Bechoros 19
Summary
- The שיעור learns מסכת בכורות דף י"ט beginning from דף י"ח עמוד ב' and builds the rules of ספק *bekhor* when two mothers give birth and the firstborn status cannot be identified, using the dispute of Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva and the principle of המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה. The משנה applies these rules to various birth combinations, adds the question of *yotzei dofen* versus *peter rechem* and whether a בכור with only one feature counts, and then opens a new case of buying an animal from a non-Jew with unknown prior births. The גמרא explains why repeated cases are necessary, derives Rabbi Akiva’s certainty from a ברייתא using *klal* and *prat* forms, and ends with Rabbi Akiva’s critique of Rabbi Yishmael’s age-based certainty because prior *tinuf* or *shilya* can remove *bekhor* status.
- Today's משנה begins with two sheep that never previously gave birth and the owner finds that they ילדו שני זכרים, and the ruling is שניהם לכהן. The text explains that some cases in the משנה are not introducing a חידוש, and this case is treated as obvious because each mother has a *bekhor*. The case of זכר ונקבה yields הזכר לכהן because there is no *din* of *bekhorah* for a נקבה. The case of שני זכרים ונקבה yields one animal to the owner and one to the כהן because one mother certainly produced a *bekhor* while the twin-bearing mother leaves uncertainty of which came first, and the operative rule becomes המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה.
- Rabbi Tarfon rules הכהן בורר לו את היפה because he assumes the *bekhor* is the healthier and stronger animal, so the better one is assigned to the כהן when identity is unknown. Rabbi Akiva rules משמנים ביניהם in a way explained earlier by רבי יוחנן, applying המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה so the כהן ends up with the weaker animal since the ישראל can claim the better one is not the *bekhor*. The animal retained by the ישראל ירעה עד שיסתאב because it might be a *bekhor* and may not be used until it becomes a בעל מום. The text adds וחייב במתנות and attributes this to רבי מאיר’s ממנפשך claim that if it is a *bekhor* the כהן owns it, and if it is not a *bekhor* the owner still owes מתנות כהונה, while רבי יוסי פוטר.
- When one of the uncertain animals dies, Rabbi Tarfon says יחלוקו and Rabbi Akiva says המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה. The גמרא explains that this represents a retraction by Rabbi Tarfon because his earlier logic would have assigned loss based on which animal was healthier, yet he now accepts division. Rabbi Akiva remains consistent with his demand for proof from the claimant.
- In cases like שתי נקבות וזכר or שתי נקבות ושני זכרים, the ruling is אין כאן לכהן כלום because the כהן cannot prove there was definitely a *bekhor* and המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה blocks collection. The text cites the חזון איש that even Rabbi Tarfon agrees where there is no certainty that any *bekhor* exists at all. The same approach appears later when one mother previously gave birth and the other did not and the births are זכר ונקבה, where אין לכהן כלום because the כהן may not be entitled to anything in the first place.
- In the case אחת בכרה ואחת לא בכרה with two males born, the ruling is one to the owner and one to the כהן, and Rabbi Tarfon again says הכהן בורר לו את היפה while Rabbi Akiva again says משמנים ביניהם. The ראשונים explain that although the גמרא earlier treats Rabbi Tarfon as retracting, רבי arranged the משניות by collecting Rabbi Tarfon’s statements from different times and contexts even if his view later changed. Rabbi Akiva still requires the ישראל-held animal to ירעה עד שיסתאב because of the lingering ספק. The משנה again states וחייב במתנות as רבי מאיר’s view, רבי יוסי פוטר because כל שחליפה ביד הכהן פטור מן המתנות based on their mutual settlement that ends further claims, and then repeats רבי מאיר מחייב to show that רבי מאיר’s reason is the כהן’s משני צדדים claim rather than שלא תשתכח תורת מתנות, with a noted נפקא מינא to ספק מעשר.
- The גמרא asks why Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva’s dispute is repeated so often and answers צריכא. The first case alone could suggest Rabbi Akiva rules as he does only when two births come from one mother with no basis to assume one is the *bekhor* over the other, while in a case of twins versus a single birth he might concede that the single-born is stronger and thus the *bekhor*. The second case alone could suggest Rabbi Akiva rules as he does only when both mothers are first-time, while when one mother is first-time and one is not he might concede that the first-time mother’s offspring is stronger and thus the *bekhor*. The גמרא teaches that Rabbi Akiva does not accept Rabbi Tarfon’s “stronger equals *bekhor*” principle even in those scenarios, and the text reports a comment that cases with a female can be read as assuming the female is certainly the weakest to avoid side questions.
- The משנה states that a *bekhor* must be the firstborn male born naturally, and then presents יוצא דופן and the הבא אחריו. Rabbi Tarfon rules שניהם ירעו עד שיסתאבו because he is מסופק whether בכור לדבר אחד הוי בכור, meaning whether having only one feature of *bekhor* is enough, and the text explains his doubt as whether the Torah’s *din* of *bekhor* includes the cesarean firstborn or instead the first naturally born male after a cesarean. Other explanations tie his doubt to the word כל בכור and whether כל requires completeness of all *bekhor* qualities, and the אור שמח adds that even Rabbi Tarfon agrees a firstborn female does not create *bekhor* status for later offspring. The text brings an אחרונים dispute whether an animal born by cesarean, which cannot be brought as a קרבן, is already treated as having the needed “mום” for ירעה עד שיסתאב or whether cesarean disqualification is not a מום and a separate defect must arise. Rabbi Akiva rules הרי שניהם אינם בכור, making the first not *peter rechem* and the second not *bekhor* because it has a predecessor.
- The text notes פוסקים who suggest that when avoiding a *bekhor* is difficult, a farmer could arrange that the first birth be by cesarean so the offspring is not a *bekhor*. The text then warns that this may raise new issues because a cesarean can render the mother a טריפה depending on details of the procedure. The solution therefore avoids questions of בכורה while potentially opening questions of טריפות.
- The גמרא asks דמאי קמיפלגי and answers that Rabbi Tarfon has a ספק about בכור לדבר אחד while Rabbi Akiva holds it is not a *bekhor*. The גמרא cites a ברייתא on מכלל הצריך לפרט ומפרט הצריך לכלל with קדש לי כל בכור, the exclusion of נקבה through זכר, the exclusion of a male after an older sister via פטר רחם, and the exclusion of a naturally born male after a cesarean via the word בכור meaning it must be *bekhor* in all respects. The text reports a dispute over whether this is a standard *klal u’prat* because the verses are in שמות and דברים and raises the rule of כלל ופרט המרוחקים זה מזה, then brings defenses of רש"י and a פירוש from רב אלישיב connecting the parshiyot through the logic of כלל הצריך לפרט. Rav Mesharshiya challenges the ברייתא’s structure, Abaye answers that the ברייתא’s first inference should be read as excluding even a firstborn male via cesarean from “זכר” without “פטר רחם,” and Ravina offers an alternative reading that yields a different conclusion about whether בכור לדבר אחד counts. Rav Acha miDaphti challenges Ravina from the case of a firstborn female via cesarean followed by a naturally born male, and the גמרא concludes that the clearer reading is like Abaye.
- After הדרן עלך אלו בכורות, the משנה states הלוקח בהמה מעובד כוכבים with unknown prior births. Rabbi Yishmael says עז בת שנתה is ודאי לכהן and afterward is ספק, רחל בת שתים is ודאי לכהן and afterward is ספק, and פרה וחמור בן שלוש or younger is ודאי לכהן and afterward is ספק, with the text explaining that the first cases assume it cannot have produced two births within that time while the cow and donkey case assumes it could not have produced any birth before age three. The אור שמח explains the terminology of עגלה versus פרה based on the ability to bear young, and תוספות in עבודה זרה is cited that in their time cows gave birth before three years, introducing נשתנה הטבע. The text adds that while realities can change due to climate and food, halachic measures tied to חז"ל’s standards, like the size of a כזית, do not change.
- Rabbi Akiva tells Rabbi Yishmael that age-based certainty would work only if only an actual prior offspring removed *bekhor* status, but חכמים say סימן הולד in בהמה דקה is טינוף, in בהמה גסה is שליה, and in a woman is שפיר ושליה, and any such prior sign means the later child is not a *bekhor*. The מפרשים distinguish that by an אשה שפיר is sufficient because it is only דיני ממונות of פדיון הבן, while by an animal the concern includes איסור והיתר of קרבן. Rabbi Akiva summarizes that where it is known that it previously discharged there is nothing for the כהן, where it is known it did not there is a definite gift to the כהן, and in ספק the owner keeps it under המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה but must wait until it becomes a בעל מום. The text notes an explanation that this כלל either summarizes or adds that nursing can be evidence of a prior birth.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions