Bekhorot 67

אלא שלא יתן בו מום

only that he must not cause a blemish directly; whence is it learnt that he must not bring a case of pressed figs or dough and put it on the ear so that a dog may come and eat it, [with the possibility of a blemish being caused]?

מנין שלא יביא דבילה ובצק ויניחנה על האוזן כדי שיבא כלב ויאכלנה

Therefore the text says 'There shall be no blemish'.

ת"ל

[It says] blemish and [it adds] 'there shall be no blemish'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One text referring to a direct blemish and the other to an indirect blemish.');">¹</span>

כל מום אחד מום ואחד כל מום

And there also the difference of opinion is in the interpretation of Scriptural texts.

הכא בקראי פליגי דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכן אמר ר"ל וכן אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה

For Rab Judah reporte in the name of Samuel, and so did Resh Lakish say, and likewise R'Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha: [Scripture says]: And I, behold.

(במדבר יח, ח) ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומתי ר"א סבר

I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 8.');">²</span>

בשתי תרומות הכתוב מדבר אחת תרומ' טהורה ואחת תרומ' תלויה

R'Eliezer holds that Scripture refers to two kinds of terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphasis is on the plural 'heave-offerings'.');">³</span>

ואמר רחמנא עביד לה שימור

one clean terumah and the other terumah held in suspense,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neither eaten nor burnt, there being a doubt concerning its levitical purity. h,nur, h,unur,');">⁴</span>

ורבי יהושע תרומתי כתיב

and the Divine Law says: 'keep charge of it' [not to make it unnecessarily unclean].

למימרא דר' אליעזר סבר יש אם למקרא

And [how does] R'Joshua [explain this]? - The written text is 'My offering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word is written defectively. not referring only to one terminal, viz. clean.');">⁵</span>

ורמינהי

Does this mean to say that R'Eliezer holds that the traditional reading [vowels] must guide us?

(שמות כא, ח) בבגדו בה כיון שפירש טליתו עליה שוב אינו רשאי למוכרה דברי ר"ע

The following was cited in contradiction.

ר"א אומר

[Scripture says]: Seeing that he hath dealt deceitfully with her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI. 8.');">⁶</span>

כיון שבגד בה שוב אינו רשאי למוכרה

since he spread his cloth over her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the master has taken her under his protection by espousing her unto himself for a wife, the father has no further claim on her, even if usdcc sdc she became divorced. The word , here is derived from the word , a garment, the pointing being authoritative.');">⁷</span>

אלא הכא בהא קמיפלגי ר' יהושע סבר

he is not permitted to sell her again.

הראויה לך שמור ושאינה ראויה לך לא תשמור

These are the words of R'Akiba, whereas R'Eliezer says: 'Since he hath dealt deceitfully with her',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having sold her as a maid-servant, the father is not allowed to sell her again as a maid-servant, but he may sell her again if she became vshdc vsdcc divorced. R. Eliezer holds that we follow the lettering of the text which is without a yod as if from the word , R. Eliezer reads');">⁸</span>

ור"א הא נמי ראויה היא שמא יבוא אליהו ויטהרנה

he cannot sell her again! Rather here the difference of opinion is in connection with th text 'Thee' [for Scripture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. Cur. edd.: The difference is in the following.');">⁹</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

says: And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings].

הלכה כר"ש

R'Joshua holds the interpretation is: The terumah that is fit [to be eaten] by 'thee', protect from further uncleanness, whereas that which is not fit for thee, thou needest not protect.

מתקיף לה ר"נ בר יצחק

And [how does] R'Eliezer [interpret it]? - Doubtful terumah is also fit terumah for thee, in case Elijah comes and pronounces it clean.

הי ר"ש

Rab Judah reported in the name of Samuel: The halachah is like R'Simeon, R'Nahman B'Isaac demurred: Which R'Simeon?

אילימא ר"ש דמתני' עד השתא לא אשמעינן שמואל דבר שאין מתכוין מותר

Is it the R'Simeon of the Mishnah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds in the Mishnah that he may let blood although he makes a blemish, but he does not state that he may slaughter the firstling on account of this.');">¹⁰</span>

והא ר' חייא בר אשי אמר רב

But has not Samuel already informed us that a forbidden act effected unintentionally is permissible?

הלכה כר' יהודה ורב חנין בר אשי אמר שמואל

Did not R'Hiyya B'Ashi report in the name of Rab that the halachah was according to Rab Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that a forbidden act produced unintentionally is forbidden.');">¹¹</span>

הלכה כר"ש

whereas R'Hanin B'Ashi reported in the name of Samuel that the halachah is according to R'Simeon?

ורב חייא בר אבין מתני בלא גברי

And R'Hiyya B'Abin taught without naming any authorities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya and R. Hanan.');">¹²</span>

רב אמר

[as follows] : Rab says, the opinion of Rab Judah is the rule, whereas Samuel says: The opinion of R'Simeon is the rule?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 25a.');">¹³</span>

הלכה כר' יהודה ושמואל אמר

- Rather you must say that it refers to the R'Simeon of the Baraitha.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says that one may even slaughter the firstling on account of the blemish caused unintentionally.');">¹⁴</span>

הלכה כר"ש

And R'Shisha B'Idid taught this explicitly: Rab Judah reported in the name of Samuel: The halachah is like R'Simeon of the Baraitha.

אלא ר"ש דברייתא

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., a priest.');">¹⁵</span>

ורב שישא בריה דרב אידי מתני לה בהדיא

MAKES A SLIT IN THE EAR OF A FIRSTBORN ANIMAL.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ש דברייתא:

HE MUST NEVER SLAUGHTER IT.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הצורם אוזן בבכור הרי זה לא ישחוט עולמית דברי רבי אליעזר

THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R'ELIEZER'WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY: HE MAY SLAUGHTER IT ON ACCOUNT OF ANOTHER BLEMISH, WHEN IT APPEARS ON IT.

וחכמים אומרים

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>And does R'Eliezer penalize in perpetuity?

נולד בו מום אחר ישחוט עליו:

The following was cited in contradiction: If one had a bahereth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bright white spot on the skin, ultimately one of the symptoms of leprosy.');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ומי קניס רבי אליעזר לעולם

ורמינהי

מי שהיתה לו בהרת