Bekhorot

I can prove it from our Mishnah.1 R. MEIR SAYS: SINCE IT WAS NOT SLAUGHTERED ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF AN EXPERT IT IS FORBIDDEN.2 Deduce from here that R. Meir does indeed penalize him. This stands proved. The question was raised: Does [the statement above] ‘on account of those blemishes that change’, imply that all [the withered spots in the eye] change, or that some change and others do not change?3 What is the practical difference?4 — Whether we should declare the witnesses false or not.5 If you say that in all cases withered spots in the eye change, then they are false.6 But if you say that there are some that change and other do not, we rely on them. What is the ruling? — Come and hear. For Rabbah b. Bar Hana reported in the name of R. Johanan: R. Josiah of Usha told me: ‘Come and I will show you withered spots in the eye that change’. Now, since he said to him ‘Come and I will show you’, this implies that there are some that change and others which do not change. IF ONE WHO WAS NOT AN EXPERT SEES THE FIRSTLING AND IT WAS SLAUGHTERED BY HIS INSTRUCTIONS, IN SUCH A CASE IT SHALL BE BURIED. May we say that the Mishnah states anonymously that the ruling is in accordance with R. Meir?7 — Perhaps it refers to a case of withered spots in the eye, and thus it will be according to the view of all the authorities concerned.8 AND HE SHALL MAKE REPARATION OUT OF HIS OWN ESTATE. A Tanna taught: When he pays [the priest], he pays a quarter [of the loss] for [a firstling of] small cattle and a half for [a firstling of] large cattle.9 What is the reason [for this disparity in reparation]? In one case the loss is great, whereas in the other it is small. If this be a fact, let him pay [the priest] in proportion to the loss?10 — R. Huna b. Manoah reported in the name of R. Aha b. Ika: They inflicted on him only [a quarter of the loss] because of the trouble of raising small cattle.11 MISHNAH. IF A JUDGE IN GIVING JUDGMENT HAS DECLARED INNOCENT A PERSON WHO WAS REALLY LIABLE OR MADE LIABLE A PERSON WHO WAS REALLY INNOCENT, DECLARED DEFILED A THING WHICH WAS LEVITICALLY CLEAN OR DECLARED CLEAN A THING WHICH WAS REALLY DEFILED, HIS DECISION STANDS BUT HE HAS TO MAKE REPARATION OUT OF HIS OWN ESTATE. IF, HOWEVER, THE JUDGE WAS AN EXPERT FOR THE BETH DIN,12 HE IS ABSOLVED FROM MAKING REPARATION. GEMARA. May we say, the anonymous statement of the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Meir who is prepared to adjudicate liability for damage done indirectly?13 — R. Ela reported in the name of Rab: [We suppose that] he personally executed the judgment by his own hand.14 Now, this is quite intelligible where the judge made liable a person really innocent, [the explanation being] e.g., where he personally executed the judgment by his own hand; but where he declared innocent the person who was really liable, how are we to understand it? For if you say it means where he said to him: ‘You are innocent’, he does not personally execute the judgment by his own hand! — Said Rabina: The case deals here where e.g. [the creditor] had a pledge and [the judge] took it from him.15 The case also where he declared defiled a thing which was really clean, [can be explained], where he touched clean things with a [dead] reptile;16 and the case where he declared clean a thing which was really defiled, [can be explained] where he mixed them with his fruits.17 MISHNAH. IT HAPPENED ONCE THAT A COW'S WOMB WAS TAKEN AWAY AND R. TARFON GAVE IT TO THE DOGS TO EAT.18 THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SAGES AT JABNEH AND THEY PERMITTED THE ANIMAL [FOR] THEODOS THE PHYSICIAN HAD SAID: NO COW NOR SOW LEAVES ALEXANDRIA OF EGYPT BEFORE ITS WOMB IS CUT OUT IN ORDER THAT IT MAY NOT BREED.19 SAID R. TARFON: ‘YOUR ASS IS GONE, TARFON’.20 SAID R. AKIBA TO HIM: YOU ARE ABSOLVED, FOR YOU ARE AN EXPERT AND WHOEVER IS AN EXPERT FOR THE BETH DIN IS ABSOLVED FROM REPARATION. GEMARA. And why does not [R. Akiba] infer this21 from the fact that he had erred in a matter where the Mishnah is explicit, and one who errs in a matter where the Mishnah is explicit can reconsider his decision?22 — He gave him one reason and then another: One reason for absolving is because you gave a wrong decision against an explicit law in the Mishnah. And another is that even if your mistake was made against the common practice,23 you are an expert for the Beth din, and whoever is an expert for the Beth din is absolved from reparation. MISHNAH. IF ONE TAKES PAYMENT FOR SEEING THE FIRSTLINGS, THEY MUST NOT BE SLAUGHTERED BY HIS INSTRUCTIONS,24 UNLESS HE WAS AN EXPERT blemished firstling to the expert before its killing, therefore if the difference of opinion applied also to the case of withered spots in the eye, then surely he would have given a more effective reason why he forbids, i.e., that the eye is liable to vary. Consequently, the controversy relates to bodily blemishes, and according to R. Meir we forbid in these cases on account of the case of withered spots in the eye, punishing him for not showing it to the expert. are forbidden in all cases if they are not examined previous to their killing! witnesses declare that the spots in the eye did not change and that they were the same when the animal was alive. according to the view of R. Meir, who punishes the Israelite in such circumstances. complete loss, for had an expert seen the animal when it was alive, he might have permitted it, whereas now it has to be buried. On the other hand, perhaps there was no permanent blemish and an expert would not have permitted it, and also it may be that the firstling would have died without a blemish appearing on it at all. the Israelite had shown it to another, he might not have permitted it and then the priest would have had to attend to it until it became blemished; hence the reparation is only a quarter. Another explanation why he only receives a quarter of its value is because he transgressed the prohibition enacted against raising small cattle in the Holy Land (v. B.K. 79b), and we are therefore dealing here with a case where it was the firstling of a priest's animal and the priest was raising small cattle. doing something direct in causing the damage. buyers to come to Alexandria, they used to cut out the womb, and the animal did not suffer a fatal injury on account of this. We see, therefore, that the animal does not become trefah where the womb is absent. Hul. (54a) stating that an absent womb in an animal does not render the animal trefah. In this case therefore, if the cow were in existence, R. Tarfon could have permitted it, and consequently the person who gave it to the dogs to eat is himself responsible for the loss, v. supra n. 1. definite ruling existing, but there being an established practice.