Bekhorot 52
כיון דעולה נמי מכפרא אעשה לא משהי לה
[do we say that] he would not detain it? - Come and hear: If one plucks wool from an unblemished firstling, although a blemish appeared on it subsequently and he slaughtered it, the wool is forbidden to be used.
ת"ש
Now, the reason is because he actually plucks it, but if it became detached, it would be allowed; how much more so, therefore, in the case of a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That its wool should be allowed to be used.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
טעמא דתולש הא נתלש שרי
The same ruling applies if it became detached from an unblemished animal, that it is forbidden, and the reason, why [the Baraitha states] 'If one plucks', is to show the length to which Akabya is prepared to go, that in the case of a blemished sacrifice, one is evenly allowed to pluck it.
וכל שכן עולה דלא משהי לה
But have we not learnt: WHICH BECAME TORN AWAY'? - It says WHICH BECAME TORN AWAY, to show to what lengths the Rabbis are prepared to go<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they forbid even if the wool became detached, but in reality according to Akabya, one may actually pluck the wool of a blemished firstling.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
תנא נשר להודיעך כחן דרבנן תנא תולש להודיעך כחו דעקביא:
R'Eleazar reported in the name of Resh Lakish: Wherever the root [of the wool] is turned towards its head.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wool being folded up in the centre so that the two tops of the wool appear outside.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
היכי דמי אינו נראה עם הגיזה
Why does not Resh Lakish give the explanation of R'Nathan B'Oshaia?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The query is not raised why R. Nathan does not explain in the same way as Resh Lakish, because R. Nathan is more stringent in this connection than Resh Lakish.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אמר רבי אלעזר אמר ריש לקיש
- Said R'Ela: Resh Lakish holds [that the reason is] because it is impossible for wool to he free from loosely connected threads.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is a usual thing, and, consequently, if we adopted R. Nathan's interpretation, there would scarcely be any wool that would be allowed to be used in such circumstances.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
כל שעיקרו הפוך כלפי ראשו
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>UP TO HOW LONG IS AN ISRAELITE BOUND TO ATTEND TO A FIRSTLING?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our days, after the destruction of the Temple, for what length of time must the Israelite care for and feed the animal perforce the priest claims it?');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אמר רבי אילעא קסבר ריש לקיש
BUT IF THE FIRSTLING WAS BLEMISHED AND THE PRIEST SAID TO HIM 'GIVE IT TO ME SO THAT I MAY EAT IT', THEN IT IS ALLOWED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For whereas in the previous case where the priest asks for the unblemished firstling it is forbidden because it appears as if the priest receives the animal in exchange for looking after it until it becomes blemished, in this instance as the animal can be eaten immediately and there is no necessity for the priest to detain it, it is not so.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
תנהו לי הרי זה לא יתננו לו
- Said R'Kahana: Scripture says: The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give unto Me.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And next to this verse, in Ex. XXII is the verse 'Likewise . . with thy sheep' and we interpret the juxtaposition in the following manner: Just as in the case of a first-born son, redemption is necessary after thirty days, similarly in the case of a firstling of small cattle, the Israelite must keep the animal for thirty days.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
תנהו לי שאוכלנו מותר
Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fullness of thy harvest and of the outflow of thy presses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And next to this verse is another 'Likewise . . with thine oxen'. Here also we make a comparison as follows. Just as the fulness of thy harvest, i.e., the first-fruits, ripen on Passover and are brought to the Temple on Pentecost fifty days later, similarly the firstling of oxen, i.e., large cattle, must be looked after for a period of fifty days.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
תן ואקרבנו מותר
And why not reverse this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., draw the analogy between the text 'The first-born of thy sons etc.', and the text 'Likewise shalt thou do with thy oxen', and thus the firstling of large cattle will require only thirty days to be looked after.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
הבכור נאכל שנה בשנה בין תם בין בעל מום שנאמר
- It is reasonable to assume that the part which comes first in the first text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fullness of thy harvest'.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
נולד לו מום בתוך שנתו רשאי לקיימו כל שנים עשר חדש
and that which comes later in the first text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The first-born of thy sons' we link up with the text 'Likewise thou shalt do with thy sheep'.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנה"מ
On the contrary, the text that is near to it should rather form an analogy with the text near to it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text 'The first-born of thy sons' should form a comparison with the text 'Likewise thou shalt do with thy oxen' and thus large cattle would have a period of thirty days.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
(שמות כב, כח) בכור בניך תתן לי כן תעשה לצאנך
Scripture adds [the duty of] another doing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The superfluous text 'Thou shalt do' denotes that in the case of an ox and large cattle in general, a longer period of doing for the animal is demanded than is the case with sheep.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
איפוך אנא
Then why not say sixty days?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the text increases the period in connection with large cattle, why not say that the addition consists of double that of the period of a first-born's redemption?');"><sup>22</sup></span>
מסתברא
- Scripture refers you to the Sages [for the precise interpretation].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture does not state sixty days, but the Sages explain that fifty days are required, basing this on a comparison between the text 'The fullness of thy harvest' and the verse 'Likewise thou shalt do with thy oxen'.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
לא מסרך הכתוב אלא לחכמים:
- A Tanna taught: Because its teeth are small.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is unable to eat grass and without its mother's care it dies. But after three months it is able to eat without its mother's help.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
בכור בניך תתן לי כן תעשה לצאנך
What is the reason? - Said R'Shesheth: Because it makes him appear like a priest who helps in the threshing floors.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in our days a firstling is of no use until a blemish befalls it. As, therefore, the Israelite has to take trouble with the animal for fifty days, i the priest asks him to deliver the firstling to him during this period to look after, he thus saves the Israelite expense and labour, in consideration for which he takes possession of the firstling and thereby prevents any other priest claiming it. He thus seems to be on a par with a priest who helps with the threshing in order that he may receive the priestly dues for his services, which is forbidden. If, however, the firstling was blemished and the priest asked him for it so that he might eat it, this would be permissible.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
תלמוד לומר תעשה הוסיף לך הכתוב עשייה אחרת בשורך
in the threshing floors,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This applies to all the classes mentioned here, to the priests for terumah, to the Levites who receive the first tithes, and to the poor who are the recipients of the poor men's tithing every third year.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
רבי יוסי אומר
or tithes in reward; and if they acted thus, they render them hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priestly and levitical dues become secularized, the owners having acted improperly and not having discharged their obligations.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
תנא
And Scripture further says: And ye shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, that ye die not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 32. As applied to the case in question, the expression 'death' means that the owner is in danger of committing a sin which involves the penalty of death, not that he is actually guilty of such a sin.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
מפני שנראה ככהן המסייע בבית הגרנות
Lest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a case, for example, where there are two se'ahs, one from which terumah has been separated while the terumah from the other was given to a priest who helped in the threshing. Now, if you say that the owner is compelled to give terumah a second time, then he may think that the second se'ah is regarded as if terumah had not been given from it at all, and he may separate this for the other. This would be separating from what is exempt etc., for the second se'ah is biblically exempt from terumah.');"><sup>35</sup></span>