Pesachim 51a (נא.) — the Talmud in English

You are not permitted to permit it in their presence.

He said to him

Rav Yosef:

And

for

was it not stated concerning it

that beraita:

Rav Ḥisda said:

This was stated only

with regard to the Kutim

[Kutim] who adopted a prohibition with regard to permitted matters. But with regard to other Jews, it is permitted to permit it in their presence.

Abaye said to him:

For what reason is it not permitted in the presence of the Kutim

to permit it in their presence? —

Because

if one permits for them matters with regard to which they adopted a prohibition,

the matter will become lax for them

[the observance of the mitzvot will become diminished in their eyes], and they will come to permit even matters that are prohibited by law.

If so,

these people

[the residents of Ḥuzai]

also,

since they are not learned in Torah,

the matter will become lax

for them

as well.

And if you permit them to eat the rice ḥalla, they will refrain from separating ḥalla even from a grain-dough.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: We see —

if most of them eat rice, we should not eat it in their presence

the rice ḥalla,

lest the doctrine of ḥalla be forgotten by them

entirely, and they will not separate it even from grain.

But

if most of them eat grain, we should eat it in their presence

the rice ḥalla. There is no concern lest the doctrine of ḥalla be forgotten by them, since we still require them to separate ḥalla from grain.

On the contrary, this stringency should be uprooted from their midst. For since they mistakenly believe that rice is obligated in ḥalla, they may stumble by eating untithed produce.

For

perhaps they will come to separate

ḥalla

from

a

grain

dough, which is a dough subject to

an obligation, onto

a

rice

dough, which is a dough

exempt from ḥalla.

And since it was separated onto produce exempt from ḥalla, it is not ḥalla; the rice remains untithed produce. And if they give it to a koen, the koen will consequently eat untithed produce.

Or they may separate

from

a

rice

dough, which is a dough

exempt from ḥalla, onto

a

grain

dough, which is a dough subject to

an obligation.

And since the designation of ḥalla does not take effect on the rice, the grain dough has still not been rectified; it remains untithed produce. And they will consequently eat untithed produce.

The actual text: With regard to permitted matters, concerning which others adopted a prohibition, you are not permitted to permit them in their presence!

Rav Ḥisda said: We are dealing with the Kutim,

who are not well versed in halakhic laws. And if you permit for them what they believe to be prohibited, they will come to permit even matters prohibited by law.

And we challenge this: Is this stated specifically with regard to Kutim,

but not with regard to everyone else?!

But it was taught:

a.

Two brothers may bathe together

and there is no concern here about promiscuity. Nor do we suspect that, because they see each other naked, they will become attracted to one another for male intercourse.

But two brothers may not bathe together in Kavul

[the name of a place], because in that place it was customary that two brothers should not bathe together.

And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel,

who were

the sons of Rabban Gamliel, who bathed together in Kavul. And the entire province mocked

[ridiculed]

them. And they said

the residents of the province:

Never in our lives have we seen such a thing

—that two brothers should bathe together!

And Hillel slipped away and went out to the outer room

of the bathhouse, and remained silent.

And he did not wish

to defend himself and

to tell them: It is permitted

even for

you

to bathe together as two brothers, because when a matter is permitted but others adopted a prohibition with regard to it, one is not permitted to permit it in their presence.

b.

One may go out wearing kordakison

[thin shoes worn beneath one's regular shoes]

on Shabbat,

and we are not concerned that, because they are loose, they may fall from his feet and he will come to carry them four cubits in the public domain.

And

even though this is permitted by law,

one may not go out wearing kordakison on Shabbat in Biri

[the name of a place].

And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, the sons of Rabban Gamliel, who went out wearing kordakison on Shabbat in Biri. And the entire province mocked them. And they said: Never in our lives have we seen

a person go out

like this

on Shabbat!

And they removed

Hillel and Yehuda's kordakison from their feet,

and gave them

to their slaves. And they did not wish to tell them: It is permitted

even for

you

to do so.

c.

And one may sit on the benches of gentiles

[on which they sell merchandise]

on Shabbat,

and we are not concerned that people will suspect them of conducting business on Shabbat.

And

even though this is permitted by law,

one may not sit on the benches of gentiles in Akko.

And there was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who sat on the benches of gentiles on Shabbat in Akko. And the entire province mocked him. They said: Never in our lives have we seen

a person sit

like this

on Shabbat.

And when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel heard this, he

slipped away

from the bench and sat

on the ground. And he did not wish to tell them: It is permitted

even for

you

to do so.

Evidently, the statement that was taught, “With regard to permitted matters, concerning which others adopted a prohibition, you are not permitted to permit them in their presence,” was not taught specifically with regard to Kutim. Rather, it applies even to other Jews. And this is difficult for Rav Ḥisda.

And we answer: All these places are comparable to the countries overseas.

And Rav Ḥisda agrees that

the residents of the countries overseas also

may not be permitted the matter in their presence. For

since Sages are not commonly found among them,

they are not learned and their place is not a place of Torah; rather,

they are comparable to Kutim!

And there is likewise concern that the matter will become lax for them.

And we raise a question concerning this:

Granted,

sitting on

the benches of gentiles

on Shabbat, the residents of Akko adopted a prohibition with regard to it

because

one who sits on them

appears as though he is

conducting

business transactions

on Shabbat, since these benches are used for commerce.

And likewise, going out

wearing kordakison also, the residents of Biri adopted a prohibition with regard to it, because

perhaps they will slip off

his feet

and

he will come to carry them four cubits in the public domain!

And he will transgress the prohibition against the labor of carrying four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat.

But

with regard to two brothers

bathing

together —

for what reason did they not

do so in Kavul?

And we answer: I might have said that it should be prohibited,

as it was taught:

A person may bathe in a bathhouse with anyone

except

his father,

because when he sees him, he remembers that he emerged from there, and he turns his attention to erotic thoughts.

And

not with

his father-in-law, because he turns his attention to the fact that his wife emerged from there.

because he focuses his thoughts on the fact that his wife came from him.

And

not with

his mother's husband, and

not with

his sister's husband,

because he is likewise led to erotic thoughts because of them.

And Rabbi Yehuda permits bathing with

his

father, out of respect for his father,

because by attending to him in the bathhouse, he is engaged in honoring his father.

And the same law applies to his mother's husband,

as he is permitted to bathe with him, because he is likewise obligated to honor his mother's husband.

And they

the residents of Kavul

came and decreed with regard to two brothers, because of one's sister's husband.

It was taught: A student may not bathe with his teacher.

For the student must be embarrassed to do so, because of the honor and awe due to his teacher.

But if his teacher needs him

to attend to him,

it is permitted

for him to bathe with him.

When Rabba bar bar Ḥana arrived, he ate the fatty tissue called de'aytera

[the fat found in the concavity of the stomach], which the residents of Eretz Yisrael eat, because it is not among the forbidden fats. But the residents of Babylonia had adopted a prohibition with regard to it.

Rav Avira the Elder and Rabba, son of Rav Huna, came in to him

[came to him]

while he was eating

this fat.

When

he saw them,

Rabba bar bar Ḥana

covered

that fat

from them,

so that they would not see it.

They came

Rav Avira and Rabba

and told Abaye

what they had seen.

He said to them

Abaye:

He made you

[he treated you] Rabba bar bar Ḥana

like Kutim,

as he concealed the fat from you so that he would not be compelled to tell you that this fat is permitted to eat.

And he was concerned about that which was taught: With regard to a matter concerning which people adopted a prohibition, you are not permitted to permit it in their presence. And Rav Ḥisda already established this as referring to Kutim.

Thus, by refusing to permit this matter to you, he treated you as Kutim.

And we challenge this:

And

for

did Rabba bar bar Ḥana not accept that which we learned:

One who travels from one place to another,

they impose upon him

both

the stringencies of the place from which he departed, and

both

the stringencies of the place to which he went!

And he should not have deviated from the custom of the residents of Babylonia not to eat this fat, because of dispute.

Abaye said: This statement applies

that he should not deviate because of dispute only when one travels

from

one place in

Babylonia to

another place in

Babylonia.

And from Eretz Yisrael to

another place in

Eretz Yisrael. Alternatively, from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael.

(G.M.)

But one who travels

from

Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

is permitted to follow the lenient practice of Eretz Yisrael, even when he is in Babylonia.

And

we are not concerned about dispute in this matter,

because since we

[the residents of Babylonia]

are subordinate to them

[subordinate to the residents of Eretz Yisrael],

we act in accordance with them!

For since they possess semikha and we do not possess semikha [as there is no semikha in Babylonia], even when they come to our location they do not need to nullify their custom on our account.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say

that one who travels

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia

is obligated to follow the stringencies of Babylonia, there is still no difficulty with regard to Rabba bar bar Ḥana.

For this statement

that they impose upon him the stringencies of the place to which he went applies specifically

when he does not intend to return

to his original place, but rather intends to settle permanently in the place to which he went.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana intended to return

to Eretz Yisrael

was his intention!

Therefore, he was not obligated to follow the stringencies of Babylonia.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to his son: My son,

although I eat de'aytera, you

must not eat

it,

neither in my presence nor not in my presence.

I, who saw Rabbi Yoḥanan eating it —

for

[he is worthy]

Rabbi Yoḥanan is worthy of being relied upon,

and of eating it

both in his presence and not in his presence.

But

you, who did not see him

eating de'aytera,

must not eat it, neither in my presence nor not in my presence.

And his statements contradict one another!

For Rabba bar bar Ḥana contradicts his own words elsewhere.

For Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar told me: Once I entered a garden after Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonia

during the Sabbatical year,