(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 28


(a) We explained in our Mishnah, that when, after permitting the retention of a Bechor that obtained a Mum within twelve months, the Tana adds 'le'Achar Shenaso, Eino Rashai Lekaymo Ela ad Sheloshim Yom', that if it obtained the Mum after the second year has already begun, one may keep it alive for thirty days.
What alternatively, might the Tana mean?

(b) In the Beraisa that we cite to resolve the She'eilah, what does the Tana say about keeping alive a Bechor Tam nowadays? What time-period does the Tana discuss?

(c) The Tana first gives the time limit for retaining a Bechor that obtained a Mum as not a moment more than twelve months.
On what grounds does he then go on to permit retaining it for another thirty days?

(a) What do we attempt to prove from the Beraisa?

(b) How do we refute that proof?

(c) What does another Beraisa say about a Bechor that obtained a Mum fifteen days before the end of its year? What does this prove?

(d) This Beraisa also supports Rebbi Elazar.
What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(a) What does Rebbi Elazar say in the second Lashon regarding a Bechor that is born during its mother's first year?

(b) How does he derive it from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lifnei Hashem ... Sochlenu Shanah be'Shanah"?

(c) How do we reconcile this with the previous Beraisa, which only allows fifteen days into the second year?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, permits a Bechor whose blemish was inspected after being Shechted be'Isur and found to be permanent.
What does Rebbi Meir say?

(b) What does the Tana rule in a case where someone who is not an expert examined the blemish of a Bechor and declared it to be permanent? What happens ...

  1. ... to the Bechor?
  2. ... to the examiner?
(c) According to Rabah bar bar Chanah, in a case where a Bechor with Dukin she'be'Ayin (eye's-webb) is Shechted before it has been examined, even Rebbi Yehudah will concede that it is forbidden.
Why is that?

(d) Then what is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) In the Beraisa that we cite in support of Rabah bar bar Chanah, Rebbi Meir says 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh Asur, Mipnei she'Mishtanin'.
What is the problem with this?

(b) So how do we amend it?

(c) What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak extrapolate from the words of Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah 'Ho'il ve'Nishchat She'Lo al-Pi Mumcheh'?

Answers to questions



(a) We ask whether Dukin she'be'Ayin always changes after the animal's death, or only sometimes.
What are the ramifications of this She'eilah?

(b) And we resolve it from Rebbi Oshaya from Usha who said to Rebbi Yochanan 'Come, let me show you a case of Dukin she'be'Ayin that changed.
What does that prove?

(c) Why do we initially assume that the Seifa of our Mishnah, which requires a Bechor that was Shechted before a Chacham examined it to be buried is a S'tam like Rebbi Meir?

(d) How do we refute this suggestion? Why might it conform even with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) A Beraisa rules that, in the previous case, the examiner pays the Kohen only a quarter of the price of a Beheimah Dakah.
What does he say about a Beheimah Gasah?

(b) What reason do we give for the latter ruling?

(c) On what grounds do we reject Rav Papa's suggestion that he pays only a quarter of the price of a Dakah due to the fact that the loss is that much smaller?

(d) So to what does Rav Huna bar Mano'ach in the name of Rav Acha bar Ika attribute it?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about someone who judges, and errs by declaring the one who is Chayav, Patur and what is Tahor, Tamei, or vice-versa?

(b) What difference does it make if he is a Mumcheh le'Beis-Din? What is a 'Mumcheh le'Beis-Din'?

(c) We suggest that this is a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, who holds of Diyna de'Garmi.
What is 'Diyna de'Garmi'?

(d) How do we counter this suggestion? How might our Mishnah be speaking in a case that involves an act of damage?

(a) We have no problem with 'Chiyev es ha'Zakai', which speaks when the Dayan took the money out of the defendant's hands and gave it to the claimant. But what is the case of Nasa ve'Nasan be'Yad by 'Zikah es ha'Chayav'. How does Ravina establish the case of Nasa ve'Nasan be'Yad even there?

(b) And what is the case of 'Nasan ve'Nasan be'Yad' by ...

  1. ... 'Timei es ha'Tahor'?
  2. ... 'Tiher es ha'Tamei'?
(c) What did Rebbi Tarfon in our Mishnah do in the case of a cow whose womb had been removed?
(a) On what grounds did the Chachamim in Yavneh disagree with him? What statement did Todos the doctor make with regard to the cows and the pigs of Alexandria?

(b) Why did they do that?

(c) What did Rebbi Tarfon mean by lamenting that he had lost his donkey?

(d) What did Rebbi Akiva comment on that?

(a) We query Rebbi Akiva, who declared Rebbi Tarfon Patur because he was a Mumcheh la'Rabim.
Why ought he to have been Patur even if he hadn't been a Mumcheh le'Rabim?

(b) Why is 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Patur'?

(c) What is the definition of a Ta'us be'Shikul ha'Da'as'?

(d) What do we answer? Why *did* Rebbi Akiva mention just 'Mumcheh le'Rabim'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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