Bechoros 15
Summary
- A שיעור on מסכת בכורות דף טו begins from דף יד עמוד ב at the bottom line רבנן and reviews the משנה that distinguishes between an animal that is a בעל מום at the time of הקדש and an animal that is healthy at the time of הקדש and later becomes a בעל מום, focusing on when פדיון works after death and how the דין of העמדה והערכה applies. The presentation moves through the positions of תנא דבי לוי, רבי שמעון, and the רבנן as interpreted by רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש, and then develops the sugya of פסולי המוקדשין being compared to צבי and איל to define exemptions from בכורה and מתנות alongside continued prohibitions such as חלב and אותו ואת בנו. The שיעור then extends the same framework to further rules of פסולי המוקדשין after פדיון, including גיזה ועבודה, the meaning of אין פודים את הקדשים להאכילם לכלבים, the status of ולדות conceived before versus after פדיון, and the dispute between רב הונא and רב חנינא about how to handle ולדות that cannot be offered or redeemed, concluding with a supporting ברייתא that contrasts cases where the מום precedes the הקדש with cases where the הקדש precedes the מום and explains the phrase כללו של דבר in each half.
- A review states that the תורה requires העמדה והערכה when redeeming הקדש, meaning the animal must be standing when the כהן evaluates it, and מסכת תמורה records a מחלוקת תנאים about when that דין was said. A view is attributed to תנא דבי לוי that העמדה והערכה is always required, while רבי שמעון holds that only קדשי מזבח require it and even then only when the animal was healthy at the time of הקדש, so when the animal was a בעל מום at הקדש רבי שמעון agrees there is no requirement. A further מחלוקת is stated between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש about the רבנן, with ריש לקיש saying העמדה והערכה applies only to קדשי בדק הבית and never to קדשי מזבח, while רבי יוחנן says the חכמים apply it to both קדשי בדק הבית and קדשי מזבח but, like רבי שמעון, only when the animal was healthy at הקדש.
- A question is raised why רב said the משנה represents רבי שמעון, since on either reading of the רבנן they should agree that a בעל מום at הקדש does not require העמדה והערכה. A first answer states that רב holds like ריש לקיש *aliba* דרבנן, so the משנה cannot be read as the רבנן because the משנה’s סיפא rules that a healthy animal that later becomes disqualified and then dies is יקברו, and if קדשי מזבח never require העמדה והערכה it should be redeemable even after death. A challenge proposes that יקברו may instead be משום דאין פודין את הקדשים להאכילם לכלבים, since the dead animal is a נבילה and redemption would only permit use by dogs or עכו"ם rather than by a יהודי.
- A further challenge argues that if the issue is אין פודים להאכילם לכלבים then the משנה should have taught a case of a live טריפה as well, and the focus on death indicates the issue is העמדה והערכה. An alternative resolution states that רב actually holds like רבי יוחנן and the correct reading is ותני זו דברי רבי שמעון ומחלוקתו, so the משנה can align with רבי שמעון and with the רבנן as רבי יוחנן understands them. A ראשונים-based explanation is given that רבי שמעון’s position is clear while the רבנן’s position is ambiguous because it depends on the רבי יוחנן–ריש לקיש dispute, so רב attributes the משנה primarily to רבי שמעון even though it can fit the רבנן under רבי יוחנן.
- The שיעור shifts to the second part of the משנה where an animal is consecrated while healthy and later becomes a בעל מום, and it states that the משנה rules such an animal is פטור מן הבכורה ומתנות and asks for the מקור. A ברייתא is cited that the תורה compares פסולי המוקדשין to צבי and teaches מה צבי פטור מן הבכורה אף פסולי המוקדשין פטורים מן הבכורה, and then adds a second לימוד from איל—based on כצבי וכאיל—that just as an איל is פטור מבכורה ומתנות, so too פסולי המוקדשין are פטורים מבכורה ומתנות. The מהרי"ט אלגזי is quoted asking why a second לימוד is needed given אין היקש למחצה, and answers that a special rule about ולדות could have led to thinking only ולדות are exempt and not the animal itself, so a further לימוד is required for the animal.
- A further question asks that if פסולי המוקדשין are compared to צבי ואיל, then just as חלב of a חיה is permitted, חלב of פסולי המוקדשין should be permitted, and the ברייתא answers that the word אך creates a division so that the comparison applies for בכורה ומתנות but not for חלב. The גמרא analyzes why the initial *hava amina* more readily excludes בכורה than מתנות and answers that בכור is not universal because it applies only to males, while מתנות apply equally, so the word איל is needed to exclude מתנות as well.
- Rav Papa asks Abaye that if פסולי המוקדשין are compared to צבי ואיל, then just as אין אותו ואת בנו נוהג in חיה, perhaps it should not apply to פסולי המוקדשין. An answer is presented that whichever category פסולי המוקדשין are compared to—חולין or קדשים—אותו ואת בנו applies, but this reasoning is challenged by pointing out that the same logic would remove the question about חלב too, since חלב is אסור in both חולין and קדשים. The sugya then treats פסולי המוקדשין as having a distinct profile where a textual limiter like אך is needed to decide what carries over, leading to the inference that just as אך teaches חלב remains forbidden it also teaches אותו ואת בנו remains in force, and the ראשונים note the unusual move of using one word to teach two הלכות.
- A resolution attributed to רבא says that אך comes specifically for אותו ואת בנו, while חלב is learned from the word דמיה in the פסוק רק את דמו לא תאכל. A question is raised that דם is forbidden even in צבי ואיל, so the word דמו must be interpreted as referring to חלבו, and another question asks why the תורה did not simply write חלבו. The answer given is that writing חלבו could have led to thinking the היקש to צבי ואיל removes כרת and leaves only a לאו, so the תורה writes דמו to equate the punishment structure and teach מה דמו בכרת אף חלב בכרת, with the מפרשים explaining that this matters for the obligation of חטאת in שוגג as learned in מסכת כריתות.
- The gמרא then reconciles רבא’s reading with the earlier ברייתא that seemed to derive חלב from אך by explaining that without the word דמו one would have used אך to exclude חלב, but now that דמו teaches חלב, the word אך is available to add additional rules such as בניה ועורה.
- The שיעור states the rule that פסולי המוקדשין do not become fully חולין for shearing and labor, and that their milk is אסור, and asks for the מקור. A ברייתא is cited from תזבח ולא גיזה and it is reported that ראשונים dispute whether the wool itself is אסור or only the act of cutting is אסור because a vestige of קדושה remains even after פדיון; a similar dispute is noted about milk, with some holding only milking is אסור while others infer from the wording that the milk itself is אסור. A further ראשונים dispute is stated about whether, where milk is אסור, it is only אסור באכילה or even אסור בהנאה.
- A derivation is then stated from ואכלת ולא לכלביך as the source that מכאן שאין פודים את הקדשים להאכילם לכלבים, and an “איכא דאמרי” is brought that reads תזבח ואכלת to mean there is no היתר אכילה except from שחיטה onward, and it concludes that on that approach פודים את הקדשים להאכילם לכלבים is permitted under certain circumstances.
- The משנה’s statement that הולד והחלב are אסור after פדיון is examined by asking whether it refers to a case where conception and birth occur after פדיון, and it is argued that such a case should be permitted because the redeemed animal is compared to צבי ואיל. Two explanations are given for why one might still have thought to forbid the offspring, one that the קדושה level is too low to extend to ולדות and another that the prohibitions like גיזה וחלב are a special גזירת הכתוב limited to where the תורה explicitly says so, and a מנחת חינוך position is cited that if the animal was pregnant at הקדש and then became a בעל מום the ולד can be brought as a קרבן, with other אחרונים disagreeing.
- The case is then defined as conception before פדיון with birth after פדיון, and it is stated that conception and birth before פדיון produces fully קדוש offspring. A ברייתא is cited from זכר לרבות את הולד ונקבה לרבות את התמורה, with an explanation that ולד is לשון זכר and תמורה is לשון נקבה, and it is added that the פסוקים of אם זכר and אם נקבה include ולד בעלי מומים and תמורת בעלי מומים. The gמרא then asks about ולדות that were conceived before but born after פדיון, notes that before פדיון there is a dispute whether their קדושה is for הקרבה or לראיה with proceeds for עולת קיץ המזבח, and attributes to the Brisker Rav the idea that a חיוב הקרבה persists and is satisfied via proceeds even when the animal cannot be offered as originally designated.
- Rav Huna’s ruling is stated that such offspring are placed כונסן לכיפה ומתים because they cannot be offered since they come from קדושה דחויה and they also cannot be redeemed because they are not strong enough to “catch” פדיון. A related Rogatchover idea is reported using ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה to distinguish removal of קדושה in a higher-level קדושה setting versus persistence of קדושה in a lower-level קדושה setting, and it is tied to the notion that low-level קדושה is not removed and therefore creates limited options.
- A solution is attributed to Rav Ami in the name of Rav Chanina that right before redeeming the mother one designates the unborn offspring as the same type of זבח, and the gמרא corrects the phrasing to סמוך לפדיון, מתפיסן לשם אותו זבח so that the offspring attains a higher קדושה enabling later handling. A reason is given, according to one רש"י approach, that the later prohibition is a rabbinic decree lest people raise “עדרים עדרים” from פסולי המוקדשין, and another רש"י approach frames it as why Rav Huna rejects the advice because of concern that permitting this will lead to misuse of the mother. A further limitation is stated that the גזירה is applied only in this case and not where pregnancy did not exist before פדיון, and not in the first part of the משנה where the animal was a בעל מום before הקדש because such הקדש is uncommon and is tied to a לאו.
- Ravina asks Rav Sheshet whether the unborn animal may be designated for any זבח or only the same as the mother, and Rav Sheshet answers that אין מתפיסין לכל זבח שירצה, deriving it by a גזירה שוה of רחם from בכור and citing אך בכור אשר יבכר לה' בבהמה לא יקדיש איש אותו. A ברייתא is brought to support this, first describing the case where a מום קבוע precedes הקדש and the animal is then redeemed, stating that such animals are חייבין בבכורה ובמתנות, that one who shears or works them does not receive מלקות, that they do not make תמורה, that there is מעילה before פדיון but not after, that their offspring are חולין, and that the offspring may be dedicated to any זבח, concluding כללו של דבר הרי הן כחולין לכל דבריהם אין בהם אלא מצוות פדייה בלבד.
- The ברייתא then contrasts the case where הקדש precedes the מום or where a temporary blemish exists at הקדש and later becomes מום קבוע, stating that these פסולי המוקדשין are פטורים מן הבכורה ומן המתנות, that shearing and עבודה receive מלקות even after פדיון, that they do make תמורה, that there is מעילה before פדיון but not after, that their offspring are קדושים even if born after פדיון, that they cannot be redeemed while תמים, and that one cannot dedicate them to any זבח, concluding כללו של דבר הרי הן כהקדש לכל דבריהם ואין להם אלא היתר אכילה בלבד.
- The gמרא explains that כללו של דבר דרישא comes to include a rule such as שחיטה בחוץ being פטור because the animal could never have been fit for the מזבח, while כללו של דבר דסיפא comes to include חלב being אסור. A רש"י-based clarification is added that the gמרא avoids formulating the inclusion as שחוטי חוץ being חייב because that would be limited to cases like דוקין שבעין, and it prefers the stated framing since the ברייתא already taught the offspring are permitted, making an additional inclusion of חלב being permitted unnecessary in the רישא.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions