Remark: Even the Tana'im who do not expound "Kol" in Pesachim (43b), it is possible that here they expound, for there is a reason to include, like I explained there (DH Man).

Question: In Shabbos (25a) we say that Tahor Terumah and Tamei Terumah have the same law. The Torah said "Lecha" - [Tamei Terumah] is yours [to benefit from it, e.g.] to burn under the food you cook;

How can we learn from the verse three Terumos - Tahor, Tamei and Taluy?

Answer: It is because it says "Nasati Lecha Mishmeres Terumosai" - Terumosai refers to Lecha and to Mishmeres, for Lecha applies to Tamei, to include a Heter to benefit from it, and Mishmeres applies to Teluyah, that it must be guarded.

Question: According to R. Yehudah, since the verse does not discuss two Terumos, what is the source that one may benefit from Tamei?

Answer: He learns from other Drashos there in Shabbos (25a) - Mimenu (from Tamei Ma'aser) you may not burn (but you may burn Tamei Terumah), or from "Lo" (give Tahor Terumah, that the Kohen himself can consume) and not [Tamei, which is proper only] for his fire. This implies that he may burn it.

Version #1 (Rashi): The text says "once he spread his Talis over her, he may not sell her. R. Akiva says so. R. Eliezer says, since he betrayed her..."

In Kidushin (18b, Rashi) brought a proof from the Mechilta, that the text in R. Akiva's words is "once he spread his Talis", and R. Eliezer's opinion is not there.

Question #1: In most old Seforim, the text says oppositely here and in Kidushin.

Question #2: According to Rashi's text, R. Akiva's opinion is brought before that of R. Eliezer, who was his Rebbi.

Question #3: It is written in most Seforim "b'Vigdo Bah b'Vigdo Bah" twice - once he spread his Talis...

Question #4: How does R. Eliezer infer that the Mesores (tradition for how the word is pronounced) is an expression of betrayal, because it is written without a Yud? Likewise it is not written b'Vogdo with a Vov!

Implied suggestion: Also without a Vov you [can] read Chataf Kamatz like Rashi explained, like "k'Sham'o", "k'Sham'am", "b'Amram" (we read it k'Amram), "k'Avram".

Rejection #1: Likewise it is an expression of a Beged (garment) or Talis!

Rejection #2: [The Torah] does not normally write a Yud in the middle of the [root] letters of a verb (to show that there is a Chirik).

Question #5: In that Sugya in Kidushin, afterwards it is written in all old Seforim "and according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who says that even according to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, the initial coins [paid for an Amah Ivriyah] are for Kidushin (if he will later do Yi'ud), how can he establish it like R. Akiva, who says that [her father] cannot sell her for slavery after slavery, but he can sell her for slavery after Kidushin?"

According to Rashi, he must correct the text to say "R. Eliezer"!

Version #2 (R. Tam): The text says "once he spread his Talis... R. Eliezer says so;

R. Akiva says, since he betrayed...", and he infers from the pronunciation that it is an expression of betrayal, for if it were an expression of a Beged or Talis, we should pronounce it b'Vegdo with a Segol;

Implied question: We read "va'Tispesehu b'Vigdo" (regarding his garment)!

Answer: Here is different, for one could err.

Explanation: [R. Eliezer argues, for] the Mesores connotes more an expression of a garment and Talis than an expression of betrayal, since it is written b'Vigdo without a Yud;

Therefore the Beraisa says twice b'Vigdo "once he spread his Talis..." i.e. it should have written b'Vigdo with a Yud, lest people err, and it wrote b'Vigdo without a Yud, to teach that once he spread... (Maharsha Kidushin 18b - a Yud is never added in the middle of a noun. It is not common to add it in the middle of a verb, but here it should have done so if it refers to betrayal, lest people err. The Torah wrote without a Yud to connote that it is Beged, with a Segol.)

Implied question: In the Mechilta, the text says "[once] he spread his Talis... these are the words of R. Akiva!"

Answer: The scribe [mistakenly] omitted "R. Eliezer", and the entire teaching of R. Akiva. (The text should say "[once] he spread his Talis... these are these are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says...")

Version #2 (cont.): In Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, the text says "he establishes it like R. Akiva", like is written in all old Seforim.

Question: It asks there in Kidushin "rather, her father was Mekadesh her. Can he sell her [afterwards]?! One cannot sell his daughter to slavery after Kidushin!" This question is according to R. Eliezer, who is Shemuti (from Beis Shamai. Presumably, the Halachah does not follow him!)

Answer: It is obvious to [the Makshan] that the Halachah follows him, because Rabanan of R. Shimon, and R. Shimon himself, hold like him, and say "but not to slavery after Kidushin."

Question: Does R. Shimon permit because it is Davar she'Eino Miskaven?! Even when it is impossible [to let blood] without making a Mum, he permits, even though he intentionally makes a Mum!

This is like it said above, that they argue about [how to expound] verses, and [R. Shimon] permits, because it says "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon", but one may blemish a Ba'al Mum.

And also in Menachos (56b) it explains their reasons due to verses.

Answer #1: According to Rashi above (25a) regarding two hairs on Parah [Adumah] that are red at their roots and their ends are black, R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam says that he cuts them with a scissors without concern...

And Rashi explained that this is considered Ein Miskaven, for he does not intend for shearing, rather, to fix the Parah...

It is fine also here. He does not intend to make a Mum, rather, for the sake of Refu'ah.

This is why [the Gemara] asks "why did Shmuel need to rule like R. Shimon? Even if he would forbid blemishing a Ba'al Mum, it would be permitted here, for he intends only for Refu'ah, and Shmuel permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven!

Rebuttal: One cannot sustain Rashi's Perush, like I explained above (25a DH Gozez).

Answer #2: They argue about two matters. In the Beraisa they argue about one who blemishes a Ba'al Mum, that it is very sick due to Achuzas (excess) blood, and it cannot heal without letting blood, lest it die, like he said above "if he leaves it, it will die";

Then it is considered a Mum even if it will not die. Since it will never leave Achuzas Dam unless he lets blood in a place that makes a Mum, this is considered a Mum.

Now, R. Meir forbids in a place that makes a Mum. He holds that "Kol Mum Lo Yihyeh Bo" applies even to a Ba'al Mum.

Chachamim permit because it says "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon", just one may not slaughter it based on that Mum. They decree due to when it would not die without making a Mum, for it is considered Tam, or due to when it can heal through letting blood in a place that does not make a Mum;

R. Shimon permits even to slaughter. He does not decree.

R. Yehudah forbids even in a place that does not make a Mum, like it says in Pesachim (11b). Since a person is frantic about his money (lest he suffer a loss), if you permit in a place that will not make a Mum, he will come to do so in a place that makes a Mum;

Answer #2 (cont.): Our Mishnah is a different argument. It discusses when Achzo Dam in a way that it will not die if they do not let blood. Therefore, it is not considered a Ba'al Mum, and this is not making a Mum in a Ba'al Mum. They argue about one who does not intend [to make a Mum];

R. Yehudah says that if a Bechor Achzo Dam, even if it will die, we do not let blood in any way, like I explained;

And Chachamim say that he lets blood, i.e. whether or not it will die (without letting blood), as long as he does not make a Mum. I.e. he is careful when letting blood that it cannot come to a Mum when he lets blood close to the ear or the upper lip or the nose. They forbid Davar she'Eino Miskaven.

R. Shimon says that he lets blood, even in a place that he makes a Mum, i.e. he can come to making a Mum, for Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted;

Support: The wording of our Mishnah connotes to me like I explained, since it did not say "a place that he makes a Mum" and "a place that he does not make a Mum" like the Beraisa said.

Question: Since Achzo Dam is considered a Mum, since it cannot heal without making a Mum, if so one may slaughter it [outside the Mikdash] based on this!

Answer #1: Mid'Rabanan it is forbidden, lest it be confused with a Tam.

Answer #2: It is considered like a temporary Mum, since it can be healed.

Observation: Our entire Sugya proves that one who cuts the ear of a Bechor, or cuts off Tzara'as, it is a fine (to forbid Shechitah and to be Metamei him).

Also below, it says "for this Mum Rabanan fined. For this cutting Rabanan fined."

And even according to Rava, who says in Temurah (4b) that when the Torah forbade an action, Iy Avid Lo Mehani (if one did it, it did not take effect), in any case here the Bechor is permitted mid'Oraisa, for it has a Mum, and this person is Tahor, for he does not have Tzara'as at all.

Question: In the Sifri in Parshas Re'eh, R. Eliezer says... one who makes a Mum in a Bechor and eats it, he transgresses, for it says "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah." This shows that the Torah forbids it!

Answer #1: Below we consider it a fine according to Rabanan who hold like Acherim who expound there that the verse discusses Pesulei ha'Mukdashim or meat and milk, like it says in Chulin (114b. R. Eliezer holds that the Torah forbids; it is not a fine.)

Implied suggestion: We should forbid Shechitah based on that Mum due to "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah", just like meat and milk, Kil'ai Zera'im and Ma'aseh Shabbos (food prepared through Melachah, e.g. cooking)!

Rejection: We can distinguish them.

Question: According to R. Eliezer who does not distinguish, what was the question against him from Tzara'as? Regarding one who cuts the ear of a Bechor, it is forbidden mid'Oraisa until another Mum develops. We should fine him when a Mum develops;

However, one who cuts Tzara'as, mid'Oraisa he is Tahor once he cut it. It should suffice to fine him until another Nega develops!

Answer #1: Even so, we should not fine permanently about a Mum, rather, only until a third or fourth Mum [develops].

Answer #2: Granted, if R. Eliezer would permit to slaughter on another Mum, there is no fine, in any case we should not fine about a Mum in which no Aveirah was done, just like he does not fine about another Nega.

Answer #2 (to Question (b)): The Sifri is a mere Asmachta.

Version #1: In all Seforim the text says here "or until the Baheres (Tzara'as) diminishes to less than k'Gris (the area of a bean)."

Version #2: This is not in [the Mishnah in] Nega'im, like Rashi explained.

Explanation (Tosfos' Rebbi): If the text says so, it means as follows. If it was cut and diminished from k'Gris, and what remained healed partially by itself, that even if what was cut off [had not been cut off, and] was with it, it would not be [in all] k'Gris, he is Tahor.

Question: He needs to shave, and [bring] birds, and he is forbidden Bi'ah all Yemei Sifro (the seven days a Metzora counts between the two times he shaves!)

Answer #1: The case is, he was only a Metzora Musgar. (Shaving, birds and Yemei Sifro apply only to one who was Muchlat.)

Answer #2: Even a Muchlat - granted, when he cut it, he is Tamei mid'Rabanan, but in any case he may shave, bring birds and count Yemei Sifro and become Tahor mid'Oraisa;

However, he cannot bring his Kaparah (Asham Metzora), for he cannot enter his hands [in the Azarah] for [putting blood and oil] on the Behonos as long as he is Tamei mid'Rabanan, like it says (Pesachim 92a) "even though another Tevul Yom may not enter (Machaneh Levi), this (a Metzora who is a Tevul Yom due to Keri) may enter, for they permitted only due to (enabling him to become Tahor and fulfill Korban) Pesach."

Implied question: In Gitin (44a) it mentions first the question of one who sells his slave [to a Nochri], and in Mo'ed Katan (12b) it mentioned [first] Mekaven (intentionally leaving) his work [to do on Chol ha'Mo'ed], and in every place it makes [a partially contingency, i.e. it says] "if you will say [there... did they fine the son here?]" from the other (previous)!

And for all of them it resolves "a Mishnah taught that if one removed thorns from a field [in Shemitah... but if he fertilized it, or he kept animals there to fertilize it, he may not sow it the next year", and R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina taught that if he died, his son may sow it the next year]!

Answer #1 (Tosfos' Rebbi): All three of them were asked at once, and the Gemara fixed each in its place, according to what is relevant.

Partial Answer #2: In some texts in Mo'ed Katan it is written "Rava asked Rav Nachman." (We can say that he was unsure only about the case of a field, unlike R. Yirmeyah.)

Disclaimer: However, in most Seforim the text says that R. Yirmeyah asked R. Zeira, like here and in Gitin.

Observation #1: It still could have said that even if you will say that there (one who sold his slave) they did not fine, here they fined, for it is an Isur mid'Oraisa!

We ask like this in Gitin (44a) regarding the question of one who sells his slave, and in Mo'ed Katan (12b) regarding the question of Mekaven his work for [Chol] ha'Mo'ed;

It says "if you will say that regarding Tzorem, they fined [the son], for it is an Isur mid'Oraisa..."

Observation #2: Also in Gitin, it could have said "if you will say that there (regarding Tzorem) they did not fine, here they fined, for Mitzvos are uprooted every day regarding a slave!

Observation #3: Also in Mo'ed Katan it mentioned one reason for Tzorem, and another reason for one who sells his slave, and it could have said one reason for both of them, that if you will say that for Tzorem and Mocher, they fined, this is because he did an Isur, but Mekaven his work [for the Mo'ed] did not do an Isur.

Explanation (Rashi): He removed thorns from it. They were detached and scattered in it.

Affirmation: He is correct. You cannot say that the thorns were attached, for if so, one may not sow it [the next year], for there is an Isur mid'Oraisa to take them, for he improves the land!

Source: It says in Shabbos (103a) regarding one who detached endives or pruned [moist, edible] reeds, if it was in his land, he is liable for any amount, because it improves the land, and even if he intended for something else;

Also here it improves the land when he detaches thorns for [the need of] plowing or sowing!

Support: The Yerushalmi on this Mishnah connotes like this. It says "there (in Bavel) they said keshe'Natlu (when they took) its thorns." This connotes that we establish it to discuss detached [thorns].

Reference: The Yerushalmi explains "what is Tiyuv (improving)? Everyone else plows once, and he plows twice."

Question: If this Tiyuv is mid'Rabanan, how can we learn from it cutting a Bechor's ear, which is [an Isur] mid'Oraisa?

And even if Tiyuv is mid'Oraisa, the Gemara in Gitin (44b) is difficult, for it resolves from [a field] to a slave. It should say that [selling a slave to a Nochri] is different, for it is stringent, for he uproots him from Mitzvos!?

Answer: He holds that it is proper to be more stringent about Shemitah than all of them (Tzorem, Mocher and Mekaven), like it says in Kidushin (20a) "how severe is the dust (minor transgressions of) Shemitah!..."