## Bekhorot Daf 28b

###### Bekhorot 28b:1
[Bekhorot 28b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:1)

מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי מוּמְחֶה אָסוּר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קְנָסָא קָא קָנֵיס רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 28b:2
[Bekhorot 28b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:2)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁתַּנִּין — דְּכוּלְּהוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּי, אוֹ דִלְמָא אִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנֵּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bekhorot 28b:3
[Bekhorot 28b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:3)

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְאַכְחוֹשֵׁי סָהֲדִי. אִי אָמְרַתְּ: כּוּלְּהוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּי — שַׁקָּרֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: אִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנֵּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנֵּי — סָמְכִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bekhorot 28b:4
[Bekhorot 28b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 28b:5
[Bekhorot 28b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:5)

מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּמְחֶה, וְרָאָה אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְנִשְׁחַט עַל פִּיו, הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ. לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דִּלְמָא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Bekhorot 28b:6
[Bekhorot 28b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:6)

תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם — מְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ לַדַּקָּה, וּמֶחֱצָה לַגַּסָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זֶה הֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה, וְזֶה הֶפְסֵד מוּעָט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Bekhorot 28b:7
[Bekhorot 28b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:7)

אִי הָכִי, לְפוּם פְּסֵידָא לִישַׁלֵּם! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר אִיקָא: מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵירַת מְגַדְּלֵי בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 28b:8
[Bekhorot 28b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:8)

**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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bekhorot 28b:9
[Bekhorot 28b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:9)

**גְּמָ׳** לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּדָאֵין דִּינָא דִּגְרָמֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 28b:10
[Bekhorot 28b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 28b:11
[Bekhorot 28b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:11)

טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר — דְּאַגַּע בְּהוּ שֶׁרֶץ, טִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא — שֶׁעֵירְבָן עִם פֵּירוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 28b:12
[Bekhorot 28b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּפָרָה שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, וְהֶאֱכִילָהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לִכְלָבִים, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּיַבְנֶה, וְהִתִּירוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Bekhorot 28b:13
[Bekhorot 28b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:13)

וְאָמַר תּוֹדוֹס הָרוֹפֵא: אֵין פָּרָה וַחֲזִירָה יוֹצְאָה מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם, שֶׁאֵין חוֹתְכִין הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Bekhorot 28b:14
[Bekhorot 28b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: הָלְכָה חֲמוֹרְךָ טַרְפוֹן! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אַתָּה מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין, וְכׇל הַמּוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 28b:15
[Bekhorot 28b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:15)

**גְּמָ׳** וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ, דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה, וְטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 28b:16
[Bekhorot 28b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:16)

חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא — דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר, וְעוֹד — אִי נָמֵי בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת טָעִיתָה, מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין אַתָּה, וְכׇל הַמּוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 28b:17
[Bekhorot 28b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28b:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר לִהְיוֹת רוֹאֶה אֶת הַבְּכוֹרוֹת — אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עַל פִּיו, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה מוּמְחֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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**