ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 7
BECHOROS 7-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) We cite a Beraisa 'Beheimah Tehorah she'Yaldah Miyn Beheimah Temei'ah
Asur ba'Achilah'. Assuming that it resembles its mother 'Rosho ve'Rubo' the
Tana concludes - 'Chayav bi'Vechorah'.
(b) We refute the proof from there that Rebbi Shimon requires a camel, the
son of a cow to resemble its mother Rosho ve'Rubo, regarding the Heter
Achilah, like he does regarding the Bechorah - by confining the ruling in
the Seifa to the Din of Bechorah ...
(c) ... and we attempt to prove this from the Beraisa itself, which appears
to deliberately switch from Achilah in the Reisha to Bechorah in the Seifa,
in order to preclude the Din of Achilah from its final ruling.
(d) We refute this proof however - by ascribing the Tana's switch (not to
preclude the Din of Achilah, but) to teach us that Rosho ve'Rubo by the
Bechorah, in spite of the Pasuk "Ach Bechor Shor", which suggests that the
Bechor must resemble its mother completely.
(a) We cite another Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Yehoshua. Based on the Pasuk
"Ach es Zeh Lo Sochlu mi'Ma'alei ha'Geirah ... ", he rules - that a Tamei
that is born from a Tahor is permitted (to eat), provided its father is a
(b) Rebbi Eliezer maintains that Rebbi Yehoshua's case hardly needs a Pasuk
to permit it - since it is permitted anyway.
(c) So he learns the Pasuk - is talking about where the father is a Tamei.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer learns from "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tocheilu, Shor Seh
Kesavim ve'Seh Izim" - that we do indeed go after the mother, and not after
(a) There is no proof from here that Rebbi Shimon permits eating a camel the
son of a cow, with even just one or two Simanim like its mother - because
this Tana might hold like him with regard to forbidding it when it does not
resemble its mother at all, but not with regard to how much it must resemble
(b) Another Lashon queries Rebbi Yehoshua's statement 'Iburo min ha'Tamei'
from a factual statement by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - who said that a Tahor
animal cannot become pregnant through a Tamei one (or vice-versa)?
(c) Besides a small category of animal from a large one (or vice-versa), a
Chayah and a Beheimah cannot inter-breed either.
(d) And we reconcile Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi with the Beraisa - by adding
'except for Rebbi Eliezer and his disputant', who argue in Chulin over
whether Oso ve'es B'no applies to a Coy that is born from a he-goat and a
female deer (even though the one is a Beheimah, the other, a Chayah).
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes Rebbi Eliezer ('Iburo min ha'Tamei') by a
Kalut ben Parah - meaning a camel (which has partially cloven hooves) born
to a cow ...
(b) ... and Rebbi Eliezer holds like - Rebbi Shimon (in our Sugya).
(c) We refute the proof from here that Rebbi Shimon does not require 'Rosho
ve'Rubo' like its mother, to permit the Kalut ben Parah to be eaten - like
we did earlier, in that Rebbi Eliezer may well hold like Rebbi Shimon in one
point, but not in the other.
(a) Initially, we establish the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer
and Rebbi Yehoshua (who argue over whether the father needs to be of a
Kasher species too, or not) as to - whether 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem' is Mutar
(Rebbi Eliezer) or Asur (Rebbi Yehoshua).
(b) They also argue in a Beraisa about the baby of a Tereifah, whose father
is not a Tereifah, which Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies from the Mizbe'ach - but
which Rebbi Yeshoshua permits.
(c) The problem with this is - that seeing as here Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Zeh
ve'Zeh Gorem is Asur', whilst according to Rebbi Yeshoshua, it is Asur, the
two Tana'im appear to have switched their opinions there.
(d) We answer that Rebbi ...
1. ... Eliezer really holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Asur, and the reason that he
permits a camel whose mother is a cow and whose father, a camel, to be eaten
is - because of the 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' "Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim", which
teaches that in this instance alone we go after the mother exclusively.
2. ... Yehoshua really holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Mutar'. Yet in our Sugya, he
forbids a camel whose mother is a cow and whose father, a camel, to be
eaten - because then the Torah ought to have written "Shor Seh Kesev ve'Seh
Eiz" (in the singular). "Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim" implies that both the
mother and the father must of the species of a sheep or of a goat.
(a) We finally resolve our She'eilah from another Beraisa, where Rebbi
Shimon clearly states his view in the matter. After learning from the two
"Gamal's" that even a camel that is born from a cow is forbidden, he permits
it - provided its head and most of its body resembles its mother ...
(b) ... a clear proof that Rebbi Shimon compares the Din of Achilah to that
of the Bechorah in this regard.
(a) We ask whether the urine of a donkey is permitted. We did not ask the
same She'eilah about the urine of a camel or a horse - which is clear and is
therefore permitted, since it is merely the water that it digested and is
now emitting ...
(b) ... unlike that of a donkey, whose urine is murky and can therefore be
compared to its milk (which is part of the donkey itself), or perhaps it
too, is merely the water that it digested ... .
(c) Rav Sheishes resolves the She'eilah from 'Kol ha'Yotzei min *ha'Tamei*'
(in our Mishnah) - implying that whatever is of the same species as what is
Tamei (incorporating a donkey's urine, which like milk, comes from the body
of the donkey) is forbidden.
(d) It seems that if the Tana had said 'Kol ha'Yotzei min *Tamei*, Tamei -
then whatever comes out of something Tamei would be Tamei, even the urine of
camels and horses (see Shitah Mekubetzes).
(a) According to the second Lashon, we only ask about the urine of a donkey,
and not about that of a camel or a horse - because (unlike the latter, which
are considered pure waste), because people drink it - as a cure for
(b) And Rav Sheishes resolves the She'eilah - from our Mishnah, which
forbids anything that comes from a Tamei animal.
(c) We query this however, from a Beraisa - which give the reason for the
Torah's concession to eat honey, as - the fact that it is made entirely from
a foreign element (pollen) that the bee digests (and is not manufactured
from any part of the bee's body).
(d) In that case - the same ought to apply to the donkey's urine (which is
merely water according to this Lashon, so why does Rav Sheishes forbid it)?
(a) Rav Sheishes, we reply, holds like Rebbi Ya'akov - who initially
extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ach es *Zeh* Tochlu mi'Kol Sheretz ha'Of" that
Sheretz Of Tamei (i.e. flying insects) are forbidden. But that is
impossible - since the Torah expressly forbids it (so why should we need a
D'rashah for it)?
(b) What he therefore Darshens from this Pasuk (or from the Pasuk forbidding
Sheretz ha'Of) is - that although Sheretz Of Tamei is forbidden, what it
produces is permitted (with reference to bees' honey).
(c) Rebbi Ya'akov precludes the honey of wasps and hornets from the
concession - because they are not called honey (S'tam), but hornets' honey
and wasps' honey.
(d) We therefore comment that the author of the Beraisa which permits the
latter - is not Rebbi Ya'akov.
(a) The Beraisa adds that the honey of wasps and hornets is Tahor, from
which we infer - that bees' honey is Tamei ...
(b) ... meaning - that it does not require a specific Machshavah that one
intends to eat it to render it subject to Tum'as Ochlin (which the honey of
wasps and hornets does).
(c) Another Beraisa supports this - stating specifically that the honey in
a beehive is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin without Machshavah.
(a) 'Bei'i de'Yachmurta' - are egg-shaped objects that appear in the dung of
a she-donkey (or a female antelope).
(b) The Rabbanan want to declare them Asur - because they assumed them to
have broken off the body of the male during mating, in which case they are
'Eiver min ha'Chai'.
(c) But Rav Safra informed them that they are permitted - because they are
formed from the congealed seed of a male gazelle, which mated with the
Yachmurta, after being rejected by its own mate (see Rabeinu Gershom).
(a) Rav Huna permits the skin-like substance (a sort of placenta) on the
face of a baby donkey when it is born - because it is merely waste from the
(b) Rav Chisda supports Rav Huna with a Beraisa, which rules that such a
skin that is found on the face of a human baby 'Bein Chai Bein Meis' - is
(c) ... which Rav Chisda explains to mean - whether the baby and its mother
are alive or whether they are dead ...
(d) ... in which case it is neither considered part of the baby nor of the
mother (a proof for Rav Huna).
(a) Rav Huna rejects this proof however - by explaining 'Bein Chai Bein
Meis' to refer to the baby, but the mother must be alive, since the skin is
considered part of the mother [like the placenta]).
(b) But when Rav Chisda pointed out to him that he (Rav Chisda) had merely
quoted the words of another Beraisa, he retorted - that if it is a Beraisa,
then there is nothing more to say.
(a) Our Mishnah ...
1. ... permits a Tahor fish that is swallowed by a Tamei fish.
(b) When the Tana refers to a Tamei fish that swallowed a Tahor fish, he
implies that we saw this happening. Otherwise - bearing in mind that Tamei
fish produce their babies in their stomachs, we would assume that the baby
was its own.
2. ... forbids a Tamei fish that is swallowed by a Tahor one.
(c) The Beraisa draws a distinction between Tamei fish - which produce their
babies inside their stomachs, and Tahor fish, which lay eggs.
(d) The problem with the Mishnah's original ruling is - that even if we did
see the fish swallow the Tahor fish, who says that the fish that we
subsequently find is the one that it swallowed? Perhaps it is its own baby
that we find, and the one that it swallowed became digested?
(a) Rav Sheishes establishes the Beraisa where the Tahor fish was found in
the fish's back passage - whereas had it been its own baby, one would have
expected to find it in its stomach.
(b) In order to solve the problem, Rav Papa claims they found it - in the fi
(c) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, it is not a question of where
they found it, but how they found it - since the Mishnah must be speaking
when they found it fully developed, which would be unlikely if it was its
(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with the initial assumption, that we saw the Tamei
fish swallow the Tahor one. According to him, it is not necessary to say
that - because the majority of fish breed their own species, and since we
found another species of fish inside it, we assume that it is not its own
baby, but that it must have swallowed it.