(Mishnah in Maseches Bechoros): If a Bechor suffered from a congestion of blood, even if it will otherwise die, R. Yehuda says that one may not let blood from it.

The Chachamim permit it, even if it will create in it a blemish, but if it did, that does not permit its slaughtering.

R. Shimon permits letting its blood, even if he inadvertently made a blemish, and if he did make a blemish, he may slaughter it.

(R. Abahu citing R. Eliezer): R. Yehuda (who does not allow letting its blood) follows Rabban Gamliel (of our Mishnah, earlier Chulin 101(c), where he says about a doubtful Tumah that arose in a barrel of Terumah, that nothing should be done). And the Rabbanan (that permit letting its blood, but its blemish does not allow its slaughtering), follow R. Eliezer (of our Mishnah, that if it had been in an ownerless place, it should now be put in a hidden place etc.). And R. Shimon (who permits the bloodletting, even with intent to make a blemish) follows R. Yehoshua (who allows causing Teluyah to become certainly Tamei); as the Baraisa taught...

(Baraisa)(R. Shimon): He may let its blood, even if he intends to make a blemish. This is like R. Yehoshua in the case of the second barrel, (who says that one may actively make it Tamei, since it is anyway going to waste.)

(R. Abahu citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): R' Yehuda's source (for prohibiting making a blemish in a Bechor with blood congestion) is the pasuk that states (Devarim 12:24), "Do not consume it; spill it on the ground like water''. This is expounded in reference to the blood of a Bechor - I only permitted drawing its blood to spill when slaughtering it as a sacrifice or when it's blemished, but not for blood letting.

Question (R. Abba Mari, brother of R. Yosi): About a sacrifice that developed a blemish and was redeemed, the pasuk states (Devarim 12:16), "Don't consume it; spill it on the ground like water''. Since it already has a blemish, what could be expounded from the pasuk?

Answer (R. Chiya bar Abba): It teaches that blood of Chulin is like water, in that it causes food to be able to contract Tumah, but not blood of Kodshim.

(R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): R. Shimon and the Rabbanan disagreed over how to expound the same pasuk (Vayikra 22:21), "...it shall be unblemished; it shall not have any blemish in it.'' R. Shimon expounded that one may not make in it a blemish specifically when it doesn't yet have one, but a Bechor with blood congestion is considered to have a blemish and it is permitted. Chachamim said that even if it is covered in blemishes, one may not make a blemish.

(R. Chama bar Ukva citing R. Yosi bar Chanina): If a vessel was Tahor on the inside and became Tamei on the outside (such as through a liquid that was Rabbinically Tamei) - one may not make even a small amount of Terumah Tamei (by collecting the spilled Terumah wine in it, which might cause some of it to touch the outside and become Tamei) even in order to save a large quantity of the Terumah wine.

Question: But didn't we learn in the Mishnah (Chulin 101(e)) that (if the oil of a barrel was leaking out, R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that if he can save at least a Revi'is of it from becoming Tamei, he should save it. If not, R. Eliezer says that) he should leave it to flow down and become collected into the vessel (that has doubtful Tumah); but he shouldn't actively make it Tamei. (This implies that it would be permitted to collect the Terumah wine in a way that might lead it to become Tamei...?)

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Berachyah): R. Chama bar Ukva was referring to a case when he had two vessels that could be used to receive the Terumah wine, one whose inside was Tahor and outside was Tamei; and the other whose inside and outside were Tahor. (He is required to use the vessel which is completely Tahor.) On the other hand, the Mishnah's implication that it's permitted to collect it where it might lead it to become Tamei was in a case when the only available vessel is Tahor in the inside and Tamei on the outside.

Answer #2 (R. Mana): R. Chama bar Ukva's prohibition was when it was falling into a Tahor collection vessel. The Mishnah's implied case was when it was falling into a Tamei collection vessel.

Question: From the Mishnah's words, "he should leave it to flow down and become collected into the vessel, but he shouldn't actively make it Tamei'' (- this shows that it's referring to it being absorbed into the ground rather than being collect in a vessel. But it would still be permitted to collect it in a vessel that is Tahor on the inside and Tamei on the outside...?)

Answer: The Mishnah's referring to when the barrel rolled into a Beis HaPras (which is an area where there is Rabbinic Tumah because of a concern that there might be a corpse there).

(The Gemara now returns to discuss the earlier subject (see Chulin 101) - According to Chevraya, in the case of the first barrel, that R. Yehoshua permits to indirectly make Tamei Terumah Teluyah, it follows R. Yosi rather than R. Meir. And the second barrel, where R. Yehoshua even permits actively making it Tamei, follows R. Meir rather than R. Yosi. (However, both cases apply to both wine and oil.)

(According to R. Yosi (the Amora), that the second barrel even follows R. Yosi, that one may actively make the Terumah Tamei since there will be a loss to the Chulin - the explanation is that) the first barrel contained oil, (that would still be suitable for burning, so since the loss would not be so significant, one may only indirectly cause Tumah). But the second barrel contains wine (which would not be suitable for anything, so R. Yehoshua permits even actively making it Tamei, to prevent the complete loss of the Chulin).