Talmud - Bekhorot 30b בכורות ל׳ ב׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bechorot 30b examines whether suspicion over tithes extends to Sabbatical-year produce, and debates trustworthiness when a person violates one accepted commandment.