Bekhorot 34a — the Talmud in English

As it was taught: “There shall be no blemish in it.” I have only ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

that he must not inflict a blemish upon it

with his hands.

From where is it derived that he must not bring a dried fig and dough and place it upon the ear

of the sacrificial animal

so that the dog will come and eat it,

and through this cause a blemish to the sacrifice?

The verse states: “Any blemish”

to include:

both a blemish and every blemish.

That is, even through indirect causation.

Here,

with regard to teruma,

they disagree over the verses.

For Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: And so Reish Lakish said, and so Rav Nahman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: It is written: “And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My gifts.”

Rabbi Eliezer holds:

“My gifts” is a plural expression, and

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

which is of uncertain purity.

And the Merciful One said: Provide it with safeguarding.

As it is written, “charge,” and even with regard to suspended teruma. Therefore Rabbi Eliezer holds that if it had been placed in an exposed location, he should place it in a concealed location.

And Rabbi Yehoshua

holds:

“My gift”

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, he is permitted to take it out to an exposed location, since there is no obligation to safeguard it in purity, but only pure teruma.

There are times when there is a difference in Scripture between the manner in which the letters of the word are written, called the “tradition,” and the manner in which it is read.

And there is a dispute whether there is “the mother is the reading” or “the mother is the tradition”; that is, whether the essential matter is the form of the writing, or the essential matter is the reading.

And we raised an objection concerning this: From the fact that Rabbi Eliezer expounded “My gifts” as a plural expression, which implies two gifts, even though in the tradition it is written “My gift” without a vav—

is it to say that Rabbi Eliezer holds: “the mother is the reading”?!

There was a dispute among the tannaim whether a person may sell his minor daughter for “servitude after servitude”; that is, if he sold her as a maidservant and she was freed from the master while she was still a minor, through the Jubilee or after six years, whether her father may sell her again. And they likewise disputed whether he may sell her for “servitude after marriage”; that is, if her father married her off and she was divorced by her husband, whether he may now sell her.

And he juxtaposes it with another teaching:

It was taught: It is written: “To a foreign people he shall not have power to sell her

when he deals treacherously with her.”

This “when he deals treacherously” is an expression of a garment, for

once he spread

the master

his garment over her,

that is, he married her and afterward divorced her,

he is no longer permitted

the father

to sell her,

for a person does not sell his daughter for servitude after marriage. For the master’s marriage is as though the father sold her for marriage [and not specifically through the master’s marriage; rather, even if she married another man, the law is likewise so]. But if the master did not marry her, but she was freed from him, her father may sell her again, for a person does sell his daughter for servitude after servitude,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

“When he deals treacherously” is an expression of betrayal, for

once he betrayed her

her father, by selling her for servitude [even if the master did not marry her

he is no longer permitted to sell her]],

for a person does not sell his daughter for servitude after servitude. But if the father did not sell her, but married her off, he may sell her after she was divorced, for a person does sell his daughter for servitude after marriage.

And their dispute depends upon whether “the mother is the reading” or “the mother is the tradition.” For Rabbi Akiva holds that “the mother is the reading,” and the reading is with a ḥiriq beneath the second bet of “when he deals treacherously with her,” that is, an expression of garment. And Rabbi Eliezer holds that “the mother is the tradition,” and since a yod was not written after the second bet, it is as though the bet were vocalized with a kamatz, that is, an expression of betrayal.

And it is difficult from there concerning what we say here, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that “the mother is the reading”?

And we answer:

Rather, here they disagree concerning “to you.”

As it is written:

“And I, behold, have given you

the charge of My gift.”

Rabbi Yehoshua holds:

“To you”—teruma

that is fit for you, safeguard. But that which is not fit for you—

that is, teruma that is of uncertain impurity—

do not safeguard.

And Rabbi Eliezer

holds: This teruma that is subject to uncertainty of impurity,

it too is fit, perhaps Elijah will come and declare it pure.

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

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak raised an objection against him: Which Rabbi Shimon

whom you said that the halakha follows?

If you say, Rabbi Shimon of the Mishna,

who said: He should let blood, even though he thereby makes a blemish in it, for he holds that an unintended act is permitted. And

until now has Shmuel not informed us

that it is established for us

that an unintended act is permitted?

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

who said: An unintended act is prohibited.

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

who said: An unintended act is permitted.

And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin taught it without names,

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 already informed us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, why was it necessary for him to inform us this twice?

And we answer:

Rather,

which Rabbi Shimon is he saying that the halakha follows?

Rabbi Shimon of the beraita,

who said: He may even slaughter it because of that blemish. Since he did not inflict the blemish with the intention of permitting it, but rather so that it would not die, we do not penalize him.

And Rav Shisha, 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 splits,

who damages,

the ear of a firstborn,

in order to make it blemished and take it out to non-sacred status—

he may never slaughter

this firstborn, even if another blemish falls upon it,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

For we penalize him for having inflicted a blemish upon consecrated property.

And the Sages say: When another blemish is born in it, he may slaughter it because of that blemish.

For they penalized him only concerning the blemish that he made.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

And does Rabbi Eliezer penalize him

so that it will not be permitted

ever?

And he juxtaposes it with another teaching,

we learned:

One who had a white spot

which is an impure affliction that one is forbidden to cut off with the aim of becoming pure,