Parashat Mishpatim 5780

The physician is forbidden to take payment for his wisdow and learning¹⁰B.K. 81b; San. 73a; Sifre Deut. XXII, 2, derived from, ‘And thou shalt restore to him’ which implies that not only lost objects must be returned to their owner, but even if the person proper is lost or is sick, one is dutibound to restore the person of his fellow-man. Hence, this includes giving medical advice which may save the patient and restore his person to good health. Consequently, this must be done gratuitously. Cf. Bek. 29a, ‘Just as I teach gratuitously, so must you teach gratuitously,’ for one must not receive remuneration for the performance of a religious duty. ibid. Mishna. Advising the patient which medicine to take would refer to learning and wisdom which must be offered gratis; visiting the patient or writing a prescription would refer to trouble and lost time for which payment may be accepted — A.H. but he may receive payment for his trouble¹¹Bek. 29a; Kid. 58a. and lost time.¹²Bek. ibid. a and b; B.M. 31b.

MISHNA: In the case of an individual who takes payment to be one who examines firstborn animals to determine whether they are blemished, one may not slaughter the firstborn on the basis of his ruling, unless he was an expert like Ila in Yavne, whom the Sages in Yavne permitted to take a wage of four issar for issuing a ruling concerning a small animal and six issar for issuing a ruling concerning a large animal. They permitted this provided that he would be paid whether it turned out that the firstborn was unblemished or whether it was blemished. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages in Yavne said that Ila could take a wage of four issar for issuing a ruling concerning a small animal but six issar for issuing a ruling concerning a large animal? The Gemara answers: Examining this one, a firstborn of a large animal, for blemishes involves great effort; but examining that one, the firstborn of a small animal, does not involve such great effort. § The mishna teaches that one like Ila may take his wages provided that he would be paid whether it turns out that the firstborn is unblemished or whether it is blemished. The Gemara inquires: Granted, if the animal is blemished he takes his wages, because he deems the animal permitted to be slaughtered and eaten; but if he examined an unblemished animal, why does he take his wages? The Gemara answers that if so, i.e., if he would be paid for examining only a blemished animal, people would come to suspect him and say that this animal that he declared to be blemished is in fact unblemished, and he declared it blemished and thereby deemed it permitted to be eaten only due to the fact that he wanted to claim his wages. The Gemara challenges: If so, then in a situation where the examiner is paid either way, people might also state a similar claim with regard to one who rules that it is an unblemished animal. They may suspect that this animal is really blemished, and the reason that this expert did not deem it permitted is that he holds that it is preferable for him to declare it unblemished so that he can collect his wages another time, when he examines it later and declares it blemished. The Gemara answers: The Sages of Yavne instituted an ordinance that he may take his wages for examining a firstborn once, but the Sages did not institute that he may take his wages twice for examining the same animal. Since he will not get paid a second time for the same animal, he has no incentive to declare it unblemished if it has a blemish. MISHNA: In the case of one who takes his wages to judge cases, his rulings are void. In the case of one who takes wages to testify, his testimonies are void. With regard to one who takes wages to sprinkle the purification waters of the red heifer upon one who contracted impurity imparted by a corpse, and one who takes wages to sanctify those waters, the halakhic status of his water is that of cave water, and the status of his ashes is that of mere burnt ashes. Although taking actual wages is prohibited, if the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was a priest, and the one who requires his services rendered him impure and prevented him from partaking of his teruma, that person must provide the priest with food, drink, and oil for smearing on his body from his own non-sacred property. And likewise if the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, was an elderly person, the one who requires his services transports him on a donkey. And in all these cases, although it is prohibited to take wages, the one who requires his services gives him his wages like the wages of a laborer, as he was unable to perform his usual labor that day. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the rulings of one who takes wages to judge cases are void. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that a judge may not be paid for his rulings, derived? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that it is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do so in the midst of the land that you are going in to possess” (Deuteronomy 4:5). This teaches that just as I, Moses, learned the word of God for free, so too, you learned it from me for free, and this is also how you should act with all future generations. This halakha is also taught in a baraita: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me” (Deuteronomy 4:5). Just as I learned from God for free, so too, you learned from me for free. And from where is it derived that if one cannot find someone to teach him for free that he should learn even by giving payment? The verse states: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (Proverbs 23:23). And from where is it derived that one should not say: Just as I learned by giving payment, so too, I will teach it by receiving payment? The verse states: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it.” The mishna teaches: With regard to one who takes wages to sprinkle the purification waters of the red heifer, and one who takes wages to sanctify those waters, the halakhic status of his water is that of cave water, and the status of his ashes is that of mere burnt ashes. This indicates that one may not derive any benefit from the water or ashes of the red heifer. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Kiddushin 58a): With regard to one who betroths a woman with the water of purification, or with the ashes of purification, she is betrothed, and this is the halakha even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite, not a priest or a Levite. This indicates that one may derive benefit from the waters or ashes of purification.