בכורות 25 — Soncino English Talmud

¹But 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵃnote:Made of soft material, as rag.
^ᵇnote:For fear of breaking the law against squeezing and wringing on a Holy Day, v. Keth. 6a.
^ᶜnote:A dialectic term denoting the unavoidable result of an act. And here, since he closes the boiler with the stopper, it is inevitable that there should be squeezing and therefore even R. Simeon, who elsewhere holds that an unintentioned forbidden act is not prohibited, admits in such an Instance that it is prohibited.
^ᵈnote:Who prohibits an unintentional act.
^ᵉnote:Of. R. Hiyya or Hanan.
^ᶠnote:And therefore Rab declared that the ruling was according to R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam in connection with a firstling.
^ᵍnote:For it is not usual to tear or pluck wool, except to shear it.
^ʰnote:Tearing the hair from the windpipe and smoothing it away from the sides.
^ⁱnote:V. Shab. 74b.
^ʲnote:We see, therefore, that plucking or tearing is considered the same as shearing.
^ᵏnote:Whereas it is not a usual thing to shear it, and consequently plucking is considered the same as shearing. But plucking or tearing wool is not a usual thing and therefore it is not considered the same as shearing.
^ˡnote:That a forbidden act which was produced unintentionally, is forbidden.
^ᵐnote:That he is shearing dedicated animals, even if he shears other hairs as well. (Tosef. Parah I). Consequently. where he does not intend to shear but merely to trim, it is permissible. for the unintentional results of an act are permitted. This remedy is only possible in this instance, but where the two hairs are wholly black, the Red Heifer is disqualified. Another version (Tosaf.) is: The roots are black and the heads are red and it teaches us that although the outside is all red yet it requires trimming.
^ⁿnote:For cows have no wool and consequently shearing is not prohibited. But one can still maintain that a forbidden act produced without intent is forbidden.
^ᵒnote:Deut. XV, 19.
^ᵖnote:zd, tku the conjunction u intimating that the prohibition of working and shearing refer to both the ox and the flock.
^ᵠnote:And not for the altar and therefore shearing is permissible.
^ʳnote:Why therefore does the Baraitha state above that he need not fear?
^ˢnote:And for cases which occurred rarely the Rabbis did not enact their prohibitions.
^ᵗnote:Why, therefore, shear the Red Heifer in its consecrated state?
^ᵘnote:And it is therefore not easy to find the money with which to redeem it.
^ᵛnote:A certain weight of gold and silver.
^ʷnote:A small coin.
^ˣnote:.hpuec .
^ʸnote:.hpuek .
^ᶻnote:The expression AND SIMILARLY will then refer to the passage stating that it is permissible to tear on both sides for slaughtering and that just as it is allowed to do this, so there is a direct permission to tear the hair in order to show the blemish to the Sage, so that he may pronounce on the nature of the defect of the firstling.
^ᵃᵃnote:And the expression AND SIMILARLY refers therefore to the passage in the Mishnah stating that the wool must not be removed and that just as in the case of slaughtering the wool must not be removed, so when the blemish is shown to a Sage, the same rule applies. But this does not imply direct permission to tear the hair of the firstling to show its blemish.
^ᵃᵇnote:There being a blemish in that part of the body.
^ᵃᶜnote:That he does not do this for the sake of the wool, and still you say that it must not be removed. It should certainly therefore be so in the case where he tears the hair to show the blemish, since there is nothing to prove his intention, for the blemish is not visible to everybody.
^ᵃᵈnote:The expression AND SIMILARLY.
^ᵃᵉnote:That it is permissible in the first instance, even as it is in the first clause in our Mishnah.
^ᵃᶠnote:As the hair i.e., the wool, is forbidden to be used while the animal is alive, because it is the wool of an animal disqualified for the altar.
^ᵃᵍnote:The use of the wool by the priest, for just as the killing renders permissible the flesh, skin and the wool attached to the animal, so the part that becomes detached is also allowed to be used.

²WHEREAS THE SAGES DECLARE IT FORBIDDEN. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. JOSE SAID TO HIM: AKABYA B. MAHALALEL DID NOT ALLOW IN THIS CASE, 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, THAT AKABYA B. MAHALALEL ALLOWS, WHEREAS THE SAGES DECLARE IT FORBIDDEN. WHERE THE WOOL OF A FIRSTLING IS LOOSELY CONNECTED [WITH THE SKIN]. THAT PART WHICH APPEARS [ON A LEVEL] WITH [THE REST OF] THE WOOL IS PERMITTED, WHEREAS THAT WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR [ON A LEVEL] WITH [THE REST OF] THE WOOL 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] [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, 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, one authority maintaining that we enact a prohibition as a precaution lest he should come to detain it, while the other authority maintains that we do not enact such a prohibition; but where the expert had not yet permitted it, all unanimously hold [that the wool] is forbidden. R. Shesheth raised an objection: Blemished sacrifices [which became mixed up] with other sacrifices are forbidden whatever they may be; 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? 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? 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; 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? — 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 opinion 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, 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], 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, 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? And the other authority [R. Hiyya]? — He will reply: One can say that it was a transitory blemish. 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 good 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, once they have been examined, is it a usual thing that a blemish should occur in them? And the other [authority]? — [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^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ

^ᵃʰnote:For if you permit the use of wool plucked when the animal is alive, one may be led to detain the firstling in order to benefit from its wool, and this may eventually bring about a breaking of the law with reference to working and shearing.
^ᵃⁱnote:The Gemara later on explains this.
^ᵃʲnote:But not slaughtered.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., it is entangled with the remaining wool and has not fallen.
^ᵃˡnote:When it is slaughtered and sheared, it does not seem to be removed very much from the other wool.
^ᵃᵐnote:Where it is separated from the remainder of the wool in a marked degree. It is therefore considered as if it became detached while the animal was alive.
^ᵃⁿnote:Where the wool attached to it is forbidden to be used, as it requires burial.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e., in this case there is no dispute.
^ᵃᵖnote:Before the wool was torn away.
^ᵃᵠnote:So that he can avail himself of its wool from time to time and in so doing he may come to break the law regarding working and shearing it.
^ᵃʳnote:The expert having permitted its slaughter, we hold that he will not keep the animal.
^ᵃˢnote:For it is like an unblemished firstling, and in such a case even Akabya agrees. for if the wool is allowed to be used, he will keep the animal until a blemish appears on it, thus preventing its sacrifice on the altar.
^ᵃᵗnote:No matter how few in number, so that even if one blemished animal became mixed up with a thousand. all are rendered unfit for sacrificial purposes.
^ᵃᵘnote:Surely not! For if the blemished animal can be recognized, what further doubt can there be?
^ᵃᵛnote:Unconsecrated animals, and we are not dealing here at all, with living animals.
^ᵃʷnote:And there is no remedy in slaughtering it.
^ᵃˣnote:According to R. Jose slaughtering the animal makes the wool permissible to be used even according to the Rabbis. 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.
^ᵃʸnote:The first Tanna quoted above and R. Jose differing in regard to living blemished sacrifices that became mixed up with others.
^ᵃᶻnote:If the lost grave is not found, though the whole field had been searched, similarly here, if the blemished animal cannot be identified, according to the first Tanna, all the animals are forbidden.
^ᵇᵃnote:For we fear, according to the first Tanna quoted above, lest the blemished animal found was really another, and, 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.
^ᵇᵇnote:The Rabbis maintaining the he digs until he reaches a rock etc. and this is sufficient, for although he does not find it, one may say that it was removed.
^ᵇᶜnote:Therefore R. Jose might not permit here, as the blemished animal is undoubtedly among them.
^ᵇᵈnote:And it healed up, and therefore he was not able to trace the blemished sacrifice.
^ᵇᵉnote:R. Simeon maintaining that a search should be made of the entire field.
^ᵇᶠnote:Where a blemished animal sacrifice became mixed up with others and it was found.
^ᵇᵍnote:And in such circumstances, the first Tanna mentioned above would not have prohibited.
^ᵇʰnote:R. Assi — what answer can he give to this?