Bechoros 39
Summary
- Today’s שיעור learns מסכת בכורות דף ל"ט from the גמרא after the משנה, identifying the משנה as רבי יהודה’s view that חוורה and מים הקבועים are established as permanent defects only after שמונים יום. The גמרא defines how מים הקבועים is tested through a specific grain regimen tied to rain-fed fields and a required order of לח then יבש over a combined period of three months, probes unresolved details about timing and conditions of feeding, and sets daily intake at כגרוגרת while leaving many practical parameters as תיקו. The שיעור then moves through further מומים of the nose, lips, and gums, presents disputes over which internal mouth defects matter for slaughtering a בכור and for פסולי קרבנות, and analyzes whether internal חסרון disqualifies, including kidneys and the requirement that a קרבן remain “whole” through קבלה; it closes by reframing a dispute about מעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות as turning on מום שבגלוי.
- Today's שיעור opens that the משנה treats two eye מומים in a בכור, חוורה like specks and מים הקבועים like tearing. The גמרא asks מתניתין מני and answers that the משנה follows רבי יהודה. A ברייתא states that רבי מאיר holds חוורה קבועה is established in ארבעים יום and מים הקבועים in שמונים יום, while רבי יהודה holds חוורה requires שמונים יום and defines אלו הם מים הקבועים, so the משנה’s “everything is eighty days” aligns with רבי יהודה.
- The ברייתא defines the test for מים הקבועים through feeding לח and יבש grain with a particular sequence, and the ב"ח גרסא is cited as אכל לח ויבש שבבית השלחין שבבית הבעל, with outcomes depending on the order of dry and moist grain. The גמרא challenges the fit between the משנה and the ברייתא because the ברייתא limits the regimen to בית הבעל while the משנה implies either type of field. The גמרא answers חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני and, as explained by רש"י, reinterprets the משנה rather than the ברייתא, with the חזון איש noting that this is chosen because it is easier here to modify the משנה.
- A corrected reading sets that only grain from a rain-fed field, שגשמים, can establish the מום, while בית השלחין produce does not. A further rule is that even with rain-fed produce, לח followed by יבש is required, and the reverse order does not work until יבש comes after לח. The ברייתא’s statement that the process “takes place over ג' חודשים” is questioned by a calendrical teaching that אדר וניסן are לח and אלול ותשרי are יבש, which seems to yield four months. The גמרא resolves this by reading the moist window as אדר וחצי ניסן and the dry window as אלול וחצי תשרי, making a total of three months of “combined” periods.
- The גמרא raises an איבעיא whether effectiveness requires that לח be eaten only בזמן לח and יבש only בזמן היבש, or whether dry grain stored from earlier can be eaten during the moist season and still work. A תא שמע repeats the seasonal mapping אדר וניסן לח and אלול ותשרי יבש, but the גמרא rejects this as a decisive proof and suggests דטמי פירא דאלול ותשרי אכלנא באדר וניסן. The שיעור notes that the גמרא does not conclusively answer the question and that ראשונים remain unsure how to frame whether the regimen can be compressed or must span broader time.
- The גמרא asks בכמה מאכלנא ליה and רבי יוחנן משום רבי פנחס בן ערובא answers כגרוגרת per day. A question from בבי מר עוקבא דאתו מארץ ישראל asks whether the כגרוגרת is required בסעודה ראשונה or בכל סעודה וסעודה, and it is also framed as whether the day’s amount must be eaten at once or can be spread across meals. The גמרא then layers conditional questions about קודם אכילה או אחר אכילה, קודם שתייה או לאחר שתייה, קשור ומותר, לבדו או עם חבירו, and בעיר או בשדה, with רב אשי extending it to גינה הסמוכה לעיר, and the sugya ends with תיקו. The חזון איש is cited as distinguishing the eating and drinking questions as separate axes that may not align.
- The שיעור applies the sugya to a case where a seller claims a cow produces a certain amount of milk daily. The פוסקים say that if עדים prove the claim false it is a מקח טעות, while small differences may be halachically ignored. The פוסקים also use this גמרא as a ראיה that the buyer often cannot claim מקח טעות when production drops, because many environmental and circumstantial factors affect an animal, allowing the seller to attribute the change to the buyer’s conditions.
- The משנה’s statement from חנניא בן אנטיגנוס that the animal is checked three times in eighty days is interpreted by the גמרא as ובלבד שישלש. רש"י explains this as dividing eighty into three intervals, testing at about twenty-six and a half days, again at another twenty-six and a half, and then at day eighty. תוספות explain it as tests on day one, day forty, and day eighty.
- A question from פנחס אחוה דרב שמואל asks אוכל ולא יצא and whether the resulting determination makes the defect למפרע הוה מומא or only מכאן ולהבא הוה מומא. The גמרא’s נפקא מינה is למלויי בפדיונו, and רש"י explains that this is not about a בכור itself but about other קדשים where בעלי מומין are disqualifying and redemption becomes relevant. If the animal is deemed a מום retroactively, an earlier פדיון makes the money הקדש and using it creates מעילה with קרן וחומש and אשם מעילות בשוגג, while if the מום is only from day eighty the prior “redemption” is void and there is no מעילה.
- The ראשית ביכורים asks why the gmarah uses a money-and-מעילה scenario rather than פשוט using the animal itself, and answers that with the animal there is only ספק בעל מום and there is no דין מעילה בהקדש on a ספק בעל מום, so the gmarah must speak about money. רבי עקיבא איגר asks why the gmarah does not simply ask whether the פדיון is effective, and the אחרונים including the חזון איש answer that one can do a פדיון על תנאי, making “validity of redemption” an unstable נפקא מינה while misuse of money remains sharply decisive.
- Some מפרשים explain the question as what the test reveals about the animal’s condition across time, while others frame it as a חזקה problem where חזקת כשרות is undermined but permanence is uncertain. The אבני נזר explains the issue through מום שבגלוי, asking at what point the condition counts as a revealed defect. The שיעור compares this to a person defined as a שוטה after repeating behaviors three times and asks whether the status is retroactive for intervening transactions, noting that the comparison depends on which pshat is adopted. An apparent ראיה from תם and מועד in בבא קמא is rejected because full liability depends on התראה, and the absence of appropriate warning blocks retroactive collection even if one could imagine retroactive status.
- שמואל responds to his brother’s question by saying קרי שמואל עלוי פסחים בזזו בז. מפרשים are troubled by reading this as disparagement, and a suggested pshat ties it to the sugya’s dynamic that a בעל מום can be redeemed while a healthy animal cannot. שמואל’s statement is read as expressing that those thought “lesser” can sometimes have more כוח than assumed.
- The משנה lists מומים of the nose and lips such as ניקב, נפגם, and נסדק. A ברייתא rules that a hole visible מבחוץ is a מום while a hole מבפנים is not, with רש"י understanding that the defect must be on the outside of a nostril and that one nostril suffices, while the רמב״ם reads the case as the septum with visibility determining status. The שיעור cites a practical question about selecting a בעל תפילה who has a nose hole from a former nose ring and records that some פוסקים are מחמיר depending on רש״י versus רמב״ם, while others distinguish animal mומים from human mומים and treat decorative piercing as not making a person a מום. רב פפא says תורא ברא דשפתיו, limiting the lip area that counts as a מום to the outer portion.
- The משנה differentiates חוטין חיצונים where ניקבו or ניגמו is a מום, from הפנימים where only נעקרו fully uprooted counts, and חנינא בן אנטיגנוס says אין בודקין מן התיומות ולפנים ואפילו את התיומות. A ברייתא defines תיומות and sets that מן התיומות ולפנים is פנימית and תיומות themselves are treated like inside, while רבי יהושע בן קפצויי says אין שוחטים אלא על חיצונות בלבד and רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס says אין משגיחין על תיומות כל עיקר. The גמרא again answers with חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני, establishing that for the תנא קמא, outer ניקבו/ניגמו suffices, but for נעקרו even an inner location can permit שחיטה, while רבי יהושע בן קפצויי restricts permissive שחיטה to external defects and treats פנימי שנעקרו as insufficient for שחיטה though it is still פסולי פסול. The בריסקר רב explains this as an application of ממבחר נדריכם, making such an animal unfit for offering even if not a full-fledged מום, while רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס treats internal mouth defects as irrelevant even for פסולי and keeps the animal כשר for קרבן.
- Rav Acha bar Rav Ami asks whether there is מחוסר אבר מבפנים, and the gmarah clarifies that the question is not about making a בכור redeemable or קדשים redeemable but about לפסולי, whether internal חסרון blocks bringing a קרבן. A proof attempt is drawn from a ברייתא reading ושתי הכליות to exclude an animal with one kidney or three kidneys, while another ברייתא reads יסירנה לרבות בעל כוליה אחת. The gmarah first assumes a model of “no creature with one kidney” and frames a dispute about internal חסרון, but Rav Chiyya bar Abba says דכולי עלמא יש בריה באחת and that internal חסרון counts, resolving the two texts as distinguishing an animal born with one kidney from one that lost one after being born with two. The gmarah rejects that alignment because the “three kidneys” case is certainly מעיקרא, leading to a reframing that the dispute is actually whether יש בריה באחת, and the חזון איש objects to “arguing about reality” and explains it as a halachic question whether Hashem’s creation of one kidney functions as the equivalent of two or is treated as חסרון.
- Rabbi Yochanan offers a different reconciliation that everyone holds אין בריאה באחת and internal חסרון matters, and distinguishes between חסר קודם שחיטה and חסר לאחר שחיטה. The gmarah challenges this with Rav Zeira בשם רב about הצורם אוזן הפר and the verse ולקח מדם הפר requiring the animal to remain intact through קבלה, shifting the distinction to חסר קודם קבלה versus חסר אחר קבלה. A further challenge from a ברייתא on “יהיה” extends integrity through קבלה והולכה ובזריקה, and the gmarah answers תרגמא בן שנה so that mומים require wholeness through קבלה while age requirements extend to זריקה. A supporting teaching from רבי יהושע that זריקה proceeds as long as a כזית בשר or כזית חלב remains grounds the idea that after key stages the animal’s physical remainder may be minimal while the blood service continues.
- The gmarah asks how an animal can be בן שנה at שחיטה yet בן שתי שנים at later avodah stages and answers that שעות פוסלות בקדשים, making the hour decisive rather than only the date. The שיעור notes a question why this is phrased as “pessul” rather than “hechsher,” and answers that hours can both disqualify and enable depending on whether the minimum or maximum age is at stake. The שיעור then compares this to debates about when בר מצווה begins by date, by exact birth hour, or by “and a day,” and cites a stringency attributed to רב משה שטרנבוך to don תפילין again at the birth hour. A חסידישע framing reads “שעות” as obsessively measuring time in learning and davening, presenting such measurement as spiritually פוסל.
- The gmarah proposes learning the internal-defect question from תנאים interpreting ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות, with רבי יהודה reading them as applying to בביצים ולא בגיד, רבי אלעזר בן יעקב reading all as בגיד, and רבי יוסי splitting categories between both organs and only the גיד. The gmarah rejects interpreting the dispute as whether חסרון מבפנים counts because רבי יוסי would not fit either side consistently. The gmarah instead says the dispute is about מום שבגלוי, with רבי יהודה treating the conditions as visible because of shriveling and hanging, רבי אלעזר בן יעקב denying visibility because such appearances can occur naturally, and רבי יוסי treating מעוך וכתות as visible because the איברים are missing while treating נתוק וכרות as not visible because the איברים still exist.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions