rava therefore establish the Rabbanan in the Beraisa (who list Pidyon Peter Chamor as a food)? If it is not because of 'Isuro Chishuvo', then what *is* the reason?

(b) Why does Rava need to say that the owner Shechted it to practice Shechitah? Why can he not just say that he Shechted it?

(c) What is then the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan?

Answers to questions



(a) What does Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, quoting Nimus (the brother of Rebbi Yehoshua ha'Garsi), say about someone who Shechts a raven in order to practice Shechitah?

(b) What is it Machshir?

(c) Rebbi Elazar disagrees. He holds that the blood of Shechitah is always Machshir (which seems to concur with Rebbi Yossi).
What is Rebbi Elazar then coming to say?

(d) What do we then suggest is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) We conclude however, that even Rebbi Elazar does not hold 'Isuro Chishuvo'.
Then on what grounds is the Shechitah of the raven Machshir it?
Why does it not require Machshavah?

(b) How do we know that Simnei Taharah affect the status of the animal?

(c) If that is the reason, what problem do we have with the case presented by the Beraisa?

(d) What do we answer?

(e) What have we now achieved by citing this Beraisa?

(a) Abaye asks from a Beraisa, which discusses the Din of the Peter Chamor in the event that the owner refuses to redeem it.
What is he obligated to do with it?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah adds 've'Asur be'Hana'ah'.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) What problem does this Beraisa create? On whom is Abaye asking?

(d) So how do we amend the Beraisa?

(a) The problem with this explanation is from the Seifa.
What does the Tana say about ...
  1. ... killing the donkey with a cane, a spade or a saw?
  2. ... placing the donkey in a locked room and letting it die by itself?
(b) And he cites Rebbi Yehudah who forbids shearing it or working with it.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) So how do we reconcile the Seifa with the Reisha, assuming that they both speak whilst the donkey is still alive.
Why did the Tana find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes?

(d) We just established the Reisha by Hana'as Damav.
What does that mean?

(e) Having taught us the Machlokes in ...

  1. ... the Reisha (Hana'as Damav), why did the Tana need to repeat it in the Seifa?
  2. ... the Seifa (Hana'as Gufo), why did he need to repeat it in the Reisha?
(a) Initially, Rav Nachman, quoting Rabah bar Avuhah, who agrees with Rabah, cites the source for that ... as a Beraisa.
What does the Tana learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Arifah" "Arifah" from Eglah Arufah?

(b) What does Rav Nachman try to prove from there?

(c) On what grounds does Rav Sheishes reject Rav Nachman's proof? Why would the Tana need to teach us that it is Asur when it is dead, even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who already forbade it whilst it was alive?

(d) So Rav Nachman tries to prove it from a Beraisa learned by Levi.
To what does Levi's Beraisa ascribe the obligation to cut the donkey's neck?

(a) What does Rav Nachman try to prove from there? What makes him think that the author must be Rebbi Shimon?

(b) How do we reconcile the Beraisa with ...

  1. ... Rebbi Yehudah? What does 'P'seida de'Beini Beini' mean?
  2. ... Rebbi Shimon, even if he permits the donkey be'Hana'ah after its death?
(c) Resh Lakish too, holds like Rabah and Rav Nachman.
What does Rebbi Yochanan (or Rebbi Elazar) say?
(a) Others cite Rav Nachman with regard to the Mishnah in Kidushin 'ha'Mekadesh be'Peter Chamor, Einah Mekudeshes'.
What makes us think that the author cannot be Rebbi Shimon?

(b) How does Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establish the Mishnah to refute this suggestion?

(c) In the second Lashon, we ask that the Mishnah appears to go neither like Rebbi Shimon nor like Rebbi Yehudah. Why not like Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) How does Rabah bar Avuhah Amar Rav establish the Mishnah (like Rebbi Yehudah this time) to refute this suggestion?

(a) Rav equates Rebbi Yehudah with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa. What does the Tana Kama learn from the word "Tifdeh" from the two times that the Torah writes in Bo and in Ki Sisa "u'Feter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh"?

(b) What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah say? With which ruling does he disagree?

(c) If not for "Tifdeh" "Tifdeh", what would we have learned from the Pasuk in Korach "es Bechor ha'Adam ve'es Bechor ha'Beheimah Tifdeh"?

(a) What problem ('Mah Nafshach') do we have with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's opinion?

(b) If, as we conclude, he does not learn from Bechor Adam, then from where does he derive the one Shekel?

(c) According to the Rabbanan, in what connection is the Pasuk "ve'Chol Erk'cha ... " written?

(a) Rav Nachman rules like the Rabbanan, and according to Rav Yosef, this includes even a Petruza worth a Danka.
What is a 'Petruza bar Danka'?

(b) Why is it not obvious that 'Kol she'Hu' includes a Petruza bar Danka?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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