Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WOOL OF A "BECHOR"

(a) Question (against Reish Lakish - Beraisa): If one detached wool of a Tam (unblemished Bechor), even if it later developed a Mum and was slaughtered, the wool is forbidden.

1. Inference: Wool detached from a Ba'al Mum is permitted, even if it was not shown to an expert!

(b) Answer: No, the Tana uses "Tam" to refer to any animal not permitted by an expert, even if it has a Mum.
(c) Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Reish Lakish's law:

1. (Beraisa): If one detached wool of a Tam (Rashi - or it became detached), even if the animal later developed a Mum and was slaughtered, the wool is forbidden;
2. Akavya ben Mahalal'el says, if wool was detached from a Bechor Ba'al Mum and it died (without slaughter), the wool is permitted;
3. Chachamim forbid it.
4. R. Yehudah: Akavya does not permit in this case!

i. Rather, if wool fell off a Bechor Ba'al Mum and was put in the window, and the animal was slaughtered, Akavya permits and Chachamim forbid.

5. R. Yosi: My father Chalifta was one of the Chachamim that argued with Akavya, he agreed that it is permitted after slaughter;

i. Chachamim said that the wool should be put in the window, for it might become permitted - if the animal will be slaughtered, all permit it;
ii. If it dies, Akavya permits, Chachamim forbid.

6. Question: R. Yosi is just like the first Tana!

i. Suggestion: They argue whether or not an expert must permit the animal first - the first Tana permits the wool only if it came off after an expert saw the Mum, R. Yosi [said that in any case it might become permitted, he] does not distinguish whether or not an expert saw the Mum.

(d) Rejection (Rava): No, all agree that an expert must permit the animal first; there is a three-way argument:

1. The first Tana [explicitly] says that they argue when it died - he holds that they also argue about when it was slaughtered;
2. R. Yehudah says that they argue when it was slaughtered, but all forbid when it died;
3. R. Yosi says that they argue when it died, but all permit when it was slaughtered.

(e) (Rav Nachman): The Halachah (i.e. the proper understanding of the argument of Chachamim and Akavya) follows R. Yehudah, because the Mishnah in Eduyos is like him. (The Halachah follows every Mishnah in Eduyos.)

1. (Mishnah): If hair of a Bechor Ba'al Mum fell out and was put in the window, and then it was slaughtered, Akavya ben Mahalal'el permits the hair;
2. Chachamim forbid it.

(f) Support (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The Seifa of our Mishnah also shows that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah!

1. (Seifa): If dangling wool of a Bechor is Nir'eh with the attached wool, it is permitted; if it sticks out, it is forbidden.
2. Question: Like which Tana is this?
3. Answer #1: It is like R. Yosi.
4. Question: What is the case?

i. It was not slaughtered, for then Akavya and Chachamim both permit the hair!

5. Answer: It died.

i. This is unlike Chachamim, for they forbid the hair whether or not it is dangling!
ii. This is unlike Akavya, for he would sooner forbid what is Nir'eh with the attached hair (along with the attached hair, which becomes forbidden at death) than the hair which stands out!

6. (Answer #1 is rejected.)
7. Answer #2: It is like R. Yehudah.
8. Question: What is the case?

i. It did not die, for then Akavya and Chachamim both forbid the hair!

9. Answer: It was slaughtered.

i. This is unlike Akavya, for he permits the hair whether or not it is dangling!
ii. It is like Chachamim.

10. Conclusion: They argue about when it was slaughtered (like R. Yehudah).

(g) Question (R. Zeira): If one was Tolesh (detached) wool from a Tam Olah, what is the law (after it is slaughtered)?
(h) Objection: [This is forbidden,] surely, he may not benefit from the wool (Rashi - according to Chachamim)!
(i) Correction: Rather, if wool was Nitlash (became detached) from a Tam Olah, what is the law?

1. We do not ask about Chatas and Asham - since they are brought for atonement, surely one would not delay bringing them (there is no need to decree to forbid the wool)!
2. We do not ask about Bechor and Ma'aser - since they are not brought for atonement, surely [we forbid the wool] lest one delay bringing them!
3. The question is only about Olah:

i. Since it is not primarily for atonement, we are concerned lest one delay bringing them, the wool is forbidden;
ii. Or, since it does atone for [Bitul of a] Mitzvas Aseh (or Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh), one would not delay them, the wool is permitted!

(j) Answer (Beraisa): If one was Tolesh wool of a Tam, even if it later developed a Mum and was slaughtered, the wool is forbidden.
(k) Inference: It is forbidden because he was Tolesh - but Nitlash would be permitted;

1. All the more so, if wool of an Olah (which people are less prone to delay bringing) was Nitlash, it is permitted!

(l) Rejection: No, even Nitlash is forbidden;

1. The Beraisa discusses Tolesh to teach the extremity of Akavya, he permits even when one was Tolesh a Ba'al Mum.

(m) Question: In our Mishnah he permits only Nashar (what fell out by itself)!
(n) Answer: Our Tana discusses Nashar to teach the extremity of Chachamim (they forbid even this), the Tana of the Beraisa discusses Tolesh to teach the extremity of Akavya.

(a) (Mishnah): Dangling wool...
(b) Question: What is considered not Nir'eh with the attached wool?
(c) Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): The roots face (outwards,) where the ends of the hairs should be (Rashi - the ends also face out; Rambam - and the ends face the skin, where the roots should be);
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Nasan bar Oshiya): It protrudes from the attached wool.
(e) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish say like Rav Nasan?
(f) Answer (R. Elazar): Reish Lakish holds that since shearings always have strands sticking out, if they are forbidden, no shearings will ever be permitted!

3) "BECHOR" IS NOT GIVEN IMMEDIATELY

(a) (Mishnah) Question: How long must a Yisrael take care of a Bechor before giving it to a Kohen?
(b) Answer #1: He must take care of a Seh for 30 days, and a calf for 50 days.
(c) Answer #2 (R. Yosi): He must take care of a Seh for three months.
(d) If a Kohen asked for the Bechor within this time, he (the Yisrael) may not give it (until the proper time);

1. If it had a Mum and a Kohen asked for it to eat it, he may give it (immediately).
2. When the Mikdash stands, if a Kohen asks for the Bechor in order to offer it, he may give it.

(e) A Bechor should be eaten within its [first] year, whether it is Tam or a Ba'al Mum - "Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Sochalenu Shanah v'Shanah."
(f) If it developed a Mum within its year, he may keep it all 12 months;
(g) After its year, he may keep it for only 30 days.
(h) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
(i) Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): "Bechor Banecha Titen Li; Ken Ta'aseh... l'Tzonecha" (Pidyon ha'Ben is after 30 days, also giving Bechor Seh to a Kohen); "Mele'ascha v'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher... Ken Ta'aseh l'Shorcha" (a Bechor calf is given after 50 days, just like Bikurim may be brought (on Shavu'os) 50 days after they ripen - Rashi; Tosfos Yom Tov - it takes 50 days for Bikurim to fully ripen).
(j) Question: Perhaps we should learn oppositely (a calf from Pidyon ha'Ben, a Seh from Bikurim)!
(k) Answer: Bikurim is written before Pidyon ha'Ben, so we learn from it a calf, which is written before Seh.
(l) Objection: Just the contrary, we should learn a calf from Pidyon ha'Ben, for they are adjacent!
(m) Answer #2 (Rava): "Ken *Ta'aseh* l'Shorcha" - this is extra; it alludes to extra time before giving a calf.
(n) Question: We should say that it is kept an extra 30 days!
(o) Answer: The Torah authorized Chachamim to teach the amount. (Shitah Mekubetzes - a calf needs its mother for 50 days.)
(p) Support (Beraisa): "Bechor Banecha Titen Li; Ken Ta'aseh... l'Tzonecha."

1. Suggestion: Perhaps the same applies to "Shorcha"!
2. Rejection: "Ta'aseh" teaches that extra time is given for a calf; the Torah authorized Chachamim to teach the amount.
3. Question: How long must a Yisrael take care of a Bechor before giving it to a Kohen?
4. Answer #1: He must take care of a Seh for 30 days, and a calf for 50 days.
5. Answer #2 (R. Yosi): He must take care of a Seh for three months - it needs more time because its teeth are fine. (Since it cannot eat grass, it must nurse. Even if the Kohen has a nursing mother Seh, perhaps it will not want to nurse other kids.)

(a) (Mishnah): If a Kohen asked for the Bechor within this time, the Yisrael may not give it.
(b) Question: What is the reason?
(c) Answer (Rav Sheshes): [The Yisrael is obligated to care for it - by taking it early, the Kohen exempts the Yisrael of this burden, and] it looks like a Kohen helping in the granary (in order to receive Terumah).
(d) (Beraisa): If Kohanim, Leviyim or poor people help in the pen, granary or slaughterhouse [in order to receive Matanos], we do not give to them Terumah or Ma'aser (Rishon or Ani), nor Bechoros, Zero'a, Lechayim and Kevah;

1. If one gave to them, he profaned the gifts - it says "Shichatem Bris ha'Levi," and "v'Es Kodshei Venei Yisrael Lo Sechalelu v'Lo Samusu."
2. Question: Why is the second verse needed?
3. Answer: Without it, we would not know that he is (Tosfos - almost) Chayav Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim) for this.

(e) Chachamim wanted to fine a Yisrael who did so, and require him to give [the full amount of produce l'Shem] Terumah (to another Kohen).
(f) Question: Why was no such fine made?
(g) Answer: If a Yisrael heard that he must gave more Terumah, he might think that the first Terumah was invalid (and that his produce is Tevel);

1. Perhaps he will designate it to be Terumah to exempt other Tevel (and it is really Chulin, it cannot become Terumah)!