Previous daf

1)

(a) In the event that he does not want to redeem his Peter Chamor, our Mishnah requires the owner – to cut the back of its neck with a carving knife, and bury it.

(b) The Tana lists the preferences of the cases in Shas where there is a choice, but the choice is not equal. He knows that the Mitzvah of redemption takes precedence over that of breaking the donkey’s neck – because the Torah specifically writes in Bo “ve’Im Lo Sifdeh, va’Arafto”.

(c) When there is a choice between ...

1. ... Yi’ud (the ‘marriage’ of a master with his Jewish maidservant) and the father redeeming her – the former takes precedence.
2. ... Yibum and Chalitzah– Yibum takes precedence (according to Torah law).

(d) The Chachamim changed that however – because people began performing Yibum for personal reasons (rather than in order to fulfill the Mitzvah, which, according to some opinions, renders the Yavam Chayav Kareis (for contravening the La’av of Eishes Ach).

(e) The Tana learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the owner redeeming his Beheimah Temei’ah from Hekdesh Bedek ha’Bayis) “ve’Im Lo Yiga’el, ve’ Nimkar be’Erkecha” – that the owner (who declared his animal Hekdesh, has the first right to redeem it.

2)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that ‘ha’Loke’ach Ubar Pasaso shel ha’Oved Kochavim ve ’ha’Mocher Lo, ve’ha’Mishtatef Lo, ve’ha’Mekabel Mimenu, ve’ha’Nosen Lo be’ Kabalah’ – are all Patur from giving the Bechor to the Kohen.

(b) The source for all these rulings is – the Pasuk in Bamidbar “Hikdashti Li Kol Bechor *be’Yisrael*”.

(c) The Tana writes - with regard to selling the Bechor to a Nochri “Af-al-Pi she’Eino Rashai’ (as we learned in the first Perek).

(d) A Kohen or a Levi who has ...

1. ... a Bechor Beheimah Tehorah – is obligated to treat it as a Bechor, whereas if he has ...
2. ... a firstborn son or a Peter Chamor – he is Patur altogether.

(a) We ask why the Tana first deals with the Din of Peter Chamor and then with that of Bechor Beheimah Tehorah. We have expected Rebbi to reverse the order – because Kedushas ha’Guf ought to take precedence over Kedushas Damim.

(b) We already cited in the first Perek the B’nei Ma’arva’s explanation that there are fewer issues connected with Peter Chamor than with a Bechor Beheimah . Alternatively, they ascribe Rebbi’s reason to his special affinity to the Din of Peter Chamor, due to a statement of Rebbi Chanina (cited in the first Perek) who explains that the reason behind Pidyon Peter Chamor is - because the donkeys assisted Yisrael to carry out their many precious objects from Egypt.

(a) Resh Lakish in the name of Rebbi Osahaya is quoted as saying that, in a case where ...

1. ... a Yisrael paid for an animal be’Dineihem (according to the Nochri laws) even though he did not yet make Meshichah – he acquires it and it becomes subject to the Din of Bechorah.
2. ... a Nochri paid for an animal (according to the Nochri laws) even though he did not yet make Meshichah – he acquires it and it is no longer subject to the Din of Bechorah.

(b) We suggest that ‘be’Dineihem’ in the first case means ‘like one acquires the Nochri’s body’. we learn that one acquires a Nochri with Kesef – from the fact that the Torah in Behar refers to an Eved Cana’ani with the words “Lareshes Achuzah” (a reference to fields, which one acquires with Kesef).

(c) And if one acquires his body with Kesef - ‘Kal-va’Chomer’ his animals.

(a) We query this ‘Kal-va’Chomer’ on two scores, one of them, that if that is so, then one ought also to acquire his property with Sh’tar and Chazakah (with which one also acquires fields). We also ask from a Yisrael - who acquires a Yisrael with Kesef, but his animals with Meshichah.

(b) The Sugya (Resh Lakish) holds that a Yisrael acquires from a Yisrael with Meshichah – because that is how Resh Lakish interprets the Pasuk in Behar “O Kano mi’Yad Amisecha” (Davar ha’Nikneh mi’Yad le’Yad’).

(c) Abaye therefore interprets ‘be’Dineihem’ to mean ‘the Din that the Torah delegates to them’. We extrapolate from “O Kanoh mi’Yad Amisecha” – “mi’Yad Amisecha” ‘bi’Meshichah, ha mi’Yad Nochri, be’Kesef’.

(d) We know that “mi’Yad Amisecha” does not come ...

1. ... to preclude purchasing from Nochrim altogether – because if one can purchase his body, then one should certainly be able to purchase his possessions.
2. ... to add Kinyan Kesef to that of Meshichah when purchasing from a Nochri – because if one can acquire his body with one Kinyan, how much more so his possessions.
3. ... to give a choice of either Meshichah or Kesef when purchasing from him – because the Torah learns acquiring the Nochri’s animal from acquiring the animal of a Yisrael, so just as the latter does not have a choice, neither does the former.

(a) We now discuss ‘be’Dineihem’ in the second case (where the Nochri acquires the Yisrael’s Bechor. We learn from the Pasuk “mi’Kesef Miknaso” – that a Nochri acquires a Yisrael with Kesef.

(b) We refute the suggestion that ‘be’Dineihen’ means that we learn the Din of the Nochri acquiring the Yisrael’s animal with Kesef from the fact that he acquires his body with Kesef – by citing a Yisrael who acquires a fellow Yisrael with Kesef, but his animal, with Meshichah.

(c) Once again, Abaye interprets it to mean ‘the Din that the Torah delegates to them’. And he extrapolate it this time – from the Pasuk “ve’Chi Simkeru Mimkar la’Amisecha”, ‘la’Amisecha bi’Meshichah, ha le’Nochri, be’ Kesef’.

(d) And we answer the three queries (why “la’Amisecha” does not come a. to preclude purchasing from Nochrim altogether, b. to add the Kinyan Kesef to that of Meshichah, when purchasing from a Nochri, and c. to give a choice of either Meshichah or Kesef when purchasing from him), in the same way that we answered them earlier. The problem that remains according to Ameimar, who holds that a Nochri acquires with Meshichah – is that assuming that Ameimar holds like Resh Lakish, and both a Yisrael and a Nochri acquire with Meshichah, what will we then learn from” Amisecha”?

7)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan holds that money is Koneh min ha’Torah. His source for this is the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with Hekdesh) “ve’Nasan ha’ Kesef ve’Kam Lo” (and he learns Hedyot from Hekdesh).

(b) Ameimar (‘Meshichah be’Akum Koneh’) Darshens “Amisecha” according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan, to mean – “Amisecha” be’Kesef, le’Nochri bi’Meshichah ’.
2. ... Resh Lakish – to preclude having to return the Ona’ah (the excess charge of more than a sixth).

(c) We learn from “Al Tonu Ish *es Achiv*” – that one may overcharge a Nochri.

(d) According to Resh Lakish, we need two Pesukim – one to preclude the Ona’ ah of a Nochri, the other, to preclude the Ona’ah of Hekdesh.

(a) We need both D’rashos - because if we had only one Pasuk, we would preclude a Nochri (the more obvious of the two) and not Hekdesh.

(b) Gezel Nochri is subject to a Machlokes (in Bava Kama).

(c) Assuming Ameimar holds ‘Gezeilo Mutar’, we will no longer require both of the above Pesukim (“Amisecha” according to Resh Lakish and “Achiv”) – because if Gezel Nochri is permitted, it is obvious that Ona’as Nochri is.

(d) We are therefore forced to draw the conclusion – that if Ameimar permits Gezel Nochri, he has to hold like Rebbi Yochanan regarding Ma’os Konos.

(a) The Beraisa discusses someone who buys pieces of gold from a Nochri and, after making a Meshichah, he finds among them an Avodah-Zarah. The Tana rules ...

1. ... that he may simply return the pieces of gold – if he has not yet paid.
2. ... that he throws the Avodah-Zarah (see Rashash) into the Yam ha’ elach – if he has.

(b) The difficulty with ...

1. ... this Beraisa, according to Rebbi Yochanan is – why the Tana mentions Meshichah.
2. ... the answer that the seller undertook to abide by Diynei Yisrael is – why he then mentions Kesef?
3. ... the answer to the previous question that what the Beraisa means in the Seifa is that even though he already paid, he is permitted to retract – why he mentions Kesef in the Reisha?
4. ... the answer to the previous question (that the Reisha is a case of Mekach Ta’us [a false sale]), as Abaye suggests, is – that if it comes to that, so is the Seifa?

(c) Rava therefore concludes that in fact, both the Reisha and the Seifa are cases of Mekach Ta’us, and the reason that he is not permitted to retract in the Seifa is - because, having paid the money, exchanging the Avodah-Zarah for the money looks as if he is selling it back to the Nochri (so the Rabbanan forbade it).

(d) Abaye disagrees. In his opinion, there is no Mekach Ta’us in the Seifa (if there was, the purchaser would be able to retract) - because, having paid for the gold, he ought to have looked over the goods he received. Not doing so, is a sign that he was Mochel (i.e. that he accepted the sale as final).

(a) Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa without any special undertakings from the Nochri, and the Chidush in the Reisha is – that money acquires by a Nochri, and not Meshichah (like Rebbi Oshaya).

(b) And the Seifa mentions Meshichah – only because the Reisha does.

(a) Ravina, on the other hand, takes the Seifa literally, and the Tana speaks when the seller undertook to abide by Diynei Yisrael. The problem with that is – why he is then able to retract in the Reisha (as we asked earlier)?

(b) He therefore amends the Reisha ‘Im ad she’Lo Nasan Ma’os Mashach, Yachzir’ to read – ‘Im ad she’Lo Nasan Ma’os ve’Lo Mashach, Yachzir’.

(c) Even though no Kinyan has taken place, the Chidush is - that he is permitted to negate the verbal agreement that he made with the Nochri to purchase his object, which would not be the case if the seller was a Yisrael (because a Yisrael must keep his word, in which case a verbal contract with a Yisrael is binding).

(d) The reason that he is permitted to retract in this case is –because Nochrim do not adhere to their word, in which case verbal contracts made with them are not binding on the Yisrael either.