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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 16, 2019 | 讬状讗 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 29

It is forbidden to take money to rule on blemishes unless you are like Ila from Yavneh. What was unique about Ila? On what type of things would one be suspected/not suspected of lying? It is forbidden to take money for judging, testifying, teaching, doing a mitzva like preparing the red heifer waters. So how do people get paid for these things? One who is suspect regarding firstborns, what can one purchase/not purchase from him/her?


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

讻讗讬诇讗 讘讬讘谞讛 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讘讬讘谞讛 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 谞讜讟诇 讗专讘注 讗讬住专讜转 诇讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜砖砖讛 诇讙住讛 讘讬谉 转诐 讜讘讬谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐

like Ila in Yavne, whom the Sages in Yavne permitted to take a wage of four issar for issuing a ruling concerning a small animal and six issar for issuing a ruling concerning a large animal. They permitted this provided that he would be paid whether it turned out that the firstborn was unblemished or whether it was blemished.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 谞驻讬砖 讟讬专讞讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟讬专讞讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages in Yavne said that Ila could take a wage of four issar for issuing a ruling concerning a small animal but six issar for issuing a ruling concerning a large animal? The Gemara answers: Examining this one, a firstborn of a large animal, for blemishes involves great effort; but examining that one, the firstborn of a small animal, does not involve such great effort.

讘讬谉 转诐 讜讘讬谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 砖专讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 转诐 讗诪讗讬 讚讗诐 讻谉 讗转讬 诇诪讬讞砖讚讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 讛讗讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 转诐 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讙专讗

搂 The mishna teaches that one like Ila may take his wages provided that he would be paid whether it turns out that the firstborn is unblemished or whether it is blemished. The Gemara inquires: Granted, if the animal is blemished he takes his wages, because he deems the animal permitted to be slaughtered and eaten; but if he examined an unblemished animal, why does he take his wages? The Gemara answers that if so, i.e., if he would be paid for examining only a blemished animal, people would come to suspect him and say that this animal that he declared to be blemished is in fact unblemished, and he declared it blemished and thereby deemed it permitted to be eaten only due to the fact that he wanted to claim his wages.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转诐 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽砖专讬 诇讬讛 住讘专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇砖拽讜诇 讗讙专讬讛 讝讬诪谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara challenges: If so, then in a situation where the examiner is paid either way, people might also state a similar claim with regard to one who rules that it is an unblemished animal. They may suspect that this animal is really blemished, and the reason that this expert did not deem it permitted is that he holds that it is preferable for him to declare it unblemished so that he can collect his wages another time, when he examines it later and declares it blemished. The Gemara answers: The Sages of Yavne instituted an ordinance that he may take his wages for examining a firstborn once, but the Sages did not institute that he may take his wages twice for examining the same animal. Since he will not get paid a second time for the same animal, he has no incentive to declare it unblemished if it has a blemish.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讟诇 砖讻专讜 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬讜 讘讟讬诇讬诐 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讬讜 讘讟讬诇讬谉 诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 诪讬诪讬讜 诪讬 诪注专讛 讗驻专讜 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who takes his wages to judge cases, his rulings are void. In the case of one who takes wages to testify, his testimonies are void. With regard to one who takes wages to sprinkle the purification waters of the red heifer upon one who contracted impurity imparted by a corpse, and one who takes wages to sanctify those waters, the halakhic status of his water is that of cave water, and the status of his ashes is that of mere burnt ashes.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗讛讜 诪转专讜诪转讜 诪讗讻讬诇讜 讜诪砖拽讜 讜住讻讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讝拽谉 诪专讻讬讘讜 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 讻驻讜注诇

Although taking actual wages is prohibited, if the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was a priest, and the one who requires his services rendered him impure and prevented him from partaking of his teruma, that person must provide the priest with food, drink, and oil for smearing on his body from his own non-sacred property. And likewise if the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was an elderly person, the one who requires his services transports him on a donkey. And in all these cases, although it is prohibited to take wages, the one who requires his services gives him his wages like the wages of a laborer, as he was unable to perform his usual labor that day.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗讛 诇诪讚转讬 讗转讻诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 讗谞讬 讘讞谞诐 讗祝 讗转诐 讘讞谞诐

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the rulings of one who takes wages to judge cases are void. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that a judge may not be paid for his rulings, derived? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that it is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淏ehold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do so in the midst of the land that you are going in to possess鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:5). This teaches that just as I, Moses, learned the word of God for free, so too, you learned it from me for free, and this is also how you should act with all future generations.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬 诪讛 讗谞讬 讘讞谞诐 讗祝 讗转诐 讘讞谞诐 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诇讗 诪爪讗 讘讞谞诐 砖讬诇诪讚 讘砖讻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪转 拽谞讛 讜诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖诇诪讚转讬讛 讘砖讻专 讻讱 讗诇诪讚谞讛 讘砖讻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪转 拽谞讛 讜讗诇 转诪讻专

This halakha is also taught in a baraita: 鈥淏ehold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:5). Just as I learned from God for free, so too, you learned from me for free. And from where is it derived that if one cannot find someone to teach him for free that he should learn even by giving payment? The verse states: 鈥淏uy the truth, and do not sell it; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding鈥 (Proverbs 23:23). And from where is it derived that one should not say: Just as I learned by giving payment, so too, I will teach it by receiving payment? The verse states: 鈥淏uy the truth, and do not sell it.鈥

诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 诪讬诪讬讜 诪讬 诪注专讛 讗驻专讜 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讘讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讬砖专讗诇

The mishna teaches: With regard to one who takes wages to sprinkle the purification waters of the red heifer, and one who takes wages to sanctify those waters, the halakhic status of his water is that of cave water, and the status of his ashes is that of mere burnt ashes. This indicates that one may not derive any benefit from the water or ashes of the red heifer. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Kiddushin 58a): With regard to one who betroths a woman with the water of purification, or with the ashes of purification, she is betrothed, and this is the halakha even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite, not a priest or a Levite. This indicates that one may derive benefit from the waters or ashes of purification.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讻专 讛讘讗讛 讜诪诇讜讬 讻讗谉 讘砖讻专 讛讝讗讛 讜拽讬讚讜砖

Abaye said: This is not difficult, since there, the mishna in Kiddushin is referring to one who betroths a woman with the value of the payment for bringing the ashes from afar and filling the vessel with the purification water, for which it is permitted to accept payment. Performing this act for the woman is comparable to giving her an item of value, since she will not have to pay someone to bring and fill the vessel for her. Here, the mishna is referring to payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctifying of the ashes.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 讜讛转诐 拽转谞讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 讞讟讗转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: According to this answer, the language of the two mishnayot is also precise, as it teaches here: To sprinkle, or: To sanctify, indicating that he receives payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctification; and it teaches there, in the mishna in Kiddushin, that she is betrothed with the water of purification or with the ashes of purification, which indicates that the water and ashes have not yet been mixed together. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the correct explanation of the mishnayot.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗讛讜 诪转专讜诪转讜 讻讜壮 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 讛讬讻讬 讗讝讬诇

搂 The mishna teaches: Although taking wages is prohibited, if the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was a priest, and the one who required his services rendered him impure and prevented him from partaking of his teruma, he must provide the priest with food, drink, and oil. The Gemara asks: But he himself, the priest, how was he permitted to go to a place that caused him to become impure? It is prohibited for a priest to render himself ritually impure.

诇讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱

The Gemara answers that this is referring to a case where he went to an area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas], into which it is prohibited by rabbinic law for a priest to enter. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person who passes through a beit haperas may blow on the dust before taking each step, which would expose any bone beneath the dust, and walk. A priest may rely on that method of examination and enter the field.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专

And Rav Yehuda bar Ami says in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, thereby creating a path, is pure, and one no longer needs to be concerned about bones, as the entire prohibition is a stringency by rabbinic law. Nevertheless, a priest who walks through such a field may not partake of teruma until he has purified himself.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖讗专 讟讜诪讗讜转 讚诇讗 诪讝讛专 注诇讬讬讛讜

Alternatively, the Gemara suggests that the mishna is referring to a case where the priest becomes impure with other forms of impurity, with regard to which priests are not admonished. A priest is prohibited from becoming impure only through contact with a corpse. Yet, he may not partake of teruma if he becomes impure even in any other manner.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讝拽谉 诪专讻讬讘讜 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 转谞讗 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讗讻讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was an elderly person, the one who required his services transports him on a donkey. And in all these cases, although it is prohibited to take wages, the one who required his services gives him his wages like the wages of a laborer, as he was unable to perform his usual labor that day. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 4:11): The owner gives him his wage as if he were an idle laborer. Abaye says: It means that he is paid as a laborer who is idle from that typical labor of his from which he is kept idle. In other words, he must receive the amount of money a person would be willing to accept to refrain from his current occupation and engage in the actions discussed in the mishna. This calculation accounts for both the degree of difficulty of his steady employment and the amount of his remuneration.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讘讻讜专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘砖专 爪讘讗讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜专讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 注讘讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 注讜专讜转 砖诇 谞拽讘讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 爪诪专 诪诇讜讘谉 讜爪讜讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讟讜讬 讜讘讙讚讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who is suspect with regard to firstborn animals of slaughtering them and selling their meat when it is prohibited to do so, one may neither purchase meat from him, including even deer meat, nor may one purchase from him hides that are not tanned. Rabbi Eliezer says: One may purchase hides of female animals from him, as the halakhot of firstborn animals are in effect only with regard to males. And one may not purchase bleached or dirty wool from him. But one may purchase spun thread from him, and all the more so may one purchase garments from him.

讙诪壮 讘砖专 爪讘讗讬诐 讚诪讬讞诇祝 讘讚注讙诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may not purchase from him even deer meat. The Gemara explains that the reason is that it could be confused with meat of a calf, as they are similar in appearance.

讜诇讗 注讜专讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 注讘讜讚讬诐 讛讗 注讘讜讚讬诐 讝讘谞讬谞谉 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讘讻讜专 讛讜讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讟专讞 讘讬讛 住讘专 讗讬 砖诪注讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 诪驻住讚讜 诇讬 诪讬谞讗讬

The mishna teaches: Nor may one purchase from him hides that are not tanned. The Gemara infers from here that we may purchase tanned hides from one who is suspect with regard to firstborn animals. The reason is that if it is so that it is a hide of a firstborn, he would not make such an effort with it to tan it. This is because he would think: If the Sages hear that this hide is from a firstborn, they will cause me a loss by confiscating it from me.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 注讜专讜转 砖诇 谞拽讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: One may purchase hides of female animals from him, as the halakhot of firstborn animals are in effect only with regard to males. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? People know the difference between the hide of a male animal and the hide of a female animal, due to the differences in anatomy.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讝讻专 谞诪讬 讞讬讬拽 诇讝讻专讜转讬讛 讜讗诪专 注讻讘专讬诐 讗讻诇讜讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬 注讻讘专讬诐 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to the first tanna, why is it prohibited to purchase hides of female animals from one who is suspect with regard to firstborn animals? The Gemara answers that the first tanna claims as follows: If so, i.e., if it is permitted to purchase hides of female animals, one might also come to sell hides of male animals, as he will sever the male reproductive organ and say that mice ate this part of the hide. The Gemara asks: And the other, Rabbi Eliezer, why is he not concerned that one might cut off that part of the hide and sell it as the hide of a female? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the place of the mice is known, i.e., one can tell by looking at the hide whether it was eaten by mice or cut with a knife.

讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 爪诪专 诪诇讜讘谉 讜爪讜讗讬 讛砖转讗 爪诪专 诪诇讜讘谉 诇讗 讝讘谞讬谞谉 爪讜讗讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 爪诪专 诪诇讜讘谉 诪爪讜讗转讜

搂 The mishna teaches: And one may not purchase bleached or dirty wool from him. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna has taught that we may not purchase bleached wool from him, despite the fact he has expended effort in bleaching it, which indicates that it is not from a firstborn, is it necessary to teach that one may not purchase dirty wool from him? The Gemara answers: Rather, the tanna is teaching one case here, that of wool that was bleached and cleaned from its dirt.

讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讟讜讬 讜讘讙讚讬诐 讛砖转讗 讟讜讬 讝讘谞讬谞谉 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讘讙讚讬诐 谞诪讟讬

The mishna teaches: But one may purchase spun thread from him, and all the more so one may purchase garments from him. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna has taught that we may purchase spun thread from one who is suspect with regard to firstborn, is it necessary to teach that one may purchase garments? The Gemara answers: What does the mishna mean which it says: Garments? It is referring to felt [namtei] garments, which are not made of spun thread.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 驻砖转谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住专拽 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛诐 讟讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

MISHNA: In the case of one who is suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year, i.e., of sowing or engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce, one may not purchase flax from him, and this applies even to combed flax, in which much labor and exertion was invested. But one may purchase spun thread and woven fabric from such individuals.

讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 讟讜讬 讝讘谞讬谞谉 讗专讬讙 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讗专讬讙 转讬讻讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna has taught that we may purchase spun thread from one who is suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year, is it necessary to teach the case of woven fabric? The Gemara answers: What does the mishna mean when it says: Woven? It means wool woven into chains, which is not spun.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞砖讜讚 诇讛讬讜转 诪讜讻专 转专讜诪讛 诇砖讜诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讝讬拽转 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who is suspect with regard to selling teruma under the guise of non-sacred produce, one may not purchase even water and salt from him; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: One may not purchase from him any item that has relevance to teruma and tithes. However, one may purchase water and salt from him, as teruma and tithes do not apply to them.

讙诪壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讚诪注专讘讬 讘讛讜 砖诪谉 讝讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement that one may not purchase any item that has relevance to teruma and tithes from one who is suspect with regard to selling teruma? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement serves to add fish innards to this prohibition, as people mix olive oil with them, and it might be oil of teruma.

讛讛讜讗 讟讘讞讗 讚讛讜讛 讞砖讜讚 诇讝讘讜谞讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain butcher who was suspected of selling

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 29

讻讗讬诇讗 讘讬讘谞讛 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讘讬讘谞讛 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 谞讜讟诇 讗专讘注 讗讬住专讜转 诇讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜砖砖讛 诇讙住讛 讘讬谉 转诐 讜讘讬谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐

like Ila in Yavne, whom the Sages in Yavne permitted to take a wage of four issar for issuing a ruling concerning a small animal and six issar for issuing a ruling concerning a large animal. They permitted this provided that he would be paid whether it turned out that the firstborn was unblemished or whether it was blemished.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 谞驻讬砖 讟讬专讞讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟讬专讞讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages in Yavne said that Ila could take a wage of four issar for issuing a ruling concerning a small animal but six issar for issuing a ruling concerning a large animal? The Gemara answers: Examining this one, a firstborn of a large animal, for blemishes involves great effort; but examining that one, the firstborn of a small animal, does not involve such great effort.

讘讬谉 转诐 讜讘讬谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 砖专讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 转诐 讗诪讗讬 讚讗诐 讻谉 讗转讬 诇诪讬讞砖讚讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 讛讗讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 转诐 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讙专讗

搂 The mishna teaches that one like Ila may take his wages provided that he would be paid whether it turns out that the firstborn is unblemished or whether it is blemished. The Gemara inquires: Granted, if the animal is blemished he takes his wages, because he deems the animal permitted to be slaughtered and eaten; but if he examined an unblemished animal, why does he take his wages? The Gemara answers that if so, i.e., if he would be paid for examining only a blemished animal, people would come to suspect him and say that this animal that he declared to be blemished is in fact unblemished, and he declared it blemished and thereby deemed it permitted to be eaten only due to the fact that he wanted to claim his wages.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转诐 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽砖专讬 诇讬讛 住讘专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇砖拽讜诇 讗讙专讬讛 讝讬诪谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara challenges: If so, then in a situation where the examiner is paid either way, people might also state a similar claim with regard to one who rules that it is an unblemished animal. They may suspect that this animal is really blemished, and the reason that this expert did not deem it permitted is that he holds that it is preferable for him to declare it unblemished so that he can collect his wages another time, when he examines it later and declares it blemished. The Gemara answers: The Sages of Yavne instituted an ordinance that he may take his wages for examining a firstborn once, but the Sages did not institute that he may take his wages twice for examining the same animal. Since he will not get paid a second time for the same animal, he has no incentive to declare it unblemished if it has a blemish.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讟诇 砖讻专讜 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬讜 讘讟讬诇讬诐 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讬讜 讘讟讬诇讬谉 诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 诪讬诪讬讜 诪讬 诪注专讛 讗驻专讜 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who takes his wages to judge cases, his rulings are void. In the case of one who takes wages to testify, his testimonies are void. With regard to one who takes wages to sprinkle the purification waters of the red heifer upon one who contracted impurity imparted by a corpse, and one who takes wages to sanctify those waters, the halakhic status of his water is that of cave water, and the status of his ashes is that of mere burnt ashes.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗讛讜 诪转专讜诪转讜 诪讗讻讬诇讜 讜诪砖拽讜 讜住讻讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讝拽谉 诪专讻讬讘讜 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 讻驻讜注诇

Although taking actual wages is prohibited, if the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was a priest, and the one who requires his services rendered him impure and prevented him from partaking of his teruma, that person must provide the priest with food, drink, and oil for smearing on his body from his own non-sacred property. And likewise if the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was an elderly person, the one who requires his services transports him on a donkey. And in all these cases, although it is prohibited to take wages, the one who requires his services gives him his wages like the wages of a laborer, as he was unable to perform his usual labor that day.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗讛 诇诪讚转讬 讗转讻诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 讗谞讬 讘讞谞诐 讗祝 讗转诐 讘讞谞诐

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the rulings of one who takes wages to judge cases are void. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that a judge may not be paid for his rulings, derived? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that it is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淏ehold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do so in the midst of the land that you are going in to possess鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:5). This teaches that just as I, Moses, learned the word of God for free, so too, you learned it from me for free, and this is also how you should act with all future generations.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬 诪讛 讗谞讬 讘讞谞诐 讗祝 讗转诐 讘讞谞诐 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诇讗 诪爪讗 讘讞谞诐 砖讬诇诪讚 讘砖讻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪转 拽谞讛 讜诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖诇诪讚转讬讛 讘砖讻专 讻讱 讗诇诪讚谞讛 讘砖讻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪转 拽谞讛 讜讗诇 转诪讻专

This halakha is also taught in a baraita: 鈥淏ehold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:5). Just as I learned from God for free, so too, you learned from me for free. And from where is it derived that if one cannot find someone to teach him for free that he should learn even by giving payment? The verse states: 鈥淏uy the truth, and do not sell it; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding鈥 (Proverbs 23:23). And from where is it derived that one should not say: Just as I learned by giving payment, so too, I will teach it by receiving payment? The verse states: 鈥淏uy the truth, and do not sell it.鈥

诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 诪讬诪讬讜 诪讬 诪注专讛 讗驻专讜 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讘讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讬砖专讗诇

The mishna teaches: With regard to one who takes wages to sprinkle the purification waters of the red heifer, and one who takes wages to sanctify those waters, the halakhic status of his water is that of cave water, and the status of his ashes is that of mere burnt ashes. This indicates that one may not derive any benefit from the water or ashes of the red heifer. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Kiddushin 58a): With regard to one who betroths a woman with the water of purification, or with the ashes of purification, she is betrothed, and this is the halakha even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite, not a priest or a Levite. This indicates that one may derive benefit from the waters or ashes of purification.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讻专 讛讘讗讛 讜诪诇讜讬 讻讗谉 讘砖讻专 讛讝讗讛 讜拽讬讚讜砖

Abaye said: This is not difficult, since there, the mishna in Kiddushin is referring to one who betroths a woman with the value of the payment for bringing the ashes from afar and filling the vessel with the purification water, for which it is permitted to accept payment. Performing this act for the woman is comparable to giving her an item of value, since she will not have to pay someone to bring and fill the vessel for her. Here, the mishna is referring to payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctifying of the ashes.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 讜讛转诐 拽转谞讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 讞讟讗转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: According to this answer, the language of the two mishnayot is also precise, as it teaches here: To sprinkle, or: To sanctify, indicating that he receives payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctification; and it teaches there, in the mishna in Kiddushin, that she is betrothed with the water of purification or with the ashes of purification, which indicates that the water and ashes have not yet been mixed together. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the correct explanation of the mishnayot.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗讛讜 诪转专讜诪转讜 讻讜壮 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 讛讬讻讬 讗讝讬诇

搂 The mishna teaches: Although taking wages is prohibited, if the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was a priest, and the one who required his services rendered him impure and prevented him from partaking of his teruma, he must provide the priest with food, drink, and oil. The Gemara asks: But he himself, the priest, how was he permitted to go to a place that caused him to become impure? It is prohibited for a priest to render himself ritually impure.

诇讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱

The Gemara answers that this is referring to a case where he went to an area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas], into which it is prohibited by rabbinic law for a priest to enter. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person who passes through a beit haperas may blow on the dust before taking each step, which would expose any bone beneath the dust, and walk. A priest may rely on that method of examination and enter the field.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专

And Rav Yehuda bar Ami says in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, thereby creating a path, is pure, and one no longer needs to be concerned about bones, as the entire prohibition is a stringency by rabbinic law. Nevertheless, a priest who walks through such a field may not partake of teruma until he has purified himself.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖讗专 讟讜诪讗讜转 讚诇讗 诪讝讛专 注诇讬讬讛讜

Alternatively, the Gemara suggests that the mishna is referring to a case where the priest becomes impure with other forms of impurity, with regard to which priests are not admonished. A priest is prohibited from becoming impure only through contact with a corpse. Yet, he may not partake of teruma if he becomes impure even in any other manner.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讝拽谉 诪专讻讬讘讜 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 转谞讗 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讗讻讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was an elderly person, the one who required his services transports him on a donkey. And in all these cases, although it is prohibited to take wages, the one who required his services gives him his wages like the wages of a laborer, as he was unable to perform his usual labor that day. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 4:11): The owner gives him his wage as if he were an idle laborer. Abaye says: It means that he is paid as a laborer who is idle from that typical labor of his from which he is kept idle. In other words, he must receive the amount of money a person would be willing to accept to refrain from his current occupation and engage in the actions discussed in the mishna. This calculation accounts for both the degree of difficulty of his steady employment and the amount of his remuneration.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讘讻讜专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘砖专 爪讘讗讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜专讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 注讘讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 注讜专讜转 砖诇 谞拽讘讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 爪诪专 诪诇讜讘谉 讜爪讜讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讟讜讬 讜讘讙讚讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who is suspect with regard to firstborn animals of slaughtering them and selling their meat when it is prohibited to do so, one may neither purchase meat from him, including even deer meat, nor may one purchase from him hides that are not tanned. Rabbi Eliezer says: One may purchase hides of female animals from him, as the halakhot of firstborn animals are in effect only with regard to males. And one may not purchase bleached or dirty wool from him. But one may purchase spun thread from him, and all the more so may one purchase garments from him.

讙诪壮 讘砖专 爪讘讗讬诐 讚诪讬讞诇祝 讘讚注讙诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may not purchase from him even deer meat. The Gemara explains that the reason is that it could be confused with meat of a calf, as they are similar in appearance.

讜诇讗 注讜专讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 注讘讜讚讬诐 讛讗 注讘讜讚讬诐 讝讘谞讬谞谉 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讘讻讜专 讛讜讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讟专讞 讘讬讛 住讘专 讗讬 砖诪注讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 诪驻住讚讜 诇讬 诪讬谞讗讬

The mishna teaches: Nor may one purchase from him hides that are not tanned. The Gemara infers from here that we may purchase tanned hides from one who is suspect with regard to firstborn animals. The reason is that if it is so that it is a hide of a firstborn, he would not make such an effort with it to tan it. This is because he would think: If the Sages hear that this hide is from a firstborn, they will cause me a loss by confiscating it from me.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 注讜专讜转 砖诇 谞拽讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: One may purchase hides of female animals from him, as the halakhot of firstborn animals are in effect only with regard to males. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? People know the difference between the hide of a male animal and the hide of a female animal, due to the differences in anatomy.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讝讻专 谞诪讬 讞讬讬拽 诇讝讻专讜转讬讛 讜讗诪专 注讻讘专讬诐 讗讻诇讜讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬 注讻讘专讬诐 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to the first tanna, why is it prohibited to purchase hides of female animals from one who is suspect with regard to firstborn animals? The Gemara answers that the first tanna claims as follows: If so, i.e., if it is permitted to purchase hides of female animals, one might also come to sell hides of male animals, as he will sever the male reproductive organ and say that mice ate this part of the hide. The Gemara asks: And the other, Rabbi Eliezer, why is he not concerned that one might cut off that part of the hide and sell it as the hide of a female? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the place of the mice is known, i.e., one can tell by looking at the hide whether it was eaten by mice or cut with a knife.

讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 爪诪专 诪诇讜讘谉 讜爪讜讗讬 讛砖转讗 爪诪专 诪诇讜讘谉 诇讗 讝讘谞讬谞谉 爪讜讗讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 爪诪专 诪诇讜讘谉 诪爪讜讗转讜

搂 The mishna teaches: And one may not purchase bleached or dirty wool from him. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna has taught that we may not purchase bleached wool from him, despite the fact he has expended effort in bleaching it, which indicates that it is not from a firstborn, is it necessary to teach that one may not purchase dirty wool from him? The Gemara answers: Rather, the tanna is teaching one case here, that of wool that was bleached and cleaned from its dirt.

讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讟讜讬 讜讘讙讚讬诐 讛砖转讗 讟讜讬 讝讘谞讬谞谉 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讘讙讚讬诐 谞诪讟讬

The mishna teaches: But one may purchase spun thread from him, and all the more so one may purchase garments from him. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna has taught that we may purchase spun thread from one who is suspect with regard to firstborn, is it necessary to teach that one may purchase garments? The Gemara answers: What does the mishna mean which it says: Garments? It is referring to felt [namtei] garments, which are not made of spun thread.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 驻砖转谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住专拽 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛诐 讟讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

MISHNA: In the case of one who is suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year, i.e., of sowing or engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce, one may not purchase flax from him, and this applies even to combed flax, in which much labor and exertion was invested. But one may purchase spun thread and woven fabric from such individuals.

讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 讟讜讬 讝讘谞讬谞谉 讗专讬讙 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讗专讬讙 转讬讻讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna has taught that we may purchase spun thread from one who is suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year, is it necessary to teach the case of woven fabric? The Gemara answers: What does the mishna mean when it says: Woven? It means wool woven into chains, which is not spun.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞砖讜讚 诇讛讬讜转 诪讜讻专 转专讜诪讛 诇砖讜诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讝讬拽转 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪诪谞讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who is suspect with regard to selling teruma under the guise of non-sacred produce, one may not purchase even water and salt from him; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: One may not purchase from him any item that has relevance to teruma and tithes. However, one may purchase water and salt from him, as teruma and tithes do not apply to them.

讙诪壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讚诪注专讘讬 讘讛讜 砖诪谉 讝讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement that one may not purchase any item that has relevance to teruma and tithes from one who is suspect with regard to selling teruma? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement serves to add fish innards to this prohibition, as people mix olive oil with them, and it might be oil of teruma.

讛讛讜讗 讟讘讞讗 讚讛讜讛 讞砖讜讚 诇讝讘讜谞讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain butcher who was suspected of selling

Scroll To Top