(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bechoros 14

BECHOROS 12-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(a) Under what circumstances does our Mishnah declare an animal of Kodshim that has a permanent blemish, subject to Bechorah and Matanos after it has been redeemed?

(b) What does the Tana say about ...

  1. ... shearing its wool or working with it?
  2. ... the babies to which it subsequently gives birth and its milk?
  3. ... someone who Shechts them outside the Azarah (even before it has been redeemed)?
(c) Why is this different than 'Dukin she'be'Ayin', where one would be Chayav for Shechutei Chutz, if the Hekdesh had preceded the blemish? (d) And what does the Tana say about this same animal ...
  1. ... making a Temurah?
  2. ... which died? What is the Chidush?
(a) To which two categories of Kodshim does all this not apply?

(b) What is the reason for that regarding ...

  1. ... Bechor?
  2. ... Ma'aser?
(c) Under what circumstances will all the above Halachos not apply?

(d) Into which of the two above groups does an animal fall, if it had a temporary blemish before it was declared Hekdesh, and contracted a permanent one after that?

(a) The above are not subject to Bechorah or to Matanos, neither do they go out to Chulin to be shorn or to work with, even after they have been redeemed.
At which stage does the Tana declare them Chayav for Shechutei Chutz?

(b) This latter ruling is extremely restricted, but does not apply to the vast majority of blemishes.
Why not?

(c) The Tana's final ruling is that if they die, they must be buried.
Why can they not be redeemed?

(a) We learned in the Reisha that even where the blemish preceded the Hekdesh, the animals are only subject to Bechorah and Matanos once they have been redeemed, but not before. Why is that (seeing as even before they have been redeemed, they are only Kedushas Damim)?

(b) We make the same observation regarding their going out to Chulin to be shorn or worked with, and we suggest that our Mishnah supports a ruling of Rebbi Elazar.
What does Rebbi Elazar say about Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis?

(c) On what grounds do we refute the proof from our Mishnah for Rebbi Elazar? Why might Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis be different than Kedushas Damim?

(a) We learned also that their babies and their milk are permitted.
Why can the Tana not be referring to where the animal conceived and gave birth ...
  1. ... after it was redeemed?
  2. ... before it was redeemed?
(b) In which case is the Tana then speaking?
Answers to questions



(a) What does the Beraisa say about the babies that are born to Ba'alei Mumin which were declared Kodshei Mizbe'ach?

(b) What She'eilah does the Beraisa come to resolve?

(c) Why can the babies not be brought directly on the Mizbe'ach?

(a) What reason does the Tana give for not requiring a blemish prior to the sale?

(b) What can we extrapolate from there vis-?-vis someone who is Makdish Kedushas Damim a male, unblemished animal (which does not come from a rejected Kedushah)?

(c) What did Rava say about such an animal?

(d) Why did he mention specifically a male?

(a) Our Mishnah exempts someone who Shechts a blemished animal outside the Azarah from Kareis. Rebbi Elazar's version of our Mishnah reads 'Chayav'. What is he Chayav? Which sin is he guilty of?

(b) And he bases this ruling on another statement of his. How does Rebbi Elazar explain the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Sizbach la'Hashem Elokecha Shor va'Seh Asher Yih'yeh Bo Mum"?

(c) What is the difference between a Bamas Yachid and a Bamah Gedolah?

(d) How does he know that the Pasuk is speaking about a Bamah Ketanah, and not a Bamah Gedolah?

(a) We query Rebbi Elazar in that perhaps the Pasuk is speaking about a Bamas Tzibur, and 'Im Eino Inyan le'Kodshim' it must be referring to a Bechor Ba'al Mum.
Why might we have thought that a Bechor Ba'al Mum is eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach, even though other Kodshim are not?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Pise'ach O Iver Kol Mum Ra, Lo Sizbachenu"?

(c) We then make the same suggestion with regard to a. Ma'aser, and b. Temurah, both of which take effect on a Ba'al Mum.
What do we learn from ...

  1. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah", to dispense with the query from Ma'aser?
  2. ... the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Ve'hayah Hu u'Semuraso ... ", to dispense with the query from Temurah? What do we learn from the Hekesh?
(a) Finally, Rebbi Zeira asks why we cannot establish the Pasuk by a Bamah Gedolah, and it comes to teach us that one cannot bring V'lados Kodshim on it.
Why might we have otherwise thought that one can?

(b) And we answer by citing Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who discusses the Pasuk in Re'ei "Rak Kodoshecha ... ". "Rak Kodoshecha", he explains, refers to Temuros.
What does "Asher Yih'yu Lach" refer to?

(c) What does he learn from the fact that the Pasuk follows with "u'Nedarecha"?

(a) The Pasuk writes in Bechukosai "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir Oso Tov be'Ra O Ra be'Tov".
What problem do we have with the dual ruling?

(b) So why does the Torah learn from "Tov be'Ra"?

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah, which permits Kodshim that were initially blemished and that died, to be redeemed, like Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon in a Mishnah in the fifth Perek, say about Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah? Where does it apply and where does it not?

(d) What does Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk there "Ve'he'erich ha'Kohen Osah? What does "Osah" come to preclude?

(a) What do the Chachamim say?

(b) The Chachamim are alias Tana de'Bei Levi in a Beraisa.
What does Tana de'Bei Levi say about an animal of Kodshei Mizbe'ach that is a Ba'al Mum me'Ikaro, or that is a Chayah or a bird?

(c) How does Tana de'Bei Levi Darshen "Osah"?

(d) What is the source for 'Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah'?

(a) What problem do we have, based on the fact that the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Shimon concede that a Ba'al Mum me'Ikaro does not require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah? What ought Rav Yehudah Amar Rav then to have said?

(b) And we answer that Rav holds like Resh Lakish.
What did Resh Lakish say about the corollary between Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis and Kodshei Mizbe'ach (regarding Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah)?

(c) What is the problem with that? From where do we know that our Mishnah requires Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah by Kodshei Mizbe'ach?

(d) And how do we know that the reason in the Seifa is because of 'Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah', and not because of the principle 'Ein Podin es ha'Kodshim Leha'achilan li'Kelavim'?

(a) Alternatively, Rav holds like Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Chachamim of Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say about Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah concerning Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis?

(b) In that case, how will we amend his statement 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Shimon'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,