Parallel
בכורות 25:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But did Rab say this? Did not R. Hiyya b. Ashi say in the name of Rab: The stopper of the brewery boiler must not be squeezed in on a festival day? — In that case even R. Simeon would agree. For Abaye and Raba both said: R. Simeon admits where it is a case of ‘let his head be cut off, but let him not die’, that it is forbidden. But did not R. Hiyya b. Ashi report in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accordance with R. Judah, and R. Hanan b. Ami reported in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon, and R. Hiyya b. Abin taught without naming the authority as follows: Rab says: The halachah is in accordance with R. Judah, whereas Samuel says: The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon? — Indeed Rab holds that a forbidden act which was produced without intent is prohibited [on a festival day] and that tearing is not [considered] the same as shearing, and the reason why it is permitted on a festival day is because it is detaching a thing from its place of growth in an unusual manner. But is not tearing [considered] the same as shearing? Has it not been taught: If one plucks a large feather from the wing [of a bird] and cuts off [its head], and smooths it, he is obliged to bring three sin-offerings. And Resh Lakish explained: He is guilty for the act of plucking it, because it comes under the category of shearing; he is guilty for the act of cutting, because it comes under the category of severing; and he is guilty for the act of smoothing, because it comes under the category of scraping? — [Plucking] a wing is different, for that is the usual thing. Now since Rab holds in accordance with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam, then R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam holds in accordance with Rab. But does R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam hold that a forbidden act [which was produced] without intent is forbidden? Has it not been taught: If two hairs [of a Red Heifer] are red at the roots but black at the top. R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam says: He may shear with scissors without fear? — The case of a Red Heifer is different, for it does not belong to a class [of animals] that are sheared. But has it not been taught: [Scripture says]: Thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox nor shear the firstling of thy flock. From this I can gather only that working an ox and shearing sheep are forbidden. Whence will you deduce that the expression used in connection with an ox applies equally to sheep and the expression used in connection with sheep applies equally to an ox? The text states: Thou shalt not work nor shear the firstling of thy flock! — Rather [say] the case of a Red Heifer is different, for it is an offering for the Temple repair. But has not R. Eliezer said: Offerings for Temple repair are forbidden in respect of shearing and work? — It is a Rabbinic enactment. But is there not still a Rabbinic prohibition? — The case of a Red Heifer is different, as it is a rare occurrence. But why not redeem the Red Heifer, bring it to a state of hullin [in order] to shear it and then again consecrate it? — Its price is high. But why not act here as Samuel taught. for Samuel said: A dedicated object worth a maneh which has been redeemed for the value of a perutah is considered redeemed? — Samuel's teaching refers only to a case where it has been done, but does he teach that it is directly permissible! If you wish I may say: Rab holds with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam but R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam does not hold with Rab [that unintentional results caused by forbidden acts are prohibited]. AND TEARS THE HAIR PROVIDED HOWEVER HE DOES NOT REMOVE THE WOOL FROM ITS PLACE. R. Ashi reported in the name of Resh Lakish: They have taught this only with regard to tearing with the hand but with an instrument it is forbidden. But does not [the Mishnah] state: HE MAKES A PLACE WITH A BUTCHER'S HATCHET ON BOTH SIDES? — Read: FOR THE BUTCHER'S HATCHET. AND SIMILARLY IF ONE TEARS THE HAIR TO SHOW THE PLACE OF THE BLEMISH. It was queried: Does it mean that this is directly permitted or only condoned if it had been done? — Said R. Jeremiah. Come and hear: If wool is entangled in the ear, R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam says: He tears it and shows its blemish. Deduce from here therefore that it means a direct permission. This stands proved. Said R. Mari: We have also learnt: AND SIMILARLY IF ONE TEARS THE HAIR TO SHOW THE PLACE OF THE BLEMISH. What does the expression AND SIMILARLY indicate? If it is to tell us that he must not remove it from its place, since if he slaughters, where the slaughtering proves his intention, [you still say] that he must not remove its wool, can there be any question as regards showing the place of the blemish? Must you not therefore admit that it refers to the ‘tearing’. Deduce from this therefore that it is directly permissible. It stands proved. MISHNAH. IF [A PORTION OF] THE HAIR OF A BLEMISHED FIRSTLING WAS TORN AWAY AND HE PLACED IT IN THE WINDOW, AND SUBSEQUENTLY SLAUGHTERED THE ANIMAL. AKABYA B. MAHALALEL ALLOWS IT
—