Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 15, 2019 | 讬壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 28

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?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬 诪讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 砖诇 转讜讚讛

And the other ones, i.e., the Sages from the school of Rav, why don鈥檛 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讱 讬讛讬讛 讛讜住讬祝 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讛讜讬讛 讗讞专转 讘讘讻讜专

The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, how does he respond to this? The verse states: 鈥淎nd their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:18). The verse adds another mention of a form of the term being in the second phrase: 鈥淚t shall be yours,鈥 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗 诪讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞讜转谞讜 诇讻讛谉 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛

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: 鈥淚t shall be yours,鈥 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 讜讘砖专诐 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讜讘砖专诐 讚讛谞讬 讘讻讜专讜转 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗诪专

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: 鈥淎nd their flesh shall be yours,鈥 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 鈥渁nd their flesh鈥 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.

谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讗讞专 砖谞转讜 谞诪讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讬讻讗 讚谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐

搂 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鈥檚 first year, the owner is permitted to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months, and after the animal鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讘讻讜专 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 注讚 砖诇讗 谞专讗讛 诇讛专讗讜转讜 诇讞讻诐 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜诪砖谞专讗讛 诇讛专讗讜转讜 诇讞讻诐 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖

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.

讗讞专 砖谞转讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讗讘诇 诪驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

The baraita continues: After the animal鈥檚 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.

讜注讚讬讬谉 转讬讘注讬 诇讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽讜讚诐 砖谞转讜

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.

转讗 砖诪注 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪住讬讬注 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 砖谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讗讬讝讜 讛谉 讬诪讬诐 讛讞砖讜讘讬谉 砖谞讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

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: 鈥淵ou shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place that the Lord shall choose, you and your household鈥 (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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 讛砖诇诪讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讛讘讗 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转讬讜讘转讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜诪专讗讛 讗转 诪讜诪讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛 讗住讜专 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜谞砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬拽讘专 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 讗讟讜 讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 讗讟讜 讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉

GEMARA: Rabba bar bar 岣na 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 body due to the case of blemishes on the cornea.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜诪专讗讛 讗转 诪讜诪讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 讘诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 诪讜转专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 诪讬 诪砖转谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讛诪砖转谞讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says:

诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽谞住讗 拽讗 拽谞讬住 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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 岣na explained.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪驻谞讬 讛诪砖转谞讬谉 讜讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖转谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪砖转谞讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪砖转谞讬

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.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讻讞讜砖讬 住讛讚讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖转谞讬 砖拽专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬讻讗 讚诪砖转谞讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪砖转谞讬 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 砖讞 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚诪谉 讗讜砖讗 讘讗 讜讗专讗讱 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬诐 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗 讜讗专讗讱 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诪砖转谞讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪砖转谞讬

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a baraita, as Rabba bar bar 岣na 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.

诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讜专讗讛 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜谞砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬拽讘专 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇诪讗 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

搂 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.

转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬注 诇讚拽讛 讜诪讞爪讛 诇讙住讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讛 讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟

搂 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇驻讜诐 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讬拽讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专转 诪讙讚诇讬 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 谞讙注讜 讘讛

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 Manoa岣 says in the name of Rav A岣 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讚谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讝讬讻讛 讗转 讛讞讬讬讘 讜讞讬讬讘 讗转 讛讝讻讗讬 讟讬诪讗 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讜讟讬讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚

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鈥檃 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讗转 讛讝讻讗讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讗诇讗 讝讬讻讛 讗转 讛讞讬讬讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讟讜专 讗转讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诪砖讻讜谉 讜谞讟诇讜 讛讬诪谞讜

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.

讟讬诪讗 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讚讗讙注 讘讛讜 砖专抓 讟讬讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗 砖注讬专讘谉 注诐 驻讬专讜转讬讜

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 with the litigant鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜诪注砖讛 讘驻专讛 砖谞讬讟诇讛 讛讗诐 砖诇讛 讜讛讗讻讬诇讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讬讘谞讛 讜讛转讬专讜讛

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.

讜讗诪专 转讜讚讜住 讛专讜驻讗 讗讬谉 驻专讛 讜讞讝讬专讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖诇 诪爪专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讜转讻讬谉 讛讗诐 砖诇讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转诇讚

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讞诪讜专讱 讟专驻讜谉 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗转讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 讛诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讜讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专

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 岣llin 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鈥檚 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.

讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜注讜讚 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖讬拽讜诇 讛讚注转 讟注讬转讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗转讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讟诇 砖讻专 诇讛讬讜转 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛讘讻讜专讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇 驻讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诪讜诪讞讛

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 28

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬 诪讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 砖诇 转讜讚讛

And the other ones, i.e., the Sages from the school of Rav, why don鈥檛 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讱 讬讛讬讛 讛讜住讬祝 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讛讜讬讛 讗讞专转 讘讘讻讜专

The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, how does he respond to this? The verse states: 鈥淎nd their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:18). The verse adds another mention of a form of the term being in the second phrase: 鈥淚t shall be yours,鈥 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗 诪讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞讜转谞讜 诇讻讛谉 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛

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: 鈥淚t shall be yours,鈥 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 讜讘砖专诐 讗讞讚 转诐 讜讗讞讚 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讜讘砖专诐 讚讛谞讬 讘讻讜专讜转 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗诪专

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: 鈥淎nd their flesh shall be yours,鈥 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 鈥渁nd their flesh鈥 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.

谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讗讞专 砖谞转讜 谞诪讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讬讻讗 讚谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐

搂 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鈥檚 first year, the owner is permitted to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months, and after the animal鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讘讻讜专 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 注讚 砖诇讗 谞专讗讛 诇讛专讗讜转讜 诇讞讻诐 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜诪砖谞专讗讛 诇讛专讗讜转讜 诇讞讻诐 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖

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.

讗讞专 砖谞转讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讗讘诇 诪驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

The baraita continues: After the animal鈥檚 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.

讜注讚讬讬谉 转讬讘注讬 诇讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽讜讚诐 砖谞转讜

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.

转讗 砖诪注 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪住讬讬注 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 砖谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讗讬讝讜 讛谉 讬诪讬诐 讛讞砖讜讘讬谉 砖谞讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

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: 鈥淵ou shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place that the Lord shall choose, you and your household鈥 (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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讗讞专 砖谞转讜 讛砖诇诪讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讛讘讗 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转讬讜讘转讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜诪专讗讛 讗转 诪讜诪讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛 讗住讜专 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜谞砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬拽讘专 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 讗讟讜 讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 讗讟讜 讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉

GEMARA: Rabba bar bar 岣na 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 body due to the case of blemishes on the cornea.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜诪专讗讛 讗转 诪讜诪讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 讘诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 诪讜转专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 诪讬 诪砖转谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讛诪砖转谞讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says:

诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽谞住讗 拽讗 拽谞讬住 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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 岣na explained.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪驻谞讬 讛诪砖转谞讬谉 讜讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖转谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪砖转谞讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪砖转谞讬

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.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讻讞讜砖讬 住讛讚讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖转谞讬 砖拽专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬讻讗 讚诪砖转谞讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪砖转谞讬 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 砖讞 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚诪谉 讗讜砖讗 讘讗 讜讗专讗讱 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讛谉 诪砖转谞讬诐 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗 讜讗专讗讱 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诪砖转谞讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪砖转谞讬

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a baraita, as Rabba bar bar 岣na 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.

诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讜专讗讛 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜谞砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬拽讘专 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇诪讗 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

搂 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.

转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬注 诇讚拽讛 讜诪讞爪讛 诇讙住讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讛 讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟

搂 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇驻讜诐 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讬拽讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专转 诪讙讚诇讬 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 谞讙注讜 讘讛

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 Manoa岣 says in the name of Rav A岣 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讚谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讝讬讻讛 讗转 讛讞讬讬讘 讜讞讬讬讘 讗转 讛讝讻讗讬 讟讬诪讗 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讜讟讬讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚

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鈥檃 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讗转 讛讝讻讗讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讗诇讗 讝讬讻讛 讗转 讛讞讬讬讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讟讜专 讗转讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诪砖讻讜谉 讜谞讟诇讜 讛讬诪谞讜

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.

讟讬诪讗 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讚讗讙注 讘讛讜 砖专抓 讟讬讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗 砖注讬专讘谉 注诐 驻讬专讜转讬讜

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 with the litigant鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜诪注砖讛 讘驻专讛 砖谞讬讟诇讛 讛讗诐 砖诇讛 讜讛讗讻讬诇讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讬讘谞讛 讜讛转讬专讜讛

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.

讜讗诪专 转讜讚讜住 讛专讜驻讗 讗讬谉 驻专讛 讜讞讝讬专讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖诇 诪爪专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讜转讻讬谉 讛讗诐 砖诇讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转诇讚

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讞诪讜专讱 讟专驻讜谉 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗转讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 讛诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讜讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专

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 岣llin 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鈥檚 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.

讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜注讜讚 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖讬拽讜诇 讛讚注转 讟注讬转讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗转讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讟诇 砖讻专 诇讛讬讜转 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛讘讻讜专讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇 驻讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诪讜诪讞讛

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

Scroll To Top