Bekhorot 67

Chapter 67

א אלא שלא יתן בו מום מנין שלא יביא דבילה ובצק ויניחנה על האוזן כדי שיבא כלב ויאכלנה ת"ל כל מום אחד מום ואחד כל מום
1 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]? Therefore the text says 'There shall be no blemish'. [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.');"><sup>1</sup></span> And there also the difference of opinion is in the interpretation of Scriptural texts.
ב הכא בקראי פליגי דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכן אמר ר"ל וכן אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה (במדבר יח, ח) ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומתי
2 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. I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 8.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ר"א סבר בשתי תרומות הכתוב מדבר אחת תרומ' טהורה ואחת תרומ' תלויה ואמר רחמנא עביד לה שימור ורבי יהושע תרומתי כתיב
3 R'Eliezer holds that Scripture refers to two kinds of terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphasis is on the plural 'heave-offerings'.');"><sup>3</sup></span> 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,');"><sup>4</sup></span> and the Divine Law says: 'keep charge of it' [not to make it unnecessarily unclean].
ד למימרא דר' אליעזר סבר יש אם למקרא ורמינהי (שמות כא, ח) בבגדו בה כיון שפירש טליתו עליה שוב אינו רשאי למוכרה דברי ר"ע
4 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.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Does this mean to say that R'Eliezer holds that the traditional reading [vowels] must guide us? The following was cited in contradiction.
ה ר"א אומר כיון שבגד בה שוב אינו רשאי למוכרה
5 [Scripture says]: Seeing that he hath dealt deceitfully with her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI. 8.');"><sup>6</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ו אלא הכא בהא קמיפלגי ר' יהושע סבר הראויה לך שמור ושאינה ראויה לך לא תשמור ור"א הא נמי ראויה היא שמא יבוא אליהו ויטהרנה
6 he is not permitted to sell her again. 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');"><sup>8</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ש מתקיף לה ר"נ בר יצחק הי ר"ש אילימא ר"ש דמתני' עד השתא לא אשמעינן שמואל דבר שאין מתכוין מותר
7 says: And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings]. 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. And [how does] R'Eliezer [interpret it]? - Doubtful terumah is also fit terumah for thee, in case Elijah comes and pronounces it clean. Rab Judah reported in the name of Samuel: The halachah is like R'Simeon, R'Nahman B'Isaac demurred: Which R'Simeon? 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.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ח והא ר' חייא בר אשי אמר רב הלכה כר' יהודה ורב חנין בר אשי אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ש ורב חייא בר אבין מתני בלא גברי רב אמר הלכה כר' יהודה ושמואל אמר הלכה כר"ש
8 But has not Samuel already informed us that a forbidden act effected unintentionally is permissible? 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.');"><sup>11</sup></span> whereas R'Hanin B'Ashi reported in the name of Samuel that the halachah is according to R'Simeon? And R'Hiyya B'Abin taught without naming any authorities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya and R. Hanan.');"><sup>12</sup></span> [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.');"><sup>13</sup></span> - 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.');"><sup>14</sup></span> 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.
ט אלא ר"ש דברייתא ורב שישא בריה דרב אידי מתני לה בהדיא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ש דברייתא:
9 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., a priest.');"><sup>15</sup></span> MAKES A SLIT IN THE EAR OF A FIRSTBORN ANIMAL. HE MUST NEVER SLAUGHTER IT.
י <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הצורם אוזן בבכור הרי זה לא ישחוט עולמית דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים נולד בו מום אחר ישחוט עליו:
10 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. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>And does R'Eliezer penalize in perpetuity? 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.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יא <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ומי קניס רבי אליעזר לעולם ורמינהי מי שהיתה לו בהרת
11 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter