## Bekhorot Daf 29a

###### Bekhorot 29a:1
[Bekhorot 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:1)

כְּאִילָא בְּיַבְנֶה, שֶׁהִתִּירוּ לוֹ (בְּיַבְנֶה) חֲכָמִים לִהְיוֹת נוֹטֵל אַרְבַּע אִיסָּרוֹת לִבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה, וְשִׁשָּׁה לְגַסָּה, בֵּין תָּם וּבֵין בַּעַל מוּם.

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


###### Bekhorot 29a:2
[Bekhorot 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא? הַאי נְפִישׁ טִירְחֵיהּ, וְהַאי לָא נְפִישׁ טִירְחֵיהּ.

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


###### Bekhorot 29a:3
[Bekhorot 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:3)

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.

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


###### Bekhorot 29a:4
[Bekhorot 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 29a:5
[Bekhorot 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂכָרוֹ לָדוּן — דִּינָיו בְּטֵילִים, לְהָעִיד — עֵדוֹתָיו בְּטֵילִין, לְהַזּוֹת וּלְקַדֵּשׁ — מֵימָיו מֵי מְעָרָה, אֶפְרוֹ אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה.

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


###### Bekhorot 29a:6
[Bekhorot 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:6)

אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן, מְטַמְּאֵהוּ מִתְּרוּמָתוֹ — מַאֲכִילוֹ וּמַשְׁקוֹ וְסָכוֹ, וְאִם הָיָה זָקֵן — מַרְכִּיבוֹ עַל הַחֲמוֹר, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 29a:7
[Bekhorot 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״רְאֵה לִמַּדְתִּי אֶתְכֶם וְגוֹ׳״, מָה אֲנִי בְּחִנָּם — אַף אַתֶּם בְּחִנָּם.

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


###### Bekhorot 29a:8
[Bekhorot 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:8)

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״.

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


###### Bekhorot 29a:9
[Bekhorot 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:9)

לְהַזּוֹת וּלְקַדֵּשׁ — מֵימָיו מֵי מְעָרָה, אֶפְרוֹ אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמֵי חַטָּאת בְּאֵפֶר חַטָּאת — הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 29a:10
[Bekhorot 29a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:10)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן בִּשְׂכַר הֲבָאָה וּמִלּוּי, כָּאן בִּשְׂכַר הַזָּאָה וְקִידּוּשׁ.

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


###### Bekhorot 29a:11
[Bekhorot 29a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:11)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי הָכָא ״לְהַזּוֹת וּלְקַדֵּשׁ״, וְהָתָם קָתָנֵי ״הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמֵי חַטָּאת וּבְאֵפֶר חַטָּאת״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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


###### Bekhorot 29a:12
[Bekhorot 29a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:12)

אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן מְטַמְּאֵהוּ מִתְּרוּמָתוֹ כּוּ׳. אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ הֵיכִי אָזֵיל?

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


###### Bekhorot 29a:13
[Bekhorot 29a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/29a:13)

לְבֵית הַפְּרָס דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מְנַפֵּחַ אָדָם בֵּית הַפְּרָס וְהוֹלֵךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.