Bekhorot 29a — the Talmud in English

unless he was an expert ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

like Ila,

a man’s name, who lived

in Yavne,

and was pious and was not suspected of permitting firstborn animals for payment,

whom the Sages permitted to take

payment

of four isarot—

a silver ma'a

for a small animal,

for examining a firstborn small animal to see whether it had a blemish.

And six isarot—

for a large animal.

For examining a large animal.

And his payment was fixed,

whether

he said about it that it was

unblemished. And whether

he said about it that it was

blemished.

Gemara:

What is the reason

that he takes payment of four for a small animal and six for a large animal?

And we explain:

This one,

with a large animal,

his exertion is greater,

for he must throw it to the ground and restrain it in order to see its blemish.

And this one,

with a small animal,

his exertion is not greater.

We learned in the Mishna: that he takes his payment

whether it is unblemished or blemished.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Granted,

if it was found

blemished,

he takes his payment, because

he permitted it for him.

But

if it was found to be

unblemished—

why

does he take his payment? After all, he benefited him nothing, since it remained in its prohibition.

And we explain:

For if so,

that he should take payment only if he ruled that it was blemished,

people would come

to suspect him.

And they would say: This

firstborn animal about which he ruled that it was

blemished

is not blemished; rather,

it is unblemished. And the fact that he permitted it,

by ruling about it that it was blemished,

was because of the payment

that he said so. Therefore, he takes his payment whether it was found unblemished or whether it was blemished.

And we refute: If the firstborn animal was found

unblemished, people would also say

that the truth is that the firstborn animal

is blemished. And the fact that he did not permit it, he reasoned: So that he may take his payment another time.

When they come to ask him a second time.

And we answer:

The Rabbis instituted for him one time,

that he should take his payment when he examines this animal. But to take payment

two times

for one animal,

the Rabbis did not institute for him. 13 .

Mishna:

A judge

who takes payment for judging—

his judgments are invalid. 14 .

A witness who takes payment

for testifying—

his testimony is invalid.

A kohen who takes payment

for sprinkling

the waters of the red heifer

and for sanctifying,

mixing the ashes of the sin-offering with living water—

His water,

is not living water; rather, it is like

cave water.

His ashes

do not have the status of the ashes of the red heifer; rather, they are

ashes of a kiln,

ashes of burning.

If the

sage who examines firstborn animals, or the judge, or the witness, was

a kohen,

and because he went with the litigant, or with the owner of the firstborn animal, the latter brought him through a place of impurity

and rendered him impure with regard to his teruma,

and he is unable to eat teruma, then the owner of the firstborn animal, or the litigant—

feeds him, gives him drink, and anoints him

from his own.

And if the

sage, or the judge, was

elderly,

and needed to go to the place of judgment or to examine the firstborn animal—

he has him ride on the donkey,

he hires a donkey and has him ride upon it.

And he gives him his payment as a laborer.

Gemara:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

From where are these words

that it is prohibited to take payment for instruction and judgment?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: For the verse says, “See

I have taught you statutes and judgments, as the Lord my God commanded me.” Just as I acted without payment, so you, without payment.

The explanation is: Just as I was commanded and taught by the Lord without payment, so you were taught by me without payment, and I did not receive payment from you.

And from where is it derived that if he did not find

someone from whom

to learn without payment, he should learn for payment?

The verse says:

“Buy truth,”

which implies even with money.

And from where is it derived that he should not say: Just as I learned it for payment, so I will teach it

to others

for payment?

The verse says: “Buy truth”—

“but do not sell it.”

We learned in the Mishna: One who takes payment

for sprinkling and sanctifying—

his water is cave water. His ashes—

ashes of a kiln.

And we raise a contradiction: One who betroths

a woman

with the waters of the sin-offering, with the ashes of the sin-offering, behold, she is betrothed. Even though he who

betroths her is

an Israelite.

And it proves that it is permitted to take payment, for if not, with what does he betroth her?

And we answer:

Abaye said: It is not difficult.

Here,

in that case of one who betroths a woman,

it is payment for bringing and filling.

He takes payment for bringing the ashes and filling the water from a distant place. And for this it is permitted to take payment.

Here,

in the Mishna, where they said that it is prohibited for an Israelite to take payment, it is speaking

of payment for sprinkling and sanctifying.

And for the mitzva itself it is prohibited to take payment.

It is precise as well, for it teaches here

in the Mishna:

“for sprinkling and sanctifying,”

which implies for the act of sprinkling.

Whereas there, in Kiddushin,

it teaches: One who betroths with “the waters of the sin-offering and with the ashes of the sin-offering,”

and it implies that it refers to the exertion involved in bringing them and filling [the water].

Conclude from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he was a kohen and rendered him impure with regard to his teruma.

And we ask:

He himself,

the kohen who went to examine the firstborn animal, or to judge—

how could he go and render himself impure? Is he not subject to a prohibition!

As it is written: “He shall not render himself impure for a dead person among his people.”

And we answer: He went

to a field of graves

whose impurity is

rabbinic. 17 . “

Field of graves”—a place in which there was a grave and which was plowed. And the Sages estimated that within one hundred cubits around it there is a possibility that there are bones of the dead the size of a barley.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A person blows on a field of graves and proceeds.

For by blowing [exhaling air], even if there is impurity there, he distances it from himself through his breath. And a bone the size of a barley imparts impurity only if one touches it or carries it, but not if one shelters over it. Therefore, he is not warned against walking through a field of graves. But he may not eat teruma. [And see Tosafot, s.v. “How could he go”].