Bekhorot 57

Chapter 57

א כאילא ביבנה שהתירו לו ביבנה חכמים להיות נוטל ארבע איסרות לבהמה דקה וששה לגסה בין תם ובין בעל מום:
1 LIKE ILA<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A pious person and above suspicion in these matters.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט האי נפיש טירחיה והאי לא נפיש טירחיה:
2 IN JABNEH WHOM THE SAGES PERMITTED TO ACCEPT FOUR AS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Roman coin usually of the value of one twenty-fourth of a denar.');"><sup>2</sup></span> 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>
ג בין תם ובין בעל מום: בשלמא בעל מום משום דקא שרי ליה אלא תם אמאי דא"כ אתי למיחשדיה ואמרי האי בעל מום תם הוא והאי דקא שרי ליה משום אגרא
3 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That for small cattle he took four as and for large cattle six as.');"><sup>4</sup></span> - 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> whereas in the other case, he has not much trouble. WHETHER UNBLEMISHED OR BLEMISHED.
ד אי הכי תם נמי אמרי בעל מום הוא והאי דלא קשרי ליה סבר כי היכי דלשקול אגריה זימנא אחריתי חד זימנא תקינו ליה רבנן תרי זימני לא תקינו ליה רבנן:
4 Now, we quite understand this in the case of a blemished firstling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the expert takes payment where he decides that it possesses a permanent blemish.');"><sup>6</sup></span> 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> 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.
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הנוטל שכרו לדון דיניו בטילים להעיד עדותיו בטילין להזות ולקדש מימיו מי מערה אפרו אפר מקלה
5 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> <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>
ו אם היה כהן מטמאהו מתרומתו מאכילו ומשקו וסכו ואם היה זקן מרכיבו על החמור ונותן לו שכרו כפועל:
6 OR TO SANCTIFY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To mix the ashes of purification with living water in a vessel.');"><sup>10</sup></span> THE WATERS ARE CONSIDERED CAVE WATERS AND THE ASHES ARE CONSIDERED CALCINED ASHES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., ordinary ashes.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דאמר קרא (דברים ד, ה) ראה למדתי אתכם וגו' מה אני בחנם אף אתם בחנם
7 IF HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expert, witness or judge.');"><sup>12</sup></span> 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> HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The person who accompanies the priest.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ח תניא נמי הכי כאשר צוני ה' אלהי מה אני בחנם אף אתם בחנם ומנין שאם לא מצא בחנם שילמד בשכר תלמוד לומר (משלי כג, כג) אמת קנה ומנין שלא יאמר כשם שלמדתיה בשכר כך אלמדנה בשכר תלמוד לומר אמת קנה ואל תמכור:
8 MUST GIVE HIM FOOD AND DRINK AND RUB HIM WITH OIL. AND IF HE WAS AN OLD MAN, HE MOUNTS HIM ON AN ASS. HE ALSO PAYS THE PRIEST AS HE WOULD A WORKMAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the GEMARA:');"><sup>15</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence is it proved?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is forbidden to take payment for giving decisions on Jewish Law and teaching the Torah.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: Scripture says: Behold I have taught you, etc. :<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. IV, 5.');"><sup>17</sup></span> Just as I teach gratuitously, so you should teach gratuitously. It has also been taught to the same effect. Scripture Says: Even as the Lord my God commanded me,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>18</sup></span> [intimating], just as I teach gratuitously, so you should teach gratuitously.
ט להזות ולקדש מימיו מי מערה אפרו אפר מקלה: ורמינהו המקדש במי חטאת באפר חטאת הרי זו מקודשת אע"פ שהוא ישראל
9 And whence do we derive that if he cannot find someone to teach him gratuitously, he must pay for learning? The text states: Buy the truth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXIII, 23.');"><sup>19</sup></span> And whence do we infer that one should not say 'as I learnt the Torah by paying, so I shall teach it for payment'?
י אמר אביי לא קשיא כאן בשכר הבאה ומלוי כאן בשכר הזאה וקידוש
10 The text states: And sell it not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXIII, 23.');"><sup>19</sup></span> TO SPRINKLE OR TO SANCTIFY, ITS WATERS ARE CONSIDERED CAVE WATERS AND ITS ASHES ARE CONSIDERED CALCINED ASHES.
יא דיקא נמי דקתני הכא להזות ולקדש והתם קתני המקדש במי חטאת ובאפר חטאת שמע מינה:
11 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> - Said Abaye: This offers no difficulty. 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>
יב אם היה כהן מטמאהו מתרומתו כו': איהו גופיה היכי אזיל
12 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> I can also prove it.
יג לבית הפרס דרבנן דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מנפח אדם בית הפרס והולך
13 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> 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>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter