Bekhorot 49

מותר

But did Rab say this?

ומי אמר רב הכי

Did not R'Hiyya B'Ashi say in the name of Rab: The stopper of the brewery boiler<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made of soft material, as rag.');">¹</span>

והא אמר רב חייא בר אשי משמיה דרב

must not be squeezed in on a festival day?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fear of breaking the law against squeezing and wringing on a Holy Day, v. Keth. 6a.');">²</span>

מסוכריא דנזייתא אסור להדוקיה ביומא טבא

- In that case even R'Simeon would agree.

בההיא אפי' ר' שמעון מודה דאביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו

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',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³</span>

מודה ר"ש בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות

that it i forbidden.

והא אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב

But did not R'Hiyya B'Ashi report in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accordance with R'Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who prohibits an unintentional act.');">⁴</span>

הלכה כר' יהודה ורב חנן בר אמי אמר שמואל

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of. R. Hiyya or Hanan.');">⁵</span>

הלכה כר"ש

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore Rab declared that the ruling was according to R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam in connection with a firstling.');">⁶</span>

ורב חייא בר אבין מתני בלא גברי רב אמר

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is not usual to tear or pluck wool, except to shear it.');">⁷</span>

הלכה כרבי יהודה ושמואל אמר

But is not tearing [considered] the same as shearing?

הלכה כרבי שמעון

Has it not been taught: If one plucks a large feather from the wing [of a bird] and cuts off [its head], and smooths<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tearing the hair from the windpipe and smoothing it away from the sides.');">⁸</span>

אלא לעולם סבר רב דבר שאין מתכוין אסור ותולש לאו היינו גוזז

it, he is obliged to bring three sin-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab. 74b.');">⁹</span>

וביום טוב היינו טעמא דשרי דהוה ליה עוקר דבר מגידולו כלאחר יד

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We see, therefore, that plucking or tearing is considered the same as shearing.');">¹⁰</span>

ותולש לאו היינו גוזז

- [Plucking] a wing is different, for that is the usual thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹¹</span>

והתניא

Now since Rab holds in accordance with R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam, then R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam holds in accordance with Rab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a forbidden act which was produced unintentionally, is forbidden.');">¹²</span>

התולש את הכנף והקוטמו והמורטו חייב שלש חטאות

But does R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam hold that a forbidden act [which was produced] without intent is forbidden?

ואמר ר"ל

Has it not been taught: If two hairs [of a Red Heifer] are red at the roots but black at the top.

תולש חייב משום גוזז קוטם חייב משום מחתך ממרט חייב משום ממחק

R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam says: He may shear with scissors without fear?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹³</span>

שאני כנף דהיינו אורחיה

- The case of a Red Heifer is different, for it does not belong to a class [of animals] that are sheared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁴</span>

ומדרב סבר כר' יוסי בן המשולם ר' יוסי בן המשולם סבר לה כרב

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 19. zd, tku u');">¹⁵</span>

וסבר ר' יוסי בן המשולם דבר שאין מתכוין אסור

From this I can gather only that working an ox and shearing sheep are forbidden.

והתניא

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?

שתי שערות עיקרן מאדים וראשן משחיר ר' יוסי בן המשולם אומר

The text states: Thou shalt not work nor shear the firstling of thy flock!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' the conjunction intimating that the prohibition of working and shearing refer to both the ox and the flock.');">¹⁶</span>

גוזז במספרים ואינו חושש

- Rather [say] the case of a Red Heifer is different, for it is offering for the Temple repair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not for the altar and therefore shearing is permissible.');">¹⁷</span>

שאני פרה דלאו בת גיזה היא

But has not R'Eliezer said: Offerings for Temple repair are forbidden in respect of shearing and work? - It is a Rabbinic enactment.

והתניא

But is there not still a Rabbinic prohibition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why therefore does the Baraitha state above that he need not fear?');">¹⁸</span>

(דברים טו, יט) לא תעבוד בבכור שורך ולא תגוז בכור צאנך ואין לי אלא שור בעבודה וצאן בגיזה

- The case of a Red Heifer is different, as it is a rare occurrence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for cases which occurred rarely the Rabbis did not enact their prohibitions.');">¹⁹</span>

מנין ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ואת האמור של זה בזה

But why not redeem the Red Heifer, bring it to a state of hullin [in order] to shear it and then again consecrate it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, therefore, shear the Red Heifer in its consecrated state?');">²⁰</span>

ת"ל

- Its price is high.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is therefore not easy to find the money with which to redeem it.');">²¹</span>

לא תעבוד ולא תגוז

But why not act here as Samuel taught.

אלא שאני פרה דקדשי בדק הבית היא

for Samuel said: A dedicated object worth a maneh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A certain weight of gold and silver.');">²²</span>

והאמר רבי אלעזר

which has been redeemed for the value of a perutah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A small coin. .hpuec');">²³</span>

קדשי בדק הבית אסורין בגיזה ועבודה

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].

מדרבנן

AND TEARS THE HAIR PROVIDED HOWEVER HE DOES NOT REMOVE THE WOOL FROM ITS PLACE.

והאיכא איסורא דרבנן

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.

אלא שאני פרה דלא שכיחא

But does not [the Mishnah] state: HE MAKES A PLACE WITH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . .hpuek');">²⁴</span>

וליחלה ולפקה לחולין וליגזה והדר ליקדשה

A BUTCHER'S HATCHET ON BOTH SIDES? - Read: FOR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' .');">²⁵</span>

דמיה יקרין

THE BUTCHER'S HATCHET.

וליעבד לה כדשמואל דאמר שמואל

AND SIMILARLY IF ONE TEARS THE HAIR TO SHOW THE PLACE OF THE BLEMISH.

הקדש שוה מנה שחיללו על שוה פרוטה מחולל

It was queried: Does it mean that this is directly permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁶</span>

אימור דאמר שמואל שחיללו לכתחלה מי אמר

or only condoned if it had been done?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁷</span>

איבעית אימא

- Said R'Jeremiah.

רב סבר לה כר' יוסי בן המשולם ור' יוסי בן המשולם לא סבר לה כרב:

Come and hear: If wool is entangled in the ear,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being a blemish in that part of the body.');">²⁸</span>

ותולש את השער ובלבד שלא יזיזנו ממקומו:

R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam says: He tears it and shows its blemish.

אמר רב אשי אמר ריש לקיש

Deduce from here therefore that it means a direct permission.

לא שנו אלא ביד אבל בכלי אסור

This stands proved.

והקתני

Said R'Mari: We have also learnt: AND SIMILARLY IF ONE TEARS THE HAIR TO SHOW THE PLACE OF THE BLEMISH.

עושה מקום בקופיץ מיכן ומיכן

What does the expression AND SIMILARLY indicate?

תני

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁹</span>

לקופיץ:

[you still say] that he must not remove its wool, can there be any question as regards showing the place of the blemish?

וכן תולש את השער לראות מום:

Must you not therefore admit that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression AND SIMILARLY.');">³⁰</span>

איבעיא להו

refers to the 'tearing'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is permissible in the first instance, even as it is in the first clause in our MISHNAH:');">³¹</span>

לכתחלה או דיעבד

Deduce from this therefore that it is directly permissible.

אמר רבי ירמיה תא שמע

It stands proved.

צמר המסובך באוזן ר' יוסי בן המשולם אומר

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF [A PORTION OF] THE HAIR OF A BLEMISHED FIRSTLING WAS TORN AWAY AND HE PLACED IT IN THE WINDOW,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³²</span>

תולשו ומראה את מומו

AND SUBSEQUENTLY SLAUGHTERED THE ANIMAL.

ש"מ לכתחלה ש"מ

AKABYA B. MAHALALEL ALLOWS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³³</span>

אמר רב מרי אף אנן נמי תנינא

IT

וכן התולש את השער לראות מקום מום

מאי וכן

אילימא שלא יזיזו את מקומו

השתא ומה שוחט דשחיטתו מוכחת עליו לא יזיזנו לראות מקום מום מיבעיא

אלא לאו אתולש

שמע מינה לכתחלה ש"מ:

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שער בכור בעל מום שנשר והניחו בחלון ואחר כך שחטו עקביא בן מהללאל מתיר