Daf hayomi BEKHOROT page 26

It happened with the cold. That cold really came on suddenly, didn't it? Right. Yeah, yeah, no, it's okay compared to Bordeaux, it's fine.

So, we're going to finish chapter number 3. Last page, 26. We're on wool. What do we do with the wool that's near the neck, or the wool in a wound of a first-born, which in principle we can't consume?

So, we're going to finish the subject and the discussion. Someone who plucked the wool, he didn't know, he set aside the wool of a first-born. And afterwards, the first-born developed a blemish. So, ah, he can consume it in principle.

He could consume it, but since he removed the wool before the blemish, he can't consume it. It’s done. If it died afterwards. Rabbi Malali authorizes it because he says it's retroactive, it's fine, but they say there is no retroactivity.

But Rabbi Judah says the debate isn't even about him cutting the wool and it dying 2 days later. He cut the wool and put it in the window, meaning just for the moment, until he performs the slaughter. Even that is not good. That means even setting it aside for a few minutes before, no, you must first perform the slaughter and then you use it.

Ah, but Rabbi Jose. Based on, it's permitted. He doesn't agree, he says no, if he just set it aside to slaughter it, we have the right . When we say "put in the window," it means in English, "on standby." It's called, there you go, we're waiting , but it's on purpose; it's not literally in the window, it's a metaphor , meaning he's waiting for what's next, so he planned for it.

So if he performed the slaughter, very good, but if it died, then he says " Well, it's fine, it doesn't matter how it died." It didn't die naturally, it wasn't something I planned from A to Z. Rabbi Jose has a different view than the first Tanna. What is the difference between them? It's when there's an expert, a veterinarian.

The first Tanna says it's fine and it's permitted. If an expert comes and says this one has a blemish, it's "kaput," then I can consume it. He says even if there's no veterinarian , we can analyze it ourselves. It's permitted, it's permitted.

Certainly, if there is an expert, we listen to the expert. In summary, there are three debates on this subject. One, Tana Kama says it is fine even if he shorn it. Is it the same if it died or if it was slaughtered?

Because the result is the same, it is dead, but one was anticipated and the other not. So he says even if it died, it is fine. Rabbi says, is it true or not? It is not fine if it died naturally, only if he performed the shechita.

And even regarding shechita, some say they do not agree. Well, what is the conclusion of all this ? Following Rabbi Yehuda, if it died, we cannot consume it. Only if he performed the shechita and thus exchanged its sanctity, and in that case, we permit it.

>> And if there is an animal that is, we see that it is about to die. We perform shechita on it. Does it become kosher again, or because ... >> Yeah, yeah, it depends on the defect; if it has defects in the 48 problematic limbs, uh 24.

It depends on what illness it has. Ah, one also needs to know, the shochet must know all the defects that make the animal treif. If it is not one of those defects, he has the right. That also needs to be known.

Yeah. Yeah, but even before, if you see that it can't hold up, it has renal failure or I don't know what. In principle, one must be an expert in that as well, right? The conclusion is like Rabbi Yehuda.

If he put the wool in the window, meaning in standby, and afterwards performed the shechita, does that permit it? No. Forbidden, it depends on how much he pulled out. Did he really pull out a little bit to perform the shechita or did he?

If it is a little bit he removed just to perform the shechita, there is no problem consuming it afterwards. So we still don't have the right opinion , we have two opposite versions. Finally, the law closes the subject and says that in the end, we are talking about a shechita, and according to the Rabbis, it is forbidden and we cannot consume it, whether it is slaughtered or died naturally. A few last questions for this chapter.

If someone did the same thing but with a burnt offering, they set aside a burnt offering, in the meantime they took a bit of the wool and kept it. Does he have the right or? Because as soon as he said "Ola," you know what? It's entirely for God with everything that is there.

Is it the same subject as If you tell me it's forbidden, but what if the wool was torn off by itself, I don't know, it hit the wall and got torn off on its own. I didn't do anything. Do we have the right or? If it is a sacrifice for atonement, then no, the owner surely wants to be forgiven as quickly as possible.

Kevan, I'm turning the page. Because if it's a burnt offering and you tell him he has the right to use the wool in a certain way, he won't be in a hurry to bring it to Jerusalem, right. If it's to be forgiven for a sin, then yes, he wants to bring it quickly to Jerusalem to clear the fault. But otherwise, no.

What do we do with it ? We answer. The Gemara says if the wool was torn off by itself, yes, you have the right to use it. Okay, Akavia ben Mahalalel says that even if it was torn off on purpose, you have the right.

Last subject for this chapter. If there is some wool that is a bit strange, it is not the same as the other wool, he wanted to remove it. It doesn't have the same color, it doesn't have the same It's like when you press it, it jumps up a bit. You see, like hair sometimes you wake up, you have a you have a hair that stands up.

It is not in the same line. Can you do that to this one? It is not He says no, I don't agree, there are always hairs, wool is never aligned. It's not that now you are going to authorize cutting what sticks out and what goes against the grain.

That is the extent of chapter 3. New chapter number 4 page 26, we're going to start it a little bit. So, this one this one is a chapter that teaches us respect for the Cohen and what now there is a firstborn,? What, am I going to call the Cohen right ?

Come come take it like that with the blood with? You just don't do that. You you give a little gift. Ah, you have to wait a little bit.

How long must I take care of the baby gift before giving it to the? So, if it's a small goat, a sheep, 30 days. 30 days. If it's a cow, it's a sturdy animal He says he doesn't agree, one month is still too fragile.

You imagine Mr. Cohen , maybe he doesn't know animals. Wait a little, three months for it to get sturdy. If the Cohen arrives before the timing, huh.

He knocks at the door, he says hello, I don't want to wait a month. Do me a favor, tomorrow I have a party. Give it to me, I can, and in the meantime, the kids haven't gone to school, Azakou Baroukh, and I want them to play with the little, the little lamb . Who has?

Who does it belong to? What the Mishna says. I say no, no, wait a minute, I have a schedule, it stays with me for a month, not with you. But if it has a defect and the Cohen says to him, "Give it to me despite the defect after the deadline ." I can give it to him, the high priest If the time exists, the Cohen can come the day after birth to claim it, he is not obligated to wait 30 days on the condition that he says, "Give it to me because I want to take it to Jerusalem.

" For a Bechor, we will learn that the Mitzvah is to eat it in the first year. It's better. Careful, if it has grown more, you can. First year.

Uh, Rashi is like, I don't know what that is. If it has a defect, but not a permanent one, a defect that doesn't void its holiness, we can wait another year; we aren't forced to have a barbecue right away, we can keep it another year. And after a year, the after a year, you only have a 30-day grace period left to eat it. That is our subject.

There you go, tomorrow we'll start a little. It's beautiful how each chapter treats a different subject. Now that we've understood the criteria a bit, we see it's not just "it's born, I'm getting rid of it, Hello Cohen, take the little lamb there." And oh, there is such know-how, such etiquette in every detail.