משנה: בְּכוֹר שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר יֵרֵד הַמּוּמְחֶה וְיִרְאֶה אִם יֶשׁ בּוֹ מוּם יַעֲלֶה וְיִשְׁחוֹט. וְאִם לָאו לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל־שֶׁאֵין מוּמוֹ נִכָּר מֵעֲרֲב יוֹם טוֹב אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן׃ MISHNAH: If a firstling36The unblemished firstling has to be given to a Cohen who has to sacrifice it in the Temple. In the absence of a Temple no use can be had of an unblemished firstling; if it develops a defect it may be slaughtered and its meat consumed by everybody, pure or impure (Deut. 15:22). Since the development of a defect by a firstling is an eagerly awaited event, by rabbinic usage the existence of a defect must be verified by an expert. If no defect is found, the firstling is not food and may not be moved from the cistern before the end of the holiday. fell into a cistern, Rebbi Jehudah says, the expert should go down and inspect; if it has a defect he may lift it and slaughter; Rebbi Simeon says, any whose defect was not recognizable on the eve of the holiday is not prepared37He holds that what was not food before the holiday cannot become food on the holiday; therefore the firstling may be inspected by the expert only after the end of the holiday..
הלכה: מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. אִם לֹא הָֽיְתָה נְבֵילָה מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. אֲסוּרָה. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הַמּוּכָן׃ וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. רִבִּי יוּדָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר. אִין הַמּוּמְחֶה תוֹרָה. רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה הִיא. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה עֲבַד רְאִײַת בְּכוֹר כִּרְאִײַת טְרֵיפָה. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אֶמַר תַּמָּן. רוֹאִין אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה בְיוֹם טוֹב. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. רוֹאִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר בְיוֹם טוֹב. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. דְּמַאי מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וּרְאִײַת טְרֵיפָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אֶמַר תַּמָּן. רוֹאִין אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה בְיוֹם טוֹב. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. מַפְרִישִׁין אֶת הַדְּמַאי בְיוֹם טוֹב. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. כָּל־שֶׁמּוּמוֹ נִכָּר מֵעֲרֲב יוֹם טוֹב וְלֹא הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה אֶלָּא בְיוֹם טוֹב אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן. והָא תַנֵּי. עֶגֶל [בְּכוֹר] שֶׁנּוֹלַד מִן הָטְּרֵיפָה בְיוֹם טוֹב מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁעָבַר הַמּומְחֶה וְרָאָהוּ. אֲתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי וּסְבַר מֵימַר. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. אַייתֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה מַתְנִיתָה דְבַר קַפָּרָה מִדְּראוֹמָא וְתַנָּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. כָּל־שֶׁמּוּמוֹ נִכָּר מֵעֲרֲב יוֹם טוֹב וְלֹא הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה אֶלָּא בְיוֹם טוֹב אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן. וְקִיבְּלָהּ וְחָזַר בֵּיהּ. HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there38Mishnah Šabbat 24:4., “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared39He does not permit dog food if it was not available before the start of the Sabbath, how can he permit human food which was not available on the the eve of the holiday?.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah40In Mishnah Bekhorot4:3, R. Jehudah permits to slaughter a damaged firstling without prior certification by an expert. He must hold that by biblical standards it is only the fact of the blemish that counts, not its certification by an expert. In addition, any kosher animal is potential food at all times.. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday41An animal suffering from a life-threatening defect is prohibited as food. While there is a long list of such defects, these disqualify as food only if they are found, but one does not have to examine every slaughtered animal for all of these defects except for the lung for which it is obligatory to check for tubercular lesions which would make the animal unfit for human consumption. Since slaughter is permitted on the holiday, inspection for ṭerefah automatically is not only permitted but in fact required to legitimize the slaughter., similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay42Demay is produce of which it is not known whether tithes were taken, cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday43Rebbi Huna’s argument is disproved since it would imply that demay can be removed on the holiday. But it is stated in Mishnah Šabbat2:7 that demay may be tithed only during twilight on Sabbath (and holiday) eve, therefore not on the holiday itself.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared44This statement clearly follows the opinion of R. Simeon in the Mishnah.. But was it not stated, a [firstling]45Corrector’s addition, based on Rav Ḥisda’s remark in the following sentence, but the scribe’s original text seems preferable. An animal which is known to have a ṭerefah defect is not potential food. As part of the mother’s body, the calf is not potential food. But if a healthy calf is born on the holiday, it is food at least for R. Jehudah. calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it46If the corrector’s addition is deleted, then R. Ḥisda explains R. Jehudah’s opinion in the Mishnah since the latter also will agree that rabbinically the expert may not inspect firstlings on the holiday.. There came a case47Of a firstling falling into a cistern. before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah48Terumot3:1, Babli Eruvin46b.. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared49In this baraita, the opinion of R. Simeon is quoted as that of “the Sages”, implying that it is practice to be followed. All the rules of precedence are subject to exceptions.. He50R. Immi. changed his opinion.
אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת־בְּנ֔וֹ שֶׁנָּֽפְלוּ לַבּוֹר. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. יַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל מְנָת לִשְׁחוֹט. וְיִשְׁחוֹט. וְהַשֵּׁינִי עוֹשִׂין לוֹ פַרְנָסָה בִמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁע אוֹמֵר. יַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל מְנָת לִשְׁחוֹט. וְלֹא יִשְׁחוֹט. וְיַעֲרִים וְיַעֲלֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁינִי. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חִישֵּׁב לִשְׁחוֹט אֶחָד מֵהֶן מוּתָּר. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בָעֵי. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. מוּתָּר לְהַעֲרִים. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. אָסוּר לְהַעֲרִים. תַּמָּן מִשּׁוּם בַּל ייֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא. וְהָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אָסוּר לְהַעֲרִים. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. מוּתָּר לְהַעֲרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי אִידִי. כָּאן שְׁבוּת. וְכָאן חַייָב חַטָּאת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. הָכָא כְּדֵי לָחוּס עַל נִיכְסֶיהֶן שֶׁל יִשַׂראֵל. תַּמָּן מָה אִית לָךְ. רִבִּי יִצְחָק וְרִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָה. חַד כְּהָדֵין וְחַד כְהָדֵין. It and its young51The Halakhah also appears in Pesaḥim 3:3 (Notes 90–97) with the references to “here” and “there” switched correctly.
Lev. 22:28 states that it is prohibited to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day. Therefore, if both an animal and its young fell into a cistern on a holiday, only one of them can be potential food. The other one is muqṣeh and cannot be moved by humans. Babli 37a, Pesaḥim117b, Tosephta 3:2. fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one52As long as it is not determined which animal is to be turned into food, both are potential food and can be moved.. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted53He is permitted to declare both animals as potential food even though he had no intention of slaughtering either one.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning54In the matter of an animal and its young he requires strict adherence to the rules. By the biblical rules, a piece of bread dough has to be given to the Cohen under the rules of heave (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah). Impure ḥallah must be burned but unusable sancta may not be burned on the holiday and dough kneaded on the holiday would become leavened if stored for the next day. Therefore R. Eliezer instructs the baker to bake the mazzah completely and then remove a small part as ḥallah, a method frowned upon on any other day of the year. R. Joshua instructs to follow all the usual rules of ḥallah and burn the dough after the holiday since he holds that leavened matter is forbidden only to Jews, not to Heaven, and ḥallah is Heaven’s property.. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have55In matters of dough on Passover there is no other way out (short of not making food on the holiday); in the matters of animals it is possible to follow all the rules.? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning56For the animals in the cistern he allows a fake declaration which permits their rescue; for impure ḥallah he removes the prohibition by declaring it inapplicable.. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering57Muqṣeh is rabbinic; eating bread without taking ḥallah is a deadly sin.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have58The animals in the cistern are valuable; impure ḥallah is worthless.? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other59Since R. Isaac and R. Josia are last generation Tannaim, their disagreement must refer to the difference between the first generation RR. Eliezer and Joshua..