Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE TIME FOR "PIDYON PETER CHAMOR"

(a) Resolution #2 (Rav Sheshes): Beraisa #2 teaches that one does not transgress [for delaying] Pidyon Peter Chamor until 30 days.
(b) Question (Rami bar Chama - Beraisa): The Mitzvah [of Pidyon Peter Chamor] is all 30 days; after this, he redeems it or does Arifah.

1. Suggestion: This means that the Mitzvah is to wait 30 days before redeeming!

(c) Answer: No, it means that for the first 30 days the Mitzvah is to redeem.
(d) Objection: If so, it should not say "After this, he redeems it or does Arifah," but rather, "After this, he redeems it or transgresses"!
(e) Resolution #3 (Rava): Beraisa #1 is like R. Eliezer, who equates Pidyon Peter Chamor to Pidyon ha'Ben; Beraisa #2 is like Chachamim, who do not equate them.

(a) (Mishnah): If the owner of a Peter Chamor (or a Kohen who received one) does not want to redeem it, he does Arifah from the back of the neck and buries it;

1. The Mitzvah to redeem it takes precedence over Mitzvas Arifah - "v'Im Lo Sifdeh va'Arafto";

(b) The Mitzvah [for an Amah Ivriyah's master] to do Yi'ud (marry her) takes precedence over the Mitzvah [for her or her father] to redeem her[self] - "Asher Lo Ye'Adah v'Hefdah."
(c) At first, people would do Yibum l'Shem Mitzvah, so it had precedence over Chalitzah;

1. Nowadays, people are not l'Shem Mitzvah (such a Yibum is like Arayos, i.e. Eshes Ach), so Chalitzah takes precedence.

(d) If one was Makdish [to Bedek ha'Bayis], he has precedence to redeem over anyone else (R. Gershom - because he adds a Chomesh - "v'Yasaf Chamishiso Alav), v'Im Lo Yiga'el v'Nimchar b'Erkecha."

3) EXEMPTIONS FROM "BECHORAH"

(a) (Mishnah): In the following cases, a cow's first calf does not get Kedushas Bechor:

1. If one bought the fetus in a Nochri's cow;
2. If one sold the fetus in his cow to a Nochri, even though this is forbidden;
3. If one was a partner with a Nochri in a cow;
4. If one was Mekabel from a Nochri (to take care of his cow, and share the offspring), or he gave his cow to a Nochri b'Kabalah.

(b) We learn from "b'Yisrael" - not of others.
(c) Kedushas Bechor applies to Tahor animals born to Kohanim and Leviyim;

1. They are exempt only from Pidyon ha'Ben and Kedushas Peter Chamor.

(d) (Gemara) Question: Why does our Masechta begin with Peter Chamor, and only afterwards it discusses Bechor Behemah Tehorah;

1. It is more reasonable to begin with Kedushas ha'Guf, and then to teach about Kedushas Damim!

(e) Answer #1 (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): The Tana prefers to teach about donkeys first, on account of R. Chanina's teaching (it is the only Tamei species with Kedushas Bechor because donkeys helped Benei Yisrael take wealth out of Mitzrayim).
(f) Answer #2: Because there are fewer laws of Peter Chamor, the Tana immediately taught them in the first Perek, and teaches about Bechor Behemah Tehorah in [most of] the rest of the Masechta.

(a) (Reish Lakish citing R. Oshaya): If a Jew gave money to a Nochri for his Behemah, we follow their law (this will be explained), even though the Jew did not do Meshichah (take it to his Reshus), he acquired it, and Kedushas Bechor applies to it;

1. If a Nochri gave money to a Jew for his Behemah, we follow their law (this will be explained), even though he did not do Meshichah, he acquired it, and it is exempt from Bechorah.

(b) Question: What does it mean (in the first clause) "We follow their law"?

1. Suggestion: We learn from the law of buying a Nochri (slave);

i. A Yisrael acquires a Nochri through money - slaves are called "Lareshes Achuzah" (an inheritance), they are equated to land;
ii. Just like land is acquired through money, Shtar (a document) or Chazakah (usage), also an Eved Kena'ani.

2. Money acquires a Nochri, all the more so it acquires his property!
3. Rejection #1: The same reasoning would show that Shtar and Chazakah acquire his property (and this is not true)!
4. Rejection #2: A similar Kal va'Chomer should apply to Yisraelim, but it does not (this shows that we may not make such a Kal va'Chomer)!

i. Reuven acquires Shimon [to be his Eved Ivri] through money, but he does not acquire Shimon's Metaltelim through money, only through Meshichah!

(c) (In the following discussion, unspecified acquisition is of Metaltelim.)
(d) Answer #1 (Abaye): We follow the law that the Torah gave for Nochrim:

1. A Yisrael acquires through Meshichah, "mi'Yad Amisecha" -- from [the hand of] another Yisrael; he does not acquire from a Nochri through Meshichah, but rather through money.
2. Suggestion: Perhaps he does not acquire from a Nochri at all (R. Gershom; Rashi - until he actually takes it to his premises; when acquiring from a Yisrael, it suffices to take it to his Reshus (or to a place where he is allowed to stop), e.g. totally in his hand, three Tefachim off the ground (Hagbahah), or to a shoulder of Reshus ha'Rabim).
3. Rejection: Money acquires a Nochri, all the more so it acquires his property!
4. Suggestion: Perhaps he does not acquire from a Nochri until he gives money *and* does Meshichah!
5. Rejection: One Kinyan (money) suffices to acquire a Nochri, all the more so one Kinyan suffices to acquire his property!
6. Suggestion: Perhaps he acquires from a Nochri through money *or* Meshichah!
7. Rejection: Acquiring from a Nochri is [learned from and similar to] acquiring from a Yisrael:

i. Just like there is one Kinyan to acquire from a Yisrael, also from a Nochri.

(e) (Reish Lakish): If a Nochri gave money for a Jew's animal, we follow their law, he acquires without Meshichah, and it is exempt from Bechorah.
(f) Question: What does it mean "their law"?

1. Suggestion: We learn from the law of a Nochri who buys an Eved Ivri;

i. A Nochri acquires a Yisrael through money, "mi'Kesef Miknaso" -- all the more so he acquires a Yisrael's property through money!

2. Rejection: A similar Kal va'Chomer should apply to Yisraelim, but it does not;

i. Reuven acquires Shimon through money, but he does not acquire Shimon's Metaltelim through money, only through Meshichah!

(g) Answer #1 (Abaye): We follow the law that the Torah gave for Nochrim:

1. "V'Chi Simkero Mimkar la'Amisecha [...mi'Yad Amisecha]" - a Yisrael is Makneh (transfers ownership) to a Yisrael through Meshichah (of the buyer), but he is not Makneh to a Nochri through Meshichah, rather, through [receiving] money.
2. Suggestion: Perhaps he is not Makneh to a Nochri at all!
3. Rejection: A Nochri acquires a Yisrael through money, all the more so he acquires his property through money!
4. Suggestion: Perhaps he does not acquire until he gives money and does Meshichah!
5. Rejection: One Kinyan suffices for him to acquire a Yisrael, all the more so one suffices to acquire a Yisrael's property!
6. Suggestion: Perhaps he acquires through money or Meshichah!

7. Rejection: Just like there is one Kinyan to Makneh to a Yisrael, also to a Nochri.

(h) Ameimar says that a Nochri acquires and is Makneh through Meshichah;
(i) Question: We understand if he holds like R. Yochanan, who says that mid'Oraisa a Yisrael acquires through money (but Chachamim disqualified money and enacted that Meshichah acquires) - "Amisecha" teaches that money works for a Yisrael, but not for a Nochri, rather, Meshichah;

1. But if he holds like Reish Lakish, who says that mid'Oraisa a Yisrael acquires through Meshichah, just like a Nochri, how does he expound "Amisecha"?

(j) Answer: (The verse discusses Ona'ah (overcharging) -- "v'Chi Simkero Mimkar la'Amisecha O Kano mi'Yad Amisecha Al Tonu.") "Amisecha" teaches that Ona'ah must be returned to a Yisrael, but not to a Nochri (Rashash - even though it is forbidden to overcharge him).
(k) Question: We learn this from the end of the verse, "Al Tonu *Ish Es Achiv*"!
(l) Answer: One of these excludes Ona'ah of a Nochri, one excludes Ona'ah of Hekdesh; the Torah must teach both:

1. If it only taught Ona'ah of a Nochri, we would have thought that Ona'ah applies to Hekdesh - therefore, both are needed.

(m) Question: This is according to the opinion that forbids stealing from Nochrim;

1. But according to the opinion that permits it, there is no need to teach that Ona'ah does not apply to Nochrim!

(n) Answer: Indeed, if Ameimar permits Gezel Nochri, he must hold like R. Yochanan.

(a) Question (Beraisa): If a Yisrael bought pieces of silver from a Nochri, and found idolatry among them:

1. If he did Meshichah but did not yet give the money, he can return it;
2. If he did Meshichah after giving the money, he must cast the idolatry to the Dead Sea (he acquired it, it is forbidden to benefit from idolatry)!

i. If money acquires from Nochrim, why does the Seifa mention Meshichah - he acquired through money alone!

(b) Answer #1: The case is, the Nochri agreed to conduct according to the law of Yisrael (only Meshichah acquires).
(c) Question: If so, why does the Beraisa discuss giving money?
(d) Answer: This is a Chidush - even though he gave money, if he did not do Meshichah, he may return it.
(e) Question: Also in the Reisha, he did Meshichah - why may he return it?
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): It is a Mekach Ta'us (mistaken sale, he never intended to buy idolatry, so he never acquired it).
(g) Objection (Rava): Also in the Seifa, it is a Mekach Ta'us, yet he may return it!
(h) Answer #1 (Rava): In both clauses it is a Mekach Ta'us;

1. In the Reisha, he did not give money, it does not look like a Yisrael's idolatry;
2. In the Seifa, he gave money, it *looks like* a Yisrael's idolatry.

(i) Answer #2 (Abaye): In the Reisha it is a Mekach Ta'us - since he did not give money, it is understandable that he did not know that there is idolatry among them;

1. In the Seifa he gave money, he should have examined them before doing Meshichah - his failure to do so is acceptance of whatever is there!

(j) Answer #2 (to question (a) - Rav Ashi): The Reisha shows that Meshichah does not acquire, therefore also in the Seifa it does not acquire;

1. There is no real need for the Seifa to mention Meshichah, it is only for parallel structure with the Reisha.

(k) Answer #3 (Ravina): The Seifa shows that Meshichah acquires, therefore also in the Reisha it acquires;

1. The Reisha means, if he did not give money *nor* do Meshichah, he can return it.

(l) Question: If he did neither Kinyan, there is nothing to return!
(m) Answer: He may retract his words;

1. The Tana holds that one who retracts from verbal commitments *to a Yisrael* is unfaithful, for a Yisrael honors his word;
2. Since a Nochri does not honor his word, a Yisrael need not honor his word to a Nochri.