Bekhorot 48

אחאי בריבי

Aha Beribi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹</span>

ראה חזיר שכרוך אחר רחל מהו

asked: How is it if one saw a swine clinging to a ewe?

מאי קמיבעיא ליה

But what exactly does the question refer to?

אילימא לבכורה וקמיבעיא ליה אי הלכתא כרשב"ג אי הלכתא כרבנן תיבעי ליה טלה

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is in connection with this case that they differ.');">²</span>

כי קמיבעיא ליה לבכורה ואליבא דרבנן לאכילה ואליבא דרשב"ג

- The query refers to the law of the firstling as laid down by the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³</span>

לבכורה ואפי' לרבנן דאמרי מרחמא כי מרחמא דמינה דלא מינה לא או דלמא דלא מינה נמי מרחמא

and to the rule as to eating, as laid down by R'Simeon B'Gamaliel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And certainly according to the Rabbis.');">⁴</span>

לאכילה ואפי' לרשב"ג אם תמצא לומר סבר יולדת מרחמא דמינה דלאו מינה לא או דלמא דלאו מינה נמי מרחמא

The query refers to [the law] of the firstling, [thus].

תיקו:

[D 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the offspring in this case surely belongs to the ewe, and therefore the future offspring is exempted from the law of the firstling.');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> רבי יוסי בן המשולם אומר

Or do we perhaps maintain that even [to offspring] that does not belong to its own species, the animal also gives suck?

השוחט את הבכור עושה מקום בקופיץ מיכן ומיכן ותולש את השער ובלבד שלא יזיזנו ממקומו

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁶</span>

וכן תולש את השער לראות מקום מום:

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]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence in this case, the swine must be its offspring and permissible to be eaten, as it gives suck to it.');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב

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]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it had given suck previously. Consequently, the swine is forbidden to be eaten in case it is a stranger.');">⁸</span>

הלכה כרבי יוסי בן המשולם

- Let this remain undecided.

בעו מיניה מרב הונא

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>R'JOSE B. HA-MESHULLAM SAYS: ONE WHO SLAUGHTERS THE FIRSTLING, [FIRST] MAKES A CLEAR SPACE WITH THE [BUTCHER'S] HATCHET<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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) .');">⁹</span>

כנגדו ביו"ט מהו

ON BOTH SIDES AND TEARS THE HAIR [ON BOTH SIDES]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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');">¹⁰</span>

טעמא דרבי יוסי בן המשולם משום דקסבר

PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT HE DOES NOT REMOVE THE WOOL FROM ITS PLACE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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) .');">¹¹</span>

תולש לאו היינו גוזז

[WITH AN INSTRUMENT].

וביום טוב אסור דהוה ליה עוקר דבר מגידולו

AND SIMILARLY ONE MAY TEAR THE HAIR TO SHOW THE PLACE OF THE BLEMISH [TO A SAGE].

או דלמא

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rab said: The halachah is according to R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam.

בעלמא סבר רבי יוסי בן המשולם תולש היינו גוזז

[The scholars] asked R'Huna: What is the rule about acting similarly on a festival day?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹²</span>

והיינו טעמא דשרי דהוה ליה דבר שאין מתכוין וביו"ט דבר שאין מתכוין מותר

Is the reason of R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam because he maintains that tearing is not [considered] the same as shearing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in connection with a firstling. Scripture expresses only prohibited shearing.');">¹³</span>

אמר להו

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁴</span>

זילו שיילוה לרב חננאל אי אמר הלכה כרבי יוסי בן המשולם איפשוט לכו

and a forbidden act which was produced without intent is permissible on a festival day? - He replied to them: 'Go and ask R'Hananel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A disciple of Rab.');">¹⁵</span>

אתו שיילוה אמר להו הכי אמר רב

If he tells you that the halachah is in accordance with R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam, then I shall give you a definite answer'.

הלכה כרבי יוסי בן המשולם

They went and asked him.

אתו לקמיה דרב הונא אמר להו

He replied to them: 'Rab said this: The halachah is in accordance with R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam'.

כנגדו ביום טוב מותר

Then they came before R'Huna.

איתמר נמי אמר רב חנניה בר שלמיא משמיה דרב

He said to them: It is permitted to act in a corresponding manner on a festival day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason being because there was no intention of committing a breach of the law.');">¹⁶</span>

כנגדו ביום טוב

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.