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 26
BECHOROS 26 - dedicated anonymously by a student of Rabbi Kornfeld's in
1) WOOL OF A "BECHOR"
(a) Question (against Reish Lakish - Beraisa): If one
detached wool of a Tam (unblemished Bechor), even if it
later developed a Mum and was slaughtered, the wool is
1. Inference: Wool detached from a Ba'al Mum is
permitted, even if it was not shown to an expert!
(b) Answer: No, the Tana uses "Tam" to refer to any animal
not permitted by an expert, even if it has a Mum.
(c) Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Reish Lakish's law:
1. (Beraisa): If one detached wool of a Tam (Rashi - or
it became detached), even if the animal later
developed a Mum and was slaughtered, the wool is
(d) Rejection (Rava): No, all agree that an expert must
permit the animal first; there is a three-way argument:
2. Akavya ben Mahalal'el says, if wool was detached
from a Bechor Ba'al Mum and it died (without
slaughter), the wool is permitted;
3. Chachamim forbid it.
4. R. Yehudah: Akavya does not permit in this case!
i. Rather, if wool fell off a Bechor Ba'al Mum and
was put in the window, and the animal was
slaughtered, Akavya permits and Chachamim
5. R. Yosi: My father Chalifta was one of the Chachamim
that argued with Akavya, he agreed that it is
permitted after slaughter;
i. Chachamim said that the wool should be put in
the window, for it might become permitted - if
the animal will be slaughtered, all permit it;
6. Question: R. Yosi is just like the first Tana!
ii. If it dies, Akavya permits, Chachamim forbid.
i. Suggestion: They argue whether or not an expert
must permit the animal first - the first Tana
permits the wool only if it came off after an
expert saw the Mum, R. Yosi [said that in any
case it might become permitted, he] does not
distinguish whether or not an expert saw the
1. The first Tana [explicitly] says that they argue
when it died - he holds that they also argue about
when it was slaughtered;
(e) (Rav Nachman): The Halachah (i.e. the proper
understanding of the argument of Chachamim and Akavya)
follows R. Yehudah, because the Mishnah in Eduyos is like
him. (The Halachah follows every Mishnah in Eduyos.)
2. R. Yehudah says that they argue when it was
slaughtered, but all forbid when it died;
3. R. Yosi says that they argue when it died, but all
permit when it was slaughtered.
1. (Mishnah): If hair of a Bechor Ba'al Mum fell out
and was put in the window, and then it was
slaughtered, Akavya ben Mahalal'el permits the hair;
(f) Support (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The Seifa of our
Mishnah also shows that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah!
2. Chachamim forbid it.
1. (Seifa): If dangling wool of a Bechor is Nir'eh with
the attached wool, it is permitted; if it sticks
out, it is forbidden.
(g) Question (R. Zeira): If one was Tolesh (detached) wool
from a Tam Olah, what is the law (after it is
2. Question: Like which Tana is this?
3. Answer #1: It is like R. Yosi.
4. Question: What is the case?
i. It was not slaughtered, for then Akavya and
Chachamim both permit the hair!
5. Answer: It died.
i. This is unlike Chachamim, for they forbid the
hair whether or not it is dangling!
6. (Answer #1 is rejected.)
ii. This is unlike Akavya, for he would sooner
forbid what is Nir'eh with the attached hair
(along with the attached hair, which becomes
forbidden at death) than the hair which stands
7. Answer #2: It is like R. Yehudah.
8. Question: What is the case?
i. It did not die, for then Akavya and Chachamim
both forbid the hair!
9. Answer: It was slaughtered.
i. This is unlike Akavya, for he permits the hair
whether or not it is dangling!
10. Conclusion: They argue about when it was slaughtered
(like R. Yehudah).
ii. It is like Chachamim.
(h) Objection: [This is forbidden,] surely, he may not
benefit from the wool (Rashi - according to Chachamim)!
(i) Correction: Rather, if wool was Nitlash (became detached)
from a Tam Olah, what is the law?
1. We do not ask about Chatas and Asham - since they
are brought for atonement, surely one would not
delay bringing them (there is no need to decree to
forbid the wool)!
2. We do not ask about Bechor and Ma'aser - since they
are not brought for atonement, surely [we forbid the
wool] lest one delay bringing them!
3. The question is only about Olah:
2) DANGLING WOOL
(j) Answer (Beraisa): If one was Tolesh wool of a Tam, even
if it later developed a Mum and was slaughtered, the wool
i. Since it is not primarily for atonement, we are
concerned lest one delay bringing them, the
wool is forbidden;
ii. Or, since it does atone for [Bitul of a]
Mitzvas Aseh (or Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh), one
would not delay them, the wool is permitted!
(k) Inference: It is forbidden because he was Tolesh - but
Nitlash would be permitted;
1. All the more so, if wool of an Olah (which people
are less prone to delay bringing) was Nitlash, it is
(l) Rejection: No, even Nitlash is forbidden;
1. The Beraisa discusses Tolesh to teach the extremity
of Akavya, he permits even when one was Tolesh a
(m) Question: In our Mishnah he permits only Nashar (what
fell out by itself)!
(n) Answer: Our Tana discusses Nashar to teach the extremity
of Chachamim (they forbid even this), the Tana of the
Beraisa discusses Tolesh to teach the extremity of
(a) (Mishnah): Dangling wool...
***** PEREK AD KAMAH ****
(b) Question: What is considered not Nir'eh with the attached
(c) Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): The roots face (outwards,)
where the ends of the hairs should be (Rashi - the ends
also face out; Rambam - and the ends face the skin, where
the roots should be);
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Nasan bar Oshiya): It protrudes from the
(e) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish say like Rav Nasan?
(f) Answer (R. Elazar): Reish Lakish holds that since
shearings always have strands sticking out, if they are
forbidden, no shearings will ever be permitted!
3) "BECHOR" IS NOT GIVEN IMMEDIATELY
(a) (Mishnah) Question: How long must a Yisrael take care of
a Bechor before giving it to a Kohen?
4) "KOHANIM" HELPING IN THE GRANARY
(b) Answer #1: He must take care of a Seh for 30 days, and a
calf for 50 days.
(c) Answer #2 (R. Yosi): He must take care of a Seh for three
(d) If a Kohen asked for the Bechor within this time, he (the
Yisrael) may not give it (until the proper time);
1. If it had a Mum and a Kohen asked for it to eat it,
he may give it (immediately).
(e) A Bechor should be eaten within its [first] year, whether
it is Tam or a Ba'al Mum - "Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha
Sochalenu Shanah v'Shanah."
2. When the Mikdash stands, if a Kohen asks for the
Bechor in order to offer it, he may give it.
(f) If it developed a Mum within its year, he may keep it all
(g) After its year, he may keep it for only 30 days.
(h) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
(i) Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): "Bechor Banecha Titen Li; Ken
Ta'aseh... l'Tzonecha" (Pidyon ha'Ben is after 30 days,
also giving Bechor Seh to a Kohen); "Mele'ascha
v'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher... Ken Ta'aseh l'Shorcha" (a
Bechor calf is given after 50 days, just like Bikurim may
be brought (on Shavu'os) 50 days after they ripen -
Rashi; Tosfos Yom Tov - it takes 50 days for Bikurim to
(j) Question: Perhaps we should learn oppositely (a calf from
Pidyon ha'Ben, a Seh from Bikurim)!
(k) Answer: Bikurim is written before Pidyon ha'Ben, so we
learn from it a calf, which is written before Seh.
(l) Objection: Just the contrary, we should learn a calf from
Pidyon ha'Ben, for they are adjacent!
(m) Answer #2 (Rava): "Ken *Ta'aseh* l'Shorcha" - this is
extra; it alludes to extra time before giving a calf.
(n) Question: We should say that it is kept an extra 30 days!
(o) Answer: The Torah authorized Chachamim to teach the
amount. (Shitah Mekubetzes - a calf needs its mother for
(p) Support (Beraisa): "Bechor Banecha Titen Li; Ken
1. Suggestion: Perhaps the same applies to "Shorcha"!
2. Rejection: "Ta'aseh" teaches that extra time is
given for a calf; the Torah authorized Chachamim to
teach the amount.
3. Question: How long must a Yisrael take care of a
Bechor before giving it to a Kohen?
4. Answer #1: He must take care of a Seh for 30 days,
and a calf for 50 days.
5. Answer #2 (R. Yosi): He must take care of a Seh for
three months - it needs more time because its teeth
are fine. (Since it cannot eat grass, it must nurse.
Even if the Kohen has a nursing mother Seh, perhaps
it will not want to nurse other kids.)
(a) (Mishnah): If a Kohen asked for the Bechor within this
time, the Yisrael may not give it.
(b) Question: What is the reason?
(c) Answer (Rav Sheshes): [The Yisrael is obligated to care
for it - by taking it early, the Kohen exempts the
Yisrael of this burden, and] it looks like a Kohen
helping in the granary (in order to receive Terumah).
(d) (Beraisa): If Kohanim, Leviyim or poor people help in the
pen, granary or slaughterhouse [in order to receive
Matanos], we do not give to them Terumah or Ma'aser
(Rishon or Ani), nor Bechoros, Zero'a, Lechayim and
1. If one gave to them, he profaned the gifts - it says
"Shichatem Bris ha'Levi," and "v'Es Kodshei Venei
Yisrael Lo Sechalelu v'Lo Samusu."
(e) Chachamim wanted to fine a Yisrael who did so, and
require him to give [the full amount of produce l'Shem]
Terumah (to another Kohen).
2. Question: Why is the second verse needed?
3. Answer: Without it, we would not know that he is
(Tosfos - almost) Chayav Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim)
(f) Question: Why was no such fine made?
(g) Answer: If a Yisrael heard that he must gave more
Terumah, he might think that the first Terumah was
invalid (and that his produce is Tevel);
1. Perhaps he will designate it to be Terumah to exempt
other Tevel (and it is really Chulin, it cannot