Siman 312

We learned in Bekhorot (28b): One who takes his payment for inspecting firstborns, one may not slaughter based on his word unless he was an expert like Ila in Yavne, whom they permitted to take four issars for a small animal and six for a large animal. Rashi explained that the reason one may not slaughter based on his word is that perhaps because of the payment he will permit it even with a mum that is not permanent, unless he was like Ila who was an expert and pious and was not suspected of this (Rashi). The sages fixed the payment for him, how much he should take, and also he should only take it the first time, whether he finds a complete mum and permits it or whether he does not find a mum and forbids it; and afterwards when they bring him this firstborn even several times until he permits it, he is not permitted to take more (Gemara and Tosafot ibid. 29). The Rambam wrote likewise in chapter 3, as did the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. The Rambam required further that he be an expert without peer, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote likewise, but the Tur did not write this phrasing; see there.

And we have already wondered above in siman 18, section 42, where have we found that we should suspect a proper Israelite of feeding a forbidden thing for the sake of monetary gain? For in siman 119 we do not find this concern except regarding a suspected Israelite, but not regarding a proper one. And we wrote there that perhaps regarding a concern of kareth they were more concerned, for a bekhor without a blemish is considered consecrated items outside [the Temple] and one is liable for kareth. And furthermore, because the bekhor stands in a status of prohibition, and he with his speech removes it from its status of prohibition. And furthermore, because regarding a bekhor it is a ruling, and the Torah forbade receiving money for a ruling and they only permitted it for compensation for lost time. Therefore, since the essence of the matter is not according to absolute law, they were therefore concerned for this. (But in truth it appears, since the Tanna taught in Bekhorot there afterward: "One who takes his reward to judge, his judgments are void, etc." and it is explained in the Gemara because "just as I am for free, etc.", this implies that regarding a bekhor this does not apply; and perhaps because this is not a ruling, for the permission of a blemish is revealed to all, rather he is an expert in blemishes and this is nothing but general knowledge, and this requires further reflection for it seemingly implies so, see there and examine carefully.) (And the Ramban did not write so, see in section 5).

And it is further possible to say as was written in siman 1, section 11, regarding the opinion of the Rambam, who forbids purchasing meat from one who is not an expert. And we explained there that this is when he slaughters for himself and sells the meat, for we fear that perhaps out of a desire for money he will be lenient for himself in error, see there. And here too it is so, for since regarding the blemishes of a בכור there is much expertise required, which many will not understand to be a blemish, as we say in Sanhedrin (5b), see there. Therefore, it is possible that he will err himself because of the desire for money and imagine that it is a blemish when in truth it is not a blemish. However, according to this, now that we only permit with blemishes that are revealed to all, as was written in siman 309, this concern does not exist.

And furthermore I say that now in this time, when we do not permit except by three members of the synagogue, there is no concern of suspicion at all, as we say at the end of the second chapter of Yevamot. And I am wondered why the poskim did not mention this. And it is not reasonable to say that regarding monetary matters even three are suspected, for in Tosafot at the end of the sixth chapter of Gittin it is proven that even regarding monetary matters three are not suspected, see there. And it must be said that they wrote only regarding the essential law that a single expert may permit. And according to this, for us, for two reasons there is no suspicion: one, because there are three; and furthermore, because we do not permit except for a visible defect, as I have written. And nevertheless, one must deliberate on this, why they did not mention this at all, and it requires further study.

It appears more likely that the poskim do not hold like the explanation of Rashi, that the reason one who takes his reward for inspecting firstborns may not have a slaughter performed based on his word is due to suspicion, but rather as the Ramban wrote in his laws. This is his wording: The reason for this Mishnah is because it is forbidden to take a reward for a ruling, and one who takes it nullifies his ruling, and for this reason one does not slaughter based on his word, etc. And if there were a concern for suspicion, it would also be forbidden for Ila, etc. Rather, it is because of the reward for a ruling, etc. However, if he exerts effort, he may take for his effort and his idleness, etc. But a reward for inspection, no, unless, etc. like Ila in Yavne, etc. for since, etc. he is required to inspect at every single moment, etc. and he is completely idled from his work, the sages ordained for him, etc. Thus far his words. And according to this, it is correct that there is no difference between a visible blemish and a blemish that is not visible, or between one and three.

And also from the Rambam it appears so, for he wrote: "And the sages knew that there is none like him and they fixed for him a wage," etc. And why was it necessary that there be none like him, and why did they need to fix for him such and such a wage? Rather, it is because without this it would be forbidden for him to take [payment] if he is not idle from his work through this. And for this, it is necessary that there be none like him and everyone brings [the firstborn] to him, and likewise the beit din fixes the wage for him so that it will be evident that this is the wage for idleness that they established for him. And also the Tur wrote: "And this is provided that his wage for idleness is evident; and if he is a laborer and is idled from his work in order to see it, he gives him his wage as a laborer who has such work from which he was idled, and how much he would want to take to sit idle, so he shall give him." Thus far his words. And know that in Choshen Mishpat siman 264, the Tur explained "as an idle laborer" as being idle from that work and doing such work, but here he explained "in order to sit idle" because here he does not consider it work at all (Taz, subsection 1). And this is when they bring the firstborn to him, but if he must go to the firstborn, he is permitted to take for the exertion of his walking as much as he desires (see Derisha, that there is a contradiction in the Tur in several places regarding this matter of an idle laborer).

We learn at the end of the chapter "Ad Kamah": A person may see all firstborn animals except for his own, and it is a Mishnah in Negaim. The reason is due to suspicion, and this law does not apply to all rulings of forbidden and permitted, but only regarding a bekhor, as Rashi explained: that a kohen is not permitted to see a blemish of his firstborn animals and permit it. Thus far his words. Meaning, that kohanim are suspected regarding the bekhor, and we have already explained this above at the end of siman 18; see there. And specifically a single expert, but when they permit by means of three, three are not suspected (Gemara). And even if all of them are partners in it. And it is simple that a relative is permitted to sit among the three who permit, and it is possible that even he himself can join, and likewise the three may be relatives of one another, for this is not a legal judgment but a ruling (it appears to me).

Our sages, of blessed memory, further said in Bekhorot (38b): Even though they said a person may not inspect blemishes for himself, nevertheless, he may teach the halacha to students and they rule for him in practice. And it asks from that which we say: Any Torah scholar who teaches a halacha and comes—if he said it before the case occurred, we listen to him, and if not, we do not listen to him; meaning, if so, when he said previously regarding his own that it is a permanent blemish, how do we listen to him? And it answers that here too, it is a case where he was teaching and coming thus from the beginning, meaning, before his own case occurred.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: One may not examine blemishes on Yom Tov, but if he saw it before Yom Tov, he may investigate it on Yom Tov regarding how the blemish fell upon it. Thus far their words. The details of this law were explained in Orach Chaim siman 498; see there.