Siman 308

It is written: "Every firstling... you shall do no labor with the firstling of your ox, nor shear the firstling of your sheep." The Torah adopted the common way of the world, for an ox is typically used for labor and sheep for shearing, but the same applies to the reverse, which is also prohibited. And so we learned in Bekhorot (25a): I only have the ox regarding labor and the sheep regarding shearing; from where do we know to apply that which is stated regarding this one to that one, and that which is stated regarding that one to this one? The verse says: "you shall do no labor and you shall not shear," the "vav" adds to the first matter, and both are learned from one another (Rashi). And in the Sifrei, Re'eh, siman 124, it is derived from a kal vachomer; see there. And from where do we know that even those with blemishes are prohibited in shearing and labor? For it is written in Re'eh: "However, according to all the desire of your soul you may slaughter and eat meat," and we expound in the Sifrei there (section 71): Of what is the verse speaking? If of meat of desire, it has already been stated, etc. Rather, it speaks only of disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed. And it is taught in Bekhorot (15a): "you may slaughter" but not shear, etc. Consequently, disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed—meaning consecrated animals that became blemished and were redeemed—are still prohibited in shearing, and automatically the same applies to labor. All the more so a blemished bekhor, whose sanctity is from the womb, is prohibited in shearing and labor.

Therefore, a bekhor, whether unblemished or blemished, is forbidden for shearing and labor, and one who shears or performs labor is lashed according to the Torah. The Rambam wrote in the first chapter of Me'ilah that one who plucks is not like one who shears, and he is not liable until he shears the width of a double sit, as on Shabbat. A doubtful bekhor is forbidden for shearing and labor but one is not lashed, see there. This distinction between shearing and plucking applies regarding lashes, but not regarding the prohibition. Since they are still in their sanctity, therefore, if one transgressed and sheared, or plucked them by hand, or even if the wool fell off on its own, they are forbidden for benefit forever; it makes no difference if it died afterward, and it makes no difference if he slaughtered it afterward through the permit of an expert, for since they fell from it before it was permitted, they remain in their sanctity, as the slaughtering does not permit wool that was plucked during its lifetime. However, the wool attached to its body at the time of slaughtering is permitted by the slaughtering like its meat.

Wool that was detached during the animal's life, but is still on its body entangled with the rest of the wool—that which appears like the rest of the wool, meaning it is not recognizable that it was detached from the body, is permitted through shechitah. That which does not appear like the rest of the wool, meaning that the root of the wool is turned toward its head and everyone sees that it was detached during its life, shechitah does not permit it. The reason is that according to Torah law, wool that falls off by itself during life is permitted, and it was only the Rabbis who decreed upon this so that one would not delay it in order for the wool to fall off from it at any time. Since it is of Rabbinic origin, they were only stringent when it does not appear like the rest of the wool (see Rashi, Bekhorot 25b, s.v. "And the Sages").

And know that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote there that the fleece of disqualified consecrated animals is permitted according to the Torah, for the Torah prohibited shearing but not that the fleece itself should be prohibited for benefit, see there. And it likewise appears to me from the words of the Rambam, chapter 1 of Me'ilah, law 10, who wrote: And that hair that he plucked or that fell off etc. from the firstborn etc. is prohibited for benefit even after they are slaughtered due to its blemish, as a decree lest he delay etc. Thus far his words. And in Bekhorot chapter 3, law 11, he wrote: But all wool that was shorn from it while it was alive, and even if it fell off etc. and even if it fell off after a blemish occurred in it, and even after its slaughtering etc. for behold, that wool that fell from it during its life remains in its prohibition etc. and we have already explained in Me'ilah that they did not decree this decree except upon the firstborn etc. Thus far his words. And the explanation of his words, in my humble opinion, is that the decree is that it should be prohibited even after slaughtering, but before slaughtering it is prohibited by the Torah. And this is what he wrote, "and even after its slaughtering," meaning that which fell off after a blemish occurred in it is prohibited even after its slaughtering, and regarding this they decreed. And therefore he wrote that the wool that fell off during its life remains in its prohibition, meaning that the slaughtering shall not permit it. And also in Me'ilah where he wrote "a decree," his intention is regarding after they slaughtered it. And the opinion of the Tosafot must also be said so, and that which we wrote, "and not that the fleece itself should be prohibited for benefit," this refers to permanence, regarding after slaughtering; so it appears to me in the opinion of our teachers.

It is stated in Moed Katan (12): One may not cause a bechor to mate, meaning it is forbidden to bring the bechor up onto an animal because of melachah, whether it is unblemished or blemished. It is a wonder regarding the Tur and Shulchan Aruch that they did not write this law, while the Rambam wrote it in the first chapter of Meilah. However, if it went up on its own, we have no concern with it; therefore, it is permitted to leave it in the field even though it will certainly go up, unlike the one who forbids this. Regarding a first-time mother where the bechor extended its head from the womb and then retracted it, such that it is considered as born, its mother is permitted for shearing but forbidden for labor because of the weakening of the fetus, for such is the law regarding one who consecrates a fetus for the altar, as the Rambam wrote there, and it is in Temurah (10). Consequently, the same applies to a first-time mother when the bechor extended its head and retracted. Yet the Shas and the Rambam did not mention this regarding a bechor, and it is possible that this prohibition is rabbinic and they did not decree in an uncommon matter; and so it appears to me to be the primary view (according to the Pitchei Teshuvah, subsection 1, that several great authorities questioned the Birkei Yosef, and according to what I have written, his words are clear; and examine this closely).

When he comes to see its blemish or to slaughter it afterward and it is necessary that the wool not be in that place, it is forbidden to shear it, but it is permitted to pluck it, for plucking is not like shearing according to the Torah, as has been written in section 2. And he plucks the wool of the place of slaughter or the place of the blemish, provided that he does not move the hair or the wool from their place, but rather leaves them entangled with the rest of the wool and the hair. And that which he plucked is forbidden for benefit. And specifically plucking by hand, but he shall not pluck with a vessel so that it does not appear like shearing.

There is one who wondered about the poskim, how they permitted plucking a בכור on the grounds that plucking is not like shearing, for this is only regarding rams where wool is only through shearing; but regarding goats, we say in Chullin (137a) that since their way is through plucking, it is like shearing, see there (Pitchei Teshuva subsection 2 in the name of Sha'ar HaMelech). And this is not a wonder when we examine the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, for here they permitted plucking, yet why did they not permit on Yom Tov, when one needs to slaughter, to pluck the place of slaughter, as is explained in Orach Chaim siman 498 section 12? And the Rambam in chapter 3 of Yom Tov indeed permitted it, see there. And they wrote that specifically regarding a בכור, where only shearing is forbidden, plucking is not considered shearing; but on Yom Tov, where it is forbidden to uproot a thing from its place of growth as on Shabbat, there is no distinction between plucking and shearing, and in both it is forbidden (Magen Avraham ibid. subsection 23). And the Rambam who permitted it did so because this is called uprooting in an unusual manner, as they said in Bechorot (25a). And according to this, the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch are well-settled, for on Yom Tov they did not want to permit even though it is in an unusual manner because it is possible without it; but regarding a בכור, where it is difficult without plucking for the inspection of blemishes, it was necessary to permit plucking because it is an uprooting in an unusual manner and only shearing is forbidden. Therefore, even in the slaughter of a בכור, they did not distinguish between wool and goat hair, for there the essence of the negative commandment is "you shall not shear." And that which they said in Chullin, that regarding goats plucking is like shearing, this is its meaning: that when one plucks in the normal way it is like shearing, but not when done in an unusual manner.

The Rambam wrote at the end of chapter 3: The shearings of a bechor, even the shearings of a blemished animal, that became mixed with shearings of chullin—even one in several thousands—all of them are forbidden (for benefit), for it is a significant matter and it sanctifies in any amount. Thus far his words. The first law is in Bechorot there, and the second law is a Mishnah in chapter 3 of Orlah (mishnah 3). And "the full span of a sit" is the measure from the forefinger to the middle finger when he distances the fingers from one another, and according to the Rambam it is two tefachim. And at the end of Temurah, it establishes it where he made it like a "tzipparta," that he made the form of a bird, which is significant, but otherwise it is nullified in the majority. The Rambam was not concerned for this, for there it deals with a sack, which is thick and is not significant, but threads of a garment the size of a full sit possess significance even without this and are not nullified (Kesef Mishneh). However, also at the end of the fifth chapter of Meilah regarding a sack, he also did not mention this (ibid.). And there is one who answered that the intent of the Gemara is that from the full span of a sit it is fit to make a tzipparta, or that he holds it is not the halakhah (ibid. in the name of the Mahari Korkus). And the difficulty is apparent. However, the truth is that there the entire sugya does not deal with the distinction between the permitted and the forbidden, but rather whether it requires burial or burning, see there. And regarding this it asks there: let it be nullified in the majority regarding the matter that burial should suffice, see there carefully (the Gra in Shenot Eliyahu on Orlah there).

However, it is not understood how the second law differs from the first law, for in the first law the full measure of a sit is not required, yet in this one specifically a full sit is required. The Bartenura in the Mishnayot there wrote that this case of a full sit refers to a blemished animal, but regarding an unblemished animal it sanctifies with any amount, as it concludes: "and regarding consecrated items, any amount sanctifies." But the Rambam wrote even regarding the first law that it applies even to a blemished animal, and the Ra'avad already challenged him because of this and wrote that in Bekhorot it is merely a penalty and not the law, see there. And the Tur did not bring the first law at all, and regarding the second law he wrote: One who weaves a full sit of a wool thread into a garment, if it is a significant matter, such as the work of an artist, it is not nullified and the whole thing requires burial; and if it is not a significant matter, it is nullified in the majority. Thus far his words. And it is not similar to shaatnez, as was explained in siman 299, where even a single thread is not nullified, for regarding permitted matter with permitted matter nullification is not applicable, as the entire essence of the prohibition of shaatnez is in the mixture; whereas here, prohibited matter with permitted matter is certainly nullified unless it is a significant matter (Perishah). But it is difficult regarding the Tur, how he omitted the sugya in Bekhorot, and even if he holds like the Ra'avad that it is a penalty, nevertheless he should have brought it. And the Rash in the Mishnah there remained with a difficulty from Bekhorot to the Mishnah there, and wrote that even if we explain "any amount" as not being literal and it also deals with a full sit, nevertheless a "bird-like shape" cannot possibly be in a shearing, see there.

And it appears in my humble opinion that the Tur rejected that which is in Bekhorot because afterwards there are other resolutions there, and he holds that according to those resolutions the first resolution is nullified, see there (and I found that the Ma'aseh Yom Tov wrote likewise in Divrei Chamudot at the end of chapter 3 of Bekhorot, see there). And regarding the opinion of the Rambam, it appears to me that he holds there is no contradiction between them, for shearing within shearings is not nullified, but against a garment, which is considered very significant, it specifically requires the amount of a sit (and it is a wonder why he did not count it in the Mishnah at the end of Avodah Zarah among the things that forbid in any amount; and perhaps it was also because of this that the Tur rejected it from the halacha. And for the Rambam, it is possible to say that since he counts there the hair of a nazir, certainly the wool of a firstborn and consecrated animals is more significant than hair; and in the Yerushalmi there, there is something of this matter, but due to the greatness of the corruption of the text it is impossible to ascertain the intent, see there and at the end of Orlah, and delve into this).