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 only the prohibition that one may not directly cause a blemish. From where is it derived that one may not bring pressed figs or dough and place it on the animal’s ear so that a dog will come and eat it, thereby biting off part of the animal’s ear and leaving it blemished? The verse states: “There shall not be any blemish in it” (Leviticus 22:21), indicating that the same prohibition applies both when the blemish is caused directly and when it is any blemish, even one caused indirectly.
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 After demonstrating that the tanna’im in the baraita discussing the firstborn offering disagree with regard to the exposition of certain verses, the Gemara clarifies that the tanna’im here, in the baraita discussing teruma whose status concerning impurity is uncertain, also disagree with regard to the exposition of verses. As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says, and Reish Lakish likewise says, and Rav Naḥman likewise says that Rabba bar Avuh says: It is stated in a verse addressed to Aaron and his sons: “And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot [terumotai]” (Numbers 18:8), with “terumotai” written in plural.
ר"א סבר בשתי תרומות הכתוב מדבר אחת תרומ' טהורה ואחת תרומ' תלויה ואמר רחמנא עביד לה שימור ורבי יהושע תרומתי כתיב Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the barrel of teruma must be safeguarded from ritual impurity, holds that the verse is speaking of two terumot: Both teruma that is definitely ritually pure and teruma that is in abeyance, i.e., teruma whose status with regard to impurity is uncertain. And based on the plural “My terumot,” it is understood that the Merciful One states: Make a protection for it, i.e., safeguard even teruma whose status concerning impurity is uncertain. And Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that one may expose to ritual impurity the teruma contents in the barrel, holds that the term terumotai is written so that it can be read as terumati, meaning: My teruma, in the singular. Therefore, the requirement to safeguard teruma applies only to that teruma whose status is definitely pure.
למימרא דר' אליעזר סבר יש אם למקרא ורמינהי (שמות כא, ח) בבגדו בה כיון שפירש טליתו עליה שוב אינו רשאי למוכרה דברי ר"ע The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, i.e., one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita discussing a Hebrew maidservant’s return to her father’s house. The verse states, with regard to her master: “He shall have no power to sell her to a foreign people, seeing that he has dealt deceitfully with her [bevigdo bah]” (Exodus 21:8). The term “bevigdo” shares a root with a word for garment, beged. Therefore, the verse indicates that once the master has spread his garment over her, thereby designating her as his wife, if the maidservant is subsequently divorced or widowed, her father may no longer sell her. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and he interprets bevigdo as related to bigdo, his garment.
ר"א אומר כיון שבגד בה שוב אינו רשאי למוכרה Rabbi Eliezer says: The word bevigdo is written without a yod and therefore is written in a manner that it can be read: Bevagdo. Accordingly, bevigdo bah means that since the father dealt deceitfully [bagad] with her by selling her once, he may not sell her again. Evidently, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the spelling of the words. This contradicts his derivation with regard to teruma, which is based on the pronunciation of the words.
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 Rather, here, the tanna’im disagree with regard to this: The verse states: “And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot” (Numbers 18:8). Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the term “you” teaches that only teruma that is fit for you to eat, i.e., teruma that is definitely ritually pure, you must safeguard. But teruma that is not fit for you, i.e., teruma whose status with regard to impurity is uncertain, you do not need to safeguard. And Rabbi Eliezer holds that this teruma, whose status with regard to impurity is uncertain, is also considered fit for you, because perhaps Elijah will come and deem it ritually pure.
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 § The Gemara again discusses letting the blood of a firstborn offering. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this: To which opinion of Rabbi Shimon is Shmuel referring? If we say he is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna, that the blood may be let despite the resulting blemish, because the purpose of the treatment is solely medical, that cannot be correct. After all, hasn’t Shmuel taught us until now that an unintentional act, i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited result inadvertently ensues, is permitted?
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 But doesn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that an unintentional act is prohibited, and Rav Ḥanin bar Ashi says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that an unintentional act is permitted. And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin teaches these rulings directly, without citing additional men in their transmission. He simply states that Rav says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Evidently, Shmuel could not be referring to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna, as if so, he would be repeating himself.
אלא ר"ש דברייתא ורב שישא בריה דרב אידי מתני לה בהדיא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ש דברייתא: The Gemara answers: Rather, Shmuel is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita (33b), that not only may one let the blood of the dying firstborn animal despite the resulting blemish, but it is even permitted to eat the animal’s meat on account of the blemish. And the Gemara notes that Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, teaches this explicitly: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon as stated in the baraita.
מתני׳ הצורם אוזן בבכור הרי זה לא ישחוט עולמית דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים נולד בו מום אחר ישחוט עליו: MISHNA: In the case of one who slits [hatzorem] the ear of a firstborn offering, that person may never slaughter that animal. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: If another blemish later develops in the firstborn, he may slaughter the animal on account of that second blemish.
גמ׳ ומי קניס רבי אליעזר לעולם ורמינהי מי שהיתה לו בהרת GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Eliezer penalize for a transgression forever? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Nega’im 7:5): In the case of one who had a snow-white leprous mark [baheret] on his body,