Bekhorot 34a (לד.) — the Talmud in English

As it is taught: “There shall be no blemish in it.” I have only

that one may not intentionally inflict a blemish on it

by hand.

From where do we know that one may not bring a fig cake or dough and place it on the ear

of the sacrificial animal

so that a dog will come and eat it,

thereby causing a blemish in the offering?

The verse states: “Any blemish”

to include

both a blemish and anything that causes a blemish.

That is, even when it is caused indirectly.

Here,

with regard to teruma,

they disagree on the basis of the verses.

As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and likewise Reish Lakish said, and likewise Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: It is written: “And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot.”

Rabbi Eliezer holds:

“My teruma” is a plural expression, and

the verse is speaking of two terumot: one pure teruma and one suspended teruma,

whose status is uncertainly pure.

And the Merciful One said that it must be guarded.

As it is written, “charge,” and this applies even to suspended teruma. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer holds that if it had been placed in an exposed location, one must put it in a concealed place.

But Rabbi Yehoshua

holds:

“My teruma”

is written in the singular

form.

And the verse is speaking only of pure teruma. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that if it had been placed in a concealed location, one may take it out to an exposed location, since there is no obligation to safeguard it in a state of purity; only pure teruma must be safeguarded.

There are occasions when the text of Scripture differs in the form in which the letters of a word are written, called the masoret, from the form in which it is read.

And there is a dispute as to whether there is an “authority of the reading” or an “authority of the masoret”; that is, whether the primary consideration is the written form or the way the word is read.

And we raise an objection concerning Rabbi Eliezer’s derivation of “My terumot” as a plural expression, indicating two terumot, even though in the masoret it is written “My teruma,” without a vav—

does this mean that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is an “authority of the reading”?! There was a dispute among the tannaim as to whether a person may sell his minor daughter for “servitude after servitude”; that is, if he sold her as a maidservant and she was emancipated by her master while she was still a minor, whether her father may sell her again—whether through the Jubilee or after six years. And they likewise disputed whether he may sell her for “servitude after marriage”; that is, if her father married her off and she was subsequently divorced by her husband, whether he may now sell her.

The tannaim dispute whether a man may sell his minor daughter into servitude after servitude; that is, if he sold her as a maidservant and she was released by her master while she was still a minor, whether by the Jubilee or after six years, may her father sell her again? They also dispute whether he may sell her into servitude after marriage; that is, if her father married her off and she was then divorced by her husband, may he now sell her?

And we raise a contradiction:

It is taught in a beraita: It is written: “He shall not rule to sell her to a foreign people

when he betrays her.”

This expression, “when he betrays her,” is an expression of a garment, for

once he spreads

the master

his garment over her,

that is, once he marries her and then divorces her,

he may no longer

the father

sell her,

for a person may not sell his daughter for servitude after marriage. For the master’s marriage to her is as though her father had sold her for marriage [and this law applies not only when she married the master, but even if she married another man]. But if the master did not marry her and she was emancipated by him, her father may sell her again, since a person may sell his daughter for servitude after servitude—

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

“When he betrays her” is an expression of betrayal, for

once he has betrayed her

her father, by selling her as a maidservant [even if the master did not marry her,

he may no longer sell her]],

for a person may not sell his daughter for servitude after servitude. But if the father did not sell her and instead married her off, he may sell her after she is divorced, since a person may sell his daughter for servitude after marriage.

Their dispute depends on whether there is an “authority of the reading” or of the masoret. Rabbi Akiva holds that there is an “authority of the reading,” and the word is read with a ḥirik beneath the second bet of “when he betrays her,” namely, as an expression of a garment. Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is an “authority of the masoret,” and since no yod is written after the second bet, it is as though the bet were vocalized with a kamatz, namely, as an expression of betrayal.

But this is difficult from that passage against what we say here, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is an “authority of the reading.”

And we answer:

Rather, here they disagree with regard to “to you.”

As it is written:

“And I, behold, have given to you

the charge of My teruma.”

Rabbi Yehoshua holds:

“To you” means: safeguard the teruma

that is fit for you, but that which is not fit for you—

that is, teruma whose status is uncertainly impure—

you need not safeguard.

But Rabbi Eliezer

holds: This teruma whose status is uncertainly impure

is also fit for you, for perhaps Elijah will come and declare it pure.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak challenged this: Which Rabbi Shimon

of whom you said that the halakha follows him?

If you say that it is Rabbi Shimon of the Mishna,

who says: He may let blood, even though he thereby causes a blemish in it, for he holds that an unintended act is permitted—

has Shmuel not informed us until now

that it is established for us

that an unintended act is permitted?

But Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says: An unintended act is prohibited.

And Rav Ḥanin bar Ashi said that Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who says: An unintended act is permitted.

And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin taught it without the names of the transmitters,

without Rav Ḥiyya and Rav Ḥanan. Rather:

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And since Shmuel had already taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, why was it necessary for him to teach it twice?

And we answer:

Rather,

which Rabbi Shimon did he say that the halakha follows?

Rabbi Shimon of the beraita,

who says: He may even slaughter it on account of that blemish. Since he did not inflict the blemish with the intention of rendering it permissible, but rather so that it would not die, we do not penalize him.

And Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, taught it explicitly: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon of the beraita.

Mishna:

A kohen

who cuts

or damages

the ear of a firstborn animal,

in order to render it blemished and release it for non-sacred use—

may never slaughter

this firstborn animal, even if another blemish subsequently develops in it,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

For we penalize him for inflicting a blemish in consecrated property.

But the Sages say: When another blemish develops in it, he may slaughter it on account of that blemish.

For they penalized him only with regard to the blemish that he inflicted.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

Does Rabbi Eliezer penalize him

so that it may not be permitted

ever?

And we raise a contradiction,

as we learned:

One who had a white spot

which is an impure lesion that one is forbidden to cut out in order to become pure,