בכורות 24:2 — Soncino English Talmud

Aha Beribi asked: How is it if one saw a swine clinging to a ewe? But what exactly does the question refer to? If it has reference to the law of the firstling and the query is whether the law is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel or according to the Rabbis, why not put this query with reference to the case of a lamb? — The query refers to the law of the firstling as laid down by the Rabbis and to the rule as to eating, as laid down by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. The query refers to [the law] of the firstling, [thus]. [Do we say that] even in accordance with the Rabbis, who maintain that it gives suck [to a stranger], this is only the case [with an animal] belonging to its own species, but to one not belonging to its own species, it does not give suck? Or do we perhaps maintain that even [to offspring] that does not belong to its own species, the animal also gives suck? And also in connection with eating, [the query is put forward]: Do we say that even according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, granting that he holds that an animal which has begotten gives suck [even to a stranger], this is the case only when the offspring belongs to the same species [as the ewe], but where it does not belong to the same species, it does not [give suck]? Or perhaps even if the offspring does not belong to the species [of the ewe], do we say that it also gives suck [to it]? — Let this remain undecided. MISHNAH. R. JOSE B. HA-MESHULLAM SAYS: ONE WHO SLAUGHTERS THE FIRSTLING, [FIRST] MAKES A CLEAR SPACE WITH THE [BUTCHER'S] HATCHET ON BOTH SIDES AND TEARS THE HAIR [ON BOTH SIDES] PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT HE DOES NOT REMOVE THE WOOL FROM ITS PLACE [WITH AN INSTRUMENT]. AND SIMILARLY ONE MAY TEAR THE HAIR TO SHOW THE PLACE OF THE BLEMISH [TO A SAGE]. GEMARA. Rab said: The halachah is according to R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam. [The scholars] asked R. Huna: What is the rule about acting similarly on a festival day? Is the reason of R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam because he maintains that tearing is not [considered] the same as shearing and yet on a festival day it is forbidden, for it would be detaching a thing from the place of its growth; or perhaps, does R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam as a rule main tain that tearing is [considered] the same as shearing, but the reason why he permits [in the Mishnah] is because it is a forbidden act which was produced without intent and a forbidden act which was produced without intent is permissible on a festival day? — He replied to them: ‘Go and ask R. Hananel. If he tells you that the halachah is in accordance with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam, then I shall give you a definite answer’. They went and asked him. He replied to them: ‘Rab said this: The halachah is in accordance with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam’. Then they came before R. Huna. He said to them: It is permitted to act in a corresponding manner on a festival day. It was also stated: R. Hananya b. Shalmia reported in the name of Rab: It is permitted to act in a corresponding manner on a festival day.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:An eminent and prominent teacher in his generation. The term Beribi is frequently applied to the disciples of R. Judah ha-Nasi and his contemporaries and also to some of his predecessors.
^ᵇnote:Since it is in connection with this case that they differ.
^ᶜnote:For according to R. Simeon it is certainly exempted, for if it does not give suck to its own species unless it had already begotten, how much less is this the case where it does not belong to the species of animal to which it clings.
^ᵈnote:And certainly according to the Rabbis.
^ᵉnote:And the offspring in this case surely belongs to the ewe, and therefore the future offspring is exempted from the law of the firstling.
^ᶠnote:But if he held that an animal which already had given birth does not give suck to strangers, then in the case here, the offspring is certainly permitted to be eaten, for it is its child.
^ᵍnote:Hence in this case, the swine must be its offspring and permissible to be eaten, as it gives suck to it.
^ʰnote:Since it had given suck previously. Consequently, the swine is forbidden to be eaten in case it is a stranger.
^ⁱnote:Clearing the hair in the place where the animal is to be slaughtered. The Mishnah mentions a butcher's hatchet and not an ordinary slaughtering knife, because in the former case there is more need to make a place and a larger one, than in the case of a slaughtering knife. The same applies to the slaughtering of dedicated animals, but as these are slaughtered in the Temple court where there are special knives, there is no need to clear a place when slaughtering. Moreover the Mishnah mentions here the case of a firstling because the law of the firstling is observed even in our days and also because a firstling's wool is probably thicker than that of an ordinary sacrifice, since the owner must wait until it is blemished before he slaughters it (Tosaf).
^ʲnote:In the place where the cut is to be made, in order to avoid haladah (passing the knife under cover) which would render the animal nebelah (Rashi).
^ᵏnote:That it should not be said that he is shearing a firstling's wool, an action which is forbidden. Therefore he leaves the animal with its wool on both sides (Rashi).
^ˡnote:The query is whether it is allowed to tear the hair on both sides in order to clear a place for the cut, in the case of an unconsecrated animal.
^ᵐnote:And in connection with a firstling. Scripture expresses only prohibited shearing.
^ⁿnote:And the Mishnah means by the expression ‘tearing etc.’ to pull the hair on both sides so as to clear a place but not with the intention of tearing or plucking, and that should this happen, there would be no infringement of the law.
^ᵒnote:A disciple of Rab.
^ᵖnote:The reason being because there was no intention of committing a breach of the law.