Bekhorot

only 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’.1 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.2 R. Eliezer holds that Scripture refers to two kinds of terumah,3 one clean terumah and the other terumah held in suspense,4 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’.5 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,6 since he spread his cloth over her,7 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’,8 he cannot sell her again! Rather here the difference of opinion is in connection with the text ‘Thee’ [for Scripture9 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?10 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.11 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 authorities12 [as follows] : Rab says, the opinion of Rab Judah is the rule, whereas Samuel says: The opinion of R. Simeon is the rule?13 — Rather you must say that it refers to the R. Simeon of the Baraitha.14 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 ONE15 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 claim on her, even if she became divorced. The word usdcc , here is derived from the word sdc , a garment, the pointing being authoritative. 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. slaughter the firstling on account of this.