Super Daf › Bekhorot 29 › Gems from the Daf
Machloket · Bekhorot 29 · בכורות כ״ט
Paying for Mitzvot and the Examiner's Ongoing Duty
The Gemara restricts taking wages for performing mitzvot. Commentators debate whether an animal examiner is bound to inspect a firstborn indefinitely without pay.
The Dilemma of the Paid Expert
A male firstborn animal (בכור - bekhor) possesses innate sanctity and may only be slaughtered if it sustains a permanent blemish (מום - mum). Inspecting such defects requires specialized rabbinic expertise.
The Sages permitted an accredited expert to receive compensation for inspecting the animal. However, he must receive an equal fee either way, whether he rules the animal unblemished (תם - tam) or blemished (בעל מום - ba'al mum).
If he were paid only when permitting slaughter, onlookers would suspect him of inventing a blemish purely to collect his wage.
בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּעַל מוּם — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא שָׁרֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא תָּם אַמַּאי? דְּאִם כֵּן, אָתֵי לְמִיחְשְׁדֵיהּGranted, if the animal is blemished he takes his wages, because he deems the animal permitted; but if unblemished, why does he take his wages? Because if so, people would suspect him. (Bekhorot 29a:3)
The Suspicion of Postponed Decisions
This fixed wage created a new dilemma. If the expert receives payment regardless of the outcome, why could he not rule deceitfully in the opposite direction?
People might suspect that he declares an animal unblemished merely to collect another examination fee when brought back later.
The Gemara resolves this by establishing that an examiner may collect payment once per animal. Since he earns nothing for subsequent visits, he gains no financial advantage by delaying a decision.
Bound to Re-Examine Without Pay
The Rishonim dispute the legal ramifications of this ordinance when an owner returns with the same animal.
Tosafot explain that the expert is not obligated to re-examine the animal if he does not wish to exert himself for free,. The ordinance simply prohibits him from demanding an additional wage if he chooses to look.
In contrast, the Rambam rules that the examiner is legally bound to inspect the animal perpetually whenever brought before him,.
וְלֹא יִטּל שָׂכָר עַל בְּהֵמָה זוֹ חוּץ מִפַּעַם אַחַת וְרוֹאֶה אוֹתָהּ לְעוֹלָם כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמְּבִיאִין אוֹתָהּHe should not take a fee for this animal more than once, and he inspects it perpetually as long as they bring it to him. (Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 3:7)
The Sevara Behind the Obligation
The dispute hinges on the scope of the expert's initial hiring and concerns of suspicion.
Tosafot raise a difficulty: if the expert were forced to inspect for free, might people suspect he permits the animal now to avoid future unpaid labor? Tosafot answer that a person is never suspected of violating a prohibition merely to escape physical exertion,. Still, a bet din (rabbinic court) does not coerce an artisan into uncompensated work.
According to the Rambam, the expert must inspect it perpetually to eliminate any shadow of suspicion. By accepting the initial rabbinically established fee, he assumed an ongoing duty toward that animal until its status is resolved,.
Wages for Judging After the Verdict
This discussion connects directly to the prohibition against taking wages to judge or testify. The Mishnah states that one who takes a wage to judge, his rulings are void.
Later authorities debate what occurs if the judge received payment only after delivering his decision.
The Mishneh LaMelech asserts that although taking payment afterwards is forbidden, it does not void the verdict retroactively.
Conversely, the Mutzal Me'esh and the Shevut Ya'akov argue that accepting wages even after the proceedings invalidates the ruling completely.
הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂכָרוֹ לָדוּן — דִּינָיו בְּטֵילִים, לְהָעִיד — עֵדוֹתָיו בְּטֵילִיןIn the case of one who takes his wages to judge cases, his rulings are void; to testify, his testimonies are void. (Bekhorot 29a:5)
While the Sages barred taking fees for mitzvot, they structured single-payment exceptions for animal examiners, leaving authorities to debate whether uncompensated duty continues indefinitely.