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 24
1) NURSING IS A PROOF OF MOTHERHOOD (cont.)
(a) Question: Since Rav taught (1) that the Halachah follows
the Mishnah everywhere in our Perek, why did he need to
explicitly say (2) that the Halachah follows R. Yosi?
2) NURSING FROM A DIFFERENT SPECIES
(b) Answer: Had he taught only (1), one might have thought
that he refers only to R. Yosi;
1. He said "everywhere in our Perek" because R. Yosi
taught two laws; he does not refer to R. Shimon, for
an argument in a Beraisa is considered an argument.
(c) Question: What is this Beraisa?
2. Now that he explicitly taught that the Halachah
follows R. Yosi, we know that "everywhere in our
Perek" refers to R. Shimon, for an argument in a
Beraisa is not considered an argument.
(d) Answer (Beraisa): If one buys a nursing mother from a
Nochri, the next animal born is a Safek Bechor - it is
possible that it is Merachem (has compassion for, i.e.
nurses) another animal's child, even though it has not
(e) Question: R. Shimon ben Gamliel said, "It has its
Chazakah" - what does this mean?
1. Perhaps it means that an animal will not be Merachem
unless it has given birth - but once it has given
birth, it is Merachem (even calves of other
(f) Answer #1: (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If one buys
an animal from a Nochri, we are not concerned that it
(the calf it nurses) was from another animal.
2. Or, it means that an animal will never nurse a
different animal's child!
3. Question: What difference does it make which he
means (either way, a nursing animal is exempt from
4. Answer: This determines whether or not one is lashed
for Oso v'Es Beno (for slaughtering a calf and the
animal it nurses from):
i. If an animal will never nurse a different
animal's child, he is lashed;
ii. If a mother is Merachem, he is not lashed.
(g) Rejection: Had it said, "[We are not concerned that it]
*is* [from another animal]," this would have resolved our
1. However, it says "*was*," i.e. we are not concerned
that the calf is from another animal unless there
already *was* a child to the nursing mother.
(h) Answer #2 (Beraisa): If one entered his herd and found
the Mevakros and non-Mevakros nursing, we are not
concerned that a mother is nursing a different animal's
1. If a mother might be Merachem, we should be
(i) Rejection: A mother would not abandon her own calf and
nurse a different animal's calf.
(j) Answer #3 (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): It has its
1. Suggestion: "Similarly" teaches that the Reisha is
just like the Seifa, i.e. the nursing mother
definitely gave birth to the suckling calf.
(k) Rejection: No, the Reisha need not resemble the Seifa.
(l) Question: If so, why does it say "similarly"?
(m) Answer: In both cases, the mother is definitely exempt
(a) (R. Yochanan): If we see a pig cling to and nurse from a
ewe, the ewe is exempt from Bechorah; it is forbidden to
eat the pig "Ad Yavo v'Yoreh Tzedek" (until Eliyahu will
tell us that it is permitted.)
(b) Question #1: The ewe is exempt from Bechorah - this is
like R. Shimon; it is forbidden to eat the pig - this is
like Chachamim (who say that nursing does not prove
(c) Question #2: "V'Yoreh" connotes teaching a law - if Rabah
holds like Chachamim, Eliyahu would not permit it by
teaching a law, but rather by telling us what the mother
was, thus R. Yochanan should say "Ad she'Yivada Lecha
1. Suggestion: R. Yochanan is unsure whether the
Halachah follows R. Shimon or Chachamim (and Eliyahu
will settle this doubt).
(d) Answer (to both questions): Really, he is sure that the
Halachah follows R. Shimon;
2. Rejection #1: Since he exempts the ewe from
Bechorah, he must be sure that the Halachah follows
3. Rejection #2: R. Yochanan taught that the Halachah
follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in all Mishnayos
except for three: the Mishnah of an Arev
(guarantor), the Get in Tzidon, and the litigant who
found a proof after he said that he does not have
1. He is unsure whether or not R. Shimon holds that a
mother might be Merachem, one is not lashed for Oso
(e) Question: If so, why did he discuss a pig - he should
have discussed a ewe nursing a lamb (a normal case);
1. He should [exempt the ewe from Bechorah and say
that] one who slaughters both of them on the same
day is not lashed "Ad Yavo v'Yoreh Tzedek"!
(f) Answer: He must teach about a pig;
1. Had he taught about a lamb, we would have thought
that even if R. Shimon holds that a mother might be
Merachem, this is limited to its own species;
(g) R. Yochanan: Achai asked, if we see a pig cling to and
nurse from a ewe, what is the law?
2. Therefore, he taught about a pig, that R. Shimon
might hold that a mother is Merachem, even on a
3) REMOVING HAIR IN ORDER TO SLAUGHTER
1. Question: What does he ask about?
(h) These questions are unsettled.
i. Suggestion: He asks about Bechorah, whether the
Halachah follows R. Shimon or Chachamim.
2. Answer: He asks about Bechorah, [even] according to
Chachamim; he asks about eating the child, [even]
according to R. Shimon;
ii. Objection: If so, why did he discuss a pig - he
should have discussed a ewe nursing a lamb!
3. He asks about Bechorah, even according to Chachamim
- they say that an animal is Merachem, but perhaps
this is limited to its own species;
4. He asks about eating, even according to R. Shimon:
i. If R. Shimon says that a mother might be
Merachem, perhaps this is limited to its own
ii. Or, perhaps it might be Merachem even another
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam): One who slaughters a
Bechor makes room [for slaughter] on both sides with a
Kopitz (large chopping knife); he uproots the hair, but
must not move it (he should leave it caught in the
attached hair, so it will not look like he shears).
(b) (Tosfos Yom Tov - the Mishnah discusses "hair" to teach
that shearing applies not only to sheep's wool, but even
to hair of cattle; Tosfos Chadashim - it teaches that
even though hair is not as disordered as wool and can
more easily be moved aside without removing it, one may
still uproot the hair; Mahari'ach - attached wool is
called hair; Rashash - "hair" excludes goats' hair (which
is called "Notzah") - it may not be uprooted, for its
normal way of being sheared is by hand.)
(c) Version #1 (Our text): Similarly, one uproots hair to
inspect a Mum.
(d) Version #2 (Text of the Bach and Rishonim, and the
Mishnayos): The same applies to one who uproots hair to
inspect a Mum. (We adopt this text, for the Gemara (25a)
asks whether or not this is l'Chatchilah.)
(e) (Gemara - Rav): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.
(f) Question: Is this permitted on Yom Tov (to clear away the
hair for slaughter)?
1. If R. Yosi permits removing hair of a Bechor because
uprooting is not considered shearing (and the Torah
only forbids shearing a Bechor), but it is forbidden
on Yom Tov [to uproot something from where it
(g) Rav Huna: Ask Rav Chananel - if he says that Rav rules
like R. Yosi, I will answer your question.
2. If he holds that uprooting is shearing, and he
permits because (and on condition that) it is a
Davar she'Eino Miskaven (he does not intend to
uproot hair, only to clear it away), this is
likewise permitted on Yom Tov.
(h) (Rav Chananel citing Rav): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.
(i) Answer (Rav Huna): It is permitted on Yom Tov.
(j) Support: R. Chananya also said so in the name of Rav.