בכורות 34 — Soncino English Talmud

¹only 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’. And there also the difference of opinion is in the interpretation of Scriptural texts. For Rab Judah reported 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. R. Eliezer holds that Scripture refers to two kinds of terumah, one clean terumah and the other terumah held in suspense, and the Divine Law says: ‘keep charge of it’ [not to make it unnecessarily unclean]. And [how does] R. Joshua [explain this]? — The written text is ‘My offering’. Does this mean to say that R. Eliezer holds that the traditional reading [vowels] must guide us? The following was cited in contradiction. [Scripture says]: Seeing that he hath dealt deceitfully with her, since he spread his cloth over her, 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’, he cannot sell her again! Rather here the difference of opinion is in connection with the text ‘Thee’ [for Scripture 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? 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. 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 [as follows] : Rab says, the opinion of Rab Judah is the rule, whereas Samuel says: The opinion of R. Simeon is the rule? — Rather you must say that it refers to the R. Simeon of the Baraitha. 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. MISHNAH. IF ONE MAKES A SLIT IN THE EAR OF A FIRSTBORN ANIMAL. HE MUST NEVER SLAUGHTER IT. 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. GEMARA. And does R. Eliezer penalize in perpetuity? The following was cited in contradiction: If one had a bahereth16^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:One text referring to a direct blemish and the other to an indirect blemish.
^ᵇnote:Num. XVIII, 8.
^ᶜnote:The emphasis is on the plural ‘heave-offerings’.
^ᵈnote:Neither eaten nor burnt, there being a doubt concerning its levitical purity.
^ᵉnote:The word is written defectively. h,nur, not h,unur, referring only to one terminal, viz. clean.
^ᶠnote:Ex. XXI. 8.
^ᵍnote: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 she became divorced. The word usdcc , here is derived from the word sdc , a garment, the pointing being authoritative.
^ʰnote: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 divorced. R. Eliezer holds that we follow the lettering of the text which is without a yod as if from the word vshdc , R. Eliezer reads vsdcc (Rashi). V. Kid. 18b.
^ⁱnote:So Sh. Mek. Cur. edd.: The difference is in the following.
^ʲnote: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.
^ᵏnote:Who holds that a forbidden act produced unintentionally is forbidden.
^ˡnote:R. Hiyya and R. Hanan.
^ᵐnote:V. supra 25a.
^ⁿnote:Who says that one may even slaughter the firstling on account of the blemish caused unintentionally.
^ᵒnote:Viz., a priest.
^ᵖnote:A bright white spot on the skin, ultimately one of the symptoms of leprosy.

²and it was cut off [unintentionally] he becomes clean. If, however, he cut it off intentionally. R. Eliezer says: When another plague spot appears on him [from which he is pronounced clean], then he is cleansed from [the first]. But the Sages say: [In order for him to be clean], either [the second plague] must break out all over his flesh, or [before the cutting off of the first leprous spot], it must have decreased to less than the size of a bean? — Rabbah and R. Joseph both replied: R. Eliezer penalizes thus only where a person's property is concerned, not where his body is concerned. As regards his property [i.e. the firstling], one can say that he may do it [in either case] but as regards his body, can it be said that he would do it in either case? Said Raba: Is there only a contradiction between R. Eliezer here [in the Mishnah] and R. Eliezer [in Nega'im]? Is there not a similar contradiction between the Rabbis [in the Mishnah] and the Rabbis [in Nega'im]? — The difficulty with regard to R. Eliezer has already been solved and as regards the difficulty in the case of the Rabbis, this is also no problem. In the one case we punish him for what he did, and in the other also we punish him for what he did. In one case, [that of a firstling], we punish him for what he did, for how did he intend to make it permitted? By means of this blemish. The Rabbis therefore punished him by ordering that the firstling should not be permitted on account of this very blemish. And in the other case we punish him for what he did. For how did he intend to make himself appear clean? By cutting off this [bahereth]. The Rabbis therefore punished him for this very cut. R. Papa inquired: Does it mean ‘He shall become clean’ or ‘And then he shall become clean’? What is the practical difference? — In the case of a bridegroom on whom there appeared this [second] leprous spot. For we learnt: In the case of a bridegroom on whom there appears a plague spot, we give him seven days [of the wedding week not to see the priest] — to him, to his garment and to his covering. And likewise in the case of any person on a Festival, we give him the whole Festival [in which not to see a priest]. Now if you say that it means ‘He shall become clean’ then he is clean from the first plague and as regards the second, we wait seven days for him. But if you say that it means ‘And then he shall become clean’ of what avail is it that he is not unclean from the second plague, if he remains unclean by reason of the first plague? What [is the answer]? — Let [the question] stand over. R. Jeremiah inquired from R. Ze'ira: If one slit the ear of a firstling and he died, what is the ruling as regards penalizing his son? Should you take as a guide the rule that if a man sells his slave to a heathen and he dies, his son is penalized after him, the reason [there] may be because every day he is prevented from carrying out commandments. And should you be guided by the rule that if a man plans some work for [the intermediate days of] the Festival and dies, his son is not penalized after him, the reason [there] may be because he did not actually do anything forbidden. What then is the ruling here? Did the Rabbis penalize the man himself and he is no more, or perhaps does the penalty of the Rabbis apply to his property and this is still in existence? — He replied to him: We have learnt this [in a Mishnah]: A field which had its thorns removed in the sabbatical year may be sown in the period beginning with the end of the sabbatical year. If, however, the field had been improved or manured with [the excrement of cattle],it must not be sown in the period beginning with the end of the sabbatical year. And R. Jose b. Hanina said: We hold a tradition: If he improved the field and died, his son may sow it. Consequently we see that the Rabbis punished the man himself, but the Rabbis did not punish his son; here also the Rabbis punish the man himself but not his son. Said Abaye: We hold a tradition:^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ᵠnote:For this proves that the first leprous spot would also have healed had it not been cut off.
^ʳnote:Scripture saying: If the leprosy have covered all the flesh, he shall pronounce him clean. Lev. XIII. 13.
^ˢnote:But if the bahereth was of the size of a bean before being cut off, he is never clean. (Neg. VII, 5). Consequently, we see that R. Eliezer does not condemn him to be unclean for ever.
^ᵗnote:For we argue that if by causing the blemish he is permitted to slaughter the animal, then he benefits thereby, and if he has to wait till another blemish appears, then he has lost nothing, as in any case he intended waiting for another blemish to appear. We therefore condemn him never to slaughter the firstling, so as to prevent him causing blemishes.
^ᵘnote:That, if we do not make him unclean for ever, he will cut off the bahereth, and put himself in a doubtful position and wait for the next plague. He will not do so, first because if there does not appear another plague spot he will never be clean, and secondly, because even if there appears another plague spot what benefit is it to him, since he is afflicted as before? It is therefore better for him not to cut off the bahereth and to wait in case it heals.
^ᵛnote:Who evidently condemn him to be unclean for ever unless it spreads over the whole flesh or it decreased etc.
^ʷnote:Treating the firstling as if nothing at all had been done to it.
^ˣnote:Regarding him as if he had never cut off the bahereth at all, so that even if he becomes clean from the second plague, he is not clean from the first, unless the latter plague covers all his flesh.
^ʸnote:Implying that directly there appears a second plague, he is clean from the first.
^ᶻnote:That only after he is pronounced clean from the latter leprous spot is he clean from the former.
^ᵃᵃnote:Since in any case he remains unclean until the second plague heals, even if he is clean from the first.
^ᵃᵇnote:Should a plague appear on it.
^ᵃᶜnote:Neg. III. 2.
^ᵃᵈnote:Immediately when the other appears, and he is not unclean on account of the latter, as we wait until after the wedding week or after the Festival.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of what use is it that we wait in connection with the second plague, not allowing the priest to examine it, seeing that he is not clean from the first plague until the second is healed?
^ᵃᶠnote:There being a penalty for one who sells his slave to a heathen, the owner being required to redeem him even up to ten times his price.
^ᵃᵍnote:In his non-Jewish environment.
^ᵃʰnote:To cut e.g., the grapes of his vineyard, since if a real loss would be entailed through not working during the Festival, the work is permitted, but this man deliberately arranged for this work to be done during the intermediate days, though he could have done it earlier.
^ᵃⁱnote:For he died before the Festival.
^ᵃʲnote:Where he actually committed an offence in causing a blemish to a firstling.
^ᵃᵏnote:We do not penalize him, as the work done was of little value.
^ᵃˡnote:By tilling oftener than usual or by unloading manure on it.
^ᵃᵐnote:Since the work is important, and we therefore punish him.