Study Bekhorot folio 34B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
and it inadvertently got excised, that individual is ritually pure. If he excised it intentionally, in an attempt to render himself ritually pure, the rabbis impose a punitive impurity upon him. The tanna’im disagree with regard to the extent of the penalty: R' Eliezer says: When he will develop
And the Rabbis say: The development of a new leprous mark is insufficient. Rather, he must wait either until the tzara'at of the new mark spreads over his entire body, a sign of ritual purity (see Leviticus 13:12), or unless his old baheret had shrunk to a size smaller than that of a split beanbefo
Rabba and Rav Yosef both say, in answer to this question, that when R' Eliezer penalizes one who transgresses, that is only in a case which involves his property, e.g., a firstborn offering. But in a case which affects his body, e.g., tzara'at, he does not penalize him to such an extent.
The Talmud elaborates: With regard to his property, i.e., the firstborn offering, if he would not be penalized indefinitely, there is reason to say that he might come to perform an action which would cause a blemish. Since the firstborn offering is anyway prohibited for personal use until it is ble
Rava said: Is this to say that the statement of R' Eliezer in the Mishnah here is difficult in light of the other statement of R' Eliezer in the Mishnah in Nega’im, whereas the statement of the Rabbis in the Mishnah is not difficult in light of the other statement of the Rabbis in Nega’im? In the M