Parallel
בכורות 26
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but if it were blemished [the wool] would have been allowed [to be used], although the expert did not permit the firstling? — [Explain this as follows]: As long as the expert has not permitted it, the Tanna [in the Baraitha] describes it as an unblemished [firstling]. Must it be said that this is a difference of opinion among Tannaim? If one plucks wool from an unblemished firstling, although subsequently there appeared a blemish on it and he slaughtered it, the wool is forbidden [to be used]. If, however, wool was plucked from a blemished firstling and it died subsequently. Akabya b. Mahalalel allows, whereas the Sages declare it forbidden. Said R. Judah: Akabya b. Mahalalel does not permit in this case, but in the case where the hair of a blemished firstling became torn away and he placed it in the window, subsequently slaughtering it, Akabya b. Mahalalel allows whereas the Sages declare it forbidden. Said R. Jose: Abba Halafta agrees in this case that it is allowed. Indeed the Sages clearly said: He shall place it in the window, as perhaps there is hope [of being able to use it]. If he slaughtered it, all unanimously agree that it is allowed. If [the firstling] died, Akabya b. Mahalalel allows [the use of the wool], whereas the Sages declare it forbidden. Now, is not the view of R. Jose identical with that of the first Tanna [quoted above]? Then must you not therefore admit that the difference is in respect of a case where the expert had permitted it, the first Tanna [quoted] above] holding that if the expert permitted the firstling, [the wool] is allowed [to be used], but if not, it is not allowed, while R. Jose comes along and says that even though the expert had not permitted the firstling, [it is still allowed]? — Said Raba: No. All agree that if the expert had permitted [the animal, the wool] is allowed [to be used], and if the expert had not permitted it, it is not allowed to be used. There are however three differences of opinion in the matter. For the first Tanna [quoted above] holds that the difference of opinion between Akabya and the Sages refers to a dead firstling and the same applies in the case where he slaughtered it, and the reason why they differ in connection with a dead [firstling] is to show to what lengths Akabya is prepared to go. And R. Judah holds that in connection with a dead [firstling] all [the authorities concerned] prohibit, and that the difference of opinion is where he slaughtered it. Then R. Jose comes along and says: Where he slaughtered it, all agree that it is allowed but the difference of opinion is where the [firstling] died. Said R. Nahman: The law is in accordance with R. Judah since we have learnt [in a Mishnah of] Bekirta in agreement with his view. For we have learnt: If the hair of a blemished firstling became torn away and he placed it in a window, subsequently slaughtering it, Akabya b. Mahalalel allows, whereas the Sages declare it for bidden. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The [language of the] Mishnah also indicates this: IF WOOL OF A FIRSTLING IS LOOSELY CONNECTED [WITH THE SKIN], THAT WHICH APPEARS [ON A LEVEL] WITH [THE REST OF] THE WOOL IS ALLOWED. WHEREAS THAT WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR [ON A LEVEL] WITH [THE REST OF] THE WOOL IS FORBIDDEN. Whose opinion is this? Shall I say that it is R. Jose's? If so, in what circumstance is this the case? You can hardly say where he slaughtered [the firstling], for both Akabya and the Rabbis in both instances indeed allow. Does then this perhaps refer to the case of a dead [firstling]? But if the Mishnah gives the opinion of the Rabbis, then in both instances they indeed forbid and if it is Akabya's opinion, then the passage ought to be reversed as follows: If it appeared on a level with [the rest of] the wool, then it is forbidden, for death renders it prohibited, whereas if it did not appear on a level with [the rest of] the wool, then it is allowed, having been torn away previously! It is evident therefore that the Mishnah represents R. Judah's view. In what circumstances? You can hardly say in a case where [the firstling] died, for both Akabya and the Rabbis, in both instances, prohibit. What is meant then is. in a case where he slaughtered it, and if [the Mishnah represents] Akabya's view, in both instances he indeed allows. Must you not then admit that the Mishnah is the view of the Rabbis and deduce from this that the point at issue is where he slaughtered it? This stands proved. R. Jannai asked: How is it if one plucks wool from an unblemished burnt-offering? [But if one actually] plucks, is there any authority who allows? — Rather [the question is regarding] wool which became detached from an unblemished burnt-offering; what is the ruling? Concerning a sin-offering or trespass-offering, there is no need to ask, for since they come to atone, he would not detain them. And as regards a tithing animal, too, [there is no need to ask for], since it does not come to atone, he might detain it. The question does arise, however, concerning a burnt-offering. What is the ruling?
—
Since it is essentially not brought to atone, he might detain it, or since a burnt-offering also atones for a transgression of a positive precept. [do we say that] he would not detain it? — Come and hear: If one plucks wool from an unblemished firstling, although a blemish appeared on it subsequently and he slaughtered it, the wool is forbidden to be used. Now, the reason is because he actually plucks it, but if it became detached, it would be allowed; how much more so, therefore, in the case of a burnt-offering, [is it to be expected] that he would not detain it! — [No]. The same ruling applies if it became detached from an unblemished animal, that it is forbidden, and the reason, why [the Baraitha states] ‘If one plucks’, is to show the length to which Akabya is prepared to go, that in the case of a blemished sacrifice, one is evenly allowed to pluck it. But have we not learnt: WHICH BECAME TORN AWAY’? — It says WHICH BECAME TORN AWAY, to show to what lengths the Rabbis are prepared to go [and] it says ‘If one plucks’, to show the lengths to which Akabya is prepared to go. WOOL OF A FIRSTLING LOOSELY CONNECTED etc. How is the expression ‘THAT WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR WITH THE WOOL to he understood?R. Eleazar reported in the name of Resh Lakish: Wherever the root [of the wool] is turned towards its head. R. Nathan b. Oshaia says: Wherever it is not attached [to the skin] on a line with [the rest of] the wool. Why does not Resh Lakish give the explanation of R. Nathan b. Oshaia? — Said R. Ela: Resh Lakish holds [that the reason is] because it is impossible for wool to he free from loosely connected threads. MISHNAH. UP TO HOW LONG IS AN ISRAELITE BOUND TO ATTEND TO A FIRSTLING? — IN THE CASE OF SMALL CATTLE, UNTIL THIRTY DAYS, WITH LARGE CATTLE, [THE PERIOD] IS FIFTY DAYS. R. JOSE SAYS: IN THE CASE OF SMALL CATTLE [THE PERIOD] IS THREE MONTHS. IF THE PRIEST SAYS [TO THE ISRAELITE] DURING THIS PERIOD ‘GIVE IT TO ME’, HE MUST NOT GIVE IT TO HIM. BUT IF THE FIRSTLING WAS BLEMISHED AND THE PRIEST SAID TO HIM ‘GIVE IT TO ME SO THAT I MAY EAT IT’, THEN IT IS ALLOWED. AND IN TEMPLE TIMES, IF [THE FIRSTLING] WAS IN AN UNBLEMISHED STATE AND THE PRIEST SAID TO HIM ‘GIVE, AND I WILL OFFER IT UP IT WAS ALLOWED. A FIRSTLING IS EATEN YEAR BY YEAR BOTH IN AN UNBLEMISHED AS WELL AS IN A BLEMISHED STATE, FOR IT IS SAID: THOU SHALT EAT IT BEFORE THE LORD THY GOD YEAR BY YEAR. IF A BLEMISH APPEARED ON IT IN ITS FIRST YEAR, HE IS PERMITTED TO KEEP IT ALL THE TWELVE MONTHS. AFTER THE TWELVE MONTHS, HOWEVER, HE IS NOT PERMITTED TO KEEP IT EXCEPT FOR THIRTY DAYS. GEMARA. Whence is this proved? — Said R. Kahana: Scripture says: The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give unto Me. [Likewise shalt thou do] with thy sheep. Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fullness of thy harvest and of the outflow of thy presses. Likewise thou shalt do with thine oxen. And why not reverse this? — It is reasonable to assume that the part which comes first in the first text forms an analogy with that which comes first in the subsequent verse and that which comes later in the first text forms an analogy with that which comes later in the subsequent text. On the contrary, the text that is near to it should rather form an analogy with the text near to it? — Rather said Raba: The text says: ‘Thou shalt do’. Scripture adds [the duty of] another doing [i.e., attention] in connection with ‘Thine oxen’. Then why not say sixty days? — Scripture refers you to the Sages [for the precise interpretation]. It has also been taught to this effect: [Scripture says]: ‘The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto Me. Likewise thou shalt do with thy sheep’. I might [conclude from the Biblical text] that it applies also to ‘Thine oxen’? The text therefore states ‘Thou shalt do’, the text adds [the duty of] another doing [i.e., attention] in connection with an ox and Scripture refers you to the Sages [for the precise interpretation]. Hence [the Sages] said: Up to how long is the Israelite bound to attend to the firstling? In the case of small cattle, until thirty days and in the case of large cattle, fifty days. R. Jose Says: In the case of small cattle, [the period] is three months, because it requires extra attention. What does the expression ‘Because it requires extra attention’ mean? — A Tanna taught: Because its teeth are small. IF THE PRIEST SAID TO HIM DURING THIS PERIOD: GIVE IT TO ME’, HE MUST NOT GIVE IT TO HIM. What is the reason? — Said R. Shesheth: Because it makes him appear like a priest who helps in the threshing floors. Our Rabbis taught: If Priests, Levites and poor help in the house of the shepherds, in the threshing floors, and in the slaughtering place, we do not give them the priests’ gifts, terumah, or tithes in reward; and if they acted thus, they render them hullin. And concerning these, Scripture says: Ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi. And Scripture further says: And ye shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, that ye die not. What need is there for a further text? — You might think that there is no death guilt. Come therefore and hear: There is a further text, ‘And ye shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel that ye die not’. And the Sages wished to punish the owners by making them separate terumah [a second time] from their own. And what was the reason why they did not punish them? Lest [the owners] come to separate from what is exempt [from terumah] for what is subject [to terumah]. And in all these cases [mentioned above] the owners enjoy
—