## Bekhorot Daf 25a

###### Bekhorot 25a:1
[Bekhorot 25a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:1)

מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
it is **permitted** to pluck the hair in order to facilitate proper slaughter.


###### Bekhorot 25a:2
[Bekhorot 25a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:2)

וּמִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: מְסוֹכַרְיָא דְּנַזְיָיתָא אָסוּר לְהַדּוֹקַיהּ בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:3
[Bekhorot 25a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:3)

בְּהָהִיא, אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה, דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּפְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:4
[Bekhorot 25a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:4)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 25a:5
[Bekhorot 25a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:5)

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם סָבַר רַב: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין אָסוּר, וְתוֹלֵשׁ לָאו הַיְינוּ גּוֹזֵז, וּבְיוֹם טוֹב הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דִּשְׁרֵי — דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ עוֹקֵר דָּבָר מִגִּידּוּלוֹ כִּלְאַחַר יָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:6
[Bekhorot 25a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:7
[Bekhorot 25a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:7)

וּמִדְּרַב סָבַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב, וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין אָסוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bekhorot 25a:8
[Bekhorot 25a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:8)

וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — עִיקָּרָן מַאֲדִים, וְרֹאשָׁן מַשְׁחִיר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: גּוֹזֵז בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:9
[Bekhorot 25a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:9)

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״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:10
[Bekhorot 25a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:11
[Bekhorot 25a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:11)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:12
[Bekhorot 25a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:12)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bekhorot 25a:13
[Bekhorot 25a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:13)

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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:14
[Bekhorot 25a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:14)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:15
[Bekhorot 25a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:15)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bekhorot 25a:16
[Bekhorot 25a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:16)

אֶלָּא לָאו אַתּוֹלֵשׁ? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 25a:17
[Bekhorot 25a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/25a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׂעַר בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנָּשַׁר, וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּחַלּוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטוֹ — עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מַתִּיר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,**