Question: Still, people will say that it is a Tam, and he permitted (to slaughter it, i.e. he said that it is a Ba'al Mum) because he does not want to toil another time (since he will not be paid for it)!

Answer #1: Chachamim did not obligate him to see it another time, just that if he saw it [again], he cannot take more wages for it.

Answer #2: They would never suspect him of this, to permit what is forbidden, in order to be saved from the toil of [seeing it] another time.

Implied question: A Beraisa teaches that a judge who takes wages to judge is repulsive, but his verdicts are valid!

Answer: It explains in Kesuvos (105a) that Agar Betelah (wages for being idle) that is evident [that he could have earned this amount in the time he judged] is permitted.

Question: Why do we need "v'Shochad Lo Sikach"? (A bribe is no less than wages to judge!)

Answer: This is not difficult. These are two matters, like is proven in Kesuvos (105a). Wages are for his toil, and a bribe is to try to judge him nicely and seek to vindicate him, like it says there [that a bribe is forbidden] even to acquit the innocent and obligate the Chayav.

Implied question: Judges who made decrees in Yerushalayim used to receive wages from Terumas ha'Lishkah (from the half-Shekalim that all men give every year to buy all Korbanos Tzibur)!

Answer: Without the reason of Agar Betelah that is proven, it is permitted there, since this was their only occupation. They must get income!

Pesak: Nowadays, the custom is to learn Torah for wages if he has no way to be financed. It is permitted, and even if he has (a way to be financed), if it is Agar Betelah that is proven.

Source #1: It is proven that he abandons all his affairs and business. Presumably, this is considered [Agar Betelah that is] proven more than Karna, who used to smell wine (to tell the owner how long it will last before souring) and take a Zuz. (Surely, Karna could have earned money in the time he judged!)

Source #2: [One who teaches] children it is permitted wages for guarding them, and for teaching the cantillation (musical notes for reading Mikra), like is proven in Nedarim (37a).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It says "even though he is a Yisrael" because Kohanim normally did Haza'ah. This is a difficult explanation.

Explanation #2 (Ri): [These words] were taught primarily for the Reisha. The Reisha taught in Kidushin (58a) one who is Mekadesh with Terumah, Ma'aseros and Matanos, with Mei Chatas and Efer Chatas (ashes of Parah Adumah)...

Explanation #1 - Inference: Through blowing [on the dust to reveal any bones that might be there] one may go to testify, but in any case he is Tamei, like it teaches "he was Metamei him from [eating] his Terumah."

Question: This is difficult for R. Tam, who explained that blowing helps for everything!

Question #1 (R. Tam): It says in Pesachim (92a) that Beis ha'Peras - Chachamim did not enforce their words in a case of Kares! (We do not prevent someone from fulfilling Korban Pesach due to the decree about Beis ha'Peras.)

Source (Ohalos 18:4 - Mishnah): They agree that we check [a Beis ha'Peras] for one who needs [to pass through] to do Pesach, and we do not check for one who [wants to] eat Terumah.

Citation (92b) Question: How does one check [a Beis ha'Pras]? Rav Yehudah says, he blows...

Summation of question: What was the question "how does one check"? The Bedikah is explicit there in the Mishnah!

The Seifa teaches "and for a Nazir, Beis Shamai say, we check. Beis Hillel say, we do not check. How does he check? He brings the earth that he can move (through walking) and puts it in a fine-holed sieve. If a bone the size of barley seed is found there, he is Tamei."

Question #2 (R. Tam): It connotes [there] that blowing helps only for one who does Pesach. It helps also for other matters, like it says in Eruvin (30b) [that we are Me'arev] for a Kohen in a Beis ha'Pras, for Rav Yehudah says, he blows...!

Answer (R. Tam): The text does not say "how does one check"? Rather, it says "Rav Yehudah says..." and it is a matter unto itself, and blowing helps for everything;

However, the Bedikah of the Mishnah does not help anywhere, except for one who does Pesach.

Answer - Explanation #2: We can explain our Sugya "he was Metamei him from his Terumah", i.e. he goes without blowing. It means as follows. How can he go? It answers in a Beis ha'Peras mid'Rabanan, for Rav Yehudah said...

From Rav Yehudah [the Gemara] brings a proof that Beis ha'Peras is not mid'Oraisa, rather, mid'Rabanan, since he permits for anything through blowing;

So Rashi explained in Kesuvos (28b) regarding "the following are believed to testify in their adulthood about what they saw when they were minors." (He is believed about Beis ha'Peras, for it is mid'Rabanan.)

Consequence: According to this, it is permitted without blowing for all Mitzvos, e.g. to testify.

Question: It does not connote like this in Eruvin (47a), since it said [that one may become Tamei through Chutz la'Aretz or Beis ha'Peras] to learn Torah, marry a woman, or go to judgment and claim from Nochrim, for this is like saving [one's money] from them;

Inference: Only these [are permitted], which are big Mitzvos, like it connotes in Megilah (27a)!

We say that to learn Torah or marry a woman is different, for learning Torah is great... marrying a woman is [is great], for "Lo l'Sohu Bera'ah..." (Hash-m created the world to be populated).

Or, for Kevod ha'Beriyos it is permitted (without blowing), like it says in Brachos (19b).

Answer: Really, the same applies to all Mitzvos. It mentioned to learn Torah because they argue there about when he finds from whom to learn (here). And it mentioned to marry a woman, even though he could find a wife in Eretz Yisrael.

Pesak: She'altos of Rav Achai permits to become Tamei through Beis ha'Peras for all Mitzvos, just like to go out to greet kings;

He explains the difference between a Nazir and one doing Pesach, and other Mitzvos, that regarding Pesach, he goes and he is Tahor through blowing, and for other Mitzvos he goes and he is Tamei.

Inference: He wants to say that for everything, he must blow, and even so he is Tamei for everything other than Pesach.

Question: This is astounding! In the case in Brachos (19b) it is permitted to go with the Avel through a Beis ha'Peras, for the Avel's honor. What honor is it, that he goes and blows after [the Avel], and the Avel must wait for him for each step?!

Answer: Perhaps the She'altos means that for all other Mitzvos, also without blowing is permitted, and the Gemara in Eruvin, if we are Me'arev for Reshus (not a Mitzvah), it is permitted through blowing. And if we are Me'arev only for a Mitzvah, it is permitted also without blowing.

Question (Tosfos' Rebbi, against R. Tam): In Chagigah (25b) we say that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that we check for one who does Pesach, and we do not check for one who eats Terumah. How do we check? Rav Yehudah said... one blows...

And later it says that for one who does Pesach [Chachamim] did not enforce their words in a case of Kares. For one who eats Terumah, they enforced their words in a case of Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim, for a Tamei who eats Terumah];

And later it asks if one checked for Pesach, may he eat his Terumah? If this refers to the Bedikah of our Mishnah, and [like R. Tam says] the text does not say "how do we check", it should not have interrupted with Rav Yehudah's teaching!

Explanation #3 (Tosfos' Rebbi): It seems that the text says "how do we check", and the Bedikah explicit in our Mishnah is after he passed through, and it helps for everything. (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Distinction: However, the wording "they check" connotes l'Chatchilah, in order to pass and do Pesach. Therefore, we ask "what is Bodkin?" - what is the Bedikah?

Conclusion: Now, there are three laws in Beis ha'Peras. For one who does Pesach according to everyone, and for a Nazir according to Beis Shamai, he blows and he is Tahor;

To learn Torah, marry a woman, go to judgment and claim [from Nochrim], or for Kevod ha'Beriyos, one may become Tamei without blowing;

And for other Mitzvos such as testimony, here it is permitted through blowing, and he is Tamei (lest a bone remained), and the same applies to Eruv, if one may be Me'arev only for a Mitzvah. One may become Tamei [and pass through] through blowing;

Possibility #1: And if one may be Me'arev even for Reshus, we may learn from there that it is permitted through blowing even without a Mitzvah, and he is Tamei.

Possibility #2: And perhaps even if one may be Me'arev even for Reshus, we can establish our Mishnah when he was Me'arev for a Mitzvah, for it is common to be Me'arev for a Mitzvah, like it teaches in Eruvin (82a) "[this Eruv is] for anyone who will go to the Avel's house or the [nuptial] feast", and it says there that it teaches a common case.

Observation: [According to Explanation #3,] in Chagigah (25b) it asks "one who checks for Pesach - may he eat Terumah?" about Rav Yehudah's Bedikah, and not about that of our Mishnah, and according to R. Tam it is opposite.

Explanation #4: We could say that all the Bedikos are for one who does Pesach, but the Bedikah of our Mishnah is after he passed through, and Rav Yehudah comes to teach how we check in order to pass through;

It is as if Rav Yehudah said 'what is "we check"?...', like the case in Bava Metzi'a (21a) "and how much (Peros may be scattered, and the finder may keep them)? Rav Yitzchak said, a Kav in four Amos", and in Bava Basra (22b) "how far [must one distance a wall from a window, so that it will not block the light? Rav Yeiva the father-in-law of Ashi'an said, like the width of the window." (Also there, the one who answered the question, he asked the question.)

Observation: In Chagigah (25a) the text says R. Chiya bar Aba in the name of Ula.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We view him like a worker Batel] from that Melachah that he neglected doing;

If he was piercing pearls (to put a string through them), which is an easy job and a great wage, and if we tell him "take this amount and be idle from work today", he would deduct only a little from his wage (i.e. he would demand almost his full wage before consenting to be idle), for it is easy, and there is no toil;

And if the job was difficult, e.g. a carpenter, if they tell him "now, you receive three Zuz. Take one Zuz and be idle from that job, to engage in light work", he is pleased to be Batel and receive one Zuz. Until here is from Rashi.

Objection: He should not have explained that he takes wages for being idle from that job, to engage in light work like this", for if so he receives wages to judge, testify, sprinkle or be Mekadesh!

Explanation #2: Rather, he should have explained that they give to him wages of being idle from that job, like one who sits and he is totally idle and does not do any work.

Support #1: Like this we must explain in Bava Metzi'a (31b) regarding Hashavas Aveidah. A Mishnah teaches that if he was Batel from a Sela [that he could have earned while he engaged with the Aveidah], he does not say "give to me a Sela." Rather, he gives to him his wage like a worker, and the Gemara explains like a worker idle from that job.

Remark: Also there, Rashi explained like he explained here.

Rejection #1: One cannot explain so, for if so he receives wages for Hashavas Aveidah!

Rejection #2: And even according to Rabanan, who say that loading is for wages (one who helps another to load his animal may demand to be paid for it), say so only because the Torah should have written loading, and it would not need to teach unloading (all the more so one must help to unload, for it also saves the animal from pain! Rather, it wrote both, to teach that loading is for wages, but unloading is for free.)

Rejection #3: In Bava Kama (56b) we say that a Shomer Aveidah is like a Shomer Chinam, for what benefit does he get?!

Conclusion: Rather, also there one must explain that [we estimate what one would want to receive] to sit totally idle.

Explanation #3: R. Chananel explained there, e.g. during the rest of the year they pay for sewing a garment only half a Sela, and now at the time of the festival he sews a garment for a Sela;

We do not say to him "take wages like what you abandon this Melachah, for which you receive a Sela, rather, like the wage you would receive like it during the rest of the year, that you would get only half [a Sela, and you neglect it] due to Hashavas Aveidah."

Objection #1: This is astounding! The words do not connote like this.

Objection #2: There is no reason to receive at the time of the Regel like during the rest of the year. This is like a Halachah without a reason.

Support #2 (for Explanation #2 - Citation - Bava Metzi'a 76b - Beraisa): If one hired workers and they tricked the employer [or vice-versa, the hurt party has only complaints...];

However, if donkey-drivers went and there was no grain [to carry] or workers went and the ground was wet [and unworkable, the employer] pays their full wage. However, there is a difference between coming carrying a burden and coming empty, and between doing work and sitting idle.

It says there that a Chacham taught [the above Beraisa] in front of Rav "he pays them their full wage." [Rav] said that R. Chiya said "if I were there, I would pay him only like an idle worker!"

Inference: He calls him an idle worker. This connotes like I explained, and not like R. Chananel explained at all! It is also not totally like Rashi explained.

Question: Another difficulty [for Rashi] is the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a (68a). Ploni may not appoint a grocer [to sell Ploni's merchandise] for half the profit, unless he pays him wages like an idle worker. (The Seifa says that the same applies if he gave to him money to buy goods);

The Gemara explains like a worker idle from the job he neglected. It was needed to teach this in both cases;

Had it taught so [only] in the Reisha regarding a grocer, [one might have thought that] this is because there is no toil, but in the Seifa, that he has toil, it does not suffice like an idle worker.

Summation of question: Why would one think that it does not suffice like an idle worker? This is his entire law, that they give to him more, according to his toil!

Strengthening of question: Further, in a Beraisa there [Tana'im] argue. How much is his wage? R. Meir says, it is much or a little. R. Yehudah says, even if he merely dipped [his bread] with him in [the employer's] brine. R. Shimon says, he gives to him his full wage;

Now, our Mishnah is R. Shimon, that this is his full wage. The Tosefta connotes that our Mishnah is R. Meir, for it teaches that one who appoints a grocer for half the wages, he pays him wages like an idle worker. R. Meir says so!

Also, the Seifa of the Tosefta teaches, R. Shimon says, he gives to him his full wage. One who works is unlike one who sits idle. One who sits in the sun is unlike one who sits in the shade.

According to Rashi in our Sugya and in Bava Metzi'a, this is difficult!

Observation: However, according to what I explained, that like an idle worker means that he sits totally idle, it is fine. (R. Meir says like an idle worker, for he does not consider what he does now. R. Shimon gives more based on the toil of what he does now. This is why he says "one who works is unlike one who sits idle...") And it is not difficult at all what it says in the Gemara "we need to teach both [the Reisha and Seifa]."

And R. Meir said "whether much or a little", i.e. whether he was [until now] engaged in a great Melachah or a small Melachah. Always, he pays him like an idle worker.

R. Shimon says, he gives to him his full wage. We estimate how much he would want to take and be idle from the heavy Melachah he was engaged in, and engage in a light Melachah like this. This is more than R. Meir's [opinion];

"He sits idle" of the Tosefta is not totally idle, rather, from the severe [hard] job.

Explanation #4: R. Tam explained there "like an idle worker", like an idle man who does not find someone to hire him, and he is Batel, and he would be hired easily (for a small amount);

He does not give to him like workers go (are hired) for now, that they are hired for very much. E.g. if he was hired now for two Sela'im, and when he was Batel, he would receive only a Sela.