מַתְנִיתִין נַמִי דַּיְקָא; רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי מוּמְחֶה – אָסוּר. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: קְנָסָא קָא קָנֵיס רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

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. Conclude from it that the mishna should be understood as Rabba bar bar Ḥana explained.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: ״מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁתַּנִּין״ – וְכוּלְּהוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּי, אוֹ דִּלְמָא – אִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנִּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנִּי?

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.

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינָּהּ – לְאַכְחוּשֵׁי סָהֲדֵי; אִי אָמְרַתְּ: כּוּלְּהוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּי – שַׁקָּרֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: אִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנִּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנִּי – סָמְכִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ. מַאי?

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: שָׂח לִי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא: בֹּא וְאַרְאֲךָ בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּים. מִדְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״בֹּא וְאַרְאֲךָ״ – מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא דְּמִשְׁתַּנִּי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּנִּי.

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.

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

§ 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.

תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם – מְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ לְדַקָּה, וּמֶחֱצָה לְגַסָּה. מַאי טַעֲמָא? אָמַר רַב פַּפָּא: זֶה הֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה וְזֶה הֶפְסֵד מוּעָט.

§ 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, 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.

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

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׳ 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.

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

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא חִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד. אֶלָּא זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״פָּטוּר אַתָּה״ – וְהָא לָא נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד! אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹן וּנְטָלוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ.

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.

טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר – דַּאֲגַע בְּהוּ שֶׁרֶץ, טִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא – שֶׁעֵירְבָן עִם פֵּירוֹתָיו.

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

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 .

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

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 .

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

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׳ וְתֵיפּוּק לֵיהּ דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה, וְטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה – חוֹזֵר!

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.

חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא – דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר. וְעוֹד, אִי נַמִי בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת טָעִיתָה – מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין אַתָּה, וְכָל הַמּוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

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׳ הַנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר לִהְיוֹת רוֹאֶה אֶת הַבְּכוֹרוֹת – אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עַל פִּיו, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה מוּמְחֶה

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