Bechoros 26
Summary
- A שיעור on מסכת בכורות דף כו עמוד א explains the תנאים’ dispute about whether wool that detached from a בכור may be used, frames ריש לקיש’s claim that the dispute applies only after a חכם has declared the animal a בעל מום, and tests whether that claim is itself a תנאי dispute before רבא reinterprets the sources as a three-way disagreement about the scope of עקביא וחכמים. The narrative then rules הלכה כרבי יהודה from מסכת עדיות, derives the second half of the משנה as consistent with that framework, and moves to a related question about detached wool from an עולת תמימה, including the concerns of delaying הקרבה and how “כח דהיתרא עדיף” signals an איסור דאורייתא per a cited צלח. The sugya closes with practical halachic timelines for how long a ישראל must care for a בכור before giving it to a כהן, the פסוקים and דרשות that yield thirty and fifty days (and רבי יוסי’s three months for בהמה דקה), and a concluding של״ה homiletic on “מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר.”
- A מחלוקת is presented about צמר בכור that fell off before the בכור died, with עקביא more lenient than חכמים but with disagreement which exact circumstances they address. ריש לקיש states that regardless of how the מחלוקת is read, all agree the case is only where the animal is already a בעל מום and has been declared so by the חכם, and if it has not yet been declared a בעל מום then everyone agrees the wool is אסור. A reason is given that even עקביא concedes hair that fell off from a בכור תם is אסור because permitting it would incentivize delaying שחיטה until a מום appears, gaining both exemption from bringing it as a קרבן and the benefit of the wool. Another framing is given that if it is not yet a בעל מום it remains קדשים and no part may be used.
- A ברייתא teaches that one who plucks wool from a בכור תם produces wool that remains אסור even if a מום later develops and the animal is slaughtered, while for a בכור בעל מום whose wool was removed and the animal later died, עקביא permits and חכמים forbid. רבי יהודה says “לא בזה התיר עקביא בן מהללאל,” ties death to burial of the בכור and its wool, and locates their dispute specifically where the hair fell off, was put aside “ונתנה בחלון,” and the בעל מום was then slaughtered, with עקביא permitting and חכמים forbidding due to concern for postponing שחיטה and coming to גיזה ועבודה. A ראשונים explanation distinguishes the תנא קמא’s case of intentional “תלש” from רבי יהודה’s “נשר,” arguing that a lawbreaker will not safeguard the wool, while one whose wool fell off naturally will. רבי יוסי states “מודה אבא חלפתא בזה שהוא מותר,” and רבי עקיבא איגר is cited that saying “אבא” before the name permits mentioning one’s father by name, and רבי יוסי frames that after slaughter “דברי הכל מותר” while dispute arises when the animal died, with עקביא permitting and חכמים forbidding. The גמרא then posits that the difference between תנא קמא and רבי יוסי is “התיר מומחה איכא בינייהו,” with the תנא קמא requiring the expert’s declaration for the dispute to apply and רבי יוסי applying it even without that declaration, and ראשונים are cited for why the lenient reading is attributed to רבי יוסי, including his phrase “שמא יש תקוה” and the tendency of a later תנא to expand the earlier view.
- רבא rejects treating ריש לקיש’s point as a תנאי dispute and rules that all agree “התיר מומחה אין, אי לאו לא התיר לא,” so without a חכם’s declaration the wool is אסור. A “שלוש מחלוקת בדבר” is set out: the תנא קמא holds עקביא and חכמים argue in the case of מת and likewise in נשחט, and the ברייתא chooses מת “להודיעך כחו דעקביא” under the rule “כח דהיתרא עדיף.” A discussion among מפרשים and a quoted צלח is brought that “כח דהיתרא עדיף” is applied particularly to איסור דאורייתא contexts because “ספק דאורייתא לחומרא,” and this is offered as an indication that the sugya’s prohibition is דאורייתא. רבי יהודה holds that when the בעל מום died everyone forbids due to burial, and the dispute is only when it was slaughtered. רבי יוסי holds that when it was slaughtered everyone permits, and the dispute is only when it died, while all of this remains within the shared requirement of a declared בעל מום.
- רב נחמן rules “הלכה כרבי יהודה” because “דתנן בבחירתא כוותיה” in מסכת עדיות and cites the stature of עדיות from the day רבי אלעזר בן עזריה became נשיא and removed the guard from the בית מדרש, leading to many established teachings. A משנה is quoted: “צמר בכור בעל מום שנשר, והניחו בחלון, ואחר כך שחטו, עקביא בן מהללאל מתיר וחכמים אוסרים,” establishing that the dispute is specifically where the wool fell off, was set aside, and the animal was then slaughtered. רב נחמן יצחק adds that the second part of the משנה about “צמר המדולדל בבכור” also indicates this framework, since it rules “את שנראה כגזיזה מותר ושאינו נראה אסור,” and the גמרא argues this cannot fit רבי יוסי, cannot fit רבנן on a case of מת, and would invert under עקביא, so it is read as consistent with רבי יהודה’s structure and as reflecting רבנן’s stance within that reading. The logic concludes that hair that appears part of the fleece is treated as not pre-shechitah detached and is permitted after שחיטה, while visibly separate hair is treated as detached while alive and remains אסור per רבנן.
- A question of רב ינאי asks the status of wool that detached from an עולת תמימה, and רש״י is cited that the inquiry is directed to the חכמים’ strict approach rather than עקביא’s leniency. The גמרא challenges the framing “תולש” because plucking from a קרבן is forbidden and such a person is called a “רשע,” and it is noted from רש״י that even violation of an איסור דרבנן can render one a רשע, raising the עדות problem under “אל תשת רשע עד,” with the חוות יאיר limiting this to a knowing violator who persists after being told to stop. The question is reframed as “צמר שניתק מעולת תמימה,” with רש״י explaining it concerns wool that fell off while alive and the animal was later slaughtered, and תוספות explaining that זריקת הדם functions as the מתיר for that wool. The sugya states that for חטאת ואשם there is no doubt of permissibility because they come “לכפרה” and the owner will not delay, while for בכור ומעשר the wool remains אסור because they are “לאו לכפרה” and the owner may delay, and the מרומי שדה extends this concern to שלמים. The doubt is restricted to עולה because it is not primarily for כפרה yet “עולה נמי מכפרא אעשה,” and an אחרונים question from ערכין about “ממשכנין” by עולה is answered by the מצפה איתן as distinguishing between one who has not designated an animal and one who already has.
- A ברייתא is brought: “התולש צמר בבכור תם… אסור,” and an inference is attempted that only “תולש” is אסור while “נתלש” might be permitted, which would imply permission by עולה as well. The גמרא rejects this and says “הוא הדין דאפילו נתלש נמי אסור,” and explains “והאי דתני תולש” is “לאפוקי כוחא דעקביא,” teaching that according to עקביא in a case of מום “אפילו בתולש נמי שרי.” A ראשונים question is raised whether עקביא’s leniency extends from תולש to גוזז, given גוזז is an איסור דאורייתא, and the gmarra explains why the משנה used “נשר” rather than “תולש” as “לאודועי כוחם דרבנן,” while the ברייתא used “תולש” “לאודועי כוחו דעקביא,” so the sources together show the furthest reach of each side.
- A definition is sought for when dangling wool is “אינו נראה מגזה.” רב אלעזר בשם ריש לקיש defines separation as where “עקרו חפף כנגד ראשו,” meaning the root appears displaced and detached. רב נתן בר אושיא defines it as wool that does not align “משתלמין עם הגזה,” not on the same level as the rest of the fleece. ריש לקיש rejects רב נתן’s criterion because “אי אפשר לגיזה בלא נימין המדולדלות,” making the standard unworkably strict since fleece is never perfectly level.
- A new משנה asks “עד כמה ישראל חייב להיטפל בבכור” in a time “שאין בית המקדש קיים,” with רש״י explaining the practical need to raise the animal until it becomes a בעל מום, and the אמרי אמת linking this to “למשחה” as a respectful mode that avoids burdening the כהן with initial טרחא. The משנה sets “בבהמה דקה שלושים יום ובגסה חמישים יום,” and רבי יוסי says “בבהמה דקה שלושה חודשים,” with a ראשונים dispute whether a כהן who refuses after the time is forced to take it, the אור זרוע saying he is not forced and the רא״ש saying he is. The תרומת הדשן clarifies that refusal is not endorsed, and an exception is noted for ספק בכור where the כהן can claim “המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה.” The משנה rules that if the כהן demands it “תוך הזמן” the owner does not give it, but if it is a בעל מום and the כהן says “תנהו לי שאוכלנו” it is permitted, and in “בשעת המקדש” a כהן may receive a תמים early if he says “תנהו לי ואקרבנו.” A point is added that this implies the בכור is not limited to the כהנים of that משמר, since otherwise a non-mishmar כהן could not approach.
- The משנה states “הבכור נאכל שנה בשנה” for both תם and בעל מום from “לפני ה' אלקיך תאכלנו שנה בשנה,” and a ראשונים debate is noted whether the one-year rule for בעל מום is דאורייתא or דרבנן. Two explanations are given why a special “שנה בשנה” is needed despite בל תאחר for קרבנות: מסכת ראש השנה describes how a year can pass without violating בל תאחר, and בל תאחר applies to the owner but not after transfer to the כהן. The משנה adds that if a מום arises within the year one may keep it for twelve months, and after the year one may keep it only thirty days, with the gmarra to clarify the case. The גמרא derives the thirty and fifty days from “בכור בניך תתן לי כן תעשה לצאנך,” comparing צאן to בכור אדם with פדיון at day thirty, and comparing שור to ביכורים for fifty days, with תוספות tying the fifty to ביכורים brought fifty days after פסח. The gmarra considers reversing the comparisons, answers with “ממגדל למגדל, ממשמר למשמר,” and then brings רבא’s reading from the extra word “תעשה” that adds an additional span for שור beyond צאן while leaving the exact amount to חכמים. A supporting ברייתא states that the תורה “לא מסרה הכתוב אלא לחכמים,” yielding the rule of thirty for בהמה דקה and fifty for בהמה גסה, and רבי יוסי’s three months is explained as “מפני ששיניה דקות,” requiring more care.
- A של״ה interpretation reads “מלאתך” as a person lacking fullness, “ודמעך” as crying to השם, and “לא תאחר” as הקדוש ברוך הוא not delaying granting what is requested in תפילות ובקשות.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions