Bechoros 27
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת בכורות דף כ"ז begins from דף כ"ו עמוד ב' at אם אמר לו הכהן בתוך הזמן and explains why a ישראל does not give the בכור to a כהן who demands it during the required holding period, because it looks like *kohen ham’saye’a b’veit ha’granot*. The גמרא and later authorities frame מתנות כהונה as granted for כהונה and עבודה rather than as wages, develop the prohibition of receiving תרומה ומעשר as payment for help, and analyze when this is merely “נראה” versus actual assistance. The sugya then turns to multiple leniencies and rules for תרומת חוץ לארץ, including ביטול ברוב, eating before separating, and limits on טומאה, and it closes with the דין of שנה בשנה that a בכור’s year is counted from its own anniversary rather than by the calendar year.
- Today's שיעור starts from דף כ"ו עמוד ב' nine lines from the bottom, אם אמר לו הכהן בתוך הזמן, and applies the משנה that a ישראל must keep the בכור during the זמן, with בהמה דקה held either thirty days or three months and בהמה גסה held fifty days, because nowadays there is no ability to bring the בכור as a קרבן in the בית המקדש. The משנה rules that if the כהן approaches during that time and says תנה לי, the ישראל does not give it to him, and the גמרא asks מאי טעמא. Rav Sheshet answers מפני שנראה ככהן המסייע בבית הגרנות, because it appears that the כהן is assisting in order to receive מתנות כהונה as compensation.
- The מאירי explains that the כהן receives מתנות כהונה because he is a כהן and because he does the עבודה in the בית המקדש, not because he worked for those gifts. The אחרונים ask why the wording is מפני שנראה rather than מפני שמסייע, and they give two explanations, including an analogy to a dispute among פוסקים about whether one who supports a family or pays another’s debt without being asked may later demand repayment, so that where repayment is not demandable it is only “נראה” that he worked for payment. Some explain that in הקדש everyone agrees there is no right to demand repayment, while another explanation says that since many would volunteer to care for the בכור and later receive it, it is not clear that the כהן’s conduct is for payment, so the wording remains “נראה.”
- The גמרא brings a ברייתא that כהנים ולויים ועניים המסייעים בבית הרועים ובבית הגרנות ובבית המטבחיים may not receive תרומה ומעשר as their wages, stated as אין נותנים להם תרומה ומעשר בשכרן. The מפרשים note that the ברייתא begins with כהנים, לויים, and עניים but focuses on תרומה ומעשר, and Ravinu Gershom treats this as a question the גמרא will pose on דף כז עמוד א. Other ראשונים say the focus is because תרומה ומעשר applies to כהנים, לויים, ועניים, or because תרומה ומעשר involves טבל with חיוב מיתה בידי שמים, so the ברייתא highlights it even though the principle is broader.
- The ראשונים debate whether this applies to מעשר עני, with some holding there is no issue of *kohen ham’saye’a b’veit ha’granot* for מעשר עני and others applying it there as well. The ערוך השולחן rules that if the helper’s intent is not to obtain the תרומה or מעשר and the ישראל later gives it as a gift, it is not considered *kohen ham’saye’a b’veit ha’granot*. Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein rules that the entire issue exists only when the כהן is working with the תבואה or בהמה that he wants to receive as תרומה, מעשר, or מתנות כהונה, and that a separate favor that induces the ישראל to give is not in that category.
- The ברייתא states ואם עשה כן, חללו, and the ראשונים dispute whether חללו means causing חילול השם or profaning the תרומה ומעשר so they lose קדושה. The ברייתא adds ולמה הכתוב אומר שחתם ברית הלוי, presented as a ראיה that it does not apply by מעשר עני because מעשר עני has nothing to do with כהונה ולוויה. The ברייתא also quotes ואת קדשי בני ישראל לא תחללו ולא תמותו, and the גמרא asks מאי ואומר and answers that the added פסוק teaches a severity implying מיתה; תוספות explains that this does not mean an actual חיוב מיתה but that it is a very serious עבירה.
- The ברייתא says חכמים wanted to penalize offenders by requiring separation of תרומה again, but they did not enact it because דלמא אתי לאפרושי מן הפטור על החיוב. Some explain this concern is highlighted here because it was a common problem of כהנים working to get תרומה, while תוספות explains that people might treat the first “תרומה” as mere wages and think the second separation is the real תרומה, producing the risk of separating from the wrong status. A ווארט applies this to why עשו asked יצחק כיצד מעשרין את המלח, meaning he portrayed himself as taking מעשר even from something not obligated while being careful about the problem of מן הפטור על החיוב.
- The ברייתא states that by מתנות עניים there is טובת הנאה לבעלים and illustrates it with a case where a ישראל who separated תרומה offers money to another ישראל to give that תרומה to his כהן grandson, which is מותר. The ברייתא rules that if a כהן pays to direct the תרומה to another כהן it is אסור, and the ראשונים explain either that the paying כהן could have taken it himself so it remains assistance for כהונה, or that חז"ל suspect גומלין where two כהנים trade favors by alternating requests.
- The גמרא asks why the ברייתא’s טובת הנאה point is stated only for תרומה and not for other מתנות כהונה, and Ravinu Gershom relates the question back to the earlier focus on תרומה ומעשר. The שיטה cites another גירסא where רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says that by all מתנות כהונה there is טובת הנאה, and the response distinguishes תרומה as קדושת הגוף that does not become חולין so people will not err, while other gifts such as זרוע ולחיים וקיבה have קדושת דמים and people may mistakenly think payment removes their קדושה and then treat them with מנהג חולין, contrary to the דין of למשחה כדרך שהמלכים אוכלים and the prohibition of treating them disgracefully, including feeding them to animals. The שיעור applies this framework to a practical שאלה where a כהן offers a ישראל money to be chosen for פדיון הבן, which the פוסקים prohibit because the תורה wants the כהן to receive a full חמש סלעים, with a suggestion that if a third party pays on behalf of the כהן the reasoning may differ.
- Rava states that תרומת חוץ לארץ has no issue of *kohen ham’saye’a b’veit ha’granot*, with ראשונים noting this refers to nearby countries and that the חיוב there is only on דגן תירוש ויצהר. The רמב"ם is understood by some to allow giving such תרומה to a כהן who worked for you while still forbidding the כהן to work specifically for the sake of receiving it. The גמרא reports that Rav Chama gave תרומה to his assistant, and ראשונים dispute whether this was payment of תרומת חוץ לארץ for labor, which also resolves how a כהן may work for someone if he is paid, or whether it was not wages and was permitted because a כהן may work for a תלמיד חכם and Rav Chama was a תלמיד חכם.
- Shmuel rules that תרומת חוץ לארץ is בטלה ברוב, with the מאירי limiting this to *min b’mino* and requiring sixty for *min b’she’eino mino*. The ראשונים debate what “רוב” means and whether it is merely more חולין than תרומה or requires a two-to-one ratio, and they dispute whether the permissibility affects a ישראל eating the mixture as רש"י holds or a כהן טמא eating it as תוספות holds. The שאגת אריה challenges תוספות using the principle of דבר שיש לו מתירים, and answers are given that the leniency of תרומת חוץ לארץ includes allowing a כהן טמא to eat without waiting, or that דבר שיש לו מתירים applies to the item rather than to the כהן’s future טהרה.
- The גמרא describes that רבה, with תוספות emphasizing the girsa that it is רבה because he was a כהן, would be מבטל ברוב and eat it, prompting a major debate whether this is ביטול לכתחילה despite אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה, explained either because the matter is דרבנן or because the heter of תרומת חוץ לארץ includes this ביטול. Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua’s practice with תרומה wine illustrates careful maintenance of a two-to-one ratio before drawing off, since adding again before removing would negate the ביטול.
- Shmuel teaches that for תרומת חוץ לארץ one may eat and then separate, phrased as אוכל והולך ואחר כך מפריש, and most ראשונים interpret this as leaving over at the end the amount needed without a formal הפרשה because it is תרומת חוץ לארץ. The פוסקים apply this especially to חלת חוץ לארץ, so if one baked and forgot to separate חלה and it is שבת, one may eat and leave over the required amount at the end. The שיעור explains that this helps answer why people in חוץ לארץ do not say עישרתם before שבת for חלה, because it is forbidden to separate on שבת but there is still a permitted method of leaving over at the end.
- The פוסקים warn that on שבת ערב פסח, leaving over חלה can create a problem of בל יראה בל ימצא close to פסח, so on that Friday one should specifically ensure that חלה was taken. The practice is mitigated by the fact that people commonly buy from bakeries and reliable השגחה ensures הפרשת חלה.
- Shmuel rules that תרומת חוץ לארץ is not אסורה except for one with טומאה יוצאה לו מגופו, distinguishing contact טומאה from bodily-emission טומאה such as זב and קרי, with a dispute whether בועל נידה is included. The גמרא adds that this restriction is only for eating and that touching has no prohibition even for one with טומאה יוצאה לו מגופו. Ravina concludes that a נידה separates חלה and gives it to a כהן קטן who never had emission and thus was never טמא, with רש"י suggesting it may also apply to an adult כהן who immersed before eating.
- If there is no כהן קטן, the גמרא instructs placing the חלה on a stick and burning it in the oven, with ראשונים disputing whether the stick minimizes touching or is simply the standard way to place it into fire. The גמרא then requires separating another חלה so תורת חלה is not forgotten, and this second portion may be given to a כהן טמא because it is only for remembrance. A later question is raised about fulfilling communal purposes through קטנים, and Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein suggests a קטן’s סיום can be meaningful because it increases תורה in the world, while also citing that his father-in-law הרב אלישיב holds otherwise.
- The גמרא recounts that Rav Nachman, Rav Amram, and Rami bar Chama traveled on a boat and a woman asked whether a טמא מת may immerse and immediately eat תרומת חוץ לארץ without waiting for הערב שמש. Rav Nachman notes that without הזאה, full purification is impossible anyway, so the need for הערב שמש is questioned, and Rav Amram rules that a טמא מת immerses and eats immediately, but the גמרא concludes ולית הלכתא כוותיה. Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Sheshet states similarly for טמא שרץ, and again the גמרא rules ולית הלכתא כוותיה.
- Rashi explains that the dispute is only about הערב שמש, assuming טבילה is still required even without הזאה. תוספות interprets the dispute as including טבילה itself, suggesting that without the full purification process perhaps even immersion is unnecessary, and the פוסקים treat this as relevant because כיום we are all טמאי מתים without הזאה. The שיעור concludes that many פוסקים advise immersion after contact with a מת and before יום טוב under the rule חייב אדם לטהר עצמו ברגל, as doing what is possible remains meaningful even without complete טהרה.
- The משנה states that a בכור may be eaten שנה בשנה, applying both to an unblemished animal and to a בעל מום, and the גמרא infers that the year is counted as לשנה דידיה מנינן rather than ending at תשרי. The גמרא asks for the source and cites Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav from the פסוק לפני ה' אלהיך תאכלנו שנה בשנה, interpreted as a year that enters into the next year, identified as the year of a בכור. The שיעור notes views that count from birth, from eight days old when it becomes eligible for קרבן, or from when it becomes a בעל מום.
- The שיעור raises the earlier issue of בל תאחר for an unblemished בכור and records answers that sometimes the three ימים טובים required for בל תאחר do not elapse due to order requirements, or that a person lacking חיוב עליה לרגל lacks בל תאחר while still having the one-year rule, or that בל תאחר applies to the ישראל but not to the כהן who receives the בכור, while שנה בשנה still applies.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions