Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 12, 2019 | 讝壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 25

One can tear out hairs from the animal in order to make room to slaughter the animal even though it is forbidden to shear the animal. Is this connected with the general issue of one who does something that is forbidden but the intent of the act was not to do the forbidden act? If hairs fall off of the animal while it is still alive and then one slaughters it, is the hair permitted (just as slaughtering permits hairs that are on the animal at the time of the slaughter)?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讜转专

it is permitted to pluck the hair in order to facilitate proper slaughter.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪住讜讻专讬讗 讚谞讝讬讬转讗 讗住讜专 诇讛讚讜拽讬讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And does Rav actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav: In the case of this cloth stopper of a barrel [mesokhrayya denazyata], it is prohibited to insert it tightly into the spout of the barrel on a Festival, because in the process liquid will be squeezed from the cloth, and squeezing liquids is prohibited on Shabbat and Festivals? Apparently, Rav prohibits even unintentional actions, and it follows that it is prohibited to clear hair with a cleaver on a Festival, as one will unintentionally pluck out some hair.

讘讛讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

The Gemara explains: In that case of the stopper, even the lenient authority, Rabbi Shimon, concedes that it is prohibited, as Rava and Abaye both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes that an unintentional act is prohibited if it falls under the category known as: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., when a prohibited labor is the inevitable consequence of an unintentional act. In the case of the cloth stopper, some water will inevitably be squeezed out.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪转谞讬 讘诇讗 讙讘专讬 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara objects to the claim that Rav agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a regular unintentional act is permitted: But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Ashi say that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav 岣nan bar Ami says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav 岣yya bar Avin teaches Rav and Shmuel鈥檚 rulings without mentioning either man, neither Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi nor Rav 岣nan bar Ami, and says: Rav says the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel says the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 住讘专 专讘 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讜转讜诇砖 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜讝讝 讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚砖专讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注讜拽专 讚讘专 诪讙讬讚讜诇讜 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚

Rather, actually Rav holds that an unintentional act is prohibited, and he permits plucking the hair of a firstborn because he maintains that plucking is not considered a form of shearing. And this is the reason he permits clearing the hair with a cleaver on a Festival, because it is considered uprooting an item from its place of growth in an unusual manner, and performing a prohibited labor in an unusual manner is not prohibited by Torah law.

讜转讜诇砖 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜讝讝 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛转讜诇砖 讗转 讛讻谞祝 讜讛拽讜讟诪讜 讜讛诪讜专讟讜 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转讜诇砖 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讙讜讝讝 拽讜讟诐 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讞转讱 诪诪专讟 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪诪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 讻谞祝 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And can it be claimed that plucking is not considered a form of shearing? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who unwittingly plucks a large feather from the wing of a bird on Shabbat, and one who snips the tip of the feather, and one who pulls out the thin threads that constitute the feather is obligated to bring three sin offerings, one for each transgression. And Reish Lakish says, in explanation: One who plucks the wing is liable due to the labor of shearing. One who snips the tip of the feather is liable due to the labor of cutting. And one who pulls out the threads is liable due to the labor of smoothing. The Gemara explains: Plucking a wing is different from plucking hair, as that is the normal method employed to remove feathers.

讜诪讚专讘 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专

The Gemara comments: And from the fact that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam that plucking is not considered shearing, it can be inferred that Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav that an unintentional act is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam hold that an unintentional act is prohibited?

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 注讬拽专谉 诪讗讚讬诐 讜专讗砖谉 诪砖讞讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗讜诪专 讙讜讝讝 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a red heifer, which is rendered unfit if it possesses two black hairs, that had two hairs whose roots were red but whose tops were black, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: One shears the tops with scissors, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against shearing a consecrated animal. Apparently, the reason is that he does not intend to shear the red heifer but only to render it fit. This indicates that Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam holds an unintentional act is permitted.

砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讙讬讝讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 转注讘讚 讘讘讻专 砖讜专讱 讜诇讗 转讙讝 讘讻讜专 爪讗谞讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讜专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讜爪讗谉 讘讙讬讝讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转注讘讚 讜诇讗 转讙讝

The Gemara answers: A red heifer is different, as it is not subject to the prohibition against shearing a consecrated animal because it does not have wool, and that is why it is permitted to cut the tops of its hairs. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no work with the firstborn of your ox, and you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19). I have derived only that a firstborn ox may not be used for labor and that a firstborn sheep may not be used for shearing. From where is it derived to apply what is said about that animal to this one, and what is said about this animal to that one? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no work鈥nd you shall not shear.鈥 The term 鈥渁nd鈥 indicates the two parts of the verse apply to both animals. Evidently, the act of shearing does apply to an ox, including a red heifer.

讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

Rather, the red heifer is different, as it has the sanctity of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and therefore the prohibitions that apply to offerings do not necessarily apply to it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say it is prohibited to shear or perform labor with items consecrated for Temple maintenance? The Gemara answers: That prohibition applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara retorts: But that does not resolve the difficulty, as there is nevertheless still a prohibition by rabbinic law. Why, then, did Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam deem it permitted for one to shear the tops of its hairs with scissors? The Gemara accepts this objection: Rather, the red heifer is different, as it is uncommon, and Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam therefore maintains that the prohibition by rabbinic law was not applied to this case.

讜诇讬讞诇讛 讜诇驻拽讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇讬讙讝讛 讜讛讚专 诇讬拽讚砖讛 讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉 讜诇讬注讘讚 诇讛 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讬诇诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara challenges: But let the owner desacralize the heifer and render it non-sacred, and shear it, and then consecrate it again. The Gemara explains it is unreasonable to demand he desacralize it, as its price is expensive, and it would take an exceptionally large sum of money to desacralize it. The Gemara challenges: But let him act in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: A consecrated animal worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon the value of one peruta is desacralized. The Gemara explains: You can say that Shmuel said that he has successfully desacralized the animal, but did he say an animal may be desacralized in this manner ab initio? The Gemara therefore concludes that Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam deems it permitted for one to cut the tops of a red heifer鈥檚 hairs because it is an uncommon case.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘

And if you wish, say instead that although Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讜转讜诇砖 讗转 讛砖注专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讝讬讝谞讜 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讗住讜专 讜讛拽转谞讬 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诐 讘拽讜驻讬抓 诪讬讻谉 讜诪讬讻谉 转谞讬 诇拽讜驻讬抓

搂 The mishna teaches: One who is slaughtering a firstborn clears space with a cleaver from here and from there, on either side of the neck, although he thereby plucks out the hair. He may clear space in this manner provided that he does not move the hair from its place. Rav Ashi says that Reish Lakish says: They taught that this is permitted only if one plucks the hair by hand, but if he does it with a tool it is prohibited, as it appears as though he is shearing the firstborn. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught that one may clear space with a cleaver from here and from there on either side of the neck? The Gemara answers: Teach it as: One may clear space with his hands for a cleaver, but he may not clear space with a cleaver.

讜讻谉 转讜诇砖 讗转 讛砖注专 诇专讗讜转 诪讜诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讜 讚讬注讘讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 爪诪专 讛诪住讜讘讱 讘讗讜讝谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗讜诪专 转讜诇砖讜 讜诪专讗讛 讗转 诪讜诪讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The mishna further teaches: And likewise, one plucks the hair to enable one of the Sages to examine the place of a blemish. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is this permitted ab initio, or only after the fact? Rabbi Yirmeya said: Come and hear a baraita: If there is wool that is entangled in a firstborn鈥檚 ear, and it is obscuring a blemish that must be examined, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: One plucks the wool and shows the animal鈥檚 blemish to a Sage in order to determine whether it is permitted to slaughter the animal outside the Temple. One can conclude from the baraita that it is permitted ab initio. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讻谉 讛转讜诇砖 讗转 讛砖注专 诇专讗讜转 诪拽讜诐 诪讜诐 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讬讝讬讝讜 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 砖讜讞讟 讚砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讜讻讞转 注诇讬讜 诇讗 讬讝讬讝谞讜 诇专讗讜转 诪拽讜诐 诪讜诐 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara corroborates its conclusion. Rav Mari said: We learn in the mishna as well: And likewise, one plucks the hair to examine the place of a blemish. What is the mishna referring to in its comparison: And likewise? If we say it is referring to the mishna鈥檚 ruling that when one slaughters a firstborn he may not move the plucked hair from its place, then the second halakha is unnecessary. Now that it is taught that if, when one comes to slaughter the animal, where its imminent slaughter renders it evident that he does not intend to shear it, but nevertheless he may not remove the hair, is it necessary to teach that one may not remove the plucked hair in order to examine the place of a blemish?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗转讜诇砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 the mishna鈥檚 comparison referring to the fact that it is permitted to pluck the hair ab initio? Just as it is permitted to pluck the hair for the purpose of slaughtering the animal, so too, it is permitted to pluck the hair in order to examine a blemish. Conclude from it that it is permitted ab initio. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

诪转谞讬壮 砖注专 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞砖专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讜 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专

MISHNA: With regard to the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal, and which one placed in a compartment for safekeeping, and thereafter he slaughtered the animal; given that after the animal dies he is permitted to derive benefit from the hair the animal had on its body when it died, what is the halakhic status of hair that shed from the animal while it was alive? Akavya ben Mahalalel deems its use permitted,

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讘讝讛 讛转讬专 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讗诇讗 砖注专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞砖专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讘讝讛 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him: It was not with regard to that case that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool permitted. Rather, it was in the case of the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal which one placed in a compartment and thereafter the animal died. It was in that case that Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted, and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited even after its death.

爪诪专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讘讻讜专 讗转 砖谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 讗住讜专

With regard to wool that is dangling from a firstborn animal, i.e., which was not completely shed, that which appears to be part of the fleece is permitted when the animal is shorn after its death, and that which does not appear to be part of the fleece is prohibited.

讙诪壮 诪讻诇诇 讚讗住专 讛砖转讗 讘诪转 砖专讬 砖讞讟讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

GEMARA: Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement, that it was not with regard to the case where the animal was slaughtered that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool permitted, apparently indicates by inference that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool prohibited if the animal was slaughtered. This is difficult: Now that it has been taught that use of the detached wool of a dead firstborn is permitted, despite the fact that the attached hair must be buried, is it necessary to teach that detached wool is permitted in a case where one slaughtered the animal, where the use of the attached hair is permitted?

讗诇讗 诇讗 讘讝讛 讛转讬专 注拽讘讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 砖讞讟讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖专讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪转

Rather, Rabbi Yosei means that it was not in that case that Akavya deemed use of the detached wool permitted while the Rabbis deem it prohibited, since if he slaughtered the animal, everyone agrees that use of the wool is permitted. They disagree in a case where the detached wool came from a dead animal that was not slaughtered.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讚诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇砖讛讜讬讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

Rabbi Asi says that Reish Lakish says: The dispute applies in a case where an expert deemed the animal permitted for slaughter due to a blemish before the wool was shed, as one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we decree that use of the wool the animal sheds is prohibited, lest one come to postpone its slaughter in order to collect the wool that it sheds. The Rabbis wanted a blemished firstborn to be slaughtered as soon as possible, lest one shear it or use it for labor, both of which are prohibited by Torah law. And one Sage, Akavya ben Mahalalel, holds that we do not issue such a decree. But in a case where an expert did not deem the animal permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed, all agree that use of the wool is prohibited, even after the animal died or was slaughtered.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讘拽专

Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: Blemished animals that become intermingled with unblemished animals render the entire group of animals prohibited in any ratio, even if there was only one blemished animal. Since blemished animals may not be sacrificed, and it is impossible to distinguish them from the unblemished animals, none may be sacrificed on the altar. And Rabbi Yosei says: Let the matter be investigated.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讬讘拽专 讗诇讬诪讗 讚讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讬砖拽诇讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 诇讗讜

Rav Sheshet continues: And we discussed it, and inquired: What did Rabbi Yosei mean when he said: Let the matter be investigated? Shall we say he meant that one should search for the blemished animal and remove it from the group, so that the other animals may be slaughtered on the altar? This is difficult, as in that case, by inference, the first tanna said that in such a case the remaining unblemished animals are still not permitted. This cannot be so, as there is no reason to deem the remaining animals prohibited once the blemished animal has been removed.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻讗 讘讙讬讝转 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讙讬讝讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞砖讞讟讜 讗住专讬 专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 谞砖讞讟讜 砖专讜 专讘谞谉

And Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Here we are dealing with a case of the shearings of a blemished firstborn, whose detached wool became intermingled with non-sacred wool. And who is the first tanna, who holds that all the wool is prohibited? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who says in the mishna here that if the firstborn were slaughtered, the Rabbis deem use of their wool prohibited. And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: If the firstborn were slaughtered, the Rabbis deem use of their wool permitted.

讜拽转谞讬 讬讘讜拽专 诪讗讬 讬讘讜拽专 诇讗讜 讗讬 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讗讬 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛

Rav Sheshet explains his objection to the interpretation of Reish Lakish: And it is taught that Rabbi Yosei says: Let the matter be investigated. What does he mean when he says: Let the matter be investigated? Does this not mean that an expert examines the animal to determine whether it is a permanent blemish, in which case the intermingled wool is permitted, or whether it is a temporary blemish and the use of the wool is prohibited? If so, Rabbi Yosei holds that wool shed from a firstborn is permitted even though it was shed before the expert deemed the blemish to be permanent and the animal permitted for slaughter. This contradicts the interpretation of Reish Lakish.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讬讘讜拽专 讗讬 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

Rava said in response: No, Rabbi Yosei meant that the matter should be investigated to determine if an expert had deemed the firstborn permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed. If he did, then yes, the wool is permitted; and if not, it is not permitted.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬转讘讬 讘讗专注讗 讚讞砖讜讻讗 讗诪专讬 砖诪注转讗 讚诪讞砖讻谉 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘讚拽 讜诇讗 诪爪讗

The Gemara relates: When Ravin ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha, including Rav Na岣an鈥檚 interpretation of the baraita, in the presence of Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they dwell in a dark land, they state halakhot that are dim. Did they not hear that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: That mishna is dealing with the animals themselves, not their wool, and the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei is with regard to a case where one examined the flock and did not find the blemished animal?

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讬讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 注讚 砖讬转讜讜讚注 讛讟讜诪讗讛

And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Pesa岣m 10a) that Rabbi Meir would say: Any object that was held in the presumptive status of ritual impurity, e.g., it is certain that there was a grave in a particular field, that place forever remains in its ritual impurity, even if it was excavated and the source of impurity was not found, until it becomes known to you the location of the ritual impurity, and then the rest of the field is permitted. The assumption is that the impurity was not found because the search was not conducted properly.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜驻专 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住诇注 讗讜 诇讘转讜诇讛

And the Rabbis say: He continues digging until he reaches bedrock or virgin soil, under which there is certainly no ritual impurity. If he searched this extensively and failed to discover any impurity, it is evidently no longer there. Similarly, in the case of the baraita, the dispute is whether or not failure to locate the blemished animal constitutes sufficient reason to conclude that it is no longer intermingled with the rest of the flock. Accordingly, the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir while Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖讘讚拽 讜诪爪讗 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara cites another version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 interpretation of the baraita: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute is with regard to a case where he examined the flock and found the blemished animal, and they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讚转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 谞讻谞住 讘转讜讻讛 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗 讘转讜讻讛 拽讘专 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讻讛 讟讛讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 拽讘专 砖讗讘讚 讛讜讗 拽讘专 砖谞诪爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 转讬讘讚拽 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, one who enters it becomes impure due to the possibility that he passed over the grave and thereby contracted ritual impurity. If a grave was subsequently found in it, one who enters the field not in the place of the found grave remains pure, as I say: The grave that was lost is the grave that was found. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Let the entire field be examined before ruling that one who enters it remains pure. Similarly, in the baraita concerning the intermingled blemished and unblemished animals, the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, while Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讜专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬诪专 讘讗 注讜专讘 讜谞讟诇讛 讘讗 注讻讘专 讜谞讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诇讛讬讻讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬诪专 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 讛讜讛 讜讗讬转住讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Asi, what is the reason he did not state the explanation of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba? Rabbi Asi could have said to you: Granted, with regard to impurity one can say the impure object might no longer be there, as perhaps a raven came and took it or a mouse came and took it. But here, with regard to a blemished animal that became intermingled with unblemished animals, where could the blemished animal have gone? The Gemara asks: And how would the other amora, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, respond to this claim? He would say the blemish was a temporary blemish and it was healed, which is why there is no longer a blemished animal among the flock.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讚讛 讚专讻讛 诇诪讬拽讘专 讘讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚拽讘专 讘讛 讛讗讬 拽讘专 讗讬谞砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诇讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讚拽讜 诇谉 讜拽讬讬诪讬 讚专讻讬讬讛讜 诇诪讬驻诇 讘讛讜 诪讜诪讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讙讘 讚诪谞讙讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬 砖讻讬讞 讘讛讜 诪讜诪讗

And as for Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, what is the reason he did not state the explanation of Rabbi Asi? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba could have said to you: Granted, in the case of a field it is normal for people to be buried in it, and therefore Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel claims that just as this person was buried in it, so too, another person might have been buried there. Therefore, there is no reason to assume the grave that was found is the grave that was lost. But with regard to sacrificial animals, once they were examined and they are found to be whole, is it normal for them to suddenly develop a blemish? In such a case even the first tanna would not deem the animals prohibited, as it can be assumed they found the only blemished one. And what would the other amora, Rabbi Asi, say in response? Since they gore each other, the development of a blemish is in fact common among them.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛转讜诇砖 爪诪专 诪讘讻讜专 转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讜砖讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讟注诪讗 讚转诐

Rabbi Asi earlier said in the name of Reish Lakish that both Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis agree that if an expert did not deem the firstborn permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to one who plucks the wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though it later developed a blemish and the owner then slaughtered it, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason this is the halakha is that the animal was unblemished.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 25

诪讜转专

it is permitted to pluck the hair in order to facilitate proper slaughter.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪住讜讻专讬讗 讚谞讝讬讬转讗 讗住讜专 诇讛讚讜拽讬讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And does Rav actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav: In the case of this cloth stopper of a barrel [mesokhrayya denazyata], it is prohibited to insert it tightly into the spout of the barrel on a Festival, because in the process liquid will be squeezed from the cloth, and squeezing liquids is prohibited on Shabbat and Festivals? Apparently, Rav prohibits even unintentional actions, and it follows that it is prohibited to clear hair with a cleaver on a Festival, as one will unintentionally pluck out some hair.

讘讛讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

The Gemara explains: In that case of the stopper, even the lenient authority, Rabbi Shimon, concedes that it is prohibited, as Rava and Abaye both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes that an unintentional act is prohibited if it falls under the category known as: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., when a prohibited labor is the inevitable consequence of an unintentional act. In the case of the cloth stopper, some water will inevitably be squeezed out.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪转谞讬 讘诇讗 讙讘专讬 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara objects to the claim that Rav agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a regular unintentional act is permitted: But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Ashi say that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav 岣nan bar Ami says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav 岣yya bar Avin teaches Rav and Shmuel鈥檚 rulings without mentioning either man, neither Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi nor Rav 岣nan bar Ami, and says: Rav says the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel says the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 住讘专 专讘 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讜转讜诇砖 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜讝讝 讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚砖专讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注讜拽专 讚讘专 诪讙讬讚讜诇讜 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚

Rather, actually Rav holds that an unintentional act is prohibited, and he permits plucking the hair of a firstborn because he maintains that plucking is not considered a form of shearing. And this is the reason he permits clearing the hair with a cleaver on a Festival, because it is considered uprooting an item from its place of growth in an unusual manner, and performing a prohibited labor in an unusual manner is not prohibited by Torah law.

讜转讜诇砖 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜讝讝 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛转讜诇砖 讗转 讛讻谞祝 讜讛拽讜讟诪讜 讜讛诪讜专讟讜 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转讜诇砖 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讙讜讝讝 拽讜讟诐 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讞转讱 诪诪专讟 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪诪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 讻谞祝 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And can it be claimed that plucking is not considered a form of shearing? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who unwittingly plucks a large feather from the wing of a bird on Shabbat, and one who snips the tip of the feather, and one who pulls out the thin threads that constitute the feather is obligated to bring three sin offerings, one for each transgression. And Reish Lakish says, in explanation: One who plucks the wing is liable due to the labor of shearing. One who snips the tip of the feather is liable due to the labor of cutting. And one who pulls out the threads is liable due to the labor of smoothing. The Gemara explains: Plucking a wing is different from plucking hair, as that is the normal method employed to remove feathers.

讜诪讚专讘 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专

The Gemara comments: And from the fact that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam that plucking is not considered shearing, it can be inferred that Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav that an unintentional act is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam hold that an unintentional act is prohibited?

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 注讬拽专谉 诪讗讚讬诐 讜专讗砖谉 诪砖讞讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗讜诪专 讙讜讝讝 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a red heifer, which is rendered unfit if it possesses two black hairs, that had two hairs whose roots were red but whose tops were black, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: One shears the tops with scissors, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against shearing a consecrated animal. Apparently, the reason is that he does not intend to shear the red heifer but only to render it fit. This indicates that Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam holds an unintentional act is permitted.

砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讙讬讝讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 转注讘讚 讘讘讻专 砖讜专讱 讜诇讗 转讙讝 讘讻讜专 爪讗谞讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讜专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讜爪讗谉 讘讙讬讝讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转注讘讚 讜诇讗 转讙讝

The Gemara answers: A red heifer is different, as it is not subject to the prohibition against shearing a consecrated animal because it does not have wool, and that is why it is permitted to cut the tops of its hairs. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no work with the firstborn of your ox, and you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19). I have derived only that a firstborn ox may not be used for labor and that a firstborn sheep may not be used for shearing. From where is it derived to apply what is said about that animal to this one, and what is said about this animal to that one? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no work鈥nd you shall not shear.鈥 The term 鈥渁nd鈥 indicates the two parts of the verse apply to both animals. Evidently, the act of shearing does apply to an ox, including a red heifer.

讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

Rather, the red heifer is different, as it has the sanctity of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and therefore the prohibitions that apply to offerings do not necessarily apply to it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say it is prohibited to shear or perform labor with items consecrated for Temple maintenance? The Gemara answers: That prohibition applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara retorts: But that does not resolve the difficulty, as there is nevertheless still a prohibition by rabbinic law. Why, then, did Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam deem it permitted for one to shear the tops of its hairs with scissors? The Gemara accepts this objection: Rather, the red heifer is different, as it is uncommon, and Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam therefore maintains that the prohibition by rabbinic law was not applied to this case.

讜诇讬讞诇讛 讜诇驻拽讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇讬讙讝讛 讜讛讚专 诇讬拽讚砖讛 讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉 讜诇讬注讘讚 诇讛 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讬诇诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara challenges: But let the owner desacralize the heifer and render it non-sacred, and shear it, and then consecrate it again. The Gemara explains it is unreasonable to demand he desacralize it, as its price is expensive, and it would take an exceptionally large sum of money to desacralize it. The Gemara challenges: But let him act in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: A consecrated animal worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon the value of one peruta is desacralized. The Gemara explains: You can say that Shmuel said that he has successfully desacralized the animal, but did he say an animal may be desacralized in this manner ab initio? The Gemara therefore concludes that Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam deems it permitted for one to cut the tops of a red heifer鈥檚 hairs because it is an uncommon case.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘

And if you wish, say instead that although Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讜转讜诇砖 讗转 讛砖注专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讝讬讝谞讜 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讗住讜专 讜讛拽转谞讬 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诐 讘拽讜驻讬抓 诪讬讻谉 讜诪讬讻谉 转谞讬 诇拽讜驻讬抓

搂 The mishna teaches: One who is slaughtering a firstborn clears space with a cleaver from here and from there, on either side of the neck, although he thereby plucks out the hair. He may clear space in this manner provided that he does not move the hair from its place. Rav Ashi says that Reish Lakish says: They taught that this is permitted only if one plucks the hair by hand, but if he does it with a tool it is prohibited, as it appears as though he is shearing the firstborn. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught that one may clear space with a cleaver from here and from there on either side of the neck? The Gemara answers: Teach it as: One may clear space with his hands for a cleaver, but he may not clear space with a cleaver.

讜讻谉 转讜诇砖 讗转 讛砖注专 诇专讗讜转 诪讜诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讜 讚讬注讘讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 爪诪专 讛诪住讜讘讱 讘讗讜讝谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗讜诪专 转讜诇砖讜 讜诪专讗讛 讗转 诪讜诪讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The mishna further teaches: And likewise, one plucks the hair to enable one of the Sages to examine the place of a blemish. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is this permitted ab initio, or only after the fact? Rabbi Yirmeya said: Come and hear a baraita: If there is wool that is entangled in a firstborn鈥檚 ear, and it is obscuring a blemish that must be examined, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: One plucks the wool and shows the animal鈥檚 blemish to a Sage in order to determine whether it is permitted to slaughter the animal outside the Temple. One can conclude from the baraita that it is permitted ab initio. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讻谉 讛转讜诇砖 讗转 讛砖注专 诇专讗讜转 诪拽讜诐 诪讜诐 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讬讝讬讝讜 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 砖讜讞讟 讚砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讜讻讞转 注诇讬讜 诇讗 讬讝讬讝谞讜 诇专讗讜转 诪拽讜诐 诪讜诐 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara corroborates its conclusion. Rav Mari said: We learn in the mishna as well: And likewise, one plucks the hair to examine the place of a blemish. What is the mishna referring to in its comparison: And likewise? If we say it is referring to the mishna鈥檚 ruling that when one slaughters a firstborn he may not move the plucked hair from its place, then the second halakha is unnecessary. Now that it is taught that if, when one comes to slaughter the animal, where its imminent slaughter renders it evident that he does not intend to shear it, but nevertheless he may not remove the hair, is it necessary to teach that one may not remove the plucked hair in order to examine the place of a blemish?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗转讜诇砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 the mishna鈥檚 comparison referring to the fact that it is permitted to pluck the hair ab initio? Just as it is permitted to pluck the hair for the purpose of slaughtering the animal, so too, it is permitted to pluck the hair in order to examine a blemish. Conclude from it that it is permitted ab initio. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

诪转谞讬壮 砖注专 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞砖专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讜 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专

MISHNA: With regard to the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal, and which one placed in a compartment for safekeeping, and thereafter he slaughtered the animal; given that after the animal dies he is permitted to derive benefit from the hair the animal had on its body when it died, what is the halakhic status of hair that shed from the animal while it was alive? Akavya ben Mahalalel deems its use permitted,

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讘讝讛 讛转讬专 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讗诇讗 砖注专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞砖专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讘讝讛 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him: It was not with regard to that case that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool permitted. Rather, it was in the case of the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal which one placed in a compartment and thereafter the animal died. It was in that case that Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted, and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited even after its death.

爪诪专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讘讻讜专 讗转 砖谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 讗住讜专

With regard to wool that is dangling from a firstborn animal, i.e., which was not completely shed, that which appears to be part of the fleece is permitted when the animal is shorn after its death, and that which does not appear to be part of the fleece is prohibited.

讙诪壮 诪讻诇诇 讚讗住专 讛砖转讗 讘诪转 砖专讬 砖讞讟讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

GEMARA: Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement, that it was not with regard to the case where the animal was slaughtered that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool permitted, apparently indicates by inference that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool prohibited if the animal was slaughtered. This is difficult: Now that it has been taught that use of the detached wool of a dead firstborn is permitted, despite the fact that the attached hair must be buried, is it necessary to teach that detached wool is permitted in a case where one slaughtered the animal, where the use of the attached hair is permitted?

讗诇讗 诇讗 讘讝讛 讛转讬专 注拽讘讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 砖讞讟讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖专讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪转

Rather, Rabbi Yosei means that it was not in that case that Akavya deemed use of the detached wool permitted while the Rabbis deem it prohibited, since if he slaughtered the animal, everyone agrees that use of the wool is permitted. They disagree in a case where the detached wool came from a dead animal that was not slaughtered.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讚诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇砖讛讜讬讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

Rabbi Asi says that Reish Lakish says: The dispute applies in a case where an expert deemed the animal permitted for slaughter due to a blemish before the wool was shed, as one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we decree that use of the wool the animal sheds is prohibited, lest one come to postpone its slaughter in order to collect the wool that it sheds. The Rabbis wanted a blemished firstborn to be slaughtered as soon as possible, lest one shear it or use it for labor, both of which are prohibited by Torah law. And one Sage, Akavya ben Mahalalel, holds that we do not issue such a decree. But in a case where an expert did not deem the animal permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed, all agree that use of the wool is prohibited, even after the animal died or was slaughtered.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讘拽专

Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: Blemished animals that become intermingled with unblemished animals render the entire group of animals prohibited in any ratio, even if there was only one blemished animal. Since blemished animals may not be sacrificed, and it is impossible to distinguish them from the unblemished animals, none may be sacrificed on the altar. And Rabbi Yosei says: Let the matter be investigated.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讬讘拽专 讗诇讬诪讗 讚讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讬砖拽诇讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 诇讗讜

Rav Sheshet continues: And we discussed it, and inquired: What did Rabbi Yosei mean when he said: Let the matter be investigated? Shall we say he meant that one should search for the blemished animal and remove it from the group, so that the other animals may be slaughtered on the altar? This is difficult, as in that case, by inference, the first tanna said that in such a case the remaining unblemished animals are still not permitted. This cannot be so, as there is no reason to deem the remaining animals prohibited once the blemished animal has been removed.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻讗 讘讙讬讝转 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讙讬讝讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞砖讞讟讜 讗住专讬 专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 谞砖讞讟讜 砖专讜 专讘谞谉

And Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Here we are dealing with a case of the shearings of a blemished firstborn, whose detached wool became intermingled with non-sacred wool. And who is the first tanna, who holds that all the wool is prohibited? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who says in the mishna here that if the firstborn were slaughtered, the Rabbis deem use of their wool prohibited. And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: If the firstborn were slaughtered, the Rabbis deem use of their wool permitted.

讜拽转谞讬 讬讘讜拽专 诪讗讬 讬讘讜拽专 诇讗讜 讗讬 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讗讬 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛

Rav Sheshet explains his objection to the interpretation of Reish Lakish: And it is taught that Rabbi Yosei says: Let the matter be investigated. What does he mean when he says: Let the matter be investigated? Does this not mean that an expert examines the animal to determine whether it is a permanent blemish, in which case the intermingled wool is permitted, or whether it is a temporary blemish and the use of the wool is prohibited? If so, Rabbi Yosei holds that wool shed from a firstborn is permitted even though it was shed before the expert deemed the blemish to be permanent and the animal permitted for slaughter. This contradicts the interpretation of Reish Lakish.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讬讘讜拽专 讗讬 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

Rava said in response: No, Rabbi Yosei meant that the matter should be investigated to determine if an expert had deemed the firstborn permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed. If he did, then yes, the wool is permitted; and if not, it is not permitted.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬转讘讬 讘讗专注讗 讚讞砖讜讻讗 讗诪专讬 砖诪注转讗 讚诪讞砖讻谉 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘讚拽 讜诇讗 诪爪讗

The Gemara relates: When Ravin ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha, including Rav Na岣an鈥檚 interpretation of the baraita, in the presence of Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they dwell in a dark land, they state halakhot that are dim. Did they not hear that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: That mishna is dealing with the animals themselves, not their wool, and the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei is with regard to a case where one examined the flock and did not find the blemished animal?

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讬讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 注讚 砖讬转讜讜讚注 讛讟讜诪讗讛

And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Pesa岣m 10a) that Rabbi Meir would say: Any object that was held in the presumptive status of ritual impurity, e.g., it is certain that there was a grave in a particular field, that place forever remains in its ritual impurity, even if it was excavated and the source of impurity was not found, until it becomes known to you the location of the ritual impurity, and then the rest of the field is permitted. The assumption is that the impurity was not found because the search was not conducted properly.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜驻专 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住诇注 讗讜 诇讘转讜诇讛

And the Rabbis say: He continues digging until he reaches bedrock or virgin soil, under which there is certainly no ritual impurity. If he searched this extensively and failed to discover any impurity, it is evidently no longer there. Similarly, in the case of the baraita, the dispute is whether or not failure to locate the blemished animal constitutes sufficient reason to conclude that it is no longer intermingled with the rest of the flock. Accordingly, the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir while Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖讘讚拽 讜诪爪讗 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara cites another version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 interpretation of the baraita: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute is with regard to a case where he examined the flock and found the blemished animal, and they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讚转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 谞讻谞住 讘转讜讻讛 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗 讘转讜讻讛 拽讘专 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讻讛 讟讛讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 拽讘专 砖讗讘讚 讛讜讗 拽讘专 砖谞诪爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 转讬讘讚拽 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, one who enters it becomes impure due to the possibility that he passed over the grave and thereby contracted ritual impurity. If a grave was subsequently found in it, one who enters the field not in the place of the found grave remains pure, as I say: The grave that was lost is the grave that was found. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Let the entire field be examined before ruling that one who enters it remains pure. Similarly, in the baraita concerning the intermingled blemished and unblemished animals, the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, while Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讜专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬诪专 讘讗 注讜专讘 讜谞讟诇讛 讘讗 注讻讘专 讜谞讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诇讛讬讻讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬诪专 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 讛讜讛 讜讗讬转住讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Asi, what is the reason he did not state the explanation of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba? Rabbi Asi could have said to you: Granted, with regard to impurity one can say the impure object might no longer be there, as perhaps a raven came and took it or a mouse came and took it. But here, with regard to a blemished animal that became intermingled with unblemished animals, where could the blemished animal have gone? The Gemara asks: And how would the other amora, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, respond to this claim? He would say the blemish was a temporary blemish and it was healed, which is why there is no longer a blemished animal among the flock.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讚讛 讚专讻讛 诇诪讬拽讘专 讘讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚拽讘专 讘讛 讛讗讬 拽讘专 讗讬谞砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诇讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讚拽讜 诇谉 讜拽讬讬诪讬 讚专讻讬讬讛讜 诇诪讬驻诇 讘讛讜 诪讜诪讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讙讘 讚诪谞讙讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬 砖讻讬讞 讘讛讜 诪讜诪讗

And as for Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, what is the reason he did not state the explanation of Rabbi Asi? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba could have said to you: Granted, in the case of a field it is normal for people to be buried in it, and therefore Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel claims that just as this person was buried in it, so too, another person might have been buried there. Therefore, there is no reason to assume the grave that was found is the grave that was lost. But with regard to sacrificial animals, once they were examined and they are found to be whole, is it normal for them to suddenly develop a blemish? In such a case even the first tanna would not deem the animals prohibited, as it can be assumed they found the only blemished one. And what would the other amora, Rabbi Asi, say in response? Since they gore each other, the development of a blemish is in fact common among them.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛转讜诇砖 爪诪专 诪讘讻讜专 转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讜砖讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讟注诪讗 讚转诐

Rabbi Asi earlier said in the name of Reish Lakish that both Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis agree that if an expert did not deem the firstborn permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to one who plucks the wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though it later developed a blemish and the owner then slaughtered it, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason this is the halakha is that the animal was unblemished.

Scroll To Top