Bekhorot

LIKE ILA1 IN JABNEH WHOM THE SAGES PERMITTED TO ACCEPT FOUR AS2 FOR SMALL CATTLE AND SIX AS FOR LARGE CATTLE, WHETHER UNBLEMISHED OR BLEMISHED.3 GEMARA. What is the reason?4 — In one case, [i.e., of large cattle], he has much trouble,5 whereas in the other case, he has not much trouble. WHETHER UNBLEMISHED OR BLEMISHED. Now, we quite understand this in the case of a blemished firstling,6 because in this case he permits it; but in the case of an unblemished firstling,7 why [does he take payment]? — The reason is that otherwise he might be suspected, and it might be said that the animal pronounced blemished is unblemished, and the reason he permits it is because he receives payment. If your argument is true, in the case of an unblemished firstling also it might be said that it is really blemished and the reason why he does not permit it is because he thinks that he might be able to take payment a second time? — The Rabbis enacted payment for the first examination but they did not enact payment twice [for the same firstling].8 MISHNAH. IF ONE TAKES PAYMENT TO ACT AS A JUDGE, HIS JUDGMENTS ARE VOID; TO GIVE EVIDENCE, HIS EVIDENCE IS VOID; TO SPRINKLE9 OR TO SANCTIFY,10 THE WATERS ARE CONSIDERED CAVE WATERS AND THE ASHES ARE CONSIDERED CALCINED ASHES.11 IF HE12 WAS A PRIEST AND HE WAS MADE UNCLEAN REGARDING HIS TERUMAH,13 HE14 MUST GIVE HIM FOOD AND DRINK AND RUB HIM WITH OIL. AND IF HE WAS AN OLD MAN, HE MOUNTS HIM ON AN ASS. HE ALSO PAYS THE PRIEST AS HE WOULD A WORKMAN.15 GEMARA. Whence is it proved?16 — Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: Scripture says: Behold I have taught you, etc.:17 Just as I teach gratuitously, so you should teach gratuitously. It has also been taught to the same effect. Scripture Says: Even as the Lord my God commanded me,18 [intimating], just as I teach gratuitously, so you should teach gratuitously. And whence do we derive that if he cannot find someone to teach him gratuitously, he must pay for learning? The text states: Buy the truth.19 And whence do we infer that one should not say ‘as I learnt the Torah by paying, so I shall teach it for payment’? The text states: And sell it not. 19 TO SPRINKLE OR TO SANCTIFY, ITS WATERS ARE CONSIDERED CAVE WATERS AND ITS ASHES ARE CONSIDERED CALCINED ASHES. The following was cited in contradiction: If one betrothes a woman with the waters of purification or with the ashes of purification, she is betrothed, although he is an Israelite?20 — Said Abaye: This offers no difficulty. In the case mentioned above [in the Baraitha] it is payment for bringing the ashes21 or filling the waters, whereas in the case [of the Mishnah] it is payment for actual sprinkling or sanctification. 22 I can also prove it. For here in our Mishnah it states: TO SPRINKLE OR TO SANCTIFY, whereas there [in the Baraitha] it states: If one betrothes a woman with the waters of purification23 or with the ashes of purification. It stands proved. IF HE WAS A PRIEST, AND HE WAS MADE UNCLEAN IN RESPECT OF HIS TERUMAH. How could the priest go to a place of uncleanness?24 — He went to a beth ha-peras,25 the prohibition being a rabbinical enactment. For Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: A man can blow away the bones of a beth ha-peras and may then proceed.26 payment for his examination. priest might receive a further payment in a subsequent examination as there is no double payment for the same animal. path which inevitable caused the priest to become unclean. The latter cannot therefore now eat terumah, which is cheaper in price than hullin, since the latter can be eaten by everybody whereas terumah is only suitable for priests. could she be betrothed? whereas the language used in the Mishnah indicates that the priest receives reward directly for sprinkling of sanctification. excision; but in respect of terumah the rabbinic enactment stands.