Bechoros 22
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת בכורות דף כ"ב begins from דף כ"א עמוד ב' with רבי אלעזר בן יעקב’s ruling that a בהמה that discharges חררת דם has the discharge buried and the animal becomes פטור מן הבכורה, and the גמרא explains that the burial functions to publicize the exemption even though the חררה itself is not מטמא as a נבילה. The sugya develops רבי יוחנן’s explanation of why the חררה is not מטמא through *bitul b’rov* and ties it to רבי שמעון’s view about a שליא and dissolved ולד, alongside a מחלוקת רש"י ותוספות and the ריטב"א’s analysis of relying on חזקת טהרה with a מיעוט when a שליא is present. The שיעור then moves into שיעורי טומאה for נפלים with the measurement of פיקה and its variants, clarifying רבי יוחנן’s allocation of different פיקות to different halachic contexts and raising a difficulty in רש״י about בית הפרס and טומאת אוהל. The final section treats ציר purchased from an עם הארץ and its purification through השקה, the principle that טומאה וטהרה follow rules distinct from איסור והיתר, the mechanism of מצא מין את מינו וניעור, and its proof from תרומות, ending with a חסידישע application from the בעל שם about ברכה awakening קדושה in food.
- Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov rules that a בהמה גסה ששפכה חררת דם is buried and the animal is פטור מן הבכורה for future births because the first discharge is treated as exempting the next ולד from בכורה even if the first did not survive. Rishonim state that although the משנה says בהמה גסה, the same halacha applies to בהמה דקה, and the רא"ש has a גירסא without the phrase בהמה גסה because it is simply more common in larger animals. Rabbi Chiya teaches that the חררה is not מטמא לא במגע ולא במשא, and the גמרא answers that the burial is required כדי לפרסמה שנפטר מן הבכורה, not because the חררה has טומאת נבילה.
- Tosafos contrasts the משנה in חולין that says המבכרת שהפילה שליא, ישליכנה לכלבים with the requirement here to bury a חררת דם. Tosafos explains that a שליא makes the miscarriage obvious to people and the likelihood of a בכור is minimal, so disposal is permitted, while a חררה is not clearly recognizable as a ולד to the public, so חז"ל require burial to ensure publicity of the exemption from בכורה. The מהר"י אלגאזי and ראשית בכורים add that חז"ל would not institute burial merely as a signal unless there is a real halacha that a definite בכור of this type would require burial, and the burial here rests on that underlying דין together with the need for פרסום.
- Mefarshim ask why the משנה states הרי זה תקבר ופטור מן הבכורה if the burial serves to publicize the exemption and should therefore come after it. Mefarshim answer that the משנה follows the sequence of events, requiring burial immediately upon the discharge and then stating the later consequence that future offspring are פטור מן הבכורה.
- The גמרא challenges that if the חררה exempts future בכורה it seems to be treated as a ולד מעליא, so it should be מטמא as a נבילה. Rabbi Yochanan answers that טומאת מגע ומשא does not apply because בטול ברוב נגעו בה, since it emerges mixed with other material that forms the majority. The שיעור brings the מרדכי’s question from חליצה with צחצוחי דם, where *bitul* does not validate the spit because the mixture is נולד בתערובת, and it asks why *bitul* works here when the חררה also emerges as a mixture.
- Some answer that in the womb the ולד and the surrounding materials are two separate entities, so the later mixing at emergence is not treated as נולד בתערובת. Another answer says that בכור has special rules and that exemption of the next animal from being a בכור is relatively easy even if this is considered נולד בתערובת. The סטייפלר explains that בטל ברוב here does not mean there is no בכור; it means the בכור exists but lacks טומאת נבילה because it is enveloped in other majority material, and this reflects a broader dispute among Rishonim about whether *bitul* changes the status of the prohibited item or merely affects the halachic treatment while the item still exists.
- Rabbi Yochanan aligns Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov with Rabbi Shimon, citing the משנה that if there is a שליא in a house the house is טמא because אין שליא בלא ולד, while Rabbi Shimon says ולד נימוק עד שלא יצא and the dissolved ולד becomes בטל so there is no טומאת אוהל. Tosafos explains that both sides accept the idea of dissolution and *bitul*, and the dispute is whether it occurred before leaving the body or possibly only after, which would leave concern for טומאת אוהל. Rashi interprets אין שליא בלא ולד as a רוב, while Tosafos treats it as a וודאי, and the ריטב"א asks that under Rashi’s רוב one should combine the house’s חזקת טהרה with the מיעוט of cases without ולד, but the ריטב"א answers that חזקה and מיעוט cannot override the reality of a שליא present in front of us.
- The מנחת יצחק and הרב שלמה זלמן are asked whether an afterbirth has therapeutic value and whether one may benefit from it, and they cite גשר החיים who brings a ירושלמי requiring קבורה for a שליא but notes that this is apparently not the מנהג. They rule that even without a מנהג of burial, especially according to Tosafos that אין שליה בלא ולד, one should not have הנאה from a שליא as medicine because a מת is אסור בהנאה except possibly in cases such as פיקוח נפש.
- The שיעור introduces טומאה בלועה, stating that a dead fetus within a woman does not convey טומאה, and frames the case as a woman who began miscarriage in one house and moved to another, with the question of when the first house becomes טמא depending on the size of the ולד. The רמב"ם offers a different framework based on when she cannot walk, with the relevance of that sign depending on whether the fetus is of significant size, but the שיעור proceeds with רש"י’s approach. The משנה states that a נפל constitutes פתיחת קבר only once the head reaches the circumference of a פיקה, and Rav Huna defines this as a פיקה של צמר, with debate whether it is of שתי or ערב, while רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק gives a measure described as טפיפיות and is explained via a Jerusalem tradition involving פיקה מתוך פיקה.
- Rav Huna reports hearing of two פיקות and not knowing how to apply them, while Rav Dimi בשם רבי יוחנן reports three: of שתי, of ערב, and a large פיקה used for sackcloth. Ravin explains in רבי יוחנן’s name that for a woman the measure is כשל שתי, for an animal the measure is כשל ערב in the case where a shepherd inserts his hand and the question is when he has touched a נבילה, and the large sackcloth פיקה measures the שיעור of a גוש from בית הפרס or מארץ העמים. The שיעור raises a difficulty in רש״י who writes that such a גוש is מטמא באהל even though בית הפרס and ארץ העמים are not מטמא באהל, and it cites an attempted resolution distinguishing שדה שנחרש בה קבר from שדה שנאבד בה קבר.
- The שיעור explains that ציר is fish brine and is not treated by חז"ל as an אוכל and not as a משקה among the seven משקין, so it is not subject to טומאת אוכלין, though people dilute it with water to use it. The גמרא rules that הלוקח ציר מעם הארץ משיקו במים וטהור, applying השקה to the water component, and the logic is ממנפשך: if רוב is water, השקה purifies it, and if רוב is ציר, ציר לאו בר קבולי טומאה הוא and the concern is only the minority water which is בטל. Rishonim answer that the rule of נותן טעם not becoming בטל applies to איסור והיתר and not to טומאה וטהרה, and they dispute the outcome in a 50/50 mixture of ציר and water.
- Rabbi Yirmiyah limits the היתר, stating that it works when used in a contained way but not when poured into a pot, because the water that was בטל in the ציר can rejoin other water and the *bitul* is undone through מצא מין את מינו וניעור. Abaye challenges whether טומאה that was בטלה can truly return, and Rav Dimi answers by pointing to a משנה and ברייתא in תרומות as a precedent for the reawakening principle in the laws of טומאה וטהרה.
- The משנה addresses a סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה חולין טהורה, with רבי אליעזר saying תרום ותירקב and חכמים saying תעלה ותיאכל under conditions that avoid הכשר and prevent a כביצה from being in one place. The שיעור explains that removing a סאה even when it will rot reflects consistency with the case of תרומה טהורה falling into a hundred, and it cites the ירושלמי’s question whether רבי אליעזר treats the removed סאה as certainly the fallen one or only as a חומרא. The ט"ז asks why not annul the original תרומה like a נדר, and answers that the separation was proper and the later mixture problem is not grounds for annulment, while נקודות הכסף disagrees that annulment could be acceptable and the משנה simply speaks where it was not done. Ulla explains the reason for רבי אליעזר’s stringencies as a decree that one may add חולין טמאים and rely on *bitul*, but because there remains a משהו of the original תרומה טמאה, additional טומאה triggers מצא מין את מינו וניעור.
- The שיעור closes by applying מצא מין את מינו וניעור to ברכה, attributing to the בעל שם the idea that food contains קדושה placed in it by הקדוש ברוך הוא and that saying a ברכה and articulating the שם השם connects to the קדושה within the food and awakens it, elevating the act of eating into an עבודת השם.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions