Bechoros Daf 28 בכורות דַף 28

The next Mishnah states: השוחט את הבכור ומראה את מומו – if one shechts a bechor and only afterwards shows its blemish to an expert, Rebbe Yehudah permits the meat, but Rebbe Meir says: הואיל ונשחט שלא ע"פ מומחה אסור – since it was shechted without an expert’s authorization, it is forbidden. Rabbah bar bar Channah explains that regarding the מום of דוקין שבעין – cataracts in the eye examined after shechitah, all agree the meat is forbidden, מפני שהן משתנין – because they change when the animal dies, and what appears like a permanent מום after its death may not have appeared like a permanent מום while it was alive. They argue about other מומין which are not changed by the animal’s death. Rebbe Meir holds we decree to prohibit all cases of מומין examined after death, lest one mistakenly rely on such an examination for דוקין שבעין. Rebbe Yehudah holds there is no such decree.

The next Mishnah states: דן את הדין – if one ruled on a case, זיכה את החייב – and he mistakenly ruled the liable party exempt, or the exempt party liable, or he ruled tahor food as tamei, or the opposite, מה שעשה עשוי וישלם מביתו – what he did is done, and he must repay the damaged party from his property. The Gemara asks if this anonymous Mishnah follows Rebbe Meir, דדאין דינא דגרמי – who judges the law of “גרמי,” obligating payment for certain indirectly caused damages. Rav answers that the Mishnah’s case is כגון שנשא ונתן ביד – where [the judge] took the payment from one party and gave it by hand to the other party, directly damaging the losing party. The Gemara asks that the second case, where he exempted the liable party, is completed by the mere verbal ruling, without any action!? Ravina answers that the claimant had a משכון for his debt, and the judge took it and handed it to the defendant. The third case, where he ruled something tahor as tamei, is where he touched a sheretz to the food in question (rendering it definitely tamei, following his mistaken ruling). The fourth case, where he ruled something tamei as tahor, is where he then mixed the food in question into other tahor food.

The Mishnah concluded: ואם היה מומחה לב"ד פטור מלשלם – if [the judge] was an expert judge of Beis Din, he is exempt from paying for his erroneous judgement, since he cannot be faulted for ruling on the case. The next Mishnah relates an incident with a cow whose womb was removed, and Rebbe Tarfon had it fed to dogs as a tereifah. The Chochomim in Yavneh permitted the cow’s meat, because תודוס the doctor said every cow or sow which leaves Alexandria has its womb cut out (so it should not be bred elsewhere). Clearly, a womb’s removal is not a fatal injury!? Rebbe Tarfon remarked: הלכה חמורך טרפון – “Your donkey has gone away, Tarfon!”, meaning that he would have to pay compensation for the incorrect judgement. Rebbe Akiva told him that he was a מומחה לב"ד, and was therefore exempt from paying. The Gemara concludes that Rebbe Tarfon would be exempt even if he was not a מומחה, דטעה בדבר משנה – because he erred in a law taught explicitly in a Mishnah, where the halachah is חוזר – he may reverse his [clearly incorrect] ruling. Rebbe Akiva was merely giving an additional reason for exemption.