בכורות 26:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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^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^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵃnote:That its wool should be allowed to be used.
^ᵇnote:That they forbid even if the wool became detached, but in reality according to Akabya, one may actually pluck the wool of a blemished firstling.
^ᶜnote:The wool being folded up in the centre so that the two tops of the wool appear outside.
^ᵈnote:Where some of it appears to be higher than the rest.
^ᵉnote:The query is not raised why R. Nathan does not explain in the same way as Resh Lakish, because R. Nathan is more stringent in this connection than Resh Lakish.
^ᶠnote:For it is a usual thing, and, consequently, if we adopted R. Nathan's interpretation, there would scarcely be any wool that would be allowed to be used in such circumstances.
^ᵍnote:In our days, after the destruction of the Temple, for what length of time must the Israelite care for and feed the animal perforce the priest claims it?
^ʰnote:For whereas in the previous case where the priest asks for the unblemished firstling it is forbidden because it appears as if the priest receives the animal in exchange for looking after it until it becomes blemished, in this instance as the animal can be eaten immediately and there is no necessity for the priest to detain it, it is not so.
^ⁱnote:In Temple times.
^ʲnote:In our days.
^ᵏnote:Deut. XV, 20.
^ˡnote:From its birth.
^ᵐnote:That the Israelite is bound to care for the firstling for a period of thirty days.
^ⁿnote:And next to this verse, in Ex. XXII is the verse ‘Likewise . . . with thy sheep’ and we interpret the juxtaposition in the following manner: Just as in the case of a first-born son, redemption is necessary after thirty days, similarly in the case of a firstling of small cattle, the Israelite must keep the animal for thirty days.
^ᵒnote:And next to this verse is another ‘Likewise . . . with thine oxen’. Here also we make a comparison as follows. Just as the fulness of thy harvest, i.e., the first-fruits, ripen on Passover and are brought to the Temple on Pentecost fifty days later, similarly the firstling of oxen, i.e., large cattle, must be looked after for a period of fifty days.
^ᵖnote:I.e., draw the analogy between the text ‘The first-born of thy sons etc.’, and the text ‘Likewise shalt thou do with thy oxen’, and thus the firstling of large cattle will require only thirty days to be looked after.
^ᵠnote:‘Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fullness of thy harvest’.
^ʳnote:‘Likewise shalt thou do with thy oxen’.
^ˢnote:‘The first-born of thy sons’ we link up with the text ‘Likewise thou shalt do with thy sheep’.
^ᵗnote:The text ‘The first-born of thy sons’ should form a comparison with the text ‘Likewise thou shalt do with thy oxen’ and thus large cattle would have a period of thirty days.
^ᵘnote:The superfluous text ‘Thou shalt do’ denotes that in the case of an ox and large cattle in general, a longer period of doing for the animal is demanded than is the case with sheep.
^ᵛnote:Since the text increases the period in connection with large cattle, why not say that the addition consists of double that of the period of a first-born's redemption?
^ʷnote:Scripture does not state sixty days, but the Sages explain that fifty days are required, basing this on a comparison between the text ‘The fullness of thy harvest’ and the verse ‘Likewise thou shalt do with thy oxen’.
^ˣnote:This passage is inserted with Sh. Mek.
^ʸnote:And it is unable to eat grass and without its mother's care it dies. But after three months it is able to eat without its mother's help.
^ᶻnote:For in our days a firstling is of no use until a blemish befalls it. As, therefore, the Israelite has to take trouble with the animal for fifty days, if the priest asks him to deliver the firstling to him during this period to look after, he thus saves the Israelite expense and labour, in consideration for which he takes possession of the firstling and thereby prevents any other priest claiming it. He thus seems to be on a par with a priest who helps with the threshing in order that he may receive the priestly dues for his services, which is forbidden. If, however, the firstling was blemished and the priest asked him for it so that he might eat it, this would be permissible.
^ᵃᵃnote:This applies only to the priest, who can receive the firstling.
^ᵃᵇnote:This applies to all the classes mentioned here, to the priests for terumah, to the Levites who receive the first tithes, and to the poor who are the recipients of the poor men's tithing every third year.
^ᵃᶜnote:Referring again to the priests who receive the gifts of the shoulder, the jaws and the maw.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Marginal Gloss.
^ᵃᵉnote:The dues of the priests.
^ᵃᶠnote:The priestly and levitical dues become secularized, the owners having acted improperly and not having discharged their obligations.
^ᵃᵍnote:Mal. II, 8.
^ᵃʰnote:Num. XVIII, 32. As applied to the case in question, the expression ‘death’ means that the owner is in danger of committing a sin which involves the penalty of death, not that he is actually guilty of such a sin.
^ᵃⁱnote:In a case, for example, where there are two se'ahs, one from which terumah has been separated while the terumah from the other was given to a priest who helped in the threshing. Now, if you say that the owner is compelled to give terumah a second time, then he may think that the second se'ah is regarded as if terumah had not been given from it at all, and he may separate this for the other. This would be separating from what is exempt etc., for the second se'ah is biblically exempt from terumah.