REVACH L'DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
|
|
SUMMARY
1. The Gemara discusses what the Mishnah means when it says that after keeping the firstborn for a year, one may keep it only for thirty days.
2. The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah means that one has an extra thirty days only if the animal received a blemish after the year finished, or close to the end of the year.
3. There is a discussion about the status of a firstborn animal that is slaughtered before its blemish is ruled to be a disqualifying blemish.
4. A person who was not qualified to rule that the animal had a blemish nevertheless issued such a ruling. As a result of that ruling, the Kohen slaughtered the animal. The animal must be buried, and the person who issued the ruling must pay the Kohen.
5. If a person issues an incorrect ruling in matters concerning money or purity, and he is not qualified to issue such rulings, he must pay the victim from his own funds.
6. If a person is generally qualified to issue rulings, he is exempt from paying even if he is mistaken.
|
A BIT MORE
1. Does the Mishnah mean that one always has an additional thirty after keeping it for a year, or does it mean that only if the animal receives a blemish after the year has finished (or close to the end of the year), one has an additional thirty days?
2. The Gemara proves this from a Beraisa which states that if the animal received a blemish fifteen days before the end of the year, one may keep it for another fifteen days after the end of the year.
3. Rebbi Yehudah: If, after its slaughter, its blemished is determined to have been a blemish that would have enabled the sacrifice to be slaughtered, it is permitted. Rebbi Meir: Since it was not permitted before slaughter, a penalty is imposed and it is forbidden.
4. The person who issued the ruling must pay one quarter of the value of a firstborn small animal (i.e. sheep), and one half of the value of a firstborn large animal (i.e. ox).
5. The Gemara explains that this refers to a case in which the person who issued the ruling physically took the money from one party and gave it to the other party, or he physically made the item in question pure or impure.
6. The Mishnah cites an incident wherein Rebbi Tarfon mistakenly ruled that a cow was a Tereifah, but he did not have to pay for the fact that it was turned into dog food.
|
Next Daf
Index to Revach for Maseches Bechoros
|
