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 16
1) LAWS OF "PESULEI HA'MUKDASHIN"
(a) (Seifa): Its offspring may not be redeemed Tam, one may
not be Matpis them for any Korban.
2) "TZON BARZEL"
(b) Inferences: Its offspring may be redeemed with a Mum;
1. One may not be Matpis them for any Korban, but one
may be Matpis them for the same Korban.
(c) Suggestion: The case is, one may be Matpis them for the
same Korban, they are redeemed with a Mum.
(d) Question: This refutes Rav Huna!
(e) Answer (Rav Huna): No, its offspring may not be redeemed
even with a Mum;
1. The Seifa mentions Tam for parallel structure with
the Reisha (which permits Pidyon even for Tam).
(f) (Beraisa): One who slaughters it outside is exempt.
(Rashi explains that this is an explicit clause of the
Seifa, i.e. a Tam that was Hukdash and later developed a
2. Since the Reisha permits Hatpasah (Hekdesh) to any
Korban, the Seifa forbids Hatpasah to any Korban
(even for the same Korban).
(g) Rav Huna's text in the Beraisa reads "he is liable"; he
establishes the case to be Dukin in the eye (a film over
the eye, or a Mum in the eyelid);
1. The Beraisa is like R. Akiva, who says that if a
Korban with such a Mum was brought up the ramp, it
is offered (therefore, it is considered fitting for
the Mizbe'ach, so one is liable for Shechutei
(h) (Mishnah): Both before and after Pidyon it makes Temurah.
(i) (Rav Nachman): If Temurah was made after Pidyon, the
Temurah must die.
(j) Question: What is the reason?
(k) Answer: There is no solution:
1. It cannot be offered, for it comes from a Kedushah
(l) Question (Rav Amram): The owner should be allowed to eat
it after it gets a Mum, just like Temurah of Bechor or of
2. It cannot be redeemed, for its Kedushah is too weak
1. (Mishnah): Temuras Bechor or Ma'aser and all its
descendants for all generations are like Bechor and
Ma'aser, the owner eats it after it gets a Mum. (The
Kohen is considered the "owner" of a Bechor.)
(m) Answer (Abaye): In both cases, descendants are attributed
to their mother (or grandmother...):
1. Descendants of Temuras Bechor and Ma'aser are like
Bechor and Ma'aser, the owner eats it after it gets
(n) Support (for Rav Nachman - Beraisa #1): Question: What is
the source that Temurah of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin must die?
2. A descendant of Temuros of other Kodshim is like the
original Kodshim, it may not be eaten until it is
i. A Temurah made after Pidyon cannot be redeemed.
1. Answer: "Mi'Ma'alei ha'Gera...Tamei [Hu Lachem]"
(this teaches that there are animals with Simanei
Kashrus that are forbidden, i.e. Temuras Pesulei
2. Question: This is needed to forbid the five Chata'os
that must die (because they cannot be offered, e.g.
if the owner died, Temuras Chatas, etc.).
3. Answer #1: We learn those from "umi'Mafrisei
4. Support (Beraisa #2): Question: What is the source
that the five Chata'os must die?
i. Answer: "umi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah...Tamei."
5. Question: A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches
that the five Chata'os must die! (This is a second
answer to Question #2; it is a challenge to Answer
#1 and Beraisa #2.)
6. Correction: Rather, "umi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah..."
teaches about Temuras Asham (it is Ro'eh until it
becomes "Tamei," i.e. gets a Mum - Rashi;
alternatively, that it must die - Shitah
7. Question: A tradition from Sinai teaches that
whenever a Chatas must die (one such case is Temuras
Chatas), the corresponding case of Asham is Ro'eh!
(R. Tam - mid'Oraisa, it becomes an Olah;
mid'Rabanan, it is Ro'eh.)
8. Defense #1 of Beraisa #2: Really, "umi'Mafrisei..."
teaches that the five Chata'os must die; both the
verse and the tradition are needed:
i. If we only had the verse, we would have thought
that it is Ro'eh (i.e. the verse forbids eating
it without Pidyon) - the tradition teaches that
it must die;
9. Defense #2 of Beraisa #2: "umi'Mafrisei..." refers
to the five Chata'os; it equates what is learned
from "mi'Ma'alei ha'Gera" (Temuras Pesulei
ha'Mukdashin) to Mafrisei ha'Parsah (the end of the
verse, which alludes to the five Chata'os), also it
ii. If we only had the tradition, we would have
thought that one who ate it transgressed, but
not a Lav - the verse teaches that he
transgressed a Lav.
(a) (If Reuven gives animals to Shimon to be "Tzon Barzel,"
we assess their value; Shimon has a set time to pay, and
until then Reuven gets half of the offspring. We will
call the animals given "mothers.")
(b) (Mishnah): If Shimon received Tzon Barzel from a Nochri,
the Vlados (offspring) of the mothers are exempt from
Bechorah, Vladei Vladoseihen are liable.
(c) Version #1 (Rashi): If Shimon gave the Nochri the right
to collect from the Vlados in case the mothers will die,
Vladei Vlados are exempt, Vladei Vladei Vladoseihen are
(d) Version #2 (Tosfos): If the mothers died and the children
where designated to be in place of them, Vladei Vlados
are exempt, Vladei Vladei Vladoseihen are liable. (End of
(e) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, even 10 generations are
exempt, for the Nochri has Acharayos (he may collect from
(f) If a sheep gave birth to a goat, or vice-versa, it is [a
Nidmeh and is] exempt from Bechorah;
1. If the child resembles its mother in some ways, it
has Kedushas Bechor;
(g) (Gemara) Inference: Because the owner did not receive
money for the animals, it is as if they still belong to
the original owner (the Nochri, therefore they are
(h) Contradiction (Mishnah): Reuven may not receive Tzon
Barzel from Shimon, for it is Ribis. (Shimon, the
original owner, receives half of the offspring because he
lent animals. Rashi - this is Ribis mid'Rabanan; Tosfos -
it is mid'Oraisa.)
1. [This would not be Ribis if the animals still
belonged to Shimon; rather,] we must say that the
animals are considered to belong to the receiver!
(i) Answer #1 (Abaye): Here, the investor accepted [any
losses due to] Ones or Zol (a drop in price), they are
considered his; in our Mishnah he did not, they belong to
(j) Objection #1 (Rava): If he accepted Ones or Zol, this is
not called Tzon Barzel (the name means, the investment is
solid like iron, it is guaranteed not to decrease)!
(k) Objection #2 (Rava): Both Mishnayos simply say Tzon
Barzel - we cannot say that each refers to a different
(l) Objection #3 (Rava): The Seifa of that Mishnah permits
receiving Tzon Barzel from a Nochri;
1. If when Shimon accepts Ones or Zol, they are
considered his, it would not be Ribis - the Mishnah
should make this distinction, to show that sometimes
it is permitted to accept from a Yisrael, rather
than distinguishing between Yisraelim and Nochrim!
(m) Answer #2 (Rava): In both Mishnayos, the investor did not
accept Ones or Zol;
1. (In our Mishnah), they are exempt from Bechorah
because if the Nochri demands his money and the
Yisrael does not give, the Nochri will take the
animals; if he needs, he will take the children.
(n) (Mishnah): If he designated Vlados in place of their
mother, Vladei Vlados are exempt.
2. In any case when a Nochri has a stake to collect
from animals, they are exempt from Bechorah.
(o) (Rav Huna): [In the Reisha, without designation] Vlados
(of the mothers) are exempt from Bechorah (a firstborn
male is not Kadosh, nor the firstborn of a female Vlad),
but a firstborn of Vladei Vlados gets Kedushas Bechor.
(p) (Rav Yehudah): Vladei Vlados are exempt, but a firstborn
of Vladei Vladei Vlados is Kodesh.
(q) Question (against Rav Yehudah - Mishnah): If he
designated Vlados in place of their mother, Vladei Vlados
1. Inference: Had he not designated them, Vladei Vlados
would be liable!
(r) Answer: No, even had he not designated them, Vladei
Vlados would be exempt;
1. The Mishnah teaches that designation does not change
anything - with or without designation, the Nochri
normally collects from the grandchildren if he has
to, so Vladei Vlados are exempt, Vladei Vladei
Vlados are liable.