Continuation of rejection #2: Also regarding Terumah, the Tana'im argue about a verse:

(Rav Yehudah): It says "... v'Nasati Lecha Mishmeres Terumosai." R. Eliezer expounds that the Torah commands to be Shomer (guard from Tum'ah) two kinds of Terumah, i.e. Tahor and Teluyah (Safek Tamei, which may not be eaten nor burned);

R. Yehoshua holds that only one (i.e. Tahor) must be guarded, for it is written like "Terumasi" (singular).

Inference: R. Eliezer holds that Yesh Em l'Mikra (if we have a tradition to pronounce a word unlike it is written, we expound according to the way we pronounce it).

Objection (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "B'Vigdo Bah" - (if Reuven sold his daughter to be a slave,) once her master spreads his Beged (garment) over her (does Yi'ud, i.e. marriage), Reuven may not sell her again (even if she will be widowed or divorced. This is like the way we pronounce it);

R. Eliezer says, "b'Vagdo Bah" - once he (Reuven) was Boged (dealt disloyally) with her (i.e. sold her), he may not sell her again. (This is like the way it is written, without a "Yud". This is like our (and Rashi's) text. Tosfos' text switches the Tana'im, and based on this explains how R. Eliezer follows the way it is written. In any case, Rav Yehudah's explanation is rejected. The Gemara gives an alternative explanation of the argument.)

Rather, R. Yehoshua expounds "Lecha Mishmeres Terumosai" - the obligation to guard applies only to Terumah that is Lecha (permitted to you to eat, i.e. Tahor);

R. Eliezer holds that also Teluyah is Lecha. Perhaps Eliyahu will come and say that it is Tahor.

(Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Shimon.

Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Which teaching of R. Shimon does Shmuel discuss?

He cannot refer to R. Shimon in the Mishnah. Shmuel already taught that the Halachah follows R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven!

(Rav Chanin bar Ashi): Rav said, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven;

(Rav Chanin bar Ashi): Shmuel said, the Halachah follows R. Shimon, who permits it.

Rav Chiya bar Avin cited Rav and Shmuel without Rav Chanin bar Ashi.

Answer (Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Shimon in the Beraisa (who permits letting blood of a Bechor and slaughtering it due to the resulting Mum).

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If one (a Kohen; R Gershom - or a Yisrael who keeps a Safek Bechor) pierced a Bechor's ear, it may never be slaughtered;

Chachamim say, it may be slaughtered when it gets another Mum.

(Gemara) Question: Elsewhere, R. Eliezer does not make a permanent fine!

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If someone had Tzara'as, and the Nega (plague) was cut off, he is Tahor;

If he himself cut off the Nega, he must wait until he gets another Nega and becomes Tahor;

Chachamim say he will not be Tahor until the Nega spreads to his entire body (or until the Nega becomes smaller than a Gris (bean) (Rashi - unless it already was smaller when he cut it). In the Mishnayos, this clause is not in this Mishnah, rather, in the previous Mishnah, regarding one who cuts off the Siman Tum'ah of a Nega.)

Answer (Rabah and Rav Yosef): R. Eliezer makes a permanent monetary fine (regarding Bechor), for if not, he is prone to make a Mum. (If we allow slaughtering when it gets another Mum, there is no deterrent. Even had he not made the Mum, he would have had to wait for a Mum to arise by itself);

R. Eliezer does not make a permanent bodily fine (regarding Tzara'as, for it suffices to be Metamei him until another Nega arises.) He will not cut his Nega. (He is prone to lose by doing so. Perhaps it would have gone away soon by itself!)

Question (Rava): Also Chachamim contradict themselves. Regarding Bechor they do not make a permanent fine, but regarding Tzara'as, they do!

Answer (Rava): We resolve the contradiction in R. Eliezer like above;

Chachamim fine only in the matter he transgressed. Regarding a Mum, we forbid slaughtering due to the Mum he made, but we do not forbid (i.e. he may slaughter based on) other Mumim;

Regarding Tzara'as, they do not allow his transgression to hasten his Taharah. (If the Nega spreads to his entire body, even had he not cut off the Nega, he would be Tahor.)

Question (Rav Papa) When is R. Eliezer Metaher?

Does he say "Yetaher"? (Rashi - once he gets another Nega he is immediately Tahor from the first Nega. R Gershom - he will be retroactively Tahor from when he cut off the first Nega.)

Or, does he say "va'Yetaher"? (He is not Tahor until he becomes Tahor from a second Nega.)

Question: What difference does it make? (In either case, he is Tamei due to the new Nega until Taharah from the new Nega!)

Answer: It makes a difference regarding a Chasan (during the seven days after getting married):

(Mishnah): If a Nega came on a Chasan (during the seven days) or his garment, he need not show it to a Kohen until the seven days are finished (it is not Tamei until a Kohen declares that it is Tamei);

Likewise, one does not show a Nega to a Kohen during a festival, only after it is finished.

If R. Eliezer says "Yetaher," he is Tahor once he gets another Nega (R. Gershom - retroactively from when he cut off the first), even if the Kohen will not see it for seven more days;

If he says "va'Yetaher," he is Tamei until the Kohen sees the Nega and the Metzora becomes Tahor from it.

This question is unsettled.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): (Rashi - according to R. Eliezer, who makes a permanent fine; Rambam - according to Chachamim,) if Reuven pierced a Bechor's ear and he died, do we fine his son?

(If Reuven sold a Kena'ani slave to a Nochri, the slave goes free, and Reuven must pay up to 10 times his value to redeem him.) If you will say that (if Reuven died,) his son must redeem the slave, we cannot learn to our case. Perhaps there is more stringent, for every day that the slave is with the Nochri, he cannot observe Mitzvos;

(If Reuven put off doing a certain job, intending to do it on Chol ha'Mo'ed, for then it will be permitted due to Davar ha'Avud (not doing it would cause a loss), Chachamim forbid him to do it on Chol ha'Mo'ed.) If you will say that (if Reuven died before the Mo'ed,) his son may do the work, we cannot learn to our case. Perhaps that case is more lenient, for Reuven never actually transgressed.

Regarding Bechor, if the fine applies to the one who made the Mum, (after he dies) it does not apply to his son;

If the fine applies to the Bechor itself, it applies also to his son!

Answer (R. Zeira - Mishnah): If Reuven removed detached thorns from a field in Shemitah (this is not an important Avodah), the field may be sown the next year;

If he put fertilizer on it, or if he kept animals there to fertilize it, he may not sow it the next year;

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): If he died, his son may sow it the next year;

This shows that the fine applies to the one who transgressed, but not to his son.