Bechorot Daf 25 (בכורות דף כ״ה)
Daf: 25 | Amudim: 25a – 25b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (25a)
Segment 1
TYPE: סוף מימרא (המשך מ-24ב)
Rav’s ruling, as reported by Rav Chananya bar Shelamya, ends: on Yom Tov it is permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
it is permitted to pluck the hair in order to facilitate proper slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
This single word completes the sentence begun at the end of 24b: Rav Chananya bar Shelamya reports in Rav’s name that “in the parallel case on Yom Tov, it is permitted.” It independently confirms Rav Huna’s conclusion that a slaughterer of an ordinary animal on a Festival may clear the hair at the slaughter site with a cleaver, even though some hair will be pulled out in the process. The Gemara now has to explain how this leniency fits Rav’s known positions elsewhere.
Key Terms:
- מוּתָּר = permitted
- כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב = the parallel case on Yom Tov — slaughtering an ordinary animal on a Festival
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Rav forbids pressing a cloth stopper into a barrel on Yom Tov, so he must forbid unintended acts
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: מְסוֹכַרְיָא דְּנַזְיָיתָא אָסוּר לְהַדּוֹקַיהּ בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And does Rav actually say this? But doesn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav: In the case of this cloth stopper of a barrel [mesokhrayya denazyata], it is prohibited to insert it tightly into the spout of the barrel on a Festival, because in the process liquid will be squeezed from the cloth, and squeezing liquids is prohibited on Shabbat and Festivals? Apparently, Rav prohibits even unintentional actions, and it follows that it is prohibited to clear hair with a cleaver on a Festival, as one will unintentionally pluck out some hair.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the attribution. Rav Chiyya bar Ashi reports that Rav forbade pushing a cloth stopper tightly into a barrel’s spout on Yom Tov, because liquid will be squeezed out of the cloth. The person only wants to seal the barrel, not to squeeze, so the prohibition seems to show that Rav forbids even an unintended act (דבר שאין מתכוין). If so, he should equally forbid clearing hair with a cleaver on Yom Tov, since that too pulls out hair without intent.
Key Terms:
- וּמִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי = and did Rav really say this? — a standard opening for a contradiction
- מְסוֹכַרְיָא דְּנַזְיָיתָא = a cloth stopper used to plug the spout of a barrel
- לְהַדּוֹקַיהּ = to press it in tightly
- יוֹמָא טָבָא = Yom Tov, a Festival (Aramaic)
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
The stopper is a case of psik reisha, which even Rabbi Shimon forbids
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּהָהִיא, אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה, דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּפְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: In that case of the stopper, even the lenient authority, Rabbi Shimon, concedes that it is prohibited, as Rava and Abaye both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes that an unintentional act is prohibited if it falls under the category known as: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., when a prohibited labor is the inevitable consequence of an unintentional act. In the case of the cloth stopper, some water will inevitably be squeezed out.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer distinguishes the cases. Squeezing liquid from a soaked cloth pressed into a spout is inevitable, and Abaye and Rava both rule that even Rabbi Shimon, the great proponent of permitting unintended acts, concedes that an inevitable consequence is forbidden. This is the category of פסיק רישיה ולא ימות, “cut off its head and will it not die?” So Rav’s ruling on the stopper proves nothing about ordinary unintended acts, where the forbidden result may or may not happen.
Key Terms:
- מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = Rabbi Shimon concedes
- פְּסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת = ‘cut off its head and will it not die?’ — an act whose forbidden result is inevitable, forbidden even though unintended
- רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = the Tanna who permits an unintended act on Shabbat and Yom Tov
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Rav explicitly rules like Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids unintended acts
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מַתְנֵי בְּלָא גַּבְרֵי: רַב אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!
English Translation:
The Gemara objects to the claim that Rav agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a regular unintentional act is permitted: But doesn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav Ḥanan bar Ami says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin teaches Rav and Shmuel’s rulings without mentioning either man, neither Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi nor Rav Ḥanan bar Ami, and says: Rav says the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel says the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses harder. Rav is on record, through two chains of transmission, as ruling like Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids an unintended act, while Shmuel rules like Rabbi Shimon, who permits it. Rav Chiyya bar Avin even transmits the dispute between Rav and Shmuel without naming the intermediate reporters, which shows how firmly established it was. So Rav’s leniency about clearing hair on Yom Tov cannot rest on the idea that the plucking is unintended.
Key Terms:
- הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה = the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda — an unintended act is forbidden
- מַתְנֵי בְּלָא גַּבְרֵי = teaches it without the men — transmits the rulings without naming the intermediate reporters
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav forbids unintended acts; plucking is not shearing, and on Yom Tov it is uprooting in an unusual way
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם סָבַר רַב: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין אָסוּר, וְתוֹלֵשׁ לָאו הַיְינוּ גּוֹזֵז, וּבְיוֹם טוֹב הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דִּשְׁרֵי — דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ עוֹקֵר דָּבָר מִגִּידּוּלוֹ כִּלְאַחַר יָד.
English Translation:
Rather, actually Rav holds that an unintentional act is prohibited, and he permits plucking the hair of a firstborn because he maintains that plucking is not considered a form of shearing. And this is the reason he permits clearing the hair with a cleaver on a Festival, because it is considered uprooting an item from its place of growth in an unusual manner, and performing a prohibited labor in an unusual manner is not prohibited by Torah law.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara therefore rebuilds Rav’s reasoning from scratch. Rav does hold that an unintended act is forbidden. For the firstborn, he permits the cleaver because plucking is simply not the same act as shearing, so no prohibition of shearing a firstborn arises at all. On Yom Tov, where plucking is a form of uprooting from the place of growth, he permits it because pulling hair out with a cleaver is uprooting done in an unusual way (כלאחר יד), which is not forbidden by Torah law. This resolves, in a new way, the dilemma Rav Huna was asked on 24b.
Key Terms:
- לְעוֹלָם = actually, in truth — introducing the Gemara’s revised explanation
- כִּלְאַחַר יָד = ‘with the back of the hand’ — performing a labor in an unusual manner, which is not a Torah violation
- עוֹקֵר דָּבָר מִגִּידּוּלוֹ = uprooting something from where it grows — a forbidden labor
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A baraita treats plucking a feather as shearing; answer: plucking is the normal way with wings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתוֹלֵשׁ לָאו הַיְינוּ גּוֹזֵז? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַתּוֹלֵשׁ אֶת הַכָּנָף, וְהַקּוֹטְמוֹ, וְהַמּוֹרְטוֹ — חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת. וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: תּוֹלֵשׁ — חַיָּיב מִשּׁוּם גּוֹזֵז, קוֹטֵם — חַיָּיב מִשּׁוּם מְחַתֵּךְ, מְמָרֵט — חַיָּיב מִשּׁוּם מְמַחֵק! שָׁאנֵי כָּנָף, דְּהַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And can it be claimed that plucking is not considered a form of shearing? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who unwittingly plucks a large feather from the wing of a bird on Shabbat, and one who snips the tip of the feather, and one who pulls out the thin threads that constitute the feather is obligated to bring three sin offerings, one for each transgression. And Reish Lakish says, in explanation: One who plucks the wing is liable due to the labor of shearing. One who snips the tip of the feather is liable due to the labor of cutting. And one who pulls out the threads is liable due to the labor of smoothing. The Gemara explains: Plucking a wing is different from plucking hair, as that is the normal method employed to remove feathers.
קלאוד על הדף:
If plucking is not shearing, how can a baraita make one who plucks a wing feather on Shabbat liable for shearing? The baraita lists three sin offerings for one feather: plucking it (shearing, per Reish Lakish), snipping its tip (cutting), and stripping its barbs (smoothing). The Gemara answers that feathers are normally removed by plucking, so for a wing plucking is the standard form of shearing. Hair and wool are removed by cutting, so plucking them is not shearing.
Key Terms:
- כָּנָף = a wing feather
- קוֹטְמוֹ = snips off its tip
- מוֹרְטוֹ / מְמָרֵט = pulls off its barbs, strips it
- שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת = three sin offerings — liability for three separate labors done unwittingly on Shabbat
- מְחַתֵּךְ / מְמַחֵק = cutting to size / smoothing — two of the forbidden labors of Shabbat
Segment 7
TYPE: שאלה
If Rav follows Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, does Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam forbid unintended acts?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִדְּרַב סָבַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב, וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין אָסוּר?
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: And from the fact that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam that plucking is not considered shearing, it can be inferred that Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav that an unintentional act is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam hold that an unintentional act is prohibited?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws an inference from its new explanation. Since Rav rules like Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, and Rav’s ruling now depends on forbidding unintended acts while holding that plucking is not shearing, it seems Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam must share both positions. The Gemara then asks whether this can be right: does Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam really forbid an unintended act?
Key Terms:
- סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב = he holds like Rav
- דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין אָסוּר = an unintended act is forbidden
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam lets one cut two black-tipped hairs off a red heifer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — עִיקָּרָן מַאֲדִים, וְרֹאשָׁן מַשְׁחִיר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: גּוֹזֵז בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
English Translation:
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a red heifer, which is rendered unfit if it possesses two black hairs, that had two hairs whose roots were red but whose tops were black, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: One shears the tops with scissors, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against shearing a consecrated animal. Apparently, the reason is that he does not intend to shear the red heifer but only to render it fit. This indicates that Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam holds an unintentional act is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita about the red heifer suggests the opposite. Two black hairs disqualify a red heifer, and when two hairs are red at the root but black at the tip, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam lets one cut off the black tips with scissors “and he need not be concerned.” The one cutting intends only to make the heifer valid, not to shear a consecrated animal, which looks like permission for an unintended act. That would contradict the inference just drawn.
Key Terms:
- פָּרָה (אֲדוּמָּה) = the red heifer, whose ashes purify from corpse impurity
- עִיקָּרָן מַאֲדִים וְרֹאשָׁן מַשְׁחִיר = their roots are red and their tips black
- מִסְפָּרַיִם = scissors
- אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ = he need not be concerned
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ ודחייה
The heifer is not subject to shearing; rejected, since ‘you shall not shear’ applies to oxen too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּלָאו בַּת גִּיזָּה הִיא. וְהָתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ״, וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא שׁוֹר בַּעֲבוֹדָה וְצֹאן בְּגִיזָּה, מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַעֲבֹד… וְלֹא תָגֹז״!
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: A red heifer is different, as it is not subject to the prohibition against shearing a consecrated animal because it does not have wool, and that is why it is permitted to cut the tops of its hairs. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “You shall do no work with the firstborn of your ox, and you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19). I have derived only that a firstborn ox may not be used for labor and that a firstborn sheep may not be used for shearing. From where is it derived to apply what is said about that animal to this one, and what is said about this animal to that one? The verse states: “You shall do no work…and you shall not shear.” The term “and” indicates the two parts of the verse apply to both animals. Evidently, the act of shearing does apply to an ox, including a red heifer.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first answer is that a cow is not an animal of shearing, so the prohibition does not apply to it at all. The Gemara rejects this with a baraita on Deuteronomy 15:19. Although the verse links work with the ox and shearing with the flock, the connecting words “you shall do no work… and you shall not shear” teach that each prohibition applies to both kinds of animal. Shearing is therefore forbidden for a consecrated ox, and the red heifer cannot be excluded on that basis.
Key Terms:
- בַּת גִּיזָּה = subject to shearing — an animal whose wool is shorn
- לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה = to apply what is said of one to the other — a cross-application of the two clauses of the verse
- לֹא תַעֲבֹד… וְלֹא תָגֹז = ‘you shall do no work… and you shall not shear’ (Deuteronomy 15:19)
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ, קושיא ותירוץ
The heifer is consecrated for Temple upkeep, whose ban is only rabbinic, and the case is rare
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הִיא. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֲסוּרִין בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה! מִדְּרַבָּנַן. וְהָאִיכָּא אִיסּוּרָא דְּרַבָּנַן! אֶלָּא, שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא.
English Translation:
Rather, the red heifer is different, as it has the sanctity of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and therefore the prohibitions that apply to offerings do not necessarily apply to it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say it is prohibited to shear or perform labor with items consecrated for Temple maintenance? The Gemara answers: That prohibition applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara retorts: But that does not resolve the difficulty, as there is nevertheless still a prohibition by rabbinic law. Why, then, did Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam deem it permitted for one to shear the tops of its hairs with scissors? The Gemara accepts this objection: Rather, the red heifer is different, as it is uncommon, and Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam therefore maintains that the prohibition by rabbinic law was not applied to this case.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second answer: the red heifer is consecrated for Temple maintenance (בדק הבית) rather than as an offering for the altar, so the Torah ban on shearing offerings does not apply to it. Rabbi Elazar does forbid shearing and working such animals, but the Gemara says his ban is only rabbinic. That still leaves a rabbinic prohibition, so the Gemara settles on a third answer: the red heifer is rare (לא שכיחא), and the Sages did not extend their decree to so unusual a case. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam’s leniency there therefore says nothing about unintended acts.
Key Terms:
- קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת = property consecrated for Temple upkeep, as opposed to offerings for the altar
- מִדְּרַבָּנַן = by rabbinic law
- לָא שְׁכִיחָא = not common — the Sages did not apply their decrees to rare cases
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not redeem the heifer, cut the hair and reconsecrate? It is costly, and a token redemption is not allowed ab initio
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיחַלַּהּ וְלַפְּקַהּ לְחוּלִּין, וְלִיגֻזַּהּ וַהֲדַר לַיקְדְּשַׁהּ! דָּמֶיהָ יְקָרִין. וְלֶיעְבַּד לָהּ כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה מְחוּלָּל! אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ, לְכִתְחִלָּה מִי אָמַר?
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But let the owner desacralize the heifer and render it non-sacred, and shear it, and then consecrate it again. The Gemara explains it is unreasonable to demand he desacralize it, as its price is expensive, and it would take an exceptionally large sum of money to desacralize it. The Gemara challenges: But let him act in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: A consecrated animal worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon the value of one peruta is desacralized. The Gemara explains: You can say that Shmuel said that he has successfully desacralized the animal, but did he say an animal may be desacralized in this manner ab initio? The Gemara therefore concludes that Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam deems it permitted for one to cut the tops of a red heifer’s hairs because it is an uncommon case.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why the owner does not simply desacralize the heifer, trim it while it is non-sacred, and consecrate it again. A red heifer is very expensive, so redeeming it for its full value would cost a fortune. Shmuel holds that consecrated property worth a maneh (one hundred dinars) that was desacralized onto a peruta is validly desacralized. But Shmuel only said this works after the fact, not that one may do it ab initio. So the rarity answer stands.
Key Terms:
- לִיחַלַּהּ = let him desacralize it, transferring its sanctity onto money
- דָּמֶיהָ יְקָרִין = its price is high
- מָנֶה = a maneh, one hundred dinars
- שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה = worth a peruta, the smallest coin of value
- לְכַתְּחִלָּה = ab initio, as a first resort
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ אחר
Alternatively, Rav follows Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam on one point only
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead that although Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers a simpler way out. The inference in segment 7 was not required: Rav can agree with Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam’s ruling on the firstborn without Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam agreeing with all of Rav’s reasoning. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam may permit the cleaver because it is an unintended act, while Rav, who forbids unintended acts, accepts the ruling for his own reason, that plucking is not shearing. On this answer the red-heifer baraita poses no difficulty at all.
Key Terms:
- אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא = if you wish, say — introducing an alternative answer
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא על המשנה
Reish Lakish: plucking is allowed only by hand; the mishna is read ‘for a cleaver’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתוֹלֵשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׂעָר, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְזִיזֶנּוּ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בַּיָּד, אֲבָל בִּכְלִי — אָסוּר. וְהָקָתָנֵי: עוֹשֶׂה מָקוֹם בְּקוֹפִיץ מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן! תְּנִי: ״לְקוֹפִיץ״.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: One who is slaughtering a firstborn clears space with a cleaver from here and from there, on either side of the neck, although he thereby plucks out the hair. He may clear space in this manner provided that he does not move the hair from its place. Rav Ashi says that Reish Lakish says: They taught that this is permitted only if one plucks the hair by hand, but if he does it with a tool it is prohibited, as it appears as though he is shearing the firstborn. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught that one may clear space with a cleaver from here and from there on either side of the neck? The Gemara answers: Teach it as: One may clear space with his hands for a cleaver, but he may not clear space with a cleaver.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s words. Rav Ashi reports in the name of Reish Lakish that plucking is permitted only by hand, since doing it with a tool looks like shearing. That seems to contradict the mishna, which explicitly says “with a cleaver” (בקופיץ). The Gemara resolves this by changing one letter, reading לקופיץ, “for the cleaver”: one clears a space by hand to make room for the cleaver, but does not use the cleaver to clear it.
Key Terms:
- לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא = they taught this only in the case of
- בִּכְלִי = with a tool or utensil
- תְּנִי = teach it as — an emendation of the text
Segment 14
TYPE: בעיא ופשיטה
Plucking to show a blemish: ab initio or only after the fact? A baraita on wool in the ear says ab initio
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכֵן תּוֹלֵשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׂעָר לִרְאוֹת מוּם. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְכַתְּחִלָּה אוֹ דִיעֲבַד? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: תָּא שְׁמַע, צֶמֶר הַמְסוּבָּךְ בָּאוֹזֶן — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: תּוֹלְשׁוֹ וּמַרְאֶה אֶת מוּמוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The mishna further teaches: And likewise, one plucks the hair to enable one of the Sages to examine the place of a blemish. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is this permitted ab initio, or only after the fact? Rabbi Yirmeya said: Come and hear a baraita: If there is wool that is entangled in a firstborn’s ear, and it is obscuring a blemish that must be examined, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: One plucks the wool and shows the animal’s blemish to a Sage in order to determine whether it is permitted to slaughter the animal outside the Temple. One can conclude from the baraita that it is permitted ab initio. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s second clause permits plucking hair so a Sage can see a blemish, and the Sages ask whether this is allowed as a first resort or only accepted after the fact. Rabbi Yirmeya brings a baraita: when wool tangled in a firstborn’s ear hides a blemish, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says one plucks it out and shows the blemish. This is stated as an instruction, so it is permitted ab initio, and the Gemara accepts the proof.
Key Terms:
- לְכַתְּחִלָּה אוֹ דִיעֲבַד = ab initio or only after the fact
- מְסוּבָּךְ = tangled
- תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — introducing a proof
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = conclude from it
Segment 15
TYPE: ראיה
Rav Mari: the word ‘likewise’ in our mishna proves it too; it cannot refer to not moving the hair
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב מָרִי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, וְכֵן הַתּוֹלֵשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׂעָר לִרְאוֹת מְקוֹם מוּם. מַאי ״וְכֵן״? אִילֵּימָא שֶׁלֹּא (יָזִיזוּ אֶת) [יְזִיזֶנּוּ מִ]מְּקוֹמוֹ — הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה שׁוֹחֵט, דִּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ מוֹכַחַת עָלָיו, לֹא יְזִיזֶנּוּ — לִרְאוֹת מְקוֹם מוּם מִיבַּעְיָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara corroborates its conclusion. Rav Mari said: We learn in the mishna as well: And likewise, one plucks the hair to examine the place of a blemish. What is the mishna referring to in its comparison: And likewise? If we say it is referring to the mishna’s ruling that when one slaughters a firstborn he may not move the plucked hair from its place, then the second halakha is unnecessary. Now that it is taught that if, when one comes to slaughter the animal, where its imminent slaughter renders it evident that he does not intend to shear it, but nevertheless he may not remove the hair, is it necessary to teach that one may not remove the plucked hair in order to examine the place of a blemish?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mari brings a further proof from the mishna itself, from the word “likewise” (וכן). What does “likewise” compare the blemish case to? It cannot mean “likewise one may not move the plucked hair from its place.” If the slaughterer, whose slaughter makes it obvious he is not shearing, must leave the hair in place, it goes without saying that one plucking for an examination, which shows no such clear purpose, must do so too. That clause would add nothing.
Key Terms:
- אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא = we too have learned it — a proof from the mishna
- שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מוֹכַחַת עָלָיו = his slaughter testifies about him — shows he is not shearing
- מִיבַּעְיָא = is it necessary to say? — an a fortiori argument
Segment 16
TYPE: ראיה (סיום)
Rather ‘likewise’ refers to plucking itself, so it is permitted ab initio
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לָאו אַתּוֹלֵשׁ? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
Rather, isn’t the mishna’s comparison referring to the fact that it is permitted to pluck the hair ab initio? Just as it is permitted to pluck the hair for the purpose of slaughtering the animal, so too, it is permitted to pluck the hair in order to examine a blemish. Conclude from it that it is permitted ab initio. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.
קלאוד על הדף:
The conclusion of Rav Mari’s argument: “likewise” must refer to the act of plucking. Just as the slaughterer may pluck ab initio, so may one pluck to show a blemish. The Gemara accepts this, and the question of segment 14 is settled from two sources, the baraita and the mishna.
Key Terms:
- אַתּוֹלֵשׁ = referring to the plucking itself
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה
Shed hair of a blemished firstborn kept in a window, and the animal later slaughtered: Akavya ben Mahalalel permits
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שְׂעַר בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנָּשַׁר, וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּחַלּוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטוֹ — עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מַתִּיר,
English Translation:
MISHNA: With regard to the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal, and which one placed in a compartment for safekeeping, and thereafter he slaughtered the animal; given that after the animal dies he is permitted to derive benefit from the hair the animal had on its body when it died, what is the halakhic status of hair that shed from the animal while it was alive? Akavya ben Mahalalel deems its use permitted,
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the last mishna of Perek HaLokeach Behema. Once a blemished firstborn is slaughtered, its owner may use the wool on its body. The question is hair that fell off while it was alive and was put away in a window niche. Akavya ben Mahalalel permits it. The mishna’s sentence continues on 25b with the Rabbis’ opposing view and Rabbi Yosei’s correction of which case they disputed.
Key Terms:
- בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם = a blemished firstborn, which may be slaughtered and eaten outside the Temple
- שֶׁנָּשַׁר = that fell out, shed
- חַלּוֹן = a window niche, a wall compartment used for storage
- עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל = Akavya ben Mahalalel, an early Tanna known for holding firm to his traditions
Amud Bet (25b)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Rabbi Yehuda’s version of the dispute, and Rabbi Yosei’s correction: they argue about an animal that died
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא בָּזֶה הִתִּיר עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל, אֶלָּא שְׂעַר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנָּשַׁר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּחַלּוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת — בָּזֶה עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מַתִּיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין.
English Translation:
and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him: It was not with regard to that case that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool permitted. Rather, it was in the case of the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal which one placed in a compartment and thereafter the animal died. It was in that case that Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted, and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited even after its death.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues from 25a. According to Rabbi Yehuda, Akavya ben Mahalalel permits the shed hair when the firstborn was later slaughtered, and the Rabbis forbid it. Rabbi Yosei disagrees about the facts: the dispute was about a blemished firstborn that died rather than being slaughtered. In that case Akavya permits the shed hair kept in the window and the Rabbis forbid it. The difference matters because the wool of a dead firstborn must be buried, while the wool of a slaughtered blemished one may be used.
Key Terms:
- חֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין = the Rabbis forbid it
- לֹא בָּזֶה הִתִּיר = it was not in this case that he permitted
- מֵת = died on its own, without slaughter
- רַבִּי יוֹסֵי = Rabbi Yosei (ben Chalafta), not the Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam of the previous mishna
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה (סיפא)
Dangling wool: what looks like part of the fleece is permitted, what does not is forbidden
Hebrew/Aramaic:
צֶמֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל בַּבְּכוֹר, אֶת שֶׁנִּרְאֶה עִם הַגִּיזָּה — מוּתָּר, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה עִם הַגִּיזָּה — אָסוּר.
English Translation:
With regard to wool that is dangling from a firstborn animal, i.e., which was not completely shed, that which appears to be part of the fleece is permitted when the animal is shorn after its death, and that which does not appear to be part of the fleece is prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna ends with wool that hangs loose from a firstborn, partly detached. When the slaughtered animal is shorn, wool that looks like part of the fleece is treated as part of the body and is permitted. Wool that is clearly separate from the fleece is treated like shed wool and is forbidden. The test is how it looks, not its exact physical state.
Key Terms:
- מְדוּלְדָּל = dangling, hanging loose
- גִּיזָּה = the fleece, the shorn wool
- נִרְאֶה עִם הַגִּיזָּה = looks like part of the fleece
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא - קושיא
Rabbi Yosei’s words imply Akavya forbade the slaughtered case, which makes no sense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מִכְּלָל דְּאָסַר, הַשְׁתָּא בְּמֵת — שָׁרֵי, שְׁחָטוֹ מִיבַּעְיָא?
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rabbi Yosei’s statement, that it was not with regard to the case where the animal was slaughtered that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool permitted, apparently indicates by inference that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool prohibited if the animal was slaughtered. This is difficult: Now that it has been taught that use of the detached wool of a dead firstborn is permitted, despite the fact that the attached hair must be buried, is it necessary to teach that detached wool is permitted in a case where one slaughtered the animal, where the use of the attached hair is permitted?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reads Rabbi Yosei’s “it was not in this case that Akavya permitted” as implying that Akavya forbade the slaughtered case. That cannot be right. If Akavya permits shed wool even of a dead firstborn, whose attached wool must be buried, he would certainly permit it when the animal was slaughtered and even its attached wool is permitted. Rabbi Yosei’s wording needs to be explained.
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָל דְּאָסַר = by implication, he forbids
- הַשְׁתָּא… מִיבַּעְיָא = now that… is it necessary? — an a fortiori argument
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yosei means the slaughtered case is not disputed; all permit it, and they argue about the dead animal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, לֹא בָּזֶה הִתִּיר עֲקַבְיָא וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין, שְׁחָטוֹ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שְׁרֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמֵת.
English Translation:
Rather, Rabbi Yosei means that it was not in that case that Akavya deemed use of the detached wool permitted while the Rabbis deem it prohibited, since if he slaughtered the animal, everyone agrees that use of the wool is permitted. They disagree in a case where the detached wool came from a dead animal that was not slaughtered.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rereads Rabbi Yosei. His point is that the slaughtered case is not the subject of a dispute between Akavya and the Rabbis at all, since everyone permits the shed wool there. The dispute exists only in the case of a firstborn that died. So according to Rabbi Yosei, the Rabbis forbid only when the animal died.
Key Terms:
- דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל = according to all opinions
- כִּי פְּלִיגִי = when they disagree, it is in the case of
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
Reish Lakish: the dispute applies only after an expert permitted the animal; the Rabbis fear delayed slaughter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁהִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה, דְּמָר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְשַׁהוֹיֵיהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן, אֲבָל לֹא הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Asi says that Reish Lakish says: The dispute applies in a case where an expert deemed the animal permitted for slaughter due to a blemish before the wool was shed, as one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we decree that use of the wool the animal sheds is prohibited, lest one come to postpone its slaughter in order to collect the wool that it sheds. The Rabbis wanted a blemished firstborn to be slaughtered as soon as possible, lest one shear it or use it for labor, both of which are prohibited by Torah law. And one Sage, Akavya ben Mahalalel, holds that we do not issue such a decree. But in a case where an expert did not deem the animal permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed, all agree that use of the wool is prohibited, even after the animal died or was slaughtered.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish narrows the dispute further. It applies only when an expert had already permitted the firstborn because of its blemish before the wool fell out. The Rabbis decree against the shed wool in case the owner delays slaughtering the animal to collect more of it, which would risk shearing it or working it. Akavya ben Mahalalel does not make this decree. If no expert had permitted the animal before the wool fell out, everyone forbids it, since at that point it still had full firstborn sanctity.
Key Terms:
- מוּמְחֶה = an expert authorized to examine firstborns and declare a blemish permanent
- גָּזְרִינַן = we decree — a rabbinic safeguard
- לְשַׁהוֹיֵיהּ = to keep it alive, to delay slaughtering it
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא (פתיחה)
Rav Sheshet’s objection: blemished animals forbid any amount; Rabbi Yosei says ‘let it be investigated’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין אוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יְבַקֵּר.
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: Blemished animals that become intermingled with unblemished animals render the entire group of animals prohibited in any ratio, even if there was only one blemished animal. Since blemished animals may not be sacrificed, and it is impossible to distinguish them from the unblemished animals, none may be sacrificed on the altar. And Rabbi Yosei says: Let the matter be investigated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet challenges Reish Lakish with a baraita. Blemished animals mixed into a group of unblemished animals forbid the whole group in any proportion. Rabbi Yosei says “let it be investigated.” The meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s ruling, worked out in the next segments, will be used against Reish Lakish’s limitation.
Key Terms:
- מֵתִיב = raises an objection
- בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא = in any amount — the mixture is not nullified by a majority
- יְבַקֵּר = let it be investigated
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא (המשך)
If ‘investigate’ means find and remove the blemished animal, the first Tanna could not disagree
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי ״יְבַקֵּר״? אִלֵּימָא דְּבַעַל מוּם הוּא, וְלִישְׁקְלֵיהּ — מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא אָמַר לָאו?
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet continues: And we discussed it, and inquired: What did Rabbi Yosei mean when he said: Let the matter be investigated? Shall we say he meant that one should search for the blemished animal and remove it from the group, so that the other animals may be slaughtered on the altar? This is difficult, as in that case, by inference, the first tanna said that in such a case the remaining unblemished animals are still not permitted. This cannot be so, as there is no reason to deem the remaining animals prohibited once the blemished animal has been removed.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet recalls how the Sages analyzed the baraita. If Rabbi Yosei meant that one finds the blemished animal and removes it, then the first Tanna would be saying that even after it is removed the others remain forbidden. That is unreasonable, since nothing forbidden is left in the group. So “investigate” must mean something else.
Key Terms:
- וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ = and we discussed it
- וְלִישְׁקְלֵיהּ = and let him remove it
- תַּנָּא קַמָּא = the first Tanna, the anonymous opening view
Segment 8
TYPE: פירוש
Rav Nachman: the baraita is about wool of a blemished firstborn mixed with ordinary wool
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הָכָא בְּגִיזַּת בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּגִיזֵּי חוּלִּין. וּמַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: נִשְׁחֲטוּ — אָסְרִי רַבָּנַן. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: נִשְׁחֲטוּ — שָׁרוּ רַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
And Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Here we are dealing with a case of the shearings of a blemished firstborn, whose detached wool became intermingled with non-sacred wool. And who is the first tanna, who holds that all the wool is prohibited? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who says in the mishna here that if the firstborn were slaughtered, the Rabbis deem use of their wool prohibited. And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: If the firstborn were slaughtered, the Rabbis deem use of their wool permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuh explains that the baraita concerns the shorn wool of a blemished firstborn that got mixed with ordinary wool. The first Tanna, who forbids any amount, is Rabbi Yehuda, who reports in our mishna that the Rabbis forbid such wool even when the animal was slaughtered. Rabbi Yosei is consistent with his own view in the mishna that the Rabbis permit the wool when the animal was slaughtered. The two Tannaim of the baraita thus line up with the two versions of the dispute in the mishna.
Key Terms:
- הָכָא… עָסְקִינַן = here we are dealing with
- גִּיזֵּי חוּלִּין = ordinary, non-sacred shearings
- לְטַעְמֵיהּ = following his own reasoning
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא (סיום)
‘Investigate’ means checking whether the blemish was permanent, even without an expert, against Reish Lakish
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקָתָנֵי: ״יְבוּקַּר״, מַאי ״יְבוּקַּר״? לָאו אִי ״מוּם קָבוּעַ״ אִי ״מוּם עוֹבֵר״ הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה.
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet explains his objection to the interpretation of Reish Lakish: And it is taught that Rabbi Yosei says: Let the matter be investigated. What does he mean when he says: Let the matter be investigated? Does this not mean that an expert examines the animal to determine whether it is a permanent blemish, in which case the intermingled wool is permitted, or whether it is a temporary blemish and the use of the wool is prohibited? If so, Rabbi Yosei holds that wool shed from a firstborn is permitted even though it was shed before the expert deemed the blemish to be permanent and the animal permitted for slaughter. This contradicts the interpretation of Reish Lakish.
קלאוד על הדף:
Here is Rav Sheshet’s point. “Let it be investigated” seems to mean that one checks whether the firstborn’s blemish was permanent, which makes the wool permitted, or temporary, which keeps it forbidden. That check would apply even if no expert had permitted the animal before the wool was taken. This contradicts Reish Lakish, who said that without an expert’s permission everyone forbids the wool.
Key Terms:
- מוּם קָבוּעַ = a permanent blemish, which allows a firstborn to be slaughtered
- מוּם עוֹבֵר = a temporary blemish, which does not
- אַף עַל גַּב = even though
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: the investigation is whether an expert had permitted the animal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא; יְבוּקַּר, אִי הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה — אִין, וְאִי לָא — לָא.
English Translation:
Rava said in response: No, Rabbi Yosei meant that the matter should be investigated to determine if an expert had deemed the firstborn permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed. If he did, then yes, the wool is permitted; and if not, it is not permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava rejects the inference. “Let it be investigated” means checking whether an expert had permitted the firstborn before the wool was taken. If so, the wool is permitted; if not, it is forbidden. Read this way, the baraita supports Reish Lakish rather than refuting him.
Key Terms:
- הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה = an expert permitted it
- אִין… לָא = yes… no
Segment 11
TYPE: מעשה ומימרא
Rabbi Yirmeya scorns the Babylonian reading; Rabbi Yochanan says the baraita is about animals that were searched for and not found
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי סְלֵיק רָבִין, אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אֲמַר: בַּבְלָאֵי טַפְשָׁאֵי, מִשּׁוּם דְּיָתְבִי בְּאַרְעָא דַּחֲשׁוֹכָא אָמְרִי שְׁמַעְתָּא דִּמְחַשְּׁכָן! לָא שְׁמִיעַ לְהוּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁבָּדַק וְלֹא מָצָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: When Ravin ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha, including Rav Naḥman’s interpretation of the baraita, in the presence of Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they dwell in a dark land, they state halakhot that are dim. Did they not hear that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That mishna is dealing with the animals themselves, not their wool, and the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei is with regard to a case where one examined the flock and did not find the blemished animal?
קלאוד על הדף:
When Ravin came up to the Land of Israel and repeated this discussion, Rabbi Yirmeya dismissed it sharply: “Foolish Babylonians! Because they live in a dark land, they say dark teachings.” He cites Rabbi Yochanan’s reading, transmitted by Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba. The baraita really is about the animals themselves, and the dispute is where the group was searched and the blemished animal was not found. Rabbi Yirmeya’s barbs at Babylonian scholars appear elsewhere in the Talmud too. Here the point is that an obvious reading was missed.
Key Terms:
- כִּי סְלֵיק = when he went up to the Land of Israel
- בַּבְלָאֵי טַפְשָׁאֵי = foolish Babylonians
- אַרְעָא דַּחֲשׁוֹכָא = a dark land — wordplay linking the place to the ‘dim’ teachings said there
- בָּדַק וְלֹא מָצָא = he searched and did not find
Segment 12
TYPE: מקור למחלוקת
The dispute matches Rabbi Meir: something presumed impure stays impure until the impurity is found
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה — לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְּטוּמְאָתוֹ, עַד שֶׁתִּיוָּודַע הַטּוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 10a) that Rabbi Meir would say: Any object that was held in the presumptive status of ritual impurity, e.g., it is certain that there was a grave in a particular field, that place forever remains in its ritual impurity, even if it was excavated and the source of impurity was not found, until it becomes known to you the location of the ritual impurity, and then the rest of the field is permitted. The assumption is that the impurity was not found because the search was not conducted properly.
קלאוד על הדף:
On Rabbi Yochanan’s reading, the baraita follows a well-known dispute about presumptive status. Rabbi Meir holds that anything presumed impure stays impure until the source is actually located; a failed search proves only that it was not done well enough. The first Tanna of the baraita follows the same logic: the blemished animal is presumed to still be among the group, and a search that does not find it changes nothing.
Key Terms:
- חֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה = a presumption of impurity
- עַד שֶׁתִּיוָּודַע = until it becomes known
Segment 13
TYPE: מקור למחלוקת (המשך)
The Rabbis: dig down to bedrock or virgin soil, and then it is pure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חוֹפֵר עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְסֶלַע אוֹ לִבְתוּלָה.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis say: He continues digging until he reaches bedrock or virgin soil, under which there is certainly no ritual impurity. If he searched this extensively and failed to discover any impurity, it is evidently no longer there. Similarly, in the case of the baraita, the dispute is whether or not failure to locate the blemished animal constitutes sufficient reason to conclude that it is no longer intermingled with the rest of the flock. Accordingly, the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir while Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis say a thorough search is enough: one digs until bedrock or virgin soil, and if nothing turns up, the impurity is presumed gone. Rabbi Yosei follows this view: a proper search of the group that does not find the blemished animal means it is no longer there, so the rest are permitted. On this reading the two Tannaim of the baraita stand for the two sides of the Rabbi Meir and Rabbis dispute.
Key Terms:
- סֶלַע = bedrock
- בְּתוּלָה = virgin soil, ground never dug
- חוֹפֵר = digs
Segment 14
TYPE: מימרא (גרסה אחרת)
Rabbi Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: the case is where a blemished animal was found
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁבָּדַק וּמָצָא, וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s interpretation of the baraita: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute is with regard to a case where he examined the flock and found the blemished animal, and they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
קלאוד על הדף:
A different report of Rabbi Yochanan’s view comes through Rabbi Asi. The dispute is where the group was searched and a blemished animal was found. The question is whether we may assume it is the only one. This follows the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, cited next.
Key Terms:
- בָּדַק וּמָצָא = he searched and found
- רַבִּי = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, compiler of the Mishna
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
A field with a lost grave: Rebbi assumes the grave found is the one lost; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires checking the whole field
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: שָׂדֶה שֶׁאָבַד בָּהּ קֶבֶר, נִכְנָס בְּתוֹכָהּ — טָמֵא. נִמְצָא בְּתוֹכָהּ קֶבֶר, נִכְנָס לְתוֹכָהּ — טָהוֹר, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: הוּא קֶבֶר שֶׁאָבַד הוּא קֶבֶר שֶׁנִּמְצָא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: תִּיבָּדֵק כׇּל הַשָּׂדֶה כּוּלָּהּ.
English Translation:
This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, one who enters it becomes impure due to the possibility that he passed over the grave and thereby contracted ritual impurity. If a grave was subsequently found in it, one who enters the field not in the place of the found grave remains pure, as I say: The grave that was lost is the grave that was found. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Let the entire field be examined before ruling that one who enters it remains pure. Similarly, in the baraita concerning the intermingled blemished and unblemished animals, the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, while Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita concerns a field where a grave’s location was forgotten, so anyone entering it is impure out of doubt. If a grave is later found there, Rebbi says one who enters elsewhere in the field is pure, since the grave found is presumably the one lost. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says the whole field must be checked, since there may be another grave. On Rabbi Asi’s reading, the first Tanna of the blemished-animals baraita follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yosei follows Rebbi.
Key Terms:
- שָׂדֶה שֶׁאָבַד בָּהּ קֶבֶר = a field in which a grave was lost
- שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר = for I say — introducing a presumption
- תִּיבָּדֵק = let it be examined
Segment 16
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Why Rabbi Asi rejects the ‘searched and not found’ reading, and Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba’s reply
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא? אָמַר לָךְ: בִּשְׁלָמָא גַּבֵּי טוּמְאָה, אֵימַר בָּא עוֹרֵב וּנְטָלָהּ, בָּא עַכְבָּר וּנְטָלָהּ, אֶלָּא הָכָא — בַּעַל מוּם לְהֵיכָא אָזֵיל? וְאִידַּךְ? אֵימַר מוּם עוֹבֵר הֲוָה וְאִיתַּסִּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Asi, what is the reason he did not state the explanation of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? Rabbi Asi could have said to you: Granted, with regard to impurity one can say the impure object might no longer be there, as perhaps a raven came and took it or a mouse came and took it. But here, with regard to a blemished animal that became intermingled with unblemished animals, where could the blemished animal have gone? The Gemara asks: And how would the other amora, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, respond to this claim? He would say the blemish was a temporary blemish and it was healed, which is why there is no longer a blemished animal among the flock.
קלאוד על הדף:
Each version of Rabbi Yochanan’s view is now defended. Rabbi Asi could not accept the “searched and not found” case: impurity can vanish, since a raven or a mouse might have carried it off, but a blemished animal cannot simply disappear from a herd. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba answers that it can, in effect: the blemish may have been temporary and healed, so the animal is still there but no longer blemished.
Key Terms:
- עוֹרֵב = a raven
- עַכְבָּר = a mouse
- וְאִידַּךְ = and the other one — how would he respond?
- אִיתַּסִּי = it healed
Segment 17
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (המשך)
Why Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba rejects the ‘searched and found’ reading, and Rabbi Asi’s reply
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי אַסִּי? אָמַר לָךְ: בִּשְׁלָמָא שָׂדֶה, דִּרְכַּהּ לְמִיקְבַּר בַּהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דִּקְבַר בָּהּ הַאי — קְבַר אִינָשׁ אַחֲרִינָא. אֶלָּא קָדָשִׁים, כֵּיוָן דִּבְדִקִי לַן וְקָיְימִי, דִּרְכַּיְיהוּ לְמִיפַּל בְּהוּ מוּמָא? וְאִידַּךְ — אַגַּב דִּמְנַגְּחִי אַהֲדָדֵי, שְׁכִיחַ בְּהוּ מוּמָא.
English Translation:
And as for Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, what is the reason he did not state the explanation of Rabbi Asi? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba could have said to you: Granted, in the case of a field it is normal for people to be buried in it, and therefore Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel claims that just as this person was buried in it, so too, another person might have been buried there. Therefore, there is no reason to assume the grave that was found is the grave that was lost. But with regard to sacrificial animals, once they were examined and they are found to be whole, is it normal for them to suddenly develop a blemish? In such a case even the first tanna would not deem the animals prohibited, as it can be assumed they found the only blemished one. And what would the other amora, Rabbi Asi, say in response? Since they gore each other, the development of a blemish is in fact common among them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reverse question is now asked. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba could not accept the “searched and found” case: people are regularly buried in a field, so a second grave is plausible, but animals already checked and found whole do not usually develop new blemishes. Even the first Tanna would then accept that the one found is the only one. Rabbi Asi answers that sacrificial animals gore one another, so new blemishes are common. The two versions of Rabbi Yochanan’s view thus rest on different estimates of how likely each scenario is.
Key Terms:
- דִּרְכַּהּ לְמִיקְבַּר בַּהּ = it is usual to bury in it
- קָדָשִׁים = consecrated animals
- מְנַגְּחִי אַהֲדָדֵי = they gore one another
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא (פתיחה, נמשך ב-26א)
A baraita on wool plucked from an unblemished firstborn challenges Reish Lakish
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: הַתּוֹלֵשׁ צֶמֶר מִבְּכוֹר תָּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם וּשְׁחָטוֹ — אָסוּר. טַעְמָא דְּתָם,
English Translation:
Rabbi Asi earlier said in the name of Reish Lakish that both Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis agree that if an expert did not deem the firstborn permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to one who plucks the wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though it later developed a blemish and the owner then slaughtered it, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason this is the halakha is that the animal was unblemished.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to Reish Lakish’s ruling that without an expert’s permission everyone forbids the shed wool. It cites a baraita: wool plucked from an unblemished firstborn stays forbidden even if the animal later developed a blemish and was slaughtered. The Gemara starts to infer that the reason is that the animal was unblemished, which suggests that wool from an already blemished firstborn would be permitted even without an expert. The sentence and the challenge continue on 26a.
Key Terms:
- מֵיתִיבִי = they raised an objection
- בְּכוֹר תָּם = an unblemished firstborn
- טַעְמָא דְּתָם = the reason is that it was unblemished — an inference from the wording