Halakhah for Menachot 112:9
אמר ר' אמי הניח שאור ע"ג עיסה והלך וישב לו ונתחמצה מאליה חייב עליה כמעשה שבת ומעשה שבת כי האי גוונא מי מיחייב והאמר רבה בר בר חנה
But what was born blemished is no better than a tree! - It excludes rather consecrated animals that have been rendered unfit [by reason of a blemish] and have been redeemed; for I might have argued that since these may not be sheared of their wool nor put to any labour it is also forbidden to inflict any further blemish upon them, we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. And against the Rabbis [it will be objected], is it not written, 'There shall be no blemish at all therein'? - That verse is necessary for the following teaching: It is written, 'There shall be no blemish at all therein': I gather from t that one may not inflict any blemish upon it, but whence do I know that one may not cause it to suffer a blemish indirectly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'by other means'.');"><sup>13</sup></span> [e.g.] that one may not place a lump of dough or a pressed fig upon its ear so as to tempt a dog to take it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And to bite its ear at the same time, thus causing a blemish.');"><sup>14</sup></span> The text therefore says, 'No blemish at all'; not only does it say 'no blemish' but also 'no blemish at all'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Including blemishes indirectly caused.');"><sup>15</sup></span> R'Ammi said, If a man placed leaven upon the dough [of a meal-offering] and went and sat him down, and the dough became leavened of its own, he is liable for it, just as it is an act of work on the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E. g., if one placed meat on the coals on the Sabbath one would be liable for roasting, although the roasting was done of its own accord.');"><sup>16</sup></span> But would one be liable for doing such an act of work as this on the Sabbath? Has not Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said