פירוש על בכורות 4:12

עד כמה. להטפל בבכור – to be engaged with its (i.e., the firstling’s) raising prior to giving it to the Kohen.

Introduction When a first born is born into an Israelite’s herd, the Israelite is not allowed to immediately give it to the priest. Rather, he must take care of it for a period of time and then transfer the animal to the priest. Our mishnah discusses how long he needs to take care of the animal. As background to this mishnah, we must remember that after the Temple was destroyed, the priest would have to hold on to the first born until it became blemished, at which point he could slaughter it and eat it. During this period he couldn’t use it for anything else. When the Temple was still standing, he could sacrifice it whenever he wanted to, as long as it was already eight days old.

בדקה עד שלשים יום ובגסה עד חמשים – In the Gemara (Tractate Bekhorot 26b), we derive it, from what is written (Exodus 22:28): “You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give Me the first-born among your sons,” and adjacent to it (Exodus 22:29), “You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks,” and they show an incongruity/objection, “your bull” which is mentioned earlier in Scripture to “the skimming of the first yield of your vats” which is early, and “your flocks” which is later than the “the first-born among your sons” but “the skimming of the first yield of your vats” which are the first-fruits are offered at fifty days, that the grain is ripened on Passover and we don’t bring the first-fruits until Atzeret/Shavuot, as it is written (Exodus 23:16): “and the Feast of the Harvest, of the first fruits of your work, [of what you sow in the field], and just as you do for the “skimming of the first yield of your vats, which you do not bring until the end of fifty days, so you do for your bulls that you do not bring it until fifty days, and in the manner that you act regarding the first-born of your sons, as it is written concerning it (Numbers 18:16): “Take as their redemption price from the age of one month up,” similarly you should do for your flock that you should not bring it until thirty days.

For how long is an Israelite bound to take care of a first born? In the case of small cattle, for thirty days, and large cattle, fifty days. Rabbi Yose says: in the case of small cattle, three months. It is in the priest’s interest for the Israelite to take care of the animal as long as possible, to feed it and fatten it up. Therefore, the mishnah sets a mandatory period in which the Israelite must take care of the animal. According to the first opinion, this time period is longer for large cattle such as oxen, because they need to be fattened up more. According to Rabbi Yose the opposite is true. The period is longer for small cattle such as goats and sheep because their survival is more precarious.

בדקה שלשה חדשים – because its care-taking (i.e., of small cattle) is more troublesome (see Talmud Bekhorot 26b and Talmud Bava Metzia 69a), for its teeth are thin and it is not able to eat grass. And if it won’t be with its mother it will die. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

If the priest says [to the Israelite] during this period “Give it to me,” he must not give it to him. One would think that if the priest is willing to take the animal at an earlier period, the Israelite would be allowed to give it to him. The mishnah rules that this is forbidden. The problem is that if priests start helping Israelites out in preparing that which they must give them, then there is a danger of a quid pro quo situation being created “you take the animal earlier, and I will give it to you and not another priest.” Ultimately, this would be against the priests’ best interests, so the mishnah makes such behavior prohibited. Also, the Torah says that these must be given to the priests, and not that the priests should have to work in order to receive their gifts.

לא יתנו לו – for since its care-taking is cast upon an Israelite for fifty days, and the Kohen said to him “Within this time [period], give it to me and I will pasture/tend it.” It is similar to someone who rents it that he saves him from the trouble on the condition that he (i.e., the owner) will give it to him and not to another Kohen, and this is similar to a Kohen who helps/assists in the granary/threshing floor to thresh and to winnow in order that they will give him the heave-offerings/Terumot, and it is taught [in a Baraitha] that Kohanim and Levites who assist in the granary/threshing floor, they don’t give them have-offerings and tithes. But if [the animal] had a blemish and he said to him: “Give it to me and I will consume it, for since it was pointed out to him, e was not like the Kohen who assists in the granary.

But if the first born was blemished and the priest said to him “Give it to me so that I may eat it,” then it is allowed. However, if the animal is blemished already, then the priest can eat it immediately, as opposed to holding on to it until it becomes blemished. Therefore, in this case the Israelite can immediately give it to the priest.

בין תמים בין בעל מחם – whether at the time of the Temple or whether at the present time, every year it is his, he is permitted to uphold it. And a firstling with a blemish, we derive that it is given to a Kohen, and he consumes it with its blemish for since it is written (Numbers 18:18): “But their meat shall be yours,” is the plural language, whether it is pure firstling or whether it is a firstling with a blemish.

And in Temple times, if [the first born] was in an unblemished state and the priest said to him “Give it to me, and I will offer it up it was allowed.” When the Temple still stood the priest could sacrifice the animal immediately. Therefore, the Israelite can give it to him as soon as the priest asks for it.

A first born is eaten year by year both in an unblemished as well as in a blemished state, for it is said: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year” (Deuteronomy 15:20). The first born must either be eaten or sacrificed (when the Temple still stood) within its first year. If it is not blemished within this year, then the priest must sacrifice it. This is derived from the verse in Deuteronomy. Obviously, once the Temple was destroyed, the priest might have to wait longer for it to become blemished.

כל שנים עשר חדש – from when it (i.e., the firstling) was born.

Introduction Our mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, where we learned that a priest is supposed to eat the first-born within its first year.

לאחר שנתו – as for example, at this time, when he needs to keep it/sustain it until a blemish befalls it.

If a blemish appeared on it in its first year, he is permitted to keep it all the twelve months. If it is blemished before the year is up, he can wait up to a year to eat it.

אינו רשאי לקיימו אלא עד שלשים יום – from the day that the blemish befalls it [consuming it thirty days later].

If after the twelve months, however, he is not permitted to keep it except for thirty days. If the year has already passed, he must slaughter it within thirty days. It is interesting to note that the reason someone might want to wait to slaughter his first born is probably because he doesn’t want to eat such a large quantity of meat until there is some special occasion (wedding, perhaps). People in the ancient world did not eat meat on a regular basis. The Torah (and Mishnah) need to prohibit waiting, because otherwise, people might hold on to their first borns for a long time.

רבי יהודה מתיר – with blemishes that are in the eye, Rabbi Yehuda admits/agrees that it is prohibited, because they change after death since because of the pain of death, the eye changes and even though it appears as a permanent blemish, if it had appeared to it while living it would have appeared as a passing [blemish], and he would not permit anything other than blemishes that are on the body that do not change. But Rabbi Meir holds that we make a decree that blemishes that are on the body that do not change on account of blemishes that are in the eye that do change. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.

If one slaughtered the first born and then showed its blemish [to an expert]:
Rabbi Judah permits,
But Rabbi Meir says: since it was not slaughtered by the instructions of the expert, it is forbidden.
One of the main functions of rabbis was to examine first born animals and to determine whether they had a blemish that would prohibit the animal from being sacrificed. After the Temple was destroyed, this was obviously a very important matter, one of grave economic significance, because other than slaughter and eat the first born, nothing else could be done with it. Indeed, one of the major aspects of rabbinic ordination was allowing a student to become a rabbi in order to allow first borns to be eaten. In order to receive such ordination one must be an expert in determining what animals are blemished and trustworthy to allow the blemished ones and forbid the unblemished ones.
Generally, the animal would first be shown to an expert (a rabbi) and then, if the rabbi determined that it was blemished, the animal could be slaughtered and eaten. However, in the case in our mishnah, the person slaughtered it and then brought it to a rabbi. At this point, the rabbi must determine whether there was a blemish on the animal before it was slaughtered.
According to Rabbi Judah, if the sage sees such a blemish, the meat may be eaten. Rabbi Meir, however, prohibits the meat because he did not follow the proper procedure.

מומחה – he that received permission from the Nasi/President or from the Bet Din/Jewish court of the Land of Israel to permit firstlings. And even though that in a general way, he who studied the [Written] Torah [and the Oral Torah] and knows how to think and to compare by analogy [two laws] and to understand and form a conclusion by analogy, he one who is called a specialist/Mumheh, and when he is recognized and known and when he has acquired fame among the people of his generation, he is a specialist for the many, and he can judge as an individual, even though he did not receive permission from the Exilarch/head of the Diaspora community, [but] in regard to permission to permit firstlings, he is not called a specialist, and he is not able to permit firstlings other than after he receives permission from the Bet Din/Jewish court of those ordained in the Land of Israel, for the domain of the Exilarch does not have an effect in this.

If one who is not an expert sees a first born and it was slaughtered by his instructions, in such a case it shall be buried and he shall make reparation from his own pocket.
If a [non-expert] judge gave a judgment and declared innocent a person who was really liable or made liable a person who was really innocent, declared unclean a thing which was clean or declared clean a thing which was really unclean, his decision stands but he has to make reparation from his own pocket.
If the judge was an expert [sanctioned by the] court, he is exempt from making reparation.
It happened once that a cow's womb was removed and Rabbi Tarfon gave it [the cow] to the dogs to eat. The matter came before the sages at Yavneh and they permitted the animal. Todos the physician said: no cow or pig leaves Alexandria of Egypt before its womb is removed in order that it may not breed. Rabbi Tarfon said: “There goes your donkey, Tarfon.” Rabbi Akiva said to him: you are exempt, for you are an expert and whoever is an expert sanctioned by the court is exempt from reparation.
Our mishnah deals with the consequences of a judge who issues an errant ruling.
Section one: A person who is not an expert has no business declaring a first born blemished such that it can be slaughtered. If he does declare that it is blemished and the animal is slaughtered, the meat is prohibited and it must be buried. [Rabbi Judah would allow an expert to see if it was blemished, see yesterday’s mishnah]. In addition, the non-expert who allowed the animal to be slaughtered must repay the owner from his own pocket. Clearly, this is meant to discourage a non-expert from declaring an animal blemished.
Section two: The same is true in other cases of judicial decisions. If a non-expert judge renders a decision and later it is found that he made the wrong decision, he must make restitution from his own pocket. Non-experts should simply not make decisions, and if they do, they run the risk of incurring liability.
Section three: The mishnah now brings an interesting story of a mistaken judgment. A cow is brought in front of the sages so that they can determine whether the cow is a terefah, an animal with a wound/disease that would cause it to die within a short period. Such an animal may not be eaten. The sages in Yavneh determined that the animal was indeed a terefah. After making this determination, Todos, a doctor, testified that in Alexandria they would regularly remove the wombs from cows and pigs before they would allow the animal to leave the city. They would do this because they thought their cows and pigs were of superior breed and they didn’t want others to breed them. In any case, this proves that a cow with its womb removed is not a terefah.
Rabbi Tarfon realizes that he has made a mistake and therefore, exclaims to himself, “Tarfon, there goes your donkey!” Rabbi Tarfon is now going to have to sell his donkey to pay back for the loss of the cow.
Rabbi Akiva assures Rabbi Tarfon that he has not lost his donkey, because he is an expert, and an expert doesn’t have to make restitution when he renders a mistaken judgment.
I don’t know whether the mishnah is intentionally being ironic, but I find it funny that Rabbi Tarfon is an expert, even though he doesn’t know that the halakhah is that he doesn’t have to pay back the loss. In other words, he is an expert despite the fact that he has made two mistakes in one mishnah.

וישלם מביתו – and when he pays a Kohen, he gives one-fourth of its cost if it is a small animal, and half of its cost if it is a large animal. And because of this, he pays one-half [of its cost], for the money that is placed in doubt we divide it, but one can say that he loses it, for if he had not permitted this to himself, he would bring a complete expert and permit it for himself and he would consume it, but now it requires burial, and one can say, that he doesn’t lose anything, for perhaps, there wasn’t a blemish and a complete specialist would not permit himself [this], and perhaps a fixed blemish would not fall upon it ever until it dies. And the case where he doesn’t pay one-half for a small animal like that of a large animal, is because there is greater trouble to raise a small animal and he who permitted the firstling for the Kohen saved him from the great trouble to care for a small animal, for perhaps if he had shown it to another, he would not have permitted it and he would have great amount of care taking for it until a blemish would befall it, and for this reason, he would injure it that he would not have to pay other than one-quarter. But Maimonides explained this regarding another matter, and this is essential.

מה שעשה עשוי וישלם מביתו – for the one that where there is a case of indirect damage, he is liable to pay from his house/property for the loss that he caused to his fellow, but the one that does not judge a case of indirect damage explains our Mishnah explicitly that he engaged in business by hand [directly].

וזיכה את החייב – and the case can be found as for example, that he had a deposit with the lender and this [specialist] exempted the borrower [from paying] and he took the deposit in his from the hand of the lender and returned it to the borrower.

וטימא את הטהור – it is found that he did business with it by hand, as for example, that he brought before him pure animals to borrow them and he said that they are ritually impure and he took one reptile and had it come in contact with them, in order that there would be no further doubt and that his words would be validated.

וטיהר את הטמא – as for example that he took ritually pure fruit/produce and combined them with those fruit/produce that he purified, and he acted not in accordance with the law and defiled them.

ואם היה מומחה לבית דין – that he received permission from the Bet Din.

פטור – for he would not be able to tell him why he made this judgment for he was not expert in the laws.

האם שלה – her womb.

והאכילה רבי טרפון לכלבים – for they asked him about it and he said that it was “torn” (i.e., unkosher) and he fed it to the dogs.

שלא תלד – because their cows and pigs were very prominent and they sell them for a high price , and they want that they will not give birth for another kingdom in order that they will be needed, and they cut/sever their mother and she does not die, therefore, she is not “torn”/unkosher.

הלכך חמורך טרפון – you have lost your donkey, for you need to sell it in order to pay the cost of the cow to its owners.

שמומחה אתה – one and another thing he said to him, one – that he error in this matter of a Mishnah, for our Mishnah in [the third chapter of Tractate Hullin] “These are the torn animals’ [Mishnah 2], you took its mother which was kosher and we hold that he errs in the matter of the Mishnah, and the former argument is to be reinstated and we judge him appropriately and he does not pay. And furthermore, alternatively, and the weighing of opinions [of opposing views] – that is, as for example, two Tannaim or two Amoraim who argue, and the Halakha is not stated either according to this Master or according to that Master and the general practice is like one of them, and he went and acted like the other one, what is done is done and he pays from his estate.

אין שוחטין על פיו – for perhaps because of reward he permits it.

If one takes payment for seeing first borns, they must not be slaughtered by his instructions unless he was an expert like Ila in Yavneh whom the sages permitted to accept four isars for small cattle and six as for large cattle, whether unblemished or blemished. Generally speaking it is forbidden for a sage to take wages in return for examining a first born to see if it is blemished or not. If a sage does take a wage and he declares it blemished the animal may not be slaughtered because it is feared that the wage acted as a bribe. The one exception is men who are like the legendary Ila in Yavneh. Ila was a great expert in blemishes and many priests would bring him their animals for examination. He was also wealthy enough that he didn’t need their payments. A bribe wouldn’t cause him to allow an unblemished animal to be slaughtered. Finally, he was known to be an honest man who would not lie in return for money. Because he exhibited all of these qualities, he was allowed to charge a fee for examining first borns. However, it is important to note that he collected his fee whether or not he declared the animal to be blemished. Obviously, it would be extremely problematic for him to collect his fee only if he declared it blemished. This would truly be a recipe for bribes.

כאילא – the name of a Sage that lived in Yavneh, and he was a pious individual and was not suspected of this, and whether he said to them that it (i.e., the firstling) was pure or whether he said to them that it had a blemish, he would take all of his salary.

ארבע איסרות בבהמה דקה ובגסה ששה – a large [animal] increases the trouble involved, to cast it to the ground and to turn it upside down and to check its blemishes. Therefore, its payment is greater.

בין תמים בין בעל מום – and even though that when he tells him that it is ritually pure, he does not benefit from him at all, and he takes his salary, for if he did not take his payment/reward , they wold come to suspect him that he said that it (i.e., the animal) has a blemish, and from here, Maimonides judges on those who slaughter [animals] for the public, for it is appropriate for them either that they should not take a salary at all, or that they should take a salary on the finding of [animals] that died of themselves or were torn, like those that are found in the field, similar to those who see the blemishes in firstlings.

הנוטל שכר לדון דיניו בטלים – as it is written (Deuteronomy 4:5): “See, I have imparted to you laws and rules as the LORD my God has commanded me, [for you to abide by in the land that you are about to enter and occupy.],” just as I [do it] gratuitously, so you [do them] gratuitously. But among the Rabbis of Ashkenaz, I saw scandalous behavior in this matter , that an ordained Rabbi, the head of a Yeshiva, is not embarrassed to take ten gold coins in order to be [present] for half-an hour for the writing and delivery of one Get/Jewish bill of divorce, and the witnesses that affix their names on the Get [receive] two gold coins or one gold coin for each of them at the very least, and this is not a Rabbi in my eyes, but rather a thief and a violent man who attained it by force, because he knows that we don’t give a Get in his city without his permission, and he who gives the Get against his will needs to give him all that he desires. |But I am worried regarding [this] Get/Jewish bill of divorce that it is invalid, for it is taught in our Mishnah, that a person who takes a reward to judge, his judgments are invalid; to testify, his testimony is invalid.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with a judge or other official who takes payment for performing his work.

If one takes payment to act as a judge, his judgments are void; to give evidence, his evidence is void; to sprinkle or to sanctify, the waters are considered cave waters and the ashes are considered burned ashes. If one takes payment in order to fulfill legal or ritual functions, his actions are void. To sprinkle refers to a priest who sprinkles the red heifer waters on an impure person. To “sanctify” means to place the ashes in water. “Cave waters” and “burned ashes” are the way that the mishnah says that the water and ashes are invalidated from purifying the impure. All of these are functions that people must perform without taking payment.

לקדש – to mix the dust of the sin-offering in fresh water in a vessel.

If he was a priest and he was made unclean regarding his terumah, he must give him food and drink and rub him with oil. The mishnah now notes that while a priest or sage should not take a wage for rendering their services, they are not obligated to incur a loss. We should note that there will be a fine line between preventing a loss and rendering payment. The first part is concerned with a priest who loses his ability to eat terumah. Normally, a priest eats terumah which he receives as a gift from Israelites. The fact that he receives terumah from Israelites seems to be, at least partially, a payment for his rendering priestly services. If while rendering one of the services mentioned in section one a priest becomes impure, the person who requested his services must provide him with food, drink and oil from his own expense. This is not payment for the services but rather compensation for the loss of the priest’s ability to eat, drink and anoint with terumah.

אפר מקלה – the ashes of a portable stove on feet is called calcined ashes/hearth ash (i.e., a symbol of mourning, supplication), that is to say, mere ashes that have no sanctity.

And if he was an old sage, he mounts him on a donkey. If an old sage comes to render any of these services, the person requesting his help must give him a donkey to ride around on. The old man doesn’t have to walk around himself if this would be difficult for him. Providing transportation is no considered paying for the sage’s services.

אבל אם היה – this person who sees/examines the firstlings, or this one who is a judge, or the witness, or the one sanctifies is a Kohen, and the person who goes with him pardons him in the place of defilement and defiled him from consuming his heave offering, and makes him lose out that he needs to acquire non-sacred produce and to eat, and the value of non-consecrated are more expensive than the value of the heave offering, for non-sanctified produce is appropriate for all, but heave offering is not appropriate other than for pure Kohanim.

He also pays him as he would a workman. Finally, and quite importantly, the person requesting the judge or priest’s help must pay him the wages that he would have been earning in his regular profession had he not been rendering judgment etc. Thus if the priest/sage was a laborer making five dollars an hour, then he would have to be paid five dollars for every hour taken up with the person’s case. If he worked in a more lucrative profession, he would earn the higher wage. This is not considered to be paying him for services rendered, but rather compensating him for wages he cannot earn.

מאכילו – this one who brings him gives him to drink and anoints him.

ונותן לו שכרו כפועל – if he was customarily [engaged] in heavy and difficult labor, and he earns a great deal, we estimate how much a person like this wishes to take that is less than one he would earn with heavy labor and to be engaged in this work which is easier, and such we give him,. For it is permitted fo each judge to take a salary for his idleness, for the idleness is known and recognized/familiar, and he takes from the two litigants equally, but more than this is forbidden.

החשוד על הבכורות – a Kohen who is suspected of placing/attaching a blemish on a firstling.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with a person who is suspected of not treating his first born animals as holy. For instance, he slaughters an unblemished first born, or he intentionally blemishes it. The problem with such a person is that we must be concerned that many of the products that he might sell are actually derived from first borns who were illicitly slaughtered (or sheared).

בשר צבאים – for it (i.e., deer/gazelle meat) is red and he switches it with the meat of a calf, and sometimes, when he sells the firstling of a pure calf and he said that it is the meat of a deer/gazelle, where we aren’t troubled by a firstling.

If one is suspected in connection with first borns, one must not buy from him even deer's flesh or unprocessed hides. The law of the first born applies only to domesticated animals cows, sheep and goats. Seemingly, one could buy deer’s flesh from a person suspected of slaughtering his first born animals without concern. However, the mishnah rules that we must be concerned even with this because the meat of a calf can look like the meat of a deer. We must be concerned that he is really selling the meat of a calf and just telling people it is deer meat. One also can’t buy from him unprocessed hides, lest they come from a first born. However, one may buy from him a processed hide because if he had slaughtered a first born he would want to sell it is quickly as possible so that he would not be caught.

ולא עורות שאינן עבודים – but of tanned [hides] we buy from him, for if it is a firstling, he would not trouble himself with it, for he holds that the house of the Rabbis will hear of it and will cause him to lose [money] from it.

Rabbi Eliezer says: one may buy from him female hides we may buy from him. Rabbi Eliezer says that one can buy hides from him if it is obvious that the hides come from a female, because females are not treated halakhically as first borns. We are not concerned that he would make hides from a male look like hides from a female, assumedly because this is not easy to do.

לוקחים ממנו עורות של נקבה - - for they certainly will know it But the first Tanna/teacher who prohibits it, holds that perhaps that they sever its male genitals and treat it like the females, and when they asked him what is this incision in the place of the female genitals, he would state that the mice consumed it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

One may not buy from him washed or dirty wool, but one may buy spun wool or garments. We cannot buy from him wool, whether it has been washed or is still dirty, because we must be concerned lest it come from a first born. As we have learned, it is forbidden to shear a first born, even one that is blemished. However, we can buy wool that has been more fully processed for the same reason that we can buy processed hides. A person who illicitly shears his first born animal is going to want to sell the wool as soon as possible in order to hide his crime from the authorities.

מלובן וצואי – they explained in the Gemara (Talmud Bekhorot 29b) that it states: wool that is cleansed of its dirt, that is to say, that he washes from its filthy matter . But we don’t say that if it if is a firstling, he does not lose his troubles/efforts and it doesn’t glisten for he holds that the Rabbis heard and causes him to lose from it, for since he troubles a small amount but is not exacting with it.

אבל לוחקין ממנו טווי ובגדים – for if it is firstling, he would not go to the trouble all that much with them, for he stringent with his trouble for perhaps he will suffer loss from it.

טווי ובגדים – he is not saying actual clothing. For now that is merely spun, they will purchase from him, but he needed woven clothing, but rather, clothing, that is linen made from wool which is not woven.

החשוד על השביעית – to sow or to do business with the after-growths of the seventh year.

Introduction Since yesterday’s mishnah dealt with a person suspected of selling first borns, today’s mishnah deals with a person suspected of transgressing the laws of the sabbatical year. This would include one suspected of planting on the sabbatical year, or of selling sabbatical year produce as merchandise.

סרק – that is prepared with a comb, for since his trouble is little/small, he is not stringent.

If one is suspected of [ignoring the] sabbatical year, one may not buy from him flax, even combed; but spun or woven flax may be bought from him. One should not buy flax from a person who is suspected of transgressing the laws of the sabbatical year lest that flax was sewn during the sabbatical year. Alternatively, even if it was not sewn that year, the seller is not supposed to be treating sabbatical year produce as merchandise. One shouldn’t buy even combed flax, because the seller, suspected of transgressing these laws, would not hesitate to take this small step in processing the flax. However, one can buy spun or woven flax from him, for the same reason we explained in yesterday’s mishnah. If he is suspected of transgressing the sabbatical year, he would not take the time to process the flax to such a great extent for fear of getting caught. Therefore, we can assume that this flax was not sabbatical year flax.

אריג – not actually woven, for now that which is spun is permitted, we require woven. For this comes within the category of spun before it. But rather, woven, that is by the eye, twisted chains that they make from flax that were never spun.

אפילו מים ומלח – and because of a fine [they don’t purchase water or salt from him].

If one is suspected of selling terumah as hullin, one may not buy even water and salt from him, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Judah rules strictly one can’t buy any food products from someone suspected of selling terumah as if it were hullin, even water and salt, which obviously are not subject to the laws of terumah. This is a punishment for the fact that he sells terumah as hullin, which is a serious offense, akin to a butcher who today would sell non-kosher meat as kosher meat.

כל שיש בו זיקת תרומה – every thing that the heave offering is used for. And “all” includes the insides of fish that they combine with them olive oil that has the obligation to pay heave offering. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Shimon says: [one may not buy from him] whatever is connected to terumah and tithes. Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently one can’t buy from him only objects that are liable for terumah, namely agricultural products. It is permitted to buy from this person water and salt. This would be like saying today that if a kosher butcher sells non-kosher meat one could still buy drinks, bread etc. from him.

אינו חשוד על המעשרות – and they purchase from him grain in the rest of the years of the Seven Year cycle, but they don’t tithe from them as definitively [tithed] but as a doubtfully tithed. And the reason is that he who is suspected [of violating] the Sabbatical Year is not suspected on account of tithes, and one who is suspected on account of tithes is not suspected on account of the Seventh Year [produce], because there is is in each of hen material that is not part of its partner; Seventh Year produce does not have be consumed inside the walls of Jerusalem, but Second Tithe is not consumed other than within/inside the wall [of Jerusalem]. Therefore, there is a more stringent punishment regarding [Second] Tithe than from the punishment of [not consuming] the Sabbatical Year produce. For the [Second] Tithe has redemption, but since the Seventh Year [produce] is forbidden, it does not have redemption, therefore, the Seventh Year is more stringent than from the [Second] Tithe.

One who is suspected of ignoring the sabbatical year is not suspected of ignoring [also] the tithes. Someone who is suspected of not properly observing the sabbatical year is not automatically suspected of not tithing his food. This would mean that when it is not the sabbatical year, a person could buy or eat his produce without concern that the food is not tithed.

החשוד על זה ועל זה – since he is suspected [of violating] a Torah prohibition all the more so, that he is suspect [of violating] on the purities, for they are from the Rabbis, that a person eats his unconsecrated produce in ritual purity.

One who is suspected of ignoring tithes is not suspected of ignoring [also] the sabbatical year. Similarly, one who is generally suspected of not tithing, is not automatically suspected of not observing the sabbatical laws. The two are not connected, even though they are in the same general set of prohibitions.

ויש שחשוד על הטהרות – that are of the Rabbis, but is not suspected on account of Seventh Year produce and [Second] Tithe. For one that is suspected on a Rabbinic [legislation] is not suspected [of violation] of a Torah prohibition.

One who is suspected of ignoring both is suspected of ignoring the rules of purity. However, one who is suspected of transgressing both the sabbatical year laws and of not tithing is suspected of not observing the purity laws. What this would mean is that he cannot be trusted to state that the food that he is selling is pure. This would have ramifications only for a person who is interested in eating all of their food in a state of purity, a custom that was attributed to the Pharisees.

And it is possible for one to be suspected of ignoring the rules of purity and yet not be suspected of ignoring the two laws [cited above]. The opposite of section three is not true one can be suspected of not observing the purity laws, but trusted with regard to the sabbatical laws and tithing. It seems that certain purity matters were easily ignored, perhaps because fewer people observed them in the mishnaic period or perhaps because it is not really a transgression to eat food without it being pure. Therefore, one who transgresses more consequential laws such as tithing and the sabbatical year, is suspected of transgressing the less consequential matter of purity.

This is the general rule: one who is suspected of [transgressing] something must not give judgment on it or testify concerning it. A person is suspected of transgressing a certain law cannot give testimony or render judgment concerning this law. We shall see this statement again below in 5:4.