The Gemara suggests: But if so, let Rav Ḥisda establish the entire baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara answers: Perhaps Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says that the sanctity of a slaughtered blemished offering is retained only there, with regard to other disqualified consecrated animals, because their level of sanctity is strong enough to transfer their sanctity to their redemption money. But with regard to a blemished firstborn offering, whose level of sanctity is not strong enough to transfer it to its redemption money, perhaps its sanctity is not retained, and therefore one may skin the hide from its feet.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, agree with the ruling of the mishna (31a) that all disqualified consecrated animals are sold in the butchers’ market and weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner of non-sacred meat? Certainly he agrees with that halakha. Evidently, since there is a benefit that accrues to the Temple treasury, the tanna of the mishna deems this permitted. As it was taught (31b), the meat of disqualified consecrated animals may be treated in this manner despite the fact that it retains a measure of sanctity. The reason is that if the owner knows that it is permitted for him to perform this more lucrative action, he is likely to spend more money to redeem the animal in the first place, which benefits the Temple treasury. By the same logic, why doesn’t Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, permit the more lucrative action of skinning the animal from its feet?

The Gemara cites several resolutions. Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said that the benefit gained to the hide by skinning it whole is offset by the detriment caused to the flesh. Part of the animal’s flesh is severed from the carcass during the skinning process, thereby lowering its value. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Ravina that skinning a disqualified consecrated animal from its feet is prohibited because it appears as though he is performing work with sacrificial animals, which is prohibited.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says that this prohibition is a rabbinic decree, lest one retain the disqualified consecrated animals in his possession while waiting for a consumer to purchase the hides, and in the meantime raise many herds of disqualified animals from them. In such a case, he might shear or work the animals in a prohibited manner.

MISHNA: With regard to a firstborn animal that was congested with excess blood, even if the animal will die if one does not let the excess blood, one may not let its blood, as this might cause a blemish, and it is prohibited to cause a blemish on consecrated animals. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One may let the blood provided that he will not cause a blemish while doing so, and if he caused a blemish, the animal may not be slaughtered on account of that blemish. Since he was the cause of the blemish, he may not slaughter the animal until it develops a different, unrelated blemish. Rabbi Shimon says: One may let the blood even if he thereby causes a blemish in the animal.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn animal that was congested with excess blood, and which can be healed only through bloodletting, one may let the animal’s blood by cutting it in a place where the incision does not cause a permanent blemish. But one may not let the animal’s blood by cutting it in a place where the incision causes a permanent blemish, as it is prohibited to intentionally cause a blemish in a firstborn animal; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Rabbis say: One may even let the animal’s blood by cutting it in a place where the incision causes a permanent blemish, provided that he does not slaughter the animal on the basis of that blemish, even though in general, a firstborn animal may be slaughtered once it develops any permanent blemish. Rabbi Shimon says: The animal may even be slaughtered on the basis of that blemish. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the firstborn would die if its blood is not let, one may not let its blood at all.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar taught his son, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥiyya who taught his son: Just as there is a dispute here in this baraita with regard to bloodletting, so there is a dispute in a mishna with regard to a barrel of teruma. As we learned (Terumot 8:8): In the case of a barrel of teruma oil with regard to which uncertainty developed concerning its status of ritual impurity, and which therefore may not be eaten, Rabbi Eliezer says that one must nevertheless safeguard the teruma from impurity. Therefore, if the barrel was resting in a vulnerable location, where it might come into contact with impurity, one should place it in a concealed location, and if it was exposed, he should cover it.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: That is not necessary. Rather, if it was placed in a concealed location, one may place it in a vulnerable location. If it was covered he may expose it, as he need no longer safeguard this teruma from impurity. Rabban Gamliel says: One should do nothing new with it, i.e., he should leave the barrel as it is.

The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Meir, who deems it permitted to let the firstborn offering’s blood provided that one does not cause a blemish, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems it prohibited to place the barrel in an exposed location lest it become ritually impure, which is equivalent to a blemish. And the Rabbis, who deem bloodletting permitted even if it will cause a blemish, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who rules that the contents of the barrel may be exposed to ritual impurity. And Rabbi Yehuda, who says that bloodletting is not permitted under any circumstance, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who rules that the barrel should be left as is and not be handled at all.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: From where can one prove that these comparisons are accurate? Perhaps Rabbi Meir states his opinion, that one may not let blood in a place that will cause a blemish, only there, as the individual is causing the blemish by direct action. But here, in the case of the barrel, where the ritual impurity results from an indirect action, perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

And furthermore, perhaps Rabbi Eliezer states his opinion that the barrel should be protected only here, because perhaps Elijah will come and deem it ritually pure. But there, with regard to the firstborn offering, where if one leaves the animal it will certainly die, perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that bloodletting is permitted in order to prevent the animal’s death.

And likewise, perhaps the Rabbis state their opinion only here, with regard to the firstborn offering, as if one leaves it, the animal will certainly die. But there, in the case of the barrel of teruma, perhaps they accept the claim that one must safeguard the teruma, because perhaps Elijah will come and deem it ritually pure, which would mean that they hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. It can also be suggested that Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion, that bloodletting is prohibited in all circumstances, only here, with regard to the firstborn offering, as the individual is causing the blemish by direct action. But there, in the case of the barrel, where the ritual impurity results from an indirect action, perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

And perhaps Rabban Gamliel states his opinion, that the barrel should not be moved at all, only there, because perhaps Elijah will come and deem it ritually pure. But here, with regard to the firstborn offering, where if one leaves it, it will certainly die, it is possible that he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

And furthermore, one cannot draw parallels between the opinions of the two sources, as here the tanna’im disagree with regard to the exposition of certain verses, and there they disagree with regard to the exposition of certain other verses. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All of the Sages who disagree as to whether one may let the blood of the firstborn animal concede that one who leavens a meal offering after another had already leavened it is liable to receive lashes for the additional leavening, as it is written: “It shall not be baked with leaven” (Leviticus 6:10), and it is also stated: “No meal offering that you sacrifice to God shall be made with leaven” (Leviticus 2:11). This indicates that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a meal offering.

Similarly, everyone agrees that one who castrates an animal after one who has already castrated it is liable, as it is written: “Those whose testicles are bruised or crushed or detached or cut shall not be offered to the Lord, and you shall not do this in your land” (Leviticus 22:24). If one is liable when the seminal vesicles are cut, then when the testicles are detached altogether, is he not all the more so liable? Rather, this verse serves to include one who detaches the testicles after one who cuts the seminal vesicles, to indicate that he is liable. Apparently, one is liable for castrating an animal that is already sterilized.

These Sages disagree only with regard to one who causes a blemish in an already blemished animal, such as one whose blood circulation is constricted. As Rabbi Meir maintains that as the verse states: “It shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish in it” (Leviticus 22:21), this categorical statement includes even the causing of a blemish in an offering that is already blemished. And the Rabbis maintain that the phrase “It shall be perfect to be accepted” indicates that the prohibition against causing a blemish applies only to an animal that is currently perfect, i.e., unblemished, and can therefore be accepted, i.e., it is fit to be sacrificed upon the altar. If the animal is already blemished, there is no prohibition against causing an additional blemish in it.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Meir, what does he do with this verse: “It shall be perfect to be accepted”? The Gemara answers: That verse serves to exclude only an animal that was blemished from the outset, i.e., an animal that was born with a blemish. In such a case, there is no prohibition against causing an additional blemish in it. But if the animal was initially unblemished and later developed a blemish, it is prohibited to cause another blemish in it.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There is no need to exclude an animal that was blemished from the outset, as it is merely like a palm tree, i.e., it can never attain the status of an animal consecrated as an offering. Therefore, it is obvious that the prohibition against causing a blemish does not apply to this animal.

Rather, Rabbi Meir maintains that the phrase “It shall be perfect to be accepted” serves to exclude disqualified consecrated animals, to teach that after their redemption, when they become non-sacred, the prohibition against causing a blemish does not apply to them any longer. This exclusion is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that since even after they have been redeemed and are non-sacred, just as it is prohibited to shear these animals or use them for labor, perhaps let it also be prohibited to cause a blemish upon them. Consequently, this verse teaches us that there is no prohibition against causing a blemish in these animals.

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis as well, who derive their opinion from the verse: “It shall be perfect to be accepted,” isn’t it written: “There shall not be any blemish in it,” which indicates an expansion of the prohibition against causing a blemish upon an offering? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach that the prohibition against causing a blemish extends also to a blemish caused as the result of an indirect action. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “There shall not be any blemish in it” (Leviticus 22:21); from here I have derived