י בשלמא חייב את הזכאי כגון שנשא ונתן ביד אלא זיכה את החייב היכי דמי אי דאמר ליה פטור אתה והא לא נשא ונתן ביד אמר רבינא כגון שהיה לו משכון ונטלו הימנו:
10 THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SAGES AT JABNEH AND THEY PERMITTED THE ANIMAL [FOR] THEODOS THE PHYSICIAN HAD SAID: NO COW NOR SOW LEAVES ALEXANDRIA OF EGYPT BEFORE ITS WOMB IS CUT OUT IN ORDER THAT IT MAY NOT BREED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For their cows and sows were highly rated, and therefore, to prevent them breeding elsewhere and thus compel buyers to come to Alexandria, they used to cut out the womb, and the animal did not suffer a fatal injury on account of this. We see, therefore, that the animal does not become trefah where the womb is absent.');"><sup>19</sup></span> SAID R'TARFON: 'YOUR ASS IS GONE, TARFON'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to make reparation for the cow which he had mistakenly made trefah.');"><sup>20</sup></span> SAID R'AKIBA TO HIM: YOU ARE ABSOLVED, FOR YOU ARE AN EXPERT AND WHOEVER IS AN EXPERT FOR THE BETH DIN IS ABSOLVED FROM REPARATION. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>And why does not [R'Akiba] infer this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Absolving R. Tarfon from reparation.');"><sup>21</sup></span> from the fact that he had erred in a matter where the Mishnah is explicit, and one who errs in a matter where the Mishnah is explicit can reconsider his decision?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore even if R. Tarfon were not an expert, he should be absolved, for there exists an explicit Mishnah in Hul. (54a) stating that an absent womb in an animal does not render the animal trefah. In this case therefore, if the cow were in existence, R. Tarfon could have permitted it, and consequently the person who gave it to the dogs to eat is himself responsible for the loss, v. supra n. 1.');"><sup>22</sup></span>