Pesachim 49b (מט:) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: A person should always sell everything he owns and marry the daughter of a Torah scholar.

If he did not find the daughter of a Torah scholar, let him marry the daughter of the great ones of the generation,

men of action and righteous people.

If he did not find the daughter of the great ones of the generation, let him marry the daughter of the heads of the synagogues.

If he did not find the daughter of the heads of the synagogues, let him marry the daughter of charity collectors,

whose appointment demonstrates that they are good and trustworthy.

If he did not find the daughter of charity collectors, let him marry the daughter of teachers of young children.

And

only

provided that he does not marry the daughter of an am ha-aretz.

Because they are vermin, and their wives are creeping creatures,

as they are not careful with the mitzvot.

And concerning their daughters it says: “Cursed is he who lies with any animal,”

because they resemble an animal, which has no heart with which to understand, like them.

It was taught: Rabbi says: An am ha-aretz—

it is forbidden

for him

to eat meat.

Because

it is stated:

“This is the law of the animal and of the bird.”

Since “law” is written before “the animal and the bird,” infer from it that only

one who engages in Torah study is permitted

to

eat the meat of animals and birds.

And

whoever

does not engage in Torah study is forbidden to eat the meat of animals and birds.

Rabbi Elazar said: An am ha-aretz—

it is permitted to tear open his nostrils

[to split him open from his nostrils]

on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat.

His students said to him: Rabbi, say

“It is permitted to slaughter him.”

Why did you say “to tear open his nostrils”?

He said to them:

I specifically said tearing open his nostrils, because it is a more disgraceful form of death.

For

this one

who slaughters him

requires a blessing.

Since a blessing is recited over slaughter, it is a more honorable form of death.

But

if

this one,

the one whose nostrils are torn open,

does not require a blessing.

Similarly, an am ha-aretz deserves to die by a disgraceful death, like the tearing open of the nostrils.

Rabbi Elazar said: An am ha-aretz—

it is forbidden to accompany him on the road.

For

it is

stated

concerning Torah:

“For it is your life and the length of your days.”

It follows that one who does not engage in Torah study endangers his life.

And if

he has no concern for his own life—

then

for his fellow’s life, is it not all the more so

that he has no concern?

Therefore, one should not accompany him, lest he kill him on the road.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: An am ha-aretz—it is permitted to tear him open like a fish!

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: And

to tear him open

from his back

he means, since in this manner he will certainly die.

It was taught: Rabbi Akiva said: When I was an am ha-aretz, I would say: Who will give me a Torah scholar, so that I may bite him like a donkey!

His students said to him: Rabbi, say “

I will bite him

like a dog.”

Why did you specifically say “like a donkey”?

He said to them: A

donkey

bites and breaks a bone—

the

donkey breaks a bone

with its bite.

But a dog

bites and does not break a bone.

So great is the hatred of ammei ha-aretz for Torah scholars that they are not satisfied merely with biting them. Rather, they also wish to break their bones.

It was taught: Rabbi Meir would say: Whoever gives his daughter in marriage to an am ha-aretz—

it is as though

he

ties her up and places her before a lion.

For

just as a lion tramples

an animal

and eats it, and has no shame,

[as it does not wait until it dies. Tosafot]—

so too an am ha-aretz

does the same.

He

strikes

his wife,

and

immediately

has relations with her, and has no shame,

[as he does not wait until she reconciles with him. Tosafot].

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: Were we not dependent upon them,

the ammei ha-aretz,

for

the

purpose of business dealings

with them,

they would kill us.

Rabbi Hiyya taught: Whoever engages in Torah study in the presence of an am ha-aretz

thereby humiliates him

as though he were having relations with

the

fiancée

of the am ha-aretz

in his presence.

As it is stated,

“Moses commanded us a Torah, an inheritance

of the congregation of Jacob.”

Do not read

“inheritance,” but

“betrothed.”

For Torah is considered “betrothed” to all the communities of Jacob, including the ammei ha-aretz. That is, it belongs to everyone.

But it is not considered “married” to them, אלא only to one who engages in it. It follows that for an am ha-aretz, Torah is merely “betrothed” [Maharsha].

The hatred that ammei ha-aretz harbor toward a Torah scholar is greater than the hatred that idol worshippers harbor toward Israel.

And their wives,

the wives of the ammei ha-aretz, hate Torah scholars even

more than they do.

The tanna:

One who

studied and then abandoned

the Torah hates Torah scholars

more than all of them!

For he knows the Torah scholars and understands how contemptible ammei ha-aretz are in their eyes.

The Sages taught: Six statements were said concerning ammei ha-aretz.

They are as follows:

1.

One may not entrust testimony to them,

meaning, one may not summon them to hear something so that they can later testify about it in a court.

2.

And one may not accept testimony from him

[from an am ha-aretz]

as testimony.

3.

And one may not reveal a secret to them.

Because they are talebearers, and they will reveal the secret.

4.

And one may not appoint them guardians over

the

property of orphans.

5.

And one may not appoint them guardians over a charity fund,

because they are suspected of theft.

6.

And one may not accompany them on the road,

because of the danger, as they are suspected of bloodshed.

And some say: One may not even publicly announce his lost property

of an am ha-aretz.

One who finds lost property is obligated to announce it, as it is written: “So shall you do for every lost item of your brother.” But an am ha-aretz is not included in the category of “your brother,” because he does not act as one of your people.

And the first tanna,

who did not include this among the statements said concerning an am ha-aretz, holds that one does announce his lost property, because

sometimes superior offspring emerges from him

[that a righteous son may emerge from him]. By returning the lost property to his father, it will reach him,

and he will consume it.

And similarly

it is stated: “

The wicked

prepares

and the righteous wears.””

We learned in our Mishna:

And likewise, one who left

Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacrificial meat in his possession. Rabbi Meir says: In both cases, the measure is an egg-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says: In both cases, the measure is an olive-bulk.

And we raised a difficulty:

Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds

that the measure of

an egg-bulk is significant,

and therefore one must turn back for it in order to fulfill the mitzva of burning it properly?

And Rabbi Yehuda holds

that the measure of

an olive-bulk is also significant

enough to trouble oneself and turn back for it?

And we raise a contradiction

from that which we learned: Three who ate together are obligated to recite zimmun, to join together for Birkat HaMazon, and they may not separate.

And how much must they eat in order to recite zimmun,

what is the measure of eating that creates the obligation of zimmun?

According to Rabbi Meir:

Until

each of them eats

an olive-bulk

together with the others. But if they eat less than this measure, they do not recite zimmun.

And Rabbi Yehuda says:

They are not obligated in zimmun until they eat

an egg-bulk!

Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, only the measure of an egg-bulk is significant.

Whereas according to the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda [namely, Rabbi Meir], even the measure of an olive-bulk is significant.

But here we learned the opposite.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The positions

are

reversed.

In the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda actually said: “In both cases, one turns back for it when it is an egg-bulk.” And Rabbi Meir said: “In both cases, when it is an olive-bulk.”

Abaye said: In fact, do not reverse

their positions. And even so, there is no difficulty.

Because

there,

with regard to zimmun,

they disagree on the basis of the verses.

Whereas

here,

with regard to the burning of leaven and sacrificial meat,

they disagree on the basis of reasoning.

There, they disagree on the basis of the verses, as Rabbi Meir holds

that since the source of the obligation of Birkat HaMazon is the verse “You shall eat, be satisfied, and bless,” this verse is to be expounded as follows:

“And you shall eat”—

this is eating.

“And you shall be satisfied”—

this is drinking

[the expression of “drunkenness”].

Since the measure of eating throughout the Torah is an olive-bulk, therefore, whenever they have eaten an olive-bulk together, they are obligated in zimmun.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds

that the verse should be expounded as follows:

“And you shall eat and be satisfied”—

this is eating that includes satisfaction. And what

is eating that includes satisfaction?

This

is eating that contains a measure of

an egg-bulk.

But less than this does not satisfy, and it does not create an obligation to recite Birkat HaMazon.

Therefore, if they did not eat this measure together, they do not join for zimmun. But

here,

with regard to the removal of leaven and the burning of sacrificial meat,

they disagree on the basis of reasoning.

The removal of leaven is rabbinic, since according to Torah law it suffices to nullify it.

Likewise, the burning of lesser sacrificial meat in Jerusalem is only rabbinic.

And they disagree about the form of the enactment, namely, what it was based upon.

Rabbi Meir holds that the law governing

the

return

to his home and to Jerusalem in order to burn the leaven and the sacrificial meat

is like the law governing its ritual impurity,

as they based it upon the measure of food impurity.

Just as its impurity,

the impurity of the food,

is at an egg-bulk,

as food impurity does not apply to less than an egg-bulk—

so too his return

to his place in order to burn it was mandated by the Sages only

when it is an egg-bulk.