Bekhorot 30a — the Talmud in English

That butcher who was suspected of selling

the fat forbidden for consumption, called [the fat of the kidney on the thigh]

the fat of the atma,

which is the fat of the kidneys upon the thigh,

as mar kaneta,

under the presumption of the permitted fat called kaneta.

Rava fined him so that he could sell nothing, even nuts.

He was not to sell even nuts.

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

do you hold,

according to Rabbi Judah?

If it is according to Rabbi Judah,

even water and salt as well

you should have fined him.

And if it is according to Rabbi Shimon, he fines only for a forbidden thing, and for that same prohibition itself. But this one sold forbidden fat, and you fined him with nuts.

And we explain:

Actually,

I hold as Rabbi Shimon said.

And we fine him with the prohibition itself,

and this fine too is with a thing that has a connection to the prohibition that he sold.

And the explanation is:

Ordinary children—

are drawn after nuts,

they are attracted to nuts.

And he goes and corrupts the butcher’s sons, and draws them after nuts.

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

and they bring it to him,

and they bring him

the fat of the atma,

the fat of the atma, which is forbidden for consumption, and he sells it to them

as “mar kaneta”

as permitted fat fit for consumption.

And therefore, since the nuts are the means through which the prohibition is caused, Rava fined him so that he would not sell nuts.

Mishna:

One suspected regarding the Sabbatical produce is not

thereby made to be

suspected regarding tithes.

And in a year that is not a Sabbatical year, it is permitted to take produce from him, and he shall tithe it because of doubt, according to the law of demai.

One suspected regarding tithes is not suspected regarding Sabbatical produce.

One suspected regarding this and regarding that,

regarding Sabbatical produce and regarding tithes, is suspected also

regarding pure foods,

to sell impure foods under the presumption that they are pure. And he is not trustworthy even regarding impurity that is rabbinic. For example, the impurity of the hands. For if he is suspected regarding a matter of Torah law, regarding a rabbinic matter, all the more so.

And there is

one who

is suspected regarding pure foods,

who is not careful regarding rabbinic impurity,

but is not suspected regarding either this or that,

not regarding Sabbatical produce and not regarding tithes.

This is the general rule: Anyone suspected regarding a matter—

we do not judge him and do not accept his testimony.

He is not trustworthy to judge or to testify regarding the matter concerning which he was suspected.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection concerning it:

What is the reason

that one suspected regarding Sabbatical produce is not suspected regarding tithes?

And we explain:

Sabbatical produce does not require a wall.

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

second

tithe,

since it requires a wall,

as it is forbidden to eat it outside Jerusalem,

it is more stringent for him.

We learned in the Mishna:

One suspected regarding tithes

is not suspected regarding Sabbatical produce.

What is the reason?

And we answer:

Tithe has redemption.

But

Sabbatical produce, since it becomes forbidden to him and has no redemption—

it is more stringent for him.

And since there is an aspect in which Sabbatical produce is more stringent than tithe, he is not made suspected regarding Sabbatical produce.

We learned in the Mishna:

One suspected regarding this and regarding that

is suspected regarding pure foods.

And we explain:

Since he is suspected regarding a matter of Torah law, all the more so

that he is suspected

regarding a rabbinic matter.

We learned in the Mishna:

And there is one who is suspected regarding pure foods

but is not suspected regarding this and regarding that:

What is the reason?

And we explain:

Granted

that he transgresses

a rabbinic matter knowingly,

but to transgress

a matter of Torah law he is not suspected. And we contradict this:

One who is

trustworthy regarding pure foods

is

trustworthy

also

regarding Sabbatical produce and tithes.

And we infer:

If he is suspected

regarding pure foods,

he is also suspected regarding Sabbatical produce and tithes,

whereas you said that one who is not suspected regarding rabbinic matters is not suspected regarding matters of Torah law.

And we resolve:

Rabbi Ila’i said: The Mishna

which teaches that he is not suspected is speaking

when we saw him conducting himself

according to the laws of tithes and Sabbatical produce

in private, inside his house 24.

Rabbi Yannai son of Rabbi Yishmael said:

Another resolution: The beraita, from which we infer that one suspected regarding this and that is speaking about

a case in which

this man

was suspected regarding both,

regarding pure foods and regarding Sabbatical produce and tithe.

And he came before the Sages, and accepted both

to be careful regarding both of them.

And afterward he again became suspected regarding one of them,

returning to his former conduct regarding one of them, and even regarding pure foods.

For we say: Since he is suspected regarding this, he is also suspected regarding the other.

Since in the past he had already been suspected regarding both, therefore now he returns to being as he was initially and is not trustworthy regarding both. But an ordinary person suspected regarding one is not suspected regarding the other.

Rabbah bar bar Hanna said that Rabbi Yohanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva the anonymous one 25.

But the Sages say:

One who is

suspected regarding Sabbatical produce is suspected

also

regarding tithe.

And we inquire:

Who are the Sages

who hold that one suspected regarding Sabbatical produce is suspected also regarding tithe?

And we say:

Rabbi Judah! For in Rabbi Judah’s place, Sabbatical produce is more stringent for them!

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

For there was one who called his fellow,

who gave his fellow a derogatory name, and called him

“a convert, son of a female convert,”

a convert, son of a female convert.

He said to him,

the latter

said to him: “May it come to me,”

a good reward should come to me,

“for I have not eaten Sabbatical produce like you!”

And this took place in Rabbi Judah’s place. And from the fact that he accused his fellow regarding this matter, infer from it that observance of the laws of Sabbatical produce was stringent for them. Therefore, if he is suspected regarding the stringent prohibition, is he not certainly suspected regarding the lenient one?

Some say: Rabbah bar bar Hanna said that Rabbi Yohanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva the anonymous one.

But the Sages say: One suspected regarding tithe

is

suspected regarding Sabbatical produce.

And who are the Sages?

It is Rabbi Meir, who says: One suspected regarding one matter is suspected regarding the entire Torah. [

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

Rabbi Yonah and Rabbi Yirmeya,

who were

students of Rabbi Zeira. And some say, Rabbi Yonah and Rabbi Zeira were students of Rabbi Yohanan,

were disputing regarding these formulations—the ones stated above.