Chullin 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, his ancestors left a place for him

to Hezekiah

to distinguish himself

and to magnify himself

through it. I too—

my ancestors left a place for me to distinguish myself through it.

For when the sons come after their fathers and find nothing to rectify, through what will their name be magnified?

And from the fact that Rabbi accepted this testimony, even though it was astonishing and contrary to what had always been accepted among them—

from here

we learn

that when a Torah scholar says a novel halakhic ruling

—

one does not drive him away

by removing it from his hearing and saying to him: Retract your statement.

And some say: One does not discredit him.

That is, one does not make his words repulsive.

And some say: One does not make him arrogant

by saying to him: Your arrogance caused you not to listen carefully to your teacher and receive the matter according to its halakhic form.

The one who says “one drives him away”

understands it as an expression of removal,

as it is written: “And the breastplate shall not be loosened

from the ephod.”

And the one who says “one does not discredit him”

understands it as an expression of making repulsive, as

it is written: “For the Lord will not reject forever.”

And the one who says “one does not make him arrogant”

understands it as referring to haughtiness of heart and complacency of mind, as

we learned: “As the haughty of heart increased, disputes increased in Israel.”

For they did not examine the matter sufficiently from their teacher and relied on their own hearts.

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, challenged him:

How did Rabbi permit Beit She’an,

when

is it

possible that anyone would say that Beit She’an is not part of the Land of Israel?

And it is written

Judges 1]

“And Manasseh did not dispossess Beit She’an and its villages, and Taanach and its villages,”

but after conquering them, they left their inhabitants living among them, to pay a labor tax. In any event, the verse explicitly states that it was conquered by those who came up from Egypt.

And we answer:

It had escaped him

—Rabbi Yehuda, who raised this difficulty—

that which Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua: “Many walled cities were conquered by those who came up from Egypt, but were not conquered by those who came up from Babylonia

in the days of Ezra.”

And Rabbi held

that

the first sanctity

with which the Land was sanctified, making it liable for all mitzvot dependent upon the Land, through the conquest by those who came up from Egypt—

Joshua sanctified it

for

that time

for as long as that conquest continued, but

he did not sanctify it for the future.

For after they were exiled in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, at the time of the destruction, its sanctity lapsed.

And

those who came up from Babylonia, who sanctified the Land with the second sanctity,

left them

those cities and did not sanctify them,

so that

the laws of the Sabbatical year would not apply there, and

the poor could rely upon them

to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, the corner of the field, and the poor man’s tithe

in the Sabbatical year.

So that the produce would not be ownerless for everyone. For the Sabbatical year does not apply outside the Land of Israel, whereas gleanings, forgotten sheaves, the corner of the field, and the poor man’s tithe [of grain] apply even outside the Land of Israel.

With this, the fact that Rabbi permitted Beit She’an is properly understood: It was indeed one of those cities conquered by those who came up from Egypt, but it was not sanctified by those who came up from Babylonia.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira:

And what proof is this? From the fact that Rabbi Meir ate a vegetable leaf without tithing, that Beit She’an is not part of the Land of Israel?

But Rabbi Meir merely ate the leaf as a casual act

of eating, which is permitted with untithed produce before its work has been completed. The completion of vegetables, whose usual manner is to be bound, is when they are bound. Before that, it is permitted to eat them casually even in the Land of Israel, and that is why he ate it.

He said to him:

That is not what happened. Rather, Rabbi Meir

ate it from a bundle

of vegetables;

he ate the leaf

from it.

And we learned:

What is the completion of work for vegetables with regard to tithes?

A vegetable that is bound—

when it is bound.

For at that point it becomes fixed for tithing and is forbidden even for casual eating. Necessarily, the reason Rabbi Meir ate it was that Beit She’an had the status of outside the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Yirmeya further challenged him:

Perhaps

the reason Rabbi Meir ate without tithing was that he forgot, and

it was not on his mind.

Perhaps he really held that it had to be tithed!?

Rabbi Zeira answered him:

Now, if the Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring about a mishap through the animals of the righteous,

is it not certainly so with the righteous themselves?!

He further challenged him: And even so, what proof is this?

Perhaps he tithed for them from

produce that he had

in another place.

He answered:

Members of the fellowship are not suspected of contributing teruma from produce that is not in the vicinity.

For it is required that the tithed produce be near the untithed produce, since, as an initial matter, it is forbidden to separate from produce that is not before him on behalf of produce that is before him. Perhaps the tithe that he separated is no longer extant, having been lost or having rotted, and it turns out that he separated nothing and is eating untithed produce. He further challenged him:

Perhaps

Beit She’an is indeed obligated in tithes, and Rabbi Meir ate it only after he had tithed it. The reason Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz did not notice this is that he did not physically separate the tithe, but rather

directed his eyes to this side

of the vegetables and designated it as the tithe,

and ate

from the

other

side, which had already been rectified.

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira:

See what a great man

it is who

is testifying concerning him.

A great man such as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz was the one who testified about Rabbi Meir’s eating. Therefore, when he came to testify, he had certainly directed his attention and examined the matter carefully: Rabbi Meir had not tithed at all before eating.

The Gemara analyzes:

What is meant by “the animals of the righteous,”

concerning which it was said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring about a mishap through them”?

This is the incident that occurred:

Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was traveling to redeem captives. He encountered the Ginai River

[a river called Ginai].

He said to it

Rabbi Pinchas:

Ginai, divide your waters for me, and I will pass through you.

The river said to him:

You are going to fulfill the will of your Master

by performing the mitzva of redeeming captives,

while I am going

and flowing to the sea in order

to fulfill the will of my Master.”

For all rivers flow to the sea by the decree of the King.

You may or may not perform

the

mitzva;

perhaps they will not allow you to redeem the captives. But

I will certainly perform

my mitzva. Therefore, it is not fitting that I divide my waters before you.

Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said to

the river:

If you do not divide

your waters,

I decree upon you that water shall never again pass through you!

It divided for him

the river divided its waters, and he passed through it.

There was

there

a certain man who was carrying

[bearing]

wheat for Passover. He said to it

Rabbi Pinchas to the river:

Divide for this one as well

your waters.

For

he too

is engaged in a mitzva—

for all involvement in guarding the mitzvot from the time of grinding is itself a mitzva.

It divided for him

the river divided its waters, and he passed through.

There was

there

a certain Arab merchant

[an Arab merchant]

who was traveling along with them. He said to it

Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair to the river:

Divide for this Arab merchant as well

your waters, because

otherwise people will say

“Is this

how one treats traveling companions,”

leaving them behind and going on?

It divided for him

as well.

Rav Yosef said: How great is

this

man

[Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair] more

than Moses and the six hundred thousand

who came out of Egypt.

For there

at the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, the sea split

one time

only,

whereas here

in this incident the river divided

three times,

through the power of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair.

And we challenge this:

Perhaps here too

it divided only

once

until all three of them had crossed; rather, Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was afraid that the waters would return after he crossed, and he spoke to the river so that it would wait until they had all crossed?

And we conclude:

Rather,

Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was as great

as Moses and the six hundred thousand,

and no more.

Afterward,

Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair happened to arrive

at

a certain inn

[lodging].

They placed barley before his donkey

to eat.

It did not eat

the donkey.