Bechoros 33
Summary
- A שיעור on מסכת בכורות דף ל"ג begins from דף ל"ב עמוד ב' at the משנה and frames a בית שמאי–בית הלל dispute over whether a כהן may include a ישראל, and even an עכו"ם, in eating a בכור בעל מום. The presentation attributes to the Rambam (as cited by the בית יוסף) a broad בית שמאי approach that מתנות כהונה remain for כהנים alone, and it develops why בית הלל’s היתר can extend to עכו"ם without invoking time limits of eating or the standard דין of למשחה כדרך שהמלכים אוכלים. The narrative then follows the גמרא’s identification of רבי עקיבא as the משנה’s basis for permitting עכו"ם, traces the derashot from verses like ובשרם יהיה לך and כצבי וכאיל, and proceeds to related halachic areas including נדות eating, מרגיל/מפשיל in בכור and פסולי המוקדשין, and the laws of bloodletting in a בכור with a clot alongside an analogy to a ספק-טומאה חבית of תרומה.
- A משנה states that בית שמאי say a כהן who receives a בכור בעל מום does not invite a ישראל to eat with him from that בכור, while בית הלל permit it and, in the framing given, even allow inviting עובדי כוכבים. The Rambam as brought by the בית יוסף aligns בית שמאי with a general stance that all מתנות כהונה should be restricted to כהנים. The בריסקר רב and מקדש דוד ask how inviting an עכו"ם fits with the earlier rule that a בכור בעל מום must be slaughtered within one year, and they explain that the one-year requirement is a דין in slaughtering rather than a requirement that it be eaten by ישראל within one year. A challenge from the rule of למשחה כדרך שהמלכים אוכלים is answered with רב חיים קנייבסקי in דרך אמונה, who limits that דין to a כהן eating, so it does not apply when the eater is a ישראל or an עכו"ם.
- A מחלוקת ראשונים is presented over whether בית הלל’s היתר to עכו"ם extends to feeding meat of בכור בעל מום to כלבים. The question expands from invitation to sale, with many ראשונים holding the same permissibility applies to selling to an עכו"ם, and a preference is suggested because selling avoids complications when the בכור is found to be a טרפה and issues of burial and restrictions of גיזה ועבודה. The רמ״א is cited as ruling that a בכור בעל מום may be sold by the כהן to an עכום, and אחרונים address concern that the עכום may resell to a ישראל by invoking a ספק ספיקא. The מנחת יצחק quotes the טשעבינער רב that the restrictions on בכור בעל מום are not treated as inherent קדושה like other קדשים but as rules stated to ישראלים and not to עכום, so the fear that an עכום will not observe them is not operative, while the מהרש״ל distinguishes and permits inviting an עכום to eat but forbids selling it to an עכום.
- A distinction attributed to ספר ראשית ביכורים explains the מהרש״ל by saying that when an עכום eats in the ישראל’s home the meat remains the ישראל’s, while a sale transfers it into the עכום’s possession and is therefore disallowed. This ownership model is applied to a halachic case where a guest takes an apple from a host’s fruit bowl and uses it to be מקדש an אשה, raising whether the apple becomes the guest’s property simply by being served. The framework treats food served in the host’s home as still belonging to the host unless formally transferred.
- A שפת אמת is cited as comparing ד' מינים to מצה on פסח night and asserting a דין of לכם for מצה such that guests must be granted ownership in the מצה to fulfill the מצוה. Other פוסקים are presented as disagreeing and holding that even if there is a דין of לכם by מצה it requires only the right to eat rather than full ownership in the standard property sense.
- The גמרא asks מתניתין מני and answers that it follows רבי עקיבא, supported by a ברייתא stating בכור אין נמנין עליו אלא חבורה שכולה כהנים. The long phrasing is explained as necessary because a בת כהן who married a ישראל and later returns childless may eat תרומה again but not קדשים, and בית שמאי treat בכור בעל מום like קדשים so she may not eat even upon return. בית הלל are stated as permitting even זרים, and רבי עקיבא is presented as permitting even עכו"ם.
- The majority of ראשונים are described as seeing a dispute about whether בית הלל allow only ישראלים or even עכו"ם, with the restrictive בית הלל view described as a מדרבנן limitation while מדאורייתא they agree to עכו"ם. A further מחלוקת is raised about whether, for those who restrict עכו"ם from the meat, the חלב of a בכור בעל מום may at least be consumed by an עכו"ם.
- A reason for בית שמאי is derived from ובשרם יהיה לך כחזה התנופה וכשוק הימין לך יהיה, equating the בכור to חזה ושוק so that just as only כהנים eat there, so too only כהנים eat here. רבי עקיבא איגר challenges the comparison by noting that a בכור תם is eaten לשני ימים ולילה אחד while a בכור בעל מום has no such restriction, and תפארת ירושלים answers that time limits apply only where היתר אכילה comes through זריקת הדם, not where the היתר comes from the presence of a מום. בית הלל limit the comparison to תם and for בעל מום rely on הטמא והטהור יחדו יאכלנו, building a קל וחומר that if a טמא כהן who cannot eat קדשים קלים eats בכור, then a זר who does eat קדשים קלים should certainly eat בכור, and the necessity of the קל וחומר is explained as countering a possible extension of the earlier היקש to בעל מום as well.
- A פירכה argues that טומאה is lenient because it is permitted for עבודת ציבור, with רש"י cited as lenient in applying the ציבור standard even to the בית אב on duty, reflecting טומאה הותרה בציבור. בית הלל respond that the argument concerns אכילה rather than עבודה and that in the realm of eating a non-טמא ישראל is on a higher level than a טמא כהן. The ראשית ביכורים is cited as using the distinction that עבודה requires בגדי כהונה while אכילה does not, so אכילה is not classified as עבודה.
- A rationale for רבי עקיבא’s permission to עכו"ם is derived from כצבי וכאיל so that just as עכו"ם may eat צבי ואיל, they may eat פסולים such as בכור בעל מום. Those who disagree are explained through the דרשה that שלש צבי ואיל כתיבי, with one for רבי יצחק ורבי אושעיא as explained by ראשונים as referring to a גמרא in מכות about כלאים-like liabilities in פסולי המוקדשין, one for רבי אלעזר הקפר requiring שחיטה for פסולי המוקדשין, and one teaching that as חיות are פטור מן הבכורה so too פסולי המוקדשין are פטור מן הבכורה.
- A ברייתא states that בית שמאי say a בכור is not fed to נדות while בית הלל say it is, and the Rambam is cited as inferring that only when the כהן’s wife is a נדה is she barred, while when not a נדה she may eat. The מפרשים present the ראב"ד as forbidding a כהן’s wife from eating even when not a נדה, and the אחרונים reconcile by limiting the ראב"ד to a בכור תם brought as a קרבן rather than a בכור בעל מום. בית שמאי again use the comparison to חזה ושוק to exclude נדות, and בית הלל again distinguish that the restriction applies only to תם while for בעל מום the verse allows הטמא והטהור to eat.
- בית שמאי answer the explicit permission of טמא eating by limiting it to cases where טומאה does not emanate from the body, excluding a נדה as טומאה יוצאה מגופה, and they cite a precedent from פסחים that פסח שבא בטומאה is not eaten by זבים, מצורעים, זבות, נידות, and יולדות. A note is given that שיטה removes the word מצורעים, and צל"ח explains either that a מצורע is excluded because he is outside of ירושלים and cannot partake, or because registration timing and the non-declaration of צרעת at that stage render the case irrelevant. בית הלל respond that the פסח context is different because there the Torah specifies טמא נפש, while for בכור the Torah says טמא without distinction, so all טמאים may eat.
- A ברייתא rules אין מגילין ביום טוב because it is excessive exertion not needed for אוכל נפש, and it extends the prohibition to a בכור and to פסולי מוקדשין. רב חסדא attributes the strict approach for בכור to בית שמאי based on their broader stringency toward בכור בעל מום, and he attributes the prohibition for פסולי המוקדשין to רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון. A case is cited of two חטאות, one תמימה and one בעלת מום, where the בעלת מום is permitted if slaughtered before זריקת הדם of the תמימה, but becomes forbidden after the owner’s כפרה, and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון extends the prohibition even when the בעל מום is already cooking, treating it as retaining קדושה sufficient to revert to חטאת שנתכפרו בעליה.
- The גמרא rejects attributing the entire ברייתא to בית שמאי because their strictness may be limited to בכור with קדושתו מרחם, and it rejects attributing the entire ברייתא to רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון because his strictness may be limited to פסולי המוקדשין that are fit for מצות פדיון, unlike בכור. A challenge is raised from the earlier rule that פסולי המוקדשין הנאכלין are weighed and sold in a butcher shop for הקדש’s benefit, and the answer explains that מרגיל is not pure profit because it improves the hide while damaging the meat. רב אלישיב is cited as explaining the case assumes the hide gain exceeds the meat loss, and the rule still stands because the act inherently degrades the meat.
- An additional explanation attributes the prohibition of מרגיל in פסולי המוקדשין to the appearance of doing עבודה with קדשים, which is forbidden even for פסולי המוקדשין. Another reason is a גזירה that allowing the procedure could lead one to keep the animal longer to market the hide, during which time it may produce offspring that inherit restrictions of גיזה ועבודה.
- A משנה rules that a בכור with a blood clot may not be bled even if it will die, according to ר' יהודה, due to concern that bleeding may be done in a way that creates a permanent blemish. חכמים allow bleeding provided one does not make a מום, and if a מום was made the animal may not be slaughtered based on that blemish and must wait for another מום. Two explanations are presented for חכמים, either that a temporary blemish is permitted or that bleeding is not treated as making a blemish at all, and ר' שמעון is presented as more lenient by allowing bleeding even if it causes a מום, either because it is a דבר שאינו מתכוין or because once the animal already has a temporary blemish, additional blemishing is not included in the prohibition that targets an unblemished בכור.
- A ברייתא states that a בכור with a blood clot is bled only in a place that does not create a blemish according to רבי מאיר, while חכמים permit bleeding even where it creates a blemish provided one does not slaughter based on that blemish, and רבי שמעון permits even slaughtering based on it. רבי יהודה again forbids bleeding even if the animal will die.
- A teaching equates the dispute to a case of a חבית של תרומה with a ספק טומאה, and תוספות object based on the usual rule of ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד טמא and ברשות הרבים טהור. The ריב"א explains the ספק as two barrels in a private domain where a טמא touched one unknown barrel, and other ראשונים suggest the ספק arises because the doubt involves טומאה היוצאה מגופו or because it is uncertain whether the barrel was in a private or public domain.
- A משנה is cited where רבי אליעזר says to protect the תרומה by moving it to a concealed place and covering it, רבי יהושע says to expose it to become טמא so it can be used rather than remain unusable in ספק status, and רבן גמליאל says to change nothing. The גמרא proposes aligning רבי מאיר with רבי אליעזר, חכמים with רבי יהושע, and רבי יהודה with רבן גמליאל, then rejects the linkage by distinguishing direct action on the בכור from mere גרמא on the תרומה and by invoking the factor that by תרומה one can say שמא יבוא אליהו ויטהרנה. A halachic inference is presented that היסח הדעת does not necessarily permanently disqualify the תרומה if Eliyahu would clarify nothing happened, and רב אלישיב is cited that היסח הדעת is disqualifying when one could have watched it and did not, unlike an inadvertent lapse.
- A passage introduces the principle of liability for repeating an act already in effect, as with מחמץ אחר מחמץ in מנחה based on לא תאפה חמץ and מסרס אחר מסרס from ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות, where the verse teaches liability for נותק after כרות. The שיעור applies this conceptual frame to questions like בישול אחר בישול in שבת and to whether reheating absorbed בשר בחלב constitutes cooking, and it also raises erasing letters of the Tetragrammaton after one letter is already erased, noting פוסקים are strict due to לא תעשון כן לה' אלקיכם or because each letter bears קדושת השם.
- The dispute is cast as whether making an additional blemish on an already blemished animal is prohibited, with רבי מאיר reading כל מום לא יהיה בו to forbid any blemish and רבנן reading תמים יהיה לרצון to limit the prohibition to an unblemished animal. רבי מאיר uses תמים יהיה לרצון to exclude cases like בעל מום מעיקרא or, in the final framing, to exclude פסולי המוקדשין after redemption from the prohibition despite their continuing restrictions of גיזה ועבודה.
- A דרשה from כל מום extends the prohibition to causing a blemish by indirect means, such as placing dried figs and dough on the ear so that a dog bites and creates a blemish. A suggestion is added that this heightened insistence against גרמא implies that asking an עכו"ם to make a מום in a בכור may be treated as attributable to the sender even though ordinarily אין שליח לדבר עבירה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions