Search This Blog

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Day Yoimie Snippets ... Bechoros Dafim 32,33 ,34,35,36,37 & 38

A great opportunity for the entire family, to share some thoughts on the daf ...  the  family feels united by discussing what the head of the house is studying.
I try to break it down so that everyone can understand it .... 
You can copy and print this without my consent, since Torah belongs to all of us..... 

See  previous Daf Yoimie Snippets 

This week's "Daf Yoimie Snippets Sponsored For the Refuah Shliemah of 
צארטל בת אסתר מלכה 

''דף ל''ב ''מעשר בהמה    
Page 32  Mesectas Bechoros  
''Tithing Animals"
It is prohibited to sell an animal designated as ma'aser under any circumstances. An animal set aside as ma'aser must be sacrificed as a korban in the Bais Ha'Mikdash and then its meat must be eaten exclusively in Jerusalem ..... same as the law regarding a Korban Shelamim.

The halacha just quoted refers to a behimah temimah... an unblemished animal.
However, if a ma'aser behimah became blemished, it is permissible to eat meat from that animal in any location, since the laws of ma'aser no longer apply to that animal.

Nevertheless, the rabbis decreed that it was prohibited to sell a "ma'aser behimah" animal which has become blemished ... even if the  animal was slaughtered ...so no one would mistakingly sell;; a "ma'aser behimah" animal while it was still alive, which was strictly prohibited.

Press "read more" to continue to the rest of the dafim

''דף ל''ג ''הקזת דם    
Page 33  Mesectas Bechoros  
''Therapeutic Blood-Letting"

A situation could arise in which an animal contracts a disease, for which bloodletting is the only remedy - i.e. where if blood is drawn from the animal, that animal will be healed, and live.

There is a dispute among Tannaim whether it is permissible to draw blood from a tender young firstborn animal. 
We are concerned that the baby animal will develop a "moom" a blemish as a result of the blood-letting procedure, which would disqualify that bechor from being offered as a korban, and it is prohibited to intentionally inflict a disqualifying blemish upon a bechor.

The halacha is however that one can draw blood from a young animal, as long as there is absolutely no intention to cause the animal to become a ba'al moom.

However, if, the animal did become inadvertently blemished in the process, the animal does take on the status of an ordinary animal and may no longer be offered as a korban.

''דף ל'ד ''מום בבכור בהמה    
Page 34  Mesectas Bechoros  
''A Blemished Firstborn"
In ancient times, a bechor ftom a kosher animal had to be offered at the Bais Ha'mikdash. 

Now that the Bais Ha'mikdash unfortunately does not exist, it remains forbidden to benefit from a bechor unless it develops a "moom" a blemish. 
If it does develop a blemish it is given to a kohein, to perform shechita and eat its meat. 

Chazal decreed that if an individual were to intentionally cause a bechor to become blemished, that individual would be censured. It would remain forbidden to slaughter the animal until such time as the animal develops another blemish!

''דף ל''ה ''הפקיד,הרומח והכבש    
Page 35  Mesectas Bechoros  
''The Roman Official, The Dagger and the Sheep"

The Mishnah recounts an instance when a Roman official saw an old sheep, whose wool was long and matted. 

The Roman asked: "Why have you not sheared this sheep's wool for so many years?" 

The owners of the sheep explained that the sheep was bechor, and since there is no Bais Ha'Mikdash, shechitah may not be performed on this sheep, and it isn't permissible to derive any benefit from this animal, as long as it remains unblemished.

Upon hearing this exclamation, the Roman picked up his dagger and slit the bechor sheep's ear.

When the rabbis saw the slit in the bechor's ear, they proclaimed:
"Now, one is permitted to benefit from this sheep"

When the Roman heard the ruling he decided to help out the Jews, so, he went and made slits in the ears of the previously unblemished firstborn animals.

The rabbis then ruled that it was prohibited to benefit from those additional bechorim.

What was the difference between the ruling of the first sheep that it was permitted and the additional sheep that were prohibited?

Because at first the Roman did not know the owners of the bechor would be pleased by what he did, and so there is no concern that the official might have been sent by the owners to inflict blemishes.

However, for the additional bechorim, it was obvious that owners were pleased with what happened and it might appear as if  the second group of bechorim became blemished as a result of the illegal request by the Jews!

''דף ל''ו 'הנוכל שנחשף    
Page 36  Mesectas Bechoros  
''The Scoundrel That Was Exposed"

The Amora, Rafram, had a bechor calf which he gave to a kohein. 
Since the animal was unblemished, the kohein was prohibited from deriving benefit from it.

This particular kohein then committed an aveirah, and intentionally inflicted a blemish on the calf....
The kohein then had the chutzpah to approach Rafram and say:
"The calf I was given was already blemished, I need a Rav to declare the calf  blemished and to grant me permission to shecht the animal."

Rafram, who was nobodies fool, became suspicious ....
and though Rafram suffered from a severe allergy that caused his eyes to swell shut, Rafram forced himself to open his swollen eyes to look at the kohein standing in front of him.
Rafram immediately said,
"Wasn't I the one who gave you that calf? 
You are the one who inflicted a blemish on the animal! Therefore, it is prohibited for you to benefit from any of the meat from that bechor, unless it develops another blemish on its own!"

''דף ל''ז ''חנות לממכר בשר טרפה    
Page 37  Mesectas Bechoros  
''A Store That Sold Treif Meat as Kosher"

I guess nothing has changed in two thousand years!

Throughout the streets of a city, Askanim plastered Kol Korahs that a certain butcher store was selling treif meat as kosher!

It appeared that a con man from another city masquerading as a shomer Torah U'mitzvot opened a butcher shop and sold treif meat there.

One of those customers, Reuvein,  decided to return the meat for a refund. 
When he told his friend, Shimon, who had also bought meat there, but who had already eaten the treif meat, that he was suing for a refund, Shimon wondered if he was also entitled to a refund, on the other hand, since  he had nothing to return, he had already eaten it, he didn't have a claim?

According to the Mishna of this daf, the butcher is obligated to pay compensation to all customers, even those who already consumed the meat and have nothing to return.

One explanation for this ruling is that the Chazal required the butcher to repay all of the customers as a penalty and fine for causing people to eat prohibited foods.

''דף ל''ח ''כבוד תלמידי חכמים     
Page 38  Mesectas Bechoros  
''Honor Given to Torah Scholars"

Rabbah bar Bar Hana said the following:

"Rabbi Yochanan Ben Elazar told me:
 'In our neighborhood there is a certain elder named Rabbi Yossi Lakonya. During all my days, I made sure not to pass before him, as a sign of respect, to avoid embarrassing Rabbi Yossi ...... since he was the Gadol Hador.

It happened once, that I did pass Rabbi Lakonya unintentionally. 
and when he noticed he noticed me, he called out to me and said:
 ' Sit, my son, sit! Allow me to teach you something'
A bechor calf was right next to him and the calf's eye was inflicted with some kind of eye disease.. 

Rabbi Lakonya said:
The Mishna states that a bechor suffering from a certain eye ailment has the status of a baal moom and is not deemed fit for use as a korban ...
Please, he continued, look at this bechor here before you and observe that its eye possesses that particular eye disease"

How did Rabbi Lakonya issue a halachic judgement regarding a blemish on his own animal? 

The answer is that a Chacham cannot issue a judgement regarding a blemish on his own animal but he can certainly teach his students what constitutes a blemish, those students, in turn,  would now be able based on those teachings  rule halachically ,,,,,

It's interesting to note that Rabbi Yochahan ben Elazar, was himself an Amorah, yet because he had great respect for the Gadol Hador, he carefully avoided passing Rabbi Yossi Lakonya place where he sat so he wouldn't have to come to a situation where he would have to contradict the Gadol Hador! 

No comments: