## Bekhorot Daf 34a

###### Bekhorot 34a:1
[Bekhorot 34a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:1)

אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן בּוֹ מוּם, מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא דְּבֵילָה וּבָצֵק וְיַנִּיחֶנָּה עַל הָאוֹזֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבֹא כֶּלֶב וְיֹאכְלֶנָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כׇּל מוּם״ — אֶחָד מוּם וְאֶחָד כׇּל מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 34a:2
[Bekhorot 34a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:2)

הָכָא בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְכֵן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: ״וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמֹתָי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 34a:3
[Bekhorot 34a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:3)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: בִּשְׁתֵּי תְּרוּמוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַחַת תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה וְאַחַת תְּרוּמָה תְּלוּיָה, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד לַהּ שִׁימּוּר. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״תְּרוּמָתִי״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 34a:4
[Bekhorot 34a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:4)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא? וּרְמִינְהִי: ״בְּבִגְדוֹ בָּהּ״ — כֵּיוָן שֶׁפֵּירַשׂ טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְמוֹכְרָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 34a:5
[Bekhorot 34a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:5)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּגַד בָּהּ, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְמוֹכְרָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 34a:6
[Bekhorot 34a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:6)

אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: הָרְאוּיָה לָךְ שְׁמוֹר, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לָךְ לָא תִּשְׁמוֹר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הָא נָמֵי רְאוּיָה הִיא, שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וִיטַהֲרֶנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bekhorot 34a:7
[Bekhorot 34a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:7)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּמַתְנִיתִין, עַד הַשְׁתָּא לָא אַשְׁמְעִינַן שְׁמוּאֵל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין מוּתָּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?**


###### Bekhorot 34a:8
[Bekhorot 34a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:8)

וְהָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַב חָנִין בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מַתְנֵי בְּלָא גַּבְרֵי — רַב אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 34a:9
[Bekhorot 34a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:9)

אֶלָּא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּבָרַיְיתָא, וְרַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּהֶדְיָא: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּבָרַיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Bekhorot 34a:10
[Bekhorot 34a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַצּוֹרֵם אוֹזֶן בַּבְּכוֹר — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט עוֹלָמִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם אַחֵר — יִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 34a:11
[Bekhorot 34a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/34a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** וּמִי קָנֵיס רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְעוֹלָם? וּרְמִינְהִי: מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ בַּהֶרֶת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,