Bechoros 21
Summary
- The שיעור on מסכת בכורות דף כ"א begins from דף כ' עמוד ב' תנו רבנן and continues the earlier מחלוקת רבי יהושע ורבי ישמעאל about whether a later birth can be assumed a בכור when there may have been a prior miscarriage. The גמרא shifts to מעשר בהמה, defines which animals combine for tithing within the same year (taken here as ראש חודש אלול to ראש חודש אלול), and analyzes a ברייתא about a goat producing multiple generations within one year and רבי שמעון’s testimony “אני ראיתי… תוך שנתו.” The sugya then develops multiple explanations for the difference between תנא קמא and רבי שמעון, including applying זעירי, whether gestation counts “למקוטעין,” whether מקצת היום ככולו applies to biological timing, and whether מחוסר זמן enters the pen for מעשר, supported by a ברייתא and a גזירה שוה from בכור. The גמרא defines טינוף by סימנים requiring expert evaluation, compares human and animal fetal formation (leaving בהמה בכמה unresolved), and returns to buying animals from an עובד כוכבים versus from a ישראל, presenting positions of רב, שמואל, and ר' יוחנן and testing an attempted proof from the notification requirement of אותו ואת בנו.
- Today's שיעור states that the earlier sugya centers on whether, after an animal miscarries, a subsequent birth can still be treated as a בכור. Rabbi Yishmael rules in the ברייתא of the משנה that buying a goat that gives birth within its first year allows certainty that the male is a בכור. Rabbi Yehoshua rules that one cannot be sure it is a בכור because the animal may have miscarried earlier and the next offspring would not be a בכור.
- The תורה imposes a חיוב of מעשר בהמה by passing animals through a door and declaring every tenth animal as the מעשר, which is brought on the מזבח if not a בעל מום and otherwise remains with the owner with restrictions discussed later. The שיעור sets the working assumption that the year for מעשר בהמה runs from ראש חודש אלול to ראש חודש אלול, while noting that the definition is discussed in מסכת ראש השנה. The halacha is that only animals born within the same year enter together into the count for מעשר, and animals from different years do not combine.
- The גמרא brings a ברייתא: עז שיולדה שלוש בנות וכל בנותיה ילדו שלוש שלוש, yielding twelve females born within one year, and rules כולן נכנסות לדיר להתעשר. The mother does not combine because she was born in a previous year, and the ראשונים explain that goats commonly have multiple births and that the case specifies females to avoid complications of בכורה, since a בכור has its own rules and is not put into the count for מעשר בהמה. Rabbi Shimon adds, אני ראיתי תוך שנתו, indicating an empirical claim about the timing within the year.
- The גמרא asks why the ברייתא needs “שלוש שלש” when ten births suffice for מעשר, and answers that the case could have been structured differently to reach ten, but it is stated uniformly because at least one litter of three is needed and the ברייתא keeps consistency by making all three daughters bear three. The גמרא then asks why the case cannot be built with each bearing twins (yielding nine) and having the original mother produce one more to reach ten, and proposes that the omission indicates דמטנפת אינה חוזרת וילדת בתוך שנתה. The גמרא rejects the proof by distinguishing miscarriage from a full birth, ruling that even if a miscarriage allows a return within the year, after a full birth—especially triplets—everyone agrees ודאי אינה חוזרת וילדת בתוך שנתה.
- The גמרא asks what difference exists between תנא קמא and רבי שמעון and answers that it depends on דזעירי, with רש"י presenting multiple ways to read the sugya. One approach has תנא קמא holding like זעירי that after miscarriage an animal will not mate for thirty days, which delays a subsequent pregnancy so that birth occurs only at the end of the year, while רבי שמעון rejects that delay and says “אני ראיתי… תוך שנתו.” Another approach has everyone accepting זעירי but disputing whether the five-month gestation must be full or may be “למקוטעין,” making the birth either at year’s end or within the year. A further approach has everyone requiring five months but disputing מקצת היום ככולו, with רבי שמעון applying it to the thirty-day waiting period and to the end of gestation so the births occur earlier “תוך שנתו,” while תנא קמא does not apply it here, framing the dispute as whether מקצת היום ככולו applies only in halachic frameworks or even to biological timing.
- A fourth explanation states that everyone accepts מקצת היום ככולו and the dispute is whether מחוסר זמן enters the pen for מעשר, since an animal cannot be brought as a קרבן until eight days old per שור או כשב או עז כי יולד והיה שבעת ימים תחת אמו ומיום השמיני והלאה ירצה לקרבן אשה לה'. רבי שמעון holds that birth within the year is sufficient even if the animal cannot be offered until the next year, while תנא קמא holds it cannot be counted for this year because it is not yet fit for הקרבה. A supporting ברייתא is cited: רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משם רבי שמעון, מחוסר זמן נכנס לדיר להתעשר, analogizing to בכור that is קדוש before its זמן and offered only after its זמן.
- The גמרא asks why this law is learned from בכור rather than from קדשים, where an animal may not even be consecrated before eight days, and answers that it is מסתברא to learn from בכור because מעשר and בכור share features: גואל, מום, תמורה, and אכילה. רש"י explains אכילה as ownership in the case of a בעל מום, while תוספות explains אכילה as being eaten with קדושה restrictions like not being sold in the marketplace or weighed, unlike פסולי המוקדשין which are redeemed and may be sold normally. The מפרשים explain that רש"י does not adopt תוספות’s reading because he treats those sale restrictions as מדרבנן, while the גמרא’s comparison seeks דאורייתא parallels.
- The גמרא challenges the preference for בכור by arguing that מעשר also resembles קדשים in being זכר-or-female, requiring human action to become קדוש, lacking מתנות כהונה, and not being limited to firstborn status, making the comparison to קדשים plausible. The גמרא answers that רבי שמעון relies on a גזירה שוה עברה עברה, linking כל אשר יעבור תחת השבט העשירי יהיה קודש to והעברת כל פטר רחם לה', thereby tethering מעשר to בכור.
- The גמרא asks היכי דמי טינוף and cites רבא quoting רבה סובא דצאלצא that טינוף is when the womb has been suppressed and the fetus dissolved, with bubbles of blood as a sign. The גמרא rules וצריך להראותו לחכם, and Rav Pappa explains that this means showing it to a רועה חכם, an expert shepherd who can determine whether a miscarriage occurred.
- Rav Chisda states that יצירת הולד באשה בארבעים יום, and the שיעור explains this number’s relevance to halachot such as טומאת לידה and בכורה status after miscarriage for פדיון הבן. The שיעור brings additional interpretive material attributed to מפרשים and to the Maharal in גור אריה about the symbolism of forty and the reason for thirty-nine מלקות despite the תורה’s “ארבעים יכנו,” and also explains the forty loaves of a קרבן תודה and the association of forty with the letter מ and מלכות. Rav Chisda asks בהמה בכמה, Rav Pappa suggests this might be זעירי’s “אין פחות משלושים יום,” and the גמרא answers that זעירי spoke about a thirty-day delay in mating after miscarriage, not fetal formation, leaving the animal-formation question unresolved.
- The גמרא returns to the purchase cases and asks about buying from a ישראל, with Rav ruling בכור ודאי because if the animal had previously birthed, the seller would boast that it survived the danger of first childbirth, and רש"י explains that first childbirth is dangerous. The מהרי״ט אלגאזי challenges this because a prior miscarriage would also remove בכורה, and he cites רבינו גרשום that even a miscarriage proves the animal is not sterile and the seller would have said so, so silence implies no prior miscarriage and the offspring is a בכור. תוספות adds that this relies on Jewish נאמנות, while an עכו"ם lacks נאמנות even מסיח לפי תומו, and the שיעור notes the explanation that the underlying concern is only מדרבנן because it rests on וחיישינן למיעוטא. Shmuel rules בכור ספק because the seller may assume the buyer wants the animal for שחיטה and thus sees no reason to report childbirth history. R' Yochanan rules חולין ודאי because if the animal had never birthed and the coming offspring would be a בכור with איסורא, the seller would certainly notify the buyer.
- A ברייתא is brought to support R' Yochanan: אם לא הודיעו הולך ושוחט ואינו נמנע, paralleling the דין in מסכת חולין of אותו ואת בנו where the seller must notify the buyer at four times of year—ערב יום טוב האחרון של סוכות, ערב יום טוב of the first days of פסח, ערב שבועות, and ערב ראש השנה—because people slaughter for feasts. The גמרא asks whether this refutes Rav and Shmuel and answers that it does not, because there the notification obligation is tied to the מוכר, either as a specific Torah requirement or because of לפני עיוור, while here בכור בלוקח תליא מילתא and there is no seller obligation to notify. The מפרשים distinguish whether the rationale is a special דין of notification or לפני עיוור by asking how the rule would apply if the seller knows the buyer is not purchasing for שחיטה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions