Bekhorot — Daf 25b

וחכמים אוסרין דברי ר' יהודה אמר לו ר' יוסי לא בזה התיר עקביא בן מהללאל אלא שער בעל מום שנשר והניחו בחלון ואחר כך מת בזה עקביא בן מהללאל מתיר וחכמים אוסרין

צמר המדולדל בבכור את שנראה עם הגיזה מותר ואת שאינו נראה עם הגיזה אסור:

גמ׳ מכלל דאסר השתא במת שרי שחטו מיבעיא

אלא לא בזה התיר עקביא וחכמים אוסרין שחטו דברי הכל שרי כי פליגי במת

אמר רבי אסי אמר ריש לקיש מחלוקת בשהתירו מומחה דמר סבר גזרינן דלמא אתי לשהוייה ומר סבר לא גזרינן אבל לא התירו מומחה דברי הכל אסור

מתיב רב ששת בעלי מומין אוסרין בכ"ש ורבי יוסי אומר יבקר

והוינן בה מאי יבקר אלימא דבעל מום הוא ולישקליה מכלל דתנא קמא אמר לאו

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה הכא בגיזת בכור בעל מום עסקינן שנתערבו בגיזי חולין ומאן תנא קמא רבי יהודה היא דאמר נשחטו אסרי רבנן ורבי יוסי לטעמיה דאמר נשחטו שרו רבנן

וקתני יבוקר מאי יבוקר לאו אי מום קבוע אי מום עובר הוא אף על גב שלא התירו מומחה

אמר רבא לא יבוקר אי התירו מומחה אין ואי לא לא

כי סליק רבין אמרה לשמעתא קמיה דרבי ירמיה אמר בבלאי טפשאי משום דיתבי בארעא דחשוכא אמרי שמעתא דמחשכן לא שמיע להו הא דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת בשבדק ולא מצא

וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דר"מ ורבנן דתנן שהיה ר"מ אומר כל דבר שהיה בחזקת טומאה לעולם הוא בטומאתו עד שיתוודע הטומאה

וחכמים אומרים חופר עד שמגיע לסלע או לבתולה

ר' אסי אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת כשבדק ומצא וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי ור"ש בן גמליאל

דתניא שדה שאבד בה קבר נכנס בתוכה טמא נמצא בתוכה קבר נכנס לתוכה טהור שאני אומר הוא קבר שאבד הוא קבר שנמצא דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר תיבדק כל השדה כולה

ור' אסי מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבי חייא בר אבא אמר לך בשלמא גבי טומאה אימר בא עורב ונטלה בא עכבר ונטלה אלא הכא בעל מום להיכא אזיל ואידך אימר מום עובר הוה ואיתסי

ורבי חייא בר אבא מאי טעמא לא אמר כר' אסי אמר לך בשלמא שדה דרכה למיקבר בה כי היכי דקבר בה האי קבר אינש אחרינא אלא קדשים כיון דבדקו לן וקיימי דרכייהו למיפל בהו מומא ואידך אגב דמנגחי אהדדי שכיח בהו מומא

מיתיבי התולש צמר מבכור תם אע"פ שנולד בו מום ושחטו אסור טעמא דתם

WHEREAS THE SAGES DECLARE IT FORBIDDEN.1 THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. JOSE SAID TO HIM: AKABYA B. MAHALALEL DID NOT ALLOW IN THIS CASE,2 BUT IT IS IN THE CASE WHERE THE HAIR OF A BLEMISHED FIRSTLING WHICH WAS TORN AWAY AND HE PLACED IT IN THE WINDOW, AND THE ANIMAL DIED SUBSEQUENTLY,3 THAT AKABYA B. MAHALALEL ALLOWS, WHEREAS THE SAGES DECLARE IT FORBIDDEN. WHERE THE WOOL OF A FIRSTLING IS LOOSELY CONNECTED [WITH THE SKIN].4 THAT PART WHICH APPEARS [ON A LEVEL] WITH [THE REST OF] THE WOOL5 IS PERMITTED, WHEREAS THAT WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR [ON A LEVEL] WITH [THE REST OF] THE WOOL6 IS FORBIDDEN. GEMARA. [AKABYA B. MAHALALEL DID NOT ALLOW IN THIS CASE]. Is it to be deduced then that the wool is forbidden? If in the case of a dead [firstling]7 [the wool torn away] is allowed [to be used], is there any question that in the case where it is slaughtered, [the wool torn away is allowed]? What is meant then is: Not in this case does Akabya allow and the Sages declare it forbidden,8 but where he slaughtered it, all unanimously allow [the use of the wool]. They only differ in connection with the case of a dead [firstling]. R. Assi reported in the name of Resh Lakish: The difference of opinion relates to a case where the expert had permitted the firstling,9 one authority maintaining that we enact a prohibition as a precaution lest he should come to detain it,10 while the other authority maintains that we do not enact such a prohibition;11 but where the expert had not yet permitted it, all unanimously hold [that the wool] is forbidden.12 R. Shesheth raised an objection: Blemished sacrifices [which became mixed up] with other sacrifices are forbidden whatever they may be;13 R. Jose however says: The case must be examined. And we raised the point: What does R. Jose mean by the statement ‘It must be examined’? You can hardly say that it refers to the blemished animal which is then to be taken away; for we should then infer that the first Tanna quoted above does not hold this?14 And R. Nahman answered in the name of Rabah b. Abbuha: We are dealing here with the wool of a blemished firstling [torn away while alive], which became mixed up with the wool of hullin?15 And who is the first Tanna quoted above? R. Judah [in our Mishnah] who said that where he slaughtered it the Rabbis declared it forbidden;16 whereas R. Jose adheres to his own view that if he slaughtered it the Rabbis allowed. And it states: ‘It shall be examined’. Now what does this expression ‘It shall be examined’ mean? Does it not mean that the examination is by the expert to see whether it possesses a permanent blemish [and then killing it, will make everything permissible to be used] or a transitory blemish?17 — Said Raba: No. The expression ‘It shall be examined’ means that an examination is made if the expert had permitted [the firstling] before the wool was torn away; in that case [the wool] is allowed, but if not, then it is not [allowed]. When Rabin went up [from Babylonia to Palestine], he reported the dictum of R. Nahman before R. Jeremiah. The latter said: ‘The foolish Babylonians because they dwell in a dark country report an obscure tradition. Have they not heard what R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan: The difference of opinion18 relates to a case where he searched and did not find the blemished animal, and they differ on the principle on which R. Meir and the Rabbis differ? For we have learnt, R. Meir used to say: Everything which has a presumption of levitical uncleanness continues for ever in that status,19 until the uncleanness is revealed, whereas the Sages say: He digs until he reaches a rock or unbroken ground, [after which there is no further uncleanness]. But R. Assi says: The difference of opinion relates to a case where he searched and found [a blemished animal],20 and they differ on the principle on which Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel differ. For it has been taught: If one enters a field in which a grave was lost he becomes unclean. If a grave is found therein, he is clean, for I maintain that the grave found is the identical one which was lost. These are the words of Rabbi, whereas R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: The entire field must be searched. Why does not R. Assi concur with [the interpretation of] R. Hiyya b. Abba? — He can reply [as follows]: This would indeed hold good with regard to levitical uncleanness,21 for one can say that a raven or a mouse came and took it. But in the case of a blemished animal, where could it have gone?22 And the other authority [R. Hiyya]? — He will reply: One can say that it was a transitory blemish.23 And R. Hiyya b. Abba — what is his reason for not accepting the explanation of R. Assi? — He can answer to you [in this manner]: This indeed holds good24 with regard to a field in which a grave was lost, for just as it is possible for this man to bury there, so it is for another. But in the case of dedicated animals,25 once they have been examined, is it a usual thing that a blemish should occur in them?26 And the other [authority]?27 — [He answers]: Since animals attack each other, blemishes frequently occur even after an examination. An objection was raised: If one plucks wool from an unblemished firstling, although there appeared on it subsequently a blemish and he slaughtered it, [the wool] is forbidden to be used. Now, the reason why [the wool] is forbidden is because the animal was unblemished benefit from its wool, and this may eventually bring about a breaking of the law with reference to working and shearing. detached while the animal was alive. working and shearing it. he will keep the animal until a blemish appears on it, thus preventing its sacrifice on the altar. rendered unfit for sacrificial purposes. Therefore, just as according to R. Jose, the Rabbis allow the use of the wool when the animal is slaughtered, whether the expert had permitted the firstling or not, for R. Jose says that the animal has yet to be examined, similarly Akabya with regard to a dead firstling makes no distinction whether the expert had permitted it or not, for Akabya makes no distinction between a case of slaughtering it and that of a dead firstling. Hence we see that even without the expert permitting the firstling, there is yet a difference of opinion. The text adopted is that of Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. read: the examination is whether it possesses a permanent blemish or a transitory blemish, though the expert did not permit it. with others. cannot be identified, according to the first Tanna, all the animals are forbidden. therefore, all the animals require examination, whereas R. Jose maintains that making a search is adequate and, having discovered a blemished animal, we presume that it is the one which became mixed up with the rest. one may say that it was removed.