Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) R. YEHOSHUA BROUGHT THE ELDERS OF ATHENS TO KAISAR

(a) [The Elders admitted defeat;] R. Yehoshua brought them one by one onto the boat. Each saw a room with 60 chairs, and assumed that all of his colleagues would later join him.
(b) R. Yehoshua took dirt from Athens; he told the shipdriver to return. When they came to Bei Bli'i (a place which swallows water or sends it to the depths, in order that the sea will never be full), he filled a flask with its water.
(c) He brought the Elders in front of Kaisar; because they were away from their land, they were lowly, they could not answer him properly. Kaisar did not believe that these were the Elders of Athens; R. Yehoshua put their native dirt in front of them, they spoke brazenly to Kaisar.
(d) Kaisar authorized R. Yehoshua to do to them as he wants. R. Yehoshua put down the Mei Bli'i in the flask (Tosfos - over a pit), and told them that they can go after they fill it up. They kept pouring in water until their shoulders fell off (they died).

(a) (In this entire Mishnah, one leaves pregnant female donkey(s) and later finds it/them not pregnant, and offspring were born, and no one saw the births).
(b) (Mishnah): If a Mevakeres (an animal giving birth for the first time) gave birth to two males, the owner gives a Seh to a Kohen;
(c) If it gave birth to a male and female, he designates a Seh (to redeem the male, in case it is a Bechor), he keeps it (the Kohen cannot prove that it is a Bechor).
(d) If Reuven had two Mevakros, and they gave birth to two males, he gives two Seiyin (plural of Seh) to a Kohen;
(e) If they gave birth to a male and female, or to two males and a female, he gives one Seh (perhaps only one is a Bechor; he must designate a second Seh, but he keeps it).
(f) If they gave birth to two females and one or two males, he does not give anything to a Kohen (perhaps there is no Bechor. Rashi requires designating two Seiyin, Tosfos requires designating one, Rambam exempts from designation).
(g) If only one mother was Mevakeres, and they gave birth to two males, he gives a Seh to a Kohen;

1. If they gave birth to a male and female, he designates a Seh and keeps it.

(h) "V'Chol Peter Chamor Tifdeh b'Seh" teaches that a Seh is used to redeem.
(i) The Seh can be a sheep or goat, male or female, old or young, Tamim or Ba'al Mum.
(j) One may redeem many times with one Seh (Tosfos - in doubtful cases, when one need not give to a Kohen; Rashi - if the Kohen sells or gives the Seh back to him).
(k) The Seh is put into the pen for the sake of taking Ma'aser Behemah; if it dies, one may benefit from it.

(a) (Gemara) Version #1 - Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
(b) Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): It is unlike R. Yosi ha'Galili, for he says Efshar Letzamtzem (it is possible for things to happen simultaneously; he would require designating (Tosfos; Rashi - giving) two Seiyin when two males are born to one donkey, perhaps they were born at the same time);
(c) Answer #2 (Abaye): It is even like R. Yosi ha'Galili;

1. R. Yosi says that two Tahor Bechoros born at the same time both become Kodesh - he learns from "ha'Zecharim la'Sh-m" (but this does not apply to Pitrei Chamorim).
2. Question: We should learn from there to Pitrei Chamorim!
3. Answer: "*ha*'Zecharim" excludes other Bechoros.

(d) Version #2 - Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Yosi ha'Galili, for he says Efshar Letzamtzem.
(e) Rejection (Abaye): It is even like R. Yosi ha'Galili - the case of Tahor Bechoros born at the same time is different, because it says "ha'Zecharim la'Sh-m".
(f) Objection #1: According to R. Yirmeyah, the Mishnah [is like Chachamim, it] does not say that they were born at the same time, because this is impossible;

1. But according to Abaye, the Mishnah (is like R. Yosi, it) should teach that even though they were born at the same time, only one need be redeemed (because "ha'Zecharim" does not apply to Pitrei Chamorim)!

(g) Objection #2 (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): If a Mevakeres donkey gave birth to two males, and their heads came out at the same time, the owner gives two Seiyin to a Kohen, for it says "ha'Zecharim la'Sh-m".

1. Question: The verse discusses Tahor animals!
2. Correction: Rather, the Beraisa should say "*Because* it says 'ha'Zecharim la'Sh-m'" (and we learn to Pitrei Chamorim).

(h) Abaye is refuted.

(i) Suggestion: Chachamim must hold that even part of the [circumference of the] womb is Mekadesh [a Bechor];

1. If all of the womb is needed to Mekadesh, even though Chachamim say that I Efshar Letzamtzem, if twins left almost at the same time, the second was a Chatzizah (separation) between the Bechor and the womb!

(j) Rejection (Rav): [Perhaps all of the womb is Mekadesh, and] the second animal is the same species; Min b'Mino is never Chotzetz.

(a) (Mishnah): If it gave birth to a male and female, he designates a Seh...
(b) Question: Since he keeps it, why must he designate it?
(c) Answer: This is to permit the Peter Chamor.
(d) Inference: Before designation, the Peter Chamor is Asur b'Hana'ah.
(e) Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
(f) Answer: It is like R. Yehudah.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): It is forbidden to benefit from a Peter Chamor (presumably, the correct text attributes this to R. Yehudah - if not, we would call this opinion "Chachamim");
2. R. Shimon permits this.

(g) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(h) Answer #1 (Ula): We never find something that must be redeemed, yet it is permitted (to benefit from it).
(i) Objection: Bechor Adam must be redeemed, it is permitted to benefit from him!
(j) Correction: Rather, we never find something that must be redeemed with [something specific, such as] a Seh, yet it is permitted to benefit from it.
(k) Question: A Peter Chamor need not be redeemed with a Seh!

1. Rav Nechemyah brei d'Rav Yosef redeemed one for cooked herbs of the same value.

(l) Answer: We do not discuss redeeming for the value (surely, it is not more stringent than Hekdesh, which can be redeemed for its value);

1. Rather, we never find something that can be [fully] permitted [for less than its value] only with a Seh, yet it is permitted to benefit from it.

(m) Question: Ma'aser Sheni can be [fully] permitted only with Kesef Tzuri (minted coins), yet it is permitted to benefit from it!

1. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If Reuven was Mekadesh Leah with Ma'aser Sheni b'Mezid, she is Mekudeshes.

(n) Answer: Likewise, if he was Mekadesh her with a Peter Chamor, she is Mekudeshes (even though it is Isurei Hana'ah)!

1. (R. Elazar): A woman knows that Ma'aser Sheni is not Mischalel (become Chulin) through her acceptance, she accepted the Ma'aser intending to eat it in Yerushalayim;

i. Here also, she knows that Peter Chamor is Asur b'Hana'ah, she accepted it intending to redeem it for a Seh, she is Mekudeshes with the value of the donkey less the amount she must spend to redeem it.

(o) Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
(p) Answer #1 (Ula): We never find something that is forbidden, yet what was used to redeem is permitted.
(q) Question: Shemitah produce is forbidden [after the Bi'ur], yet its "redemption" (food exchanged for it) is permitted!
(r) Answer: No, the "redemption" of Shemitah produce is forbidden;

1. [If Reuven traded Shemitah produce for a food, both of them now have Kedushas Shemitah; when Zeman Bi'ur of the produce comes, Bi'ur applies to both of them. If he traded that food for a second food, and the second for a third...,] Kedushas Shemitah applies to the last food bought and the original produce.

(a) Answer #2 (to Questions (g) and (o)): R. Yehudah and R. Shimon argue about how to expound a verse:

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor *Shorecha*" - but you may work with a Bechor you are a partner in (with a Nochri);
2. "v'Lo Sagoz Bechor *Tzonecha*" - but you may shear a Bechor you are a partner in (with a Nochri);
3. R. Shimon says, "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor *Shorecha*" - but you may work with Bechor Adam;
4. "v'Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzonecha" - but you may shear a Peter Chamor.

(b) Objection #1: According to R. Shimon, we understand why the entire verse is needed;

1. But according to R. Yehudah, we could have learned both laws from one clause!

(c) Objection #2: According to R. Yehudah, we have no source to permit working with Bechor Adam!
(d) Answer #3: Rather, all agree that "Shorecha" excludes (i.e. permits working with) Bechor Adam; they argue about "Tzonecha":

1. R. Yehudah holds that partnership with a Nochri does not exempt from Bechorah, "Tzonecha" teaches that (even though he must give half its value to a Kohen, the Bechor has no Kedushas ha'Guf), it is permitted to work with it and shear it;
2. R. Shimon holds that partnership with a Nochri exempts from Bechorah, "Tzonecha" need not teach about this case;

i. Rather, it teaches about a Peter Chamor (as above).

(e) (Had the Torah written "Shor" (as opposed to "Shorecha"), we also would have excluded Bechor Adam.)
(f) Question: We understand according to R. Yehudah - the Torah needed to say "Tzon*echa*" to teach about partnership with a Nochri - for parallel structure, it also wrote "Shorecha";

1. But according to R. Shimon, it would have sufficed to say "Tzon," there is no need to say "Shorecha" nor "Tzonecha"!

(g) This is left difficult.
(h) (Rava): R. Shimon agrees that Peter Chamor is Asur b'Hana'ah after Arifah. (We amend the text like Rashi, for later Rava explains why he said this; Shitah Mekubetzes attributes both teachings to Rabah, presumably because Abaye challenges it - Abaye preceded Rava, his opinion is normally brought first.)
(i) Question: What is his reason?
(j) Answer: He learns from a Gezerah Shavah "Arifah-Arifah" from Eglah Arufah.