Parallel
בכורות 30
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
kidney fat for the fat of ileum. Raba punished him by forbidding him to sell even nuts. Said R. Papa to Raba: What opinion does this represent? R. Judah's! If it is the opinion of R. Judah, then the prohibition should apply even to water and salt? — It may still represent the opinion of R. Simeon, and we punish him through the very object which caused the offence. Young children are generally attracted by nuts. He goes and misleads the children of butchers, attracting them by means of nuts. They bring him kidney fat and he sells it for the fat of ileum. MISHNAH. ONE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF IGNORING THE SABBATICAL YEAR IS NOT SUSPECTED OF IGNORING [ALSO] THE TITHES. ONE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF IGNORING TITHES IS NOT SUSPECTED OF IGNORING [ALSO] THE SABBATICAL YEAR. ONE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF IGNORING BOTH IS SUSPECTED OF IGNORING THE RULES OF LEVITICAL PURITY. AND IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ONE TO BE SUSPECTED OF IGNORING THE RULES OF LEVITICAL PURITY AND YET NOT SUSPECTED OF IGNORING THE TWO LAWS [CITED ABOVE]. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: ONE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF IGNORING A RELIGIOUS LAW MUST NOT GIVE JUDGMENT ON IT OR TESTIFY CONCERNING IT. GEMARA. What is the reason? — Fruits of the sabbatical year are not required to be eaten within the walls [of Jerusalem], whereas tithes are required to be eaten within the walls and therefore the rule is more stringent with regard to them. ONE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF IGNORING TITHES. What is the reason? — The tithe can be redeemed, whereas fruit of the sabbatical year is forbidden to him and cannot be redeemed; and therefore the rule is more stringent in regard to it. ONE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF IGNORING BOTH LAWS. Since he is suspected of ignoring both laws of biblical enactment, how much more so is he suspected of ignoring a rabbinic enactment [like eating hullin levitically prepared]? AND IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ONE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF IGNORING THE RULES OF LEVITICAL PURITY. What is the reason? — Even though he is suspected of ignoring a rabbinic enactment, he is not suspected of ignoring a biblical enactment. The following was cited in contradiction: One who can be relied upon in respect of the rules of purity, is relied upon with respect to the sabbatical year and tithes. This allows the inference that one who is suspected of ignoring [the rules of levitical purity] is suspected [of ignoring the laws just cited]! — Said R. Elai: The Mishnah refers to a case where we saw him practise privately at home. R. Jannai son of R. Ishmael said: [The Baraitha refers to a case] where e.g., he was suspected of ignoring both the sabbatical year and levitical purity, and he came before the Rabbis and received a warning concerning both of them; and subsequently he was again suspected of ignoring one of them. We then hold that since he is suspected of ignoring the one, he is also suspected of ignoring the other. Rabbah b. Bar Hana reported in the name of R. Johanan: Those are the words of R. Akiba, whose opinion has been adopted without naming him; but the Sages say: One who is suspected of ignoring the laws of the sabbatical year is suspected of ignoring the laws of tithes. Who are the Sages [referred to]? — R. Judah, for in the place of R. Judah the sabbatical year was strictly observed by the people. For there was a certain party who called after his companion: proselyte son of a proselyte, and the latter retorted ‘May I merit [divine reward] as I have not eaten the fruits of the sabbatical year like you’. Some there are who say: Rabbah b. Bar Hana reported in the name of R. Johanan: Those are the words of R. Akiba whose opinion has been adopted without naming him; but the Sages say: One who is suspected of ignoring tithes is suspected of ignoring the law of the sabbatical year. And who are the Sages [referred to]? It is R. Meir who said: One who is suspected of ignoring one religious law is suspected of disregarding the whole Torah. R. Jonah and R. Jeremiah, the pupils of R. Ze'ira, or according to others, R. Jonah and R. Ze'ira, pupils of R. Johanan [reported differently]. One said: But the Sages said: One who is suspected of ignoring the sabbatical year laws
—
is suspected of ignoring the laws of tithes. And who are the Sages [referred to]? R. Judah, for in the place of R. Judah the sabbatical year law was kept strictly by the people. And the other said: One who is suspected of ignoring the laws of tithes is suspected of ignoring the sabbatical year laws. And who are the Sages [referred to]? — R. Meir, as it has been taught: An ‘am ha-arez who accepted the obligations of a haber and who is suspected of ignoring one religious law is suspected of disregarding the whole Torah. But the Sages say: He is only suspected of ignoring that particular religious law. And a proselyte, who accepted the teachings of the Torah, though he is suspected of ignoring only one religious law, is suspected of disregarding the whole Torah, and he is considered as a non-observant Israelite. The difference would be that if he betrothes a woman, [even after his relapse], his betrothal is valid, [the woman thus requiring a divorce.] Our Rabbis taught: If one is prepared to accept the obligation of a haber except one religious law, we must not receive him as a haber. If a heathen is prepared to accept the Torah except one religious law, we must not receive him [as an Israelite]. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: Even [if the exception be] one point of the special minutiae of the Scribes’ enactments. And similarly if a son of a Levite was prepared to accept the duties of the community of Levites except one religious law, we must not receive him [as a Levite]. If a priest was prepared to accept the duties of the priesthood except one religious law, we must not receive him [as a priest], as it is said, He [among the sons of Aaron] that offereth the blood etc., implying the [entire] service that is transmitted to the sons of Aaron and that any priest who does not acknowledge this has no share in [the privileges of] the priesthood. Our Rabbis taught: If one applies to become a haber, if we saw him practising these privately at his house, we receive him and subsequently instruct him, but if not, we first instruct him and then receive him [as a haber]. But R. Simeon b. Yohai says: Both in the first case and the second, we receive him [as a haber] and he learns incidentally as he goes on. Our Rabbis taught: We accept a haber if he promises to observe cleanness of hands and afterwards we accept him as one who will observe the other rules of levitical purity. If he said: I only promise to observe cleanness of hands, we receive him [as a haber, as his promise is important in connection with levitical purity]. If, however, he promised to observe the rules of levitical purity but not cleanness of hands, then even his promise to observe the rules of levitical purity is not regarded as a genuine promise. Our Rabbis taught: How long is the period before we receive him [as a haber]? Beth Shammai say: As regards [the purity of his] liquids, [whose uncleanness is of a light character], the period is thirty days, but as regards the purity of [his] garment, the period is twelve months; whereas Beth Hillel Say: Both in the one case as well as in the other, the period is twelve months. If this be so, then you have here a ruling where Beth Shammai is more lenient and Beth Hillel is the stricter? — Rather [read]: Beth Hillel Say: Both in the one case as well as in the other, the period is thirty days. (Mnemonic: A Haber, Scholar, Purple-blue, Repent, Taxcollector.) Our Rabbis taught: One who desires to accept the obligations of a haber is required to do so in the presence of three haberim, whereas his sons and the members of his family are not required to accept [these obligations] in the presence of three haberim. But R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: His sons and the members of his family are also required to accept [these obligations] in the presence of three haberim, because the case of a haber who accepts [these obligations] is not on a par with the case of the son of a haber who accepts [them]. Our Rabbis taught: One who desires to accept the obligations of a haber is required to accept them in the presence of three haberim, and even a talmid hakam [a scholar] is required to accept the obligations in the presence of three haberim. An elder, a member of a scholars’ council, is not required to accept [these obligations] in the presence of three haberim, having already accepted them from the time when he took his place at the council. Abba Saul Says: Even a talmid hakam is not required to accept the obligations of a haber in the presence of three haberim. And not only this, but even others may accept the obligations of a haber in his presence. Said R. Johanan: In the days of the son of R. Hanina b. Antigonus was this teaching taught. For R. Judah and R. Jose were in doubt concerning a matter of levitical cleanness. They sent a pair of scholars to the son of R. Hanina b. Antigonus. They went and asked him to inquire into the matter. They found him carrying levitically prepared food. He seated some of his own disciples with them, while he stood up to look in to the question. They came and informed R. Judah and R. Jose [of his conduct towards them]. R. Judah said to them: His father held scholars in contempt and he also holds scholars in contempt. R. Jose replied to him: Let the dignity of the elder lie undisturbed in its place, but from the day that the Temple was destroyed, the priests guarded their dignity by not entrusting matters of levitical cleanness to everybody. Our Rabbis taught: [The wife of a haber is considered as a haber]. If a haber dies, his wife and the members of the family retain their status until there is reason to suspect them. And similarly a court-yard in which tekeleth [purple-blue] was sold retains its status until it is disqualified. Our Rabbis taught: The wife of an ‘am ha-arez who was married to a haber, likewise a daughter of an ‘am ha-arez who was married to a haber, and similarly the slave of an ‘am ha-arez who was sold to a haber — all of these must first accept the obligations of a haber. But the wife of a haber who was married to an ‘am ha-arez, likewise the daughter of a haber who was married to an ‘am ha-arez and similarly the slave of a haber who was sold to an ‘am ha-arez, need not first accept the obligations of a haber. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Even the latter require first to accept the obligations of a haber. For R. Simeon b. Eleazar reported in the name of R. Meir: It happened with a certain woman who was married to a haber that she fastened the straps of the tefillin [phylacteries] on his hand and when afterwards married to a publican, she knotted the custom seals for him.33
—