Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 25 for kids: The Firstborn's Wool

בכורות כ״ה

🐑 A firstborn animal may not be shorn. This daf asks: what about plucking a few hairs, or wool that falls off by itself?

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 25a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 25b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 25

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 25 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 25a, in English Tab translation (28)
  1. Permitted — because he does not intend to pluck hair.
  2. The cloth stopper of a barrel — a barrel plug wrapped in flax fibers and rags so it seals the opening tightly.
  3. It is forbidden to press it in tightly — forcing the plug into the barrel squeezes out liquid. Even though the person does not intend to squeeze it, this is forbidden even according to Rabbi Shimon, who permits an unintended act in tractate Shabbat (41b).
  4. And will it not die — tightening the plug inevitably squeezes out liquid, whereas clearing the hair need not pull any out.
  5. The halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda — this shows that Rav holds an unintended act is forbidden.
  6. Without the men — without naming Rav Ḥiyya or Rav Ḥanan.
  7. And plucking is not shearing — that is why Rav ruled like Rabbi Yosei regarding a firstborn animal.
  8. In an unusual manner — wool is normally removed by shearing, not plucking.
  9. One who plucks a feather — one who pulls a large feather from a bird’s wing.
  10. And one who snips it — after pulling out the feather, one cuts off its tip.
  11. And one who strips it — one smooths the feather’s sides by pulling the fibers off its shaft.
  12. Shearing, cutting, and smoothing — these are primary categories of labor listed in tractate Shabbat (73a). Smoothing means making a surface smooth.
  13. That is the normal way — feathers are normally pulled out, not sheared.
  14. Since Rav agrees with Rabbi Yosei — regarding a firstborn animal, that plucking is not shearing.
  15. Rabbi Yosei also agrees with Rav — that an unintended act is forbidden.
  16. The correct reading is: Their roots are red and their tips black — this is also the reading in the Tosefta to tractate Parah (2:4).
  17. One shears — he cuts off the black tips with scissors, leaving the red portions, and need not worry about shearing a consecrated animal. Apparently this is permitted because his aim is to make the heifer fit, not to shear it. Two entirely black hairs disqualify a red heifer, but hairs with red roots and black tips can be remedied.
  18. It is not subject to shearing — cattle have no wool, so the prohibition against shearing does not apply to them.
  19. You shall not work, and you shall not shear — the word “and” links the two prohibitions, so each applies to both animals.
  20. It is consecrated for Temple maintenance — the heifer is not offered on the altar, so shearing it is permitted.
  21. It is uncommon — the Sages did not impose their decree in an uncommon case.
  22. Its price is high — the money needed to redeem it is not readily available.
  23. For the cleaver — to make room for the cleaver.
  24. At the outset — does “and likewise” refer to plucking, meaning that one may pluck hair to inspect a blemish just as one may pluck it for slaughter? The first case clearly permits plucking for slaughter at the outset. Or does “and likewise” refer to the rule “do not move it,” meaning that if one already plucked hair to inspect a blemish, one must not move the hair from its place?
  25. Tangled in the ear — the blemish was in the ear.
  26. Because his slaughter makes his intent clear — He did not intend to shear the animal.
  27. Rather, does it not refer to plucking? — It says plucking is permitted from the outset.
  28. The mishna permits — a priest to benefit from the wool.
Tosafot on Bechorot 25a, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. The cloth stopper of a barrel — We explained this in the first chapter of Ketubot and near the end of Tractate Shabbat.
  2. For that would be uprooting something from where it grows in an unusual manner — One cannot infer from this that it is permitted to pluck a feather from a bird’s neck to slaughter it on a Festival. The permission here was explained earlier as applying when one does not intend to pluck. And even according to the explanation that permits intentional plucking here, plucking a feather is not an unusual manner of removal, as the teaching about plucking a bird below shows. Although one does not need the feather, making this a labor whose product is not needed, that category cannot be equated with performing a labor in an unusual manner.
  3. And Reish Lakish said: He is liable for shearing — Why is this a difficulty? Even if plucking does not violate the prohibition against shearing a firstborn animal, on Shabbat it can still be liable as a derivative of shearing, like other acts of removing something from where it grows on a living animal. Similarly, detaching a fetus inside an animal can incur liability on Shabbat but not for shearing a consecrated animal. Picking is a derivative of reaping on Shabbat, though it does not count as reaping for the laws of the omer offering or gleanings. The question would make sense if it challenged the claim that plucking is an unusual manner of removal: the bird provides evidence that it is not. But the wording, ‘Is plucking not shearing? But isn’t it taught: One who plucks a bird …,’ indicates a challenge to the claim that plucking is not shearing.
  4. Since Rav agrees with Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, Rabbi Yosei agrees with Rav — That is, Rabbi Yosei holds that an unintended prohibited consequence is forbidden. Otherwise, how would Rav know that Rabbi Yosei permits plucking because it is not shearing? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei considers it shearing but permits it because the person does not intend to shear. Rav must therefore know that Rabbi Yosei forbids an unintended prohibited consequence.
  5. Their roots are black and their tips are red — That is how our texts read. The red tips may be mentioned to teach that the hairs must be cut even though the heifer appears entirely red from the outside. Rashi’s text, based on the Tosefta of Parah, has the colors reversed.
  6. He cuts with scissors and need not be concerned — On Rashi’s reading, that means he need not worry if he unintentionally cuts other hairs, or cuts more than necessary from these same hairs. This suggests that Rabbi Yosei permits an unintended prohibited consequence. Rashi instead explains that he does not intend to shear at all, but only to make the heifer fit. This is unlike the usual meaning of ‘unintended,’ since he deliberately cuts with scissors. One could defend Rashi’s explanation: if Rabbi Yosei forbids unintended prohibited consequences yet permits plucking a firstborn because plucking is not shearing, why does he permit cutting the heifer with scissors, which is shearing? If cutting to make the heifer fit is not considered shearing, cutting to prepare a firstborn for slaughter should likewise be permitted in every manner. But this explanation is unconvincing: the heifer raises a difficulty whether Rabbi Yosei’s reason for permitting plucking is that the consequence is unintended or that plucking is not shearing.
  7. Hair that fell from a blemished firstborn animal — This entire discussion shows that shearing a disqualified consecrated animal is permitted by Torah law. Even the Sages who forbid it explain their prohibition as a safeguard against delaying its slaughter. The earlier interpretation, ‘You may slaughter it, but not shear it,’ means that one may not shear it while it is consecrated. Rabbi raises a difficulty from Tractate Chullin: why does the verse ‘You shall pour it onto the ground like water’ need to permit benefit from the blood of disqualified consecrated animals? The Gemara there suggests that, because shearing them and working with them are forbidden, their blood might also require burial. But here even their wool is permitted. One might distinguish wool that fell off from intentional shearing, but blood drawn at slaughter is likewise produced intentionally; moreover, even plucking is disputed here, showing that the Sages’ prohibition is rabbinic. Further, why require a verse to permit benefit from this blood when even sacrificial blood is permitted for benefit once its required rite is complete, and why mention a ban on shearing and work when both are permitted after slaughter? One could say the verse is needed for blood that flows before most of the slaughter is completed, but the difficulty from this discussion remains. Rabbi answers that one might have derived a ban on benefit from the words ‘you shall eat meat,’ reading them to exclude milk and blood. Wool is different: its permission may be derived from ‘you may slaughter it,’ implying that the earlier shearing prohibition ends at slaughter. Although the exclusion fits milk better than blood, which is not normally eaten, the Torah’s unusually strict ban on shearing and work could have led us to interpret the verses stringently. Thus ‘like water’ is needed to permit benefit from the blood. The passage in Chullin cites the shearing prohibition rather than the exclusion of milk because it begins with the first relevant teaching and because shearing carries the stronger prohibition, even lashes. The earlier discussion also shows that ‘meat, but not milk’ prohibits the milk that was drawn; it does not prohibit the act of milking.
Rashi on Bechorot 25b, in English Tab translation (27)
  1. And the Rabbis prohibit it — If wool that falls off while the firstborn is alive were permitted, one might delay slaughtering it to collect more wool. This could lead to shearing it or working it, both of which are prohibited for a disqualified consecrated animal.
  2. It was not in this case that Akavya permitted it — The Gemara explains what Rabbi Yosei means.
  3. And afterward it died — It was not slaughtered.
  4. Dangling — The wool has detached from the skin but remains tangled with the rest of the fleece, so it does not fall off.
  5. That which appears to be part of the fleece — If, when the animal is slaughtered and then shorn, the dangling wool blends in with the rest of the fleece and does not look detached, it is permitted like the rest of the fleece.
  6. And that which does not appear to be part of the fleece — It hangs so far out that everyone can see it is separate, as though it had fallen off entirely before slaughter. This unattributed ruling follows the Rabbis, who disagree with Akavya.
  7. The Gemara: Does that imply he prohibits it? — This is a question. If Akavya permits wool that fell off and was put in a compartment when the animal later died—even though its attached wool must be buried—surely he permits it if the animal was slaughtered.
  8. If he slaughtered it — The attached wool is permitted, so surely Akavya also permits the wool placed in a compartment.
  9. Rather — Rabbi Yosei says, 'It was not in this case that Akavya permitted it,' because the Rabbis prohibit it in the case he is discussing.
  10. When an expert permitted it — The expert approved slaughtering the firstborn before its wool fell off. The Rabbis prohibit benefiting from that wool lest its owner delay slaughter to collect more, and meanwhile come to shear or work the animal. Akavya holds that once an expert has approved slaughter, the owner will not delay it.
  11. Everyone agrees it is prohibited — Without an expert’s approval, the animal is like an unblemished firstborn, and Akavya agrees that its wool is prohibited. Permitting the wool might lead its owner to delay offering the animal, hoping it will develop a blemish and cease to be fit for the altar. Moreover, when the wool fell off, an expert had not yet established any basis for permitting the animal.
  12. They prohibit them in any ratio — Even if one blemished animal is mixed with a thousand unblemished ones, none may be offered on the altar.
  13. Does that imply the first tanna disagrees? — This is a question: If the blemished animal can be identified, what doubt remains?
  14. The shearings of a blemished firstborn — Wool that fell off while the animal was alive and was placed in a compartment.
  15. Let it be investigated — If the blemish is permanent, the animal may be slaughtered and all the wool will be permitted.
  16. Rabbi Yehuda holds that slaughter provides no remedy. Thus, according to Rabbi Yosei, the Rabbis permit the wool after slaughter whether or not an expert approved slaughter before it fell off: the baraita says, 'Let it still be investigated.' And since Akavya makes no distinction between an animal that died and one that was slaughtered, his permission after death likewise should not depend on when the expert approved slaughter.
  17. He stated this teaching — Rav Naḥman’s teaching.
  18. The dispute — Between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei concerns living, blemished animals mixed with others, when the flock was examined but the blemished animal was not found.
  19. It remains so forever — If a grave known to be in a field is not found, the field retains its presumed impurity even after the whole field is searched. Likewise, the first tanna prohibits all the animals when the blemished one is not found; he follows Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei holds, like the Rabbis, that an examination suffices even if it is not found.
  20. Digging — One examines the ground down to bedrock, since the hard rock below could not have been dug for a grave.
  21. Or to undisturbed soil — Until one reaches hard ground that has not been worked.
  22. When he examined and found it — He found a blemished animal. The first tanna still prohibits all the animals, concerned that this may be a different blemished animal and that the others need examination. Rabbi Yosei holds that the initial examination suffices: once this blemished animal is found, no doubt remains. The first tanna follows Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei follows Rabbi.
  23. Granted, regarding impurity — The Rabbis say that examining down to bedrock or undisturbed soil suffices, because if the grave is not found, a raven or mouse may have carried away its remains. But where could a blemished animal have gone? Even the Rabbis would prohibit the flock in such a case, and Rabbi Yosei would not permit it.
  24. And the other Sage — Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba.
  25. Granted, regarding a field — Rabban Shimon says to examine it, since it is customary to bury there…
  26. Are they likely to develop a blemish? — This is a rhetorical question. In such a case, the first tanna would not prohibit them.
  27. And the other — Rav Asi.
Tosafot on Bechorot 25b, in English Tab translation (1)
  1. One who plucks wool from an unblemished firstborn — The Gemara later explains that this also applies if the wool fell out on its own. It says “plucks” here to match the later clause, where that wording highlights the extent of Akavya ben Mahalalel’s leniency.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 25.