POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bechoros 11
1) THE MINIMAL REDEMPTION
(a) (Rav Nachman): The Halachah follows Chachamim.
2) WHO OWNS A "PETER CHAMOR" BEFORE REDEMPTION?
(b) Question: What is the minimal value (according to
(c) Answer (Rav Yosef): Even a lean Seh worth a Danka (a
sixth of a Dinar) may be given.
(d) Objection: This is obvious - the Mishnah permits a big or
(e) Answer: One might have thought, it cannot be so cheap, or
lean - Rav Yosef teaches, this is not so.
(f) R. Yehudah Nesi'ah had a Peter Chamor; he asked R. Tarfon
how much the Seh used to redeem it must be worth.
(g) R. Tarfon: A generous person should give [a Seh worth at
least] a Sela, a stingy person should give a [standard]
Shekel (half a Sela), an intermediate person should give
Rigya (this will be explained).
(h) (Rava): The Halachah is, one should give Rigya.
1. Question: How much is Rigya?
(i) Contradiction: Above, Rav Nachman ruled that the Halachah
2. Answer: "RiGya" is three Zuz, "RaGil" [is close] to
a Sela (two Zuz) and to a Shekel (four Zuz).
(j) Resolution: If someone asks how much the Seh should be
worth, we tell him Rigya;
1. If someone did not ask and gives a Seh worth a
Danka, we do not tell him to give more.
(k) (R. Yitzchak): If one has a Peter Chamor and does not
have a Seh to redeem it, he redeems it for its worth.
(l) Question: According to which Tana is this?
1. It is not like R. Yehudah - he says that the Torah
requires redeeming with a Seh! (This is unlike the
conclusion on Daf 9b.)
(m) Answer #1 (Rav Acha): It is like R. Shimon.
(n) Objection (Ravina): R. Yitzchak's teaching should be
according to Halachah - surely, he would not rule like R.
1. The general rule is, when R. Yehudah and R. Shimon
argue, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah;
(o) Answer #2 (Ravina): R. Yitzchak's teaching is even like
2. Also, our Stam Mishnah is like R. Yehudah!
1. Surely, Peter Chamor is not more stringent than
Hekdesh, which may be redeemed for its value (using
money or other Metaltelim)!
(p) Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Yosef redeemed a Peter Chamor for
cooked herbs of the same value.
2. Redemption with a Seh is not a stringency, rather, a
leniency, it need not be worth as much as the Peter
(a) (Rav Shizbi): If Reuven redeems Shimon's Peter Chamor, it
3) "MATANOS" THAT MUST BE DESIGNATED BUT NEED NOT BE GIVEN
(b) Question: Who keeps the donkey, Reuven or Shimon?
1. We do not ask according to R. Shimon - since it was
not Asur b'Hana'ah, it always belonged to Shimon
(Reuven merely paid an obligation incumbent on
(c) Answer (Rav Nachman - Beraisa): If Levi stole Shimon's
Peter Chamor, he pays Kefel (double, like a regular
thief) to Shimon;
2. We ask according to R. Yehudah.
i. Since it was Asur b'Hana'ah before redemption,
it is like Hekdesh - v'Nasan ha'Kesef v'Kam Lo,
whoever redeems Hekdesh receives it;
ii. Or, since Shimon owned the net value(the
donkey's value less the cost of a Seh to redeem
it), it is like Shimon's!
1. Even though Shimon does not own it now, he will own
2. Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
i. It is not R. Shimon - he permits benefit from
it, even now Shimon owns it!
3. Answer: It is R. Yehudah;
i. We do not consider it like Hekdesh - if so,
Levi would not pay Kefel - "v'Ganav mi'Beis
ha'Ish," not if it was stolen from Hekdesh!
ii. Rather, it is considered Shimon's donkey
(therefore, if Reuven redeemed it, Shimon keeps
it) - this proof cannot be challenged.
(a) If only one mother was Mevakeres... (The Seh enters the
pen for Ma'aser...)
(b) (Beraisa) Question: What is the case of taking Ma'aser on
1. It cannot be after they were given to a Kohen - a
Mishnah exempts (from Ma'aser) animals bought or
received for a gift!
(c) Answer: The case is, a Yisrael had 10 doubtful Pitrei
Chamorim, he designates 10 Seiyin and keeps them, he
takes Ma'aser from them.
(d) This supports Rav Nachman:
1. (Rav Nachman): If a Yisrael had 10 doubtful Pitrei
Chamorim, he designates 10 Seiyin and keeps them, he
takes Ma'aser from them.
(e) (Rav Nachman): If a Yisrael inherited 10 definite Pitrei
Chamorim from [his grandfather,] a Kohen, who had
inherited them from [his grandfather,] a Yisrael, he
designates 10 Seiyin and keeps them, he takes Ma'aser
1. (We consider it as if his grandfather designated
them and (because he is a Kohen) was entitled to
keep them himself.)
(f) (Rav Nachman): If a Yisrael inherited Tevel (untithed
produce) after Miru'ach (final processing) from a Kohen,
who had inherited it from a Yisrael, he separates
Ma'aseros and keeps them.
(g) He must teach both cases ((e) and (f)):
1. Had he taught only (e), one might have thought that
he keeps the Seiyin because they are distinct (need
not be separated) from the Pitrei Chamorim, but we
do not consider (Ma'aser or other) Matanos (that
must be given to Kohanim, Leviyim or the poor) that
have not yet been separated as if they were
(h) (R. Shmuel bar Noson): If one buys from a Nochri Tevel
after Miru'ach, he separates Ma'aseros and keeps them.
i. (Since they never belonged to his grandfather,
the Yisrael does not inherit them, he must give
2. Had he taught only (f), one might have thought that
he keeps the Ma'aseros because they can be separated
from the Tevel itself, but the Seh (or money) for
the redemption is distinct from the Peter Chamor, it
is not considered to have been designated.
(i) Question: Who did Miru'ach?
4) WHEN THE "SEH" BELONGS TO KOHANIM
1. If the Nochri did Miru'ach, it is exempt from
Ma'aser - the Torah obligates tithing "Deganecha
(your grain)," we read this "Diguncha," Miru'ach of
(j) Answer: The Yisrael did Miru'ach while the produce
belonged to the Nochri (Tosfos; Rashi - the Yisrael was
the Nochri's sharecropper);
1. He must Ma'aser them, for Ein Kinyan l'Nochri even
if a Nochri buys land in Eretz Yisrael, it retains
its Kedushah, the produce must be tithed mid'Oraisa;
(k) (Often, the Gemara calls Nochrim "Kusim"; here, Kusim is
meant literally, the people whom Sancheriv settled in
place of the ten exiled Shevatim (these Kusim later
2. He keeps the tithes, for a Kohen could not have
forced them to be given (they are due to the
Yisrael, who bought from the Nochri).
(l) (Mishnah): If one deposits food with a Kusi or Am
ha'Aretz (one who is suspected of not tithing properly or
keeping laws of Shemitah), when he takes back the food,
it retains its status regarding Ma'aser and Shemitah (we
are not concerned lest the Shomer switched it with his
1. If one deposits with a Nochri, when he takes back
the food he treats it like the Nochri's food (we are
concerned that he switched it);
(m) (R. Elazar): All agree that he must Ma'aser the food -
they argue whether or not he must give to the Kohen (for
2. R. Shimon says, it is considered Demai (doubtfully
1. The first Tana assumes that the Nochri surely
switched it, tithes are given (for free) like from
(n) Question (Abaye): They argue because we are unsure
whether or not he switched it - if we knew that he surely
switched it, all would agree that it is given to Kohanim;
2. R. Shimon [is concerned *perhaps* he switched it,
and he] considers it like Demai.
1. But R. Shmuel bar Noson taught that if one buys from
a Nochri Tevel after Miru'ach, he separates
Ma'aseros and keeps them!
(o) Answer (Rav Dimi): Perhaps R. Shmuel discusses Terumah
Gedolah, and the Tana'im discusses Terumas Ma'aser!
(p) Support (Abaye): [Yes,] you reminded me of R. Yehoshua
ben Levi's teaching!
1. (R. Yehoshua ben Levi) Question: What is the source
that if one buys Tevel after Miru'ach from a Nochri,
he is exempt from giving Terumas Ma'aser?
2. Answer: "V'El ha'Leviyim Tedaber...Ki Sikchu me'Es
Benei Yisrael," Terumas Ma'aser must be [separated
and] given to Kohanim from Ma'aser that Leviyim
receive from Yisrael;
i. If Leviyim buy Tevel from Nochrim (R. Tam - if
Nochrim decide to separate Ma'aser and give to
Leviyim), [they must separate Terumas Ma'aser
but] they need not give Terumas Ma'aser to
(a) (Mishnah): If the Seh dies, it is permitted to benefit
(b) Question: Where was it when it died?
1. If it was already given to a Kohen, this is obvious,
it is the Kohen's property!
(c) Answer: If it died by the original owner, the Mishnah
teaches that it is given to a Kohen, he may benefit from
(d) Objection: Also this is obvious!
(e) Answer: One might have thought, before the Kohen receives
it, it does not yet belong to him - the Mishnah teaches,
this is not so, once it is designated it belongs to