The mishnah states that a mumcheh should not be paid for judging whether the blemish on an animal is temporary or permanent (since his judgement will be swayed by his payment), unless he is like Ila of Yavneh (whom would never be suspected of such things). However, the gemara explains that the rabanan did in fact fear Ila would be suspected and therefore allowed him to take payment to check the animal, whether he decide that its mum was kavua or oveir, and that he only be paid the first time he inspects a particular animal? Furthermore, under these conditions, why couldn't a regular mumcheh avoid suspicion as well? LiMaskana, what differenciates Ila from other mumchehs that makes Ila not 'nechshad bikach' (as Rashi explains in the mishnah)?
Regarding the same sugya, the gemara asks why the mumcheh is paid for checking an animal that is 'tam.' Rashi explains that we may have assumed the mumcheh wouldn't be paid because he assurs the owner's animal, he provides no benefit to the owner. But hasn't this assumption already been rejected when the gemara explained the difference in payments for a large and small animal? If the gemara doesn't answer "the mumcheh is paid six sela'im for checking a large animal because he permits a greater value of meat to be slaughtered by the owner" and rather answers "nafish tircheh," then shouldn't it be clear that the mumcheh is paid for the effort put into checking the animal?
David Kohn, Springfield, New Jersey
The difference between a regular Mumcheh and Ila is that a regular Mumcheh is actually Chashud. Ila was not Chashud; restrictions were made on when he could receive payment not because he was Chashud, but in order to prevent people from thinking that he is biased.
Your second question is a very good, and difficult, question. I saw that Sefer Reishis Bikurim asks the question. After he proves that when one is paid for Tircha, he gets paid even if in the end there is no gain to the employer, he answers b'Dochak that since the payment is not a deal between the owner and the Mumcheh but rather a set payment mi'Takanas Chachamim, it should have sufficed for the Chachamim to make the Takanah only when the owner had some benefit.
D. Zupnik
Sorry, I still don't understand; my question is: So, why could these restrictions not be applied to anyone else, even if Chashud - why would anyone pasken incorrectly if there is no financial gain (since they are paid whatever they pasken, and only the first time)?
The Chashad is that he is changing his ruling for the benefit of his benefactor.
D. Zupnik