aver

Rebbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demay, they did not decree about these matters. Rebbi Hoshaia said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order. “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haäreẓ. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haäreẓ and gave ḥallah is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haäreẓ. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haäreẓ and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between them? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah, according to R. Joḥanan it is obligated, according to R. Hoshaia it is free.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demay, they did not decree about these matters. Rebbi Hoshaia said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order. “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haäreẓ. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haäreẓ and gave ḥallah is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haäreẓ. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haäreẓ and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between them? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah, according to R. Joḥanan it is obligated, according to R. Hoshaia it is free.

It was stated: “He who is trustworthy for purity is trustworthy for tithes.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated it and explained his reason: That means, if one is a guest of his, but for the public he is not trustworthy until he accepts it publicly. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Even I am not trustworthy until we accept it in public. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a ḥaver who sent to another ḥaver, the recipient must tithe. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa, for example, I to Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, and Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac to me? He answered him, what do you want from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, because all he eats, he eats from the market.

It was stated: “He who is trustworthy for purity is trustworthy for tithes.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated it and explained his reason: That means, if one is a guest of his, but for the public he is not trustworthy until he accepts it publicly. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Even I am not trustworthy until we accept it in public. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a ḥaver who sent to another ḥaver, the recipient must tithe. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa, for example, I to Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, and Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac to me? He answered him, what do you want from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, because all he eats, he eats from the market.

It was stated: “A ḥaver should not serve as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haäreẓ or the dinner of an am haäreẓ except when everything was in order and tithed under his control, even the wine ladle. But if a ḥaver acted as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haäreẓ or the dinner of an am haäreẓ this is prima facie evidence for tithes. If one saw him lying on a couch it would not be prima facie evidence, since I say that he is lying on the couch after making the required mental stipulations. If his son is lying down next to him, he has to tithe for him; he does not have to tithe for another ḥaver.”

It was stated: “A ḥaver should not serve as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haäreẓ or the dinner of an am haäreẓ except when everything was in order and tithed under his control, even the wine ladle. But if a ḥaver acted as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haäreẓ or the dinner of an am haäreẓ this is prima facie evidence for tithes. If one saw him lying on a couch it would not be prima facie evidence, since I say that he is lying on the couch after making the required mental stipulations. If his son is lying down next to him, he has to tithe for him; he does not have to tithe for another ḥaver.”

It was stated: “A ḥaver should not serve as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haäreẓ or the dinner of an am haäreẓ except when everything was in order and tithed under his control, even the wine ladle. But if a ḥaver acted as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haäreẓ or the dinner of an am haäreẓ this is prima facie evidence for tithes. If one saw him lying on a couch it would not be prima facie evidence, since I say that he is lying on the couch after making the required mental stipulations. If his son is lying down next to him, he has to tithe for him; he does not have to tithe for another ḥaver.”

MISHNAH: He who accepts upon himself to be a ḥaver will not sell to the am haäreẓ wet or dry and will not buy wet from him, is not guest of an am haäreẓ and does not have him as a guest in his clothing. Rebbi Jehudah says, moreover he should not raise animals of the flock, should not overstep bounds by vows and laughter, should not defile himself with the dead, and be a regular in the house of study. They said to him, these are not included.

It was stated: “Everybody who comes has to accept, even a learned ḥaver; but a rabbi who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rebbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on. Rebbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a ḥaver and an am ḥaäreẓ? The position of Rebbi La parallels that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him. He said to them, I shall come to your house; I am an am haäreẓ with respect to purities.

It was stated: “Everybody who comes has to accept, even a learned ḥaver; but a rabbi who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rebbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on. Rebbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a ḥaver and an am ḥaäreẓ? The position of Rebbi La parallels that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him. He said to them, I shall come to your house; I am an am haäreẓ with respect to purities.

“In earlier times, they said: One removes from fellowship a ḥaver who became tax collector. They changed to say, one removes him from fellowship for the entire time he acts as tax collector. Once he left his collectorship, he is again treated as a ḥaver.”

“In earlier times, they said: One removes from fellowship a ḥaver who became tax collector. They changed to say, one removes him from fellowship for the entire time he acts as tax collector. Once he left his collectorship, he is again treated as a ḥaver.”

Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not remove from fellowship a ḥaver who went outside the Land. Hence, a minor does not need to be brought close.

Rebbi Zeriqan, Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A medical doctor who is a ḥaver, if he feeds a sick person who is an am haäreẓ, shall put the food into his patient’s hand but not into his mouth. That is, if it is demay, but if it is certain, it is forbidden even to put it in his hand. This means, if it is the patient’s property, but the doctor’s is forbidden for a Jew; for a descendant of Noah it is permitted even if it is certain and the patient’s property, but the doctor’s is forbidden. But if it was a limb taken from a living animal it is forbidden even if it is the patient’s property, that he should not be caused to stumble.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of a protogamia they permitted because of hatred. Rebbi Avin said, here they permitted ṭevel because of human relations. Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because of human relations, why is it only on condition that the host tell him that it was tithed? If he invited him on the first Sabbath but he did not come, can the second Sabbath become the first? Rav Ḥisda said, here we have learned that a ḥaver may not eat at a meal that has no name.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this is the Mishnah: Nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need, and only to a ḥaver. In that case, if ṭevel of an am haäreẓ was mixed with profane, can that never be fixed? What shall he do? He goes to a ḥaver who buys ṭevel for him and tithes for him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this is the Mishnah: Nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need, and only to a ḥaver. In that case, if ṭevel of an am haäreẓ was mixed with profane, can that never be fixed? What shall he do? He goes to a ḥaver who buys ṭevel for him and tithes for him.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one should sell one’s olives only to a ḥaver. The House of Hillel say, also to one who tithes. But the modest ones of the House of Hillel used to follow the words of the House of Shammai. If two people put the yield of their vineyards into one wine press and one tithes but the other does not, then he who tithes must tithe his own and what could be his at any place.

It was stated: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity.” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan; just as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the little one is a restriction, so “vat of olives” is a restriction. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: They disagree about connections. Because everywhere “biting” is a connection, squeezing is not a connection. But here even squeezing is a connection; hence from the Torah they are enabled. Rebbi Jonah met Rebbi Jeremiah and asked him, did you say that? He said, that is not from me, even their enablings are restrictions. Did we not state: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity?” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? Then the olive vat should be from the Torah! What about this? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, sap is counted as a fluid.

It was stated: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity.” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan; just as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the little one is a restriction, so “vat of olives” is a restriction. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: They disagree about connections. Because everywhere “biting” is a connection, squeezing is not a connection. But here even squeezing is a connection; hence from the Torah they are enabled. Rebbi Jonah met Rebbi Jeremiah and asked him, did you say that? He said, that is not from me, even their enablings are restrictions. Did we not state: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity?” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? Then the olive vat should be from the Torah! What about this? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, sap is counted as a fluid.

Rebbi Zeïra said, the reason of the House of Shammai is that a ḥaver should never sell olives to anybody but one who tithes.

MISHNAH: If two people received a field as sharecroppers or inherited it or bought it as partners, one can say to his partner, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take your wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take the wheat and I shall take the barley, take the wine and I shall take the oil. If a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ inherited from their am haäreẓ father, the ḥaver may say, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take wheat and I shall take barley, take the moist produce and I shall take the dry.

MISHNAH: If two people received a field as sharecroppers or inherited it or bought it as partners, one can say to his partner, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take your wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take the wheat and I shall take the barley, take the wine and I shall take the oil. If a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ inherited from their am haäreẓ father, the ḥaver may say, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take wheat and I shall take barley, take the moist produce and I shall take the dry.

HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession.

MISHNAH: An am haäreẓ who said to a ḥaver, buy for me a bunch of vegetables, buy for me a loaf, if he buys anonymously, he is free. If he says, this one is for me and that one is for my friend, if they became mixed up he has to tithe, even if there are a hundred.

Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

that even a tamai person and a tahor person can eat from the same plate without worry, the Torah is therefore saying that this tamai that I permitted by a tahor person aver there, here you may not eat.