Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CONDITIONS OF THE "SEH"

(a) (Mishnah): One may not redeem a Peter Chamor with any of the following (b'Toras Seh, but if it is worth as much as the donkey, it may be given in place of money):

1. A calf, Chayah, slaughtered animal, Tereifah, Kil'ayim (a crossbreed of a goat and sheep), or Koy (this will be explained);
2. R. Eliezer permits using Kil'ayim, for it is a Seh, and forbids a Koy, for it is doubtful.

(b) If one gave the Peter Chamor itself to the Kohen, the Kohen may not keep it until he designates a Seh to redeem it.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
(d) Answer: It is Ben Bag Bag.

1. (Beraisa - Ben Bag Bag): It says "Seh" regarding redemption of a Peter Chamor, like it says regarding Korban Pesach;

i. Just like each of these (in the Mishnah) is Pasul for Korban Pesach, it may not be used to redeem

2. Suggestion: Korban Pesach must be an unblemished male in its first year - perhaps this is also required for redemption!
3. Rejection: It says "Tifdeh" twice, to teach that these are not required.
4. Question: If so, we should Machshir even the cases listed in the Mishnah!
5. Answer: If so, the Gezeirah Shavah "Seh-Seh" would not teach anything. (We include a Ba'al Mum, a female and a Seh after its first year, for they are Seiyin.)

(e) Question: May one redeem with a Ben Paku'a (a fetus found inside a slaughtered animal)?

1. According to R. Meir, clearly it can - since it must be slaughtered, it is a fully fledged Seh;
2. The question is according to Chachamim - do we say, since it became permitted through its mother's slaughter, it is called meat (and not a Seh);

i. Or, since it runs around, it is called a Seh?

(f) Answer #1 (Mar Zutra): It cannot be used.
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It can be used.

1. Question (Rav Ashi to Mar Zutra): Do you learn from a Gezeirah Shavah Seh-Seh from Korban Pesach (for which Ben Paku'ah is invalid)?

i. If so, you should require all the qualifications for the Korban Pesach - an unblemished male in its first year!

2. Answer: It says twice "Tifdeh" to Machzik even a Seh invalid for Pesach.
3. Question: If so, it should also include a Ben Paku'ah!
4. Answer: This cannot be, for then the Gezeirah Shavah would not teach anything.

(h) Question: May one redeem with a Nidmeh (an animal that does not resemble its mother)?

1. We do not ask according to R. Eliezer - he permits even with Kil'ayim, all the more so Nidmeh!
2. We ask according to Chachamim - perhaps they forbid only Kil'ayim, but permit Nidmeh;
3. Or, perhaps they forbid both of them!

(i) Answer #1 (Beraisa): If a cow gave birth to a goat, it may not be used to redeem.
(j) Inference: If a sheep gave birth to a goat, it may be used to redeem!

1. Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?

i. It cannot be R. Eliezer - he permits even with Kil'ayim!

2. Answer #1: It is Chachamim.

(k) Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question j:1): Really, it is R. Eliezer; he teaches that a goat born to a cow is invalid (indeed, the inference is not a Chidush);

1. One might have thought, the child determines the law, since it is a Seh, it may be used - the Beraisa teaches, this is not so, the mother determines the law, it is a calf.

(l) Answer #2 (Rabah bar Shmuel - Beraisa) Question: What is the case of Kil'ayim?

1. Answer: It is a goat born to a ewe, the father was a Seh.
2. Objection: This is not Kil'ayim, it is Nidmeh!
3. Correction: Rather, what case resembles Kil'ayim and Chachamim equated it to Kil'ayim? It is a goat born to a ewe, the father was a Seh.
4. Question: Regarding what it is considered Kil'ayim?
5. Answer #1: It is Kil'ayim (and therefore Pasul) regarding Kodshim.
6. Rejection: The same verse that is Posel Kil'ayim is Posel Nidmeh!

i. (Beraisa): "Shor O Kesev" - this excludes Kil'ayim; "O Ez" - this excludes Nidmeh.

7. Answer #2: It is Kil'ayim regarding Bechor (it does not become Kadosh).
8. Rejection: A verse directly excludes Nidmeh - "Ach Bechor Shor...," both it and its mother must be cattle (or both sheep, or both goats).
9. Answer #3: It is Kil'ayim to be exempt from Ma'aser.
10. Rejection: We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim (to exempt Nidmeh)!
11. Answer #4: It is Kil'ayim regarding Pidyon Peter Chamor. (This culminates Answer #2 to Question (k).)

(m) Rejection (and Support of Answer #3): Really, it is Kil'ayim regarding Ma'aser - the case is, it slightly resembles its mother;

1. One might have thought, we learn "Ha'avarah-Ha'avarah" from Bechor (a Nidmeh gets Kedushas Bechor like a Ba'al Mum, it is given to Kohanim, likewise a Nidmeh should enter the pen to be tithed) - the Tana teaches, this is not so, we learn "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim.

(n) Question: May one redeem with Pesulei ha'Mukdashim (a Ba'al Mum that was redeemed)?

1. We do not ask according to R. Shimon - he permits benefit from a Peter Chamor, it is Chulin (there is no reason not to use Pesulei ha'Mukdashim);
2. We ask according to R. Yehudah:

i. Since he forbids Hana'ah of a Peter Chamor, Ein Isur Chal Al Isur (the Isur on the donkey cannot take effect, even for a moment, on Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, which is already Asur, the only Heter is to slaughter and eat it);
ii. Or, since the Seh permits the Peter Chamor without becoming forbidden itself, Ein Isur Chal Al Isur does not apply, it may be used!

(o) Answer (Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana): Pesulei ha'Mukdashim may be eaten "ka'Tzvi vecha'Ayal" - just like Chayos may not be used to redeem (b'Toras Seh), also Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.
(p) Retraction: This shows that even R. Shimon is Posel it (unlike our original assumption)!

2) "KEDUSHAS SHEMITAH"

(a) Question: May one redeem with a Seh [bought with produce or money] of Shemitah?

1. Surely, it may not be used to redeem a definite Peter Chamor - since the Kohen keeps the Seh, this would be like commerce, [anything with Kedushas] Shemitah is for eating, not for commerce!
2. We ask about redeeming a Safek.
3. We do not ask according to R. Shimon - since he permits benefit from a Peter Chamor, there is no need to designate a Seh for a Safek;
4. We ask according to R. Yehudah:

i. Since the Yisrael keeps the Seh, this is called "l'Ochlah";
ii. Or, since the Peter Chamor is forbidden until designating the Seh, this is like commerce!

(b) Answer: Rav Chisda taught that a Shemitah animal is exempt from Bechorah, Matanos (the foreleg, jaw and stomach) must be given;

1. It is exempt from Bechorah; Shemitah is for eating, not for burning [the Eimurim];
2. Matanos must be given - they are for Kohanim to eat!

(c) Question (Mishnah): One who eats from a Shemitah dough before separating Chalah is Chayav Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim).

1. If the Chalah would become (Rashi; Tosfos - if the dough was) Tamei, the Chalah would have to be burned - we should say that the dough is exempt from Chalah, for Shemitah is to be eaten, not burned!

(d) Answer: Chalah applies to a Shemitah dough, for it says "l'Doroseichem."
(e) Support (Beraisa) Question: What is the source that one who eats from a Shemitah dough before separating Chalah is Chayav Misah?

1. Answer: It says "l'Doroseichem."

(f) Question: We should learn from Chalah to Bechorah!
(g) Answer: L'Chatchilah, Chalah is not burned (only if it became Tamei), but Eimurei Bechor must be burned.

(a) (Mishnah): If one gave the Peter Chamor itself to the Kohen, he may not keep it until he designates a Seh to redeem it.
(b) Our Mishnah teaches like the following Beraisa:

1. (Beraisa): If a Yisrael had a Peter Chamor in his house, and a Kohen said, "Give it to me, I will redeem it," the Yisrael should not consent unless he sees the Kohen redeem it.

(c) (Rav Nachman): This teaches that Kohanim are suspected of using a Peter Chamor before redeeming it.
(d) Objection: This is obvious!
(e) Answer: One might have thought, this only applies to Kohanim known to be suspected (alternatively - that previously transgressed);

1. Rav Nachman teaches, it applies to all Kohanim, for they rationalize (since they keep the Seh, there is no need to redeem).

(f) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If one designated a Seh to redeem a Peter Chamor and the Seh died, he has Acharayos (he must give a different Seh to a Kohen), just like there is Acharayos for the five Shekalim of Pidyon ha'Ben;
(g) Chachamim say, he has no Acharayos, just like there is no Acharayos for Ma'aser Sheni.
(h) R. Yehoshua and R. Tzadok testified that if the Seh died, the Kohen does not receive anything (except for the carcass).
(i) R. Eliezer says, if the Peter Chamor died, it is buried, it is permitted to benefit from the Seh (the Yisrael keeps it);
(j) Chachamim say, the Peter Chamor need not be buried, the Seh is given to a Kohen.
(k) (Gemara - Rav Yosef): R. Eliezer learns from "Ach Pado Tifdeh..." - the verse equates Peter Chamor to Bechor Adam;

1. Just like there is Acharayos for Pidyon ha'Ben, also for Pidyon Peter Chamor.

(l) Question (Abaye): If so, we should also permit benefit from a Peter Chamor (before redemption), just like from Bechor Adam!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Eliezer indeed permits this (like R. Shimon)!
2. Rejection #1 (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If the Peter Chamor died, it is buried.

i. It is buried because it is Asur b'Hana'ah.
ii. Suggestion: Perhaps it is permitted, it is buried because it is equated to Bechor Adam (and people are normally buried)!
iii. Rejection: Not only Bechorim are buried (the Hekesh should teach things particular to Bechor Adam).

3. Rejection #2 (Beraisa): R. Eliezer agrees that if a Yisrael has a Safek Peter Chamor, he designates a Seh and keeps it. (This is necessary only if the Peter Chamor is Asur b'Hana'ah!)

(m) Answer (Rava): "Ach Pado Sifdeh" - Peter Chamor is equated to Bechor Adam only regarding Pidyon (e.g. Acharayos, but not regarding Hana'ah).
(n) (Beraisa #1): Erchin (a vow to give to Hekdesh a certain amount based on the age and gender of oneself or another person, the Ne'erach) is according to [his age at] the time of the vow;

1. Pidyon ha'Ben applies after 30 days, Pidyon Peter Chamor applies immediately.

(o) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): At least 30 days are required for all of the following:

1. Erchin (the Ne'erach must be at least 30 days old), Pidyon ha'Ben, Nezirus, and Pidyon Peter Chamor.
2. These have no upper limit (the age of the Ne'erach, the length of Nezirus, or the time to redeem a son or Peter Chamor).

(p) Resolution #1 (Rav Nachman): Beraisa #1 teaches that if Pidyon Peter Chamor was done immediately (i.e. before 30 days), it is valid [b'Di'eved].

1. Question: This implies that Pidyon ha'Ben is invalid even b'Di'eved within 30 days - but Rav was Machshir such a Pidyon!
2. Answer (Rava): If he wanted the Pidyon to take effect immediately, all agree that it is invalid. (Rav is Machshir when he gave the money now to take effect after 30 days.)