Bekhorot 30a (ל.) — the Talmud in English

There was a certain butcher who was suspected of selling

forbidden fat that may not be eaten, called

the fat of the tail,

which is the fat of the kidneys that lies upon the thigh,

as ordinary fat,

presuming it to be the permitted fat called kanta.

Rava penalized him by forbidding him to sell even walnuts.

He was not permitted to sell even walnuts.

Rav Pappa said to Rava—and some say that Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: According to whom

do

you hold, according to Rabbi Yehuda?

If you hold in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

you should have penalized him even with regard to water and salt as well,

and forbidden him to sell them.

And if you hold in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, he penalizes only with regard to an item that is itself forbidden, and with regard to that same prohibition. Here, he sold forbidden fat, but you penalized him with regard to walnuts.

And we explain:

Actually,

I hold in accordance with what

Rabbi Shimon said. And we penalize him with regard to the prohibition itself,

and this penalty too concerns an item connected to the prohibition that he sold.

And the explanation is:

Ordinary children—

are drawn to walnuts,

and follow after them.

And he goes and incites the sons of the butchers, and draws them to him with walnuts.

He attracts and entices the butchers’ sons with walnuts, so that they steal from their father,

and they bring him

what they have stolen,

the fat of the tail,

the forbidden fat called “of the tail,” and he sells it to them

as “ordinary fat”

as fat permitted for consumption.

Therefore, since the walnuts are the means through which the prohibition is brought about, Rava penalized him by forbidding him to sell walnuts.

Mishna:

One who is suspected with regard to the produce of the Sabbatical Year is not

thereby considered

suspected with regard to tithes.

In a year that is not a Sabbatical Year, it is permitted to purchase produce from him, but one must tithe it as demai, uncertainly tithed produce.

One who is suspected with regard to tithes is not suspected with regard to the Sabbatical Year.

One who is suspected with regard to this and with regard to that,

with regard to the Sabbatical Year and with regard to tithes, is considered suspected also

with regard to ritual purity,

to sell impure food as presumed pure. And he is not deemed trustworthy even with regard to impurity that is rabbinic in origin, such as the impurity of the hands. For if he is suspected with regard to a prohibition from the Torah, with regard to a rabbinic prohibition, all the more so.

And there is

one

who is suspected with regard to ritual purity,

who is not careful with regard to rabbinic impurity,

but is not suspected with regard to this or with regard to that,

neither with regard to the Sabbatical Year nor with regard to tithes.

This is the general principle: Anyone who is suspected with regard to a matter—

we may neither adjudicate nor testify with him.

He is not deemed trustworthy to adjudicate or testify in a matter with regard to which he is suspected.

Gemara:

And we raise a question:

What is the reason

that one who is suspected with regard to the Sabbatical Year is not suspected with regard to tithes?

We explain:

The Sabbatical Year does not require a wall.

It need not be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem, and therefore he treats it lightly. But

the Second

tithe,

since it requires a wall,

as it is prohibited to eat it outside Jerusalem,

is more stringent for him.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who is suspected with regard to tithes

is not suspected with regard to the Sabbatical Year.

What is the reason?

And we answer:

Tithe has redemption.

But

the Sabbatical Year, since it becomes prohibited to him and has no redemption,

is more stringent for him.

And since there is an aspect in which the Sabbatical Year is more stringent than tithes, he does not become suspected with regard to the Sabbatical Year.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who is suspected with regard to this and with regard to that

is suspected with regard to ritual purity.

And we explain:

Since he is suspected with regard to a prohibition from the Torah, all the more so

is he suspected

with regard to a rabbinic prohibition.

We learned in the Mishna:

And there is one who is suspected with regard to ritual purity

but is not suspected with regard to this and with regard to that.

What is the reason?

And we explain:

Granted

that he is suspected

of violating rabbinic prohibitions,

but he is not suspected of violating

prohibitions from the Torah. And we juxtapose

the following: One who is

deemed trustworthy with regard to ritual purity

is

deemed trustworthy

also

with regard to the Sabbatical Year and tithes.

And we infer:

If he is suspected

with regard to ritual purity,

he is also suspected with regard to the Sabbatical Year and tithes,

whereas you said that he is not suspected of rabbinic prohibitions with regard to prohibitions from the Torah.

And we answer:

Rabbi Ilaei said: The Mishna

that teaches that he is not suspected is speaking

when we saw him observing

the laws of tithes and the Sabbatical Year

privately, inside his home 24 .

Rabbi Yannai bar Rabbi Yishmael said

another answer: The beraita, from which we infer that one who is suspected with regard to this and with regard to that, is speaking of

a case where

this man

was suspected with regard to both,

with regard to ritual purity and with regard to the Sabbatical Year and tithes.

And he came before the Sages, and accepted both upon himself

to be careful with regard to both.

And afterward he again became suspected with regard to one of them,

returning to his former ways with regard to one of them, even with regard to ritual purity.

As we say: Since he is suspected with regard to this, he is also suspected with regard to the other.

Since in the past he had already been suspected with regard to both, he now returns to his original status and is not deemed trustworthy with regard to either. But ordinarily, one who is suspected with regard to one matter is not suspected with regard to the other.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva the anonymous. 25 .

But the Sages say:

One who is

suspected with regard to the Sabbatical Year is suspected

also

with regard to tithes.

And we raise a question:

Who are the Sages

who maintain that one who is suspected with regard to the Sabbatical Year is suspected also with regard to tithes?

And we say:

Rabbi Yehuda! For in Rabbi Yehuda’s locale, the Sabbatical Year is more stringent for them!

And from where do we know that it is more stringent for them?

There was a certain man who called his fellow,

giving his fellow a derogatory name, and referred to him as

“Deyara son of a female convert,”

the son of a male convert and a female convert.

He said to him,

the other man:

“Let it come to me,

I deserve a good reward,

for I have not eaten Sabbatical-Year produce like you!”

And this occurred in Rabbi Yehuda’s place. From the fact that he accused his fellow of this matter, we may conclude that observing the laws of the Sabbatical Year was stringent for them. Therefore, if he is suspected with regard to the more stringent prohibition, is it not all the more so that he is suspected with regard to the less stringent one?

Some say: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva the anonymous.

But the Sages say: One who is suspected with regard to tithes

is

suspected with regard to the Sabbatical Year.

And who are the Sages?

It is Rabbi Meir, who said: One who is suspected with regard to one matter is considered suspected with regard to the entire Torah. [The Gemara later cites the statement of Rabbi Meir.]

And the Gemara later brings the words of Rabbi Meir].

Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmeya,

who were

students of Rabbi Zeira. And some say: Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Zeira were students of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

disagreed regarding the formulations cited above.