Bekhorot 50

וחכמים אוסרין דברי ר' יהודה

WHEREAS THE SAGES DECLARE IT FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if you permit the use of wool plucked when the animal is alive, one may be led to detain the firstling in order to benefit from its wool, and this may eventually bring about a breaking of the law with reference to working and shearing.');">¹</span>

אמר לו ר' יוסי

THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R'JUDAH.

לא בזה התיר עקביא בן מהללאל אלא שער בעל מום שנשר והניחו בחלון ואחר כך מת בזה עקביא בן מהללאל מתיר וחכמים אוסרין

R'JOSE SAID TO HIM: AKABYA B. MAHALALEL DID NOT ALLOW IN THIS CASE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara later on explains this.');">²</span>

צמר המדולדל בבכור את שנראה עם הגיזה מותר ואת שאינו נראה עם הגיזה אסור:

BUT IT IS IN THE CASE WHERE THE HAIR OF A BLEMISHED FIRSTLING WHICH WAS TORN AWAY AND HE PLACED IT IN THE WINDOW, AND THE ANIMAL DIED SUBSEQUENTLY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not slaughtered.');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מכלל דאסר

THAT AKABYA B. MAHALALEL ALLOWS, WHEREAS THE SAGES DECLARE IT FORBIDDEN.

השתא במת שרי שחטו מיבעיא

WHERE THE WOOL OF A FIRSTLING IS LOOSELY CONNECTED [WITH THE SKIN].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is entangled with the remaining wool and has not fallen.');">⁴</span>

אלא

THAT PART WHICH APPEARS [ON A LEVEL] WITH [THE REST OF] THE WOOL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is slaughtered and sheared, it does not seem to be removed very much from the other wool.');">⁵</span>

לא בזה התיר עקביא וחכמים אוסרין

IS PERMITTED, WHEREAS THAT WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR [ON A LEVEL] WITH [THE REST OF] THE WOOL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it is separated from the remainder of the wool in a marked degree. It is therefore considered as if it became detached while the animal was alive.');">⁶</span>

שחטו דברי הכל שרי כי פליגי במת

IS FORBIDDEN.

אמר רבי אסי אמר ריש לקיש

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>[AKABYA B. MAHALALEL DID NOT ALLOW IN THIS CASE].

מחלוקת בשהתירו מומחה דמר סבר גזרינן דלמא אתי לשהוייה ומר סבר לא גזרינן

Is it to be deduced then that the wool is forbidden?

אבל לא התירו מומחה דברי הכל אסור

If in the case of a dead [firstling]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the wool attached to it is forbidden to be used, as it requires burial.');">⁷</span>

מתיב רב ששת

[the wool torn away] is allowed [to be used], is there any question that in the case where it is slaughtered, [the wool torn away is allowed]?

בעלי מומין אוסרין בכ"ש ורבי יוסי אומר

What is meant then is: Not in this case does Akabya allow and the Sages declare it forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in this case there is no dispute.');">⁸</span>

יבקר

but where he slaughtered it, all unanimously allow [the use of the wool].

והוינן בה

They only differ in connection with the case of a dead [firstling].

מאי יבקר

R'Assi reported in the name of Resh Lakish: The difference of opinion relates to a case where the expert had permitted the firstling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the wool was torn away.');">⁹</span>

אלימא דבעל מום הוא ולישקליה מכלל דתנא קמא אמר לאו

one authority maintaining that we enact a prohibition as a precaution lest he should come to detain it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he can avail himself of its wool from time to time and in so doing he may come to break the law regarding working and shearing it.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה

while the other authority maintains that we do not enact such a prohibition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expert having permitted its slaughter, we hold that he will not keep the animal.');">¹¹</span>

הכא בגיזת בכור בעל מום עסקינן שנתערבו בגיזי חולין ומאן תנא קמא רבי יהודה היא דאמר

but where the expert had not yet permitted it, all unanimously hold [that the wool] is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is like an unblemished firstling, and in such a case even Akabya agrees. for if the wool is allowed to be used, he will keep the animal until a blemish appears on it, thus preventing its sacrifice on the altar.');">¹²</span>

נשחטו אסרי רבנן

R'Shesheth raised an objection: Blemished sacrifices [which became mixed up] with other sacrifices are forbidden whatever they may be;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No matter how few in number, so that even if one blemished animal became mixed up with a thousand. all are rendered unfit for sacrificial purposes.');">¹³</span>

ורבי יוסי לטעמיה דאמר

R'Jose however says: The case must be examined.

נשחטו שרו רבנן

And we raised the point: What does R'Jose mean by the statement 'It must be examined'?

וקתני

You can hardly say that it refers to the blemished animal which is then to be taken away; for we should then infer that the first Tanna quoted above does not hold this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! For if the blemished animal can be recognized, what further doubt can there be?');">¹⁴</span>

יבוקר

And R'Nahman answered in the name of Rabah B'Abbuha: We are dealing here with the wool of a blemished firstling [torn away while alive], which became mixed up with the wool of hullin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unconsecrated animals, and we are not dealing here at all, with living animals.');">¹⁵</span>

מאי יבוקר לאו אי מום קבוע אי מום עובר הוא אף על גב שלא התירו מומחה

And who is the first Tanna quoted above?

אמר רבא

R'Judah [in our Mishnah] who said that where he slaughtered it the Rabbis declared it forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is no remedy in slaughtering it.');">¹⁶</span>

לא יבוקר אי התירו מומחה אין ואי לא לא

whereas R'Jose adheres to his own view that if he slaughtered it the Rabbis allowed.

כי סליק רבין אמרה לשמעתא קמיה דרבי ירמיה

And it states: 'It shall be examined'.

אמר

Now what does this expression 'It shall be examined' mean?

בבלאי טפשאי משום דיתבי בארעא דחשוכא אמרי שמעתא דמחשכן

Does it not mean that the examination is by the expert to see whether it possesses a permanent blemish [and then killing it, will make everything permissible to be used] or a transitory blemish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Jose slaughtering the animal makes the wool permissible to be used even according to the Rabbis. Therefore, just as according to R. Jose, the Rabbis allow the use of the wool when the animal is slaughtered, whether the expert had permitted the firstling or not, for R. Jose says that the animal has yet to be examined, similarly Akabya with regard to a dead firstling makes no distinction whether the expert had permitted it or not, for Akabya makes no distinction between a case of slaughtering it and that of a dead firstling. Hence we see that even without the expert permitting the firstling, there is yet a difference of opinion. The text adopted is that of Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. read: the examination is whether it possesses a permanent blemish or a transitory blemish, though the expert did not permit it.');">¹⁷</span>

לא שמיע להו הא דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן

- Said Raba: No.

מחלוקת בשבדק ולא מצא וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דר"מ ורבנן

The expression 'It shall be examined' means that an examination is made if the expert had permitted [the firstling] before the wool was torn away; in that case [the wool] is allowed, but if not, then it is not [allowed].

דתנן שהיה ר"מ אומר

When Rabin went up [from Babylonia to Palestine], he reported the dictum of R'Nahman before R'Jeremiah.

כל דבר שהיה בחזקת טומאה לעולם הוא בטומאתו עד שיתוודע הטומאה וחכמים אומרים

The latter said: 'The foolish Babylonians because they dwell in a dark country report an obscure tradition.

חופר עד שמגיע לסלע או לבתולה

Have they not heard what R'Hiyya B'Abba reported in the name of R'Johanan: The difference of opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna quoted above and R. Jose differing in regard to living blemished sacrifices that became mixed up with others.');">¹⁸</span>

ר' אסי אמר רבי יוחנן

relates to a case where he searched and did not find the blemished animal, and they differ on the principle on which R'Meir and the Rabbis differ?

מחלוקת כשבדק ומצא וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי ור"ש בן גמליאל

For we have learnt, R'Meir used to say: Everything which has a presumption of levitical uncleanness continues for ever in that status,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the lost grave is not found, though the whole field had been searched, similarly here, if the blemished animal cannot be identified, according to the first Tanna, all the animals are forbidden.');">¹⁹</span>

דתניא

until the uncleanness is revealed, whereas the Sages say: He digs until he reaches a rock or unbroken ground, [after which there is no further uncleanness].

שדה שאבד בה קבר נכנס בתוכה טמא

But R'Assi says: The difference of opinion relates to a case where he searched and found [a blemished animal],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we fear, according to the first Tanna quoted above, lest the blemished animal found was really another, and, therefore, all the animals require examination, whereas R. Jose maintains that making a search is adequate and, having discovered a blemished animal, we presume that it is the one which became mixed up with the rest.');">²⁰</span>

נמצא בתוכה קבר נכנס לתוכה טהור שאני אומר

and they differ on the principle on which Rabbi and R'Simeon B'Gamaliel differ.

הוא קבר שאבד הוא קבר שנמצא דברי רבי

For it has been taught: If one enters a field in which a grave was lost he becomes unclean.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר

If a grave i found therein, he is clean, for I maintain that the grave found is the identical one which was lost.

תיבדק כל השדה כולה

These are the words of Rabbi, whereas R'Simeon B'Gamaliel says: The entire field must be searched.

ור' אסי מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבי חייא בר אבא

Why does not R'Assi concur with [the interpretation of] R'Hiyya B'Abba? - He can reply [as follows]: This would indeed hold good with regard to levitical uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis maintaining the he digs until he reaches a rock etc. and this is sufficient, for although he does not find it, one may say that it was removed.');">²¹</span>

אמר לך

for one can say that a raven or a mouse came and took it.

בשלמא גבי טומאה אימר

But in the case of a blemished animal, where could it have gone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore R. Jose might not permit here, as the blemished animal is undoubtedly among them.');">²²</span>

בא עורב ונטלה בא עכבר ונטלה

And the other authority [R'Hiyya]? - He will reply: One can say that it was a transitory blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it healed up, and therefore he was not able to trace the blemished sacrifice.');">²³</span>

אלא הכא בעל מום להיכא אזיל

And R'Hiyya B'Abba - what is his reason for not accepting the explanation of R'Assi? - He can answer to you [in this manner]: This indeed holds good<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon maintaining that a search should be made of the entire field.');">²⁴</span>

ואידך

with regard to a field in which a grave was lost, for just as it is possible for this man to bury there it is for another.

אימר מום עובר הוה ואיתסי

But in the case of dedicated animals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a blemished animal sacrifice became mixed up with others and it was found.');">²⁵</span>

ורבי חייא בר אבא מאי טעמא לא אמר כר' אסי

once they have been examined, is it a usual thing that a blemish should occur in them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in such circumstances, the first Tanna mentioned above would not have prohibited.');">²⁶</span>

אמר לך

And the other [authority]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Assi - what answer can he give to this?');">²⁷</span>

בשלמא שדה דרכה למיקבר בה כי היכי דקבר בה האי קבר אינש אחרינא

- [He answers]: Since animals attack each other, blemishes frequently occur even after an examination.

אלא קדשים כיון דבדקו לן וקיימי דרכייהו למיפל בהו מומא

An objection was raised: If one plucks wool from an unblemished firstling, although there appeared on it subsequently a blemish and he slaughtered it, [the wool] is forbidden to be used.

ואידך

Now, the reason why [the wool] is forbidden is because the animal was unblemished

אגב דמנגחי אהדדי שכיח בהו מומא

מיתיבי

התולש צמר מבכור תם אע"פ שנולד בו מום ושחטו אסור

טעמא דתם