Bechorot Daf 30 (בכורות דף ל׳)
Daf: 30 | Amudim: 30a – 30b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (30a)
Segment 1
TYPE: מעשה (המשך) וקושיא
The suspected butcher sold forbidden kidney fat as permitted intestinal fat; Rava barred him even from selling nuts, and Rav Pappa objects that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s view, which would bar water and salt too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּרְבָּא דְּאַטְמָא בְּמַר דְּכַנְתָּא, קַנְסֵיהּ רָבָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי אֲפִילּוּ אַמְגּוֹזֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲפִילּוּ מַיִם וָמֶלַח נָמֵי!
English Translation:
fat of the kidney adjacent to the thigh, which is forbidden, in place of fat of the intestines, which is permitted. Rava penalized him and prohibited him even from selling nuts. Rav Pappa said to Rava: In accordance with which opinion in the mishna is your ruling? It must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then you should prohibit this butcher from selling even water and salt.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the story that broke off at the end of 29b. The butcher was caught passing off tarba de’atma — forbidden chelev from the area of the kidneys near the thigh — as the permitted fat that covers the intestines. Rava fined him by forbidding him to sell even nuts, goods that have nothing to do with fat. Rav Pappa reads this as following Rabbi Yehuda of the mishna on 29b, who forbids buying anything at all from a suspect; but if so, Rava should have been consistent and barred even water and salt, which Rabbi Yehuda explicitly includes.
Key Terms:
- תַּרְבָּא דְּאַטְמָא = fat of the thigh region (near the kidneys), a forbidden chelev
- מַר דְּכַנְתָּא = fat of the intestines, which is permitted
- קַנְסֵיהּ = he penalized him (a rabbinic fine, kenas)
- אַמְגּוֹזֵי = nuts
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: I rule like Rabbi Shimon — the nuts were the very tool of his offence, used to bribe butchers’ children into bringing him forbidden fat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּבְאִיסּוּרָא דְּגוּפֵיהּ קָנְסִינַן לֵיהּ. סְתָם דַּרְדְּקֵי גְּרוּ בְּאַמְגּוֹזֵי, וְאָזֵיל וּמְשַׁבֵּשׁ לִבְנֵי טַבָּחֵי, וְגָרֵי לְהוּ בְּאַמְגּוֹזֵי, וּמַיְיתוּ לֵיהּ תַּרְבָּא דְּאַטְמָא, וּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ בְּמַר דְּכַנְתָּא.
English Translation:
Rava replied: Actually, my ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one is suspected only about those items that are related to the prohibition in question. And we are in fact penalizing him with regard to items related to the prohibition itself. How so? Ordinary children are enticed by nuts, and that individual went and misled the children of butchers and enticed them with nuts, and they brought him fat of the kidney that is adjacent to the thigh, and he sold it as though it were fat of the intestines.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava answers that he follows Rabbi Shimon, who limits suspicion to goods connected with the offence. The nuts were in fact connected: the man used them to lure the children of butchers, who brought him forbidden fat from their fathers’ shops, and he resold it as permitted fat. Forbidding him to deal in nuts therefore cuts off the means of the transgression itself, which is still a penalty ‘in the prohibition itself’ and stays within Rabbi Shimon’s narrow scope. The story shows that ‘related to the prohibition’ covers not only look-alike goods but also the instruments of the fraud.
Key Terms:
- לְעוֹלָם = actually, in truth (introducing a defence of the original position)
- בְּאִיסּוּרָא דְּגוּפֵיהּ = with regard to the prohibition itself
- דַּרְדְּקֵי = small children
- גְּרוּ = are enticed, are drawn
- מְשַׁבֵּשׁ = misleads, corrupts
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
Suspicion regarding Shevi’it and regarding tithes does not carry over from one to the other; either implies suspicion regarding purity, but not the reverse; and one suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify in it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית — אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת — אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית. הֶחָשׁוּד עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה — חָשׁוּד עַל הַטְּהָרוֹת, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּד עַל הַטְּהָרוֹת — וְאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד לֹא עַל זֶה וְלֹא עַל זֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל: הֶחָשׁוּד עַל דָּבָר — לֹא דָּנוֹ וְלֹא מְעִידוֹ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One who is suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year is not suspect with regard to tithes; and likewise, one who is suspect with regard to tithes is not suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year. One who is suspect with regard to this, the Sabbatical Year, or with regard to that, tithes, is suspect with regard to selling ritually impure foods as though they were ritually pure items. But there are those who are suspect with regard to ritually pure items who are not suspect with regard to this, the Sabbatical Year, nor with regard to that, tithes. This is the principle with regard to these matters: Anyone who is suspect with regard to a specific matter may neither adjudicate cases nor testify in cases involving that matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna maps how suspicion moves between categories of law. Shevi’it and tithes are independent: a person lax in one is not assumed lax in the other. Laxity in either, both of them Torah-level, implies laxity in taharot (eating ordinary food in ritual purity), which is a rabbinic standard; but a person may be careless about taharot while still reliable on the Torah laws. The closing rule, ‘one suspect in a matter neither judges nor testifies in it’, turns the market-place question of the last few mishnayot into a question of legal standing in court.
Key Terms:
- שְׁבִיעִית = the Sabbatical Year and the sanctity of its produce
- מַעַשְׂרוֹת = tithes, here especially second tithe (maaser sheni)
- טְהָרוֹת = ritually pure foods; the practice of eating ordinary food in purity
- הֶחָשׁוּד עַל דָּבָר לֹא דָּנוֹ וְלֹא מְעִידוֹ = one suspect regarding a matter may neither judge it nor testify about it
- זֶה הַכְּלָל = this is the general principle
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא (טעם)
Why suspicion on Shevi’it does not imply suspicion on tithes: second tithe must be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem, so it feels weightier
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? שְׁבִיעִית לָא בָּעֲיָא חוֹמָה, מַעֲשֵׂר — כֵּיוָן דְּבָעֵי חוֹמָה, חֲמִיר לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who is suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year is not suspect with regard to tithes. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? One is not required to eat produce of the Sabbatical Year within the wall of Jerusalem, and therefore he treats it lightly. As for second tithe, since one is required to eat it only within the wall of Jerusalem, it is possible that it seems more stringent for him, and therefore he is not suspect, despite the suspicions with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the first clause in terms of how the person himself experiences the laws. Shevi’it produce may be eaten anywhere, while maaser sheni must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten inside its walls, a requirement that gives it a sense of sanctity Shevi’it seems to lack. A person who treats Shevi’it lightly may still respect maaser. The question is not which law is formally stricter but which one this kind of person is likely to take seriously.
Key Terms:
- חוֹמָה = the wall (of Jerusalem), inside which second tithe must be eaten
- מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי = second tithe, eaten by its owner in Jerusalem or redeemed for money
- חֲמִיר לֵיהּ = it is stringent in his eyes
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא (טעם)
Why suspicion on tithes does not imply suspicion on Shevi’it: tithes can be redeemed, Shevi’it cannot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מַאי טַעְמָא? מַעֲשֵׂר אִית לֵיהּ פִּדְיוֹן, שְׁבִיעִית — כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מִיתַּסְרָא לֵיהּ וְלֵית לֵיהּ פִּדְיוֹן — חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: One who is suspect with regard to tithe is not suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Since there is redemption for tithes, one might treat them lightly. As for produce of the Sabbatical Year, since it is always prohibited to him and there is no redemption of it, it is possible that it seems more stringent for him, and therefore he is not suspect.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reverse clause is explained the same way, through a feature that points the other way. Maaser sheni can be redeemed for money, so a person might regard it as a soft obligation. Shevi’it produce, by contrast, remains forbidden for ordinary use with no comparable redemption, so it may feel more serious to him. Since each category has its own claim to seriousness, suspicion in one tells us nothing about the other.
Key Terms:
- פִּדְיוֹן = redemption, transferring sanctity onto money
- מִיתַּסְרָא לֵיהּ = it is forbidden to him
- חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ = it is stringent in his eyes
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא (קל וחומר)
One suspect on Torah-level Shevi’it or tithes is certainly suspect on rabbinic-level purity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֶחָשׁוּד עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲשִׁיד אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַדְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: One who is suspect with regard to this, the Sabbatical Year, or with regard to that, tithes, is suspect with regard to selling ritually impure foods as though they were ritually pure items. The Gemara explains: Since he is suspect with regard to matters that apply by Torah law, all the more so that he is suspect with regard to matters that are by rabbinic law. Eating non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity is an ordinance of the Sages; it does not apply by Torah law. Consequently, he is certainly not trusted with regard to that matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third clause is a simple a fortiori. Shevi’it and tithes are Torah law; eating ordinary food in purity is a rabbinic practice adopted by the chaverim. A person who disregards a Torah prohibition can hardly be trusted to keep a voluntary rabbinic standard. This is the one direction in which suspicion clearly spreads: from the heavier to the lighter.
Key Terms:
- אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = with regard to Torah law
- אַדְּרַבָּנַן = with regard to rabbinic law
- כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן = all the more so
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא וקושיא
Suspicion on purity does not spread upward to Torah law — but a baraita implies that one suspect on purity is suspect on Shevi’it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיֵשׁ חָשׁוּד עַל הַטְּהָרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? נְהִי אַדְּרַבָּנַן חֲשִׁיד, אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא חֲשִׁיד. וּרְמִינְהִי: נֶאֱמָן עַל הַטְּהָרוֹת — נֶאֱמָן עַל שְׁבִיעִית, הָא חֲשִׁיד — חֲשִׁיד!
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: But there are those who are suspect with regard to ritually pure items who are not suspect with regard to this, the Sabbatical Year, or with regard to that, tithes. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Granted, he is suspect with regard to prohibitions that are by rabbinic law, but he is not suspect with regard to prohibitions that are by Torah law. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If one is trusted with regard to ritually pure items he is trusted with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year. It can be inferred from here that if he is suspect with regard to ritually pure items he is likewise suspect with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the fourth clause: laxity in a rabbinic standard does not show disregard for Torah law. It then cites a baraita that says ‘one trusted on purity is trusted on Shevi’it’, and reads it by inference: if trust on purity carries over to Shevi’it, then suspicion on purity should carry over too. That directly contradicts the mishna, which says one may be suspect on purity and still reliable on Shevi’it.
Key Terms:
- נְהִי = granted that
- וּרְמִינְהִי = and they raised a contradiction
- נֶאֱמָן = trusted, reliable
- הָא = by implication, the converse
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Ilai: the mishna speaks of one who has been seen observing Shevi’it and tithes privately at home
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַי: מַתְנִיתִין כְּשֶׁרְאִינוּהוּ שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בְּצִינְעָא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ilai says: The mishna is referring to a case where they saw him practicing stringencies with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year and tithes privately, within his home. Since he himself is known to be trustworthy in these matters in private, he is not suspected of violating these prohibitions in his business, despite his lack of trustworthiness with regard to ritual purity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ilai resolves the contradiction by narrowing the mishna. The person who is suspect on purity but trusted on Shevi’it and tithes is one whom we have actually seen observing those laws carefully in private, in his own home. That private evidence earns him trust where it applies, despite his laxity in purity. The baraita, which links the two, deals with someone about whom we have no such evidence. The idea of private conduct (בצינעא) as evidence returns on amud bet in the laws of accepting chaverut.
Key Terms:
- מַתְנִיתִין = our mishna
- בְּצִינְעָא = in private, discreetly
- נוֹהֵג = practises, conducts himself
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ (אחר)
Rabbi Yannai son of Rabbi Yishmael: the baraita speaks of one who formally accepted both before the Sages and then lapsed in one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יַנַּאי בְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דַּהֲוָה חֲשִׁיד לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ, וַאֲתָא קַמֵּי רַבָּנַן וְקַבֵּיל אַתַּרְוַיְיהוּ, וַהֲדַר אִיחֲשַׁד אַחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, דְּאָמְרִינַן: מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַהָא — חֲשִׁיד נָמֵי אַאִידַּךְ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, said that there is an alternative answer: The baraita is referring to a case where one was suspect with regard to both ritually pure items and produce of the Sabbatical Year, and he came before the Sages and accepted upon himself that he would observe both of them, and afterward he was suspected with regard to one of them. The reason for the halakha here is that we say: Since he is suspect with regard to this one of them, he is also suspect with regard to the other one. Although one of the prohibitions is more stringent than the other, the court has seen that he cannot be trusted to keep his word about either of them.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second resolution places the difference in the baraita instead. It deals with a person who was once suspect on both purity and Shevi’it, came before the Sages and formally undertook both, and then was found lax in one of them. Having broken a commitment made before the court, he loses credibility on the other as well: ‘since (מיגו) he is suspect in this, he is suspect in that’. The mishna, by contrast, describes someone who never made such an undertaking. This prepares the ground for the laws of formal acceptance on amud bet.
Key Terms:
- קַבֵּיל = he accepted (took upon himself a commitment)
- מִיגּוֹ = since — reasoning that what is true in one respect is true in another
- אִיחֲשַׁד = he became suspect
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא (מימרא)
Rabbi Yochanan: the mishna is the unattributed view of Rabbi Akiva; the Sages hold that one suspect on Shevi’it is suspect on tithes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית — חָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: One who is suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year is not suspect with regard to tithes. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, the unattributed. Most unattributed statements of tanna’im were formulated by Rabbi Akiva’s students and reflect his opinions. But the Rabbis say: One who is suspect with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year is suspect with regard to tithe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now identifies the authorship of the mishna’s first clause. Rabbi Yochanan, transmitted by Rabba bar bar Chana, attributes it to Rabbi Akiva, whose views are often recorded anonymously in the Mishna. Against him stand the ‘Sages’, who say that suspicion on Shevi’it does carry over to tithes. The next segment asks who these Sages are.
Key Terms:
- סְתִימְתָּאָה = the unattributed one — Rabbi Akiva, whose students recorded his views anonymously
- חֲכָמִים = the Sages (here, a specific dissenting tanna)
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא (זיהוי ומעשה)
The Sages are Rabbi Yehuda, in whose locale Shevi’it was treated with special severity, as a story about an exchange of insults shows
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּבְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׁבִיעִית חֲמִירָא לְהוּ, דְּהָהוּא דַּהֲוָה קָרֵי לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ ״דַּיָּירָא בַּר דַּיָּירְתָּא״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תֵּיתֵי לִי דְּלָא אֲכַלִי פֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית כְּוָותָךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Who are the Sages referred to here as the Rabbis? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as in Rabbi Yehuda’s locale they considered produce of the Sabbatical Year an especially stringent prohibition. Therefore, if a resident of that place was suspect with regard to the Sabbatical Year, he was certainly not trusted with regard to tithes. As in that locale, if a certain person would call another: A convert, son of a female convert, wishing to insult him, that person would say to him in reply: I have a blessing coming to me, as I do not eat produce of the Sabbatical Year like you do. This indicates that the accusation of eating produce of the Sabbatical Year was a great insult, since they treated the Sabbatical Year stringently.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dissenting ‘Sages’ are Rabbi Yehuda, and his view reflects the place where he lived. There, Shevi’it was taken so seriously that one man, insulted as ‘a convert son of a convert’, answered that at least he did not eat Shevi’it produce like his attacker, as if that were the worse charge. Where Shevi’it was treated as the more serious law, a person who broke it would surely not hold back from tithes. The halacha of suspicion follows how serious the law is in the eyes of that community.
Key Terms:
- בְּאַתְרֵיהּ = in his locale
- דַּיָּירָא בַּר דַּיָּירְתָּא = lit. ‘a resident son of a resident (woman)’ — a convert son of a convert, used as a taunt
- תֵּיתֵי לִי = may it come to me (as merit) — I deserve credit that…
- פֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית = produce of the Sabbatical Year
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא (לישנא אחרינא)
An alternative version: the Sages hold that one suspect on tithes is suspect on Shevi’it, and they are Rabbi Meir, for whom suspicion in one matter extends to the whole Torah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית. וּמַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: חָשׁוּד לְדָבָר אֶחָד הָוֵי חָשׁוּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
English Translation:
There are those who say that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, the unattributed. But the Rabbis say: One who is suspect with regard to tithe is suspect with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year. And who are the Sages referred to here as the Rabbis? It is Rabbi Meir, who says: One who is suspect with regard to one matter is suspect with regard to the entire Torah.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second version of Rabbi Yochanan’s statement has the Sages dispute the mishna’s other clause: one suspect on tithes is suspect on Shevi’it. On this version the Sages are Rabbi Meir, who holds the broadest view of suspicion — a person suspect in one matter is suspect in the whole Torah. On Rabbi Meir’s view the mishna’s careful distinctions disappear, since any proven laxity undermines all trust.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי = there are those who say (an alternative version)
- חָשׁוּד לְדָבָר אֶחָד הָוֵי חָשׁוּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ = one suspect in one matter is suspect in the entire Torah
Segment 13
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (התחלה)
Two students dispute which version is correct — the first view begins here and continues on 30b
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹנָה וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי זְעֵירָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָה וְרַבִּי זְעֵירָא תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, חַד אָמַר: אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmeya, who were students of Rabbi Zeira, disagreed about this matter. And some say that it was Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Zeira, students of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who disagreed. One said: But the Rabbis say that one who is suspect with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year
קלאוד על הדף:
The two versions of the previous segments are now attributed to two Amoraim: Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmeya, students of Rabbi Zeira, or according to another tradition Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Zeira, students of Rabbi Yochanan. The first opinion begins: ‘the Sages say that one suspect on Shevi’it…’ The sentence breaks off at the end of the amud and finishes on 30b.
Key Terms:
- תַּלְמִידֵי = students of
- וְאָמְרִי לַהּ = and some say (an alternative attribution)
- חַד אָמַר = one said
Amud Bet (30b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (המשך)
One view: the Sages are Rabbi Yehuda (Shevi’it implies tithes); the other: the Sages are Rabbi Meir (tithes imply Shevi’it)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, וּמַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְחַד אָמַר: הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית, וּמַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
is suspect with regard to tithe. And who are the Sages referred to here as the Rabbis? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as in his locale they treated the prohibition of produce of the Sabbatical Year stringently. And the other one says: One who is suspect with regard to tithe is suspect with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year. And who are the Sages referred to here as the Rabbis? It is Rabbi Meir.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the sentence from 30a. One student held the first version: the Sages who say suspicion on Shevi’it implies suspicion on tithes are Rabbi Yehuda, because of how seriously his locale treated Shevi’it. The other held the second version: the Sages say suspicion on tithes implies suspicion on Shevi’it, and they are Rabbi Meir. The Gemara now brings the source for Rabbi Meir’s sweeping view.
Key Terms:
- וּמַאן חֲכָמִים = and who are the Sages?
- וְחַד אָמַר = and the other one said
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא (מחלוקת)
An am ha’aretz who accepted chaver status and was then suspected in one matter: Rabbi Meir — suspect in the whole Torah; the Sages — only in that matter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוּת, וְנֶחְשַׁד לְדָבָר אֶחָד — נֶחְשַׁד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נֶחְשָׁד אֶלָּא לְאוֹתוֹ דָּבָר בִּלְבַד.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 2:4): With regard to an am ha’aretz, i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity and tithes, who accepts upon himself the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status, i.e., that he will be stringent in all matters observed by ḥaverim, including teruma, tithes, and ḥalla, and also undertake to eat only food that is ritually pure, and the Sages accepted him as trustworthy but subsequently he was suspected with regard to one matter in which others saw him act improperly, he is suspected with regard to the entire Torah. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He is suspected only with regard to that particular matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita (Tosefta Demai 2:4) supplies Rabbi Meir’s source. An am ha’aretz who formally took on the obligations of a chaver — careful tithing and eating ordinary food in purity — and was then caught lax in one matter is, for Rabbi Meir, suspect in everything, since his whole undertaking has proven hollow. The Sages limit the suspicion to the matter in which he actually failed. This is the same dispute over how far suspicion spreads that has run through the perek since 29b.
Key Terms:
- עַם הָאָרֶץ = an am ha’aretz — one not trusted regarding tithes and purity
- דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוּת = the obligations of a chaver
- חָבֵר = a chaver, member of the fellowship committed to tithing and purity
- נֶחְשַׁד = he became suspect
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
A convert suspected in one matter is suspect in the whole Torah, like a Jewish transgressor — yet his betrothal remains valid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַגֵּר שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֲפִילּוּ נֶחְשַׁד לְדָבָר אֶחָד — הָוֵי חָשׁוּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ, דְּאִי קַדֵּישׁ — קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין.
English Translation:
It is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 2:4): With regard to a convert who accepted upon himself upon his conversion matters of Torah, i.e., all of the mitzvot, even if he is suspect with regard to one matter alone, he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, and he is considered like a Jewish transgressor [meshummad], who habitually transgresses the mitzvot. The Gemara explains that the practical difference resulting from the fact that he is considered like a Jewish transgressor is that if he betroths a woman, his betrothal is a valid betrothal, and they are married. Although he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, he does not return to his prior gentile status.
קלאוד על הדף:
A further baraita treats the convert more strictly: if he is suspected of disregarding even one mitzva, he is suspect in all of them and has the status of a meshummad, a Jew who habitually transgresses. The Gemara stresses that this status is that of a Jew: his kiddushin is valid, so the conversion is not undone by his later conduct. However far his credibility falls, he is still fully Jewish.
Key Terms:
- גֵּר = a convert
- יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד = a Jew who habitually transgresses (meshummad)
- נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ = the practical difference
- קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין = his betrothal is a valid betrothal
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא (מחלוקת)
One who accepts chaver status, or a gentile who accepts the Torah, except for one matter, is not accepted; Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda — even one rabbinic detail
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַבָּא לְקַבֵּל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוּת, חוּץ מִדָּבָר אֶחָד — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. גּוֹי שֶׁבָּא לְקַבֵּל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, חוּץ מִדָּבָר אֶחָד — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ דִּקְדּוּק אֶחָד מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who comes to accept upon himself the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status except for one matter, which he does not wish to observe, he is not accepted, and he is not trustworthy even with regard to those matters that he does wish to accept upon himself. Likewise, in the case of a gentile who comes to convert and takes upon himself to accept the words of Torah except for one matter, he is not accepted as a convert. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if he refuses to accept one detail of rabbinic law, he is not accepted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Acceptance must be complete. A would-be chaver who excludes even one obligation is not accepted, and a gentile who wishes to convert while rejecting one law of the Torah is not accepted as a convert. Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda extends this to the smallest point of rabbinic law. A partial commitment is not a commitment at all, since the man has kept for himself the right to decide which laws bind him.
Key Terms:
- הַבָּא לְקַבֵּל = one who comes to accept
- אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ = he is not accepted
- דִּקְדּוּק אֶחָד מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים = a single detail of rabbinic law
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך ודרשה)
The same applies to a Levite or priest who accepts his duties except one; the verse ‘He among the sons of Aaron that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings’ teaches it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכֵן בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁבָּא לְקַבֵּל דִּבְרֵי לְוִיָּה, וְכֹהֵן שֶׁבָּא לְקַבֵּל דִּבְרֵי כְהוּנָּה, חוּץ מִדָּבָר אֶחָד — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְגוֹ׳״, הָעֲבוֹדָה הַמְּסוּרָה לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ — אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: And similarly, in the case of a Levite who comes to accept the matters of a Levite, or a priest who comes to accept the matters of priesthood, except for one matter, he is not accepted. As it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This means that with regard to the Temple service, which is handed over to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to it in its entirety has no share in the priesthood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita extends the principle to the Levites and priests: one who accepts the duties of his office except for one is not accepted. The source is Vayikra 7:33, read as ‘he among the sons of Aaron who offers’ — the share of the priesthood belongs to a priest who affirms the Temple service. A priest who denies even one part of the service handed to the sons of Aaron ‘has no share in the priesthood’.
Key Terms:
- דִּבְרֵי לְוִיָּה / כְהוּנָּה = the duties of a Levite / of the priesthood
- הָעֲבוֹדָה הַמְּסוּרָה לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן = the service handed to the sons of Aaron
- אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה = he has no share in the priesthood
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא (מחלוקת)
If the candidate has been seen keeping chaver practices at home, he is accepted and then taught; otherwise taught and then accepted; Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai — accepted either way
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַבָּא לְקַבֵּל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוּת, אִם רְאִינוּהוּ שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בְּצִינְעָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם לָאו — מְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ, וְהוּא לָמֵד כְּדַרְכּוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues on a similar topic. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who comes to accept upon himself a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status, if we have seen that he practices such matters in private, within his home, he is accepted, and afterward he is taught the precise details of being a ḥaver. But if we have not seen him act as a ḥaver in his home, he is taught first and afterward accepted. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Whether in this case or that case, he is first accepted, and he then continues to learn in the usual manner, i.e., as a ḥaver he learns from others how to behave.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita sets the order of acceptance. A candidate whose private conduct already matches a chaver’s is accepted at once and taught the finer details afterward; one with no such record is taught first and only then accepted. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai accepts both immediately and lets the newcomer learn as he goes. Private conduct as evidence (בצינעה) echoes Rabbi Ilai’s answer on 30a.
Key Terms:
- בְּצִינְעָה = in private
- מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ = he is accepted
- מְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ = he is taught
- לָמֵד כְּדַרְכּוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ = he learns in the ordinary course
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Acceptance begins with the purity of the hands and then extends to purity in general; one may accept hands alone, but not purity without hands
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְקַבְּלִין לִכְנָפַיִם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְקַבְּלִין לִטְהָרוֹת, וְאִם אָמַר: ״אֵינִי מְקַבֵּל אֶלָּא לִכְנָפַיִם״ — מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. קִיבֵּל לַטְּהָרוֹת וְלֹא קִיבֵּל לַכְּנָפַיִם — אַף לַטְּהָרוֹת לֹא קִיבֵּל.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: An am ha’aretz who wishes to become a ḥaver is accepted first with regard to hands, i.e., he is presumed to be stringent concerning the ritual purity of his hands by making sure to wash his hands before handling pure items, and afterward he is accepted as trustworthy for purity in general. And if he says: I wish to accept purity only with regard to hands, he is accepted for this. If he wishes to accept upon himself the stringencies of a ḥaver with regard to ritual purity but he does not accept upon himself the stringencies with regard to hands, i.e., to wash his hands, which is a simple act, he is not accepted even for purity in general.
קלאוד על הדף:
The would-be chaver’s commitment comes in stages. He is first accepted for ‘wings’ — the purity of the hands, chiefly washing before touching pure food — and only afterward for taharot in general. He may limit himself to hands, but he cannot take on general purity while refusing the simpler duty of hand-washing. One who rejects the easy first step shows that his larger commitment cannot be trusted.
Key Terms:
- כְּנָפַיִם = lit. ‘wings’, here the hands — the purity of one’s hands
- טְהָרוֹת = ritual purity of foods in general
- אַף לַטְּהָרוֹת לֹא קִיבֵּל = he has not been accepted even for purity
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא (מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל)
How long a trial period: Beit Shammai — thirty days for liquids, twelve months for garments; Beit Hillel — twelve months for both
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עַד כַּמָּה מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לְמַשְׁקִין — שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, לִכְסוּת — שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה — לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: Until when is he accepted, i.e., how much time must elapse before he is considered trustworthy as a ḥaver? Beit Shammai say: With regard to liquids, thirty days. With regard to impurity of clothing, about which ḥaverim would be careful as well, twelve months. And Beit Hillel say: Both with regard to this, liquids, and that, clothing, he must maintain the practice for twelve months before he is fully accepted as a ḥaver.
קלאוד על הדף:
The question ‘until when’ (עד כמה) — the very words that name this perek — now asks how long a candidate must keep the practices before he is fully trusted. Beit Shammai distinguish: thirty days for liquids, which become impure easily, and twelve months for the purity of garments, which is harder to keep. As the baraita stands, Beit Hillel require twelve months for both. The next segment notices the problem this reading creates.
Key Terms:
- עַד כַּמָּה = until when, how long
- מַשְׁקִין = liquids, which readily contract and transmit impurity
- כְּסוּת = garments, and the care for their purity
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותיקון גרסה
That would make it a leniency of Beit Shammai and a stringency of Beit Hillel not listed in Eduyot — so emend: Beit Hillel say thirty days for both
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן, הָוֵה לֵיהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, אֶלָּא בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה לִשְׁלשִׁים.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, this is one of the rare cases of the leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel, and yet it is not included in tractate Eduyyot, which lists all of the cases where Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel. Rather, the text of the baraita must be emended so that it reads: Beit Hillel say: Both with regard to this, liquids and that, clothing, he must maintain the practice for thirty days before he is fully accepted as a ḥaver.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects that, as written, Beit Hillel would be stricter than Beit Shammai, and such cases are rare and listed in tractate Eduyot, which does not include this one. The baraita’s text is therefore emended: Beit Hillel say thirty days for both liquids and garments. Here the Gemara uses the catalogue in Eduyot to check and correct a baraita.
Key Terms:
- מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל = among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel (listed in Eduyot 4-5)
- אֶלָּא = rather (introducing an emendation)
Segment 10
TYPE: סימן
A mnemonic for the baraitot from here to the end of the perek on 31a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(סִימָן: חָבֵר, תַּלְמִיד, תְּכֵלֶת, מֶכֶס, חָזַר, גַּבַּאי, בְּעַצְמוֹ).
English Translation:
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic to remember the topics from here until the end of the chapter: Ḥaver; student; sky-blue dye [tekhelet]; tax; return; tax collector; by himself.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara gives a list of keywords for the coming material. ‘Chaver’ is acceptance before three chaverim; ‘student’ is the Torah scholar; ‘techelet’ is the courtyard that sells sky-blue dye; ‘tax’ (מכס) is the woman who tied tax seals; ‘returned’, ‘tax collector’ and ‘by himself’ look ahead to 31a: those who retract, the chaver who became a tax collector, and the examination of one’s own firstborn, which brings the perek back to bechorot before it ends.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן = a mnemonic device
- תְּכֵלֶת = sky-blue dye for tzitzit
- מֶכֶס / גַּבַּאי = tax / tax collector
- בְּעַצְמוֹ = by himself (examining his own firstborn)
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא (מחלוקת)
Acceptance must be before three chaverim; his children and household need not — Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires them too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַבָּא לְקַבֵּל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוּת — צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבֵירִים, וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְקַבֵּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבֵירִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ צְרִיכִין לְקַבֵּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבֵירִים, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה חָבֵר שֶׁקִּיבֵּל לְבֶן חָבֵר שֶׁקִּיבֵּל.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who comes to accept upon himself a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status must accept it in the presence of three ḥaverim. But his children and the members of his household are not required to accept the status of ḥaver separately in the presence of three ḥaverim. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even his children and the members of his household must accept the status of ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim, because a ḥaver, who accepted it himself in the presence of three others, is not comparable to the son of a ḥaver, who accepted that status only due to his father but did not accept it himself explicitly, and their accepting the status not in the presence of three people is insufficient.
קלאוד על הדף:
Becoming a chaver is a formal act done before three existing chaverim, a small court. The first tanna lets the candidate’s children and household join under his acceptance. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires each of them to accept before three as well, since a person who accepted for himself is not like one who merely inherited the status. For him, commitment is personal and cannot be passed on through the family.
Key Terms:
- בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבֵירִים = in the presence of three chaverim
- בְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ = members of his household
- אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה = is not comparable
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא (מחלוקת)
Even a Torah scholar must accept before three, but not an elder who sits in the yeshiva; Abba Shaul exempts the scholar too, and others may accept before him
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַבָּא לְקַבֵּל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוּת — צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבֵירִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבֵירִים. זָקֵן וְיוֹשֵׁב בִּישִׁיבָה — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבֵירִים, שֶׁכְּבָר קִיבֵּל עָלָיו מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיָּשַׁב. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף תַּלְמִיד חָכָם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבֵירִים, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁאֲחֵרִים מְקַבְּלִין לְפָנָיו.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who comes to accept upon himself a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status must accept it in the presence of three ḥaverim, and even a Torah scholar who wishes to become a ḥaver must accept the status of ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim. But an elder who sits and studies Torah in a yeshiva is not required to accept the status of ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim, as he already accepted it upon himself from the moment he sat and dedicated himself to study Torah in yeshiva. Abba Shaul says: Even a Torah scholar is not required to accept the status of ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim; and not only does he have the status of ḥaver without an explicit declaration in the presence of three ḥaverim, but others can accept that they wish to become a ḥaver in his presence.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita asks whether learning itself counts as acceptance. The first tanna requires even a Torah scholar to accept formally, but exempts the elder who sits in the academy, whose taking of his seat already counted as acceptance. Abba Shaul goes further: any Torah scholar is exempt, and he may even serve as one of the three before whom others accept. Torah learning, on this view, carries the standing of a chaver.
Key Terms:
- תַּלְמִיד חָכָם = a Torah scholar
- זָקֵן וְיוֹשֵׁב בִּישִׁיבָה = an elder who sits in the academy
- אֲחֵרִים מְקַבְּלִין לְפָנָיו = others accept (chaver status) before him
Segment 13
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Yochanan: the ruling that a scholar must accept was taught in the days of the son of Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, who would not trust visiting scholars with his pure foods
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּימֵי בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס נִשְׁנֵית מִשְׁנָה זוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אִיסְתַּפַּק לְהוּ מִילְּתָא בִּטְהָרוֹת, שַׁדַּרוּ רַבָּנַן לְגַבֵּי בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס, אֵזִילוּ אֱמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לְעַיֵּין בַּהּ. אַשְׁכְּחוּהּ דְּקָא טָעֵין טְהָרוֹת, אוֹתֵיב רַבָּנַן מִדִּידֵיהּ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, וְקָאֵי אִיהוּ לְעַיּוֹנֵי בַּהּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna, i.e., the ruling that a Torah scholar must declare his intent to become a ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim, was taught in the days of the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus. At that time, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were uncertain about a certain matter of ritual purity. The Sages sent a delegation of their students to the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus and told them to go and tell him to examine this matter. The students found him while he was carrying items that were ritually pure. The son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus seated Sages from his own yeshiva next to the students who came to ask the question, because he did not trust these students to keep his items pure. And he stood and examined the matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan dates the first tanna’s view to a specific episode. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei sent students with a purity question to the son of Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus. They found him carrying pure foods, and before turning to the question he seated scholars from his own circle beside the visitors to keep them from touching his food. In his eyes, scholars who had not formally accepted chaver status were not trusted with purity.
Key Terms:
- נִשְׁנֵית מִשְׁנָה זוֹ = this teaching was taught
- טָעֵין טְהָרוֹת = carrying ritually pure foods
- אוֹתֵיב = he seated
- לְעַיּוֹנֵי בַּהּ = to examine the matter
Segment 14
TYPE: מעשה (המשך)
Rabbi Yehuda is angered: the father degraded Torah scholars, and so does the son
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲתוֹ אָמְרִי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה בִּיזָּה תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, אַף הוּא מְבַזֶּה תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים!
English Translation:
The students returned and came and told Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei that the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus had treated them as though they had the status of amei ha’aretz. Rabbi Yehuda said to them in anger: This one’s father, i.e., Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, degraded Torah scholars by not trusting them with matters of ritual purity. And he too, the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, degrades Torah scholars.
קלאוד על הדף:
When the students report back, Rabbi Yehuda takes the treatment as an insult to Torah scholarship. He notes that the father, Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, a priest of the Temple generation, had also refused to trust scholars with purity, and the son has continued the practice. Behind the anger lies the position of Abba Shaul: a scholar should not have to prove his reliability.
Key Terms:
- בִּיזָּה = degraded, slighted
- תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים = Torah scholars
- רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס = a tanna and priest who served in the Second Temple
Segment 15
TYPE: מעשה (סוף)
Rabbi Yosei defends him: since the destruction of the Temple, priests adopted a special standard of not handing their pure foods to anyone
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּבוֹד זָקֵן יְהֵא מוּנָּח בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ נָהֲגוּ כֹּהֲנִים סִילְסוּל בְּעַצְמָן, שֶׁאֵין מוֹסְרִין אֶת הַטְּהָרוֹת לְכׇל אָדָם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei said to him: Let the honor of the elder, i.e., both the father and son, be left in its place. He did not act in this manner to degrade Torah scholars. Rather, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed to act with a higher standard for themselves, and they decided that they will not pass ritually pure items to any other person. Therefore, the son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as a priest, acted appropriately.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei asks that the honour of the elders be left intact and gives a kinder reading. Since the Temple was destroyed, priests had taken on an extra standard of purity for themselves and would not hand their pure foods to anyone, scholar or not. The son of Rabbi Chanina was keeping a priestly practice, not slighting the visitors. The story ends without deciding the halachic question, but it shows the care the Sages took to judge a colleague favourably.
Key Terms:
- כְּבוֹד זָקֵן יְהֵא מוּנָּח בִּמְקוֹמוֹ = let the elder’s honour remain in its place
- סִילְסוּל = an elevated, extra-stringent standard of conduct
- מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ = from the day the Temple was destroyed
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
When a chaver dies, his family keep their status until suspected; a courtyard where techelet is sold keeps its reliability until disqualified
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חָבֵר שֶׁמֵּת — אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקָתָן, עַד שֶׁיֵּחָשֵׁדוּ. וְכֵן חָצֵר שֶׁמּוֹכְרִין בָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת — הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקָתָהּ, עַד שֶׁתִּיפָּסֵל.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a ḥaver that died, his wife and children and members of his household retain their presumptive status until they are suspected of engaging in inappropriate deeds. And similarly, in the case of a courtyard in which one sells sky-blue dye, it retains its presumptive status as a place in which fit sky-blue dye is sold until it is disqualified due to the merchant’s unscrupulous behavior.
קלאוד על הדף:
Established status persists. The widow, children and household of a chaver are presumed to continue his standards after his death, unless they give cause for suspicion. A courtyard known to sell genuine techelet keeps its good name until it is disqualified. In both cases the presumption (חזקה) continues until evidence against it appears.
Key Terms:
- בְּחֶזְקָתָן = in their presumptive status
- תְּכֵלֶת = sky-blue dye for tzitzit, which must be genuine and not an imitation
- עַד שֶׁתִּיפָּסֵל = until it is disqualified
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
The wife, daughter or slave of an am ha’aretz who joins a chaver’s household must accept chaver status; one moving the other way need not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְחָבֵר, וְכֵן בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְחָבֵר, וְכֵן עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְכַּר לְחָבֵר — כּוּלָּן צְרִיכִין לְקַבֵּל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוּת בַּתְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְעַם הָאָרֶץ, וְכֵן בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל חָבֵר שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְעַם הָאָרֶץ, וְכֵן עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל חָבֵר שֶׁנִּמְכַּר לְעַם הָאָרֶץ — אֵין צְרִיכִין לְקַבֵּל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוּת בַּתְּחִלָּה.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: The former wife an am ha’aretz who later marries a ḥaver, and likewise the daughter of an am ha’aretz who marries a ḥaver, and likewise the slave of an am ha’aretz who is sold to a ḥaver, must all accept upon themselves a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status. But with regard to the former wife of a ḥaver who later marries an am ha’aretz, and likewise the daughter of a ḥaver who marries an am ha’aretz, and likewise the slave of a ḥaver who was sold to an am ha’aretz, these people need not accept upon themselves a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio, as each of them is already accustomed to behave as a ḥaver.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita considers people moving between households. A woman from an am ha’aretz’s home who marries a chaver, or a slave sold from an am ha’aretz to a chaver, must formally accept chaver status, since nothing in their past establishes it. One coming from a chaver’s home into an am ha’aretz’s has already been trained in the practices and keeps the presumption from the previous household. Training received earlier is not assumed to be lost.
Key Terms:
- בַּתְּחִלָּה = at the outset, from the start
- עַבְדּוֹ = his slave
- נִשֵּׂאת = married
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא (מחלוקת ומעשה)
Rabbi Meir requires them too to accept, citing a woman who tied tefillin for her chaver husband and later tied tax seals for her second husband
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הֵן צְרִיכִין לְקַבֵּל עֲלֵיהֶן דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוּת לְכַתְּחִלָּה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְחָבֵר וְהָיְתָה קוֹמַעַת לוֹ תְּפִילִּין עַל יָדוֹ, נִשֵּׂאת לְעַם הָאָרֶץ וְהָיְתָה קוֹשֶׁרֶת לוֹ קִשְׁרֵי מוֹכֵס עַל יָדוֹ.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir says: They too must accept upon themselves a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would illustrate this point and say in the name of Rabbi Meir: There was an incident involving a certain woman who married a ḥaver and would tie [koma’at] for him phylacteries on his hand, and she later married a tax collector and would tie for him tax seals on his hand, which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Meir disagrees with the second half of the previous baraita: even one leaving a chaver’s home must accept chaver status anew, since a person takes on the ways of the household he enters. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar reports in his name a woman who tied tefillin on her first husband’s arm and, married to an am ha’aretz who was a tax collector, tied the tax collector’s seals on his arm instead. The same act of tying shows the change: her standards followed her husband. The keyword ‘tax’ in the mnemonic refers to this story.
Key Terms:
- קוֹמַעַת = ties, binds
- קִשְׁרֵי מוֹכֵס = tax collector’s seals, the tokens of his office
- מוֹכֵס = a tax collector
- מַעֲשֶׂה = an incident, a precedent