Bekhorot 49

Chapter 49

א מותר

1 But did Rab say this?

ב ומי אמר רב הכי והא אמר רב חייא בר אשי משמיה דרב מסוכריא דנזייתא אסור להדוקיה ביומא טבא

2 Did not R'Hiyya B'Ashi say in the name of Rab: The stopper of the brewery boiler1 must not be squeezed in on a festival day?2 - In that case even R'Simeon would agree.

ג בההיא אפי' ר' שמעון מודה דאביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו מודה ר"ש בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות

3 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 that it i forbidden.

ד והא אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב הלכה כר' יהודה ורב חנן בר אמי אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ש ורב חייא בר אבין מתני בלא גברי רב אמר הלכה כרבי יהודה ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי שמעון

4 But did not R'Hiyya B'Ashi report in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accordance with R'Judah,4 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 authority5 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,6 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.7 But is not tearing [considered] the same as shearing? Has it not been taught: If one plucks a large feather from the wing [of a bird] and cuts off [its head], and smooths8

ה אלא לעולם סבר רב דבר שאין מתכוין אסור ותולש לאו היינו גוזז וביום טוב היינו טעמא דשרי דהוה ליה עוקר דבר מגידולו כלאחר יד

5 it, he is obliged to bring three sin-offerings.9 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?10

ו ותולש לאו היינו גוזז והתניא התולש את הכנף והקוטמו והמורטו חייב שלש חטאות ואמר ר"ל תולש חייב משום גוזז קוטם חייב משום מחתך ממרט חייב משום ממחק שאני כנף דהיינו אורחיה

6 - [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 Now since Rab holds in accordance with R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam, then R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam holds in accordance with Rab.12 But does R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam hold that a forbidden act [which was produced] without intent is forbidden? Has it not been taught: If two hairs [of a Red Heifer] are red at the roots but black at the top. 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 - The case of a Red Heifer is different, for it does not belong to a class [of animals] that are sheared.14

ז ומדרב סבר כר' יוסי בן המשולם ר' יוסי בן המשולם סבר לה כרב וסבר ר' יוסי בן המשולם דבר שאין מתכוין אסור

7 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.15 From this I can gather only that working an ox and shearing sheep are forbidden.

ח והתניא שתי שערות עיקרן מאדים וראשן משחיר ר' יוסי בן המשולם אומר גוזז במספרים ואינו חושש

8 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? The text states: Thou shalt not work nor shear the firstling of thy flock!16 - Rather [say] the case of a Red Heifer is different, for it is offering for the Temple repair.17

ט שאני פרה דלאו בת גיזה היא והתניא (דברים טו, יט) לא תעבוד בבכור שורך ולא תגוז בכור צאנך ואין לי אלא שור בעבודה וצאן בגיזה מנין ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ואת האמור של זה בזה ת"ל לא תעבוד ולא תגוז

9 But has not R'Eliezer said: Offerings for Temple repair are forbidden in respect of shearing and work? - It is a Rabbinic enactment. But is there not still a Rabbinic prohibition?18 - The case of a Red Heifer is different, as it is a rare occurrence.19 But why not redeem the Red Heifer, bring it to a state of hullin [in order] to shear it and then again consecrate it?20 - Its price is high.21 But why not act here as Samuel taught.

י אלא שאני פרה דקדשי בדק הבית היא והאמר רבי אלעזר קדשי בדק הבית אסורין בגיזה ועבודה מדרבנן והאיכא איסורא דרבנן אלא שאני פרה דלא שכיחא

10 for Samuel said: A dedicated object worth a maneh22 which has been redeemed for the value of a perutah23 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]. AND TEARS THE HAIR PROVIDED HOWEVER HE DOES NOT REMOVE THE WOOL FROM ITS PLACE. 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. But does not [the Mishnah] state: HE MAKES A PLACE WITH24

יא וליחלה ולפקה לחולין וליגזה והדר ליקדשה דמיה יקרין וליעבד לה כדשמואל דאמר שמואל הקדש שוה מנה שחיללו על שוה פרוטה מחולל אימור דאמר שמואל שחיללו לכתחלה מי אמר

11 A BUTCHER'S HATCHET ON BOTH SIDES? - Read: FOR25 THE BUTCHER'S HATCHET. AND SIMILARLY IF ONE TEARS THE HAIR TO SHOW THE PLACE OF THE BLEMISH. 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 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

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

12 - Said R'Jeremiah. Come and hear: If wool is entangled in the ear,28

יג ותולש את השער ובלבד שלא יזיזנו ממקומו: אמר רב אשי אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא ביד אבל בכלי אסור והקתני עושה מקום בקופיץ מיכן ומיכן תני לקופיץ:

13 R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam says: He tears it and shows its blemish. Deduce from here therefore that it means a direct permission. This stands proved. Said R'Mari: We have also learnt: AND SIMILARLY IF ONE TEARS THE HAIR TO SHOW THE PLACE OF THE BLEMISH. What does the expression AND SIMILARLY indicate? 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 [you still say] that he must not remove its wool, can there be any question as regards showing the place of the blemish?

יד וכן תולש את השער לראות מום: איבעיא להו לכתחלה או דיעבד אמר רבי ירמיה תא שמע צמר המסובך באוזן ר' יוסי בן המשולם אומר תולשו ומראה את מומו ש"מ לכתחלה ש"מ

14 Must you not therefore admit that it30 refers to the 'tearing'.31 Deduce from this therefore that it is directly permissible. It stands proved. <big>MISHNAH: </big>IF [A PORTION OF] THE HAIR OF A BLEMISHED FIRSTLING WAS TORN AWAY AND HE PLACED IT IN THE WINDOW,32 AND SUBSEQUENTLY SLAUGHTERED THE ANIMAL. 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

טו אמר רב מרי אף אנן נמי תנינא 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

15 IT

טז אלא לאו אתולש שמע מינה לכתחלה ש"מ:

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

Previous Chapter Next Chapter