When preparing an animal for ritual slaughter, known as shechita, it is sometimes necessary to clear the hair around the neck area. The Shulchan Aruch describes a method where one uses a cleaver, or kofitz, to separate the hairs near the incision site. The purpose is to ensure that the blade of the knife, the sakin, is fully visible and not obstructed by hair, preventing a disqualified shechita. The hairs are pushed aside, or even plucked out, but they should remain mixed with the other hairs on the animal, not removed completely and placed elsewhere.
This practice raises a halachic question: is plucking or clearing hair considered "shearing" (geziza)? Shearing a firstborn animal (a bechor) is forbidden. However, if the hair is cleared for the specific purpose of shechita, it might be permissible. One argument is that plucking is not considered shearing, which typically refers to cutting with an implement. Another perspective suggests that even if it is a form of shearing, it is permitted because it is done for the purpose of shechita, not for the wool itself.
A similar issue arises if an animal has a blemish (a mum) that needs to be shown to a halachic authority (a hacham). If hair obstructs the view of the mum, it is permissible to pull out the hairs to reveal it. This is explicitly stated in the Mishnah: "to show a blemish to a hacham."
The Gemara then discusses whether pulling hair is permissible on Yom Tov (a holiday). The Mishnah states that one should not pull hairs off an animal on Yom Tov. This prohibition might stem from the act of pulling (tolesh) being forbidden on Yom Tov, as it involves detaching something from its source of growth. However, when it comes to a bechor, which is considered sacred (kodashim), pulling hair might be permitted if it's not considered true shearing. The distinction is crucial: is the act of pulling hair forbidden on Yom Tov because it's a general prohibition against detaching, or is it only forbidden if it constitutes shearing?
The Gemara explores the concept of an unintended consequence (davar she'eino mitkaven). If the primary intention is to clear the hair for shechita, and pulling out some hairs is an unintended byproduct, is it permissible? Rashi explains that an unintended consequence is permissible if the act is not intended to destroy, or for the purpose of shearing. If one's intention is merely to clear the area, and some hairs are incidentally pulled, this would be permitted on a regular day. The question is whether this leniency applies on Yom Tov.
The Gemara cites a discussion between Rav Una and Rav Hanel regarding the halacha on Yom Tov. Rav Una defers to Rav Hanel, stating that if Rav Hanel rules like Rabbi Yosef and Rav Shulam, then he will provide the halacha for Yom Tov. This implies a reliance on the opinion that an unintended consequence is permissible.
However, Rav holds that an unintended consequence is forbidden if it is an inevitable outcome (pesik reisha). For example, if one places a cloth by a leaking barrel spigot to stop the leak, and the cloth inevitably squeezes out wine, this squeezing (sehita) is forbidden on Yom Tov, even if the intention is only to stop the leak. This is because the squeezing is a definite, unavoidable result. If pulling hair for shechita on Yom Tov inevitably results in detaching hair, then according to Rav, it would be forbidden. The Gemara distinguishes this from a case where the outcome is not certain; merely clearing hairs, where some might incidentally be pulled, is not a definite outcome like pesik reisha.
The Gemara then introduces a statement from Rav Hanan Bar Amir in the name of Shmuel, that the halacha follows Rabbi Shimon. Rav Chaya Bar Avin presents a similar teaching directly from Rav, stating that the halacha follows Rabbi Shimon. If Rabbi Shimon permits an unintended consequence, this would support the leniency on Yom Tov. However, if Rav holds that an unintended consequence is forbidden, there seems to be a contradiction.
The Gemara resolves this by explaining that the prohibition on Yom Tov for pulling hair (tolesh) is a rabbinic decree (issur derabbanan), not a Torah prohibition (issur de'oraita). While pulling hair is not considered shearing (geziza) in the context of a bechor (where only actual shearing is forbidden by the Torah), it is generally problematic on Yom Tov. However, if the pulling is done in an unusual manner (ke'ilah hariyah), not in the typical way one would shear wool, then even this rabbinic prohibition might be relaxed for the purpose of shechita. The Rabbis might be lenient in such a case, especially for a pressing need like shechita.
A challenge is raised from a Baraita which states that plucking feathers from a bird is considered shearing (gozez) and incurs three different transgressions on Shabbat (plucking, cutting the tip, and smoothing the sides). This contradicts the idea that plucking is not considered shearing. The Gemara resolves this by distinguishing between feathers and wool. Plucking is the normal way to remove feathers, so it is considered shearing. However, plucking wool by hand is not the normal method of shearing wool, which is done with an implement. Therefore, plucking wool by hand is not considered shearing.
The Gemara further questions whether Rabbi Yosef and Rav Shulam, who permit pulling hair from a bechor, would agree with Rav that an unintended consequence is forbidden. A Baraita about a parah adumah (red heifer) is brought as a proof. A parah adumah must be entirely red. If it has two hairs with red roots but black tips, Rabbi Yosef and Rav Shulam permit cutting off the black tips with scissors. This act of cutting would normally be considered shearing, which is forbidden for a parah adumah. Their permission implies that an unintended consequence (the shearing) is permissible because the intention is to make the cow fit for its purpose, not for the wool itself. This suggests that Rabbi Yosef and Rav Shulam hold that an unintended consequence is permissible, contrary to Rav's view.
The Gemara initially suggests that a cow is not typically shorn, so the act of cutting its hair is not considered shearing. However, the Torah explicitly forbids shearing an ox (a type of cow). This proves that shearing an ox is indeed possible and forbidden. Therefore, the leniency by the parah adumah must be due to the principle of unintended consequence being permissible. The Gemara then offers an alternative explanation: the prohibition against shearing applies to animals with inherent sanctity (kedushat haguf) that are brought on the altar. A parah adumah, while sacred, is valued for its money (kedushat damim) and not brought on the altar. Therefore, shearing it is only a rabbinic prohibition, and the Rabbis were not stringent in this rare case of a parah adumah.
A further suggestion is made: why not redeem the parah adumah, cut its hair, and then re-sanctify it? The Gemara rejects this, stating that it would be too expensive to redeem a valuable animal. Even if one could redeem it for a minimal amount (a peruta) as per Shmuel's ruling, this only applies if the animal was initially consecrated with that intention. In this case, it was not.
The Gemara concludes that Rav and Rabbi Yosef indeed hold differing opinions regarding unintended consequences. Rav holds that an unintended consequence is forbidden, while Rabbi Yosef holds it is permissible. The permission to pull hairs from a bechor is because it is not considered shearing, and by a parah adumah, it is because Rabbi Yosef permits unintended consequences.
The discussion then returns to the initial point about clearing hair for shechita. Rav Ashi, in the name of Rav Ashtekish, states that it is only permitted to pull out hairs by hand, but not with an implement (a keli). This seems to contradict the earlier statement that one uses a kofitz. The Gemara clarifies that "with a kofitz" means "for the kofitz," i.e., to make space for the cleaver, but the actual pulling is done by hand.
The Mishnah's ruling that one can pull hairs to show a mum is further analyzed: is this permitted from the outset (lechatchila), or only after the fact (bedi'avad)? Rav Yirmiya brings a proof from a case where hair is tangled in an animal's ear, obstructing a mum. Rabbi Yosef ben Hamshulam says one may pull out the hair to reveal the mum. This implies it's permitted from the outset. The phrase "and so too" (ve'chen) in the Mishnah is interpreted as an instruction to leave the pulled hairs mixed in, even in the case of a mum, to avoid the appearance of shearing.
The Gemara then discusses hair that falls off a blemished bechor (ba'al mum). Normally, hair from a live bechor is forbidden. After shechita, the animal and its hair become permissible. If hair falls off a ba'al mum while it's alive and is placed on a windowsill, and then the animal is slaughtered, does the hair become permissible? The Kohanim can benefit from the wool of a ba'al mum. The Chachamim (Sages) forbid using this hair. Rashi explains that this is a rabbinic decree to prevent people from intentionally delaying the shechita of a ba'al mum to collect more hair, which might lead them to shear or work the animal, both forbidden acts. They want to incentivize immediate shechita.
The Gemara clarifies the dispute between Akaviyah ben Mahalalel and the Chachamim. Akaviyah ben Mahalalel permits the hair that falls off a ba'al mum if the animal later dies naturally, whereas the Chachamim forbid it. The Gemara explains that if the animal is slaughtered (shechita), everyone agrees the hair becomes permissible. The stringency of the Chachamim applies only when the animal dies naturally, as in that case, the animal itself remains forbidden for consumption (issur hana'ah), and allowing the hair would create an incentive to delay its death.
The Gemara then presents a case of hair dangling from a bechor. If the dangling hair is indistinguishable from the rest of the wool, it becomes permissible after shechita. However, if it is clearly separate or different while the animal is alive, it remains forbidden even after shechita, as it is considered to have been "cut" while the animal was alive. This aligns with the opinion that hair cut from a live animal remains forbidden.
The discussion shifts to a Mishnah about blemished animals (ba'alei mumin) mixed into a flock of a thousand animals. If one ba'al mum is mixed in, all the animals become forbidden to be offered on the altar. The Beit Shammai says one must check (yivaker) for the ba'al mum. This is initially understood as searching for the blemished animal. However, the Gemara reinterprets this. It refers to shearing from a ba'al mum that got mixed with permissible shearing. The shearing of a ba'al mum is forbidden by the Rabbis, even after shechita, according to one interpretation of the earlier Mishnah. If one such shearing is mixed with a thousand permissible shearings, all become forbidden, as the forbidden shearing is considered significant (chashuv) and not nullified. Beit Shammai then says "yivaker," meaning to check the animal from which the wool came, to ascertain if the blemish was permanent (mum kavua). If it was a permanent blemish, the shearing would be permissible after shechita. This implies that one can check the blemish even after the fact, which contradicts the idea that the blemish must be confirmed by a hacham beforehand.
Ravin clarifies this by stating that the case refers to animals, not shearings. If a ba'al mum was known to be in a flock, and then one searches for it and cannot find it, the entire flock remains forbidden, similar to a field known to contain ritual impurity (tum'ah). The Chachamim hold that once impurity is known to exist, the entire area remains impure until the source is found. Similarly, once a ba'al mum is known to be in a flock, the entire flock is presumed to contain it until it is identified and removed. The other opinion holds that if one searches diligently and cannot find it, the flock becomes permissible. This clarifies that the discussion is about animals, not shearing, and thus does not contradict the earlier rulings regarding hair.