Unintentional Blemishes, Scriptural Bans, and Sabbatical Penalties

Tosafot analyzes medical bloodletting on a firstborn, clarifies why slitting an ear is treated as a rabbinic penalty, and explores why sons do not inherit parental penalties.

Medical Bloodletting and Unintentional Acts

The Gemara considers whether an owner may let the blood of an ailing firstborn animal. Shmuel rules in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objects: if Shmuel refers to Rabbi Shimon in the Mishnah, why restate that דבר שאין מתכוין is permitted (an unintentional act is permitted)? Shmuel has already ruled that an unintentional action is permitted across the entire Torah.

Tosafot is troubled by this challenge. Rabbi Shimon permits bloodletting even when causing a blemish is inevitable, which involves an intentional infliction of a blemish. Rabbi Shimon derives from biblical verses that inflicting a blemish on a בעל מום (an already blemished animal) is permitted, so his ruling does not depend on unintentionality.

אילימא ר"ש דמתני' עד השתא לא אשמעינן שמואל דבר שאין מתכוין מותר - תימה אטו מי שרי ר"ש משום דאין מתכוין

If we say Rabbi Shimon of the Mishnah, hasn't Shmuel taught until now that an unintentional act is permitted? This is astonishing: is Rabbi Shimon's permission based on unintentional action? (Tosafot on Bekhorot 34a:7:1)

Distinguishing the Mishnah and the Baraita

Rashi suggests that bloodletting qualifies as unintentional because the owner aims for healing rather than a blemish. Tosafot rejects this reading and instead establishes a distinction between two separate disputes.

The baraita speaks of an animal with life-threatening blood congestion, where the condition itself classifies the animal as a בעל מום (a blemished animal). The Mishnah, by contrast, addresses non-fatal bloodletting where causing a blemish is merely a risk, and Rabbi Shimon permits it because an unintentional act is permitted.

The Rabbinic Nature of Slitting Ears

The Mishnah penalizes one who slits the ear of a firstborn animal so that it may never be slaughtered on that blemish. The Gemara asks whether Rabbi Eliezer penalizes a transgressor indefinitely. Rashi explains that the Gemara questions why the animal should never be permitted for slaughter. The Gemara contrasts this with an excised mark of leprosy, where Rabbi Eliezer limits the penalty until another mark appears-.

Tosafot raises a difficulty from a baraita in the Sifrei. The Sifrei derives from the verse forbidding abominations that eating an intentionally blemished firstborn is a biblical negative prohibition. Why, then, does our Gemara treat this prohibition as merely a rabbinic penalty?

Tosafot answers that the Rabbis interpret that verse as addressing other prohibitions, or that the verse serves as an אסמכתא (a scriptural support). Consequently, the ban on consuming the animal remains strictly a rabbinic penalty.

כמה שמעתתא מוכחא דצורם אוזן של בכור קנסא הוא ובסמוך נמי קאמר בהאי מומא קנסוה רבנן

Several passages demonstrate that slit-ear on a firstborn is a rabbinic penalty, and shortly the Gemara likewise states, 'the Rabbis penalized him regarding this blemish.' (Tosafot on Bekhorot 34a:11:1)

Inheriting Penalties and Shevi'it

Rabbi Yirmeya inquires whether a son is penalized if his father slit the ear of a firstborn and died. Rabbi Zeira resolves this from Shevi'it (the Sabbatical Year): if a father improved his field and died, the son may sow it. The Sages penalized the father but did not penalize his son.

Tosafot probes the balance between these categories. If improving a field during Shevi'it is only rabbinic, it cannot resolve slitting a firstborn, which involves a biblical offense. Conversely, if improving a field is biblical, it should not resolve the case of a slave sold to gentiles, which deprives him of mitzvot.

Tosafot resolves this by noting that the Sages treated Shevi'it as uniquely severe in its stringency, declaring: 'How harsh is the dust of the Sabbatical Year!'. Since the Sages refused to penalize the son even in the stringent case of Shevi'it, he is certainly not penalized in any other case.

Rabbinic penalties remain confined to the original transgressor, while biblical prohibitions and unintentional acts hinge on precise physical and legal definitions.

Learn Bekhorot 34 on Super Daf