Bekhorot 29a (כט.) — the Talmud in English

Unless he was an expert

such as Ila,

a man who lived

in Yavne,

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

for whom the Sages permitted him to take

payment of

four issarot—

a silver ma'a—

for a small animal,

for examining a firstborn small animal to determine whether it has a blemish.

And six issarot—

for a large animal.

for examining a large animal.

His fee was fixed,

whether

he said of it that it was

unblemished, or whether

he said of it that it was

blemished.

Gemara:

What is the reason

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

And we explain:

This one,

in the case of a large animal,

involves greater exertion,

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

And this one,

in the case of a small animal,

does not involve greater exertion.

We learned in the Mishna that he takes his fee

whether it is unblemished or blemished.

We raised a difficulty concerning this:

Granted,

if it is found to be

blemished,

he takes his fee, because

he permits it for him.

But

if it is found to be

unblemished—

why

does he take his fee? After all, he did nothing beneficial for him, since it remains prohibited .

And we explain:

If so,

if he were to take a fee only when he ruled that it was blemished,

people would come

to suspect him.

And they would say: This

firstborn animal concerning which he ruled that it was

blemished

is not blemished; rather,

it is unblemished. And the reason that he permits it for him

by ruling that it is blemished

is because of the payment

that he mentioned. Therefore, he takes his fee whether it is found to be unblemished or whether it was blemished.

And we refute this: If the firstborn animal is found to be

unblemished as well, they will say

that the truth is that the firstborn animal

is blemished. And the reason that he did not permit it is that he reasoned: He is doing this so that he can take his fee another time,

when they come to ask him a second time.

And we answer:

The Sages instituted for him one time,

so that he would take his fee when he examines this animal. But for him to take a fee

twice

for one animal,

the Sages did not institute for him 13 .

Mishna:

A judge

who takes a fee for adjudicating—

his judgments are void 14 .

A witness who takes a fee

for testifying—

his testimony is void.

A priest who takes a fee

for sprinkling

the water of the red heifer,

and for sanctifying it,

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

His water

is not living water; rather, it is like

the water of a cistern.

His ashes

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

ashes of a kiln,

ashes of a burning.

If

the scholar who examines firstborn animals, or the judge, or the witness,

was a priest,

and because he went with the litigant or with the owner of the firstborn animal, the latter took him to a place of ritual impurity

and rendered him impure with regard to his teruma,

so that he cannot eat teruma, the owner of the firstborn animal or the litigant

feeds him, gives him drink, and anoints him

from his own property.

And if

the scholar or the judge

was elderly

and needed to go to the place of adjudication or to examine the firstborn animal,

he has him ride on the donkey,

renting a donkey and having him ride upon it.

And he gives him his fee as a laborer.

Gemara:

We raised a difficulty concerning this:

From where are these words

that it is prohibited to take a fee for instruction and adjudication?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: As the verse states: “See,

I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me. Just as I received it [teaching] for free, so too you must give it for free.”

The explanation is: Just as the Lord commanded me and taught me for free, so too, you learned from me for free, 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 for free, he should learn for payment?

The verse states:

“Acquire truth,”

which indicates that one may acquire it even with money.

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

to others

for payment?

The verse states: “Acquire truth—

but do not sell it.”

We learned in the Mishna: One who takes a fee

for sprinkling and sanctifying—

his water is the water of a cistern; his ashes—

are ashes of a kiln.

And we raise a contradiction: One who betroths

a woman

with the water of the sin-offering or with the ashes of the sin-offering, she is betrothed, even though he who

betroths her is a

Jew.

And it is evident that he is permitted to take a fee, since 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. It is permitted to take payment for this.

Here,

in the Mishna, which states that it is prohibited for a Jew to take a fee, the reference is

to payment for sprinkling and sanctifying.

It is prohibited to take payment for the mitzva itself.

This is also precise, as it teaches here

in the Mishna:

“For sprinkling and sanctifying,”

which indicates that the reference is to the act of sprinkling.

Whereas there, in Kiddushin,

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

which indicates that it refers to the exertion involved in bringing them and filling the water.

Conclude from this.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we ask:

He himself,

the priest who went to examine the firstborn animal or to adjudicate—

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 bet ha-peras,

whose ritual impurity is

rabbinic 17 . “Bet ha-peras”—

a place where there had been a grave and it was plowed. The Sages estimated that within one hundred cubits around it there is a possibility that bones of the dead the size of a barley-grain may be found.

For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A person may blow across a bet ha-peras and proceed.

By blowing [exhaling air], even if there is ritual impurity there, he distances it from himself through his breath. And a bone the size of a barley-grain conveys impurity only if one touches it or carries it, but not if one overshadows it. Therefore, he is not warned against walking through a bet ha-peras. But he may not eat teruma. [See Tosafot, s.v. “How”].