POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bechoros 12
BECHOROS 12-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) CONDITIONS OF THE "SEH"
(a) (Mishnah): One may not redeem a Peter Chamor with any of
the following (b'Toras Seh, but if it is worth as much as
the donkey, it may be given in place of money):
1. A calf, Chayah, slaughtered animal, Tereifah,
Kil'ayim (a crossbreed of a goat and sheep), or Koy
(this will be explained);
(b) If one gave the Peter Chamor itself to the Kohen, the
Kohen may not keep it until he designates a Seh to redeem
2. R. Eliezer permits using Kil'ayim, for it is a Seh,
and forbids a Koy, for it is doubtful.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
(d) Answer: It is Ben Bag Bag.
1. (Beraisa - Ben Bag Bag): It says "Seh" regarding
redemption of a Peter Chamor, like it says regarding
(e) Question: May one redeem with a Ben Paku'a (a fetus found
inside a slaughtered animal)?
i. Just like each of these (in the Mishnah) is
Pasul for Korban Pesach, it may not be used to
2. Suggestion: Korban Pesach must be an unblemished
male in its first year - perhaps this is also
required for redemption!
3. Rejection: It says "Tifdeh" twice, to teach that
these are not required.
4. Question: If so, we should Machshir even the cases
listed in the Mishnah!
5. Answer: If so, the Gezeirah Shavah "Seh-Seh" would
not teach anything. (We include a Ba'al Mum, a
female and a Seh after its first year, for they are
1. According to R. Meir, clearly it can - since it must
be slaughtered, it is a fully fledged Seh;
(f) Answer #1 (Mar Zutra): It cannot be used.
2. The question is according to Chachamim - do we say,
since it became permitted through its mother's
slaughter, it is called meat (and not a Seh);
i. Or, since it runs around, it is called a Seh?
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It can be used.
1. Question (Rav Ashi to Mar Zutra): Do you learn from
a Gezeirah Shavah Seh-Seh from Korban Pesach (for
which Ben Paku'ah is invalid)?
(h) Question: May one redeem with a Nidmeh (an animal that
does not resemble its mother)?
i. If so, you should require all the
qualifications for the Korban Pesach - an
unblemished male in its first year!
2. Answer: It says twice "Tifdeh" to Machzik even a Seh
invalid for Pesach.
3. Question: If so, it should also include a Ben
4. Answer: This cannot be, for then the Gezeirah Shavah
would not teach anything.
1. We do not ask according to R. Eliezer - he permits
even with Kil'ayim, all the more so Nidmeh!
(i) Answer #1 (Beraisa): If a cow gave birth to a goat, it
may not be used to redeem.
2. We ask according to Chachamim - perhaps they forbid
only Kil'ayim, but permit Nidmeh;
3. Or, perhaps they forbid both of them!
(j) Inference: If a sheep gave birth to a goat, it may be
used to redeem!
1. Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
(k) Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question j:1): Really, it is
R. Eliezer; he teaches that a goat born to a cow is
invalid (indeed, the inference is not a Chidush);
i. It cannot be R. Eliezer - he permits even with
2. Answer #1: It is Chachamim.
1. One might have thought, the child determines the
law, since it is a Seh, it may be used - the Beraisa
teaches, this is not so, the mother determines the
law, it is a calf.
(l) Answer #2 (Rabah bar Shmuel - Beraisa) Question: What is
the case of Kil'ayim?
1. Answer: It is a goat born to a ewe, the father was a
(m) Rejection (and Support of Answer #3): Really, it is
Kil'ayim regarding Ma'aser - the case is, it slightly
resembles its mother;
2. Objection: This is not Kil'ayim, it is Nidmeh!
3. Correction: Rather, what case resembles Kil'ayim and
Chachamim equated it to Kil'ayim? It is a goat born
to a ewe, the father was a Seh.
4. Question: Regarding what it is considered Kil'ayim?
5. Answer #1: It is Kil'ayim (and therefore Pasul)
6. Rejection: The same verse that is Posel Kil'ayim is
i. (Beraisa): "Shor O Kesev" - this excludes
Kil'ayim; "O Ez" - this excludes Nidmeh.
7. Answer #2: It is Kil'ayim regarding Bechor (it does
not become Kadosh).
8. Rejection: A verse directly excludes Nidmeh - "Ach
Bechor Shor...," both it and its mother must be
cattle (or both sheep, or both goats).
9. Answer #3: It is Kil'ayim to be exempt from Ma'aser.
10. Rejection: We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah
"Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim (to exempt Nidmeh)!
11. Answer #4: It is Kil'ayim regarding Pidyon Peter
Chamor. (This culminates Answer #2 to Question (k).)
1. One might have thought, we learn
"Ha'avarah-Ha'avarah" from Bechor (a Nidmeh gets
Kedushas Bechor like a Ba'al Mum, it is given to
Kohanim, likewise a Nidmeh should enter the pen to
be tithed) - the Tana teaches, this is not so, we
learn "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim.
(n) Question: May one redeem with Pesulei ha'Mukdashim (a
Ba'al Mum that was redeemed)?
1. We do not ask according to R. Shimon - he permits
benefit from a Peter Chamor, it is Chulin (there is
no reason not to use Pesulei ha'Mukdashim);
(o) Answer (Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana): Pesulei ha'Mukdashim
may be eaten "ka'Tzvi vecha'Ayal" - just like Chayos may
not be used to redeem (b'Toras Seh), also Pesulei
2. We ask according to R. Yehudah:
i. Since he forbids Hana'ah of a Peter Chamor, Ein
Isur Chal Al Isur (the Isur on the donkey
cannot take effect, even for a moment, on
Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, which is already Asur,
the only Heter is to slaughter and eat it);
ii. Or, since the Seh permits the Peter Chamor
without becoming forbidden itself, Ein Isur
Chal Al Isur does not apply, it may be used!
(p) Retraction: This shows that even R. Shimon is Posel it
(unlike our original assumption)!
2) "KEDUSHAS SHEMITAH"
(a) Question: May one redeem with a Seh [bought with produce
or money] of Shemitah?
3) GIVING THE "PIDYON" OR THE "PETER CHAMOR" TO A KOHEN
1. Surely, it may not be used to redeem a definite
Peter Chamor - since the Kohen keeps the Seh, this
would be like commerce, [anything with Kedushas]
Shemitah is for eating, not for commerce!
(b) Answer: Rav Chisda taught that a Shemitah animal is
exempt from Bechorah, Matanos (the foreleg, jaw and
stomach) must be given;
2. We ask about redeeming a Safek.
3. We do not ask according to R. Shimon - since he
permits benefit from a Peter Chamor, there is no
need to designate a Seh for a Safek;
4. We ask according to R. Yehudah:
i. Since the Yisrael keeps the Seh, this is called
ii. Or, since the Peter Chamor is forbidden until
designating the Seh, this is like commerce!
1. It is exempt from Bechorah; Shemitah is for eating,
not for burning [the Eimurim];
(c) Question (Mishnah): One who eats from a Shemitah dough
before separating Chalah is Chayav Misah (bi'Yedei
2. Matanos must be given - they are for Kohanim to eat!
1. If the Chalah would become (Rashi; Tosfos - if the
dough was) Tamei, the Chalah would have to be burned
- we should say that the dough is exempt from
Chalah, for Shemitah is to be eaten, not burned!
(d) Answer: Chalah applies to a Shemitah dough, for it says
(e) Support (Beraisa) Question: What is the source that one
who eats from a Shemitah dough before separating Chalah
is Chayav Misah?
1. Answer: It says "l'Doroseichem."
(f) Question: We should learn from Chalah to Bechorah!
(g) Answer: L'Chatchilah, Chalah is not burned (only if it
became Tamei), but Eimurei Bechor must be burned.
(a) (Mishnah): If one gave the Peter Chamor itself to the
Kohen, he may not keep it until he designates a Seh to
(b) Our Mishnah teaches like the following Beraisa:
1. (Beraisa): If a Yisrael had a Peter Chamor in his
house, and a Kohen said, "Give it to me, I will
redeem it," the Yisrael should not consent unless he
sees the Kohen redeem it.
(c) (Rav Nachman): This teaches that Kohanim are suspected of
using a Peter Chamor before redeeming it.
(d) Objection: This is obvious!
(e) Answer: One might have thought, this only applies to
Kohanim known to be suspected (alternatively - that
1. Rav Nachman teaches, it applies to all Kohanim, for
they rationalize (since they keep the Seh, there is
no need to redeem).
(f) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If one designated a Seh to redeem
a Peter Chamor and the Seh died, he has Acharayos (he
must give a different Seh to a Kohen), just like there is
Acharayos for the five Shekalim of Pidyon ha'Ben;
(g) Chachamim say, he has no Acharayos, just like there is no
Acharayos for Ma'aser Sheni.
(h) R. Yehoshua and R. Tzadok testified that if the Seh died,
the Kohen does not receive anything (except for the
(i) R. Eliezer says, if the Peter Chamor died, it is buried,
it is permitted to benefit from the Seh (the Yisrael
(j) Chachamim say, the Peter Chamor need not be buried, the
Seh is given to a Kohen.
(k) (Gemara - Rav Yosef): R. Eliezer learns from "Ach Pado
Tifdeh..." - the verse equates Peter Chamor to Bechor
1. Just like there is Acharayos for Pidyon ha'Ben, also
for Pidyon Peter Chamor.
(l) Question (Abaye): If so, we should also permit benefit
from a Peter Chamor (before redemption), just like from
1. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Eliezer indeed permits this
(like R. Shimon)!
(m) Answer (Rava): "Ach Pado Sifdeh" - Peter Chamor is
equated to Bechor Adam only regarding Pidyon (e.g.
Acharayos, but not regarding Hana'ah).
2. Rejection #1 (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If the Peter
Chamor died, it is buried.
i. It is buried because it is Asur b'Hana'ah.
3. Rejection #2 (Beraisa): R. Eliezer agrees that if a
Yisrael has a Safek Peter Chamor, he designates a
Seh and keeps it. (This is necessary only if the
Peter Chamor is Asur b'Hana'ah!)
ii. Suggestion: Perhaps it is permitted, it is
buried because it is equated to Bechor Adam
(and people are normally buried)!
iii. Rejection: Not only Bechorim are buried (the
Hekesh should teach things particular to Bechor
(n) (Beraisa #1): Erchin (a vow to give to Hekdesh a certain
amount based on the age and gender of oneself or another
person, the Ne'erach) is according to [his age at] the
time of the vow;
1. Pidyon ha'Ben applies after 30 days, Pidyon Peter
Chamor applies immediately.
(o) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): At least 30 days are required
for all of the following:
1. Erchin (the Ne'erach must be at least 30 days old),
Pidyon ha'Ben, Nezirus, and Pidyon Peter Chamor.
(p) Resolution #1 (Rav Nachman): Beraisa #1 teaches that if
Pidyon Peter Chamor was done immediately (i.e. before 30
days), it is valid [b'Di'eved].
2. These have no upper limit (the age of the Ne'erach,
the length of Nezirus, or the time to redeem a son
or Peter Chamor).
1. Question: This implies that Pidyon ha'Ben is invalid
even b'Di'eved within 30 days - but Rav was Machshir
such a Pidyon!
2. Answer (Rava): If he wanted the Pidyon to take
effect immediately, all agree that it is invalid.
(Rav is Machshir when he gave the money now to take
effect after 30 days.)