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 23
1) CAN "TUM'AH" BE REVIVED AFTER "BITUL"? (Cont.)
(a) Rejection (Abaye): Granted, Tum'ah revives Tum'ah, but
Taharah (water added to brine) does not revive Tum'ah!
(b) Question (Abaye - Mishnah): If Kosher Efer (ashes) of the
Parah Adumah was mixed with [regular] ashes, we follow
1. If the majority is Efer Parah, it is Metamei one who
[needlessly] touches or moves it (Rashi; Rambam -
water Mekudash with the mixture); if the majority is
[regular] ashes, it is not Metamei.
(c) Answer (Rav Dimi): Indeed, R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina taught
that it is not Metamei b'Maga, but it is Metamei b'Masa!
2. Summation of question: If we say that Tum'ah remains
(even when it is the minority, and can be revived
again), granted, it is not Metamei b'Maga (we
consider that he touched ashes, for they are the
majority), but it should be Metamei b'Masa (for he
(d) Question (Abaye): But Rav Chisda taught that a Neveilah
is Batul in slaughtered meat, for it cannot become like
slaughtered meat. (This is according to our text. Rashi -
this is incorrect, a Neveilah becomes Tahor when it
putrefies! Rather, the text says "for slaughtered meat
cannot become like a Neveilah");
1. Granted, it is not Metamei b'Maga, but it should be
(e) Answer (Rav Dimi): We learned [a different version of]
this law in the name of R. Chiya (and R. Yosi b'Rebbi
Chanina answered your question):
1. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): Neveilos and slaughtered meat
can be Mevatel each other.
(f) Question (Abaye - Mishnah - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): If a
clump of blood came out of a large animal's womb, it must
be buried; the animal is exempt from Bechorah;
2. (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): When Neveilah is Batul,
it is not Metamei b'Maga, but it is Metamei b'Masa.
1. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): The clump does not have Tum'as
Maga or Masa.
(g) Rav Dimi could not answer.
2. Granted, it is not Metamei b'Maga, but it should be
(h) Answer: Perhaps this is different, for the Tum'ah
spoiled. (Shitah Mekubetzes - Abaye suggested this
answer; R. Gershom - the Gemara suggested it.)
(i) Question: This answer is like Bar Pada, who says that
Neveilah has severe Tum'ah (Tosfos - Av ha'Tum'ah; Rashi
- Tum'as Masa) only if a Ger [Toshav] would eat it, it
has light Tum'ah (Tosfos - Tum'as Ochlim; Rashi - Tum'as
Maga) as long as a dog would eat it;
1. The clump is not Metamei because a Ger would not eat
2. How can we answer for R. Yochanan, who holds that it
retains severe Tum'ah as long as it is fit for a
dog? A dog would eat it!
(j) This is left difficult.
2) NURSING IS A PROOF OF MOTHERHOOD
(k) (Bar Pada): Neveilah has severe Tum'ah if a Ger would eat
it, it has light Tum'ah as long as a dog would eat it;
(l) (R. Yochanan): It retains severe Tum'ah as long as it is
fit for a dog.
(m) Question: What is Bar Pada's reason?
(n) Answer (Beraisa): "Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah la'Ger
[...Titnenah va'Achalah]" - it is only called [and
forbidden as] Neveilah if a Ger [Toshav] would eat it.
1. R. Yochanan does not learn from here - he says that
this only excludes a Neveilah which was spoiled from
the beginning (before the animal died).
(o) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): If a cake of blood came
out of a large animal's womb, it must be buried; the
animal is exempt from Bechorah;
2. Bar Pada does not need a verse to exclude that case,
it is like dirt.
1. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): The cake does not have Tum'as
Maga or Masa.
(p) Question: Why does R. Yochanan require a majority - the
cake was never fit to eat!
2. (R. Yochanan): The fetus is Batul in a majority of
(q) Answer: It was fit to eat before it came out (it could
have been eaten with the mother).
(r) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): If any amount of water
falls into Tahor brine (it was bought from an Am
ha'Aretz, and Hashakah was done), it becomes Tamei.
(s) Inference (Rav Nachman): This shows that we suspect an Am
ha'Aretz of selling brine that is half [added] water (so
with the addition, the majority is water).
(t) Question: It only shows that he might sell brine that is
almost half water! (Even if with the addition half is
water, it is Tamei!)
(u) Answer #1: Indeed, this is what Rav Nachman means.
(v) Answer #2: Tum'as Am ha'Aretz is mid'Rabanan, and Tum'ah
of liquids is mid'Rabanan - therefore, Chachamim are
stringent if the majority is water, not if only half is
(a) (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If one buys a nursing
animal from a Nochri, we are not concerned that the
[suckling] calf was born to a different animal (and the
nursing animal has not yet given birth.)
(b) If one sees nursing mothers in his herd, some were
Mevakros (this was their first birth), others had
previous children, [the calves nursing from the Mevakros
are the Bechoros, and] he need not be concerned that a
mother is nursing a different animal's child.
(c) (Gemara - Rav): The Halachah follows the Mishnah
everywhere in our Perek where there is no argument.
(d) Question (Rav Sheshes): This is a poor teaching - which
Mishnah does it teach about?
1. It does not teach about the first Mishnah, R.
Yishmael and R. Akiva argue;
(e) Answer #1: It teaches that the Halachah follows R. Shimon
in our Mishnah.
2. It does not teach about the second Mishnah -
[everyone already knows that] R. Eliezer ben Yakov
taught a small number of laws, the Halachah always
follows him! (Some say that the Halachah follows him
in 102 places (the Gematri'a of "Kav" -- Chavos
(f) Rejection: There is an argument about his law, in a
(g) Answer #2: It teaches that the Halachah follows R. Yosi
ben ha'Meshulam (24b).
(h) Objection: Rav explicitly taught this!
(i) Answer #3: It teaches about hair of a Ba'al Mum (25a).
(j) Rejection: Akavya ben Mahalal'el and Chachamim argue
(k) Defense of Answer #1: Really, it teaches that the
Halachah follows R. Shimon; an argument in a Beraisa is
not considered an argument. (Rashi - this is a general
rule (presumably, because the Halachah follows the
Mishnah); Sefas Emes - Rav discounts only the argument in
this Beraisa, for it is erroneous.)