(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 18

BECHOROS 18 (11 Tamuz) - Dedicated in memory of Mordechai ben Avraham Pinchas (Mr. Morris Pogrow), by her granddaughter, Chani Shaw and family.


(a) We just cited Rebbi Eliezer, who requires the two towns between which the murdered man was found, to bring two Eglah Arufos.
What does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa say?

(b) On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that they are arguing over whether we say ‘Efshar Letzamtzem bi’Yedei Adam’ (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Tana Kama)?

(c) In which point do the Chachamim then disagree with Rebbi Eliezer?

(d) Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Amram finally resolves the She’eilah from another Beraisa, where the Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer rule that the two towns bring one Eglah between them and stipulate that it will cover the obligation of whichever town is the nearest.
What does he prove from there?

(a) According to Rebbi Tarfon in our Mishnah, the Kohen may pick the strongest of the twins as the Bechor.
Why is that?

(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba queries Rebbi Yochanan, whom he quoted as saying that, according to Rebbi Akiva, the Kohen takes the weaker of the two, from our Mishnah, where he says ‘Meshamnin Beinehen’.
How does he initially interpret that?

(c) What had Rebbi Yochanan done whilst Rebbi Chiya bar Aba was still ‘eating dates in Bavel’?

(d) We learned in the Seifa of our Mishnah ‘Meis Echad Meihen ... Rebbi Akiva Omer, ha’Motzi me’Chavero, Alav ha’Re’ayah’.
What is the problem with this, according to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba’s interpretation of ‘Meshamnin Beinehen’?

(a) How does Rebbi Yochanan interpret ‘Meshamnin Beinehen’ to conform with the Seifa?

(b) In what basic point does he disagree with his Talmid?

(a) According to the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, the second animal grazes in the meadow until it obtains a blemish (as we explained) and it is Chayav Matanos.
Why do we take for granted that the Tana Kama is Rebbi Meir?

(b) How does Rava explain Rebbi Meir’s reasoning?

(c) Then why does Rebbi Yossi exempt him from the Matanos?

(a) Everyone agrees, says Rebbi Elazar, that a Safek Bechor, such as the Seifa (where the animal gave birth to a male and a female) is Chayav Matanos.
Why is that? Who is ‘everyone’?

(b) Why is this not obvious? What other reason might we have ascribed to Rebbi Yossi?

(c) How do we reconcile this suggestion with the next Mishnah, where Rebbi Yossi specifically says to Rebbi Meir ‘Kol she’Chalipav be’Yad Kohen Patur’?

(d) What does Rebbi Meir reply there?

Answers to questions



(a) Everyone agrees, says Rav Papa, that Safek Ma’aser is Patur from Matanos.
What would be the case of Safek Ma’aser? What is the Halachah there?

(b) If ‘everyone’ refers to Rebbi Meir, what is the reason for Rav Papa’s statement?

(c) Why is this not obvious? What other reason might we ascribe to Rebbi Meir that will apply to Safek Ma’aser as well?

(a) How do we query this suggestion? What is the problem with it from Rebbi Yossi in the Seifa, who cites his reason to Rebbi Meir as ‘Kol she’Chalipav be’Yad Kohen’?

(b) How do counter that? If Rebbi Meir holds Chayav even by Safek Ma’aser, why does the Tana present their Machlokes in a case of ‘Chalipin’?

(a) Rebbi Tarfon rules in the Seifa that if one of the twins dies, the owner and the Kohen divide the second one. Why does this clash with his ruling in the Reisha ‘ha’Kohen Borer Lo es ha’Yafeh’? What ought he to have then ruled in the Seifa?

(b) How does Rebbi Ami reconcile his two statements?

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan compares the ruling of ...

  1. ... Rebbi Tarfon to a case where two people deposited two sheep with a shepherd, one of which died.
    What is the Halachah there?
  2. ... Rebbi Akiva to a case where Reuven deposits a sheep with Shimon and when a sheep from Shimon’s flock subsequently died, he claimed that it was the one that Reuven deposited with him.
    What is the Halachah there?
(d) What is the significance of this dual statement? What problem does it create with the two opinions of Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva?
(a) Rava (or Rav Papa) explains what Rebbi Yochanan means.
What will Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva hold in the two above cases?

(b) Then what is the basis of their Machlokes? What is the case?

(c) Why does Rebbi ...

  1. ... Tarfon maintain that the owner is Makneh a portion of the Chatzer to the shepherd?
  2. ... Akiva hold that he is not?
(a) What does our Mishnah rule in a case where Reuven’s two sheep give birth ...
  1. ... to two firstborn males?
  2. ... one, to a male and the other, to a female?
(b) The Tana Kama rules that, if they gave birth to two males and a female, then the Kohen takes one of the males and the owner keeps the other.
What does Rebbi ...
  1. ... Tarfon say?
  2. ... Akiva say?
(c) The animal retained by the owner must graze ... (‘Yir’eh’). The Tana Kama rules that it is Chayav Matanos.
What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(d) Should one of the animals die, Rebbi Tarfon rules ‘Yachloku’.
What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(a) In a case where the two animals gave birth to two females and a male, or to two females and two males, the Kohen receives nothing.
Why is that?

(b) What is the final case, in which Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva, and Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi, repeat their disputes?

(c) If the two babies were a male and a female, the Kohen receives nothing.
Why is that?

(d) Why does the Tana find it necessary to present the Machlokes between Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva three times? Having presented it in ...

  1. ... the Reisha (where both Safek Bechoros are born from the same mother), why does he need to repeat it in the Metzi’asa (where they are born from two mothers)?
  2. ... the Metzi’asa, why did he see fit to present it in the Seifa (where one of the babies is not a firstborn)?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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