מתני' נמי דיקא ר' מאיר אומר הואיל ונשחט שלא על פי מומחה אסור שמע מינה קנסא קא קניס רבי מאיר שמע מינה 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.
איבעיא להו מפני המשתנין וכולהו משתני או דלמא איכא דמשתני ואיכא דלא משתני 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.
למאי נפקא מינה לאכחושי סהדי אי אמרת כולהו משתני שקרי נינהו ואי אמרת איכא דמשתני ואיכא דלא משתני סמכינן עלייהו מאי 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?
ת"ש דאמר רבה בר בר חנה שח לי רבי יאשיה דמן אושא בא ואראך בדוקין שהן משתנים מדקאמר ליה בא ואראך מכלל דאיכא דמשתני ואיכא דלא משתני: 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.
מי שאינו מומחה וראה את הבכור ונשחט על פיו הרי זה יקבר וישלם מביתו: לימא תנן סתמא כר' מאיר דלמא בדוקין שבעין ודברי הכל: § 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.
תנא כשהוא משלם משלם רביע לדקה ומחצה לגסה מאי טעמא אמר רב פפא זה הפסד מרובה וזה הפסד מועט § 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.
אי הכי לפום פסידא לישלם אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משמיה דרב אחא בר איקא משום גזירת מגדלי בהמה דקה נגעו בה: 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.
מתני' דן את הדין זיכה את החייב וחייב את הזכאי טימא את הטהור וטיהר את הטמא מה שעשה עשוי וישלם מביתו ואם היה מומחה לב"ד פטור מלשלם: 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.
גמ' לימא תנן סתמא כר' מאיר דדאין דינא דגרמי א"ר אילעא אמר רב כגון שנשא ונתן ביד 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.
בשלמא חייב את הזכאי כגון שנשא ונתן ביד אלא זיכה את החייב היכי דמי אי דאמר ליה פטור אתה והא לא נשא ונתן ביד אמר רבינא כגון שהיה לו משכון ונטלו הימנו: 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.
טימא את הטהור דאגע בהו שרץ טיהר את הטמא שעירבן עם פירותיו: 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.
מתני׳ ומעשה בפרה שניטלה האם שלה והאכילה רבי טרפון לכלבים ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ביבנה והתירוה 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.
ואמר תודוס הרופא אין פרה וחזירה יוצאה מאלכסנדריא של מצרים שאין חותכין האם שלה בשביל שלא תלד 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.
אמר רבי טרפון הלכה חמורך טרפון אמר לו ר' עקיבא ר' טרפון אתה מומחה לב"ד וכל המומחה לב"ד פטור מלשלם: 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.
גמ׳ ותיפוק ליה דטעה בדבר משנה וטעה בדבר משנה חוזר 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.
חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דטעה בדבר משנה חוזר ועוד א"נ בשיקול הדעת טעיתה מומחה לב"ד אתה וכל המומחה לב"ד פטור מלשלם: 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.
מתני׳ הנוטל שכר להיות רואה את הבכורות אין שוחטין על פיו אא"כ היה מומחה 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