Shed Wool of a Blemished Firstborn Animal

The Tannaim debate whether wool shed from a blemished firstborn animal becomes permitted after slaughter, and whether the Rabbis decreed against it.

The Case of Shed Wool

A בכור (firstborn male kosher animal) is consecrated from birth and belongs to the kohen. Deriving benefit from its fleece or performing labor with it is strictly forbidden by Torah law.

If a בכור develops a permanent blemish, it may be slaughtered and eaten as unconsecrated meat. The Mishnah introduces a case where wool from a בכור בעל מום (blemished firstborn animal) became detached and shed during its lifetime. The owner placed this wool in a חלון (window niche) for safekeeping, and only afterward slaughtered the animal.

שְׂעַר בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנָּשַׁר, וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּחַלּוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטוֹ — עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מַתִּיר

With regard to the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed, and one placed it in a window niche, and thereafter he slaughtered it — Akavya ben Mahalalel permits it. (Bekhorot 25a:17)

The Core Tannaitic Dispute

According to Rabbi Yehuda's presentation of the Mishnah, the Tannaim dispute whether the subsequent slaughter releases the shed fleece from its consecrated prohibition. Akavya ben Mahalalel rules that the shed wool is permitted for use once the animal is slaughtered.

The חכמים (Rabbis) disagree and rule that the shed wool remains forbidden even after the animal is slaughtered. While the animal's bodily fleece becomes permissible through slaughter, the Sages do not extend that permission to wool detached beforehand.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא בָּזֶה הִתִּיר עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל

And the Rabbis prohibit it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him: It was not with regard to this case that Akavya ben Mahalalel permitted. (Bekhorot 25b:1)

Reish Lakish on the Rabbinic Concern

Rabbi Asi explains the underlying סברא (reasoning) in the name of Reish Lakish. The dispute applies only where the blemish had already been examined by an expert and declared permanent prior to the shedding of the wool.

The Rabbis enacted a גזירה (rabbinic decree) forbidding the wool because they feared the owner might intentionally postpone its slaughter in order to harvest additional shed fleece. Akavya ben Mahalalel maintains that the Sages did not enact a protective decree for this case.

דְּמָר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְשַׁהוֹיֵיהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן, אֲבָל לֹא הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר.

For one Sage holds we decree lest he come to delay its slaughter, and one Sage holds we do not decree; but if an expert did not permit it, all agree it is prohibited. (Bekhorot 25b:5)

Rabbi Yosei's Alternative Scope

Rabbi Yosei presents an entirely different account of the dispute in the Mishnah. He asserts that if the animal was properly slaughtered, all agree that slaughter permits detached wool retroactively.

According to Rabbi Yosei, the dispute between Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis occurred only when the blemished firstborn died without ritual slaughter,. Akavya permits the previously shed wool because only wool attached at death must be buried, while the Rabbis prohibit it.

אֶלָּא, לֹא בָּזֶה הִתִּיר עֲקַבְיָא וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין, שְׁחָטוֹ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שְׁרֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמֵת.

Rather, it was not in that case that Akavya permitted and the Rabbis prohibited; if he slaughtered it, all agree it is permitted, and they argue when it died. (Bekhorot 25b:4)

Reinterpreting the Mixed Herd Baraita

Rav Nachman initially attempts to explain a separate ברייתא (external Tannaitic teaching) regarding a mixture of blemished and unblemished animals as referring to shed fleece from a blemished בכור that mixed with ordinary wool. On this reading, the dispute reflects Rabbi Yehuda's version of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Yochanan rejects this explanation, asserting that the baraita actually discusses live animals mixed together in a herd. The Amoraim then debate whether that dispute concerns an inspection that found nothing or an inspection that uncovered one blemished animal,.

Practical Implications and Ruling

What turns on this dispute is whether a kohen may use or sell fleece that fell from a blemished firstborn prior to slaughter. It also defines whether rabbinic enactments penalize permissible parts of an animal to prevent a shepherd from stalling slaughter for personal gain.

The Gemara on Daf 25 details the back-and-forth arguments without recording no explicit halakhic ruling that decisively settles between Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis; later commentaries on this passage are not available on Sefaria for this text.

The Rabbis forbid wool shed from a blemished firstborn before slaughter lest the owner delay slaughter to gather fleece, while Akavya ben Mahalalel rejects this decree.

Learn Bekhorot 25 on Super Daf