brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
1. Rebbi Shimon maintains that although one is forbidden to eat Basar b'Chalav, one is permitted to benefit from Basar b'Chalav.
2. Some say that there is an argument about whether food that the Torah forbids must be designated as food in order to be able to become Tamei.
3. Rava says that everyone agrees that food that the Torah forbids requires designation in order to be able to become Tamei.
4. There is a disagreement about whether the Shechitah of a non-Kosher bird or animal merely in order to learn how to slaughter gives it the status of food to become Tamei.
5. The disagreement about whether one is permitted to benefit from a Peter Chamor before it is redeemed applies to both benefiting from its body and from its monetary value.
6. Many Amora'im maintain that although Rebbi Shimon says that one may benefit from a Peter Chamor before it is redeemed, he agrees that after it is beheaded it is forbidden.
7. Rebbi Yochanan (and some say Rebbi Elazar) argues that Rebbi Shimon maintains that one is permitted to benefit from a Peter Chamor even after it is beheaded.
8. The Gemara discusses how to understand the Mishnah that states that if a person is Mekadesh a woman with a Peter Chamor, she is not Mekudeshes.
A BIT MORE
1. This is unlike the Rabanan quoted earlier (6b), who say that one is also forbidden to benefit from Basar b'Chalav.
2. According to this opinion, the Rabanan say "Ho'il v'Isuro Chishuvo," meaning that the fact that the Torah forbids eating it gives it the status of food, and thus it can become Tamei as food. Rebbi Shimon disagrees.
3. Therefore, Rava understands that if a Peter Chamor was beheaded from the back of the neck, it does not automatically become Tamei.
4. Rava understands that Nimus maintains that slaughtering a bird or animal in order to learn how to slaughter does not cause it to have the ability to become Tamei as food. Rebbi Eliezer says that it does. Rava suggests that this is the basis of the argument between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan earlier (9b).
5. An example of benefiting from its body is causing it to work, or shearing its "wool." An example of benefiting from its value is receiving money for renting it out.
6. In one version, Rav Nachman is quoted as saying that this is derived from a comparison to the Eglah Arufah. In another version, he says that it is only logical that a person who denied the Kohen his sheep should not be permitted to benefit from his Peter Chamor.
7. The Gemara shows how it is possible that both versions of Rav Nachman (in 6 above) might apply to Rebbi Yehudah and not to Rebbi Shimon.
8. Rav Nachman understands that the case involves a Peter Chamor that was beheaded, and therefore one may not benefit from it, according to both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon.
Next Daf Index to Revach for Maseches Bechoros