Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Bekhorot 16 - October 4, 23 Tishrei
The Gemara analyzes the braita brought to support Rav Sheshet's position that the fetus of a sanctified animal that became blemished can be redeemed (i.e., designated before the mother is redeemed to be used for the same sacrifice as its mother). First, the Gemara explains what can be derived from the concluding line in each section of the braita , "this is the general rule" ( klalo shel davar ). Then, an inference from the braita is used to raise a difficulty against Rav Huna's position that offspring of sanctified animals that became blemished cannot be fixed , but must be left to die. However, the Gemara suggests that Rav Huna could read the braita without making that inference. Two versions are presented regarding one who slaughters a blemished sanctified animal outside the Temple courtyard ( azara ): in one version, the person is exempt; in the other, obligated. The second position is explained as referring to a blemish in the cornea ( dukin she-be'ayin ) according to the position of Rabbi Akiva. Regarding the law of a substitution ( temura ) for a disqualified sanctified animal: Rav Nachman rules that if it was substituted after the original animal was redeemed, the substitute animal must be left to die, as there is no solution for it (similar to Rav Huna's position above regarding the fetus). Rav Amram disagrees, deriving from the substitution of a firstborn and an animal tithe that such animals can be eaten/slaughtered after becoming blemished. However, Abaye explains why those cases are not comparable. A braita is then brought to support Rav Nachman's position. The Mishna rules that if an Israelite receives livestock from a non-Jew under a guaranteed livestock arrangement ( tzon barzel ) where the Jew accepts responsibility for the livestock, agrees to return its value as assessed at the time of the arrangement, and splits the proceeds , the offspring are exempt from firstborn status ( bekhora ). However, the third generation will be obligated in bekhora , meaning the fourth generation firstborns will be given to the kohen . If the Israelite substitutes the offspring in place of the mothers to secure the principal, the third-generation offspring are exempt, but the fourth generation offspring are obligated meaning the fifth generation firstborns will be given to the kohen . Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that even up to ten generations are exempt, as the non-Jew can always collect from the animals. If a ewe gives birth to a goat-like species or a goat gives birth to a sheep-like species, the offspring is exempt from bekhorah , unless it exhibits some physical characteristics ( miktzat simanin ) of its mother, in which case it is obligated. The Gemara questions whether tzon barzel remains in the domain of the non-Jewish owner, raising a contradiction from the laws of interest ( ribbit ), which prohibit an Israelite from accepting tzon barzel from another Israelite because it is considered to be in the recipient's domain and i s therefore considered interest. Abaye distinguishes between cases based on whether the giver accepts responsibility for unavoidable loss and market depreciation. Rava rejects this distinction and explains that for bekhora , the exemption applies because if the Israelite fails to pay, the non-Jew can seize the animals or their offspring. Thus, "the hand of the non-Jew is in the middle" ( yad goy ba'emtza ), which invalidates the requirement of bekhora . The Gemara analyzes the dispute regarding the generations of offspring when offspring are substituted for their mothers under a tzon barzel arrangement: Rav Huna holds that the second generation is exempt while the third generation is obligated, whereas Rav Yehuda holds that third generation offspring are also exempt and only fourth generation offspring are obligated.
