Bekhorot 57
האי נפיש טירחיה והאי לא נפיש טירחיה:
FOR SMALL CATTLE AND SIX AS FOR LARGE CATTLE, WHETHER UNBLEMISHED OR BLEMISHED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether he pronounced the firstling to be unblemished or possessing a permanent blemish, he used to take full payment for his examination.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
בשלמא בעל מום משום דקא שרי ליה אלא תם אמאי
- In one case, [i.e., of large cattle], he has much trouble,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To cast it on the ground in order to bind it so as to enable the expert to examine it.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
בעל מום הוא והאי דלא קשרי ליה סבר כי היכי דלשקול אגריה זימנא אחריתי
because in this case he permits it; but in the case of an unblemished firstling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the priest pronounces the animal unblemished or having only a transitory blemish.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
חד זימנא תקינו ליה רבנן תרי זימני לא תקינו ליה רבנן:
why [does he take payment]? - The reason is that otherwise he might be suspected, and it might be said that the animal pronounced blemished is unblemished, and the reason he permits it is because he receives payment.
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הנוטל שכרו לדון דיניו בטילים להעיד עדותיו בטילין
If your argument is true, in the case of an unblemished firstling also it might be said that it is really blemished and the reason why he does not permit it is because he thinks that he might be able to take payment a second time? - The Rabbis enacted payment for the first examination but they did not enact payment twice [for the same firstling].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no fear, therefore, lest the firstling is really blemished and that it is pronounced unblemished in order that the priest might receive a further payment in a subsequent examination as there is no double payment for the same animal.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
להזות ולקדש מימיו מי מערה אפרו אפר מקלה
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE TAKES PAYMENT TO ACT AS A JUDGE, HIS JUDGMENTS ARE VOID; TO GIVE EVIDENCE, HIS EVIDENCE IS VOID; TO SPRINKLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water of purification.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דאמר קרא
WAS A PRIEST AND HE WAS MADE UNCLEAN REGARDING HIS TERUMAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the person who required the priest's services led him to inspect the firstling or to give evidence etc., through a path which inevitable caused the priest to become unclean. The latter cannot therefore now eat terumah, which is cheaper in price than hullin, since the latter can be eaten by everybody whereas terumah is only suitable for priests.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
דיקא נמי דקתני הכא
The following was cited in contradiction: If one betrothes a woman with the waters of purification or with the ashes of purification, she is betrothed, although he is an Israelite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For usually priests carry out these offices. Hence we see that one is permitted to take payment, for otherwise how could she be betrothed?');"><sup>20</sup></span>
המקדש במי חטאת ובאפר חטאת שמע מינה:
In the case mentioned above [in the Baraitha] it is payment for bringing the ashes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a distance to Jerusalem, and for the money earned in that manner he betrothes a woman.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אם היה כהן מטמאהו מתרומתו כו':
or filling the waters, whereas in the case [of the Mishnah] it is payment for actual sprinkling or sanctification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being part of the preparation for the performance of the precept for which there is no reward.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
לבית הפרס דרבנן דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב
For here in our Mishnah it states: TO SPRINKLE OR TO SANCTIFY, whereas there [in the Baraitha] it states: If one betrothes a woman with the waters of purification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The language employed in the Baraitha, i.e., 'With the waters etc.' suggests payment for bringing the waters, whereas the language used in the Mishnah indicates that the priest receives reward directly for sprinkling of sanctification.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
מנפח אדם בית הפרס והולך
or with the ashes of purification. It stands proved. IF HE WAS A PRIEST, AND HE WAS MADE UNCLEAN IN RESPECT OF HIS TERUMAH. How could the priest go to a place of uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus transgressing the negative precept There shall none be defiled for the dead (Lev. XXI, 1) .');"><sup>24</sup></span> - He went to a beth ha-peras,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A field rendered unclean on account of crushed bones carried over it from a ploughed grave.');"><sup>25</sup></span> the prohibition being a rabbinical enactment. For Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: A man can blow away the bones of a beth ha-peras and may then proceed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring the Paschal lamb, since abstaining from this fear of uncleanness would render him liable to the guilt of excision; but in respect of terumah the rabbinic enactment stands.');"><sup>26</sup></span>