Bechoros 23
Summary
- A shiur on Maseches Bechoros Daf כ"ג reviews Reish Lakish’s ruling about fish brine from an *am haaretz* and the *mimah nafshach* logic that makes the mixture *tahor* either through *hashakah* in a *mikveh* when water is the majority or through *bitul berov* when *tzir* is the majority, and then develops Rabbi Yirmiyah’s distinction that the leniency applies only for dipping bread but not for cooking because *matza min es mino vene’or* revives the *tumah*. A challenge from Mishnah Parah about *efer parah adumah* mixed with other ashes leads to a split between *maga* and *masa* and to Tosafos’ claim that the idea of *chozer vene’or* is only *derabanan* while *de’oraisa* *bitul berov* means *nehpach* into heter. The Gemara then tests the principle further with *neveilah* mixed with *shechutah* and with the case of a cow that discharged a blood mass (*charores dam*) that may contain a fetus, and it ties the resolution to whether the case is treated as *tumah seruchah* and to the dispute of Bar Pada and Rabbi Yochanan about the “edibility” standard of *ger* versus *kelev*. The daf then returns to laws of *tzir* becoming *tamei* when a drop of water falls in and closes with Rav’s pesak that the halacha follows the named tanna’im throughout the perek except where there is a machlokes, and it clarifies that a dispute found only in a beraisa does not block that rule.
- Today’s shiur begins on Bechoros כ"ג עמוד א׳ at “איתיבי” after first reviewing the Gemara at the bottom of כ"ב עמוד א׳, thirteen lines from the bottom, where Reish Lakish says in the name of רבי יהודה נשיאה that one who takes *tzir* from an *am haaretz* makes it *tahor* by placing it with a *mikveh* through *hashakah*. Rashi explains that *hashakah* removes *tumah* like something *tamei* that is replanted, and the Gemara explains that if water is the majority then *hashakah* works and the fish liquid is *batel* to the water, while if *tzir* is the majority then *tzir* is *zeiah בעלמא* and is not *mekabel tumah*, so the minority water is *batel berov* to the *tzir* and the whole mixture remains *tahor*. Rabbi Yirmiyah limits this to dipping bread and rules that for cooking in a pot it becomes *tamei* because the water finds its own kind and is revived, and Abaye challenges how *tumah* that was *batel* can be *chozer vene’or* and argues that *tumah* can be revived only by *tumah*, not by *taharah*, while Rabbi Yirmiyah holds that even *tahor* water can revive it.
- The Gemara asks from Mishnah Parah פרק ט׳ משנה ז׳ about *mei parah adumah* which is *metaher teme’im* and also *metamei tehorim*, and Rashi brings the pasuk “והנוגע במי הנידה יטמא” and holds that even the ashes alone have this power. The Mishnah rules that *efer kasher* of the parah adumah mixed with oven ashes follows the majority for *tumah*, so if oven ash is the majority it does not make one *tamei* even though parah ash is present as a minority. The Gemara challenges that if *tumah* is treated as still present and able to revive, then even when *maga* is not *metamei* due to *bitul*, it should still be *metamei* by *masa* because parah adumah is *metamei b’masa* as well.
- The Gemara answers with Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Chanina that the mixture is *tahor* from being *metamei b’maga* even though it is *metamei b’masa*. Tosafos explains that *de’oraisa* *bitul berov* means *nehpach* so there is no parah-ash reality left, and the *chozer vene’or* model is a *derabanan* construct that keeps the *tumah* dormant rather than transformed, allowing *maga* to be treated through division while *masa* cannot be divided. Tosafos compares this to eating a mixture and says that each *mashahu* entering the *beis habli’ah* is “קמא קמא בטל ברוב היתר,” treating eating like *maga* and not like *masa*, and Tosafos contrasts this with the Rashba’s approach that eating all at once is like *masa*.
- The Gemara brings Rav Chisda’s statement that *neveilah* is *batel* in *shechutah* and Rashi notes the issue with the printed girsa and explains that a *neveilah* can lose *tumah* if it becomes putrid, “כגון דמסרחא פרחה טומאה,” so the correct formulation is “שאי אפשר לשחוטה שתעשה נבילה.” The Gemara again asks that even if *maga* is not *metamei*, it should be *metamei* by *masa* if the *tumah* remains dormant, and it answers that the tradition is taught in a beraisa of Rabbi Chiya and is explained by Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Chanina as *tahor* for *maga* but *metamei* for *masa*.
- The Gemara brings the Mishnah where ר"א בן יעקב rules that a large animal that expelled a *charores dam* is buried and exempts the mother from future *bechorah*, and Rav Chiya teaches that it is not *metamei* either by *maga* or by *masa* because the fetus is *batel* in the majority blood. The Gemara asks why it should not be *metamei* by *masa* if *chozer vene’or* applies, and the questioned party is silent. The Gemara proposes that the case is different because it is *tumah seruchah*, and it says this works for Bar Pada who ties *tumah chamurah* to what is edible for a *ger*, but it remains difficult for Rabbi Yochanan who ties both levels to what is edible for a *kelev*, so the Gemara concludes “קשיא.”
- The Gemara states that Bar Pada holds “טומאה חמורה עד לגר” and “טומאה קלה עד לכלב,” while Rabbi Yochanan holds “אחת זו ואחת זו עד לכלב.” Bar Pada derives his view from “לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר תתננה ואכלה,” learning that what is *chazi la’ger* is called *neveilah* and what is not is not called *neveilah*, and the shiur attributes to the Chasam Sofer the linkage between the rules of eating and *tumah*. Tosafos challenges Rashi’s identification of *tumah chamurah* as *masa* and *tumah kalah* as *maga* because the pasuk does not indicate that split, and Tosafos instead reads the split as *neveilah* versus *tum’as ochlin*. Rabbi Yochanan uses the pasuk to exclude the case of “סרוחה מעיקרא,” and Rashi explains that *charores dam* is not treated as *seruchah me’ikara* because it is “חזי לגר אגב אימיה.”
- The Gemara cites the Mishnah again and reports that Rabbi Yochanan explains the lack of *tumah* as “משום ביטול ברוב נגעו בה,” and it asks why this is necessary if it is not fit to eat. The Gemara answers that it is “חזי לגר אגב אימיה,” keeping the case within the framework where *bitul berov* is the operative factor rather than inherent inedibility.
- A Mishnah in Machshirin פרק ו׳ משנה ג׳ states that *tzir tahor* into which any amount of water falls becomes *tamei*, and Rav Nachman says in the name of Rav Avuha that this shows *amei haaretz* are assumed to mix about half water into *tzir*. The sugya explains that even a small additional amount can eliminate *bitul* and create a revived water-status that renders the mixture *tamei*, and it answers why “מחצה” is needed by either reading it as “עד מחצה” or by saying that since *tum’as am haaretz* and *tum’as mashkin* are *derabanan*, the Rabbanan decreed only when there is a majority and not when it is exactly half.
- The Mishnah rules that one who buys a nursing animal from an עובד כוכבים does not worry that the calf belongs to another, and Rashi explains that even though there is a minority of animals that lactate without giving birth, one does not treat the next offspring as a ספק בכור and instead assumes this calf is hers and she is exempt from future *bechorah*. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel also rules that when one enters his herd and sees both first-time mothers and experienced mothers nursing, he does not worry that calves switched, and the bechor-status follows the known birthing history rather than creating ספקות across the herd.
- Rav states “הלכתא בכולה פירקא בר מפלוגתא,” meaning the halacha follows the named tanna in each Mishnah of the perek unless there is a machlokes. Rav Sheshes says Rav must have said it while dozing because he tries to locate which Mishnah it applies to and argues that the first, second, this one, the next, and the last each appear to have reasons the rule is unnecessary or blocked. The Gemara answers that Rav’s statement applies to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and teaches that a machlokes found only in a beraisa is not treated as the “פלוגתא” that defeats Rav’s rule, and it then explains that Rav separately stated “הלכה כרבי יוסי בן משולם” so that “בכולה פירקא” would not be misread as referring only to Rabbi Yosi’s two rulings, and so that it becomes clear that “פלוגתא דברייתא לאו פלוגתא היא” for applying Rav’s perek-wide pesak.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions