Bechorot Daf 28 (בכורות דף כ״ח)
Daf: 28 | Amudim: 28a – 28b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (28a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (המשך מדף כז:)
Why the school of Rav does not learn the two-day limit from the comparison to breast and thigh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִידַּךְ, אִי מֵהָתָם אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל תּוֹדָה.
English Translation:
And the other ones, i.e., the Sages from the school of Rav, why don’t 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues the discussion at the end of 27b. There Rav (cited by Rav Yehuda) derived that an unblemished firstborn is eaten for two days and one night from Numbers 18:18, which compares its flesh to the breast and thigh, while the school of Rav derived the same law from the phrase “year by year” (שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה). The Gemara now asks why the school of Rav did not accept Rav’s source, and answers that breast and thigh are given from both the peace offering and the thanks offering. The comparison alone could therefore be read as linking the firstborn to the thanks offering (תּוֹדָה), which is eaten for only one day and one night.
Key Terms:
- וְאִידַּךְ = and the other one — the standard Gemara opener asking how the opposing view handles a source
- חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק = the breast and thigh, the priestly portions of peace offerings and thanks offerings
- תּוֹדָה = the thanks offering, eaten for one day and the following night only
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav: the doubled “it shall be yours” adds a second day
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְךָ יִהְיֶה״ — הוֹסִיף לְךָ הַכָּתוּב הֲוָיָה אַחֶרֶת בִּבְכוֹר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, how does he respond to this? The verse states: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18). The verse adds another mention of a form of the term being in the second phrase: “It shall be yours,” 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav answers the difficulty from within the verse itself. Numbers 18:18 says “it shall be yours” (יִהְיֶה לָּךְ) a second time, and the extra form of the verb “to be” (הֲוָיָה) teaches an extra measure of time. The firstborn therefore matches the breast and thigh of the peace offering, with its two days and one night, and not the shorter time of the thanks offering.
Key Terms:
- הֲוָיָה = a form of the verb “to be” (here יִהְיֶה), whose repetition is expounded as adding something
- לְךָ יִהְיֶה = “it shall be yours” — the closing phrase of Numbers 18:18
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The school of Rav uses “it shall be yours” for the blemished firstborn
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִידַּךְ, הָא מֵהָתָם אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: הַאי ״יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״ — לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנּוֹתְנוֹ לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
English Translation:
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: “It shall be yours,” 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns the question around: how would the school of Rav answer Rav’s use of the extra phrase? They need “it shall be yours” for a different law, that a blemished firstborn (בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם) must also be handed to the priest. That law is stated nowhere else explicitly in the Torah, so the phrase cannot also be spent on the eating time. Each side’s choice of source is shaped by which other laws it must account for.
Key Terms:
- בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם = a blemished firstborn, which cannot be offered but still belongs to the priest
- שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ = which we have not found elsewhere — the law has no other explicit source
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav derives the blemished firstborn from the plural “their flesh”; the school of Rav reads the plural differently
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר ״וּבְשָׂרָם״ — אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד בַּעַל מוּם, וְאִידַּךְ — ״וּבְשָׂרָם״ דְּהָנֵי בְּכוֹרוֹת דְּכוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָאָמַר.
English Translation:
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: “And their flesh shall be yours,” 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 “and their flesh” 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
If Rav uses “it shall be yours” for the eating time, where does he find that a blemished firstborn goes to the priest? From the plural “and their flesh” (וּבְשָׂרָם), read as covering two kinds of firstborn: unblemished (תָּם) and blemished. The school of Rav answers that the plural is simply natural, because the verse speaks of the firstborns of all of Israel. This closes the exchange: each view has a source for both laws, using the same verse in different ways.
Key Terms:
- וּבְשָׂרָם = “and their flesh” — the plural is expounded by Rav as including two kinds of firstborn
- תָּם = unblemished, fit to be offered on the altar
Segment 5
TYPE: בעיא
Does the mishna’s thirty days add onto the twelve months, or apply only to a blemish that appeared after the year?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? נוֹלַד לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְאַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ נָמֵי שְׁלֹשִׁים? אוֹ דִלְמָא: הֵיכָא דְּנוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְתוּ לָא, וְהֵיכָא דְּנוֹלַד לוֹ אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ, אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשִׁים?
English Translation:
§ 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’s first year, the owner is permitted to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months, and after the animal’s 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’s 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna on 27b: a firstborn that develops a blemish in its first year may be kept for all twelve months, and one that develops a blemish after the year may be kept for thirty days. The dilemma is whether these are two separate cases or one rule with two stages. In the first reading, an animal blemished during the year may be kept for the rest of the year and then another thirty days. In the second, the thirty days belong only to an animal whose blemish appeared after the year ended.
Key Terms:
- אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ = a dilemma was raised before them — introduces an open question
- לְקַיְּימוֹ = to keep the animal alive, rather than slaughtering it or giving it to the priest
- שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ = twelve months — the firstborn’s own first year, counted from its birth
Segment 6
TYPE: ראיה (ברייתא)
A baraita on the firstborn nowadays: before a blemish one may keep it for years
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּכוֹר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לֶחָכָם — רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וּמִשֶּׁנִּרְאָה לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לֶחָכָם, נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ — רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a baraita to resolve the dilemma. It speaks of a firstborn “in the present time” (בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה), when there is no Temple and an unblemished firstborn cannot be offered. Until it has a blemish that can be shown to an expert, the owner may keep it for two or three years, since there is nothing else to do with it. Once a blemish appears in its first year, the twelve-month rule applies. The proof itself comes in the baraita’s next clause.
Key Terms:
- בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה = in the present time, when there is no Temple
- לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לֶחָכָם = to show it to an expert, who rules whether the blemish is permanent and permits slaughter
Segment 7
TYPE: ראיה (ברייתא, המשך)
After the year not even one hour, yet thirty days are allowed for the owner’s sake
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ אֲפִילּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת. אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה לַבְּעָלִים, אָמְרוּ: רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: After the animal’s 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues: after the year the owner may not keep the animal even for an hour, yet the Sages allowed thirty days as a kind of returning of lost property (הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה), giving the owner time to find a priest. The Gemara assumes the baraita is still speaking of a blemish that appeared during the first year. If so, the thirty days run after the year even for such an animal, which would answer the dilemma in favour of the first reading.
Key Terms:
- הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה = returning lost property — here, protecting the owner from a needless loss
- שָׁעָה אַחַת = a single hour — the baraita stresses that no time at all is allowed in principle
Segment 8
TYPE: דחייה
The baraita itself is just as ambiguous as the mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי לִי: שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא קוֹדֶם שְׁנָתוֹ?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the proof. The phrase “after its year” in the baraita is just as open as the mishna. It may mean an animal whose blemish first appeared after the year, or one blemished earlier that has now reached the end of its year. The same dilemma can be asked about the baraita, so it cannot decide the question.
Key Terms:
- וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי לִי = but still, let me ask — the proof text raises the same question as the original
Segment 9
TYPE: ראיה
Blemished fifteen days before year’s end: fifteen more days are added — support for Rabbi Elazar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מְסַיַּיע לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second baraita is clearer: if the blemish appeared fifteen days before the end of the year, the owner is given fifteen more days after the year. The total comes to thirty days from the appearance of the blemish, so an animal blemished during the year can still be kept past the year’s end. The Gemara notes that this supports Rabbi Elazar, who counts the thirty days from the time the blemish appeared and not from the end of the year.
Key Terms:
- מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ = they complete for it — the time is topped up to a set total
- מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ = it supports him — a tannaitic source agrees with an amora’s view
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא (לישנא אחרינא)
Another version: Rabbi Elazar gives a full thirty days after the year, learned from “year by year”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לִבְכוֹר שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹאכְלֶנּוּ שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה״, (אֵיזוֹ) [אֵילּוּ] הֵן יָמִים הַחֲשׁוּבִין שָׁנָה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
English Translation:
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: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place that the Lord shall choose, you and your household” (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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records a second version (אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי) of Rabbi Elazar’s view, very different from the first. Here he holds that a firstborn blemished at any point during its year receives a full thirty days after the year. He learns it from Deuteronomy 15:20, “year by year,” which implies one year and part of another. The part that counts as a significant portion of a year is thirty days, a measure known elsewhere in halacha as “thirty days in a year are considered a year.”
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי = there are those who say — introduces an alternative version of a statement
- שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה = “year by year” (Deuteronomy 15:20), the verse on eating the firstborn
- יָמִים הַחֲשׁוּבִין שָׁנָה = days that are reckoned as a year — thirty days
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותיובתא
The fifteen-day baraita refutes this version of Rabbi Elazar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ — מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ. הַשְׁלָמָה — אִין, מֵיהֲבָא — לָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, תְּיוּבְתָּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
On this second version, the same baraita that supported Rabbi Elazar in the first version now refutes him. The baraita only tops up the time to thirty days from the blemish (הַשְׁלָמָה); it does not grant a fresh thirty days after the year (מֵיהֲבָא). The Gemara concludes with a full refutation (תְּיוּבְתָּא), so the second version is rejected. The law follows the reading in which the thirty days are counted from the appearance of the blemish.
Key Terms:
- הַשְׁלָמָה = completion — topping up to a total
- מֵיהֲבָא = giving — granting a fresh period
- תְּיוּבְתָּא = a conclusive refutation of an amora’s view from a tannaitic source
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה
Slaughtering a firstborn before showing its blemish to an expert; a non-expert’s ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וּמַרְאֶה אֶת מוּמוֹ — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי מוּמְחֶה — אָסוּר. מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּמְחֶה וְרוֹאֶה אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, וְנִשְׁחַט עַל פִּיו — הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna opens a new topic within Perek 4. One who slaughters a firstborn and only then shows the blemish to an expert: Rabbi Yehuda permits it if the blemish is confirmed, and Rabbi Meir forbids it because the slaughter was not done on an expert’s ruling. In the second case, a non-expert examined the animal and it was slaughtered on his word: the animal must be buried, and the non-expert pays the priest from his own property. The machloket: Rabbi Yehuda looks at the facts (the blemish was real); Rabbi Meir looks at the procedure (no expert approved it beforehand).
Key Terms:
- מוּמְחֶה = an expert, authorised to rule on the blemishes of firstborn animals
- יִקָּבֵר = it must be buried — no benefit may be derived from it
- וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ = and he pays from his own property, i.e., personally compensates the priest
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא (מימרא)
Rabba bar bar Chana: eye blemishes are forbidden by all; the dispute is about body blemishes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף אַטּוּ דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף אַטּוּ דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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’s 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’s 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’s 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’s body due to the case of blemishes on the cornea.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar bar Chana narrows the dispute. Blemishes on the cornea of the eye (דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן) change after death, so once the animal is slaughtered no one can tell whether the blemish was permanent; on these both tanna’im forbid. The dispute concerns blemishes on the body, which do not change. Rabbi Meir forbids them as a rabbinic decree (גְּזֵירָה) so people will not slaughter first and examine later in eye cases too. Rabbi Yehuda sees no need for such a decree.
Key Terms:
- דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן = films or spots on the cornea of the eye
- מִשְׁתַּנִּין = they change — eye blemishes alter in appearance after death
- גָּזְרִינַן … אַטּוּ = we decree X on account of Y — a rabbinic safeguard extending a prohibition
- מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף = blemishes on the body, which keep their appearance after death
Segment 14
TYPE: ראיה (ברייתא)
A baraita supports Rabba bar bar Chana, with a textual correction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וּמַרְאֶה אֶת מוּמָיו — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבְּעַיִן אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין, בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף מוּתָּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּנִּין. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף מִי מִשְׁתַּנִּין?! אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁתַּנִּין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita says the same thing: Rabbi Yehuda forbids eye blemishes because they change and permits body blemishes because they do not, while Rabbi Meir forbids both. The baraita’s reason for Rabbi Meir, “because they change,” cannot be literal, since body blemishes do not change. The Gemara therefore corrects it to “because of those that change” (מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁתַּנִּין): body blemishes are forbidden as a decree on account of eye blemishes. With this reading the baraita matches Rabba bar bar Chana exactly.
Key Terms:
- תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = this is also taught in a baraita — tannaitic support for an amora
- מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁתַּנִּין = because of those that change — i.e., a decree on account of eye blemishes
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא (פתיחה)
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak begins a statement that continues on 28b
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק:
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says:
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud ends just as Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak begins to speak; his statement continues in the first segment of 28b. He will show that the wording of the mishna itself supports Rabba bar bar Chana’s view that Rabbi Meir’s prohibition is a penalty.
Key Terms:
- רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק = a Babylonian amora of the fourth generation, often cited for precise readings of texts
Amud Bet (28b)
Segment 1
TYPE: דיוק
The mishna’s wording shows that Rabbi Meir is imposing a penalty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי מוּמְחֶה אָסוּר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קְנָסָא קָא קָנֵיס רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
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 Ḥana explained.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s statement, begun at the end of 28a, continues here. The mishna gives Rabbi Meir’s reason as “since it was slaughtered not according to an expert,” not “since the blemish may have changed.” That wording points to a penalty (קְנָס) for skipping the proper procedure, not to any doubt about the facts. This fits Rabba bar bar Chana’s explanation that Rabbi Meir forbids even body blemishes, which do not change, as a rabbinic measure.
Key Terms:
- מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא = the mishna is also precise — its wording supports the explanation
- קְנָסָא = a penalty imposed by the Sages on one who acted improperly
Segment 2
TYPE: בעיא
Do all eye blemishes change after death, or only some?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁתַּנִּין — דְּכוּלְּהוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּי, אוֹ דִלְמָא אִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנֵּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנֵּי?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita said eye blemishes are forbidden “because they change.” The Gemara asks whether this means that every corneal blemish changes after death, or only that some do. The question matters for how much weight other evidence can carry once the animal is dead, as the next segment explains.
Key Terms:
- כּוּלְּהוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּי = they all change
Segment 3
TYPE: נפקא מינה
The practical difference: whether witnesses about the live animal’s blemish can be believed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְאַכְחוֹשֵׁי סָהֲדִי. אִי אָמְרַתְּ: כּוּלְּהוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּי — שַׁקָּרֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: אִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנֵּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנֵּי — סָמְכִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ. מַאי?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The difference concerns witnesses who testify that the animal had this same eye blemish while alive. If every corneal blemish changes after death, a blemish that now looks exactly as they describe cannot be what they saw, so they are shown to be lying. If only some change, their testimony is possible and the court may rely on it. The dilemma thus decides whether a slaughtered firstborn with an eye blemish can ever be permitted on the strength of testimony.
Key Terms:
- לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ = what is the practical difference?
- לְאַכְחוֹשֵׁי סָהֲדִי = to contradict witnesses — to show their testimony is impossible
- סָמְכִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ = we rely on them
Segment 4
TYPE: פשיטת בעיא
Rabbi Yoshiya of Usha: “Come, I will show you the corneas that change” — so some do not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: שָׂח לִי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא, בֹּא וְאַרְאֶךָּ בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּים. מִדְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״בֹּא וְאַרְאֶךָּ״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנֵּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנֵּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Come and hear a baraita, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar bar Chana reports that Rabbi Yoshiya of Usha offered to show him “the corneas that change.” The wording implies a particular group of blemishes, which means others do not change. The dilemma is resolved: some eye blemishes change and some do not, so witnesses who describe the blemish of the live animal are not automatically discredited.
Key Terms:
- שָׂח לִי = he told me
- מִכְּלָל = by inference — the statement implies a further point it does not say outright
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ודחייה
Is the mishna’s non-expert clause an anonymous ruling following Rabbi Meir? No — it speaks of eye blemishes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּמְחֶה, וְרָאָה אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְנִשְׁחַט עַל פִּיו, הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ. לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דִּלְמָא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s second clause: when a non-expert ruled and the animal was slaughtered on his word, it is buried. Since the clause does not mention a dispute, it seems to be an anonymous ruling (סְתָם מִשְׁנָה) following Rabbi Meir. The Gemara replies that it may refer to eye blemishes, which change after death. On those even Rabbi Yehuda agrees the animal is forbidden, as Rabba bar bar Chana established.
Key Terms:
- סְתָמָא = an unattributed ruling, which usually indicates the accepted law
- דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל = the opinion of all — no tanna disputes it
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא ומימרא
The non-expert pays a quarter for a small animal and half for a large one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם — מְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ לַדַּקָּה, וּמֶחֱצָה לַגַּסָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זֶה הֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה, וְזֶה הֶפְסֵד מוּעָט.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita fixes how much the non-expert pays: a quarter of the value of a small animal (a sheep or goat) and half the value of a large animal (cattle). Rav Pappa explains that losing a large animal is a heavy loss and losing a small one a light loss. The penalty is set in proportion to how much the priest has been deprived.
Key Terms:
- דַּקָּה = small livestock — sheep and goats
- גַּסָּה = large livestock — cattle
- הֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה = a great loss
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not pay the actual loss? Because of the decree against raising small livestock
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, לְפוּם פְּסֵידָא לִישַׁלֵּם! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר אִיקָא: מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵירַת מְגַדְּלֵי בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.
English Translation:
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 Manoaḥ says in the name of Rav Aḥa 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects: if the payment follows the size of the loss, the non-expert should simply pay its exact value. Rav Huna bar Manoach, citing Rav Acha bar Ika, explains that the Sages lowered the share for small animals because of the decree against raising small livestock in Eretz Yisrael, since such animals graze on and damage fields. Because they may be raised only in certain areas, the priest is spared the effort of keeping them, and the Sages took this into account in setting the share at a quarter.
Key Terms:
- לְפוּם פְּסֵידָא = according to the loss
- גְּזֵירַת מְגַדְּלֵי בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה = the decree against raising small livestock in Eretz Yisrael
- נָגְעוּ בָּהּ = they touched it — the Sages adjusted the amount
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
A judge who errs: the ruling stands and he pays, unless he is an expert for the court
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ דָּן אֶת הַדִּין, זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב וְחִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי, טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר וְטִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין — פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna widens the principle from firstborn animals to judges in general. If a judge acquits the liable or convicts the innocent, or declares the pure impure or the impure pure, and causes a loss, his ruling stands (מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי) and he pays from his own funds. A judge who is an expert for the court (מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין) is exempt. The link to the earlier mishna is clear: like the non-expert examiner of firstborns, an unqualified judge bears the cost of his mistake.
Key Terms:
- מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי = what he did is done — the ruling is not reversed
- מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין = an expert for the court — a judge accepted or authorised as an expert
- זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב = he acquitted the liable party
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא (קושיא ותירוץ)
Does the mishna follow Rabbi Meir on indirect damage? No — the judge acted with his own hand
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּדָאֵין דִּינָא דִּגְרָמֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד.
English Translation:
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’a 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A judge who rules only causes the loss indirectly, so the mishna seems to follow Rabbi Meir, who imposes liability for indirect damage (דִּינָא דִּגְרָמֵי). Rabbi Ile’a in the name of Rav answers that the mishna speaks of a judge who personally took the item from one party and handed it to the other (נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד). That is direct damage, for which everyone imposes liability.
Key Terms:
- דִּינָא דִּגְרָמֵי = liability for damage caused indirectly, a view associated with Rabbi Meir
- נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד = he took and gave with his hand — the judge physically transferred the item
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
How can acquitting the liable involve a physical act? The judge returned collateral
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא חִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי — כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד, אֶלָּא זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״פָּטוּר אַתָּה״ — וְהָא לֹא נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד! אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹן וּנְטָלוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Convicting the innocent fits easily: the judge takes the item from the innocent party and hands it over. Acquitting the liable seems to involve only words, “you are exempt,” with no physical act. Ravina answers that the lender held collateral (מַשְׁכּוֹן) from the borrower, and the judge took it from him and gave it back to the borrower, which is a direct act causing the lender’s loss.
Key Terms:
- מַשְׁכּוֹן = collateral — an item held by a lender as security for a loan
- פָּטוּר אַתָּה = you are exempt
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ (המשך)
Direct acts in rulings on purity: touching a creeping animal, or mixing produce
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר — דְּאַגַּע בְּהוּ שֶׁרֶץ, טִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא — שֶׁעֵירְבָן עִם פֵּירוֹתָיו.
English Translation:
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’s 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’s with the litigant’s 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara applies the same principle to the purity cases in the mishna. A judge who wrongly declared pure produce impure is liable only if he himself made it impure, for example by touching it to a creeping animal (שֶׁרֶץ). A judge who wrongly declared impure produce pure is liable if he mixed it into the owner’s pure produce, so that the whole mixture became impure. In each case the judge’s own hand caused the loss, so the mishna holds even without Rabbi Meir’s view on indirect damage.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁרֶץ = a creeping animal, whose carcass imparts ritual impurity
- עֵירְבָן עִם פֵּירוֹתָיו = he mixed them with his produce
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה (מעשה)
Rabbi Tarfon’s cow: a cow without a womb was fed to the dogs, and Yavne permitted it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּפָרָה שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, וְהֶאֱכִילָהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לִכְלָבִים, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּיַבְנֶה, וְהִתִּירוּהָ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna gives a case that illustrates the previous rule. A cow whose womb had been removed came before Rabbi Tarfon, who ruled it a tereifa (an animal with a fatal defect, forbidden to eat), and the owner fed it to the dogs. The Sages in Yavne ruled that such a cow is permitted. Rabbi Tarfon’s ruling was therefore a mistake that cost the owner the animal.
Key Terms:
- הָאֵם = the womb (literally, “the mother”)
- טְרֵפָה = an animal with a defect that will cause its death, forbidden to eat
- יַבְנֶה = Yavne, seat of the Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Second Temple
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Todos the physician: Alexandrian cows routinely had their wombs removed and survived
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר תּוֹדוֹס הָרוֹפֵא: אֵין פָּרָה וַחֲזִירָה יוֹצְאָה מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם, שֶׁאֵין חוֹתְכִין הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלֵד.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The physician Todos supplied the evidence behind the Yavne ruling. The people of Alexandria removed the wombs of cows and pigs before exporting them, so that their prized breeds would not be bred elsewhere. Since those animals lived on normally, removing the womb is not a fatal defect and does not make an animal tereifa. Medical evidence of this kind was accepted as a basis for the halachic ruling.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹדוֹס הָרוֹפֵא = Todos (Theodosius) the physician
- אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם = Alexandria of Egypt
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
“Your donkey is gone, Tarfon!” — Rabbi Akiva: an expert for the court is exempt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: הָלְכָה חֲמוֹרְךָ טַרְפוֹן! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אַתָּה מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין, וְכׇל הַמּוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Tarfon assumed he would have to pay for the cow, perhaps by selling his donkey, and cried out, “Your donkey is gone, Tarfon!” Rabbi Akiva reassured him: as an expert for the court he is exempt from paying. The story applies the rule of the previous mishna to one of the leading Sages of the generation.
Key Terms:
- הָלְכָה חֲמוֹרְךָ = your donkey is gone — an exclamation that he would have to pay out of his own property
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא (קושיא)
Why not say Rabbi Tarfon erred in an explicit mishna, so his ruling is void?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ, דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה, וְטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר!
English Translation:
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 Ḥullin 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’s 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why Rabbi Akiva relied on Rabbi Tarfon’s status as an expert. The law that an animal without a womb is permitted is stated in a mishna (Chullin 54a), and a ruling that errs in an explicit mishna (טָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה) is simply reversed (חוֹזֵר). On that basis the ruling had no force at all, and the owner who fed the cow to the dogs caused his own loss.
Key Terms:
- טָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה = he erred in a matter stated in a mishna, an obvious error
- חוֹזֵר = it is reversed — the ruling is void
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Akiva gave one reason and then a second
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא — דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר, וְעוֹד — אִי נָמֵי בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת טָעִיתָה, מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין אַתָּה, וְכׇל הַמּוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Akiva gave two reasons, the second added to the first (חֲדָא וְעוֹד). First, an error in an explicit mishna is reversed. Second, even if Rabbi Tarfon had erred in weighing considerations (שִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת), where the ruling would stand, he is an expert for the court and exempt from paying. Either way Rabbi Tarfon owes nothing. The answer separates the two kinds of judicial error that the Gemara treats at length in Sanhedrin 33a.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא וְעוֹד = one reason, and another — a second argument added to the first
- שִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת = weighing considerations — an error of judgment where no explicit source decides the matter
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה
One who takes wages to examine firstborns — his rulings are not relied on unless he is an expert
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר לִהְיוֹת רוֹאֶה אֶת הַבְּכוֹרוֹת — אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עַל פִּיו, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה מוּמְחֶה.
English Translation:
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
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna begins on payment for examining firstborns. One who takes wages to examine them may not have animals slaughtered on his ruling unless he is an expert. The concern is that a paid examiner may be biased, or may look as if he is paid for his ruling rather than for his time. The amud ends mid-sentence; the mishna’s continuation, with its exception for a recognised expert, comes on 29a.
Key Terms:
- הַנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר = one who takes wages
- רוֹאֶה אֶת הַבְּכוֹרוֹת = one who examines firstborns to determine whether their blemishes are permanent