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 28
1) "BECHOR" IS EATEN FOR TWO DAYS AND A NIGHT
(a) Question: What is Rav's source that Bechor is eaten for
two days and a night?
2) HOW LONG MAY ONE KEEP A "BECHOR"?
(b) Answer: "u'Vesaram Yiheyeh Lach ka'Chazeh ha'Tenufah
uch'Shok ha'Yamin" - Bechor is equated to Chazeh v'Shok
(of Shelamim), which are eaten for two days and a night.
(c) Bei Rav do not learn from here - perhaps it is equated to
Chazeh v'Shok of Todah, which is eaten for one day and a
(d) Rav admits that the Hekesh only teaches one day and a
night - the verse ends "Lecha Yiheyeh" to add more time
(the second day) to eat.
(e) Bei Rav disagree - perhaps "Lecha Yiheyeh" teaches that a
Bechor Ba'al Mum is given to a Kohen, for we never find
that Kohanim receive a disqualified Korban (Tosfos; Rashi
- we have no other source for this).
(f) Rav says, we already know this from "u'Vesaram" (plural),
both Tam and Ba'al Mum.
(g) Bei Rav says, we cannot learn from this - perhaps it
refers to Bechoros of all Yisraelim.
(a) (Mishnah): If it developed a Mum within its year, he may
keep it (alive) for 12 months; (after its year, he may
keep it for only 30 days).
3) AN EXPERT MUST PERMIT A "BECHOR"
(b) Question: How do we understand this?
1. Is it all one clause - if the Mum came within its
year, he may keep it for 12 months and 30 days (from
(c) Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #1 (Beraisa): Nowadays (after
the Churban), before one has the opportunity to show a
Bechor to a Chacham (because it is still Tam), one may
keep it for two or three years (he need not lock it up to
2. Or, is it two clauses - if the Mum came within its
year, he may keep it until 12 months (Rashi - from
its birth; Shitah - from when the Mum came); if the
Mum came after its year, he may keep it for 30 days?
(d) Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1 (Beraisa): Nowadays, before
one has the opportunity to show a Bechor to a Chacham
(because a Chacham is not here), one may keep it for two
or three years (he need not go to where there is a
1. After one (Rashi - a Yisrael; Tosfos - a Kohen) has
the opportunity to show it to a Chacham:
(e) Rejection: Also the Beraisa can be understood either way!
i. If the Mum came within its year, he may keep it
until 12 months; after its year, he should be
required to slaughter it immediately;
ii. However, to avoid a loss (Rashi - perhaps the
meat will spoil before a Kohen comes to take
it; Tosfos - if the Kohen can make better use
of the meat later), he may keep it for 30 days.
iii. (Rashi - we assume that it is all one clause;
Rashash - we assume that it is not one clause,
for a Heter to keep it for 12 months suffices
to avoid loss)!
1. (Perhaps it is two clauses - if the Mum came within
its year, he may keep it until 12 months; if the Mum
came after its year, he may keep it for 30 days (to
avoid a loss);
(f) Answer #2 (Beraisa): If a Mum came 15 days before the end
of its year, he may keep it until 15 days after the year,
to complete 30 days.
2. Or, [it is all one clause;] the Mum came within its
year - he may keep it 30 extra days after 12 months.
1. This shows that the Mishnah is two clauses, 30 days
are allowed for a Mum that comes after the year.
(g) Version #1: This supports R. Elazar.
1. (R. Elazar): If a Mum comes after the year, 30 days
are allowed (before slaughtering it).
(h) Version #2 - Question (R. Elazar): What is the source
that if a Mum came within its year, he may keep it for 30
days after the year?
1. Answer - Question: "Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Sochalenu
Shanah *v'Shanah*" - which part of a year is
considered like a year?
(i) Question (Beraisa): If a Mum came 15 days before the end
of its year, he may keep it until 15 days after the year,
to complete 30 days.
2. Answer: Thirty days are like a year (to be
considered a second year animal).
1. The completion of 30 days for a Mum which came
within the year are allowed, 30 full days for a Mum
after the year are not allowed.
(j) R. Elazar is refuted.
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one slaughtered a Bechor and
afterwards shows the Mum to an expert, it is permitted;
(b) R. Meir forbids, because it was not slaughtered according
to an expert.
(c) If an amateur permitted a Bechor (i.e. said that it has a
Mum Kavu'a) and it was slaughtered according to his
ruling, it must be buried, and the amateur must pay.
(d) (Gemara - Rabah bar bar Chanah): All agree that if the
Mum was Dakin (a film in the eye), it is forbidden, for
it can change (perhaps it was not Kavu'a before
slaughter, the pain of death caused it to look Kavu'a),
1. They argue about Mumim elsewhere on the body - R.
Meir decrees on account of Dakin, R. Yehudah does
(e) Support (Beraisa): If one slaughtered a Bechor and
afterwards shows the Mum to an expert:
1. R. Yehudah says, if the Mum was Dakin, it is
forbidden, for it can change; if the Mum was
elsewhere on the body, it is permitted, for it does
(f) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: Our Mishnah also supports
2. R. Meir says, in both cases it is forbidden, for it
3. Objection: Surely, Mumim elsewhere do not change!
4. Correction: Rather, it is forbidden on account of
those Mumim that change.
4) PAYING FOR MISTAKEN JUDGMENT
1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): It is forbidden, because it was
not slaughtered according to an expert.
(g) Question: R. Meir forbids on account of those Mumim (e.g.
Dakin) that change;
2. This shows that R. Meir's law is a fine. (Ramban -
really, it is just a decree, since it applies even
if the owner is blameless, e.g. someone else
1. Do they always change, or only sometimes?
(h) Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah): R. Yoshiyah of Usha said
to me, "Come, I will show to you Dakin that change" -
this implies that not all Dakin change.
2. Question: What difference does it make (in any case,
the animal must be buried, perhaps it changed)!?
3. Answer: If witnesses testify that the Mum did not
change appearance at all:
i. If Dakin always change, we reject their
testimony; if sometimes they do not change, we
accept it and permit the animal.
(i) (Mishnah): If an amateur permitted a Bechor and it was
slaughtered according to his ruling, it must be buried,
the amateur must pay.
(j) Suggestion: Our unauthored Mishnah is like R. Meir (who
forbids no matter where the Mum was).
(k) Rejection: Perhaps it discusses Dakin, it is according to
(l) (Beraisa): If the amateur permitted a small animal, he
pays a quarter of its value; for a large animal, he pays
half (for perhaps it was not a Mum Kavu'a, and the animal
would have died without getting a Mum, so the owner did
not lose anything).
(m) Question: What is the reason (for why he pays less for a
(n) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Small animals are worth less, it is
a smaller loss.
(o) Rejection: In each case he should pay the same proportion
of the value!
(p) Answer #2 (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): One pays less because
it is forbidden to raise small animals in [settled parts
of] Eretz Yisrael. (The owner was relieved of a great
burden of grazing the Bechor in unsettled places until an
expert will permit it; alternatively, if the Bechor was
born to the Kohen's animal, he is punished for
(a) (Mishnah): In the following cases, the verdict stands,
the judge pays for the loss he caused:
5) EXEMPTIONS FROM PAYING
1. He acquitted the guilty or obligated the innocent,
or was Metamei (declared to be Tamei) what is Tahor
or was Metaher what is Tamei.
(b) A Mumcheh (expert) authorized by Beis Din is exempt.
(c) (Gemara) Suggestion: Our unauthored Mishnah is like R.
Meir, who obligates for Garmi (an act that results in
(d) Rejection (R. Ilai): It is according to everyone - the
case is, the judge himself executed his mistaken ruling
and transferred the money from one party to the other.
(e) Question: We understand obligating the innocent - he took
Reuven's money and gave it to Shimon;
1. What is the case of acquitting the guilty?
(f) Answer (Ravina): Reuven had a security from Shimon (for a
debt); the judge exempted Shimon, took the security from
Reuven and gave it to Shimon.
2. If he said, "You are exempt," he did not transfer
(g) The case of Metamei what is Tahor - the judge touched a
Sheretz to Reuven's food (so Reuven will not contest the
ruling that it is Tamei);
(h) The case of being Metaher what is Tamei - he mixed it
(what he mistakenly said is Tahor) with Reuven's [Tahor]
(a) (Mishnah): A case occurred in which a cow's womb was
removed, R. Tarfon ruled that the cow is Tereifah, they
fed it to dogs;
(b) Chachamim in Yavneh were Machshir, because Mitzriyim cut
the wombs of all cows and pigs that leave Mitzrayim (so
they will not reproduce, yet they live).
(c) R. Tarfon: I will lose my donkey to pay for my mistake!
(Ein Eliyahu - I am considered a damager, I must pay even
from property essential for one's livelihood.)
(d) R. Akiva: You are Mumcheh l'Rabim, therefore you are
(e) (Gemara) Question: Even if R. Tarfon was not a Mumcheh,
he would be exempt, for he erred bi'Dvar Mishnah (it was
a clear mistake);
1. If a judge erred bi'Dvar Mishnah, we retract the
(f) Answer: Indeed, R. Akiva gave a second reason to exempt
1. Since you erred bi'Dvar Mishnah, we retract the
2. Even had you erred b'Shikul ha'Da'as (when two
Tana'im (or Amora'im) argue with each other, and the
Halachah was not established like either one, but
the discussion favors one opinion, and the verdict
was like the other opinion), you would be exempt,
since you are a Mumcheh l'Rabim.