Bekhorot — Daf 26a

הא בעל מום שרי אע"פ שלא התירו מומחה תנא כל היכא דלא התירו מומחה תם קרי ליה

לימא כתנאי התולש צמר מבכור תם אע"פ שנולד בו מום ושחטו אסור בכור בעל מום שתלש ממנו ואח"כ מת עקביא בן מהללאל מתיר וחכמים אוסרים אמר רבי יהודה לא בזה התיר עקביא בן מהללאל אלא בשער בכור בעל מום שנשר והניחו בחלון ואחר כך שחטו בזה עקביא בן מהללאל מתיר וחכמים אוסרין

אמר רבי יוסי מודה אבא חלפתא בזה שהוא מותר אבל בייחוד אמרו חכמים יניחנו בחלון שמא יש תקוה שחטו דברי הכל מותר מת עקביא בן מהללאל מתיר וחכמים אוסרים

ר' יוסי היינו תנא קמא אלא לאו התירו מומחה איכא בינייהו

דתנא קמא סבר התירו מומחה אין ואי לא לא ואתא ר' יוסי למימר אע"ג דלא התירו מומחה

אמר רבא לא דכולי עלמא אי התירו מומחה אין אי לא התירו לא ושלש מחלוקת בדבר דת"ק סבר פליגי במת והוא הדין לשחטו והאי דקמיפלגי במת להודיעך כחו דעקביא

ור' יהודה סבר במת דברי הכל אסור כי פליגי בשחטו ואתא ר' יוסי למימר בשחטו דברי הכל מותר כי פליגי במת

אמר רב נחמן הלכה כרבי יהודה הואיל ותנן בבחירתא כוותיה דתנן שער בכור בעל מום שנשר והניחו בחלון ואחר כך שחטו עקביא בן מהללאל מתיר וחכמים אוסרין

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מתניתין נמי דיקא דתנן צמר המדולדל בבכור את שנראה עם הגיזה מותר ואת שאינו נראה אסור

מני אילימא ר' יוסי ובמאי אילימא בשחטו בין עקביא בין רבנן אידי ואידי משרא שרי

ואלא במת ואי רבנן אידי ואידי מיסר אסרי ואי עקביא איפכא מיבעיא ליה נראה עם הגיזה אסור דמיתה קאסרה לי' אינו נראה עם הגיזה מותר דמעיקרא תליש

אלא פשיטא ר' יהודה ובמאי אילימא במת בין לעקביא בין לרבנן אידי ואידי מיסר אסרי

אלא לאו בשחטה ואי עקביא אידי ואידי משרא שרי אלא לאו רבנן היא וש"מ בשחטו פליגי ש"מ

בעי ר' ינאי התולש צמר מעולה תמימה מהו תולש מי איכא מאן דשרי אלא צמר שנתלש מעולה תמימה מהו

דחטאת ואשם לא תיבעי לך דכיון דלכפרה אתו לא משהו להו דבכור ומעשר נמי דכיון דלאו לכפרה אתו משהו להו כי תיבעי לך דעולה מאי כיון

but if it were blemished [the wool] would have been allowed1 [to be used], although the expert did not permit the firstling?2 — [Explain this as follows]: As long as the expert has not permitted it, the Tanna [in the Baraitha] describes it as an unblemished [firstling].3 Must it be said that this4 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].5 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,6 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 Halafta7 agrees in this case8 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].9 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]?10 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,11 while R. Jose comes along and says that even though the expert had not permitted the firstling, [it is still allowed]?12 — 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,13 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. Judah14 since we have learnt [in a Mishnah of] Bekirta15 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 instances16 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 forbid17 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,18 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 Rabbis19 and deduce from this that the point at issue is where he slaughtered it?20 This stands proved. R. Jannai asked: How is it if one plucks wool from an unblemished burnt-offering?21 [But if one actually] plucks, is there any authority who allows?22 — 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.23 The question does arise, however, concerning a burnt-offering. What is the ruling? follows Akabya in accordance with R. Judah's interpretation of the Mishnah, and even though the expert did not permit the firstling before the wool was plucked. Hence there is a difficulty here with reference to the ruling of Resh Lakish! it’ means after the expert had examined the blemish and pronounced it to be of a permanent character. detain the firstling and prevent it from being offered up on the altar. The same ruling also applies to wool which has become detached from the animal. be used according to all the authorities concerned, and the difference of opinion relates to where the firstling dies. And R. Jose also declares that the point at issue is where the animal dies. firstling’ meant a blemished firstling which had not yet been shown to the expert, and therefore the wool is forbidden according to all the authorities concerned, but if the expert had permitted the animal, then the wool torn previously is allowed to be used. animal. We see, therefore, that on the ruling of Resh Lakish there is a difference of opinion among Tannaim. wool is allowed to be used. does not refer to a dead firstling. Rabbis prohibit the use, even to place it in the window. plucked after its death. allowed, and the interpretation of the Mishnah which says: THAT WHICH APPEARS ON A LEVEL WITH etc., is that the wool which is attached to the skin, i.e., which remains after the killing, is allowed to be used, but ‘that which is not on a level etc., i.e., that which has been detached previously. is forbidden. Mishnah, therefore the law is in agreement with his interpretation, that the point at issue between Akabya and the Sages is where he slaughtered the firstling. does not concern a blemished burnt-offering, for since it requires an expert to examine it, there is a fear if the wool may be used, he may. in order to benefit from the wool, postpone the examination and thus possibly come to infringe the prohibitions of working and shearing a disqualified sacrifice. we are dealing here with an unblemished animal, even Akabya would consider it wrong in accordance with the Baraitha above.