(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 25


(a) Rav Chananyah bar Shalmayah concurs with Rav Huna, who in the name of Rav, just permitted preparing the neck for Shechitah in the way prescribed by our Mishnah (even though it may result in Tolesh). We query this however, from another ruling of Rav. What does Rav Shimi bar Chiya Amar Rav say about wrapping flax shavings and rags round a leaking tap of a barrel containing liquid on Yom-Tov?

(b) We answer by citing Abaye and Rava. Why, according to them, will even Rebbi Shimon (who permits ‘Davar she’Ein Miskaven’ on Shabbos and Yom-Tov) concede to the latter ruling of Rav?

(c) We have another problem however. Shmuel rules like Rebbi Shimon regarding Davar she’Ein Miskaven.
How does Rav hold? What is then the problem?

(d) So we conclude that Rav holds ‘Davar she’Ein Miskaven Asur’ even though he holds ‘Tolesh La’av Haynu Gozez’.
Then why does he permit preparing the neck of the animal in the way prescribed by our Mishnah, on Shabbos?

(a) We have a problem with the last ruling too, however, from a Beraisa which discusses someone who plucks a feather from the wing of a bird, clips off the end and trims it on Shabbos.
How many Chata’os is he Chayav to bring?

(b) According to Resh Lakish, which Melachah does he perform when he ...

  1. ... plucks it?
  2. ... clips off the end?
  3. ... trims it?
(c) How do we reconcile this with Rav, who declines to equate Tolesh with Gozez?
(a) We assume that since Rav holds like Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam (that Tolesh is not the same as Gozez), the reverse is also true (with regard to Davar she’Eino Miskaven).
What does Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam rule in a case where a Parah Adumah has two hairs which are red at the roots, but black on top?

(b) What problem do we now have with this?

(c) How do we counter it? Why do we think that a cow is different?

(d) We reject this answer however, from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana learn from the ‘Vav’ of “Lo Sa’avod bi’Vechor Shorecha *ve*’Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzonecha”?

(a) So we suggest that Parah Adumah is different and the Isur of shearing does not apply to it.
What makes Parah Adumah different than Bechor?

(b) And we refute this suggestion on the basis of a statement by Rebbi Elazar.
What did Rebbi Elazar say about Kodshei Bedek ha’Bayis?

(c) We therefore conclude that Parah is different, because it is not common. So what if it is isn’t?

(a) We ask why the Parah Adumah should not be redeemed and shorn, before declaring it Hekdesh a second time.
Why is it not practical to do that?

(b) What does Shmuel say about Hekdesh worth a Manah that one redeemed for a Perutah?

(c) Then why not do that in the current case?

(d) What final answer to we give, to explain why Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam permits shearing the Parah using shears, even though Rav holds like him regarding Tolesh?

(a) Rav Asi Amar Resh Lakish confines the preparation of the Bechor’s to doing it by hand. How does he then amend the words ‘Oseh Lo Makom *be’ Kupitz*’?

(b) We ask whether, when our Mishnah says ‘ve’Chein Tolesh es ha’Sa’ar Lir’ os Mum’ the Tana means that one is permitted to do it Lechatchilah, like one is by the Shechitah of a Bechor.
What else might ‘ve’Chein’ mean?

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah resolves the She’eilah from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana say about someone who takes his blemished animal to a Chacham for inspection?

(d) How does Rav Mari prove this from the Mishnah itself? Why can ‘ve’Chein’ not pertain to the subsequent prohibition of moving the wool from its place?

Answers to questions



(a) Our Mishnah discusses the hair of a Bechor Beheimah Ba’al-Mum that fell out, and that one placed on the window-sill. According to Rebbi Yehudah, Akavya ben Mahalalel permits it once the animal has been Shechted (see Tosfos Amud 1 DH ‘Sa’ar’).
On what grounds do the Chachamim forbid it?

(b) Rebbi Yossi maintains that it is not the hair of an Bechor Ba’al-Mum that was Shechted that Akavya permitted.
What then did he permit?

(a) What is ‘Tzemer ha’Meduvlal’?

(b) What distinction does the Tana draw between Tzemer ha’Meduvlal that looks like it is part of the wool that was shorn after the Shechitah and Tzemer ha’Meduvlal that does not?

(c) Why does the Mishnah cite this ruling here? Like which of the above Tana ’im does it go?

(a) What problem do we have with Rebbi Yossi’s statement ‘Lo ba’Zeh Hitir Akavya ... ‘?

(b) How do we therefore amend it?

(c) On what grounds do the Chachamim then agree with Akavya by ‘va’ Achar-Kach Shachto’?

(d) Rebbi Asi Amar Resh Lakish qualifies the Machlokes between Akavya and the Chachamim, by restricting it to where a Chacham had already examined the Mum before the hair fell out.
What does he say in a case where he had not?

(a) Rav Sheishes queries Rebbi Asi from a Beraisa.
How do we initially interpret the word/s of ...
  1. ... the Tana Kama ‘Ba’alei Mumin Osrin be’Chol-Shehu’?
  2. ... Rebbi Yossi ‘Yevukar’?
(b) What problem do we have with this?

(c) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah therefore establishes the Machlokes by wool of a Bechor Ba’al-Mum which fell out before the Shechitah and which was placed on the window-sill before it became mixed up with Chulin wool.
How do we now interpret ‘Yevukar’?

(d) What is then the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi? Who is the Tana Kama?

(a) What do we extrapolate from Rebbi Yossi?

(b) Why does this present Rebbi Asi Amar Resh Lakish with a problem?

(c) To resolve the problem, how does Rava reinterpret ‘Yevukar’?

(a) What did Rebbi Yirmiyah comment about Rav Nachman and Rabah bar Avuhah, based on the fact that they (the Bavli’im) lived in a rather dark environment (since Bavel was surrounded by mountains)? What did he refer to them as?

(b) He disagreed with the Rav Nachman’s interpretation of the previous Beraisa (‘be’Gizas Bechor Ba’al-Mum Askinan’), citing Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who connected the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi to a Mishnah in Nidah, where Rebbi Meir learns that if a pile containing a k’Zayis min ha’Meis got lost, then all the piles in the field are Tamei (even if they searched for it but failed to find it).
What do the Chachamim say?

(c) Based on that Machlokes, how does Rebbi Yochanan now interpret Rebbi Yossi’s ‘Yevukar’? With whose opinion does ...

  1. ... Rebbi Yossi concur?
  2. ... the Tana Kama concur?
(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan interprets ‘Yevukar’ to mean that they search for the Ba’al-Mum and, should we find it, the rest of the herd is permitted. He connects this Machlokes with a Machlokes between Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Beraisa. With regard to the case that is discussed in the Mishnah in Nidah (but where they searched and *did* find a grave).
Rebbi rules that one assumes the grave that is found to be the lost one, and one does not need to continue searching.
What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?

(b) How does Rebbi Yochanan then interpret ‘Yevukar’?

(c) In that case, with whose opinion does ...

  1. ... Rebbi Yossi concur?
  2. ... the Tana Kama concur?
(a) On what grounds does ...
  1. ... Rebbi Asi disagree with Rebbi Chiya bar Aba? If Rebbi Yossi will hold like the Chachamim and make do with a search of the field for the Tum’ah, why will he not automatically say the same in the case of a Bechor Ba’al Mum that got lost.
  2. ... Rebbi Chiya bar Aba disagree with Rebbi Asi? If the Tana Kama holds like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a field in which they found a grave, why will he not necessarily hold the same in the case of the Bechor Ba’al Mum that got lost?
(b) How does
  1. ... Rebbi Chiya bar Aba counter Rebbi Asi’s argument? Why might even a blemish disappear?
  2. ... Rebbi Asi counter Rebbi Chiya bar Aba’s argument? How is it easily possible for an animal to become blemished?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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