Talmud sobre Behorot 4:13

Samuel said, if two men acted as judges, their judgment stands, but they are called an insolent court³⁶Babli 3a,5b,30a,87b; Ketubot 22a. Cf. Berakhot 7:1, Note 18.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are instructing: Even³⁷Even if the parties accepted them as judges. if two men acted as judges, their judgment is no judgment³⁸In the Babli, this opinion is represented by Rava (5b) and R. Abbahu (87b), the student of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish.. There, we have stated³⁹Mishnah Bekhorot 4:4. The Mishnah refers to a person who did not pass the required examinations and was not formally qualified as a judge.: “If he rendered judgment, acquitted the guilty and condemned the innocent, declared the pure impure or the impure pure, what he did is done but he has to pay from his own pocket.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were two⁴⁰Since R. Abbahu follows his teachers and holds that any judgment passed by a court of two judges is void, as well as from the following quote, it is clear that one has to read “three” in place of “two”.. What are we dealing with? If his error was that he judged them on his discretion⁴¹If there exists no clear precedent for the case; different schools promulgate different rules and he followed a minority opinion because it seemed to him to be the correct one, his judgment is valid but there is no reason why he should have to pay. The Babli, 33a, declares a judgment against a clear majority of opinions as an error in law., then what he did is done. If his error was that he judged them by Torah law⁴²If his judgment contradicted a Mishnah or a clear precedent, in Israel a judgment of the Patriarch’s court or in Babylonia a concurrent judgment of both Yeshivot, his judgment is void (cf. Ketubot 9:2, Note 100). If any money changed hands as a consequence of the erroneous judgment, it has to be returned., why should he pay from his own pocket? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were three on condition that you judge us by Torah law. He erred and judged them on his discretion. What he did is done, but since he erred and judged them on his discretion, he has to pay from his own pocket⁴³As a fine. because he was presumptuous to judge alone by Torah law, as we have stated⁴⁴Mishnah Avot 4:8.: “Do not judge sitting alone, for only One judges sitting alone.”

There, we have stated⁶³Mishnah Bekhorot 4:6, Babli Bekhorot29a, Ketubot 105a, Qiddušin 58b.: “If somebody takes a fee to judge, his judgments⁶⁴The plural implies that all his judgments are invalid, even those for which he did not take money. are invalid.” So is the Mishnah: “He who is suspected of taking a fee⁶⁵It takes an action of a supervising authority to invalidate his judgments. but he judges.”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is crocus¹²⁹In Nedarimארכובא דיעלה “the knee of the mountain goat.” In Ševuot עניבה דפילא. This probably is the correct form of the unintelligible word אביבא “springtime” written here; it has been translated. פילא is פילא III in Levy’s Dictionary, a spice, not פילא II “elephant” nor פילא I “cleft”. Since in general the deviations of the two mss. of the Yerushalmi Zeraïm are not very frequent, it seems that both are derived from the same Vorlage. permitted as aftergrowth? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah asked, did we not state¹³⁰Mishnah Bekhorot 4:8. This shows that industrial products which fall under the rules of the Sabbatical fall under all restrictions as if they were food.: “One does not buy flax from anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical, not even combed?” Is flax not like wood chips¹³¹It is inedible.? Rebbi Ḥinena said, because of its seed¹³²A source of edible oil.. Rebbi Mana said, if it were because of its seed, did we not state: “¹³³Mishnah Bekhorot 4:9. One does not buy water or salt from anybody suspect of selling heave as profane?” Can you say, water or salt because of their seeds? No, as a fine. Here also as a fine¹³⁴An ad hoc decree from which no general conclusion can be drawn. Crocus might be permitted as aftergrowth..

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is crocus¹²⁹In Nedarimארכובא דיעלה “the knee of the mountain goat.” In Ševuot עניבה דפילא. This probably is the correct form of the unintelligible word אביבא “springtime” written here; it has been translated. פילא is פילא III in Levy’s Dictionary, a spice, not פילא II “elephant” nor פילא I “cleft”. Since in general the deviations of the two mss. of the Yerushalmi Zeraïm are not very frequent, it seems that both are derived from the same Vorlage. permitted as aftergrowth? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah asked, did we not state¹³⁰Mishnah Bekhorot 4:8. This shows that industrial products which fall under the rules of the Sabbatical fall under all restrictions as if they were food.: “One does not buy flax from anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical, not even combed?” Is flax not like wood chips¹³¹It is inedible.? Rebbi Ḥinena said, because of its seed¹³²A source of edible oil.. Rebbi Mana said, if it were because of its seed, did we not state: “¹³³Mishnah Bekhorot 4:9. One does not buy water or salt from anybody suspect of selling heave as profane?” Can you say, water or salt because of their seeds? No, as a fine. Here also as a fine¹³⁴An ad hoc decree from which no general conclusion can be drawn. Crocus might be permitted as aftergrowth..

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there³⁸Mishnah Šabbat 24:4., “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared³⁹He does not permit dog food if it was not available before the start of the Sabbath, how can he permit human food which was not available on the the eve of the holiday?.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah⁴⁰In Mishnah Bekhorot4:3, R. Jehudah permits to slaughter a damaged firstling without prior certification by an expert. He must hold that by biblical standards it is only the fact of the blemish that counts, not its certification by an expert. In addition, any kosher animal is potential food at all times.. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday⁴¹An animal suffering from a life-threatening defect is prohibited as food. While there is a long list of such defects, these disqualify as food only if they are found, but one does not have to examine every slaughtered animal for all of these defects except for the lung for which it is obligatory to check for tubercular lesions which would make the animal unfit for human consumption. Since slaughter is permitted on the holiday, inspection for ṭerefah automatically is not only permitted but in fact required to legitimize the slaughter., similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay⁴²Demay is produce of which it is not known whether tithes were taken, cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday⁴³Rebbi Huna’s argument is disproved since it would imply that demay can be removed on the holiday. But it is stated in Mishnah Šabbat2:7 that demay may be tithed only during twilight on Sabbath (and holiday) eve, therefore not on the holiday itself.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared⁴⁴This statement clearly follows the opinion of R. Simeon in the Mishnah.. But was it not stated, a [firstling]⁴⁵Corrector’s addition, based on Rav Ḥisda’s remark in the following sentence, but the scribe’s original text seems preferable. An animal which is known to have a ṭerefah defect is not potential food. As part of the mother’s body, the calf is not potential food. But if a healthy calf is born on the holiday, it is food at least for R. Jehudah. calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it⁴⁶If the corrector’s addition is deleted, then R. Ḥisda explains R. Jehudah’s opinion in the Mishnah since the latter also will agree that rabbinically the expert may not inspect firstlings on the holiday.. There came a case⁴⁷Of a firstling falling into a cistern. before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah⁴⁸Terumot3:1, Babli Eruvin46b.. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared⁴⁹In this baraita, the opinion of R. Simeon is quoted as that of “the Sages”, implying that it is practice to be followed. All the rules of precedence are subject to exceptions.. He⁵⁰R. Immi. changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan did not go to the assembly. He was standing with Rebbi Mana and asked him, what new was said? He said: So says Rebbi Yose, a person causing impurity does not have the status of a perpetrator¹²⁴Because an outside observer could not notice any change in the food which was made impure., fromthe following¹²⁵Mishnah Baba Qama 9:2. If somebody stole heave and it became impure in his possession, he can hand it back to the owner and tell him, this is yours. But pure heave was food and impure heave can only be used as fuel; the difference in value cannot be claimed in court.: “Heave which became impure.” He answered: Explain it, if it became impure by itself¹²⁶The passive formulation in the Mishnah invites this interpretation.; then you cannot infer anything, because of a Mishnah¹²⁷Bekhorot 4:4. The Mishnah is part of R. Yudan’s argument since it states that if a person who is not duly ordained exercizes the function of a rabbi or judge, he is personally responsible for any damage he causes by a wrong decision. In the Babli, 53b, the same argument is made by Rav Papa.: “If somebody judged, absolved the guilty and obligated the innocent, declared the pure impure and the impure pure.” For Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: If he touched it with his hand¹²⁸The obligation to pay in this case is not by the declaration that something is impure, but by the act of the incompetent judge who handles the material in question when he declares it impure. Since a person can make impure only by an action, either touching or moving, he equally will be responsible under the laws of torts.. Samuel said: If he touched it with his hand. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi says, it should have been logical that even intentionally he should have been free. Why did they say that he is obligated¹²⁹It is obvious that “free” and “obligated” have to be interchanged. Since the prior argument showed that causing impurity is causing damage under the laws of torts, the person causing unintentional impurity should have to pay. The reason that courts refrain from applying the rules of torts in this case is that the damage is not visible and, in order to guard the owner of the impure food and others from unintentional sin, it is necessary to induce the person causing the damage to come forward and tell by granting him immunity.? That he should tell. And Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should have been logical that even unintentionally he should have been obligated. Why did they say that he is free¹³⁰Here also, it is obvious that “free” and “obligated” have to be interchanged. Since the damage cannot be detected, it cannot be claimed in court. The obligation to pay is not derived from the laws of torts but is a regulation “for the public good” in line with the other rules of this chapter.? Because of a fine. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan comes from this: “If someone causes anything to become impure, or dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays a fine. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person who puts a yoke on another’s cow is free in human law but guilty in Heaven’s law.¹³¹In the times of the Temple, a red (probably meaning reddish-brown) cow without any black hair was worth millions (as material for the purification from the impurity of the dead, Num. 19) provided it never was used for work and never wore a yoke. Putting a yoke on such a cow for the shortest of times robs its owner of an enormous sum of money but, since the damage is not visible, it is not claimable in a human court. This follows the doctrine of R. Joḥanan that damages which cannot be observed on the object cannot be claimed in court.”