Bechorot Daf 29 (בכורות דף כ״ט)
Daf: 29 | Amudim: 29a – 29b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (29a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה (סוף)
The paid examiner is acceptable only if he is an expert like Ila of Yavne, who was paid whether the animal proved blemished or not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּאִילָא בְּיַבְנֶה, שֶׁהִתִּירוּ לוֹ (בְּיַבְנֶה) חֲכָמִים לִהְיוֹת נוֹטֵל אַרְבַּע אִיסָּרוֹת לִבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה, וְשִׁשָּׁה לְגַסָּה, בֵּין תָּם וּבֵין בַּעַל מוּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the mishna that began at the bottom of 28b: one who takes payment to examine firstborn animals may not be relied upon for slaughter unless he is a recognised expert. The model is Ila of Yavne, whom the Sages explicitly authorised to charge a fixed fee — four issar for a small animal, six for a large one. The decisive condition is that the fee is owed regardless of the outcome, so the examiner gains nothing by declaring an animal blemished. The mishna thus allows payment for expertise while removing any financial incentive to distort the ruling.
Key Terms:
- אִילָא בְּיַבְנֶה = Ila of Yavne, an expert examiner of firstborns whom the Sages of Yavne permitted to charge a fee
- אִיסָּר = issar, a small copper coin
- בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה / גַּסָּה = small livestock (sheep and goats) / large livestock (cattle)
- תָּם / בַּעַל מוּם = unblemished / blemished — a blemished firstborn may be slaughtered and eaten outside the Temple, an unblemished one may not
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא (טעם)
Why a higher fee for a large animal? Examining it takes more effort
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? הַאי נְפִישׁ טִירְחֵיהּ, וְהַאי לָא נְפִישׁ טִירְחֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens by explaining the difference in fees. Examining a large animal for blemishes is more work — the animal is bigger, harder to handle, and has more places a blemish could be hidden. The fee is therefore payment for the labour of examination, not for the ruling itself, which fits the principle that will follow: one may be paid for effort but not for the act of judging.
Key Terms:
- נְפִישׁ טִירְחֵיהּ = its effort is great
- מַאי טַעְמָא = what is the reason?
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why must he be paid even for an unblemished animal? So that no one suspects him of finding blemishes for profit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בֵּין תָּם וּבֵין בַּעַל מוּם. בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּעַל מוּם — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא שָׁרֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא תָּם אַמַּאי? דְּאִם כֵּן, אָתֵי לְמִיחְשְׁדֵיהּ, וְאָמְרִי: הַאי בַּעַל מוּם תָּם הוּא, וְהַאי דְּקָא שָׁרֵי לֵיהּ — מִשּׁוּם אַגְרָא.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why the examiner is paid when he rules that the animal is unblemished, since he has permitted nothing. The answer is about appearances. If he were paid only when he found a blemish, people would suspect that his ‘blemish’ rulings were bought: he declared the animal blemished because only that ruling earned him his fee. Paying him either way protects the integrity of the ruling and the examiner’s reputation.
Key Terms:
- מִיחְשְׁדֵיהּ = to suspect him
- אַגְרָא = wages, fee
- שָׁרֵי לֵיהּ = he permits it (for slaughter and eating)
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Couldn’t he declare it unblemished now to collect a second fee later? No — the ordinance allows only one fee per animal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, תָּם נָמֵי אָמְרִי: בַּעַל מוּם הוּא, וְהַאי דְּלָא קָשָׁרֵי לֵיהּ סָבַר כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִשְׁקוֹל אַגְרֵיהּ זִימְנָא אַחֲרִיתִי! חַד זִימְנָא תַּקִּינוּ לֵיה רַבָּנַן, תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי לָא תַּקִּינוּ לֵיה רַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reverses the suspicion: an examiner paid either way might declare a truly blemished animal unblemished so that the owner will bring it back and pay him again. The answer is that the Sages of Yavne allowed a single fee per animal, never a second. With only one fee possible, the examiner gains nothing by delaying the ruling, so both kinds of suspicion are removed. The ordinance was clearly designed with the examiner’s incentives in mind.
Key Terms:
- זִימְנָא אַחֲרִיתִי = another time
- תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן = the Sages instituted (an ordinance, takkana)
- חַד זִימְנָא / תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי = once / twice
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Paid judges, paid witnesses, and paid sprinklers or sanctifiers of the red heifer waters: all their acts are void
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂכָרוֹ לָדוּן — דִּינָיו בְּטֵילִים, לְהָעִיד — עֵדוֹתָיו בְּטֵילִין, לְהַזּוֹת וּלְקַדֵּשׁ — מֵימָיו מֵי מְעָרָה, אֶפְרוֹ אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna widens the principle from examining firstborns to other public religious functions. A judge who takes a fee has his rulings voided, a witness who is paid has his testimony voided, and one who is paid to sprinkle or sanctify the waters of the red heifer has produced nothing more than ordinary cave water and ordinary burnt ash. The mishna says these acts are not just improper but void. A religious function performed for pay loses its legal force.
Key Terms:
- דִּינָיו בְּטֵילִים = his rulings are void
- לְהַזּוֹת = to sprinkle the purification waters on one impure from a corpse
- לְקַדֵּשׁ = to sanctify — placing the red heifer ashes into the spring water
- מֵי מְעָרָה = cave water, i.e. plain water with no purifying power
- אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה = ash from an ordinary fire, with no sanctity
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Compensation is allowed for actual loss: a priest made impure, an elderly man who needs a donkey, and a laborer’s lost wages
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן, מְטַמְּאֵהוּ מִתְּרוּמָתוֹ — מַאֲכִילוֹ וּמַשְׁקוֹ וְסָכוֹ, וְאִם הָיָה זָקֵן — מַרְכִּיבוֹ עַל הַחֲמוֹר, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna separates a forbidden fee from legitimate compensation. A priest who must make himself impure in order to serve — and so cannot eat his teruma — is given food, drink and oil from ordinary produce in its place. An elderly person is given a donkey to ride. Anyone who leaves his work is paid what a laborer would have earned. He receives back what the service cost him, but nothing for the ruling or testimony itself.
Key Terms:
- מְטַמְּאֵהוּ מִתְּרוּמָתוֹ = he makes him impure and so unable to eat his teruma
- סָכוֹ = provides him oil for anointing
- מַרְכִּיבוֹ עַל הַחֲמוֹר = has him ride on a donkey
- שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל = his wages as a laborer — compensation for lost work
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא (מקור)
Rav’s source: ‘Behold, I have taught you’ — as Moshe learned for free, so must you
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״רְאֵה לִמַּדְתִּי אֶתְכֶם וְגוֹ׳״, מָה אֲנִי בְּחִנָּם — אַף אַתֶּם בְּחִנָּם.
English Translation:
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: “Behold, 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” (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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara looks for the scriptural source of the rule that a judge may not take payment. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav cites Moshe’s words in Devarim 4:5, ‘as the Lord my God commanded me’: Moshe received the Torah from God without payment and taught it the same way. Each generation must pass it on as it was received. Judging is a form of teaching Torah, so a paid judge breaks this chain, and his ruling is void.
Key Terms:
- מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי = from where are these matters derived?
- בְּחִנָּם = for free
- רְאֵה לִמַּדְתִּי אֶתְכֶם = ‘Behold, I have taught you’ (Devarim 4:5)
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita supports Rav and adds: buy Torah if you must, but never sell it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוַּנִי ה׳ אֱלֹהָי״ — מָה אֲנִי בְּחִנָּם, אַף אַתֶּם בְּחִנָּם. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא בְּחִנָּם שֶׁיְּלַמֵּד בְּשָׂכָר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֱמֶת קְנֵה״. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלְּמַדְתִּיהָ בְּשָׂכָר כָּךְ אֲלַמְּדֶנָּה בְּשָׂכָר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֱמֶת קְנֵה וְאַל תִּמְכֹּר״.
English Translation:
This halakha is also taught in a baraita: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me” (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: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (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: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it.”
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita teaches the same derivation and adds two practical rules from Mishlei 23:23, ‘Buy the truth, and do not sell it.’ First, if no one will teach for free, one must pay to learn: ‘buy the truth.’ Second, someone who paid to learn may not use that to justify charging when he teaches: ‘and do not sell it.’ The obligation to learn is greater than the ideal of free teaching, but on the teacher’s side the ideal remains firm.
Key Terms:
- תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = it is also taught thus in a baraita
- אֱמֶת קְנֵה וְאַל תִּמְכֹּר = ‘Buy the truth, and do not sell it’ (Mishlei 23:23)
- בְּשָׂכָר = for payment
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא (רמינהו)
A contradiction: a mishna in Kiddushin says one may betroth a woman with the red heifer’s water or ash
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְהַזּוֹת וּלְקַדֵּשׁ — מֵימָיו מֵי מְעָרָה, אֶפְרוֹ אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמֵי חַטָּאת בְּאֵפֶר חַטָּאת — הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s ruling about the red heifer. If water sanctified for pay is invalid, it seems that one may not benefit from these waters at all. Yet the mishna in Kiddushin 58a rules that a man who betroths a woman with the water or ash of purification has validly betrothed her, even if he is an ordinary Israelite. A betrothal requires giving something of monetary value, so that mishna implies these substances do carry permitted value.
Key Terms:
- וּרְמִינְהוּ = and they raised a contradiction
- מֵי חַטָּאת / אֵפֶר חַטָּאת = water of purification / ash of purification (of the red heifer)
- מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת = she is betrothed
- אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל = even if he is an Israelite, not a priest or Levite
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye: payment for carrying and drawing is allowed; payment for sprinkling and sanctifying is not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן בִּשְׂכַר הֲבָאָה וּמִלּוּי, כָּאן בִּשְׂכַר הַזָּאָה וְקִידּוּשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resolves the contradiction by separating the labour around the mitzva from the mitzva act itself. Bringing the ash from a distance and drawing the water are plain physical work, and one may be paid for them — that is the value used for the betrothal in Kiddushin. The sprinkling and the sanctification, the acts that give the waters their power, must be done for free. This is the same line the mishna drew for examiners and judges: payment for effort is allowed, payment for the religious act is not.
Key Terms:
- הֲבָאָה וּמִלּוּי = bringing (the ash) and filling (the vessel with water)
- הַזָּאָה וְקִידּוּשׁ = sprinkling and sanctification
- לָא קַשְׁיָא = it is not difficult
Segment 11
TYPE: דיוק
The wording of both mishnayot confirms Abaye’s distinction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי הָכָא ״לְהַזּוֹת וּלְקַדֵּשׁ״, וְהָתָם קָתָנֵי ״הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמֵי חַטָּאת וּבְאֵפֶר חַטָּאת״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shows that Abaye’s answer fits the precise wording of both sources. Our mishna speaks of the acts ‘to sprinkle and to sanctify,’ while the mishna in Kiddushin speaks of the ‘water of purification’ and the ‘ash of purification’ as separate items, meaning before they were combined, at the stage when only the labour of bringing and drawing is involved. Each text uses exactly the terms its case requires, and the Gemara concludes that this is the correct reading.
Key Terms:
- דַּיְקָא נָמֵי = it is also precise (in the wording)
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = learn from it — conclusive confirmation
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא
How could the priest have made himself impure in the first place?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן מְטַמְּאֵהוּ מִתְּרוּמָתוֹ כּוּ׳. אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ הֵיכִי אָזֵיל?
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s case of a priest made impure while serving, who is compensated for the teruma he cannot eat. That raises a problem: a priest is forbidden to become impure through a corpse, so how could he go to a place where this would happen? The question assumes the priest is a careful observer of the law, so the Gemara must describe a situation in which his impurity was permitted.
Key Terms:
- אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ = he himself
- הֵיכִי אָזֵיל = how does he go?
- תְּרוּמָה = teruma, the priestly portion of produce, which may be eaten only in purity
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
He went through a beit haperas, whose impurity is only rabbinic, blowing the dust as he walked
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְבֵית הַפְּרָס דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מְנַפֵּחַ אָדָם בֵּית הַפְּרָס וְהוֹלֵךְ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first answer: the priest walked through a beit haperas, a field where a grave was plowed up and bones may be scattered. Its impurity is only rabbinic. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav teaches that a person may blow on the dust ahead of him as he walks, uncovering any bone, and so pass through. Relying on this check, the priest may enter, but he is still treated as impure for teruma, and that is the loss the owner must make up. The answer continues at the top of 29b.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַפְּרָס = beit haperas, a field where a grave was plowed over, impure by rabbinic decree
- מְנַפֵּחַ = he blows (on the dust)
- דְּרַבָּנַן = of rabbinic authority
Amud Bet (29b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא
A second leniency: a beit haperas that has been trodden into a path is pure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס שֶׁנִּידַּשׁ טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing from 29a, Rav Yehuda bar Ami in the name of Rav Yehuda gives a further leniency: once a beit haperas has been trodden underfoot and become a path, it is pure, since any bone would long since have been crushed or found. Because the whole impurity is a rabbinic precaution, it lapses when the reason for concern is gone. This gives another permitted route by which the priest could have reached the place where his services were needed.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁנִּידַּשׁ = that has been trodden
- טָהוֹר = pure
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ (אי נמי)
Alternatively: he contracted a kind of impurity priests are not forbidden to contract
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי נָמֵי: בִּשְׁאָר טוּמְאוֹת, דְּלָא מַזְהַר עֲלַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers a second solution. The Torah forbids a priest only corpse impurity; he may freely contract other kinds, such as contact with a carcass or a creeping creature. Any of these still bars him from eating teruma until he purifies himself, and that loss is what the person who needed his services must make good. The mishna’s case may be about this kind of ordinary, permitted impurity.
Key Terms:
- אִי נָמֵי = alternatively
- שְׁאָר טוּמְאוֹת = other impurities
- לָא מַזְהַר עֲלַיְיהוּ = he is not warned against them
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא ומימרא
‘Like a laborer’ means like an idle laborer, and Abaye says idle from his own particular work
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם הָיָה זָקֵן — מַרְכִּיבוֹ עַל הַחֲמוֹר. תְּנָא: כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מְלָאכָה.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna said the examiner or judge is paid ‘like a laborer.’ A baraita specifies ‘like an idle laborer’: not a full day’s wage, but the lower amount a worker would accept to stop working for the day. Abaye adds that this is measured by the person’s own trade — what someone in his line of work, with its particular difficulty and pay, would accept to set it aside. Compensation is set individually, so that no one profits from the service and no one loses by it.
Key Terms:
- פּוֹעֵל בָּטֵל = an idle laborer — the amount a worker would accept to refrain from working
- שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מְלָאכָה = of that particular work
- תְּנָא = it was taught (in a baraita)
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
One suspected of selling firstborns: what may and may not be bought from him
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַבְּכוֹרוֹת, אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשַׂר צְבָאִים, וְלֹא עוֹרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן עֲבוּדִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ עוֹרוֹת שֶׁל נְקֵבָה, וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ צֶמֶר מְלוּבָּן וְצוֹאִי, אֲבָל לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ טְוִי וּבְגָדִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna turns to people who cannot be trusted. Someone suspected of selling firstborn meat may not be trusted with anything that could be firstborn produce: not even deer meat, and not untanned hides. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees about the hides of females, which may be bought because the law of the firstborn applies only to males. Bleached or dirty wool is forbidden, but spun thread and garments are permitted. The common question throughout is whether the item could be firstborn produce in disguise, and whether the work done on it shows that it is not.
Key Terms:
- הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַבְּכוֹרוֹת = one suspected regarding firstborns, i.e. of selling them improperly
- בְּשַׂר צְבָאִים = deer meat
- עוֹרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן עֲבוּדִים = untanned hides
- צֶמֶר מְלוּבָּן וְצוֹאִי = bleached wool and dirty wool
- טְוִי = spun thread
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא (טעם)
Why not deer meat? It can be passed off as calf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ בְּשַׂר צְבָאִים. דְּמִיחַלַּף בִּדְעֶגְלָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Deer meat is permitted on its own and has nothing to do with firstborn law, so why is it forbidden? The Gemara explains that deer meat looks like calf meat. A suspected seller could sell firstborn veal and call it deer meat, and the buyer could not tell the difference. The mishna therefore forbids even an unrelated item when it could hide the forbidden one.
Key Terms:
- דְּמִיחַלַּף = because it can be confused
- עֶגְלָה = calf
Segment 6
TYPE: דיוק
Tanned hides may be bought: no one would spend effort on a hide the Sages might confiscate
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא עוֹרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן עֲבוּדִים. הָא עֲבוּדִים זָבְנִינַן. אִם אִיתָא דִּבְכוֹר הֲוָה — לָא הֲוָה טָרַח בֵּיהּ, סָבַר: אִי שָׁמְעוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן מַפְסְדוּ לֵיהּ מִינַּאי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara infers that tanned hides are permitted. A seller would not spend time and money tanning a firstborn hide, because if the Sages learned of it they would confiscate it and he would lose everything. The work invested in the hide is therefore evidence that it is not firstborn. The same reasoning — that effort shows the item is legitimate — runs through the rest of the mishna.
Key Terms:
- עֲבוּדִים = tanned
- טָרַח = he took trouble
- מַפְסְדוּ לֵיהּ = they will cause him a loss
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא (טעם רבי אליעזר)
Rabbi Eliezer: a female hide is recognisable, so it cannot hide a firstborn
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ עוֹרוֹת שֶׁל נְקֵבָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִידָּע יְדִיעַ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer permits female hides because the anatomy of a female hide is easy to recognise. Since only males are subject to firstborn law, a hide that is clearly female cannot be firstborn. The Gemara still has to explain why the first tanna does not accept this.
Key Terms:
- מִידָּע יְדִיעַ = it is plainly known (recognisable)
- נְקֵבָה = a female
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת (טעמי תנאים)
The first tanna fears he will cut away the male organ and blame mice; Rabbi Eliezer says mouse damage is recognisable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, אִם כֵּן, זָכָר נָמֵי חָיֵיק לְזַכְרוּתֵיהּ וְאָמַר ״עַכְבָּרִים אַכְלוּהּ״, וְאִידַּךְ — בֵּי עַכְבָּרִים מִידָּע יְדִיעַ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dispute comes down to a factual question. The first tanna fears that a dishonest seller will cut off the part of a male hide that shows it is male and claim that mice ate it, passing it off as female. Rabbi Eliezer answers that mouse damage looks different from a knife cut, so the trick would be noticed. The two sides agree that a recognisably female hide is permitted; they differ only on whether the deception could be detected.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא קַמָּא = the first tanna, the anonymous opening view
- חָיֵיק = he cuts away
- עַכְבָּרִים אַכְלוּהּ = mice ate it
- בֵּי עַכְבָּרִים = the place (marks) of the mice
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Bleached and dirty wool are one case: wool bleached from its dirt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ צֶמֶר מְלוּבָּן וְצוֹאִי, הַשְׁתָּא צֶמֶר מְלוּבָּן לָא זָבְנִינַן, צוֹאִי מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא, חֲדָא קָתָנֵי: צֶמֶר מְלוּבָּן מִצּוֹאָתוֹ.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why the mishna lists both bleached and dirty wool: if even bleached wool is forbidden despite the effort invested, dirty wool obviously is. It answers that the mishna describes a single case, wool that has been washed clean of its dirt. Washing is too little work to show that the wool is not from a firstborn, unlike tanning a hide.
Key Terms:
- צֶמֶר מְלוּבָּן מִצּוֹאָתוֹ = wool bleached (cleaned) of its dirt
- חֲדָא קָתָנֵי = it teaches one case
- הַשְׁתָּא … מִיבַּעְיָא = now that … is it necessary? — the ‘kal vachomer’ style redundancy question
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why list garments after spun thread? These are felt garments, made without spinning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ טְוִי וּבְגָדִים. הַשְׁתָּא טְוִי זָבְנִינַן, בְּגָדִים מִיבַּעְיָא? מַאי בְּגָדִים? נַמְטֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same kind of question is asked about the permitted items. If spun thread may be bought, garments obviously may. The Gemara explains that ‘garments’ here means felt (namtei), which is made by pressing wool together rather than spinning it. Without the evidence of spinning, one might have thought felt was forbidden, so the mishna has to state that the work of making felt also shows the wool is legitimate.
Key Terms:
- נַמְטֵי = felt
- בְּגָדִים = garments
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
One suspected regarding Shemitta: no flax, not even combed, but spun thread and woven cloth are permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית — אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ פִּשְׁתָּן, וַאֲפִילּוּ סְרָק, אֲבָל לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶם טְוִי וְאָרִיג.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna applies the same reasoning to someone suspected of violating Shemitta, the Sabbatical Year. Flax may not be bought from him, even after it has been combed, because the flax may have grown in the seventh year. But spun and woven flax may be bought. The Gemara at the top of the next segment explains why spinning and weaving count differently from combing.
Key Terms:
- הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית = one suspected regarding the Sabbatical Year
- פִּשְׁתָּן = flax
- סְרָק = combed (hackled) flax
- אָרִיג = woven fabric
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
‘Woven’ means wool woven into chains (tikkei), made without spinning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ הַשְׁתָּא טְוִי זָבְנִינַן, אָרִיג מִיבַּעְיָא? מַאי ״אָרִיג״? תִּיכֵּי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara again asks why the mishna mentions woven fabric after spun thread. It answers that ‘woven’ here means tikkei, cords or chains braided directly from unspun fibre. Like felt in the firstborn case, this is a product that skips spinning, so the mishna needs to state that it too may be bought. The passage closely mirrors the previous one.
Key Terms:
- תִּיכֵּי = tikkei, braided cords or chains made without spinning
- אָרִיג = woven
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה (מחלוקת)
One suspected of selling teruma as ordinary produce: Rabbi Yehuda forbids even water and salt; Rabbi Shimon only what is subject to teruma and tithes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הֶחָשׁוּד לִהְיוֹת מוֹכֵר תְּרוּמָה לְשׁוּם חוּלִּין — אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֲפִילּוּ מַיִם וָמֶלַח, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ זִיקַּת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third case is someone suspected of selling teruma as ordinary produce, causing non-priests to eat it. Rabbi Yehuda takes the strictest position: nothing may be bought from him, not even water and salt, which are not subject to teruma at all, since one who is unreliable in one area is distrusted in general. Rabbi Shimon limits the ban to items that are subject to teruma and tithes, so water and salt are permitted. The dispute is over whether suspicion is general or limited to the area of the offence.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יְהוּדָה = Rabbi Yehuda: even water and salt are forbidden
- רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = Rabbi Shimon: only what is subject to teruma and tithes
- זִיקַּת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת = relevance to (being subject to) teruma and tithes
- חוּלִּין = non-sacred, ordinary produce
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
What does Rabbi Shimon’s wording add? Fish innards, which are mixed with olive oil
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי קִרְבֵי דָגִים, דִּמְעָרְבִי בְּהוּ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by Rabbi Shimon’s 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’s statement serves to add fish innards to this prohibition, as people mix olive oil with them, and it might be oil of teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what Rabbi Shimon’s broad wording adds. It answers that it includes fish innards: fish entrails, which are not themselves subject to teruma, were commonly prepared with olive oil, and that oil could be teruma oil. ‘Anything that has relevance to teruma’ therefore covers a mixture as well as the produce itself. Rabbi Shimon’s position is narrower than Rabbi Yehuda’s but still broad.
Key Terms:
- לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי = what does it come to include?
- קִרְבֵי דָגִים = fish innards
- שֶׁמֶן זַיִת = olive oil
Segment 15
TYPE: מעשה (פתיחה)
A story begins: a butcher suspected of selling… (continued on 30a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא טַבָּחָא דַּהֲוָה חָשׁוּד לְזַבּוֹנֵי
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: There was a certain butcher who was suspected of selling
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins a story about a butcher suspected of selling forbidden goods. It probably bears on the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon over how far suspicion extends. The sentence breaks off at the end of the amud and continues on 30a, which will name his offence and how the Sages dealt with him.
Key Terms:
- הָהוּא טַבָּחָא = a certain butcher
- חָשׁוּד לְזַבּוֹנֵי = suspected of selling