Bekhorot 25a — the Talmud in English

It was also stated: Rav Hananya bar Shelamya said in the name of Rav: Its counterpart on a Festival ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

is permitted,

for the reason of Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam is that he does not intend.

And we challenge this:

Did Rav indeed say this,

that its counterpart on a Festival is permitted, and this is because “a matter that is not intended is permitted,” in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon, who holds so generally

? But Rav Shimi bar Hiyya said in the name of Rav:

The stopper of his winepress

[the stopper of a barrel, around which tow and rags are wrapped]

it is forbidden to tighten it on a Festival

[it is forbidden to tighten it onto the barrel on a Festival, since wine is squeezed out of the rags. Thus, Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds generally: a matter that is not intended is forbidden]!

And we answer:

In that case—

to tighten the stopper of the winepress—

even Rabbi Shimon agrees

that it is forbidden,

for Abaye and Rava both say: Rabbi Shimon agrees in a case of “cut off its head and will it not die.”

And we still challenge this:

But Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav

explicitly:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda!

And Rav Hanan bar Ami said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi

Shimon.

And Rav Hiyya bar Avin taught it without the men

[without the amoraim who said it in the name of Rav and Shmuel]:

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And if so, how shall we explain the reason for Rav’s ruling in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam concerning a firstborn, and his permitting it on a Festival, as being because a matter that is not intended is permitted?

Rather,

by virtue of this difficulty, the Gemara explains the reason for Rav, who ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam concerning a firstborn, and also permitted doing so on a Festival, in another manner:

Rav always held: a matter that is not intended is forbidden,

but concerning a firstborn it is permitted to pluck even intentionally,

and

because

plucking is not shearing,

and this is why Rav ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam—

And on a Festival, this is the reason Rav permits it

because

it is removing something from its growth in an unusual manner,

as it is not the way to pluck the hair, but rather to shear it.

And we challenge this:

And

if

plucking is not shearing,

before you say that Rav permitted it concerning a firstborn even intentionally?!

And it was taught in a beraita: One who plucks

on Shabbat

the wing

[one who plucks a feather from the wing of a bird],

and one who cuts its tip

at the head of the feather after plucking it, for the head of the feather is thin and fit to place in a pillow or cushion,

and one who strips it

toward its tail, which is hard, and strips its hair from here and there and casts away the shaft, and places the hair in a pillow or cushion, this is

liable for three sin-offerings.

And

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

explained: Plucking is liable because of

the labor of

cutting its tip is liable because of

the labor of

cutting,

stripping is liable because of smoothing.

Thus it is explicitly established that plucking entails liability because of shearing.

And we answer:

A wing

of a bird

is different, for that is its normal manner,

as this is its manner: to pluck the feather from it and not to shear it; therefore it is included in shearing. But the wool of an animal, whose manner is not to pluck it but to shear it, plucking is not included in shearing.

The Gemara further explains:

And from the fact that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam,

that plucking is not shearing, it is also implied that

Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam holds in accordance with Rav,

that a matter that is not intended is forbidden.

And let us challenge this:

And

if indeed

Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam held: A matter that is not intended is forbidden?!

And it was taught in a beraita concerning a red heifer, which two black hairs invalidate:

Two hairs whose

Two hairs

whose

roots were red and their tips black, Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam says: He cuts their tips with scissors

the black portions, and repairs the heifer,

and he is not concerned

about the prohibition of shearing with consecrated property. The reason he is not concerned is presumably that he does not intend to shear, but to repair. Thus, a matter that is not intended is permitted. And we answer:

A heifer is different, for it is not fit for shearing,

since cows have no wool, and the Torah did not forbid shearing their hair.

And we challenge this:

And it was taught in a beraita: “

You shall not work with the firstborn of your ox, nor shear the firstborn of your sheep,”

and I have only an ox with regard to work and sheep with regard to shearing. From where [do we derive] that what is stated concerning this one is to be applied to that one?

The verse says: “

You shall not work and you shall not shear,”

for the vav adds to the earlier matter. Thus it is clear that even an ox or a cow is forbidden in shearing?!

Rather,

the Gemara answers in another manner:

A heifer is different, for it is consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Elazar said: Consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple is forbidden in shearing and work?!

And we answer:

By rabbinic law

it is forbidden.

And we still challenge this:

But

in the end,

there is a rabbinic prohibition?!

And we answer:

A heifer is different, for it is uncommon,

and since the prohibition of shearing consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple is rabbinic, they permitted it in the case of a heifer, for in a matter that is uncommon the Rabbis did not decree. And we challenge: Since, with regard to other consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple, the Sages prohibited shearing, then even concerning an uncommon red heifer they should not have permitted it. Rather:

Let us redeem it

the heifer

and take it out to unconsecrated status, shear it, and afterward consecrate it

[he should redeem the heifer and shear it while it is unconsecrated and therefore not forbidden, and then consecrate it again]?!

And we answer:

Its value is expensive,

and he does not have enough for its redemption.

And we still challenge this:

Let him do for it as Shmuel said, for Shmuel said: Consecrated property worth one hundred zuz that one redeemed for the value of one peruta is redeemed?!

And we answer:

You may say that Samuel said that he invalidated it

after the fact, it is invalidated, but

did he say so initially

that Samuel permits desecrating something worth much for something worth little?!

Here the Gemara returns to settle the difficulty in another manner: it appears that Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam maintains like Rav, that an unintentional act is forbidden, yet this does not appear so from the fact that he permitted cutting with scissors the black hairs of the cow:

Alternatively,

indeed, [it may be understood] as we said initially: “The cow is different, for it is not subject to shearing.” And as for what is difficult for you: Is it not explicit in the beraita that an ox, too, was included as subject to shearing? I can say to you:

When an ox was included with regard to the shearing of its tail, that is what was included

it was included only with regard to the shearing of its tail, and not with regard to the shearing of its hair.

And

alternatively, Rav

indeed

maintains like Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam

that plucking is not the same as shearing,

and

if

Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam did not maintain like Rav

and, in his view, an unintentional act is permitted, this is what he permitted: to cut with scissors the black hairs of the cow.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he plucks the hair, provided that he does not move it from its place.”

Rav Asi said in the name of Reish Lakish: They taught this only by hand, but with an implement, it is forbidden.

And we raise an objection:

But it teaches

in our Mishna:

“He makes a place with a cleaver on either side,”

so it is permitted even with an implement!? And we answer:

Teach

in our Mishna: He makes a place

for the cleaver

with which he will slaughter it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And likewise, one who plucks the hair in order to see a blemish.”

They raised a dilemma:

Is it

initially

even permitted to pluck the hair in order to see the blemish, just as it is permitted for the purpose of slaughtering?

Or

perhaps initially it is forbidden, and only

after the fact,

if he plucked the hair, he must not move it from its place, just as it is forbidden in the case of slaughtering?

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

“Wool entangled in the ear

which had a blemish,

Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam says: He plucks it and shows his blemish.”

Conclude from this: initially.

And we conclude: Indeed,

conclude from this.

Rav Mari said: We, too, have learned [this],

in our Mishna:

“And likewise, one who plucks the hair to see the place of a blemish”—

But

what

is “

likewise”?

If

it is “

he must not move it,”

it is impossible to say this, for it is obvious, since

now, if in the case of one who slaughters, whose slaughter proves concerning him

that he did not intend to shear,

he must not move it; in order to see the place of a blemish, is it necessary to say so!?

Rather, is it not [referring]

to the one who plucks that it says “likewise,” and it is permitted even initially, as in the first clause.

Conclude from this—

initially.

And we conclude: Indeed,

conclude from this.

A. All animals disqualified from consecrated offerings [that is, consecrated animals in which a blemish developed and which were redeemed], and likewise a firstborn animal with a blemish, are forbidden with regard to shearing, and their milk is also forbidden. This is learned above, on page 15a, from the verse stated concerning animals disqualified from consecrated offerings: “Only according to all the desire of your soul may you slaughter and eat meat,” and we expound: “You may slaughter,” but not shearing; “meat,” but not milk. Alternatively, because it is stated, “You may slaughter and eat,” you have no permission concerning them except from the time of slaughter onward, but not shearing and milk, which are benefits obtained while the animal is alive.

B. Wool that was plucked from them or fell from them is forbidden according to everyone as long as they have not died or been slaughtered. Whether the reason for this prohibition is from the Torah or a rabbinic decree is a dispute among the early authorities, as explained in the notes on the passage.

C. Our Mishna deals with the law of hair that fell from a firstborn animal or was plucked from it while it was alive, and they slaughtered the firstborn animal or it died: what is the law of the hair? The tannaim in our Mishna disputed this matter.

Mishna:

The hair of a firstborn animal with a blemish that fell

from it while it was still alive,

and he placed it in a window

because it is forbidden to derive benefit from it while it is alive, and he intended to derive benefit from it once he slaughtered it,

and afterward he slaughtered it:

Akavya ben Mahalalel permits

the hair for a kohein to derive benefit from it.