1)

(a)On what grounds does our Mishnah rule that, if a donkey gives birth for the first time to ...

1. ... two males, the owner is obligated to give one lamb to the Kohen?

2. ... a male and a female, after separating one lamb (to remove the Safek Bechorah), he may eat it himself?

(b)On what basis is one permitted to eat the latter (without redeeming it)?

(c)What if it was two donkeys that gave birth for the first time to ...

1. ... two males?

2. ... a male and a female or two males and a female?

3. ... two females and a male or two females and two males?

(d)Assuming that one of those two donkeys has already given birth before, and between them, they now gave birth to two males, the owner must give one lamb to the Kohen. What must he do if they gave birth to male and a female?

1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that, if a donkey gives birth for the first time to two males, the owner is obligated to give one lamb to the Kohen ...

1. ... since, Mah Nafshach, one of them is the B'chor and required redemption.

2. ... a male and a female, after separating one lamb (to remove the Safek Bechorah), he may eat it himself - due to the principle Hamotzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah, the onus lies on the Kohen to prove that the male was born first.

(b)One is permitted to eat the latter (without redeeming it) - because the obligation regarding Pidyon Petter Chamor is purely a monetary one (since neither the donkey nor the lamb [even in the case of a Vaday B'chor] has any Kedushah).

(c)If it was two donkeys that gave birth for the first time to ...

1. ... two males - the owner must give two lambs to the Kohen.

2. ... a male and a female or two males and a female - he must give one lamb to the Kohen, and to separate a second lamb (in case the male was born first)), which he may then eat himself.

3. ... two females and a male or two females and two males - he must separate two lambs, both of which he is permitted to eat (because both females may have been born first.

(d)Assuming that one of those two donkeys has already given birth before, and between them, they now gave birth to two males, the owner must give one lamb to the Kohen. But if they gave birth to a male and a female - he must separate a lamb, though he is not obligated to give it to a Kohen (seeing as the donkey that is subject to the Bechorah may be the mother of the female).

2)

(a)Why does the Tana cite the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "u'Feter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh"?

(b)What does "Seh" incorporate?

(c)Under what circumstances does the Tana permit redeeming another donkey with the same lamb?

2)

(a)The Tana cites the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "u'Feter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh" - as the source for the Din of giving a lamb to the Kohen instead of the donkey.

(b)"Seh" incorporates - a sheep or a goat, male or female, whole or blemished.

(c)The Tana permits redeeming another donkey with the same lamb - there where the Kohen has given the lamb to a Yisrael.

3)

(a)On what grounds does Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (in the Mishnah in the second Perek) obligate someone whose sheep gave birth for the first time to two lambs, to give them both to the Kohen?

(b)With which case in our Mishnah does Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore maintain that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili disagrees?

(c)How does Abaye reconcile Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili with our Mishnah? What does he learn from the Pasuk in Bo "Ha'Zecharim la'Hashem"?

(d)Why do we not then learn Beheimah Temei'ah from Beheimah Tehorah (with a Binyan Av)?

3)

(a)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (in the Mishnah in the second Perek) obligates someone whose sheep gave birth for the first time to two lambs, to give them both to the Kohen - because he holds Efshar Letzamtem (it is possible for both babies to have left the womb simultaneously, in which case they are both considered firstborn.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore maintains that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili disagrees - with the middle case where, when a donkey gives birth for the first time to two males, and the owner gives only one lamb to the Kohen (according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, he ought to give two).

(c)Abaye reconciles Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili with our Mishnah - by citing the Pasuk in Bo "Ha'Zecharim la'Hashem", implying that, besides the S'vara of Efshar Letzamtzem, we also require the Pasuk "ha'Zecharim ... " (in the plural) to teach us that sometimes, there are two firstborn (and there is no such Pasuk by a Petter Chamor).

(d)We cannot however, learn Beheimah Temei'ah from Beheimah Tehorah with a Binyan Av - because the 'Hey' in "ha'Zecharim" is a Miy'ut, which precludes Beheimah Temei'ah from that Halachah.

4)

(a)According to the second Lashon - which suggestion is Abaye coming to refute?

(b)What problem does our Mishnah present Abaye? What ought the Tana to have added, seeing as the author might be Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili?

(c)We also query Abaye from a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa say that negates his opinion?

4)

(a)According to the second Lashon, Abaye is coming to refute the suggestion that - our Mishnah does not go like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

(b)The problem our Mishnah presents Abaye is that seeing as the author might be Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - the Tana ought to have added that the owner gives only one lamb to the Kohen even if both heads emerged from the womb simultaneously.

(c)We also query Abaye from a Beraisa, which, citing Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, rules that - if the two heads emerged simultaneously, the owner is obligated to give them both (two lambs) to the Kohen (like Rebbi Yirmiyah.

9b----------------------------------------9b

5)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Petter Kol Rechem"?

(b)Why does that cause us to suggest that the Rabbanan hold that Miktzas Rechem Mekadesh (part of the womb will suffice to sanctify the B'chor)?

(c)Why is it not necessary to say this, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili?

(d)Based on which principle does Rav Ashi refute this suggestion?

5)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Petter Kol Rechem" that - the B'chor must touch the womb until it is completely born ...

(b)... causing us to suggest that the Rabbanan hold that Miktzas Rechem Mekadesh (part of the womb will suffice to sanctify the Bechor). Otherwise, even though they hold I Efshar Letzamtzem, neither animal should be Kadosh, since at least during part of the birth, the twin will divide between the B'chor and the womb.

(c)It is not necessary to say this, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - since, according to him, both animals become Kadosh as if they were one.

(d)Rav Ashi refutes this suggestion however - based on the principle - Miyn be'Miyno Eino Chotzetz (something of the same species is not considered a Chatzitzah).

6)

(a)In the cases in our Mishnah where the owner is permitted to eat the lamb himself, why does he need to designate it before eating it (seeing as the donkey has no Kedushah that needs to be redeemed), according to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa?

(b)What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c)On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that the Isur Hana'ah is the result of the obligation ...

1. ... to redeem it?

2. ... to redeem it specifically with a lamb (based on Rav Nechemyah b'rei de'Rav Yosef). With what did he redeem his Petter Chamor?

(d)We reject this latter refutation however, on the grounds that the Torah does indeed require a lamb. Under which circumstances would that be?

(e)How does this answer solve the problem regarding Isur Hana'ah?

6)

(a)In the cases in our Mishnah where the owner is permitted to eat the lamb himself, he nevertheless needs to designate it before eating it, because - even though the donkey has no Kedushah that needs to be redeemed, it is nevertheless Asur be'Hana'ah.

(b)According to Rebbi Shimon however - it is not Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c)We refute the suggestion that the Isur Hana'ah is the result of the obligation ...

1. ... to redeem it - because B'chor Adam also needs to be redeemed, yet nobody holds that prior to the redemption, whatever he produces is Asur be'Hana'ah.

2. ... to redeem it specifically with a lamb - on the basis of Rav Nechemyah b'rei de'Rav Yosef, who redeemed his firstborn donkey with cooked herbs.

(d)We reject this latter refutation however, on the grounds that the Torah does indeed require specifically a lamb - if one wishes to redeem one's donkey for less than its value (But in the event that he redeems the donkey with any other object, that object must equal the value of the donkey).

(e)This answer solves the problem regarding Isur Hana'ah - since the fact that the Torah is stringent in this point is the source of the Isur Hana'ah (as long as it has not been redeemed).

7)

(a)What problem do we have with the current explanation from the Mishnah in Kidushin, where Rebbi Yehudah himself rules that if someone betroths a woman with Ma'aser Sheini be'Meizid (with the intention of transferring its Kedushah), the Kidushin is valid?

(b)We answer by citing Rebbi Elazar. What does Rebbi Elazar say about the woman in the latter case?

(c)How will this S'vara apply to Pidyon Petter Chamor?

(d)If the woman becomes obligated to redeem the donkey, with what is she then betrothed?

7)

(a)The problem with the current explanation from the Mishnah in Kidushin, where Rebbi Yehudah himself rules that if someone betroths a woman with Ma'aser Sheini be'Meizid (with the intention of transferring its Kedushah), the Kidushin is valid - despite the Torah's requirement for minted money to be used for its redemption.

(b)We answer by citing Rebbi Elazar - who ascribes the validity of the Kidushin to the fact that the woman, aware of the fact that the Ma'aser Sheini does not go out to Chulin through her, clearly intends to eat it in Yerushalayim.

(c)Here too - any woman who is betrothed with the Petter Chamor knows that it is forbidden, so she intends to redeem it with a lamb ...

(d)... and she is betrothed with the difference in value between the lamb and the donkey.

8)

(a)What reason does Ula then give to explain why Rebbi Shimon holds that the donkey is Mutar be'Hana'ah?

(b)How do we reconcile this with Shevi'is, which is forbidden even though the Pidyon is permitted? What did Mar say about that?

8)

(a)Ula explains that Rebbi Shimon holds that the donkey is Mutar be'Hana'ah - because there is no such thing as an article that is Asur be'Hana'ah, and its Pidyon (in this case, the lamb) is permitted (without having to bring it on the Mizbe'ach), whereas the article itself is forbidden.

(b)And we reconcile this with Shevi'is, which is forbidden even though the Pidyon is permitted - by citing Mar, who stated that it is only the interim stages of Pidyon that are permitted, but that the last stage will always remain forbidden.

9)

(a)Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue over the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sa'avod ... , ve'Lo Sagoz ... ". What does Rebbi Yehudah mean when he Darshens "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor Shorecha", 'Aval Atah Oved be'she'Lecha u've'shel Acherim'; "ve'Lo Sagoz B'chor Tzonecha", 'Aval Atah Gozez she'Lecha ve'shel Acherim'?

(b)What does Rebbi Shimon learn from ...

1. ... "Shorecha"?

2. ... "Tzonecha"?

(c)What problem do we have with ...

1. ... the fact that there are two words that need to be Darshened? On whom is the problem?

2. ... B'chor Adam, according to him?

9)

(a)Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue over the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sa'avod ... , ve'Lo Sagoz ... ". When Rebbi Yehudah Darshens Darshens "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor Shorecha", 'Aval Atah Oved be'she'Lecha u've'shel Acherim'; "ve'Lo Sagoz B'chor Tzonecha", 'Aval Atah Gozez she'Lecha ve'shel Acherim', he means that - if someone owns a firstborn sheep or ox together with a Nochri, he is permitted to shear the former and to work with the latter.

(b)Rebbi Shimon learns from ...

1. ... "Shorecha" that - one is permitted to work with a B'chor Adam, and from ...

2. ... "Tzonecha" that one is permitted to shear a firstborn donkey.

(c)The problem with ...

1. ... the fact that there are two words that need to be Darshened - affects Rebbi Yehudah, in that why does Rebbi Yehudah need two Pesukim to preclude the shearings and the work of an animal that is shared by a Nochri? Why will one not suffice?

2. ... B'chor Adam according to him is that - his work too, ought then to be forbidden, according to him.

10)

(a)So we conclude that both Tana'im preclude B'chor Adam from "Shorecha", and they argue over "Tzonecha". If Rebbi Yehudah learns from there that the shearings of a B'chor that is partially owned by a Nochri and its work are permitted, on what grounds does Rebbi Shimon (who precludes a firstborn donkey from the prohibition, as we just learned), disagree with him?

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, why does the Torah add the suffix "cha" to ...

1. ... "Tzonecha"?

2. ... "Shorecha"?

(c)According to Rebbi Shimon, why does the Torah write "Shorecha" and "Tzonecha"?

(d)What does Rabah (in Rebbi Shimon) say about a firstborn donkey whose neck has been broken?

(e)What is Rebbi Shimon's source?

10)

(a)So we conclude that both Tana'im preclude B'chor Adam (from the Isur Hana'ah) from "Shorecha", and they argue over "Tzonecha". Rebbi Yehudah learns from there that the shearings of a B'chor that is partially owned by a Nochri and its work are forbidden, whereas Rebbi Shimon (who precludes a firstborn donkey from the prohibition, as we just learned), disagrees with him, since in his opinion, a B'chor that is partially owned by a Nochri - is Patur from the Bechorah to begin with.

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, then, the Torah adds the suffix "cha" to ...

1. ... "Tzonecha" - to preclude one which is owned partially by a Nochri.

2. ... "Shorecha" - to balance "Tzonecha".

(c)According to Rebbi Shimon - we do not know why the Torah writes "Shorecha" and "Tzonecha".

(d)Rabah explains that even Rebbi Shimon will agree that - once the neck of the donkey has been broken, it is Asur be'Hana'ah ...

(e)... and he learns it - from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Arifah" "Arifah" from Eglah Arufah (which he certainly forbids be'Hana'ah after its neck has been broken).

11)

(a)Rabah learns his previous statement from a Beraisa. What does the Tana Kama there say about Orlah, K'lai ha'Kerem, Shor ha'Niskal, Eglah Arufah, Tziprei Metzora, Petter Chamor and Basar be'Chalav? What do they all have in common?

(b)What is the case of Petter Chamor? Under what circumstances would it be considered a food (apart from where the Shechted animal is still convulsing, as we learned in Chulin)?

(c)Seeing as all of these are Asur be'Hana'ah anyway, what difference will it make if they are Tamei Tum'as Ochlin as well?

(d)Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama, on the grounds that something that is Asur be'Hana'ah is not subject to Tum'as Ochlin, except for Basar be'Chalav. Why is that?

11)

(a)Rabah learns his previous statement from a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama rules that Orlah, K'lai ha'Kerem, Shor ha'Niskal, Eglah Arufah, Tziprei Metzora, Petter Chamor and Basar be'Chalav - are all Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin.

(b)Apart from where the Shechted animal is still convulsing (as we learned in Chulin), the Petter Chamor will still be considered a food - assuming it is a smaller than a k'Zayis (which is not subject to Tum'as Neveilos, but which is fit to make up the Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah of food).

(c)Despite the fact that all of these are Asur be'Hana'ah anyway, the difference if they are Tamei Tum'as Ochlin as wel, will be - with regard to rendering other food Tamei, should they touch it.

(d)Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama, on the grounds that something that is Asur be'Hana'ah is not subject to Tum'as Ochlin, except for Basar be'Chalav - which had a Sha'as ha'Kosher (each of the two were permitted before being cooked together) which other Isurei Hana'ah did not..

12)

(a)Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites Rebbi Shimon's reason (for his ruling regarding Basar be'Chalav) as the Pasuk in Shemini "mi'Kol ha'Ochel asher Ye'achel". What does he extrapolate from there?

(b)From where does Rebbi Yehudah quoting Rebbi Shimon, learn that Basar be'Chalav is Mutar be'Hana'ah?

(c)What problem does this create (with what we just learned)?

(d)What do we answer?

12)

(a)Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites Rebbi Shimon's reason (for his ruling regarding Basar be'Chalav) as the Pasuk in Shemini "mi'Kol ha'Ochel asher Ye'achel", from which he extrapolates that - any food that can be fed to others (since it is Mutar be'Hana'ah) is considered a food (vis-a-vis Tum'ah)

(b)Rebbi Yehudah quoting Rebbi Shimon learns that Basar be'Chalav is Mutar be'Hana'ah from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Ki Am Kadosh Atah la'Hashem Elokecha" (in Re'ei in connection with Basar be'Chalav) and "ve'Anshei Kodesh Tih'yun Li" (in Mishpatim, in connection with a T'reifah, which the Torah specifically permits be'Hana'ah).

(c)The problem this creates is - why, in the earlier Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon then considers Basar be'Chalav a food because it has a Sha'as ha'Kosher, and not because it is fit to feed to others?

(d)And we answer that - Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa is merely adding a second reason to the one that we already know. As if to say, not only is Basar be'Chalav something that one can feed to others, but in addition, it also had a Sha'as Ha'Kosher).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF