1)

(a)We already cited the Beraisa 'bi'Bechor Ne'emar "Lo Sifdeh", ve'Nimkar hu ve'Ye'achel bi'Kedushah'. What are the implications of 've'Ye'achel bi'Kedushah'?

(b)What do we extrapolate from the Seifa "ve'es Damam Tizrok al ha'Mizbe'ach". When must the Pasuk (and the Beraisa) be speaking?

(c)Based on the Seifa, how do we now query Rav Nachman from the Reisha?

(d)How do we solve the problem? What does Midi Ayri mean?

1)

(a)We already cited the Beraisa 'bi'Bechor Ne'emar "Lo Sifdeh", ve'Nimkar Hu ve'Ye'achel bi'Kedushah'. 've'Ye'achel bi'Kedushah' implies that - it may not be Shechted in the butchery nor weighed in the conventional manner.

(b)We extrapolate from the Seifa "ve'es Damam Tizrok al ha'Mizbe'ach" that - the Pasuk (and the Beraisa) must be speaking when the Beis-Hamikdash stood.

(c)Based on the Seifa (which cannot be speaking about a Ba'al-Mum, we now query Rav Nachman from the Reisha, in that - even though it is speaking about a Tam, the Beraisa permits selling it.

(d)We solve the problem - by saying 'Midi Ayri' - Who says that both the Reisha and the Seifa of the Pasuk must be speaking about the same case'. The Seifa can be speaking about a Tam, and the Reisha, about a Ba'al-Mum.

2)

(a)Rav Mesharshaya now queries Rav Nachman from another Beraisa which discusses a Kohenes and her Shifchah whose baby boys became mixed up. How is it possible for the two babies ever to become permitted to marry a bas Yisrael?

(b)There is no reason why, meanwhile, they should not be permitted to eat Terumah. Why can they only receive a portion if they both appear at the Yisrael's barn together?

(c)Why is that?

2)

(a)Rav Mesharshaya now queries Rav Nachman from another Beraisa which discusses a Kohenes and her Shifchah whose baby boys became mixed up. The Tana rules that they will become permitted to marry a bas Yisrael - if they write each other a Sh'tar Shichrur (setting each other free).

(b)There is no reason why meanwhile, they should not be permitted to eat Terumah. They may only receive a portion however, if they both appear at the barn of the Yisrael together - because this Tana forbids an Eved to receive Terumah at the barn unless his master is present ...

(c)... since receiving Terumah at the barn on one's own serves as testimony that the Kohen is Kasher regarding marrying a woman who is Meyuchas.

3)

(a)What does the Tana say about a B'chor Beheimah that either of them own?

(b)How do we try to prove that ...

1. ... the Beraisa must be speaking in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash?

2. ... they must own a portion in the B'chor (even before the Emurim have been brought [a Kashya on Rav Nachman])?

(c)How do we know that the Tana is talking about a Tam?

(d)Since he is talking about a Tam bi'Zeman ha'Mikdash, why can the two S'feikos not just bring their B'chor to the Beis-Hamikdash, without the Din of Ro'eh?

(e)We reconcile Rav Nachman with the Beraisa, by establishing it nowadays after all. How do we answer the Kashya that we asked earlier ('Mai Sh'na Didan u'Mai Sh'no Didhu')? What is the difference between us and them?

3)

(a)The Tana rules that a B'chor Beheimah that either of them own - is Ro'eh (sent to graze in the field, until it obtains a blemish ... ).

(b)We try to prove that ...

1. ... the Beraisa must be speaking in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash - because otherwise, what is the difference between this case and nowadays, when a B'chor can also only be eaten once it obtains a Mum.

2. ... they must own a portion in the B'chor (even before the Emurim have been brought [a Kashya on Rav Nachman]) - because otherwise, why would the Gizbor wait for the animal to obtain a Mum? Why not take it straightway and give it to the Kohanim of that Mishmar?

(c)And we know that the Tana is talking about a Tam - because otherwise, why would it need to be Ro'eh.

(d)Even though he is talking about a Tam bi'Z'man ha'Mikdash, the two S'feikos cannot just bring their B'chor to the Beis-Hamikdash, without the Din of Ro'eh - because a B'chor can only be eaten by a Kohen, and one of the two is not a Kohen.

(e)We reconcile Rav Nachman with the Beraisa by establishing the Beraisa nowadays after all. And we answer the Kashya that we asked earlier ('Mai Sh'na Didan u'Mai Sh'no Didhu') - by pointing to a difference between us and them, in that we are obligated to give a B'chor to a Kohen, whereas they (the Kohanim) are allowed to keep it.

4)

(a)We query Rav Nachman again from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk in Shoftim (in connection with an Ir ha'Nidachas) "Behemtah", 'P'rat li'Bechor u'Ma'aser'. What does he preclude from there?

(b)And what does he preclude from the word "Sh'lalah" (mentioned there)?

(c)Why can the Beraisa not be referring to ...

1. ... nowadays?

2. ... a Ba'al-Mum?

(d)How do we try to prove from there that a Kohen has a portion in a B'chor?

4)

(a)We query Rav Nachman again from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk in Shoftim (in connection with an Ir ha'Nidachas) "Behemtah", 'P'rat li'Bechor u'Ma'aser' - precluding a B'chor Beheimah and Ma'aser Beheimah from being burned together with all the personal belongings of the town's inhabitants.

(b)Whereas from the word "Shelalah" (mentioned there) - he precludes the money of Ma'aser Sheini.

(c)The Beraisa cannot be referring to ...

1. ... nowadays - because a town cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas nowadays.

2. ... a Ba'al-Mum - because then there would be no reason to preclude it from "Beheimah", since they are Chulin just like all the other animals.

(d)We try to prove from there that a Kohen has a portion in a B'chor - because if he did not, then we would not need the Pasuk "Behemtah", as we would already know it from "Sh'lalah", 've'Lo Sh'lal Shamayim'.

5)

(a)We answer by establishing the Beraisa by a Ba'al-Mum. How do we then answer the Kashya Haynu Behemtah? Why will this not constitute Behemtah, even if it is a Ba'al-Mum?

(b)What is the reason for the two stringencies regarding the sale of a B'chor and Ma'aser?

5)

(a)We answer by establishing the Beraisa by a Ba'al-Mum. And we nevertheless answer the Kashya Haynu Behemtah - by differentiating between Behemtah, which is eaten without restrictions, and a B'chor Ba'al-Mum, which must be eaten bi'Kedushah, as we explained a little earlier (in which case Rebbi Shimon is justified in precluding it from "Behemtah").

(b)The reason for the two stringencies regarding the sale of a B'chor and Ma'aser is - because even though they are Kodshim, it is not Hekdesh that benefits from the sale, but the owner (as we learned in Bechoros).

6)

(a)We query Rav Nachman from yet another Beraisa, which discusses Shevu'as ha'Shomrim. What is a Shomer Pikadon Chayav if he swears that he was not given a Pikadon to look after, and then admits that he swore falsely?

(b)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili there learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "u'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Hashem" that the Shomer is Chayav on a Pikadon that comprises Kodshim Kalim. Why is this necessary? Why would we have thought that he is not?

(c)ben Azai confines the same Limud to Shelamim. What does Aba Yossi ben Dustai say in his name?

(d)Why can the Beraisa not be speaking about ...

1. ... nowadays?

2. ... a Ba'al-Mum?

6)

(a)We query Rav Nachman from yet another Beraisa, which discusses Shevu'as ha'Shomrim. If a Shomer Pikadon swears that he was not given a Pikadon to look after, and then admits that he swore falsely, he is Chayav - to pay the Keren plus a fifth and to bring a Korban Asham Me'ilos.

(b)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili there learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "u'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Hashem" that the Shomer is Chayav on a Pikadon that comprises Kodshim Kalim. We would have thought that he is not - because he is only Chayav for swearing on the personal property of the owner, and not on Kodshim that do not belong to him (such as an Olah),

(c)ben Azai confines the same Limud to Shelamim. Aba Yossi ben Dustai says in his name - that it only applies to B'chor.

(d)The Beraisa cannot be speaking about ...

1. ... nowadays - because there are no Shelamim nowadays.

2. ... a Ba'al-Mum - for the same reason, because the fact is that Shelamim Temimim belong to the owner, and are not subject to Me'ilah until they have been Shechted.

7)

(a)What do we now think we have proved?

(b)Why can we not then prove our point from B'chor directly?

(c)Abaye refutes this proof too, by establishing the Beraisa by B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz, like Rebbi Shimon. What does Rebbi Shimon say in the third Perek about a B'chor or Shelamim in Chutz la'Aretz, that reconciles it with Rav Nachman?

7)

(a)We now think we have proved that - a B'chor even at the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, belongs to the Kohen, who is therefore permitted to sell it to another Kohen.

(b)We cannot prove our point from B'chor directly - because it is possible that the Kohen only acquires it from Hash-m's Table (like Kodshei Kodshim [as Rav Nachman does indeed say]), a S'vara which is not applicable to a Shelamim whose owner is a Yisrael.

8b----------------------------------------8b

8)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in our Mishnah maintains that if one cannot be Meimar on a Chatas ve'Asham, it is because the Kohen has no portion in them as long as they are alive, whereas by a B'chor, in which he has, he can be Meimar. How do we know that he is speaking about a B'chor Tam in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash?

(b)How does Ravina establish the Beraisa to reconcile it with Rav Nachman?

(c)We cite another Machlokes Tana'im in this regard. What distinction does the Tana Kama draw between a B'chor in the house of the owner and a B'chor in the house of the Kohen?

(d)How do we explain the Tana Kama in view of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says 'Keivan she'Ba le'Yad Kohen, Zeh ve'Zeh Ein Osin Temurah', which seems to echo the Tana Kama's opinion? How does this affect Rav Nachman?

8)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in our Mishnah maintains that if one cannot be Meimar on a Chatas ve'Asham, it is because the Kohen has no portion in them as long as they are alive, whereas by a B'chor, in which he has, he can be Meimar. We know that he is speaking about a B'chor Tam in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash - similar to Chatas and Asham.

(b)To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Nachman, Ravina establishes the Beraisa - by a B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz according to Rebbi Shimon, like we established the previous Beraisa.

(c)We cite another Machlokes Tana'im in this regard, where the Tana Kama draws a distinction between a B'chor in the house of the owner - who can declare a Temurah on it, and a B'chor in the house of the Kohen - who cannot.

(d)In view of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says 'Keivan she'Ba le'Yad Kohen Zeh ve'Zeh Ein Osin Temurah' like Rav Nachman), the Tana Kama must mean that - the owner cannot declare a Temurah in the house of the Kohen, but the Kohen can.

9)

(a)How do we re-establish the Machlokes without involving Rav Nachman? With which other Machlokes do we prefer to connect it?

(b)How will the Tana'im hold in Rav Nachman's case?

(c)In another Lashon, we extrapolate from the Tana Kama that once the B'chor reaches the domain of the Kohen, neither is permitted to make a Temurah on it. The Kohen may however, sell it. What does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar say? How do we know that he is more stringent than the Tana Kama.

(d)Once again, we try to prove from here that Rav Nachman's ruling is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im. Which Tana agrees with the opinion of Rav Nachman?

(e)What do we conclude?

9)

(a)We re-establish the Machlokes without involving Rav Nachman - by establishing the Machlokes like that of Rebbi Akiva (Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar) and Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri (the Tana Kama), which we already established by a B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b)Both Tana'im however, will hold that, in Eretz Yisrael - the Kohen will not be able to declare a Temurah on a B'chor Tam (like Rav Nachman).

(c)In another Lashon, we extrapolate from the Tana Kama that once the B'chor reaches the domain of the Kohen, neither is permitted to make a Temurah on it. The Kohen may however sell it. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - prohibits him from selling it too (because of the principle that the latter Tana always comes to add to the words of the Tana Kama).

(d)Once again, we try to prove from here that Rav Nachman's ruling is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im, and that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar agrees with his opinion.

(e)But once again we conclude that - their Machlokes is the same as that of Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri.

10)

(a)Rav Chisda restricts the sale of a B'chor Tam (even nowadays) to a purchaser who is a Kohen. If, as we initially think, he forbids selling it to a Yisrael because we are afraid that the Yisrael will make a Mum and say that the Kohen sold it to him like that, why is he then permitted to sell it to a Kohen?

(b)We reject this explanation however, on the basis of a statement by Rav Yehudah. What did Rav Yehudah say about a Yisrael who takes a blemished B'chor Beheimah to a Rav for inspection.

(c)So what reason does Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua finally give for the Rabbanan's decree forbidding a Kohen to sell a B'chor to a Yisrael?

10)

(a)Rav Chisda restricts the sale of a B'chor Tam (even nowadays) to a purchaser who is a Kohen. Even though he forbids selling it to Yisrael because we are afraid that the Yisrael will make a Mum and say that the Kohen sold it to him like that, as we initially think, he is nevertheless permitted to sell it to a Kohen - because a Kohen who wants a Rav to permit a B'chor with a Mum, must bring with him witnesses that the blemish came by itself, as we learned in B'choros.

(b)We reject this explanation however, on the basis of a statement by Rav Yehudah, who said that a Yisrael who takes a blemished B'chor Beheimah to a Rav for inspection - must take with him the Kohen (who, he claims sold it to him with a Mum) to the Rav.

(c)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua finally explains that the Chachamim forbid a Kohen to sell a B'chor to a Yisrael - because, based on the fact that a B'chor remains forbidden until it obtains a Mum, the Kohen will sell it to the Yisrael cheaply, and it looks like a case of a Kohen who assists in the granary, in the hope that he will receive the Terumah (not as a gift, but as payment for his services), which is forbidden.

11)

(a)What did Rav Ashi serve Mar Zutra, who had come to pay him a visit?

(b)Why did he serve him particularly the meat of a B'chor?

(c)What objection did Mar Zutra raise, when they (see Shitah Mekubetzes 14) informed him that Rav Ashi had purchased it from a Kohen?

(d)What did they reply? Why did it not resemble Kohen ha'Mesayei'a be'Veis ha'Geranos?

11)

(a)When Mar Zutra came to pay Rav Ashi a visit the latter served him - meat of a B'chor ...

(b)... because it is very healthy.

(c)When they (see Shitah Mekubetzes 14) informed Mar Zutra that Rav Ashi had purchased it from a Kohen, he objected - due to Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's previous statement (comparing this to a Kohen who assists the Yisrael in the granary).

(d)To which they replied that this did not resemble Kohen ha'Mesayei'a be'Veis ha'Geranos - since Rav Ashi had paid for the animal (unlike the case of Kohen ha'Mesaye'a ... , where the Kohen offers his services free of charge).

12)

(a)The Mishnah in B'choros obligates the owner to look after a small animal for thirty days before giving it to the Kohen. What does he say about a large animal?

(b)What reason does Rav Sheishes give to explain why the Tana forbids the Yisrael to comply with the Kohen, should he offer to take the B'chor off his hands earlier?

(c)How does Rav Ashi reconcile his lenient ruling with that Mishnah?

(d)In the second Lashon, after informing Mar Zutra that Rav Ashi had purchased the B'chor, they added that one cannot even take into account the fact that the Kohen had given him a good deal (in order to ensure that he gets the Matanos) to forbid it. Why not?

12)

(a)The Mishnah in B'choros obligates the owner to look after a small animal for thirty days, and a large animal - for fifty days before giving it to the Kohen.

(b)Rav Sheishes explains that the Tana forbids the Yisrael to comply with the Kohen, should he offer to take the B'chor off his hands earlier - because it resembles Kohen ha'Mesaye'a be'Veis ha'Geranos.

(c)Rav Ashi reconciles his lenient ruling with that Mishnah - inasmuch as in the latter case, it is obvious that this is what the Kohen wants (whereas selling an animal is not).

(d)In the second Lashon, after informing Mar Zutra that Rav Ashi had purchased the B'chor, they added that one cannot even take into account the fact that the Kohen had given him a good deal (in order to ensure that he gets the Matanos) to forbid it - due to the mantra A young gourd now is better than a fully ripe one tomorrow (A bird in the hand ... ). Likewise here, no Kohen will sell an animal cheaply today on the off-chance that tomorrow, the purchaser might give him the Matanos.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF