חולין 6 — parallel

6:1

Now, if you say that R. Zera did not accept [the retort of R. Jacob b. Idi], then he could have answered his query thus: In the one case there was an Israelite standing over [the Cuthean] but in the other case there was not. You must therefore say that R. Zera accepted [the retort]. It stands proved. For what reason did the Rabbis proscribe them? — Because of the following incident. R. Simeon b. Eleazar was sent by R. Meir to fetch some wine from among the Cutheans. He was met by a certain old man who said to him. Put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Whereupon R. Simeon b. Eleazar returned and reported the matter to R. Meir who thereupon proscribed them. Why? — R. Nahman b. Isaac explained: Because they found a figure of a dove on the top of Mount Gerizim and they worshipped it; R. Meir therefore, consistent with his principle that the minority must be taken into consideration, proscribed all Cutheans because of this minority, and R. Gamaliel and his Court also held this principle. What is the plain meaning of the above quoted text? — It refers to a pupil sitting before his master. For R. Hiyya taught: When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider well him that is before thee. And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to an appetite. If the pupil knows that the master is capable of answering the question, then he may ask it; otherwise . . . Consider well him that is before thee. And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite, and leave him. R. Isaac b. Joseph was sent by R. Abbahu to fetch some wine from among the Cutheans. He was met by a certain old man who said to him: ‘There are none here that observe the Torah’. R. Isaac went and reported the matter to R. Abbahu who reported it to R. Ammi and R. Assi; the latter forthwith declared the Cutheans to be absolute heathens. In what respect [were they declared absolute heathens]? If in respect of their slaughtering [that it is invalid] and in respect of their wine [that it is] idolatrous, had not the Rabbis proscribed them [in these matters] from that [former incident]? — The Rabbis had previously proscribed them but their decree was not accepted; R. Ammi and R. Assi came now and proscribed them and their decree was accepted. What was meant by declaring them absolute heathens? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: It meant that they have no longer the power to renounce or to transfer ownership. For it has been taught: An Israelite apostate who publicly observes the Sabbath may renounce and transfer his ownership, but if he does not observe the Sabbath publicly he may not renounce and transfer his ownership, because the Rabbis said: An Israelite may transfer or renounce his ownership, whereas with a heathen this can only be done by renting [his property]. In what way [is ownership renounced]? One [Israelite] can say to another [Israelite]. ‘My ownership is acquired by you’, or, ‘My ownership is renounced in your favour’, and the latter has thereby acquired [the property] without the necessity of a formal acquisition. R. Zera and R. Assi happened to come to the inn of Yai. They were served with roasted eggs beaten up in wine. R. Zera did not eat it; R. Assi did. R. Zera asked R. Assi, ‘Master, are you not concerned about the admixture of demai’? He replied: ‘I did not think of it’. Can it be, thought R. Zera, that the Rabbis have prohibited demai in a mixed state and that it should come about that R. Assi should eat prohibited food? Surely, if the Holy One, Blessed be He, would not permit the beast of the righteous to sin in error, how much less the righteous themselves! R. Zera thereupon went out, looked into the matter and found [the law]. For it was taught: If one buys wine in order to pour it into muries or into alontith, or beans to make into grist, or lentils to make into groats, he must [tithe them], if they are demai; it is needless to say so if they were certainly untithed. The mixtures themselves, however, may be eaten [without tithing], because they are in a mixed state. But did the Rabbis, then, not prohibit demai in a mixed state? Has it not been taught: If a man gives to his neighbour's wife dough to be baked, or a dish to be cooked, [and also provides her with leaven and spices,] he need have no fear that the leaven and the spices used are Seventh Year produce or are untithed; if, however, he said to her, ‘Make it with your own [ingredients]’, he must suspect that the leaven and spices used are Seventh Year produce or untithed? — This last case is different for this reason: since he said to her, ‘Make it with your own [ingredients]’, it is as though he actually mixed it himself. Rafram said: It is different with leaven and spices, since they are used primarily for seasoning, and seasoning never loses its distinctiveness. But do we not suspect an exchange? Have we not learnt: If a man gives to his mother-in-law [dough to be baked], he must tithe what he gives to her and what he takes from her, because she is suspected of changing it if it is spoilt? — In this case the reason [for her changing it] is added, viz., R. Judah says. Because she desires the welfare of her daughter and feels shamed for her son-in-law. [

—

6:2

In all other cases, then, do we not suspect [an exchange]? Have we not learnt: If a man gives to his landlady [dough to be baked], he must tithe what he gives to her and what he takes from her, because she is suspected of changing it? — In this case, too, she justifies herself by saying. Let the young student rather eat the fresh and I will eat the stale. But [otherwise], do we not suspect an exchange? Surely it has been taught: The wife of a haber may assist the wife of an ‘am ha-arez in grinding corn only when she is in a state of uncleanness, but not when she is in a clean state. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says. Even when she is in a state of uncleanness she may not assist in grinding, because the other would offer her some corn to eat. Now, if it is said that the wife of an ‘am ha-ares is ready to steal [from her husband], surely she is to be suspected of making an exchange! — In this case, too, she justifies herself by saying. The ox has a right to eat of what he threshes. R. Joshua b. Zeruz, the son of R. Meir's father-in-law, testified before Rabbi that R. Meir ate a leaf of a vegetable in Bethshean [without tithing it]; on this testimony, therefore, Rabbi permitted the entire territory of Bethshean. Thereupon his brothers and other members of his father's family combined to protest, saying: The place which was regarded as subject to tithes by your parents and ancestors will you regard as free? Rabbi, thereupon, expounded to them the following verse: And he [Hezekiah] broke in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did offer to it; and it was called Nehushtan. Now, is it at all likely that Asa did not destroy it? Or that Jehoshaphat did not destroy it? Surely Asa and Jehoshaphat destroyed every form of idolatry in the world!

—