Chullin 7a — the Talmud in English

Rather, a place was left for him

for Hezekiah

by his forefathers, in order to distinguish himself

to become great

through it. I too —

a place was left for me by my forefathers in which to distinguish myself.

For when the sons come after the forefathers and do not find anything to correct, through what will their name become great?

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

from this

we learned:

regarding a Torah scholar who stated a halakhic matter

novel,

one does not dissuade him

from being heard, saying to him: Retract your words.

And some say: One does not discredit him.

One does not make his words repulsive.

And some say: One does not make him haughty

by saying to him: Your pride caused you not to hear properly from your teacher a matter according to its halakha.

The one who says “one dissuades”

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”

understands it as an expression of disgust, as

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

And the one who says, “one does not make haughty,”

understands it as an expression of loftiness of heart and arrogance of mind, as

we learned: “As the haughty-hearted increased, disputes increased in Israel.”

For they did not examine sufficiently what they had heard from their teacher and relied upon their hearts.

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, raised an objection against it:

How did Rabbi permit Beit Shean,

and

is

there anyone who says that Beit Shean is not part of the Land of Israel?

And is it not written [

Judges 1 ]

“But Manasseh did not dispossess Beit Shean and its towns, and Taanakh and its towns,”

rather, after he conquered them, he left their inhabitants to dwell among them, to pay a labor tax. In any event, it is an explicit verse that those who came up from Egypt conquered it.

And we answer:

It escaped him

— Rabbi Yehuda, who raised this objection, failed to recall

what 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 to become obligated in all the mitzvot dependent upon the Land, through the conquest of those who came up from Egypt,

sanctified it

Joshua

for its time,

as long as that conquest continued, but

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 was annulled.

And

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

left them

to those walled cities and did not sanctify them,

so that

the Sabbatical year would not apply in them, and

the poor could rely upon them

to take from them the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, the corner, and the poor man’s tithe

in the seventh year.

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

And with this, it is properly explained that Rabbi permitted Beit Shean: indeed, it is among those walled cities that those who came up from Egypt conquered, but those who came up from Babylonia did not sanctify it.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira:

And what proof is this, from the fact that Rabbi Meir ate a leaf of vegetable without a tithe, that Beit Shean is not part of the Land of Israel?

But Rabbi Meir merely ate it casually,

for it was a casual eating, which is permitted with untithed produce before its work has been completed. And the completion of vegetables, whose manner is to be bundled, is when they are bundled. But before that, it is permitted to eat them casually even in the Land, and that is why he ate it.

He said to him:

It was not so that the incident occurred. Rather, Rabbi Meir

ate it from a bundle

of vegetables,

he ate it

as a leaf, and

we learned:

What is their threshing floor [completion of work] for tithes?

Vegetables that are bundled —

when they are bundled.

For then they have been established for tithing and are forbidden even for casual eating. Necessarily, the fact that Rabbi Meir ate it was because Beit Shean had the status of outside the Land.

Rabbi Yirmeya further objected to him:

Perhaps

the fact that Rabbi Meir ate without a tithe was because he forgot, and

it was not in his awareness.

And in fact, he holds that it requires tithing!?

Rabbi Zeira answered him:

Now, if the animals of righteous people the Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring about an obstacle through them —

the righteous themselves, all the more so?!

He further objected: And still, what proof is this?

Perhaps he tithed for them from

vegetables that he had in

another place.

And he answered:

Associates are not suspected of contributing from produce that is not in the vicinity.

For it is required that the tithe be adjacent to the untithed produce, because initially it is forbidden to separate from what is not before him for what is before him, lest that tithe which he separated no longer exist, for example, it was lost or rotted, and it turns out that he separated nothing, and he is eating untithed produce. He further objected:

Perhaps

Beit Shean is indeed obligated in tithing, and in fact Rabbi Meir ate it only after he had tithed. And the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz did not notice this was because he did not physically separate the tithe, but rather

set his eyes on this side

of the vegetables and designated it by calling upon it the name of tithe,

and ate

it

on the side

of the

other

one, which had already been prepared.

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 certainly directed his attention and examined the matter well, that Rabbi Meir had not tithed at all before eating.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is “the animals of righteous people,”

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

This is the incident that occurred:

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

[a river whose name was 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

to perform the mitzva of redeeming captives,

and I am going

and flowing to the sea in order

to fulfill the will of my Master.”

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

You are uncertainly performing

the mitzva;

perhaps you are not performing it,

for perhaps they will not allow you to redeem them. But

I am certainly performing

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 waters shall never again pass through you!

He divided it 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 it also for this one

your waters.

For

he too

is occupied with a mitzva —

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

He divided it for him

the river divided its waters, and he passed through.

There was

there

a certain Arab merchant

[an Arab merchant]

who had joined them. He said to it

Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair to the river:

Divide it also for this one

merchant. So that

people should not say

“Do they

act in such a way toward those accompanying them

by leaving them and going?”

It divided it for him

also.

Rav Yosef said: How much greater is

this

man

[Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair]

than Moses and the six hundred thousand

who went 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 object:

Perhaps here too

it

only once

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

And we conclude:

Rather,

Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was greater

like Moses and the six hundred thousand,

and no more.

Afterward,

Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair arrived

at

a certain inn

[lodging].

They placed barley before his donkey

to eat.

It did not eat

the donkey.