Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A PARTIAL "BECHOR"

(a) (Mishnah - R. Tarfon): If a firstborn was born Yotzei Dofen (through Caesarian section), and the next animal (from this mother) was born normally, both of them graze until they get a Mum, then the owner eats them;
(b) R. Akiva says, neither is a Bechor:

1. The first is not a Bechor because it is not Peter Rechem (the first to leave the womb);
2. The second is not a Bechor because another animal was born to this mother before it.

(c) Question: What do they argue about?
(d) Answer: R. Tarfon is unsure whether or not a partial Bechor (i.e. in only one respect, it was the first offspring *or* the Peter Rechem) is a Bechor, R. Akiva is sure that a partial Bechor is not a Bechor.
(e) (Beraisa) Question: What is the method of expounding Klal ha'Tzarich l'Prat (a general term that cannot be understood without a specific term) and a Prat ha'Tzarich l'Klal?

1. Answer - Suggestion #1: "Kadesh Li Chol Bechor" - perhaps this includes females!
2. Rejection: "Zachar."
3. Suggestion #2: Perhaps "Zachar" teaches that the first male to be born is a Bechor, even if females were born before it!
4. Rejection: "Peter Rechem."
5. Suggestion #3: Perhaps "Peter Rechem" teaches that the first animal to leave the womb is a Bechor, even if a previous animal was born Yotzei Dofen!
6. Rejection: "Bechor."

(f) Question (Rav Sheravya): The Tana did not refute Suggestion #2 by saying that a male born after a female is not "Bechor" - this implies that a partial Bechor is a Bechor;

1. But he refutes Suggestion #3 by saying that an animal born after a Yotzei Dofen is not "Bechor" - this implies that a partial Bechor is not a Bechor!

(g) Answer #1 (Abaye): He holds that a partial Bechor is not a Bechor;

1. Suggestion #2 really means, perhaps "Zachar" teaches that if the firstborn is a male it is a Bechor, even if it was Yotzei Dofen!

(h) Answer #2 (Ravina): He holds that a partial Bechor is a Bechor, nevertheless "Bechor" refutes Suggestion #3;

1. If an animal born after a Yotzei Dofen gets Kedushas Bechor, there would be no need for the Torah to write "Bechor"!

i. It is not needed to exclude the case when a female was born previously - Peter Rechem excludes this!

2. Conclusion: "Bechor" teaches that an animal born after a Yotzei Dofen does not get Kedushas Bechor.

(i) Objection (Rav Acha mi'Difti): If a partial Bechor is a Bechor, the simple meaning of "Bechor" does not exclude a partial Bechor, just it may be expounded to exclude (the most reasonable case to exclude);

1. Indeed, we would exclude a male born normally after a male Yotzei Dofen ("Bechor" is extra to exclude this case, for it is a Bechor with respect to the womb, but not with respect to males);
2. However, we would not exclude a normal male after a female Yotzei Dofen (for the male is a Bechor with respect to the womb and with respect to males).

(j) Rather, we must answer like Abaye.

2) WHEN ARE WE CONCERNED FOR "BECHORAH"?

(a) (Mishnah - R. Yishmael): If Reuven bought an animal from a Nochri and does not know whether or not it already gave birth (and now it gave birth to a male):

1. If [it was] a goat [and it] gave birth in its first year, the kid is given to a Kohen (it is surely a Bechor); if it gave birth after this, it is a Safek (it grazes until it gets a Mum, then Reuven eats it);
2. If a sheep gave birth within two years, the lamb is given to a Kohen; if it gave birth after this, it is a Safek;
3. If a cow gave birth within three years, the calf is given to a Kohen; if it gave birth after this, it is a Safek;

(b) R. Akiva: If the Halachah was that only a proper child exempts from Bechorah, you would be right;

1. However, Chachamim taught that Tinuf (a dissolved fetus; alternatively, bubbles of blood) in a small animal is a sign of a [miscarried] child (and exempts from Bechorah), a Shilya (fetal sac) in a large animal is a sign of a child;

i. In a woman, Shapir (skin in the form of a child) and Shilya are both signs of a child (regarding Tum'as Yoledes).

(c) The general rule is - if we know that an animal previously gave birth (or miscarried), the Kohen does not receive anything (from the next birth);

1. If we know that it did not give birth before, the Bechor belongs to the Kohen;
2. If we do not know whether or not it gave birth before, the owner eats it when it gets a Mum.

(d) (Gemara) Question: Why does R. Yishmael say that after one year, it is a Safek - the majority of goats become pregnant and give birth in their first year, we should follow the majority and say that a kid born after one year is definitely not a Bechor!
(e) Answer #1: R. Yishmael holds like R. Meir, who is concerned for the minority.
(f) Answer #2: He can hold like Chachamim;

1. Chachamim follow a majority d'Isei Kaman (everything is in front of us), such as the majority opinion of judges on the Sanhedrin, or [if meat was found, we follow] the majority of stores in the city (if they sell Kosher meat or Neveilos);
2. They do not follow a majority d'Leisei Kaman (not in front of us, i.e. that most goats in the world give birth in their first year).

(g) Objection: Chachamim do follow a majority d'Leisei Kaman!

1. Copy (Beraisa - R. Meir): A [minor] boy or girl may not do Yibum or Chalitzah.
2. Chachamim: We agree that a minor may not do not Chalitzah; it says "Ish," and the Torah equates the Yevamah to the Yavam;

i. Why do you forbid Yibum?

3. R. Meir: We are concerned that he or she is a Seris or Ailonis (one who will not develop to be a normal male or female; if so, there is no Mitzvah of Yibum, the "Yibum" is merely marrying a sister-in-law, which is Chayavei Kerisus).
4. Chachamim are not concerned for this, they follow the majority (most people are normal).

(h) Conclusion (Rava): We must say that R. Yishmael holds like R. Meir.
(i) Defense (of Answer #2 - Ravina): He can hold like Chachamim;

1. Chachamim follow a majority that does not depend on an act occurring (such as judges' opinions or stores), they do not follow a majority that depends on an action (an animal must breed to become pregnant and bear a child).