Menachot 112

אף נשחט על אותו מום רבי יהודה אומר אפילו מת אין מקיזין לו את הדם

It may even be slaughtered by reason of that blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the bleeding was not intended to blemish the beast but merely to relieve it from its congestion, the blemish that results is regarded as accidental and the beast may be slaughtered on account of it; this being in accordance with R. Simeon's view that a result not intended is ignored; v. Shab. 133a.');">¹</span> R'Judah says, It may not be bled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in a place from which no physical blemish would result for it is to be feared that in his anxiety to save the beast the owner would not be careful as to the place where he bleeds it and might do so even in a place from which a blemish would certainly result.');">²</span>

א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים במחמץ אחר מחמץ שהוא חייב דכתיב (ויקרא ב, יא) לא תעשה חמץ (ויקרא ו, י) ולא תאפה חמץ

even though it would otherwise die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Bek. 33b.');">³</span> R'Hiyya B'Abba said in the name of R'Johanan, All agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Meir and the above Rabbis who differ concerning the propriety of blemishing a beast which is already blemished, for here the firstling is indeed blemished by reason of its congestion which would prove fatal if it were not bled.');">⁴</span>

במסרס אחר מסרס שהוא חייב דכתיב (ויקרא כב, כד) ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות אם על כורת הוא חייב על נותק לא כל שכן אלא להביא נותק אחר כורת שהוא חייב

that whosoever leavens [the meal-offering] after it was already leavened<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one shaped or baked the dough of the meal-offering which had been made leavened by another person.');">⁵</span> is liable, for it is written, It shall not be made leavened,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 11.');">⁶</span>

לא נחלקו אלא במטיל מום בבעל מום ר' מאיר סבר כל מום לא יהיה בו ורבנן סברי (ויקרא כב, כא) תמים יהיה לרצון

and it is also written It shall not be baked leavened.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 10. Hence it is clear that for baking it leavened even after it had already been 'made' leavened one is liable.');">⁷</span> And that whosoever castrates a beast after it was already castrated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one man had wrenched the testicles away from the body and left them in the scrotum, and another came and cut them away entirely.');">⁸</span>

ור' מאיר נמי הכתיב תמים יהיה לרצון ההוא למעוטי בעל מום מעיקרא

is liable, for it is written, That which hath its stones bruised or crushed or torn off or cut, [. neither shall ye do in your land].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 24. The latter part of this verse is understood as a general prohibition against castration.');">⁹</span>

בעל מום מעיקרא דיקלא בעלמא הוא

Now if one is liable for cutting how much more so for tearing off! [Wherefore is the latter mentioned? ] To teach that one is also liable if one tears them away after they were already cut. They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Meir and the above Rabbis who differ concerning the propriety of blemishing a beast which is already blemished, for here the firstling is indeed blemished by reason of its congestion which would prove fatal if it were not bled.');">⁴</span>

אלא למעוטי פסולי המוקדשים לאחר פדיונם סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואסירי בגיזה ועבודה במומם נמי ליתסרי קמ"ל

only differ as to whether one may blemish a blemished animal. R'Meir says, It is written, There shall be no blemish at all therein;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21. Even though the beast is blemished there shall be no further blemish therein.');">¹⁰</span>

ורבנן נמי הכתיב (ויקרא כב, כא) כל מום לא יהיה בו ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא וכל מום לא יהיה בו אין לי אלא שלא יהא בו מום מנין שלא יגרום לו ע"י אחרים שלא יניח בצק או דבילה על גבי האוזן כדי שיבא הכלב ויטלנו ת"ל כל מום אמר מום ואמר כל מום

but the Rabbis say, It is written, It shall be perfect to be accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Only such as are fit for offering may not be blemished.');">¹¹</span> Against R'Meir [it will be objected], is there not written, 'It shall be perfect to be accepted'? - That would only exclude wha was born blemished.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore was at no time holy. This certainly may be blemished.');">¹²</span>

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'.');">¹³</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.');">¹⁴</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.');">¹⁵</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.');">¹⁶</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