Question: Does Rav really permit this on Yom Tov (because it is a Davar she'Eino Miskaven)?!

R. Chiya bar Ashi said that Rav forbids plugging up a barrel tightly on Yom Tov (with rags around the plug, even though he does not intend to squeeze out liquid)!

Answer: That is different. Even R. Shimon (who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven) forbids that!

(Abaye and Rava): Even R. Shimon forbids a Pesik Reisha (something that will definitely result in a transgression. It is as if he intends to do it.)

Question: R. Chiya bar Ashi said that Rav rules like R. Yehudah (who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven). R. Chanan bar Ami said that Shmuel rules like R. Shimon;

R. Chiya bar Avin concurred that these rulings were said in the names of Rav and Shmuel, but not that they were transmitted by Rav Chiya bar Ashi and Rav Chanan bar Ami.

Answer (and retraction of the original understanding of Question 3:e, 24b): Really, Rav forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven. Uprooting is not considered shearing;

It is permitted on Yom Tov because it is an abnormal way of uprooting something from where it grows.

Question: Uprooting is considered shearing!

(Beraisa): If (b'Shogeg) one plucked a feather from a bird's wing, then was Kotem (cut off the end), then smoothed it (trimmed its "hair"), he must bring three Chata'os.

(Reish Lakish): Plucking is liable due to (it is a derivative of the Av Melachah of) shearing, Kotem is liable due to Mechatech (cutting to a specific size), smoothing is liable due to Memachek (smearing).

Answer: One is liable for plucking from a wing, for this is normal.

Assumption: Since Rav holds like R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam, R. Yosi must hold like Rav (i.e. he forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven. Tosfos - if not, perhaps R. Yosi permits in the Mishnah only without intent to uproot, for he holds that this is a normal way of uprooting something from where it grows, unlike Rav.)

Question: R. Yosi permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven!

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam): If a Parah Adumah has two hairs that are red at the root and black at the end (our text; Tosfos' text - black at the root and red at the end), one may cut them (to be Machshir it) with a scissors. He need not be concerned (for the Isur of shearing).

Answer #1: The Isur of shearing does not apply to cattle (for they do not have wool).

Objection (Beraisa): "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor Shorecha v'Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzonecha" forbids working with a Bechor ox and shearing a Bechor Seh;

Question: What is the source to forbid working with a Bechor Seh and shearing a Bechor ox?

Answer: "Lo Sa'avod... v'Lo Sagoz." (The "Vav" connects the Lavim to teach that both apply to the same (i.e. both) animals.)

Answer #2: The Isur of shearing does not apply to Parah Adumah, for it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Question: R. Elazar taught that one may not shear or work with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis!

Answer: The Isur is only mid'Rabanan.

Question: In any case, it is forbidden mid'Rabanan! (Why does R. Yosi permit it?)

Answer: Because Parah Adumah is uncommon, Chachamim did not decree.

Question: It would be better to redeem it, cut the hairs and be Mekadesh it again!

Answer: It is very expensive. (It is unlikely that enough money is available to redeem it.)

Question: We should redeem it for a Perutah, like Shmuel's teaching!

(Shmuel): If Hekdesh of any value was redeemed onto a Perutah, the Hekdesh becomes Chulin.

Answer: Shmuel's law is b'Di'eved. One may not do so l'Chatchilah.

Note: (Text of R. Gershom and Shitah Mekubetzes - Answer #3): The Isur of shearing cattle applies only to the tail.

Answer #3 (or 4): Our assumption (g) was wrong. Rav holds like R. Yosi, but R. Yosi does not hold like Rav. He permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven.

(Mishnah): He uproots the hair, but must not move it. (He leaves it caught in the attached hair.)

(Rav Asi): This must be done by hand, but not with a Kli.

Question (Mishnah): He makes room (for Shechitah) on both sides with a Kopitz.

Answer: It should say 'he makes room on both sides for a Kopitz.'

(Mishnah): The same applies to one who uproots hair to inspect a Mum.

Question: Does this teach about l'Chatchilah (one may uproot hair to inspect a Mum), or b'Di'eved (if one uprooted hair to inspect a Mum, he must not move it, like one who did so for Shechitah)?

Answer (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa - R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam): If (there is a Mum in a Bechor's ear and) wool is tangled in the ear, one uproots the wool to inspect the Mum.

This shows that this is l'Chatchilah.

(Rav Mari): We already learn this from our Mishnah!

(Mishnah): Similarly, one uproots hair to inspect a Mum.

Question: Why does it say "similarly"?

Suggestion: This teaches that (if hair was uprooted to inspect a Mum,) it may not be moved.

Rejection: Even when hair was uprooted for Shechitah (which clearly shows he did not intend for the hair), it may not be moved. All the more so when it was uprooted to inspect a Mum (which does not prove what his intention was) one may not move it!

Answer: Similarly, it is permitted to uproot the hair, i.e. l'Chatchilah.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If hair of a Bechor Ba'al Mum fell out and was put in the window, and then it was slaughtered, Akavya ben Mahalal'el permits the hair;

Chachamim forbid it.

R. Yosi: Akavya does not permit in this case, rather, when the hair fell out and was put in the window, and then the Bechor died.

If dangling wool (it is detached from the skin, but it still clings to the attached wool) of a Bechor is Nir'eh (seen) with the attached wool (this will be explained), it is permitted;

If it sticks out, it is forbidden.

(Gemara) Inference: R. Yosi holds that Akavya forbids (hair in the window after Shechitah).

Objection: If he permits after death (without Shechitah, when the Bechor is totally forbidden), all the more so he should permit after Shechitah (when the Bechor is totally permitted)!

Correction: Rather, R. Yosi means that the argument (Akavya permits, and Chachamim forbid) is not about a slaughtered Bechor. There, all permit;

Rather, they argue about a Bechor that died.

(R. Asi citing Reish Lakish): Akavya and Chachamim argue when an expert (saw the Mum and) permitted the Bechor. Chachamim say that we decree lest one delay slaughtering it (to gain hair that will fall). Akavya does not decree;

If an expert did not permit it, all forbid the hair.

Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): A Ba'al Mum forbids any quantity (of animals with which it became mixed);

R. Yosi says, one checks.

Question: What does this mean?

It cannot mean to check which is the Ba'al Mum and to remove it. Surely, the first Tana would not argue with this!

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): The case is, shearings of a Bechor became mixed with Chulin shearings;

The first Tana is R. Yehudah, who says that Chachamim forbid shearings (even) after the animal was slaughtered. R. Yosi says that Chachamim permit in this case;

R. Yosi says, it is checked.

Question: What does this mean?

Suggestion: We check whether the Mum is permanent. (If it is, the shearings are permitted, even though they fell before an expert permitted the animal. This refutes Reish Lakish!)

Answer #1 (and Answer to Question (4) - Rava): No, we check whether an expert permitted the animal before the shearings fell. If so, they are permitted. If not, they are forbidden.

Objection (R. Yirmeyah): These Chachamim of Bavel err. They did not hear how R. Yochanan explains the Beraisa!

Answer #2 (to Questions (h) and (h:2) - R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): The argument in the Beraisa is when they checked all the animals for the Ba'al Mum and did not find it, they argue like the following Tana'im:

(Mishnah - R. Meir): (If a grave was lost in a field and the entire field was checked and the grave was not found,) anything Muchzak to be Tamei (i.e. the entire field, mi'Safek) keeps its Chazakah until the Tum'ah is found;

Chachamim say one digs until finding a big rock or virgin soil (we are not concerned lest there is Tum'ah underneath).

Answer #3 (R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): The argument is when they checked some animals and found a Ba'al Mum, they argue like the following Tana'im:

(Beraisa - Rebbi): (If a grave was lost in a field,) one who enters the field is Tamei;

If a grave was found in the field, one who enters the field is Tahor - we assume that it is the same one that was lost.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says the entire field must be checked (if not, one who enters is Tamei).

Question: According to R. Asi, why didn't R. Yochanan explain like R. Chiya bar Aba explains?

Answer: Regarding Tum'ah, we can say that a raven or mouse took it, but the Ba'al Mum did not go away!

Refutation: R. Chiya bar Aba, though, will explain that it might have been a healable Mum, which healed.

Question: According to R. Chiya, why didn't R. Yochanan explain like R. Asi explains?

Answer: It is normal to bury a Mes in a field - we know that one was buried here, perhaps another also (and we found the other);

When a Ba'al Mum became mixed with animals that were checked, we need not suspect that one of the others got a Mum!

R. Asi argues - since animals gore each other, it is common to get a Mum.