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 9
BECHOROS 7-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) R. YEHOSHUA BROUGHT THE ELDERS OF ATHENS TO
(a) [The Elders admitted defeat;] R. Yehoshua brought them
one by one onto the boat. Each saw a room with 60 chairs,
and assumed that all of his colleagues would later join
2) DOUBTFUL "PITREI CHAMORIM"
(b) R. Yehoshua took dirt from Athens; he told the shipdriver
to return. When they came to Bei Bli'i (a place which
swallows water or sends it to the depths, in order that
the sea will never be full), he filled a flask with its
(c) He brought the Elders in front of Kaisar; because they
were away from their land, they were lowly, they could
not answer him properly. Kaisar did not believe that
these were the Elders of Athens; R. Yehoshua put their
native dirt in front of them, they spoke brazenly to
(d) Kaisar authorized R. Yehoshua to do to them as he wants.
R. Yehoshua put down the Mei Bli'i in the flask (Tosfos -
over a pit), and told them that they can go after they
fill it up. They kept pouring in water until their
shoulders fell off (they died).
(a) (In this entire Mishnah, one leaves pregnant female
donkey(s) and later finds it/them not pregnant, and
offspring were born, and no one saw the births).
3) TWO "BECHOROS" BORN AT THE SAME TIME
(b) (Mishnah): If a Mevakeres (an animal giving birth for the
first time) gave birth to two males, the owner gives a
Seh to a Kohen;
(c) If it gave birth to a male and female, he designates a
Seh (to redeem the male, in case it is a Bechor), he
keeps it (the Kohen cannot prove that it is a Bechor).
(d) If Reuven had two Mevakros, and they gave birth to two
males, he gives two Seiyin (plural of Seh) to a Kohen;
(e) If they gave birth to a male and female, or to two males
and a female, he gives one Seh (perhaps only one is a
Bechor; he must designate a second Seh, but he keeps it).
(f) If they gave birth to two females and one or two males,
he does not give anything to a Kohen (perhaps there is no
Bechor. Rashi requires designating two Seiyin, Tosfos
requires designating one, Rambam exempts from
(g) If only one mother was Mevakeres, and they gave birth to
two males, he gives a Seh to a Kohen;
1. If they gave birth to a male and female, he
designates a Seh and keeps it.
(h) "V'Chol Peter Chamor Tifdeh b'Seh" teaches that a Seh is
used to redeem.
(i) The Seh can be a sheep or goat, male or female, old or
young, Tamim or Ba'al Mum.
(j) One may redeem many times with one Seh (Tosfos - in
doubtful cases, when one need not give to a Kohen; Rashi
- if the Kohen sells or gives the Seh back to him).
(k) The Seh is put into the pen for the sake of taking
Ma'aser Behemah; if it dies, one may benefit from it.
(a) (Gemara) Version #1 - Question: Who is the Tana of the
(b) Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): It is unlike R. Yosi ha'Galili,
for he says Efshar Letzamtzem (it is possible for things
to happen simultaneously; he would require designating
(Tosfos; Rashi - giving) two Seiyin when two males are
born to one donkey, perhaps they were born at the same
(c) Answer #2 (Abaye): It is even like R. Yosi ha'Galili;
1. R. Yosi says that two Tahor Bechoros born at the
same time both become Kodesh - he learns from
"ha'Zecharim la'Sh-m" (but this does not apply to
(d) Version #2 - Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Yosi
ha'Galili, for he says Efshar Letzamtzem.
2. Question: We should learn from there to Pitrei
3. Answer: "*ha*'Zecharim" excludes other Bechoros.
(e) Rejection (Abaye): It is even like R. Yosi ha'Galili -
the case of Tahor Bechoros born at the same time is
different, because it says "ha'Zecharim la'Sh-m".
(f) Objection #1: According to R. Yirmeyah, the Mishnah [is
like Chachamim, it] does not say that they were born at
the same time, because this is impossible;
1. But according to Abaye, the Mishnah (is like R.
Yosi, it) should teach that even though they were
born at the same time, only one need be redeemed
(because "ha'Zecharim" does not apply to Pitrei
(g) Objection #2 (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): If a
Mevakeres donkey gave birth to two males, and their heads
came out at the same time, the owner gives two Seiyin to
a Kohen, for it says "ha'Zecharim la'Sh-m".
1. Question: The verse discusses Tahor animals!
(h) Abaye is refuted.
2. Correction: Rather, the Beraisa should say
"*Because* it says 'ha'Zecharim la'Sh-m'" (and we
learn to Pitrei Chamorim).
(i) Suggestion: Chachamim must hold that even part of the
[circumference of the] womb is Mekadesh [a Bechor];
4) A "PETER CHAMOR" BEFORE REDEMPTION
1. If all of the womb is needed to Mekadesh, even
though Chachamim say that I Efshar Letzamtzem, if
twins left almost at the same time, the second was a
Chatzizah (separation) between the Bechor and the
(j) Rejection (Rav): [Perhaps all of the womb is Mekadesh,
and] the second animal is the same species; Min b'Mino is
(a) (Mishnah): If it gave birth to a male and female, he
designates a Seh...
5) LEARNING FROM A VERSE
(b) Question: Since he keeps it, why must he designate it?
(c) Answer: This is to permit the Peter Chamor.
(d) Inference: Before designation, the Peter Chamor is Asur
(e) Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
(f) Answer: It is like R. Yehudah.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): It is forbidden to benefit
from a Peter Chamor (presumably, the correct text
attributes this to R. Yehudah - if not, we would
call this opinion "Chachamim");
(g) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
2. R. Shimon permits this.
(h) Answer #1 (Ula): We never find something that must be
redeemed, yet it is permitted (to benefit from it).
(i) Objection: Bechor Adam must be redeemed, it is permitted
to benefit from him!
(j) Correction: Rather, we never find something that must be
redeemed with [something specific, such as] a Seh, yet it
is permitted to benefit from it.
(k) Question: A Peter Chamor need not be redeemed with a Seh!
1. Rav Nechemyah brei d'Rav Yosef redeemed one for
cooked herbs of the same value.
(l) Answer: We do not discuss redeeming for the value
(surely, it is not more stringent than Hekdesh, which can
be redeemed for its value);
1. Rather, we never find something that can be [fully]
permitted [for less than its value] only with a Seh,
yet it is permitted to benefit from it.
(m) Question: Ma'aser Sheni can be [fully] permitted only
with Kesef Tzuri (minted coins), yet it is permitted to
benefit from it!
1. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If Reuven was Mekadesh Leah
with Ma'aser Sheni b'Mezid, she is Mekudeshes.
(n) Answer: Likewise, if he was Mekadesh her with a Peter
Chamor, she is Mekudeshes (even though it is Isurei
1. (R. Elazar): A woman knows that Ma'aser Sheni is not
Mischalel (become Chulin) through her acceptance,
she accepted the Ma'aser intending to eat it in
(o) Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
i. Here also, she knows that Peter Chamor is Asur
b'Hana'ah, she accepted it intending to redeem
it for a Seh, she is Mekudeshes with the value
of the donkey less the amount she must spend to
(p) Answer #1 (Ula): We never find something that is
forbidden, yet what was used to redeem is permitted.
(q) Question: Shemitah produce is forbidden [after the
Bi'ur], yet its "redemption" (food exchanged for it) is
(r) Answer: No, the "redemption" of Shemitah produce is
1. [If Reuven traded Shemitah produce for a food, both
of them now have Kedushas Shemitah; when Zeman Bi'ur
of the produce comes, Bi'ur applies to both of them.
If he traded that food for a second food, and the
second for a third...,] Kedushas Shemitah applies to
the last food bought and the original produce.
(a) Answer #2 (to Questions (g) and (o)): R. Yehudah and R.
Shimon argue about how to expound a verse:
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor
*Shorecha*" - but you may work with a Bechor you are
a partner in (with a Nochri);
(b) Objection #1: According to R. Shimon, we understand why
the entire verse is needed;
2. "v'Lo Sagoz Bechor *Tzonecha*" - but you may shear a
Bechor you are a partner in (with a Nochri);
3. R. Shimon says, "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor *Shorecha*" -
but you may work with Bechor Adam;
4. "v'Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzonecha" - but you may shear a
1. But according to R. Yehudah, we could have learned
both laws from one clause!
(c) Objection #2: According to R. Yehudah, we have no source
to permit working with Bechor Adam!
(d) Answer #3: Rather, all agree that "Shorecha" excludes
(i.e. permits working with) Bechor Adam; they argue about
1. R. Yehudah holds that partnership with a Nochri does
not exempt from Bechorah, "Tzonecha" teaches that
(even though he must give half its value to a Kohen,
the Bechor has no Kedushas ha'Guf), it is permitted
to work with it and shear it;
(e) (Had the Torah written "Shor" (as opposed to "Shorecha"),
we also would have excluded Bechor Adam.)
2. R. Shimon holds that partnership with a Nochri
exempts from Bechorah, "Tzonecha" need not teach
about this case;
i. Rather, it teaches about a Peter Chamor (as
(f) Question: We understand according to R. Yehudah - the
Torah needed to say "Tzon*echa*" to teach about
partnership with a Nochri - for parallel structure, it
also wrote "Shorecha";
1. But according to R. Shimon, it would have sufficed
to say "Tzon," there is no need to say "Shorecha"
(g) This is left difficult.
(h) (Rava): R. Shimon agrees that Peter Chamor is Asur
b'Hana'ah after Arifah. (We amend the text like Rashi,
for later Rava explains why he said this; Shitah
Mekubetzes attributes both teachings to Rabah, presumably
because Abaye challenges it - Abaye preceded Rava, his
opinion is normally brought first.)
(i) Question: What is his reason?
(j) Answer: He learns from a Gezerah Shavah "Arifah-Arifah"
from Eglah Arufah.