ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 21
(a) We just cited Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa, who once witnessed a case,
where the owner placed all twelve animals in the pen within the year that
the first three babies were born. The Tana Kama holds - that the second set
of babies were only born on the last day of the year.
(b) Again, we connect this Machlokes to Ze’iri’s statement. The case is –
where the first three babies emitted a ‘Tinuf’ at the end of six months
after their birth.
(c) The Tana Kama holds like Ze’iri – in which case their babies were then
born on the last day of the year, whereas Rebbi Shimon does not, and the
babies could have been born any time within thirty days of the year.
(d) Like before, we offer the alternative that both Tana’im hold like Ze’
iri, and they argue over whether an animal can give birth within the five
month pregnancy period (Rebbi Shimon) or not (the Tana Kama). The second
alternative to explain their Machlokes is – whether ‘Miktzas ha’Yom ke’Kulo’
(of the thirtieth day after the Tinuf [Rebbi Shimon]) or not (the Tana
(a) There is however, a third alternative, even if both Tana’im also hold
‘Miktzas ha’Yom ke’Kulo’ – whether a Mechusar Z’man (within the first eight
days of its birth, when it is forbidden to bring it on the Mizbe’ach) can be
taken into the pen to be Ma’asered (Rebbi Shimon) or not (even if it did
give birth earlier, it has to wait seven days [the Tana Kama]).
(b) And we support this explanation with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon ben
Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon states ‘Mechusar Z’man Nichnas le’Dir Lehis’aser’.
(c) His source for this is – Bechor, which becomes sanctified as soon as it
(d) Whilst the Rabbanan learn that a Mechusar Z’man is not sent into the pen
to be Ma’asered – from Kodshim (e.g. a Shelamim), which cannot be sanctified
before the eighth day.
(a) Rebbi Shimon prefers to learn Ma’aser (‘Mechusar Z’mano Nichnas le’Dir
Lehis’aser’) from Bechor, because of the four similarities which they share
(none of which apply to a Shelamim) ‘Go’el, Mum, Temuras, Achilah’. ‘Go’el’
means that they are not subject to Pidyon (even when they are blemished) and
‘Mum’, that Kedushah takes effect even on a blemished animal.
1. ‘Temuras’ means – that they are not subject to Temurah, and ...
(b) We counter this however, with ‘Pashut, Zachar, Kadosh, be’Matanos’,
which Ma’aser has in common with Shelamim, but which do not pertain to
Bechor. ‘Pashut’ means that they apply to an animal that is not a Bechor,
and ‘Zachar’, that they apply to female animals as well as males.
2. ... ‘Achilah’ – that they may be eaten (once they obtain a blemish)
without being redeemed.
1. ‘Kadosh’ means – that they require verbal sanctification (without which
they remain Chulin), and ...
(c) Therefore Rebbi Shimon learns Ma’aser from Bechor (regarding the Din of
Mechusar Z’man) – via the ‘Gezeirah-Shavah’ “Ha’avarah” “Ha’avarah”.
2. ... ‘be’Matanos’ – that they are not Matnos Kehunah.
(a) According to Rav, ‘Tinuf’ means a deformed baby (caused by a closure of
the womb), which Rav heard – from the shepherds.
(b) Shmuel maintains – that it is lumps of blood.
(c) A ‘Tinuf’ exempts the baby that follows from the Bechorah – only if one
confirmed with a Chacham that it had previously been a fetus.
(d) Rav Papa interprets ‘Chacham’ in this instance to mean – a Chacham who
is also a shepherd (since from where would a non-shepherd [even if he is a
Talmid-Chacham] know this)?
(a) It takes a human fetus – forty days to form inside its mother’s womb.
Rav Chisda now asks – how long it takes for an animal fetus to form.
(b) The significance of this fact regarding ...
1. ... a human fetus is – regarding the Din of Tum’as Yoledes (which does
apply in the case of a fetus of less than forty days).
(c) Rav Papa tried to resolve Rav Chisda’s She’eilah from Ze’iri (‘Ein Tinuf
Pachos mi’Sheloshim Yom’) – because he thought that Ze’iri is talking about
the time period between the mating and the ‘Tinuf’ after it (as we just
2. ... an animal fetus – regarding the Din of ‘Tinuf’ (to be considered a V
‘lad, in order to exempt the baby that is born after it from the Bechorah).
We therefore need to know the minimum number of days between the mating and
(d) Abaye rejected Rav Papa’s proof however – pointing out to him that Ze’
iri is actually referring to the time-period between the ‘Tinuf’ and the
mating that follows (as we already learned).
(a) Our Mishnah discusses an animal that one purchases from a Nochri (see
Tif’eres Yisrael, 9). According to Rav, if one purchased an animal S’tam
from a Yisrael, one must assume that the next baby to which it gives birth
is its first – because once the animal has already given birth, its value
rises (since it no longer has to pass the danger stage [of its first
birth]), and had it therefore given birth, the seller would certainly have
informed the purchaser of the fact).
(b) Nevertheless, Shmuel holds that it is a Safek – since it is also
possible, that the reason that the seller was silent, was because he assumed
that the purchaser wanted the animal as meat (in which case, it would not
make any difference whether it already gave birth or not).
(c) According to Shmuel, the purchaser – must wait for the animal to obtain
a blemish, before eating it.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan, the most lenient of all, holds that it is Chulin –
because since most animals give birth in the first year, the seller would
have informed the purchaser, had it not done so, in order to prevent him
(a) In the Beraisa that supports Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana rules that if
someone sells a baby animal without saying anything about having sold the
mother that day – the purchaser may assume that he did not do so, because
otherwise, he would have informed him of the fact.
(b) And we presume – that the same will apply to the case of Bechor like
(c) Rav and Shmuel will nevertheless reconcile their opinion (which does not
assume that the seller will automatically inform the purchaser that the
animal did not give birth within the first year) with the Beraisa – because
whereas in the case of Shechitah, the Chachamim placed the onus of informing
the purchaser on the seller, in the case of Bechor, the Torah writes “bi’
Vekorcha u’ve’Tzoncha”, placing the onus of keeping track of what is and
what is not, a Bechor, on the purchaser.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov rules in our Mishnah that if a large animal
emitted a cake of blood, it (the cake of blood) must be buried – and he adds
that the animal is exempt from the Bechorah.
(b) Rebbi Chiya learns in a Beraisa that the cake of blood is not Metamei be
’Maga or be’Masa, and it require burial – only to publicize the fact that it
is Patur from the Bechorah (to preclude from the notion that the cake of
blood is not considered a V’lad).
(c) The Mishnah in Chulin, on the other hand, permits feeding the placenta
of an animal giving birth for the first time, to the dogs – because there,
no publicity is necessary, since the principle that ‘there is no placenta
without a baby’ is widespread.
(d) We could not resolve the problem by dismissing our Mishnah before the S’
tam Mishnah in Chulin – because of the principle ‘Mishnas Rebbi Eliezer ben
Ya’akov Kav ve’Naki’ (the Halachah is always like Rebbi ben Ya’akov,
whenever he speaks in a Mishnah).
(a) Seeing as the cake of blood is considered a V’lad, we ask, why it is not
Metamei be’Maga and be’Masa. What prompts us to ask this question is – the
fact that it exempts the mother from the Bechorah.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan replies that despite that, the cake of blood is not
Metamei – because the Basar ha’Meis is Bateil in the blood and the bits of
fleshy substance that came out together with it.
(c) And he equates Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov with Rebbi Shimon in a Mishnah
in Nidah, which discusses a woman who miscarried a placenta. The Tana Kama
declares the room in which the placenta is lying, Tamei – because if there
is a placenta, there must be a V’lad.
(d) Rebbi Shimon - declares the room Tahor, because, he maintains, the V’lad
disintegrated before it emerged from the womb.