בכורות 26:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:And the Baraitha follows R. Jose who says that when he slaughtered it. the Rabbis allowed the use of the wool, or it 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!
^ᵇnote:Previously. but only after the wool had been plucked.
^ᶜnote:Although it is in reality blemished, and the expression in the Baraitha ‘although subsequently a blemish appeared on it’ means after the expert had examined the blemish and pronounced it to be of a permanent character.
^ᵈnote:The ruling of Resh Lakish.
^ᵉnote:For in that case, even Akabya agrees that the wool is forbidden to be used, for we apprehend that he may be led to 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.
^ᶠnote:Where the firstling died.
^ᵍnote:One of the Sages who dispute with Akabya.
^ʰnote:Where he slaughtered it.
^ⁱnote:If he should slaughter it as it is stated in the next passage.
^ʲnote:From the first Tanna mentioned above we deduce that if he slaughtered a blemished firstling the wool is allowed to 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.
^ᵏnote:As this Baraitha above was explained on the view of Resh Lakish as meaning that the expression ‘unblemished 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.
^ˡnote:For since R. Jose says that there is a hope in slaughtering it, this implies that the expert had not yet examined the animal. We see, therefore, that on the ruling of Resh Lakish there is a difference of opinion among Tannaim.
^ᵐnote:Since we do not find it stated by the first Tanna quoted above, that where he slaughtered it all maintain that the wool is allowed to be used.
^ⁿnote:That Akabya only allows the wool to be used where he slaughtered the firstling and that the difference of opinion does not refer to a dead firstling.
^ᵒnote:The tractate ‘Eduyyoth V, 6. On the name Behirta, v. Ed., Sonc. ed., Introduction.
^ᵖnote:Both where it is on a level with the rest of the wool and where it is not.
^ᵠnote:For that which is attached to the dead animal requires burial according to all, and of that which is detached the Rabbis prohibit the use, even to place it in the window.
^ʳnote:For the wool of the dead firstling which is allowed is that which has fallen off before it died but not that which is plucked after its death.
^ˢnote:Who hold that the wool torn away before the slaughtering is forbidden to be used but after the slaughtering it is 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.
^ᵗnote:Since you cannot explain the Baraitha in any other way. And as R. Judah's view is stated anonymously in the 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.
^ᵘnote:When alive and it became blemished and was redeemed. What is the ruling according to the Rabbis? The inquiry 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.
^ᵛnote:According to the view of the Rabbis who declare it is forbidden, he is certainly a transgressor. Tosaf. adds that since we are dealing here with an unblemished animal, even Akabya would consider it wrong in accordance with the Baraitha above.
^ʷnote:And therefore there is no question but that the wool is forbidden.