Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah precludes a calf, a Chayah, a Shechutah, a Tereifah, Kil’ ayim or a Koy from the Din of Seh. The difference between Kil’ayim and a Coy is – that the former is a cross between a he-goat and a ewe, whilst the latter (which is a Safek Chayah) is a cross between a Beheimah and a Chayah.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer incorporates Kil’ayim in the Din of Seh – because he considers it a lamb, but precludes a Coy – because it is a Safek Chayah.

(c) The Mishnah finally rules that if the owner gave the Peter Chamor to a Kohen – the latter is forbidden to keep it intact, but is obligated to transfer its ‘Kedushah’ on to a lamb immediately.

(a) We establish the author of our Mishnah as ben Bag Bag, who, in a Beraisa, learns from a ‘Gezeirah-Shavah’ “Seh” “Seh” from the Korban Pesach – that all the cases in the Mishnah are disqualified from the Din of Seh (as regards redeeming a Peter Chamor is concerned).

(b) On the other hand, he does not preclude a female animal, one that is blemished or in its second or third year (as we learned earlier). And he learns that from the repetition of ”Tifdeh” (in Bo and Ki Sisa).

(a) We ask whether a ben Peku’ah is included in the Din of Seh. A ben Peku’ ah is – a live baby that one finds inside an animal that has been Shechted.

(b) This She’eilah is not valid according to Rebbi Meir – who requires a ben Peku’ah to be Shechted like any other animal.

(c) According to the Rabbanan, on the other hand, it might not have the Din of a Seh – because, seeing as its mother’s Shechitah covers it too, it is as if it was Shechted and is lying in a basket.

(a) Mar Zutra holds that a ben Peku’ah is indeed not considered a Seh. Rav Ashi maintains – that it is, since it is undeniably running around like a live animal.

(b) A ben Peku’ah (which is a Yotzei Dofen) - is not eligible to be brought as a Korban Pesach (or as any other Korban, for that matter).

(c) Rav Ashi includes a ben Peku’ah from “Tifdeh” ”Tifdeh”. Mar Zutra counters – that it is more logical to preclude it from “Seh” “Seh”, since a Shechted animal is not a Seh.

(a) We ask whether a Nidmeh is included in the Din of Seh. A Nidmeh is – a sheep that gave birth to a goat (even though its father is a sheep too).

(b) This She’eilah is not valid according to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah – who holds that even a lamb of Kil’ayim is called “Seh”, how much more so one that is a Nidmeh.

(c) The She’eilah according to the Rabbanan is – whether a Nidmeh is called a “Seh” in this regard, even though a lamb of Kil’ayim is not.

(a) We try to resolve the She’eilah from the Beraisa ‘Parah she’Yaldah Miyn Eiz, Ein Podin’, from which we can extrapolate – ‘Ha Rachel she’Yaldah ke’ Miyn Eiz, Podin’.

(b) Initially, we establish the author as the Rabbanan (thereby automatically resolving the She’eilah) – because according to Rebbi Eliezer, even a lamb of Kil’ayim is permitted (as we just explained), so it would be unnecessary to tell us that a Nidmeh is.

(c) We refute this proof however, by establishing the author as Rebbi Eliezer, after all, and the Chidush lies in the actual statement – which teaches us that we do not go after the father, but after the mother alone.

(a) Rabah bar Shmuel cites another Beraisa describing Kil’ayim as a ewe that gives birth to a goat, whose father is a sheep. Seeing as the description is that of a Nidmeh, the Tana is really coming to teach us – that here is a case of Nidmeh that the Rabbanan gave the Din of Kil’ayim.

(b) He cannot be referring to Kodshim (meaning that a Nidmeh, like a Kil’ ayim, cannot be brought as a Korban), because we already know this from another source. The Pasuk “Shor O Kesev” comes to preclude an animal that is Kil’ayim from the Mizbe’ach, and “O Eiz” – a Nidmeh.

(c) Neither can he be referring to a Bechor or an animal of Ma’aser Beheimah, because we learn from ...

1. ... “Ach Bechor Shor” – that only a Shor that resembles its mother has a Din Bechor, and from ...
2. ... the ‘Gezeirah-Shavah’ “Tachas (ha’Sheivet)” “Tachas (Imo)” (from Kodshim) – that Ma’aser Beheimah has the same Din as Kodshim, in this regard.

(d) We therefore suggest that the Tana of Rabah bar Shmuel’s Beraisa is talking about – redeeming a Peter Chamor, thereby resolving our She’eilah.

(a) We reject this proof however, on the grounds that maybe the Tana is talking about Ma’aser after all, where the animal has some of the Simanim of its mother. We might otherwise learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah “Kol Asher *Ya’avor* Tachas ha’Sheivet” “*Ve’ha’avarta* Kol Peter Rechem la’Hashem” – that such an animal is subject to Ma’aser, just as it is subject to Bechor (as we learned earlier).

(b) The Tana learns however, that it is not – from the ‘Gezeirah-Shavah’ “Tachas” “Tachas” from Kodshim.

(a) The previous She’eilah remains unresolved, and we now ask whether the owner is permitted to redeem a Peter Chamor with a lamb of Pesulei ha’ Mukdushin. This is not a She’eilah according to Rebbi Shimon – who holds that a Peter Chamor is Mutar be’Hana’ah, in which case it is pure Chulin (and the problem [which we will now define] is nonexistent).

(b) The She’eilah, according to Rebbi Yehudah is whether it might be ...

1. ... forbidden – because Pesulei ha’Mukdashin are already Asur to shear and to work with, so the Isur Hana’ah from the Peter Chamor cannot be transferred on to it.
2. ... permitted, in spite of that – because the fact is that, unlike most cases of Pidyon, in practice, the Isur Hana’ah of the donkey is not transferred on to the lamb anyway, so there is no reason for the Pidyon not to take place.

(c) How does Rav Mari b’rei de’Rav Kahana resolve the She’eilah from the Pasuk in Re’ei “ka’Tzevi ve’cha’Ayal”, comparing Pesulei ha’Mukdashin to a deer and a gazelle. Consequently - just as one cannot redeem a Peter Chamor with a deer or a gazelle (as we learned earlier), so too, can one not redeem it with a lamb of Pesulei ha’Mukdashin.

(d) In that case, we conclude – even Rebbi Shimon will have to agree that one cannot redeem a Peter Chamor with a lamb of Pesulei ha’Mukdashin.

10)

(a) We now ask whether one is permitted to redeem the Peter Chamor with a ‘lamb of Shevi’is’ – meaning a lamb that one purchased with fruit of Shevi’ is.

(b) We declare that this She’eilah is only valid in a case of Safek Peter Chamor, but not Vaday – because since the She’eilah is based on the prohibition of doing business with Sh’mitah produce, it definitely looks like doing business by Vaday, where he is obligated to give the lamb to the Kohen (whereas by Safek, he may eat it himself, which does not really resemble a business deal).

(c) Neither will the She’eilah then go according to Rebbi Shimon, who permits a Safek Peter Chamor without Pidyon.

(d) And the She’eilah according to Rebbi Yehudah is whether it is ...

1. ... permitted – since the owner after all, only needs to designate the lamb, but is then permitted to eat it himself (so it falls under the category of ‘le’Ochlah’)
2. ... forbidden – since on the other hand, the donkey is forbidden until it has been redeemed, it resemble a business deal.

(a) We resolve the She’eilah with a statement by Rav Chisda, who explicitly – forbids redeeming a Vaday Peter Chamor with an animal of Shevi’ is, but permits redeeming a Safek.

(b) Rav Chisda also precludes an animal of Shevi’is from the Bechorah – because the Torah requires Shevi’is to be eaten (“le’Ochlah”), and the Emurin of the Bechor have to be burned on the Mizbe’ach.

(c) And in the same statement, he rules - that it is Chayav Matanos (Zero’a Lechayayim ve’Keivah), since they are eaten entirely by the Kohen.

(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who eats from a dough that is made from Shevi’is produce, before the Chalah has been separated – is Chayav Misah (bi ’Yedei Shamayim).

(b) The problem with Rav Chisda’s previous ruling (by the Din of Bechor) from there is that, should the Chalah become Tamei, it will have to be burned (in which case the Din of “le’Ochlah” will be negated), in which case, it ought not to be subject to Chalah in the first place.

(c) We substantiate our answer (that Chalah is different), with a Beraisa. The Tana learns from the Pasuk “me’Reishis Arisoseichem ... *le’ Doroseichem*”- the current Din (declaring Chayav Misah someone who eats from a dough that is made from Shevi’is produce, before the Chalah has been separated).

(d) We cannot learn the Din of Bechorah from there however – because whereas the Emurin are initially meant to go on the Mizbe’ach, the Chalah is initially meant to be beaten by the Kohanim.

(a) Our Mishnah, which forbids the Kohen to retain the Peter Chamor that he receives from a Yisrael, supports the Beraisa - which forbids a Yisrael to comply, if the Kohen asks for his Peter Bechor, which he volunteers to redeem for a lamb, unless the Kohen redeems it with a lamb, in his presence.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah extrapolates from this ruling – that the Kohanim are suspected of working with Pitrei Chamorim before having redeemed them.

(c) Rav Nachman’s statement is not so obvious from the Mishnah and Beraisa themselves, which we might otherwise have thought is confined to Kohanim who are actually suspect (or who have been known to actually do that).

(d) Rav Nachman therefore teaches us – that they all Kohanim tend to allow themselves to do so, since the donkey will remain theirs even after they have redeemed it.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah rules that if the lamb which the owner separated as Pidyon Peter Chamor died, the owner remains responsible to replace it like the five Sela’im of Pidyon ha’Ben that got lost. According to the Chachamim – he is not responsible, like the money of Pidyon Ma’aser Sheini, which the owner is not obligated to replace, should it get lost.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Tzadok testified that if a Pidyon Peter Chamor dies – the Kohen receives nothing (like the Chachamim).

(c) Rebbi Eliezer also rules that if the donkey itself dies before the owner has managed to give the lamb to the Kohen, it must be buried and the owner may retain the lamb. The Chachamim maintain – that the donkey does not require burial and the lamb belongs to the Kohen (from the moment it is designated, as we learned earlier).

(d) Rav Yosef learns from the Pasuk “Ach Padoh Sifdeh ... es Bechor ha’Adam ve’es Bechor ha’Beheimah ha’Temei’ah Tifdeh” – that just as the father remains responsible in the event that the Pidyon Bechor Adam got lost, so too, according to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, does the owner remains responsible should the lamb die.

(a) Abaye queries Rav Yosef from Rebbi Eliezer’s own ruling in the Seifa (of our Mishnah), requiring a dead Peter Chamor to be buried – when, according to the Hekesh to Bechor Adam, the donkey ought to be Mutar be’Hana’ah (like Bechor Adam).

(b) We try to resolve this problem – by attributing the obligation to bury the donkey to the same Hekesh to Bechor Adam, who is Asur be’Hana’ah after his death.

(c) Besides the mistaken implication from here that other than a Bechor, humans are Mutar be’Hana’ah, we have a problem from Rebbi Eliezer himself - who concedes that a Yisrael who has a Safek Peter Chamor in his house is obligated to redeem it with a lamb, which he may eat himself (a proof that he considers a Peter Chamor Asur be’Hana’ah, even during its lifetime).

(d) Rava finally learns from Rebbi Eliezer’s source Pasuk “Ach Padoh Sifdeh ... “ – that the latter only compares Pidyon Peter Bechor to Bechor Adam only as regards the actual Dinim of redemption (i.e. the Din of responsibility), but not in other regards (such as Heter Hana’ah).

(a) The Beraisa rules ‘ha’Erchin be’Sha’atan, u’Pidyon ha’Ben Achar Sheloshim’. ‘ha’Erchin be’Sha’atan’ means – that we assess the Erech of a person according to his age at the time the person declared the Erech (e.g. if he was between one month and five years at the time, the Noder must pay accordingly, even if he has already turned six when the latter comes to fulfill his Neder).

(b) The Tana adds - ‘u’Pidyon Peter Chamor le’Alter’.

(c) Another Beraisa rules that Erchin, Pidyon ha’Ben, Nezirus, and Peter Chamor – only take effect after thirty days.

(d) The Tana concludes ‘u’Mosifin ad Olam’, by which he means – that the Din of Erchin extends to the entire period mentioned in the Torah, that one can add to the period of Nezirus whatever one wishes and that the obligation regarding Pidyon ha’Ben and Pidyon Peter Chamor continues even beyond the thirty-day period.

(a) To resolve the discrepancy between the two rulings regarding Pidyon Peter Chamor, Rav Nachman establishes the first Beraisa – where Bedieved, he redeemed it before thirty days.

(b) From which we can extrapolate that if a father redeemed his firstborn son within thirty days – his son is not redeemed even Bedieved.

(c) Rava reconcilesow HowHow this with Rav, who said ‘B’no Paduy’ – by establishing the latter when he specifically mentioned that although he was redeeming him then, the redemption would take effect after thirty days.

(d) Rav Sheishes accepts the first Beraisa literally (i.e. Lechatchilah). And the second Beraisa (‘Ein be’Erchin Pachos mi’Sheloshim’) means – that someone who fulfils any of these up to thirty days has not transgressed; after thirty days, he has.

(a) Rami bar Chama queries Rav Sheishes from the Beraisa ‘Mitzvaso Kol Sheloshim Yom’. He interprets ‘Mitzvaso’ as – ‘Mitzvaso Lish’hoso’ (like Rav Nachman).

(b) Rav Sheishes cannot interpret the Beraisa to mean ‘Mitzvah Lifdoso’ – because then the Tana ought to have added to ‘O Podeihu O Arfo‘ ‘O Over Alav ’.

(c) Rava concedes that Mitzvaso means ‘Lish’hoso’. Nevertheless, he reconciles this Beraisa with the earlier Beraisa which rules ‘Le’alter’ – by establishing the latter Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer (who compares Peter Chamor to Bechor Adam) and the earlier one like the Rabbanan (who don’t [to concur with Rav Sheishes]).