Bekhorot

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-arez1 who accepted the obligations of a haber2 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,3 and he is considered as a non-observant Israelite.4 The difference5 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 Levites6 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.,7 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,8 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 hands9 and afterwards we accept him as one who will observe the other rules of levitical purity.10 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.11 Our Rabbis taught: How long is the period12 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,13 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?14 — 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 haber15 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.16 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 carrying17 levitically prepared food. He seated some of his own disciples18 with them,19 while he stood up to look in to the question. They came and informed R. Judah and R. Jose [of his conduct towards them].20 R. Judah said to them: His father21 held scholars in contempt and he also holds scholars in contempt. R. Jose replied to him: Let the dignity of the elder22 lie undisturbed in its place,23 but from the day that the Temple was destroyed, the priests24 guarded their dignity by not entrusting matters of levitical cleanness to everybody.25 Our Rabbis taught: [The wife of a haber is considered as a haber].26 If a haber dies, his wife and the members of the family retain their status until there is reason to suspect them.27 And similarly a court-yard in which tekeleth [purple-blue]28 was sold retains its status until it is disqualified.29 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 first30 accept the obligations of a haber.31 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.32 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 teaching that the priest must practise all the laws devolving upon the sons of Aaron, and then only he is entitled to his dues. his promise to observe other levitical restrictions. the former leaning and pressing on it. involved, whereas the son of a haber only sees his father practise these laws. Another interpretation is as follows: The reason, according to the first Tanna quoted above, why the sons and the members of the family of a haber are not required to accept these obligations is because the family of a haber actually seeing these levitical laws observed at home, are not suspected of disregarding them and therefore there is no necessity for them to accept these obligations in the presence of three haberim. he was suspected in such matters. Rabbis. the case is different here because when acceptance took place the wife, daughter and slave were not with him and there is, consequently, the fear that earlier habits may still influence their conduct. applies to a slave, etc.