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 10
BECHOROS 7-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) RAVA'S SOURCE
(a) Rava: I learn from a Beraisa:
1. (Beraisa): The following receive Tum'as Ochlim, even
though they are Isurei Hana'ah:
(b) Rejection: If one intended to eat it, indeed R. Shimon
i. Orlah, Kilai ha'Kerem, Shor ha'Niskal (an ox
sentenced to be stoned), Eglah Arufah, Tziporei
Metzora (he brings birds to permit him to enter
the city), Peter Chamor, Basar v'Chalav.
2. R. Shimon says, they do not receive Tum'as Ochlim,
except for Basar v'Chalav, for it had Sha'as
ha'Kosher (it was once permitted to Yisrael, the
moment they were mixed together, before they were
3. (Rav Asi): R. Shimon learns from "mi'Kol ha'Ochel
Asher Ye'achel" - something is considered food
(regarding Tum'as Ochlim) if and only if it is
permitted to feed it to others (Nochrim - i.e., one
may benefit from it, even if a Yisrael may not eat
4. Question: Why does R. Shimon Metamei Basar v'Chalav
on account of She'as ha'Kosher - it suffices that
one may feed it to others!
i. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Yehudah citing R.
Shimon): It is forbidden to eat Basar v'Chalav,
it is permitted to benefit from it - it says
"Ki Am Kodesh Atah [...Lo Sevashel Gedi
ba'Chalev Imo]," similar to "v'Anshei Kodesh
Tiheyun Li [u'Vasar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo
5. Answer: R. Shimon gives a second reason to Metamei
ii. Just like one may benefit from a Tereifah but
not eat it, the same applies to Basar v'Chalav.
i. Firstly, it is Tamei because [he permits it],
one may feed it to others; secondly, it was
once permitted to Yisrael.
6. Summation of Rava's source: If R. Shimon permits
benefit from Peter Chamor after Arifah, he should
agree that it is Mekabel Tum'as Ochlim!
1. R. Shimon is Metaher when there was no intent to eat
(c) Question: If there was no intent, why are Chachamim
(d) Answer #1 (Rabanan): Isuro Chishuvo (the Torah forbids
it, this shows that it is considered food)!
(e) Question (Rav Sheshes): Do Chachamim really say Isuro
1. (Mishnah): There are 13 laws of Nivlas Of Tahor (the
Neveilah of a Tahor bird); one is, it requires
intent (to eat it in order to receive Tum'as Ochlim,
for normally people do not eat it);
(f) Answer: That Mishnah is like R. Shimon (he does not say
i. [Because it has a severe Tum'ah, to Metamei one
who eats it,] it does not require Hechsher for
Tum'as Ochlim (it is Mekabel Tum'ah even if no
liquid was put on it; some explain, it has
Tum'as Ochlim even without touching Tum'ah).
2. If Isuro Chishuvo, it should receive Tum'as Ochlim
(g) Question (Mishnah): The following require intent, they do
not require Hechsher:
1. The Neveilah of a Tamei [species of] animal, in any
(h) Answer: That is also like R. Shimon.
2. Nivlas Of Tahor and Chelev in villages.
3. If Isuro Chishuvo, they should not require intent!
(i) Question (Mishnah): The following do not require intent
(because some people eat them) nor Hechsher:
1. The Neveilah of a Tahor animal, in any place;
(j) Answer #2 (to Question (c) - Rava): No one says Isuro
2. Nivlas Of Tahor and Chelev in markets.
3. Inference: Neveilah of a Tamei animal requires
4. Suggestion: Perhaps this is also like R. Shimon.
5. Rejection: Since the Seifa is like R. Shimon, the
Reisha is not R. Shimon!
i. (Seifa - R. Shimon): Also a camel, hare and
hyrax and pig do not need intent nor Hechsher.
ii. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): This is because each has
one Siman of Kashrus.
1. If Arifah was done, all agree that it is Tahor;
2) RAV NACHMAN'S TEACHING
2. They argue about slaughter for the sake of
practicing, like Nimus and R. Eliezer.
(k) Question (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If he did not want to
give a Seh to a Kohen, he breaks its neck from the back
with a Kopitz (chopping knife) and buries it, it is Asur
3. (Beraisa - Nimus): If one slaughtered a raven to
practice, its blood is Machshir;
4. R. Eliezer says, blood of slaughter is always
5. Question: This is like Nimus!
6. Answer #1: They argue whether or not Isuro Chishuvo:
i. Nimus says that its blood is Machshir other
food, but the raven itself is not Huchshar
without intent; R. Eliezer says that blood of
slaughter is always Machshir, even the raven is
Huchshar without intent.
7. Rejection: Perhaps R. Eliezer is Machshir because a
raven has [two] Simanei Taharah! (There are four
Simanim of Tamei birds, i.e. similarities to a
Nesher; every other Tamei species has at most three
Simanei Tum'ah, and at least one Siman Taharah.)
8. Question: What is the source that Simanei Taharah
9. Answer: (Beraisa - R. Shimon): [The camel... do not
need intent nor Hechsher;] this is because each has
one Siman of Kashrus.
10. Question: If R. Eliezer is Machshir on account of
Simanei Taharah, why does the Beraisa discuss
slaughter for practice? He should be Machshir even
Mis'asek (if he was not intending to slaughter and
11. Answer: Indeed, he is Machshir even Mis'asek - the
Beraisa discusses slaughter for practice to teach
the extremity of R. Nimus, even though he intended
to slaughter it is not Machshir the bird.
1. R. Shimon permits benefit from it.
(l) Answer: It means, R. Yehudah forbids benefit mi'Chayim
(while it is alive), R. Shimon permits.
(m) Question: Since the Seifa discusses mi'Chayim, the Reisha
does not discuss mi'Chayim!
1. (Seifa - R. Yehudah): He may not kill it with a
reed, scythe, axe, or saw, he may not lock it in a
room to die; it is forbidden to shear it or work
(n) Answer: The entire Beraisa discusses benefit mi'Chayim -
the Reisha discusses benefit from its value (e.g. to rent
it), the Seifa discusses benefit from it itself;
2. R. Shimon permits.
(o) It must teach both cases:
1. Had it taught only benefit from its value, one might
have thought that R. Shimon permits this, but
forbids benefit from it itself;
2. Had it taught only benefit from it itself, one might
have thought that R. Yehudah forbids this, but
permits benefit from its value.
(a) Version #1: Rav Nachman also taught that R. Shimon agrees
that Peter Chamor is Asur b'Hana'ah after Arifah.
(b) Support (Rav Nachman for himself - Beraisa): "va'Arafto"
- it also says Arifah regarding Eglah Arufah;
1. Just like there it is Asur b'Hana'ah (after Arifah),
(c) Rejection (Rav Safra): Really, it is R. Yehudah;
2. Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
i. It cannot be R. Yehudah, he forbids benefit
3. Answer: It is R. Shimon.
1. One might have thought that Arifah is in place of
redemption - just like it is permitted after
redemption, also after Arifah - the Beraisa teaches,
this is not so.
(d) Support (Rav Nachman for himself - Levi - Beraisa):
Because the Yisrael deprived the Kohen (he refused to
give a Seh), the Torah deprives him of his money
(commands him to kill the Peter Chamor).
1. Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
(e) Rejection: The Beraisa can be like either Tana, in any
case it does not support Rav Nachman:
i. It cannot be R. Yehudah, he forbids benefit
even mi'Chayim (Arifah does not deprive him, he
was already deprived)!
2. Answer: It is R. Shimon.
1. It can be like R. Yehudah - [he could have redeemed
the Peter Chamor for a Seh worth less than it, so]
Arifah deprives him of the difference;
(f) (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon agrees that Peter Chamor is
Asur b'Hana'ah after Arifah;
2. It can be like R. Shimon, and yet it is permitted to
benefit from it after Arifah - Arifah deprives him
of the difference in value [of a live donkey from a
(g) (R. Yochanan): He argues [and permits] also after Arifah.
(h) Version #2A - (Mishnah): If Reuven was Mekadesh Leah with
a Peter Chamor, she is not Mekudeshes.
(i) Suggestion: This is like R. Yehudah - according to R.
Shimon, one may benefit from a Peter Chamor, she would be
(j) Rejection (Rav Nachman): The Chamor was given after
Arifah, it is even like R. Shimon.
(k) Version #2B - Question: The Mishnah is not like R.
Yehudah, nor like R. Shimon!
1. It is not like R. Shimon - one may benefit from a
Peter Chamor, she would be Mekudeshes!
(l) Answer (Rabah bar Avuha): It is like R. Yehudah; the case
is, the Peter Chamor is worth only one Shekel, [hence it
has no net value, for] R. Yehudah holds like his son.
2. It is not like R. Yehudah - she would be Mekudeshes
with the net value she received, i.e. the value of
the donkey less the cost [of a Seh] to redeem it!
1. (Beraisa): It says "Tifdeh" twice - this teaches
that a Peter Chamor may be redeemed immediately, it
may be redeemed for any amount;
(m) Question: The first Tana learns that it may be redeemed
immediately and for any amount because it says "Tifdeh"
twice - this is obvious (why is a verse needed?)!
2. R. Yosi bar Yehudah says, the redemption must be at
least one Shekel.
(n) Answer: Peter Chamor is equated to Bechor Adam;
1. One might have thought, just like Bechor Adam cannot
be redeemed until 30 days, and it must be redeemed
for five Shekalim, the same applies to Peter Chamor
- "Tifdeh" and "Tifdeh" teach that this is not so.
(o) (Beraisa - R. Yosi bar Yehudah): The redemption must be
at least one Shekel.
(p) Question: In any case, this is difficult!
1. If R. Yosi equates Peter Chamor to Bechor Adam, he
should require five Shekalim;
(q) Answer (Rava): Really, he does not equate them;
2. If he does not equate them, why does he require a
1. "v'Chol Erkecha Yiheyeh b'Shekel ha'Kodesh" - every
Erech (for our purposes, redemption) must be at
least one Shekel.
2. Chachamim disagree - they say that the verse teaches
about Heseg Yad (if a poor person pledged to give an
Erech and cannot afford it, he pays what he can
afford, but it must be at least one Shekel).