If someone knows that someone doesn’t keep a particular mitzva, can one trust them in other areas? Are there particular things they can;t be trusted for or maybe everything? The gemara brings several braitot that discuss the issue of “chaverut” – a type of club that those in it would be very careful about keeping a high level of purity. How does one get accepted into the club? Do talmidei chachamim need to go through a process or do they get in automatically? What about the family of a club member – are they in automatically? What about a married women who was married to a member and then to an am haaretz or vice-versa?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the continued health and good outcome for Talia Nechama bat Chana.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the continued health and good outcome for Talia Nechama bat Chana.
Bekhorot 30
תַּרְבָּא דְּאַטְמָא בְּמַר דְּכַנְתָּא, קַנְסֵיהּ רָבָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי אֲפִילּוּ אַמְגּוֹזֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲפִילּוּ מַיִם וָמֶלַח נָמֵי!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? שְׁבִיעִית לָא בָּעֲיָא חוֹמָה, מַעֲשֵׂר — כֵּיוָן דְּבָעֵי חוֹמָה, חֲמִיר לֵיהּ.
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.
הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מַאי טַעְמָא? מַעֲשֵׂר אִית לֵיהּ פִּדְיוֹן, שְׁבִיעִית — כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מִיתַּסְרָא לֵיהּ וְלֵית לֵיהּ פִּדְיוֹן — חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ.
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.
הֶחָשׁוּד עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲשִׁיד אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַדְּרַבָּנַן.
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.
וְיֵשׁ חָשׁוּד עַל הַטְּהָרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? נְהִי אַדְּרַבָּנַן חֲשִׁיד, אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא חֲשִׁיד. וּרְמִינְהִי: נֶאֱמָן עַל הַטְּהָרוֹת — נֶאֱמָן עַל שְׁבִיעִית, הָא חֲשִׁיד — חֲשִׁיד!
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַי: מַתְנִיתִין כְּשֶׁרְאִינוּהוּ שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בְּצִינְעָא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ.
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.
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.
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית — חָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
§ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
רַבִּי יוֹנָה וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי זְעֵירָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָה וְרַבִּי זְעֵירָא תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, חַד אָמַר: אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית
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
חָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, וּמַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְחַד אָמַר: הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית, וּמַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
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.
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.
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.
הַגֵּר שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֲפִילּוּ נֶחְשַׁד לְדָבָר אֶחָד — הָוֵי חָשׁוּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ, דְּאִי קַדֵּישׁ — קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
אִם כֵּן, הָוֵה לֵיהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, אֶלָּא בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה לִשְׁלשִׁים.
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.
(סִימָן: חָבֵר, תַּלְמִיד, תְּכֵלֶת, מֶכֶס, חָזַר, גַּבַּאי, בְּעַצְמוֹ).
§ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
אֲתוֹ אָמְרִי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה בִּיזָּה תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, אַף הוּא מְבַזֶּה תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים!
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.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּבוֹד זָקֵן יְהֵא מוּנָּח בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ נָהֲגוּ כֹּהֲנִים סִילְסוּל בְּעַצְמָן, שֶׁאֵין מוֹסְרִין אֶת הַטְּהָרוֹת לְכׇל אָדָם.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חָבֵר שֶׁמֵּת — אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקָתָן, עַד שֶׁיֵּחָשֵׁדוּ. וְכֵן חָצֵר שֶׁמּוֹכְרִין בָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת — הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקָתָהּ, עַד שֶׁתִּיפָּסֵל.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
The Character Portrait of Tavi the Slave of Rabban Gamliel – Sukkah – Gefet 3
July 27, 2021 | י״ח באב תשפ״א
Public Power vs. Private Rights: Debating Parashat HaMelech – Gefet
January 08, 2025 | ח׳ בטבת תשפ״ה
Megillah 5: Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi: Mishnah Compiler and… Gardener
December 17, 2021 | י״ג בטבת תשפ״ב
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
Bekhorot 30
תַּרְבָּא דְּאַטְמָא בְּמַר דְּכַנְתָּא, קַנְסֵיהּ רָבָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי אֲפִילּוּ אַמְגּוֹזֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲפִילּוּ מַיִם וָמֶלַח נָמֵי!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? שְׁבִיעִית לָא בָּעֲיָא חוֹמָה, מַעֲשֵׂר — כֵּיוָן דְּבָעֵי חוֹמָה, חֲמִיר לֵיהּ.
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.
הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מַאי טַעְמָא? מַעֲשֵׂר אִית לֵיהּ פִּדְיוֹן, שְׁבִיעִית — כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מִיתַּסְרָא לֵיהּ וְלֵית לֵיהּ פִּדְיוֹן — חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ.
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.
הֶחָשׁוּד עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲשִׁיד אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַדְּרַבָּנַן.
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.
וְיֵשׁ חָשׁוּד עַל הַטְּהָרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? נְהִי אַדְּרַבָּנַן חֲשִׁיד, אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא חֲשִׁיד. וּרְמִינְהִי: נֶאֱמָן עַל הַטְּהָרוֹת — נֶאֱמָן עַל שְׁבִיעִית, הָא חֲשִׁיד — חֲשִׁיד!
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַי: מַתְנִיתִין כְּשֶׁרְאִינוּהוּ שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בְּצִינְעָא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ.
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.
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.
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית — חָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
§ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
רַבִּי יוֹנָה וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי זְעֵירָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָה וְרַבִּי זְעֵירָא תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, חַד אָמַר: אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית
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
חָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, וּמַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְחַד אָמַר: הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית, וּמַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
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.
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.
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.
הַגֵּר שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֲפִילּוּ נֶחְשַׁד לְדָבָר אֶחָד — הָוֵי חָשׁוּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ, דְּאִי קַדֵּישׁ — קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
אִם כֵּן, הָוֵה לֵיהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, אֶלָּא בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה לִשְׁלשִׁים.
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.
(סִימָן: חָבֵר, תַּלְמִיד, תְּכֵלֶת, מֶכֶס, חָזַר, גַּבַּאי, בְּעַצְמוֹ).
§ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
אֲתוֹ אָמְרִי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה בִּיזָּה תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, אַף הוּא מְבַזֶּה תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים!
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.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּבוֹד זָקֵן יְהֵא מוּנָּח בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ נָהֲגוּ כֹּהֲנִים סִילְסוּל בְּעַצְמָן, שֶׁאֵין מוֹסְרִין אֶת הַטְּהָרוֹת לְכׇל אָדָם.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חָבֵר שֶׁמֵּת — אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקָתָן, עַד שֶׁיֵּחָשֵׁדוּ. וְכֵן חָצֵר שֶׁמּוֹכְרִין בָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת — הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקָתָהּ, עַד שֶׁתִּיפָּסֵל.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Follow
