Daf hayomi BEKHOROT page 15

15 Bekhorot, 2nd chapter. We are bound by the word that commits the sacrifice, the sheep. And what if it happens to have a defect, is it...well, we understand we can't sacrifice it with a defect, but what do we do? And if we exchanged it for money?

And if it died, do we bury it or not? That is our subject. So we saw that according to the Rabbis, you cannot feed it to the dogs. It is still somewhat sanctified.

In that case, there is a difference. Did it die of natural causes or not? At the end, it finds a good source, it says as follows, the source for our subject, what was our subject? Remember our original subject, it was whether a sanctified animal that had a firstborn, is the firstborn holy or not ?

Or the fact that the mother was already sanctified. >> So, it's not subject to the rules of the firstborn. >> And the Gemara tells you it's like a deer, a deer doesn't have a firstborn, right? Someone who has a herd of deer or >> a firstborn for God does not exist.

So it is the same for all those that were sanctified; their firstborn is exempt from the firstborn rules. The Gemara, of course, attacks, it disagrees. I agree about the redemption of the firstborn, which we don't need to do because the mother was already But if I now have a barbecue, why not give the Cohen's gifts, the stomach, the shoulder, and the cheek? Why do you take that away from the Cohen ?

From the deer. It is written, "tzvi" is a deer and " ayyal" is a stag, for the stag is there a need to give the cheek and all that to the Cohen? No. >> Well, the Torah compared these firstborns of sanctified sheep to the deer and the stag.

For the deer, is the firstborn valid? Must we give it to a Cohen? No. So for this one too, no.

>> For the stag, must we give the Cohen's share of the cheek? No. So for this one too, no. The Gemara says to you, wait, wait.

Ah, look at why lawyers study Gemara. You compare it to...it's a "tzvi" and " ayyal," it's permitted. If you compare them to the deer and the stag, you know that for them, we are allowed to eat their fat. >> Yeah.

>> Their fat is not forbidden. So in that case, can I eat the fat of this sheep that was born to a sanctified mother that had a defect? Ah, because you compared it to a wild animal and a...Can I eat their fat? No, it’s written in Hebrew.

>> It is not like them. It is like them in certain rules, but not for the, uh, the fat. >> A classic. I still don’t agree.

I agree about the firstborn, but not about the gifts. Why is the firstborn only among males? We forgot to clarify that too, huh. >> Because if the firstborn is female >> or there is none >> there is nothing.

Well, it’s like the redemption of the firstborn, it’s the same thing. If the first is a girl, nothing. >> But the gifts for the Cohen, the cheek and the shoulder, it doesn’t matter if it’s male or female, there are still gifts. We definitely agree on that.

>> Look at how the Torah thinks of every detail, it's fascinating. We forget everything. It’s incredible because we are racking our brains. And it gives us pleasure, but for topics that aren't even applicable when we talk among ourselves, huh.

There is no temple, we aren’t doing Cohen gifts right now with all of that. So we know we have a rule that we don’t have the right to slaughter the mother and the son. >> On the same day. >> It’s forbidden.

>> Yeah, but that’s not for wild animals, it’s only for, uh, >> domesticated kosher animals. >> Ah, yes. >> Since it was compared, can I now take the son of the sanctified five-legged sheep and slaughter it with its mother on the same day because you did a copy-paste deduction of the wild and domestic animals? Is it the same rule in this case or not Well, of course, you know the answer to that?

Not at all. At home, you never have the right to do the mother and the son on the same day, regardless of whether it’s a wild or domestic animal. But in the temple, we had the right back then to do both on the same day. Only in the temple, huh!

Don't ask me why, I don’t know the logic. But, uh, it’s the same for shatnez, we don’t have the right to wear linen and wool, and the Cohen... >> he wore it. >> He wore it.

Okay? Because in the Temple , the rules are different; uh, don't light a fire on Shabbat at home. But in the Temple, they certainly performed sacrifices. Right?

So over there, in the Temple, we are outside of time, outside of the laws. It's distinct, but the fat, no matter what happens, it remains forbidden. Both at your home and in the Temple, you couldn't bring the fat of an animal and eat it. And why does the Torah also say the blood, you don't eat it, we already know that, when do we have the right to eat the blood of an animal, just the fat and the blood?

That is grammar. Why is it written there? Perhaps I would have thought that the fat of an animal is not authorized but it is not forbidden. There is no excision, okay?

>> But it is not authorized. >> It is exempt. I didn't know if it was permitted. There is a difference between exempt and permitted.

Exempt means >> uh, free from sin. >> Okay. And permitted means authorized. Because it is certain that if someone eats the forbidden fat of a cow.

So there it is clearly marked. What is it, because in the and the no, we don't have the right to eat the fat of an animal in the Temple or at home? in the Temple, and it is a sin. And with the word that is added, him and his offspring, him and his offspring, it means him and his child that you cannot sacrifice on the same day, not even in the Temple.

There you go, on this note, I finish the Mishnah. So, we now have to know what to do with the milk and the wool. These are products that, for now, as long as I haven't brought that sheep, what do I do with the milk? Can I consume it or not?

The Torah asks you to bring it to the Temple to eat the meat. You will bring it, that means you will not profit from the wool. You will eat it, what does that mean? You eat the meat and not the milk.

You, and not your dogs. You don't have the right to give it to them. It is sanctified meat. Turn the page.

As soon as you have brought it to Jerusalem, then you can eat it there. But if they have died, you can exchange them and bring the money. And what remains of the flesh, you give it to your dogs. We have left to decide on the milk and the babies too that will be born in the meantime.

Remember that we saw the problem was if she was pregnant before being sanctified . Not after; if it's after she was sanctified, got a blemish, she was swapped. The baby, it's a newborn, it wasn't born in the...It was born after the blemish, but here, if it was born before and she was pregnant when I sanctified her, what do we do with the baby? It’s holy, but give me a source, buddy.

The rabbis, the rabbis, it is written in the Torah: male, female, it becomes kosher. Why is it written "and"? And that means "both him and the baby". Wait, "and" means them?

All that is if the mom is in good health and the baby is in good health. But here , we have a problem: the mom, what did she have? She has a blemish, doesn't she It is written. What is "im" in Hebrew?

>> Not, not with, but no. It is in good health. If it is a female. What do we do with the babies now?

So okay, I understood. The mom was handicapped and she was already pregnant . What do I do with the baby? There are two opinions.

One says that you can bring the baby because the baby has no blemish, see? Don't forget the baby's blemish. It is a baby from a mother who was sanctified while she was pregnant and who had a blemish. So the mom, I can't do anything , but the baby, first opinion, bring it Second opinion tells you no, I won't bring it because when she gave birth, she had a blemish, well you leave it in the pasture until it gets a blemish and then you sell it and bring the money.

Rava has another opinion. Don't wait for them to die in 20 years. You lock them in a room without food. >> Oh, or.

>> Because there is no other solution. I can't offer them as a sacrifice because it wasn't them I sanctified, it was their mother. To wait for them to die one day and to swap them, it's not, it's not right away So that is Ravuna's opinion. Second opinion.

No, he can re-sanctify. The one who was just born. That means it's not that you bring it because of the mother and that she was pregnant and it was in the womb and caught by your word because it was in the mother's womb . You sanctify them and in that case you can bring them to Jerusalem.

Incredible , eh? Well, not everyone agrees, what do they base it on? Because if you authorize it now, there could be whole herds of them, and he'll profit; the matter will never be closed , so you close it right away. So we have two opinions: either you lock them in a room, God forbid, or you re-sanctify them and bring them to Jerusalem.

Incredible subject, eh? I'm finishing the page. Well, listen closely now to the questions. We are going to finish the page with some very, very strong questions.

Baraminah, uh, line 15, eh. Now that you told me, Rabbi, that I have an option to re-sanctify them, isn't that right? >> Yeah. Does it have to be for the same category as the mother was?

Meaning the mother, I wanted to bring it as a peace offering to thank God. Okay. And then, I committed a sin and I want to profit. You told me I can re-sanctify the baby.

So I'll say, "Ah, this one as a sin offering, I'll bring it now." Can I, or is it obligated >> to be >> in the same category as the mother? It didn't work for the mother because in the meantime, it developed a blemish. Okay. But can I re-sanctify the baby for a different category?

These are Amarl, no, no, give me a source. There is the same word, the word is "in your gates." That means you will bring it in my gates. That means to Jerusalem . And that is also written in the And since you must bring the firstborn only for the firstborn category, you cannot change.

You can't take a firstborn and say, " Hey, I have a sin, I'll profit from the firstborn, I'll bring it to Jerusalem and have my sin forgiven with it." Can you do that? No. The same word that is in the...in that baby that is coming. So you cannot change categories.

Confirmation. We found a source, a statement. We have a source that confirms everything we just said, and I will give you the summary, not me, the Gemara says so. Here is the summary of everything we studied: that if the birth—no, not birth , the pregnancy— >> was after the blemish occurred and it was sanctified and it was exchanged, it's there is no problem.

The problem is if it was pregnant during >> the sanctification. On the other hand, if I did it afterwards and the disability occurred. The disability annuls it. We are not allowed to benefit from the wool.

You exchanged them, having exchanged Benjamin with another, it becomes everything. It depends once again, the pregnancy before or? And even if you sanctified the babies, you cannot change the category. The only thing you can do is eat them in Summary of everything we studied today and the school of Iv.

So everything depends on if it was done before or after and it changes the whole category >> of these sacrifices. There you go, friends, on one foot, page 15 >> and God willing we will continue the subject on the next page. Have an excellent day and congratulations to all those who follow. It is a sacrifice too , you know, to try to understand all this, but there is nothing better than making sacrifices for this.