Daf 33 — Bechoros 33 Summary

Bechoros 33 – Good Morning Raboisai Who May Eat a Baal Mum Bechor? We continue the Machlokes from yesterday regarding a Bechor that developed a Mum. Who may eat it? There are three levels discussed: • One opinion: only a Kohen. • Beis Hillel: even a Yisrael. • Rebbi Akiva: even a non - Jew. The Gemara now explains the sources for these opinions. Beis Hillel – Even a Yisrael Beis Hillel permit a Yisrael to eat a Baal Mum Bechor. The Torah says: הטמא והטהור יחדו Both someone Tamei and someone Tahor may eat it. The Gemara reasons that a Tamei Kohen cannot normally eat Kodshim, yet he may eat this Bechor. A Yisrael, who is permitted to eat Kodshim Kalim such as Shelamim: Certainly has grounds to eat a Baal Mum Bechor. But a Tamei Kohen Has His Own Kula The Gemara challenges this comparison. A Tamei Kohen has a special Kula that a Yisrael does not have: Under certain circumstances of communal Tumah, Kohanim can perform the Avodah B’Tumah. A Yisrael can never perform the Avodah. The response is that our discussion concerns: Eating, not performing the Avodah. Regarding eating, the comparison can still support Beis Hillel. Rebbi Akiva – Even a Non - Jew Rebbi Akiva goes further. A Baal Mum Bechor is compared to: כצבי וכאיל Like a deer and a gazelle. Just as ordinary deer and gazelle meat may be eaten by a non - Jew: Rebbi Akiva understands the comparison as permitting the Baal Mum Bechor to a non - Jew as well. Why Doesn't Everyone Agree? The other opinion needs the repeated references to Tzvi and Ayil for other Halachos. The Daf discusses three separate Limudim, including: • Laws relating to redeemed Pesulei HaMukdashin. • The requirement of Shechitah. • Exemption from Bechorah after an animal had previously been Kadosh. Therefore, according to that opinion, there is no extra comparison available to permit Bechor to a non - Jew. A Nidah Eating Bechor Does Tumah From the Body Make a Difference? The Gemara asks whether a Nidah may eat a Baal Mum Bechor. The issue is whether we distinguish between ordinary Tumah and: Tumah HaYotzei MiGufo – Tumah originating from the person's own body. This includes cases such as: • Zav, • Zavah, • Nidah, • Yoledes. Beis Shammai vs. Beis Hillel One opinion restricts a Nidah from eating the Bechor because the animal retains Kedushah. Beis Hillel point again to: הטמא והטהור יחדו A Tamei person is explicitly permitted to eat it. The question becomes: Does “Tamei” include even Tumah HaYotzei MiGufo? Korban Pesach Shows the Difference The Gemara brings Korban Pesach as an example where the Torah distinguishes between types of Tumah. When the Pesach is brought B’Tumah because most of Klal Yisrael are Tamei: A Tamei Meis may participate. But people whose Tumah comes from their own bodies, such as Zavim, Zavos, Nidos and Yoldos: Are treated more stringently. This proves that Tumah HaYotzei MiGufo can be a distinct and more severe category. Removing the Hide What Is Margilin? The Daf moves to the method of skinning an animal called Margilin. Instead of making the usual cut and removing the hide normally: The hide is carefully removed beginning around the legs so that it remains largely intact. This produces a more valuable hide but requires considerably more effort. Margilin on Yom Tov On Yom Tov, one may not use this unnecessarily difficult method. Why? The additional Tircha is not required for the Yom Tov food itself. The Daf then discusses whether Margilin may be done with: • A Bechor, • Or Pesulei HaMukdashin. The concern here is not merely Tircha but: The remaining Kedushah of the animal. Bechor Still Has Kedushah According to Beis Shammai, even a Baal Mum Bechor retains a strong degree of Kedushah. This can explain why: We do not handle its hide in an unusually commercial manner merely to increase its value. The Gemara then asks whether the same applies to Pesulei HaMukdashin. Two Chata’os One Chatas as a Backup The Daf discusses someone who designated two animals for the same Chatas – one as the Korban and one as a backup. One animal remains Tam. The other develops a Mum. The Baal Mum animal can be redeemed. But what happens afterwards depends on: When the Dam of the Tam Chatas was thrown on the Mizbeach. Once the Owner Has Kaparah If the Baal Mum animal was already Shechted before the Dam of the valid Chatas was offered: Its meat can remain permitted. But if the valid Chatas was completed first: The second animal becomes subject to the law of a leftover Chatas after the owner has already received Kaparah. This connects to the famous category of: חמש חטאות המתות The five Chata’os that are left to die. Kedushah Can Remain After Pidyon This case demonstrates that Pesulei HaMukdashin can retain significant restrictions: Even after Pidyon. This remaining Kedushah is relevant to whether we may perform unusual commercial procedures such as Margilin. Why Not Allow It to Benefit Hekdesh? The Gemara asks an obvious question. We learned that Pesulei HaMukdashin may sometimes: • Be sold in the marketplace, • Be weighed, • And otherwise be handled commercially, because: Hekdesh benefits from the increased value. So why not permit Margilin for the same reason? The Gemara explains that Margilin creates an additional concern. Keeping the Animal Around Producing the valuable intact hide may encourage the owner to delay dealing with the animal while looking for the best buyer. That delay creates a risk: He may come to use, work or shear an animal that still carries Kedushah. Therefore, Chazal wanted the animal dealt with promptly rather than retained for commercial advantage. A Dying Bechor Bloodletting to Save Its Life The Mishnah introduces a Bechor that is dangerously ill. The standard treatment was bloodletting. The problem: Making a wound may create a Mum in a Bechor. Can we perform the treatment to save the animal? Three approaches are discussed. Rebbi Yehudah – Don't Make a Mum Rebbi Yehudah takes the strictest approach. Even where the Bechor may die: We cannot deliberately create a Mum. The concern is that permitting this could lead people to intentionally create Mumim in Bechoros. Rebbi Meir – Treat It Away From a Mum Rebbi Meir permits bloodletting: But only from a place where the procedure will not create a permanent Mum. The animal can therefore be treated while still protecting the Kedushah of Bechor. Chachamim – Treat the Animal The Chachamim are more lenient. The purpose of the procedure is: To save the animal, not to create a Mum. Therefore, bloodletting may be performed even where a Mum might result. However, the person cannot simply exploit the resulting Mum as a way of permitting the Bechor. Safek Tamei Terumah A Parallel Three - Way Machlokes The Gemara compares this to a barrel of Terumah whose Tumah status is uncertain. What should we do if it is exposed to further possible Tumah? There are three approaches: • Protect it from becoming Tamei. • Leave it exactly as it is. • There is no need to protect it from further Tumah. At first glance: These three opinions seem to parallel the three opinions regarding the dying Bechor. But the Cases Are Not Identical The Gemara rejects a simple one - to - one comparison. Why? With the Bechor: The person may actively create the Mum with his own hands. With the Terumah: Leaving it uncovered merely allows Tumah to occur indirectly. That is the difference between: • B’Yadayim – actively causing the result. • Grama – allowing it to happen indirectly. A Tanna may therefore rule differently in the two cases. Maybe Eliyahu Will Come There is another difference. The Terumah is only Safek Tamei. Perhaps: Eliyahu HaNavi will come and clarify that it was actually Tahor. Therefore, there is reason to preserve its current status. With the sick Bechor: If nothing is done, the animal may simply die. That gives us a much stronger reason to intervene. Adding Another Mum A Mum on an Animal That Already Has a Mum The Daf ultimately focuses on another issue: Is it prohibited to create an additional Mum in an animal that is already a Baal Mum? A dangerously ill animal itself can be viewed as already seriously defective. The question is whether creating another Mum through bloodletting violates the prohibition. Multiple Violations Can Apply The Gemara compares this to other areas where repeated actions can each generate a separate prohibition. For example: With a Minchah, one can be liable for multiple stages of making it Chametz. Similarly, with damaging reproductive organs, separate prohibited actions can generate separate liability. This supports the possibility that: Adding another Mum to an already blemished Korban may still be prohibited. After Pidyon The Daf distinguishes an animal that was Kadosh, developed a Mum and was then redeemed. Even after Pidyon: Certain remnants of Kedushah remain. Nevertheless, the Torah can permit creating an additional Mum at that stage. This helps define precisely how far the prohibition of creating a Mum in Kodshim extends. Key Chazarah • The Daf begins with the Machlokes over who may eat a Baal Mum Bechor: Kohen, Yisrael or even a non - Jew. • Beis Hillel permit a Yisrael based on “HaTamei V’HaTahor.” • Rebbi Akiva permits even a non - Jew based on the comparison to Tzvi and Ayil. • The Gemara distinguishes ordinary Tumah from Tumah HaYotzei MiGufo. • Korban Pesach demonstrates that Tumah HaYotzei MiGufo can be treated more stringently. • Margilin is a special method of removing an animal's hide while keeping it intact. • It is restricted with Bechor and Pesulei HaMukdashin because of their remaining Kedushah. • A backup Chatas can become subject to the laws of Chata’os HaMeisos once the owner receives Kaparah from the primary Chatas. • Pesulei HaMukdashin retain certain Kedushah restrictions even after Pidyon. • Margilin is not permitted merely to increase value because it may encourage delaying the animal and lead to improper use. • A dangerously ill Bechor may require bloodletting. • Rebbi Yehudah is strict about creating a Mum. • Rebbi Meir allows treatment where it will not create a permanent Mum. • The Chachamim permit the necessary treatment even where a Mum could result. • The Gemara compares this with Safek Tamei Terumah but explains that active creation of a Mum differs from indirectly allowing Tumah. • Another distinction is that Eliyahu may eventually clarify that the Terumah was Tahor, whereas the untreated Bechor may die. • The Daf discusses whether adding a second Mum to an already blemished animal is itself prohibited. • Even after Pidyon, Pesulei HaMukdashin retain some restrictions, but their status is significantly reduced. Catch up, review, download previous Dafim & more: https://www.dafchazarah.co.uk Now available as an app (Apple, Google & Amazon): https://dafchazarah.co.uk/download Sponsor a day: https://dafchazarah.co.uk/sponsor לעילוי נשמת אמי מורתי רות בת הרב מנחם מנדל