Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 26 for kids: Wool and Waiting

בכורות כ״ו

🐑 This daf asks when wool from a firstborn animal may be used. It also asks how long an owner must care for a firstborn animal before giving it to a priest.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 26a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 26b 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 26

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 26 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 26a, in English Tab translation (21)
  1. But a blemished firstborn is permitted — This follows Rabbi Yosei, who says the Rabbis permit the wool if the animal was slaughtered. Alternatively, it follows Akavya, who permits it even without an expert’s approval for slaughter; that would challenge Reish Lakish.
  2. He calls it unblemished — Thus, “even though it later developed a blemish” means even though an expert later examined it and declared the blemish permanent.
  3. Let us say — Reish Lakish’s interpretation is disputed by the tanna’im.
  4. Prohibited — With an unblemished firstborn, even Akavya agrees: permitting the wool might lead people to keep the animal until it develops a blemish and loses its altar sanctity. Besides, there is as yet no grounds for permitting it. Though the baraita says “plucks,” the same applies to wool that falls out, as explained later.
  5. Not in this case — Akavya did not permit the wool when the animal died, but only when it was slaughtered.
  6. Rabbi Yosei said: My father concedes — His father, Ḥalafta, was among the Rabbis who disagreed with Akavya, yet he conceded that the wool is permitted when the animal was slaughtered.
  7. But the Rabbis said explicitly — They clearly said to put the hair shed by a blemished firstborn in a compartment.
  8. But — This means “indeed.” The word is used similarly at the end of the chapter “One May Establish an Eruv with Anything” in tractate Eruvin.
  9. Explicitly — That is, clearly. It is used similarly in tractate Yoma: “They knew for certain that the Ark was hidden there.”
  10. Perhaps there is hope — Perhaps use of the wool will become permitted. What hope? If he slaughters the animal, everyone permits it.
  11. Rabbi Yosei is saying the same as the first tanna — The first tanna prohibits wool plucked from an unblemished firstborn even after slaughter, implying that everyone permits the wool of a slaughtered blemished firstborn. He places their disagreement, like Rabbi Yosei, in the case where it died.
  12. The first tanna holds: If an expert permitted it, yes; otherwise, no — This is how Reish Lakish explained the first tanna’s opening statement: even a physically blemished firstborn is called “unblemished” until an expert permits its slaughter. Rabbi Yosei, however, permits wool that fell out before an expert approved the animal: his mention of “hope” means that an expert might yet approve it and it might be slaughtered.
  13. They disagree when it died, and likewise when it was slaughtered — The first tanna gives no indication that everyone permits the wool when the animal was slaughtered.
  14. The halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda — They disagree when the animal was slaughtered, not when it died.
  15. Both are permitted — Whether the dangling wool appears to be part of the fleece or not: Rabbi Yosei says that, after slaughter, even the Rabbis permit wool already placed in a compartment.
  16. If it follows the Rabbis, both are prohibited — Everyone agrees that wool still attached to the animal requires burial, and the Rabbis prohibit wool that has fallen out even if it was placed in a compartment.
  17. Rather, it plainly follows Rabbi Yehuda — He says they disagree when the animal was slaughtered.
  18. Both — Whether the wool appears to be part of the fleece or not.
  19. This shows that they disagree when it was slaughtered — The mishnah cannot be explained otherwise. Since its anonymous ruling follows Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha follows him.
  20. One who plucks wool from an unblemished burnt offering — The question concerns the Rabbis’ ruling when the animal is still alive. Do not ask about a blemished burnt offering after slaughter: the Rabbis certainly prohibit its plucked wool, lest permitting it lead someone to delay slaughter and come to shear or work the animal.
  21. Is there anyone who permits it? — Could anyone permit this according to the Rabbis? The person who plucked it has certainly acted wickedly.
Tosafot on Bechorot 26a, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. A blemished firstborn from which wool was plucked — The baraita does not say that the wool was placed in a compartment, because someone who plucks it acts wrongly and intends to use it immediately. When the wool sheds on its own, however, it says that he placed it in a compartment.
  2. The first tanna holds that if an expert permitted it, the wool is permitted; otherwise, it is not — Rashi explains that, since the Gemara earlier called any firstborn not yet permitted by an expert “unblemished,” the later clause, which calls it “blemished,” concerns a case without expert permission. But that earlier explanation was meant to make Reish Lakish’s view agree with everyone. Now that the Gemara must find a dispute between the tanna’im, it makes more sense to read the first tanna plainly, in agreement with Reish Lakish. Rather, the Gemara’s reasoning here rests on Rabbi Yosei’s words, “Perhaps there is hope.” He would not say “perhaps” about slaughter, which the owner can choose to do. He could say it about an expert’s permission, since it is uncertain whether an expert will attend to the animal and permit it. In the Gemara’s final answer, however, “perhaps there is hope” does refer to slaughter.
  3. One who plucks wool from an unblemished burnt offering — Some editions of Rashi say that the animal later became blemished, was redeemed, and was slaughtered. That makes the case parallel to a firstborn, except that the wool was plucked while the animal was unblemished. But plucked wool itself requires the animal to be standing for appraisal before redemption; having the animal stand does not suffice for the wool. This is evident in Chullin’s discussion of why the first-shearing gift does not apply to consecrated sheep: even property consecrated for Temple upkeep, which the verse must exclude, requires standing and appraisal. One answer is that this follows Reish Lakish’s view that offerings consecrated for the altar do not require standing and appraisal, a view Rav also holds. Another is that wool remains subordinate to an animal consecrated as an offering, even after it is plucked, and so counts as capable of standing and appraisal, unlike property consecrated for Temple upkeep. Alternatively, this wool may be treated as blemished from the outset. Similarly, one must not blow a horn from a burnt offering, but if one does, one fulfills the obligation: using it improperly removes it from consecrated status, implying that it can be redeemed. Another explanation is that the ‘horn of a burnt offering’ comes from an animal consecrated for the monetary value of a burnt offering, and the ‘horn of a peace offering’ from one consecrated for the monetary value of a peace offering; the latter is treated like a peace offering itself and is not subject to the law of misuse of consecrated property. Still, if the wool here needs redemption, why fear that its owner will keep the animal alive for its sake? What would he gain? One might instead explain that the burnt offering was slaughtered for the altar: applying its blood permits its flesh for the altar and its hide for the priests, and the question is whether it also permits wool plucked earlier. But the Sages dispute whether applying the blood permits bones that separated before it was applied. Rabbi Zeira says it does, even for making tool handles, citing Rabbi Elazar’s statement that such bones are subject to the law of misuse of consecrated property. Rashi explains that they remain subject to that law even after the blood is applied—all the more so for wool separated while the animal was alive. Some texts, however, say they are subject to that law only until the blood is applied.
  4. Is there anyone who permits plucking? — Rashi explains this question as directed at the Rabbis: surely one who plucks the wool acts wrongly. His wording suggests that Akavya might permit it. In fact, Akavya too prohibits wool plucked from an unblemished firstborn, as the baraita shows. Rashi phrases it this way because, even without that baraita, it is obvious that the Rabbis prohibit plucking.
Rashi on Bechorot 26b, in English Tab translation (27)
  1. Its main purpose is not atonement — One does not bring it for a sin.
  2. Since it atones for neglecting a positive commandment — A burnt offering atones for this, as we say in tractate Yoma: Over a burnt offering, one confesses sins concerning the forgotten sheaf and the field’s corner.
  3. But didn’t we learn “shed”? — This indicates that Akavya permits wool that fell out on its own, but not wool that was plucked.
  4. Its root is turned toward its tip — The strand is folded in the middle, so both ends are visible outside.
  5. That is not pressed down — It is not level with the fleece but sticks up above it.
  6. Why didn’t he explain it like Rav Natan? — Surely a strand that does not press down can be called “not appearing to be part of the fleece.”
  7. Because no fleece is without dangling strands — Some strands stick up; if those were prohibited, no fleece would be permitted. Rav Natan is stricter, so there is no need to ask why he did not adopt Reish Lakish’s explanation.
  8. We have completed “One Who Buys an Animal.”
  9. Mishna: How long must one tend a firstborn animal? — Nowadays, before giving it to a priest, the owner is required to keep and feed it, even against his will.
  10. He may not give it to him — The Gemara explains why.
  11. If it was blemished and he said to him — If the priest said within the required period, “Give it to me so I may eat it,” the owner may do so.
  12. Whether unblemished — When the Temple stood.
  13. Or blemished — Nowadays.
  14. Gemara: “The fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses,” and so on — The verse continues, “So you shall do with your oxen and your sheep.” We read “You shall give Me your firstborn sons” together with “your sheep”: just as a firstborn son is redeemed after thirty days, as it says, “You shall redeem them from a month old,” so a firstborn sheep is given after thirty days. We also read “the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses,” meaning first fruits, together with “your oxen”: just as first fruits are brought after fifty days—crops ripen around Passover, but first fruits are not brought until the two loaves are offered on Shavuot—so a firstborn ox is given after fifty days.
  15. The earlier with the earlier — “The fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses” comes first in the first verse, so we connect it with “your oxen,” which comes first in the second verse.
  16. And the later — “Your firstborn sons,” later in the first verse, is connected with “your sheep,” later in the second.
  17. The adjacent with the adjacent — “Your firstborn sons” is next to “your oxen.”
  18. Why not sixty? — Perhaps another period of tending, like the thirty days for a firstborn son, is required.
  19. Scripture left it to the Sages — Since Scripture did not specify the additional period of tending, it left the Sages to explain its basis, and one must follow them.
  20. Its care — The work of tending it.
  21. Its teeth are small — It cannot eat grass, and if it is separated from its mother, it will die.
  22. Because he looks like a priest who helps at the threshing floor — Nowadays a firstborn animal cannot be used until it develops a blemish. If a priest asks for it during the fifty days that its owner must tend it and offers to feed it, he saves the owner that work, even though the priest cannot yet benefit from the animal. It looks as though he is doing this so the owner will give the animal to him rather than to another priest, like a priest who helps thresh and winnow so he will receive the priestly gifts. But if the animal is blemished and the priest asks for it to eat, it is fit for him, so this is not considered such assistance.
  23. At the shepherds’ place — This refers to priests, who might help there to receive firstborn animals.
  24. At the threshing floors — This applies to all of them: priests seeking the priestly gifts, Levites seeking the first tithe, and poor people seeking the poor tithe.
  25. At the slaughterhouses — This refers to priests seeking the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach.
  26. To penalize them — the owners of the produce.
  27. From what is exempt for what is obligated — They may have two se’ahs of produce: one entirely untithed, and one from which a portion was already set aside for a priest who helped with the work. If you tell the owner to set aside a portion from the second one again as a penalty, he may think it is entirely untithed and use it to set aside a portion for the first. But the second is exempt by Torah law; only the penalty requires him to set aside a portion from it.
Tosafot on Bechorot 26b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. Mishnah: For a small animal, thirty days — The same dispute arises over how long one must care for a lost animal (Bava Metzia 28).
  2. “You shall not delay the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses”; “so you shall do with your oxen” — This means fifty days, from bringing the omer offering at Passover, when the grain finishes ripening, until Shavuot, when the two loaves are brought to permit the new grain in the Temple. But one might ask: That is on the fiftieth day, unlike firstborn sons and sheep, which are given after thirty days.
  3. And if you say: Death—Scripture need not state, etc. — This is not literal: it is not listed among offenses punishable by death in Sanhedrin 83. Rather, it comes close to an offense punishable by death.
  4. Lest one come to separate from what is exempt for what is obligated — In several places, the ruling is to separate terumah and then separate it again, without concern for this mistake. Since the first portion goes to the priest, one knows the second separation is a rabbinic requirement. Even if the first portion was given to the priest before a sage instructed the person to separate again, the priest’s failure to return it makes this clear. Here, however, the person thinks the first portion was payment to the priest for his help, so the priest keeps it. Similar cases elsewhere require distinguishing, such as the people who separated challah from rice: if most people do not eat rice, a non-priest must eat that challah in their presence, lest they separate from exempt produce for obligated produce (Pesachim 51). Likewise, regarding a festival sukkah’s obligation in an eruv, a mezuzah, and tithing, Yoma 10 says this must be a Torah-level obligation; if it were only rabbinic, there would be the same concern. Yet in Demai, the Sages required someone who buys produce from a non-Jew to tithe it even according to the view that non-Jewish ownership exempts it from tithes, without raising this concern.

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 26.