Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 29 for kids: Pay and Buy Carefully

בכורות כ״ט

⚖️ This daf asks when someone may be paid for helping with a religious task. It also asks what may be bought from someone suspected of selling things he should not sell.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 29a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 29b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 29

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 29 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 29a, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. Unless he was an expert like Ila — who lived in Yavne. He was pious and was not suspected of ruling for the sake of his fee.
  2. Whether — he told them it was a permanent blemish; in that case, he would normally collect his full fee.
  3. What is the reason? — Why was the fee four issar for a small animal and six for a large one?
  4. A large animal takes more effort — he must throw it to the ground, restrain it, and examine its blemish.
  5. But if it is unblemished — if he tells them the blemish is temporary, why does he take a fee? He has not helped the owner; he has forbidden the animal to him.
  6. For if so — if he received no fee in that case, people would suspect him when he declared an animal blemished.
  7. The Sages did not institute payment twice — he received his fee when he declared it unblemished, but received nothing if it was brought before him again. There is therefore no cause for suspicion.
  8. To sprinkle — the purification water of the red heifer.
  9. To sanctify — to mix the ashes of the red heifer with fresh water in a vessel.
  10. Mere burnt ashes — ordinary ashes. Any ashes can be called burnt ashes.
  11. But if the examiner of firstborn animals, the judge, the witness, or the one who sprinkles or sanctifies the water is a priest — and the person taking him along leads him through a place of impurity because there is no other route.
  12. Renders him impure and prevents him from eating his teruma — this costs the priest money: he must buy ordinary food, which is more expensive than teruma because anyone can eat it, while only priests can eat teruma.
  13. Provides him with food — the person taking him along provides him with food, drink, and oil for his body.
  14. Gives him wages like a laborer — the Gemara explains that he is paid according to the earnings he loses.
  15. From where is this derived? — That one may not take payment for issuing rulings or teaching Torah.
  16. Truth — the Torah.
  17. She is betrothed — evidently he may receive payment for this; otherwise, what value has he given her to effect the betrothal?
  18. Even if he is an Israelite — although priests are the ones who usually sprinkle and sanctify the water.
  19. Payment — for traveling from a distant place to Jerusalem to bring the ashes.
  20. And payment for filling — he may take payment for filling the vessel with water. He is paid for his effort, not for making the water fit for the mitzva.
  21. Here, payment for sprinkling and sanctifying — he may not take it, because these acts themselves make the purification valid.
  22. With purification water — this can refer to payment for filling the vessel with water; ‘with ashes’ can refer to payment for bringing the ashes.
  23. How can he go? — Is he not violating the prohibition, ‘He shall not defile himself for a dead person’ (Leviticus 21:1)?
  24. In a beit haperas — a field where bone fragments may be scattered; a priest is not prohibited from walking through it.
  25. As Rav Yehuda said, a person may blow through a beit haperas and proceed — a bone fragment the size of a barley grain imparts impurity through touch or carrying, but not by being under the same roof. Blowing moves it aside so he does not touch it. Even so, he may not eat teruma: Hagiga 25b says this inspection is accepted for those preparing the Passover offering, but not for those who eat teruma.
Tosafot on Bechorot 29a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. The Sages did not institute payment twice — One might still ask: People could say the animal is blemished, but the examiner declared it unblemished because he did not want the trouble of examining it again. The answer is that the Sages did not require him to examine it again; they only ruled that, if he does, he cannot charge again. Moreover, people would not suspect him of permitting a prohibited animal merely to avoid the trouble of a second examination.
  2. One who takes payment to judge—his rulings are void — A mishna elsewhere says that a judge who takes payment is acting improperly, yet his rulings stand. The last chapter of Ketubot explains that this refers to payment for a demonstrable loss of income, which is permitted.
  3. Just as I taught for free — Why, then, does the Torah separately prohibit taking a bribe? These are two different things, as the beginning of the last chapter of Ketubot shows: payment as a fee is compensation for the judge’s effort, while a bribe is given to make him work to present one party’s case favorably—even if the resulting judgment acquits the innocent and finds the guilty liable. Nor should one question the judges in Jerusalem who were paid from the Temple treasury. Even apart from the allowance for demonstrable lost income, judging was their entire occupation; they did no other work and had to support themselves. Likewise, the current practice of teaching Torah for payment is permitted if the teacher has no other means of support. Even if he does, payment for demonstrable lost income is permitted when he sets aside all his business; this is an even clearer loss than the case of the person who was paid a coin for testing wine. Teaching children may also be paid for because the teacher supervises them and teaches them how to divide the verses, as explained in Nedarim.
  4. One who betroths a woman with purification water or purification ashes—she is betrothed, even if he is an Israelite — Rashi’s explanation is strained: he says the text specifies an Israelite because priests are accustomed to sprinkling the water and preparing it. Rabbi Yitzḥak says that the phrase chiefly belongs to the earlier part of the mishna in the second chapter of Kiddushin, which lists betrothal with teruma, tithes, priestly gifts, purification water, and purification ashes.
  5. How can he go? Through a rabbinically restricted field of graves, as Rav Yehuda said — This seems to permit someone to cross such a field to testify if he blows the loose soil aside as he walks. Yet he remains impure, since the mishna says that doing so prevents him from eating teruma. This challenges Rabbeinu Tam’s view that blowing the soil aside is effective for every purpose. Rabbeinu Tam adopted that view because of two difficulties. First, Pesachim asks what it means to “inspect” the field for someone bringing the Passover offering, and answers that he blows the soil aside. But the mishna itself goes on to describe an inspection: sifting movable soil through a fine sieve to check for a bone the size of a barley grain. Second, blowing the soil aside seems useful beyond the Passover offering, as a passage in Eruvin indicates. Rabbeinu Tam therefore omits the question “What is the inspection?” in Pesachim and reads Rav Yehuda’s statement as independent: blowing the soil aside works for every purpose, whereas the mishna’s sifting inspection applies only to those bringing the Passover offering. On that reading, the statement here that the witness is rendered impure means that he crosses without blowing the soil aside. The Gemara cites Rav Yehuda to show that this field’s restriction is rabbinic, so crossing it may be allowed for a mitzva. Rashi explains similarly in Ketubot. This would seem to allow crossing without blowing the soil aside for any mitzva. But Eruvin specifically mentions going to study Torah, marry, judge, or pursue a claim against gentiles to recover property, suggesting a narrower permission. One can answer that the permission applies to all mitzvot: those examples are mentioned because the discussion there addresses particular questions about studying Torah and marrying. Rav Aḥai’s She’iltot likewise permits entering such a field for all mitzvot, including greeting kings. It appears to distinguish those bringing the Passover offering, who blow the soil aside and remain pure, from people performing other mitzvot, who cross and remain impure. Its wording may mean that everyone must blow the soil aside, though perhaps it makes an exception for the Passover offering. But requiring someone accompanying a mourner through such a field to blow the soil aside at every step, making the mourner wait, would hardly honor the mourner. Perhaps the She’iltot means that other mitzvot permit crossing even without blowing the soil aside. The passage in Eruvin could then involve blowing the soil aside if an eruv may be made for an ordinary purpose, or crossing without doing so if an eruv may be made only for a mitzva. Against Rabbeinu Tam’s reading, however, Ḥagiga explicitly asks what the inspection for the Passover offering is and answers with Rav Yehuda’s rule about blowing the soil aside. It continues by contrasting the Passover offering, for which the Sages waived their restriction because failure to bring it incurs karet, with eating teruma, for which they did not waive it. Rav Yehuda’s statement plainly explains the mishna. It therefore seems right to retain the question “What is the inspection?” The mishna’s sifting inspection is performed after crossing, whereas “inspection” here means a way to cross in the first place to bring the Passover offering. There are thus three cases: those bringing the Passover offering, and a nazirite according to Beit Shammai, blow the soil aside and remain pure; for such needs as studying Torah, marrying, judging, recovering property, and human dignity, one may cross without doing so and remains impure; for other mitzvot, such as testifying here, one may cross by blowing the soil aside but remains impure. The same applies to the eruv passage if an eruv may be made only for a mitzva. If it may also be made for an ordinary purpose, that passage could show that blowing the soil aside permits crossing even for that purpose, while the person remains impure. Alternatively, its case may still concern an eruv made for a mitzva, as is customary. When Ḥagiga asks whether someone who inspected the field for his Passover offering may eat teruma, it refers to Rav Yehuda’s method, not the mishna’s; Rabbeinu Tam would have to reverse this. One could also say that both inspections concern those bringing the Passover offering: the mishna describes inspection after crossing, and Rav Yehuda explains how to inspect in order to cross. The question “What is the inspection?” then introduces his explanation, as similar questions do elsewhere in the Talmud.
Rashi on Bechorot 29b, in English Tab translation (22)
  1. A trodden beit haperas — A field where a grave was plowed is considered pure after people have walked over it, because any bone as large as a barley grain would have been crushed underfoot. That bone is the only source of concern in such a field.
  2. Or through another form of impurity — They made this priest impure through contact with something such as an animal carcass or a creeping creature. A priest is not prohibited from touching those things.
  3. Like an idle laborer in that trade — The payment depends on the work he had to leave. Someone who drills pearls does easy, well-paid work and would accept only a small reduction in pay to stop for the day. A carpenter doing hard work for three zuz might gladly take one zuz to stop and perform this lighter task. Pay him what he would accept: he loses work, but is spared its difficulty.
  4. One suspected regarding firstborn animals — For example, someone suspected of deliberately blemishing a firstborn animal.
  5. Deer meat — It is red and can be mistaken for calf meat. He might sell meat from an unblemished firstborn calf and claim it is deer meat.
  6. Hides of female animals — There is no concern that they came from firstborn animals.
  7. But one may buy spun thread and garments from him — If the material came from a firstborn animal, he would not have put in so much work, because he is unwilling to risk losing that effort.
  8. The Sages will hear — They will learn that it came from an unblemished firstborn animal, which requires burial, and take it from him. He would not risk wasting the effort of tanning its hide.
  9. The difference is recognizable — One can tell a male hide from a female hide.
  10. He might cut — He could cut away the male part of the hide to make it look like a female hide. If asked about the cut, he would say mice ate that part.
  11. Dirty wool — Wool that has not been cleaned of its dirt.
  12. Now, bleached wool — One might think he would not bleach wool from a firstborn animal, for fear the Sages would hear and take it from him. But bleaching takes little effort, so he might do it anyway, and one may not buy it. Is it necessary to say the same about dirty wool?
  13. But one may buy spun thread and garments from him — If the material came from a firstborn animal, he would not have put in so much work, because he is unwilling to risk losing that effort.
  14. Is it necessary to mention garments? — The material was already permitted for purchase once it had been spun.
  15. Felt garments — These have never been spun, so the mishna needed to teach that one may buy them.
  16. One suspected regarding the Sabbatical Year — He is suspected of sowing during that year or trading in produce that grew on its own.
  17. Combed flax — Flax that has been thinned and prepared with a comb.
  18. Is it necessary to mention woven fabric? — Its material was already permitted for purchase when it became spun thread.
  19. Chains — Chains made from flax before it is spun.
  20. Even water and salt — Buying these is forbidden as a penalty.
  21. Connected to teruma — Anything from which teruma is separated.
  22. Olive oil is mixed into them — That gives them a connection to teruma, so one may not buy them from him.
Tosafot on Bechorot 29b, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. And Rav Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Rav Yehuda: A trodden beit haperas is pure — In the last chapter of Hagigah (25a), the reading is “Rav Hiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla.”
  2. Like an idle laborer from that occupation — Rashi explains that payment is based on the work the person has stopped doing. Someone whose work is easy and well paid, such as drilling pearls, would accept only a small reduction in pay to take the day off. Someone doing hard work, such as carpentry, might gladly accept one zuz instead of three to stop and do easier work. But Rashi should not have said that the person takes up easier work: that would amount to being paid for judging, testifying, sprinkling purification water, or preparing it. Rather, the payment must be what the person would accept to stop working altogether. The same applies to returning a lost object in Bava Metzia (31b); otherwise, the finder would be paid for returning it. Even the Sages who allow payment for loading give a specific scriptural reason for that ruling, while Bava Kamma (56b) says that a guardian of a lost object receives no benefit from the task. Rabbeinu Hananel explains the lost-object case differently: a tailor earning a sela per garment during a festival receives only the ordinary half-sela rate. But the wording does not suggest this, and there is no apparent reason to use the ordinary rate during a festival. Moreover, Bava Metzia (76b) calls workers whose employer has no work for them “idle laborers” when assessing their pay, even though they are sitting idle altogether. One difficulty remains: Bava Metzia (68a), concerning someone managing a shop for half the profits, also speaks of pay “like an idle laborer from that occupation,” yet says this rate might not suffice when the work is burdensome. It also records Rabbi Shimon’s view that he receives full pay, while a Tosefta attributes the idle-laborer rate to Rabbi Meir. On the explanation given here, these passages fit: Rabbi Meir’s rate is what a person would accept to stop working altogether, whether his usual work was demanding or light. Rabbi Shimon’s higher rate is what he would accept to leave demanding work for this lighter task. Thus, the Tosefta’s contrast between working and sitting idle means idle from the demanding occupation, not from all work. Rabbeinu Hananel explains the shopkeeper’s ‘idle laborer’ rate as the wage of someone currently unable to find work, which may be lower than the going rate—for example, one sela instead of two.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 29.