Within what time frame does one need to slaughter the firstborn? On what does it depend? What if one determines there is a blemish but he/she was not an expert and on the basis of their determination, the owner slaughtered the animal – is the meat allowed to be eaten if an expert determines after death that there was a blemish? If not, does the one who originally determined it was blemished need to compensate the owner for the loss? If so, how much? If a judge makes a mistaken ruling, is the case reversed? If not, does the judge need to financially compensate for the loss?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Bekhorot 28
וְאִידַּךְ, אִי מֵהָתָם אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל תּוֹדָה.
And the other ones, i.e., the Sages from the school of Rav, why don’t they derive the halakha that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night from that verse? The Gemara answers that if it were derived from there, it would be possible to say that the verse is comparing the halakha of a firstborn to the breast and thigh of a thanks offering, which are eaten for only one day and night.
וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְךָ יִהְיֶה״ — הוֹסִיף לְךָ הַכָּתוּב הֲוָיָה אַחֶרֶת בִּבְכוֹר.
The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, how does he respond to this? The verse states: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18). The verse adds another mention of a form of the term being in the second phrase: “It shall be yours,” to teach that the priest has an additional day to eat a firstborn animal, i.e., that it is compared to the breast and thigh of a peace offering, not to that of a thanks offering.
וְאִידַּךְ, הָא מֵהָתָם אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: הַאי ״יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״ — לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנּוֹתְנוֹ לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And the other ones, the Sages from the school of Rav, how do they respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: With regard to the inference from there, it is possible to say that this phrase: “It shall be yours,” teaches with regard to a blemished firstborn that the owner must give it to the priest. This derivation is necessary, as we have not found this halakha that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest stated explicitly anywhere in the entire Torah.
וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר ״וּבְשָׂרָם״ — אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד בַּעַל מוּם, וְאִידַּךְ — ״וּבְשָׂרָם״ דְּהָנֵי בְּכוֹרוֹת דְּכוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָאָמַר.
The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, from where does he derive that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest? The verse states: “And their flesh shall be yours,” in the plural, i.e., both an unblemished firstborn and a blemished firstborn. The Gemara asks: And the other ones, the Sages from the school of Rav, how do they respond? The Gemara answers that they would claim that the term “and their flesh” is written in the plural not because it is referring to blemished animals, but because it is said in reference to those firstborn animals of all the Israelites.
נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? נוֹלַד לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְאַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ נָמֵי שְׁלֹשִׁים? אוֹ דִלְמָא: הֵיכָא דְּנוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְתוּ לָא, וְהֵיכָא דְּנוֹלַד לוֹ אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ, אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשִׁים?
§ The mishna teaches: If a blemish developed within its first year, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months; if a blemish developed after twelve months have passed, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for only thirty days. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the mishna speaking? Does the mishna mean that if a blemish developed within the animal’s first year, the owner is permitted to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months, and after the animal’s first year also for another thirty days? Or perhaps the mishna is referring to two different situations, i.e., in a case where the blemish developed within the animal’s first year the owner is permitted to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months, but nothing more; and in a case where it developed a blemish after one year, he is permitted to maintain it for only thirty days.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּכוֹר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לֶחָכָם — רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וּמִשֶּׁנִּרְאָה לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לֶחָכָם, נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ — רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn in the present time, when there is no Temple and the animal cannot be brought as an offering, until it has developed a blemish that can be shown to an expert, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for two or three years. But once the animal develops a blemish that can be shown to an expert, if the blemish developed within its first year, it is permitted for the owner to maintain it for the entire twelve months.
אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ אֲפִילּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת. אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה לַבְּעָלִים, אָמְרוּ: רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
The baraita continues: After the animal’s first year, the owner does not have permission to maintain it even for one day, or even one hour. But due to the mitzva of returning a lost item to the owners, i.e., to give the owner time to find a priest and give him the animal, the Sages said: The owner is permitted to maintain the animal for thirty days. The Gemara assumes that in its latter clause the baraita is still addressing a blemish that developed in the first year. If so, the thirty days evidently apply in such a case.
וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי לִי: שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא קוֹדֶם שְׁנָתוֹ?
The Gemara asks: But still, let the dilemma be raised with regard to that baraita itself: Are the thirty days granted in a case where the animal develops a blemish after its first year? Or perhaps these thirty days are granted if it develops a blemish before the end of its first year. In other words, when the baraita states: After its first year, this can be interpreted as referring to an animal whose blemish developed only then, or to one that had a blemish earlier and subsequently reached the end of its first year.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מְסַיַּיע לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If the animal developed a blemish on the fifteenth day within its first year, i.e., fifteen days before the end of its year, one completes for it fifteen days after its year. Conclude from this baraita that the owner may maintain a firstborn for an additional thirty days if it develops the blemish during its first year. The Gemara adds that this supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to an animal that developed a blemish toward the end of its year, one gives the owner thirty days from the time that the animal developed a blemish.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לִבְכוֹר שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹאכְלֶנּוּ שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה״, (אֵיזוֹ) [אֵילּוּ] הֵן יָמִים הַחֲשׁוּבִין שָׁנָה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
There are those who say that Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived with regard to a firstborn animal that developed a blemish during its first year that one gives the owner thirty days after its year? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place that the Lord shall choose, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 15:20). It is derived from here that it may be eaten for one year and for another year. Which are the days that are considered to be a significant part of a year? You must say these are thirty days, which in certain respects are considered a complete year. This indicates that such a firstborn may be eaten for up to thirty days beyond the first twelve months.
מֵיתִיבִי: נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ — מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ. הַשְׁלָמָה — אִין, מֵיהֲבָא — לָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, תְּיוּבְתָּא.
According to this version of the discussion, the Gemara raises an objection: It is taught in a baraita that if the animal developed a blemish on the fifteenth day within its year, i.e., fifteen days before the end of its year, one completes for it fifteen days after its year. This indicates that with regard to completing a total of thirty days from the time the animal developed the blemish, yes, the owner may continue to maintain the animal in such a case. But if the blemish developed earlier, the baraita does not give him an extra thirty days beyond the conclusion of the year. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar is indeed a conclusive refutation.
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וּמַרְאֶה אֶת מוּמוֹ — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי מוּמְחֶה — אָסוּר. מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּמְחֶה וְרוֹאֶה אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, וְנִשְׁחַט עַל פִּיו — הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ.
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters the firstborn animal and only then shows its blemish to an expert to determine whether it is a blemish, and it was established by the expert that it is in fact a blemish that renders its slaughter permitted, Rabbi Yehuda deems it permitted for a priest to derive benefit from the firstborn. Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered not according to the ruling of an expert, it is prohibited. In a case involving one who is not an expert, and he examined the firstborn animal and it was slaughtered on the basis of his ruling, that animal must be buried, and the non-expert must pay compensation to the priest from his property.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף אַטּוּ דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף אַטּוּ דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן.
GEMARA: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: The dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda does not apply in the case of a blemish on the cornea of the eye. In that situation everyone agrees that the animal is prohibited, because such blemishes in the eye change after the animal’s death, which means that there is no way of determining at that late stage whether it had been a permanent blemish or a temporary one. They disagree only with regard to blemishes that are on the animal’s body, which do not change after death. As Rabbi Meir holds that we issue a decree prohibiting the animal in the case of blemishes that are on the animal’s body due to the case of blemishes on the cornea, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that we do not issue a decree with regard to blemishes that are on the animal’s body due to the case of blemishes on the cornea.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וּמַרְאֶה אֶת מוּמָיו — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבְּעַיִן אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין, בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף מוּתָּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּנִּין. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף מִי מִשְׁתַּנִּין?! אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁתַּנִּין.
This is also taught in a baraita: In the case of one who slaughters a firstborn animal and afterward shows its blemishes to an expert, Rabbi Yehuda says: If the blemish is on the cornea of the eye the animal is prohibited, because such blemishes change. But in the case of blemishes on its body the animal is permitted, because these blemishes do not change. Rabbi Meir says: Both this, blemishes on the eye, and that, blemishes on the body, are prohibited because they change. The Gemara inquires: Could it enter your mind that blemishes on the body are prohibited because they change? Do blemishes on the body change after the death of the animal? Rather, the blemishes on the body are prohibited due to a decree based on the case of blemishes on the cornea, which change.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק:
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says:
מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי מוּמְחֶה אָסוּר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קְנָסָא קָא קָנֵיס רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The mishna is also precisely formulated, as it states that Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered not according to the ruling of an expert, it is prohibited. Conclude from this wording that Rabbi Meir penalizes him for not showing it to an expert. In other words, this indicates that the animal is deemed prohibited as a penalty. It is not due to any uncertainty, as blemishes on the body do not change after death, but it is due to a rabbinic decree. The Gemara comments: Conclude from it that the mishna should be understood as Rabba bar bar Ḥana explained.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁתַּנִּין — דְּכוּלְּהוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּי, אוֹ דִלְמָא אִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנֵּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנֵּי?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: The baraita states: Due to the blemishes on the cornea, which change. But does this mean that all blemishes on the cornea of the eye definitely change after the death of the animal? Or perhaps there are some that change after death and there are others that do not change.
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְאַכְחוֹשֵׁי סָהֲדִי. אִי אָמְרַתְּ: כּוּלְּהוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּי — שַׁקָּרֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: אִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנֵּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנֵּי — סָמְכִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ. מַאי?
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference of this dilemma? The Gemara explains: The difference is with regard to contradicting witnesses who claim that the animal had the identical blemishes in its eye when it was alive. If you say that all corneas change after the death of the animal, they are liars. But if you say that there are some that change after death and there are others that do not change, the court relies on such witnesses. Therefore, what is the resolution of the dilemma?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: שָׂח לִי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא, בֹּא וְאַרְאֶךָּ בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּים. מִדְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״בֹּא וְאַרְאֶךָּ״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנֵּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנֵּי.
The Gemara answers: Come and hear a baraita, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Rabbi Yoshiya from Usha told me: Come and I will show you the corneas that change. Since he said to him: Come and I will show you those that change, one can conclude by inference there are some corneas that change after death and there are others that do not change.
מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּמְחֶה, וְרָאָה אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְנִשְׁחַט עַל פִּיו, הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ. לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דִּלְמָא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.
§ The mishna teaches: In a case involving one who is not an expert, and he examined the firstborn animal and it was slaughtered on the basis of his ruling, that animal must be buried, and the non-expert must pay compensation to the priest from his property. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that we learned the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who deems a firstborn animal forbidden in all cases where it was not slaughtered based on the ruling of an expert? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; perhaps this is referring only to a case where there was a blemish on the cornea of the eye, which changes after the death of the animal, and everyone agrees with the ruling of the mishna in such a case.
תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם — מְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ לַדַּקָּה, וּמֶחֱצָה לַגַּסָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זֶה הֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה, וְזֶה הֶפְסֵד מוּעָט.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: When one pays the priest for a firstborn that became forbidden, he pays one-quarter of the value of a small animal, i.e., a sheep or goat, or half of the value of a large animal, i.e., a bull. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this discrepancy? Rav Pappa says: The loss of this bull is a relatively great loss, and the loss of that sheep or goat is a small loss.
אִי הָכִי, לְפוּם פְּסֵידָא לִישַׁלֵּם! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר אִיקָא: מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵירַת מְגַדְּלֵי בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let him pay in accordance with the actual loss incurred. In other words, if he paid the same proportion of the value of a sheep or goat, he would still be paying less than half the value of a bull. Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ says in the name of Rav Aḥa bar Ika: The Sages touched upon it and determined that he should pay only one-quarter, due to the decree against those who raise small livestock in Eretz Yisrael, as these animals cause damage to the land. As a result, such animals may be raised only in specific areas, which means the priest was spared exertion, and therefore the Sages required one to pay only one-quarter of the value.
מַתְנִי׳ דָּן אֶת הַדִּין, זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב וְחִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי, טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר וְטִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין — פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
MISHNA: If a judge issued a judgment and erred, so that he exempted a liable party or found an innocent party liable, or if he ruled that a pure item is impure or ruled that an impure item is pure, and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss, then what he did is done, i.e., the judgment stands, and the judge must pay damages from his home, i.e., from his personal funds. And if the judge was an expert for the court, he is exempt from liability to pay.
גְּמָ׳ לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּדָאֵין דִּינָא דִּגְרָמֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a judge who errs must pay compensation for the damage he caused. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that we learned the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action? Rabbi Ile’a says that Rav says: This is referring to a case where a judge took the item in question from one litigant and gave it to the other litigant with his hand, and therefore he directly caused the damage.
בִּשְׁלָמָא חִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי — כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד, אֶלָּא זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״פָּטוּר אַתָּה״ — וְהָא לֹא נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד! אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹן וּנְטָלוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, the case where he finds an innocent party liable is in a case where the judge took the item in question from the innocent party and gave it to the other litigant with his hand. But what are the circumstances of his giving the item from one to another with regard to the clause of: He exempts a liable party? It is if the judge said to the litigant only: You are exempt from liability to pay, but the judge did not take the item in question from one litigant and give it to the other litigant with his hand. Ravina said: It is referring to a case where the lender had collateral from the borrower, and the judge took it from him and gave it back to the other party.
טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר — דְּאַגַּע בְּהוּ שֶׁרֶץ, טִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא — שֶׁעֵירְבָן עִם פֵּירוֹתָיו.
In the case of: He ruled that a pure item is impure, how could he cause a loss with his own hands? It is where he had the litigant’s ritually pure item touch a creeping animal to emphasize that he believes it was already impure, and he thereby imparted impurity to it. In the case of: He ruled that an impure item is pure, how could he cause a loss with his own hands? It is where he mixed this impure produce of the litigant’s with the litigant’s ritually pure produce, and he thereby caused all of the produce to be considered impure. When an expert judge later rules that that produce is actually impure, the result is that the entire mixture contains impure produce, and the judge caused this damage directly.
מַתְנִי׳ וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּפָרָה שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, וְהֶאֱכִילָהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לִכְלָבִים, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּיַבְנֶה, וְהִתִּירוּהָ.
MISHNA: Apropos the previous mishna, which taught that a judge who was an expert for the court and who erred is exempt from payment, this mishna teaches: There was an incident involving a cow whose womb was removed, and when Rabbi Tarfon was consulted he ruled that it is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is forbidden for consumption. And based on the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon, the questioner fed it to the dogs. And the incident came before the Sages of the court in Yavne, and they ruled that such an animal is permitted and is not a tereifa.
וְאָמַר תּוֹדוֹס הָרוֹפֵא: אֵין פָּרָה וַחֲזִירָה יוֹצְאָה מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם, שֶׁאֵין חוֹתְכִין הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלֵד.
And Theodosius [Todos] the doctor said: A cow or pig does not emerge from Alexandria of Egypt unless the residents sever its womb so that it will not give birth in the future. The breeds of cows and pigs in Alexandria were of exceptional quality and the people of Alexandria did not want them reproduced elsewhere. The fact that these animals lived long lives after their wombs were removed proves that the hysterectomy did not render them tereifot.
אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: הָלְכָה חֲמוֹרְךָ טַרְפוֹן! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אַתָּה מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין, וְכׇל הַמּוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
Upon hearing this, Rabbi Tarfon said: Your donkey is gone, Tarfon, as he believed he was required to compensate the owner for the cow that he ruled to be a tereifa. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Rabbi Tarfon, you are an expert for the court, and any expert for the court is exempt from liability to pay.
גְּמָ׳ וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ, דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה, וְטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר!
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Akiva derive his ruling from the fact that Rabbi Tarfon erred concerning a matter that appears in the Mishna, as the ruling permitting an animal whose womb has been removed is recorded in a mishna (see Ḥullin 54a), and with regard to anyone who erred concerning a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked, as this is considered an obvious mistake. In other words, Rabbi Tarfon’s decision was not binding, and therefore when the owner fed the cow to the dogs, he acted on the basis of a ruling with no validity and thereby caused his own loss.
חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא — דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר, וְעוֹד — אִי נָמֵי בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת טָעִיתָה, מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין אַתָּה, וְכׇל הַמּוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva states one reason and adds another reason. One reason is that in the case of one who errs in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. Another reason is that even if you erred in a deliberation, you are a judge accepted as an expert for the public, and any judge accepted as an expert for the public is exempt from liability to pay.
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר לִהְיוֹת רוֹאֶה אֶת הַבְּכוֹרוֹת — אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עַל פִּיו, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה מוּמְחֶה.
MISHNA: In the case of an individual who takes payment to be one who examines firstborn animals to determine whether they are blemished, one may not slaughter the firstborn on the basis of his ruling, unless he was an expert
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Avodah Zarah Daf 64-70 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
08.27.2025 | ג׳ באלול תשפ״ה
Din & Daf: Setting the “Ethical Floor” & the “Ethical Ceiling”
06.27.2024 | כ״א בסיון תשפ״ד
Sanhedrin 94: The Writing of the Verses of Biblical History
03.21.2025 | כ״א באדר תשפ״ה
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
Bekhorot 28
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ§ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ.
And the other ones, i.e., the Sages from the school of Rav, why donβt they derive the halakha that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night from that verse? The Gemara answers that if it were derived from there, it would be possible to say that the verse is comparing the halakha of a firstborn to the breast and thigh of a thanks offering, which are eaten for only one day and night.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧ΄ β ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨.
The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, how does he respond to this? The verse states: βAnd their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yoursβ (Numbers 18:18). The verse adds another mention of a form of the term being in the second phrase: βIt shall be yours,β to teach that the priest has an additional day to eat a firstborn animal, i.e., that it is compared to the breast and thigh of a peace offering, not to that of a thanks offering.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦ°Χ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ.
The Gemara asks: And the other ones, the Sages from the school of Rav, how do they respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: With regard to the inference from there, it is possible to say that this phrase: βIt shall be yours,β teaches with regard to a blemished firstborn that the owner must give it to the priest. This derivation is necessary, as we have not found this halakha that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest stated explicitly anywhere in the entire Torah.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° β Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨.
The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, from where does he derive that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest? The verse states: βAnd their flesh shall be yours,β in the plural, i.e., both an unblemished firstborn and a blemished firstborn. The Gemara asks: And the other ones, the Sages from the school of Rav, how do they respond? The Gemara answers that they would claim that the term βand their fleshβ is written in the plural not because it is referring to blemished animals, but because it is said in reference to those firstborn animals of all the Israelites.
Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ. ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨? Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ? ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ?
Β§ The mishna teaches: If a blemish developed within its first year, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months; if a blemish developed after twelve months have passed, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for only thirty days. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the mishna speaking? Does the mishna mean that if a blemish developed within the animalβs first year, the owner is permitted to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months, and after the animalβs first year also for another thirty days? Or perhaps the mishna is referring to two different situations, i.e., in a case where the blemish developed within the animalβs first year the owner is permitted to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months, but nothing more; and in a case where it developed a blemish after one year, he is permitted to maintain it for only thirty days.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ, Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉ Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ β Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn in the present time, when there is no Temple and the animal cannot be brought as an offering, until it has developed a blemish that can be shown to an expert, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for two or three years. But once the animal develops a blemish that can be shown to an expert, if the blemish developed within its first year, it is permitted for the owner to maintain it for the entire twelve months.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ: Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ.
The baraita continues: After the animalβs first year, the owner does not have permission to maintain it even for one day, or even one hour. But due to the mitzva of returning a lost item to the owners, i.e., to give the owner time to find a priest and give him the animal, the Sages said: The owner is permitted to maintain the animal for thirty days. The Gemara assumes that in its latter clause the baraita is still addressing a blemish that developed in the first year. If so, the thirty days evidently apply in such a case.
ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ?
The Gemara asks: But still, let the dilemma be raised with regard to that baraita itself: Are the thirty days granted in a case where the animal develops a blemish after its first year? Or perhaps these thirty days are granted if it develops a blemish before the end of its first year. In other words, when the baraita states: After its first year, this can be interpreted as referring to an animal whose blemish developed only then, or to one that had a blemish earlier and subsequently reached the end of its first year.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’: Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ. Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ’ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ’ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If the animal developed a blemish on the fifteenth day within its first year, i.e., fifteen days before the end of its year, one completes for it fifteen days after its year. Conclude from this baraita that the owner may maintain a firstborn for an additional thirty days if it develops the blemish during its first year. The Gemara adds that this supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to an animal that developed a blemish toward the end of its year, one gives the owner thirty days from the time that the animal developed a blemish.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ? Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΧ³ ΧΦ±ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧͺΦΉΧΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΦΈΧΧ΄, (ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ) [ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ] ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ±ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ.
There are those who say that Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived with regard to a firstborn animal that developed a blemish during its first year that one gives the owner thirty days after its year? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: βYou shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place that the Lord shall choose, you and your householdβ (Deuteronomy 15:20). It is derived from here that it may be eaten for one year and for another year. Which are the days that are considered to be a significant part of a year? You must say these are thirty days, which in certain respects are considered a complete year. This indicates that such a firstborn may be eaten for up to thirty days beyond the first twelve months.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ β ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ. ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ! ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ.
According to this version of the discussion, the Gemara raises an objection: It is taught in a baraita that if the animal developed a blemish on the fifteenth day within its year, i.e., fifteen days before the end of its year, one completes for it fifteen days after its year. This indicates that with regard to completing a total of thirty days from the time the animal developed the blemish, yes, the owner may continue to maintain the animal in such a case. But if the blemish developed earlier, the baraita does not give him an extra thirty days beyond the conclusion of the year. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar is indeed a conclusive refutation.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧΧΦΉ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺΧΦΉ.
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters the firstborn animal and only then shows its blemish to an expert to determine whether it is a blemish, and it was established by the expert that it is in fact a blemish that renders its slaughter permitted, Rabbi Yehuda deems it permitted for a priest to derive benefit from the firstborn. Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered not according to the ruling of an expert, it is prohibited. In a case involving one who is not an expert, and he examined the firstborn animal and it was slaughtered on the basis of his ruling, that animal must be buried, and the non-expert must pay compensation to the priest from his property.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ. ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ.
GEMARA: Rabba bar bar αΈ€ana says: The dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda does not apply in the case of a blemish on the cornea of the eye. In that situation everyone agrees that the animal is prohibited, because such blemishes in the eye change after the animalβs death, which means that there is no way of determining at that late stage whether it had been a permanent blemish or a temporary one. They disagree only with regard to blemishes that are on the animalβs body, which do not change after death. As Rabbi Meir holds that we issue a decree prohibiting the animal in the case of blemishes that are on the animalβs body due to the case of blemishes on the cornea, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that we do not issue a decree with regard to blemishes that are on the animalβs body due to the case of blemishes on the cornea.
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ°? ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ?! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ.
This is also taught in a baraita: In the case of one who slaughters a firstborn animal and afterward shows its blemishes to an expert, Rabbi Yehuda says: If the blemish is on the cornea of the eye the animal is prohibited, because such blemishes change. But in the case of blemishes on its body the animal is permitted, because these blemishes do not change. Rabbi Meir says: Both this, blemishes on the eye, and that, blemishes on the body, are prohibited because they change. The Gemara inquires: Could it enter your mind that blemishes on the body are prohibited because they change? Do blemishes on the body change after the death of the animal? Rather, the blemishes on the body are prohibited due to a decree based on the case of blemishes on the cornea, which change.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§:
Rav NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak says:
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨. Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ Χ§Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ Φ΅ΧΧ‘ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ.
The mishna is also precisely formulated, as it states that Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered not according to the ruling of an expert, it is prohibited. Conclude from this wording that Rabbi Meir penalizes him for not showing it to an expert. In other words, this indicates that the animal is deemed prohibited as a penalty. It is not due to any uncertainty, as blemishes on the body do not change after death, but it is due to a rabbinic decree. The Gemara comments: Conclude from it that the mishna should be understood as Rabba bar bar αΈ€ana explained.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧ?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: The baraita states: Due to the blemishes on the cornea, which change. But does this mean that all blemishes on the cornea of the eye definitely change after the death of the animal? Or perhaps there are some that change after death and there are others that do not change.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ: ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ β Χ©Φ·ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧ β Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ?
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference of this dilemma? The Gemara explains: The difference is with regard to contradicting witnesses who claim that the animal had the identical blemishes in its eye when it was alive. If you say that all corneas change after the death of the animal, they are liars. But if you say that there are some that change after death and there are others that do not change, the court relies on such witnesses. Therefore, what is the resolution of the dilemma?
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧ.
The Gemara answers: Come and hear a baraita, as Rabba bar bar αΈ€ana says: Rabbi Yoshiya from Usha told me: Come and I will show you the corneas that change. Since he said to him: Come and I will show you those that change, one can conclude by inference there are some corneas that change after death and there are others that do not change.
ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺΧΦΉ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ.
Β§ The mishna teaches: In a case involving one who is not an expert, and he examined the firstborn animal and it was slaughtered on the basis of his ruling, that animal must be buried, and the non-expert must pay compensation to the priest from his property. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that we learned the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who deems a firstborn animal forbidden in all cases where it was not slaughtered based on the ruling of an expert? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; perhaps this is referring only to a case where there was a blemish on the cornea of the eye, which changes after the death of the animal, and everyone agrees with the ruling of the mishna in such a case.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ.
Β§ The Sages taught in a baraita: When one pays the priest for a firstborn that became forbidden, he pays one-quarter of the value of a small animal, i.e., a sheep or goat, or half of the value of a large animal, i.e., a bull. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this discrepancy? Rav Pappa says: The loss of this bull is a relatively great loss, and the loss of that sheep or goat is a small loss.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧΦ· ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let him pay in accordance with the actual loss incurred. In other words, if he paid the same proportion of the value of a sheep or goat, he would still be paying less than half the value of a bull. Rav Huna bar ManoaαΈ₯ says in the name of Rav AαΈ₯a bar Ika: The Sages touched upon it and determined that he should pay only one-quarter, due to the decree against those who raise small livestock in Eretz Yisrael, as these animals cause damage to the land. As a result, such animals may be raised only in specific areas, which means the priest was spared exertion, and therefore the Sages required one to pay only one-quarter of the value.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺΧΦΉ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ.
MISHNA: If a judge issued a judgment and erred, so that he exempted a liable party or found an innocent party liable, or if he ruled that a pure item is impure or ruled that an impure item is pure, and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss, then what he did is done, i.e., the judgment stands, and the judge must pay damages from his home, i.e., from his personal funds. And if the judge was an expert for the court, he is exempt from liability to pay.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a judge who errs must pay compensation for the damage he caused. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that we learned the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action? Rabbi Ileβa says that Rav says: This is referring to a case where a judge took the item in question from one litigant and gave it to the other litigant with his hand, and therefore he directly caused the damage.
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ΄Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, the case where he finds an innocent party liable is in a case where the judge took the item in question from the innocent party and gave it to the other litigant with his hand. But what are the circumstances of his giving the item from one to another with regard to the clause of: He exempts a liable party? It is if the judge said to the litigant only: You are exempt from liability to pay, but the judge did not take the item in question from one litigant and give it to the other litigant with his hand. Ravina said: It is referring to a case where the lender had collateral from the borrower, and the judge took it from him and gave it back to the other party.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ.
In the case of: He ruled that a pure item is impure, how could he cause a loss with his own hands? It is where he had the litigantβs ritually pure item touch a creeping animal to emphasize that he believes it was already impure, and he thereby imparted impurity to it. In the case of: He ruled that an impure item is pure, how could he cause a loss with his own hands? It is where he mixed this impure produce of the litigantβs with the litigantβs ritually pure produce, and he thereby caused all of the produce to be considered impure. When an expert judge later rules that that produce is actually impure, the result is that the entire mixture contains impure produce, and the judge caused this damage directly.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈ.
MISHNA: Apropos the previous mishna, which taught that a judge who was an expert for the court and who erred is exempt from payment, this mishna teaches: There was an incident involving a cow whose womb was removed, and when Rabbi Tarfon was consulted he ruled that it is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is forbidden for consumption. And based on the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon, the questioner fed it to the dogs. And the incident came before the Sages of the court in Yavne, and they ruled that such an animal is permitted and is not a tereifa.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ€Φ΅Χ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
And Theodosius [Todos] the doctor said: A cow or pig does not emerge from Alexandria of Egypt unless the residents sever its womb so that it will not give birth in the future. The breeds of cows and pigs in Alexandria were of exceptional quality and the people of Alexandria did not want them reproduced elsewhere. The fact that these animals lived long lives after their wombs were removed proves that the hysterectomy did not render them tereifot.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ.
Upon hearing this, Rabbi Tarfon said: Your donkey is gone, Tarfon, as he believed he was required to compensate the owner for the cow that he ruled to be a tereifa. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Rabbi Tarfon, you are an expert for the court, and any expert for the court is exempt from liability to pay.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨!
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Akiva derive his ruling from the fact that Rabbi Tarfon erred concerning a matter that appears in the Mishna, as the ruling permitting an animal whose womb has been removed is recorded in a mishna (see αΈ€ullin 54a), and with regard to anyone who erred concerning a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked, as this is considered an obvious mistake. In other words, Rabbi Tarfonβs decision was not binding, and therefore when the owner fed the cow to the dogs, he acted on the basis of a ruling with no validity and thereby caused his own loss.
ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ§ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva states one reason and adds another reason. One reason is that in the case of one who errs in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. Another reason is that even if you erred in a deliberation, you are a judge accepted as an expert for the public, and any judge accepted as an expert for the public is exempt from liability to pay.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ.
MISHNA: In the case of an individual who takes payment to be one who examines firstborn animals to determine whether they are blemished, one may not slaughter the firstborn on the basis of his ruling, unless he was an expert
Follow
