Bechoros 11
Summary
- Today’s שיעור on בכורות דף י"א begins from דף י' עמוד ב' at אמר מר and learns that the כפילות of תפדה תפדה by פדיון פטר חמור teaches תפדה מיד and תפדה כל שהוא, rejecting a comparison to פדיון הבן that would require אחר שלושים and חמש סלעים. The גמרא explains רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה’s requirement of אין פדיה בפחות משקל from וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקודש and explains why רבנן limit that פסוק to פרשת ערכין, with later debate among ראשונים, the בריסקער רב’s reading of the רמב"ם, and רבנו גרשום’s approach. The הלכה is ruled like חכמים that even a minimal שה works, while guidance for one who asks a רב is to use a רידיא, and the sugya expands to the modern practice of avoiding the mitzvah because of uncertainty in כהנים, the timing of the ברכה per the שולחן ערוך, and the ט"ז’s explanation for why no ברכה is made on giving בכור בהמה טהורה. The גמרא then teaches redemption by value when no שה is available, validates redeeming another person’s פטר חמור while leaving ownership with the original owner, applies related principles to מעשר בהמה in cases of ספק, and parallels halachos of תרומות ומעשרות with produce tied to a גוי, concluding that the כהן acquires the שה at the moment of separation even before physical delivery.
- A double לשון תפדה תפדה by פדיון פטר חמור teaches תפדה מיד that the פדיון is done as soon as the חמור is born and תפדה כל שהוא that even the smallest amount effects the פדיון. A hava amina compares פטר חמור to פדיון הבן so that just as בכור אדם is redeemed אחר שלושים with חמש סלעים, פטר חמור would require after thirty days and five סלעים, and the repeated תפדה rejects that. A prior teaching is recalled that רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה holds אין פדיה בפחות משקל that the שה must be worth at least a שקל.
- The גמרא asks how רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה arrives at a שקל, since equating to בכור אדם would imply חמש סלעים and not equating would leave שקל מנא ליה, and it answers that he does not compare to פדיון הבן at all. Rava derives the שקל minimum from וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקודש so that all ערכין-like valuations are not less than a שקל. The רבנן answer that this פסוק is written in the context of *erechin* and teaches that even when a כהן evaluates what an impoverished donor can afford, the assessment is never less than a שקל. Rashi and most ראשונים say the poor person owes a שקל even if he cannot currently pay it and can pay over time, while the בריסקער רב explains the רמב"ם as requiring that he cannot give less than a שקל at a time and must accumulate a שקל before giving to הקדש, and רבנו גרשום holds that if he lacks even a שקל he is completely פטור.
- Rav Nachman rules הלכה כדברי חכמים that the שה for פטר חמור need not be worth a שקל. Rav Yosef says this includes אפילו פטרוזא בדנקא, a very thin lamb worth a sixth of a זוז, and the מנחת חינוך asks whether this sets a floor of a דנקא or is only an illustration depending on how to understand even. Rava supports the lenient view from the משנה’s גדול וקטן that any large or small animal works, and the גמרא answers that the חידוש is that even an extremely low-value animal such as a פטרוזא is still valid.
- A story relates that רבי יהודה נשיאה had a פטר חמור and asked רב טרפון how much to give for the redemption, and Rav Tarfon responds that חז"ל taught עין יפה uses a lamb worth a סלע, עין רעה uses a lamb worth a שקל, and a בינונית uses a רידיא. Rava states the halacha is to use a רידיא and defines it as פלסא זוזי, three זוז, called רידיא because it is רגיל הכא ורגיל הכא, one זוז away from both סלע and שקל. The גמרא asks how this squares with the earlier ruling that any value suffices and answers that it depends on context: כאן בבא לימלך one who asks is instructed to use at least a רידיא, while כאן בעושה מעצמו a person who redeems on his own has a valid פדיון even with a minimal animal. The *Gra* limits the לכתחילה instruction to cases where the שה is less valuable than the חמור and says if the חמור is not worth even a רידיא there is no obligation to use a more valuable שה, while the רמב"ם and most ראשונים treat the sugya as establishing guidance for a questioner even though בדיעבד any value works, and the רמב"ם alternatively reads the רידיא requirement as applying when redeeming with value rather than with a שה.
- The פוסקים infer from the involvement of רבי טרפון and רבי יהודה after the חורבן that פטר חמור applies even after the בית המקדש is destroyed. They explain that the מנהג העולם, the שולחן ערוך, and פוסקים often avoid the mitzvah by selling to a גוי because nowadays we do not know for sure who is a כהן, and a ספק in giving to a true כהן can leave the חמור with קדושה and create difficulty, especially with רבי יהודה’s view that a פטר חמור is אסור בהנאה. They ask why not do עריפה instead and answer that עריפה is something the תורה frowns upon and is not desired לכתחילה, and the סאטמאר רב adds that public avoidance of giving gifts to כהנים can lead כהנים to laxity in כהונה restrictions. The שולחן ערוך rules that a ברכה is recited at the time of the פדיון and not at the time of giving the שה to the כהן, and מפרשים explain that the mitzvah is the actual פדיון and not the נתינה. The text raises a מחלוקת whether this timing is identical when redeeming with a שה versus redeeming with value and frames it as depending on whether the two options are halachically equivalent. The פוסקים distinguish between a case where a כהן is available for eventual delivery so the פדיון can be effective before actual giving and a case where no reliable כהן exists so the פדיון alone may not be effective.
- The text notes that a ברכה is made for פדיון פטר חמור and likewise for פדיון הבן, and it asks why no ברכה is recited when giving a בכור בהמה טהורה to a כהן. The ט"ז answers that by פטר חמור the owner gives the כהן the שה while the פטר חמור remains the owner’s, and by פדיון הבן the child remains the parents’ while they give the חמש סלעים, so the act is giving one’s own property to the כהן and warrants a ברכה. The ט"ז says a בכור בהמה טהורה belongs to the כהן from birth so the owner is not transferring his own property and there is no place for a ברכה.
- Rabbi Yitzchak cites ריש לקיש that one who has a פטר חמור and no שה redeems it בשוויה, with its value. Most ראשונים take this as teaching that לכתחילה redemption is done with a שה and redemption by value is בדיעבד when no שה is available, as taught by the בית יוסף. The גמרא asks whether the statement follows רבי יהודה, who says לא פטרה תורה אלא בשה and ties that to his view that פטר חמור is אסור בהנאה, and it concludes initially that the statement fits רבי שמעון, with Rav Acha teaching it explicitly that way. Ravina objects that הלכה כרבי יהודה in disputes with רבי שמעון and that a סתם משנה is רבי יהודה, and the גמרא answers that even according to רבי יהודה פטר חמור is not more stringent than הקדש and the Torah’s specification of a שה is a leniency allowing redemption with something cheaper than the חמור rather than a stringency excluding redemption by value. Rav Nechemia the son of Rav Yosef redeems with cooked vegetables equal in value, showing that equivalence in value works.
- The *Turei Even* asks from Shmuel’s statement that one can redeem הקדש even with something worth a *prutah*, which would imply that redeeming a פטר חמור by value should not require full value. The *Turei Even* answers that Shmuel’s leniency applies when the redeemer is the one who consecrated the item, while פטר חמור has קדושה מן השמים and not from the owner’s act. Another approach distinguishes that הקדש redemption transfers קדושה onto money, while פטר חמור redemption removes קדושה without transferring it, making the דין different.
- Rav Shizvi בשם Rav Huna rules that one who redeems a friend’s פטר חמור achieves a valid פדיון, and the גמרא asks whether the redeemed חמור belongs to the redeemer or to the original owner. The text presents a dispute among ראשונים: many treat the redeemer as an implicit שליח doing a mitzvah on the owner’s behalf, while תוספות deny agency without appointment and treat the act as a general responsibility in כלל ישראל to ensure redemption occurs. The text gives practical *nafka minos* such as liability for depriving the owner of a mitzvah and whether a גוי could do such a redemption, and it contrasts the חתם סופר’s suggestion of monetary liability with the מנחת חינוך’s view that one cannot deprive another of a mitzvah when it is also one’s own obligation. The גמרא says that according to רבי שמעון the question does not arise because the animal is ממונא דבעלים, and it focuses on רבי יהודה where the animal is אסור בהנאה and might resemble הקדש. Rav Nachman brings a ברייתא that one who steals a friend’s פטר חמור pays כפל to the owner even though אין לו עכשיו because he will have it after redemption, and the גמרא infers this is רבי יהודה and that it cannot be like הקדש since theft from הקדש does not generate כפל, proving the animal remains the original owner’s even if another redeemed it.
- The דברי יציב of the קלויזנבורג רב addresses an adopted Jewish child known or thought to be a בכור where the biological parents are unavailable. The ruling is that the adoptive father should perform the פדיון הבן but without a ברכה because the adoptive father’s obligation is unclear and because the child’s status as a בכור may be uncertain due to possibilities such as the mother being a בת כהן or בת לוי. The responsum advises making *shehecheyanu* via a new fruit or garment. The child as an adult should perform פדיון הבן again without a ברכה, and the שולחן ערוך is cited as discussing an identifying sign such as a necklace indicating an outstanding obligation.
- The משנה’s rule that the separated שה enters the pen for מעשר בהמה is explained by a ברייתא as referring not to a כהן’s received gift, since הלוקח or one who receives a gift is פטור ממעשר בהמה, but to a ישראל who has ten ספקי פטרי חמור. The ישראל separates ten sheep, takes מעשר from them, keeps nine, and the tenth is brought as קרבן מעשר בהמה. The text notes that the sugya supports Rashi that a sheep used for ספק redemption cannot be reused and records the defense of רבינו תם that reuse is permitted while the braysa still teaches that such animals join the normal obligation of מעשר בהמה. The ראשונים advise making a תנאי when bringing the animal, treating it as מעשר בהמה if it is truly his and as שלמים if it is truly the כהן’s, because the עבודות are the same.
- Rav Nachman בשם Rabba bar Avuhah rules that a ישראל with ten ספק פטרי חמורים separates ten sheep, takes מעשר, and keeps them. Rav Nachman also rules that a ישראל who has ten definite פטרי חמורים inherited via his maternal grandfather who was a כהן, where the כהן himself inherited from a ישראל, must separate ten sheep and take מעשר yet keeps the sheep because the כהן would have performed the redemption and kept the sheep as a כהן. A parallel halacha states that a ישראל who inherited טבולים ומרוקים through the same chain separates תרומות ומעשרות and keeps them, selling תרומה to a כהן rather than giving it. The גמרא explains both cases are needed because טבל involves separation from within the same produce while פטר חמור requires bringing a sheep from outside, and each could have suggested a different result without the other.
- Rav Shmuel bar Nachman בשם Rav Chanina rules that one who buys finished טבלים from an עובד כוכבים separates tithes and keeps them. The גמרא analyzes who did the *miruach* and brings Rashi’s explanation that a ישראל finished processing as a sharecropper and is obligated because אין קניין לעובד כוכבים בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר, yet he keeps the obligations as value, while תוספות and many ראשונים reject that framing and explain the case as a purchase before finishing processing. A משנה about depositing produce with a כותי, עם הארץ, or עובד כוכבים is brought with רבי שמעון saying דמאי, and רבי אלעזר explains that all agree one must separate and the dispute is whether one must give to the כהן, with the תנא קמא viewing exchange as certain and רבי שמעון treating it as ספק. Abaye challenges this from Shmuel’s statement that buying finished טבל from a גוי is פטור, and the גמרא answers by distinguishing תרומה גדולה from תרומת מעשר. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that תרומה גדולה is separating kodesh from chol and is forbidden to a ישראל, while מעשר obligations are framed as a debt to the recipient and מעשר ראשון is permitted to a ישראל. Rav Dimi brings a מקור from רבי יהושע בן לוי that the פסוק כי תקחו מאת בני ישראל limits the requirement to separate and give תרומת מעשר to purchases from בני ישראל and exempts purchases from an עובד כוכבים.
- A משנה states that if the sheep dies one benefits from it, and the גמרא rejects reading it as death in the כהן’s house since that is obvious. The case is where the sheep dies in the owner’s house before delivery, and the חידוש is that one might think that until it reaches the כהן he does not acquire it and the redemption is incomplete. The גמרא teaches that once the owner separated it in the act of redemption, רשות כהן כחצרו and the sheep becomes the כהן’s immediately even without physical delivery, so the carcass belongs to the כהן for benefit.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions