וחכמים אוסרין דברי ר' יהודה אמר לו ר' יוסי לא בזה התיר עקביא בן מהללאל אלא שער בעל מום שנשר והניחו בחלון ואחר כך מת בזה עקביא בן מהללאל מתיר וחכמים אוסרין 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.
צמר המדולדל בבכור את שנראה עם הגיזה מותר ואת שאינו נראה עם הגיזה אסור: 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.
גמ׳ מכלל דאסר השתא במת שרי שחטו מיבעיא 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?
אלא לא בזה התיר עקביא וחכמים אוסרין שחטו דברי הכל שרי כי פליגי במת 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.
אמר רבי אסי אמר ריש לקיש מחלוקת בשהתירו מומחה דמר סבר גזרינן דלמא אתי לשהוייה ומר סבר לא גזרינן אבל לא התירו מומחה דברי הכל אסור 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.
מתיב רב ששת בעלי מומין אוסרין בכ"ש ורבי יוסי אומר יבקר 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.
והוינן בה מאי יבקר אלימא דבעל מום הוא ולישקליה מכלל דתנא קמא אמר לאו 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.
אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה הכא בגיזת בכור בעל מום עסקינן שנתערבו בגיזי חולין ומאן תנא קמא רבי יהודה היא דאמר נשחטו אסרי רבנן ורבי יוסי לטעמיה דאמר נשחטו שרו רבנן 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.
וקתני יבוקר מאי יבוקר לאו אי מום קבוע אי מום עובר הוא אף על גב שלא התירו מומחה 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.
אמר רבא לא יבוקר אי התירו מומחה אין ואי לא לא 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.
כי סליק רבין אמרה לשמעתא קמיה דרבי ירמיה אמר בבלאי טפשאי משום דיתבי בארעא דחשוכא אמרי שמעתא דמחשכן לא שמיע להו הא דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת בשבדק ולא מצא 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?
וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דר"מ ורבנן דתנן שהיה ר"מ אומר כל דבר שהיה בחזקת טומאה לעולם הוא בטומאתו עד שיתוודע הטומאה 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.
וחכמים אומרים חופר עד שמגיע לסלע או לבתולה 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.
ר' אסי אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת כשבדק ומצא וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי ור"ש בן גמליאל 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.
דתניא שדה שאבד בה קבר נכנס בתוכה טמא נמצא בתוכה קבר נכנס לתוכה טהור שאני אומר הוא קבר שאבד הוא קבר שנמצא דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר תיבדק כל השדה כולה 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.
ור' אסי מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבי חייא בר אבא אמר לך בשלמא גבי טומאה אימר בא עורב ונטלה בא עכבר ונטלה אלא הכא בעל מום להיכא אזיל ואידך אימר מום עובר הוה ואיתסי 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.
ורבי חייא בר אבא מאי טעמא לא אמר כר' אסי אמר לך בשלמא שדה דרכה למיקבר בה כי היכי דקבר בה האי קבר אינש אחרינא אלא קדשים כיון דבדקו לן וקיימי דרכייהו למיפל בהו מומא ואידך אגב דמנגחי אהדדי שכיח בהו מומא 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.
מיתיבי התולש צמר מבכור תם אע"פ שנולד בו מום ושחטו אסור טעמא דתם 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.