Talmud for Bekhorot 3:3

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification,³⁶¹Both Mishnah 7:2 and 13:1 state that liability is created if one weaves two threads. The minimal length of a thread is defined here as a double siṭ, but in Mishnah 13:4 as one siṭ (a hand-breadth, the width of four thumbs). The text here cannot be changed since “double” is clearly visible in G and is quoted in Or zaruaˋ. what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed³⁶²Greek κάλαμος, -ου, m., Latin calamus,- i, m., in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter³⁶³Writing on the Sabbath creates liability if it may make sense, which means that a word may be formed, or at least two letters. But in correcting, changing a single letter may change the meaning of a word. Therefore if the specific intent was for correcting, the general rule (Mishnah 3) is superseded by a more restrictive one. Similarly here, specific intent in shearing may reduce the amount which creates liability; the absence of specific intent cannot reduce it.. There, we have stated³⁶⁴Mishnah Bekhorot 3:3. Slaughter of a wooly animal cannot be made through thick wool since the fleece might deflect or damage the knife, which would make the slaughter invalid and the animal into carcass meat. Therefore it is necessary to clear some area for the slaughter. It is biblically forbidden to shear a firstling (Deut. 15:19). The Mishnah states that tearing out hairs from the animal’s fleece is not shearing.: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect³⁶⁵Which would make the firstling secular property of the Cohen, (Deut. 15:20)..” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable³⁶⁶As the Sabbath is concerned, this is unprofessional and therefore does not create liability while still being forbidden.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable³⁶⁷As illegitimate use of dedicated property.; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed³⁶⁸The previously recorded disagreement with R. Joḥanan has to be reconciled with the generally accepted Tosephta which follows.. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].³⁶⁹Tosephta 9:20.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they³⁷⁰The two opinions of R. Simeon ben Laqish, that tearing out hairs from a four-legged animal does not create liability but tearing out feathers from a bird does. do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing³⁷¹Babli Bekhorot 25a.. But here³⁷²In the case of the four-legged animal. he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.