Pt2 Rabbinic Elitism and the Am Ha’aretz: Hierarchy, Hostility, Hatred, and Distrust (Pesachim 49b)
This is the second part of a three-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline for the series can be found there.
An Am Ha’aretz is Prohibited from Eating Meat Because He Does Not Study Torah (Leviticus 11:46)
R' Yehuda HaNasi states that it is prohibited for an am ha’aretz to eat meat. This is derived from Leviticus 11:46, which mentions “the law [torah] of the beast and of the fowl.”
R' Yehuda HaNasi homiletically interprets this verse to mean that only those who engage in Torah study are permitted to consume the meat of animals and birds, while those who do not study Torah are forbidden from doing so.
תניא,
רבי אומר:
עם הארץ אסור לאכול בשר, (בהמה)
שנאמר: ״זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף״:
כל העוסק בתורה -- מותר לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף,
וכל שאינו עוסק בתורה -- אסור לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף.
The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to an am ha'aretz.
It was taught in a baraita that
R' Yehuda HaNasi says:
It is prohibited for an am ha’aretz to eat meat,
as it is stated: “This is the law [torah] of the beast and of the fowl” (Leviticus 11:46).
He expounds:
Anyone who engages in Torah study is permitted to eat the meat of animals and fowl,
and anyone who does not engage in Torah study is prohibited to eat the meat of animals or fowl.
It Is Permitted to Stab an Am Ha’aretz to Death on Yom Kippur That Falls on Shabbat, With No Blessing on the Slaughtering Required
R' Elazar ruled that it is permitted to stab1 an am ha’aretz to death on Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbat.
When his students asked why he didn’t use the standard term for killing: "slaughter" (לשוחטו), he (cleverly) explained he deliberately chose "stab" because slaughtering requires a blessing,2 whereas stabbing does not.
אמר רבי אלעזר: עם הארץ מותר לנוחרו ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בשבת.
אמרו לו תלמידיו:
רבי!
אמור לשוחטו!
אמר להן: זה טעון ברכה, וזה אינו טעון ברכה.
R' Elazar said: It is permitted to stab an am ha’aretz to death on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat.
His students said to him:
Master!
at least say that it is permitted to slaughter him.
He said to them: I intentionally used the word stab, as this term, slaughtering, requires a blessing when one slaughters an animal, and that term, stabbing, does not require a blessing in any context.
One Should Not Travel with an Am Ha’aretz Due to the Potential Risk to Life (Deuteronomy 30:20)
R' Elazar teaches that one should not travel with an am ha'aretz, as they might pose a danger to their companion.3
He bases this on the verse, “For it is your life and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy 30:20), explaining that since an am ha’aretz has not studied Torah, they lack concern for their own life, and even less so for the life of others.
אמר רבי אלעזר:
עם הארץ אסור להתלוות עמו בדרך,
שנאמר: ״כי היא חייך ואורך ימיך״,
על חייו לא חס, על חיי חבירו — לא כל שכן.
R' Elazar said:
It is prohibited to accompany an am ha’aretz while traveling on the road due to concern that the am ha’aretz might try to harm his traveling partner,
as it is stated with regard to Torah: “For it is your life and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy 30:20).
An am ha’aretz has not studied any Torah, indicating that he is not concerned about his own life; with regard to another’s life, all the more so.
It Is Permissible to Kill an Am Ha’aretz by "Tearing Them as One Would a Fish"
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that R' Yoḥanan declared that it is permissible to kill an am ha’aretz by “tearing them like [one would to] a fish”.
R' Shmuel bar Yitzḥak adds that this can be done by cutting from the back (targeting the spinal cord to cause immediate death).
אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן: עם הארץ מותר לקורעו כדג.
אמר רבי שמואל בר יצחק: ומגבו.
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that R' Yoḥanan said: It is permitted to tear open an am ha’aretz like a fish.
R' Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: And one may cut him open from his back and thereby cause his immediate death by piercing his spinal cord rather than his stomach.
R’ Akiva's Early Hostility as an Am Ha’aretz: Wishing to Bite Torah Scholars "Like a Donkey", Breaking His Bones
R' Akiva recounted that, as an am ha'aretz, he wished to harm Torah scholars, wanting to bite them "like a donkey."
When his students asked why he didn’t say "like a dog" (presumably, since dog bites are more common than donkey bites), he clarified that he intentionally said "donkey," as a donkey's bite breaks bones, whereas a dog's bite does not.
תניא,
אמר רבי עקיבא:
כשהייתי עם הארץ,
אמרתי: מי יתן לי תלמיד חכם, ואנשכנו כחמור.
אמרו לו תלמידיו:
רבי!
אמור ככלב!
אמר להן: זה נושך ושובר עצם, וזה נושך ואינו שובר עצם.
It was taught in a baraita that
R' Akiva said:
When I was an am ha’aretz
I said: Who will give me a Torah scholar so that I will bite him like a donkey
His students said to him:
Master!
say that you would bite him like a dog!
He said to them: I specifically used that wording, as this one, a donkey, bites and breaks bones, and that one, a dog, bites but does not break bones.
Marrying One's Daughter to an Am Ha’aretz Is Like Tying Her Up and Placing Her Before a Lion: The Am Ha’aretz Shamelessly Beats Her Then Has Sex With Her
R’ Meir states that marrying one's daughter to an am ha’aretz is metaphorically likened to tying her up (כופתה) and placing her before a lion:
Just as a lion mauls (דורס) its prey without shame, an am ha’aretz mistreats his wife, beating (מכה) her4 and having sex (בועל) with her (without first appeasing her), with no shame (בושת פנים).
תניא,
היה רבי מאיר אומר:
כל המשיא בתו לעם הארץ,
כאילו כופתה, ומניחה לפני ארי.
מה ארי דורס ואוכל, ואין לו בושת פנים —
אף עם הארץ, מכה ובועל, ואין לו בושת פנים.
It was taught in a baraita that
R' Meir would say:
Anyone who marries off his daughter to an am ha’aretz
is considered as though he binds her and places her before a lion.
Why is this so? Just as a lion mauls its prey and eats and has no shame,
so too, an am ha’aretz strikes his wife and then engages in sexual relations with her without appeasing her first, and has no shame.
If Torah Scholars Did Not Use Am Ha’aretz for Business, the Am Ha’aretz Would Kill Them
תניא,
רבי אליעזר אומר:
אילמלא אנו צריכין להם למשא ומתן, היו הורגין אותנו.
It was taught in a baraita that
R' Eliezer says:
If we did not need the am ha'aretzes for business, they would kill us.
Studying Torah in Front of an Am Ha’aretz Is Comparable to Having Sex with Another's Betrothed (Deuteronomy 33:4)
R' Ḥiyya states that studying Torah in front of an am ha’aretz is as grave as having sex (בועל) with another's betrothed (ארוסתו) in front of him.5
This interpretation stems from homiletically reading "inheritance" (morasha - מורשה) in Deuteronomy 33:4 as "betrothed".6
תנא רבי חייא:
כל העוסק בתורה לפני עם הארץ,
כאילו בועל ארוסתו בפניו,
שנאמר: ״תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה״.
אל תקרי: ״מורשה״, אלא: מאורסה.
R' Ḥiyya taught:
Anyone who engages in Torah study in the presence of an am ha'aretz,
is considered as though he had sexual relations with the am ha'aretz’s betrothed bride in his presence,
as it is stated: “Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance [morasha] for the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4).
Do not read it as inheritance [morasha]; rather, read it as betrothed [me’orasa]. The Torah is compared to the betrothed bride of the Jewish people until one studies it and thereby consummates his marriage with it.
The Hierarchy of Animosity Toward Torah Scholars: Am Ha’aretz, Their Wives, and Those Who Studied Torah but Later Abandoned It
This Talmud (possibly a continuation of R’ Hiyya, from previous section) highlights escalating levels of animosity toward Torah scholars:
Am Ha’aretz harbor greater hatred for Torah scholars than non-Jews7 do for Jews.
The wives of am ha'aretzes detest Torah scholars even more than their husbands.
Those who studied Torah (שנה) but abandoned it8 exhibit the greatest hatred of all (toward Torah scholars).
גדולה שנאה ששונאין עמי הארץ לתלמיד חכם
יותר משנאה ששונאין אומות העולם את ישראל,
ונשותיהן יותר מהן.
תנא:
שנה, ופירש --
יותר מכולן.
Similarly, he said: The hatred which am ha'aretzes have for a Torah scholar
is greater than the hatred that the nations of the world have for the Jewish people.
And the wives of the am ha'aretzes hate Torah scholars more than the am ha'aretzes themselves.
It was taught in the Tosefta that
one who studied Torah and left his studies
hates Torah scholars more than all of them.
לנוחרו. This verb means "to stab," specifically the act of killing an animal by piercing it with a sharp object, in contrast to ritual slaughter, which refers to cutting its throat with a knife. (See Wikipedia, Shechita, section “Procedure“, for details.) See also the Ben-Yehuda dictionary entry here.
For another example of this word, see Tosefta_Chullin.6.2, discussing the laws of covering of the blood (כיסוי הדם) after ritual slaughter, with adjustments to the default Sefaria translation:
השוחט
לרפואה,
לאכילת עובדי כוכבים,
לאכילת כלבים —
חייב לכסות
השוחט ונתנבלה בידו
הנוחר
והמעקר —
פטור מלכסות.
השוחט בשבת וביום הכפורים,
אע"פ שמתחייב בנפשו,
כיון שחשיכה, אם היה הדם קיים —
חייב לכסות.
השוחט בספינה, כיון שהגיע ליבשה, אם היה הדם קיים —
חייב לכסות
אע"פ שאמרו לא ישחוט אדם בספינה אא"כ היה לו עפר מוכן.
השוחט וצריך לדם, לא ישחוט כדרך ששוחטין
אלא כיצד עושה?
או נוחרו או מולקו.
One who slaughters
for medicinal (רפואה) [purposes],
to feed to non-Jews,
[or] to feed to dogs
is obligated in covering up [the blood].
One who slaughters and renders [the animal] carrion (נתנבלה) through his actions,
[and] one who [kills the animal by] stabbing (נוחר)
or by ripping out (מעקר) [the throat],
he is exempt from covering up.
One who slaughters on the Sabbath or on Yom Kippur --
even though he is liable for the death penalty,
as soon as it becomes dark [at the end of the Sabbath or Yom Kippur], if any of the blood remained
he is [nonetheless] obligated for covering.
One who slaughters on a boat -- as soon as it arrives on dry land (יבשה), if any of the blood remained
he is liable for covering up ,
even though they said, "A person may not slaughter on a boat unless he has dirt (עפר) ready."
One who slaughters and needs the blood [for another purpose] -- he should not slaughter in the [normal] way of slaughtering.
Rather, how does he do it?
He either stabs it (נוחרו) [in the case of an animal] or he pinches its neck (מולקו) [in the case of a bird].
On this blessing (bracha), see Hebrew Wikipedia, ברכת השחיטה.
Compare my piece on Huzistan, for a story of a Khuzistani murdering another Khuzistani while traveling, in section “Ulla and the Gruesome Incident with the Khuzistanis: Murder on the Ascent to Eretz Yisrael (Nedarim 22a)“:
עולא, במיסקיה לארעא דישראל,
איתלוו ליה תרין בני חוזאי בהדיה.
קם חד, שחטיה לחבריה.
אמר ליה לעולא: יאות עבדי?
אמר ליה: אין, ופרע ליה בית השחיטה.
Ulla, on his ascent (מיסקיה) to Eretz Yisrael,
had two residents of Ḥozai (חוזאי - Khuzistan) join him.
one arose and slaughtered (שחטיה) the other.
The assailant said to Ulla: Did I act properly (יאות)?
He said to him: Yes, and open (פרע) the place of the slaughter, i.e., cut it more so that he will die faster.
I.e. the am ha’aretz was seen as prone to commiting domestic violence.
בפניו.
Compare Wiktionary, “cuckold”:
(transitive) To make a cuckold or cuckquean of someone by being unfaithful, or by seducing their partner or spouse.
Compare also the talmudic mentions of wife-swapping, for example in my piece here, section “Six Prophetic Insights by R' Yehuda HaNasi on Babylonian Places and Events: Homanya, Masgariya, Birka, Birta d’Satya, Akra d’Agma, and the Births of Adda bar Ahava and Rav Yehuda“:
בירקא איכא בבבל
שני אחים יש [בה]
שמחליפים נשותיהם זה לזה.
There is a place called Bireka in Babylonia,
and there are two brothers there
who exchange (מחליפים) wives with each other,
and their children are therefore mamzerim.
And see my footnote there for another example.
Me’orasa (מאורסה); interpreting that Torah is metaphorically like the Jewish people's betrothed.
On halachic betrothal, see Wikipedia, Erusin.
אומות העולם - literally: “nations of the world”.
פירש - literally: “separated [from it]”.
See Hebrew Wikipedia, יצא לתרבות רעה, my translation:
A similar expression is shana u'peireish (שנה ופירש - "learned and withdrew"), referring to someone who studied Torah but then ceased their study and turned to a different path.
The expression "negative culture" (תרבות רעה) is also found in talmudic literature to denote negative behavior and way of life.
And immediately before:
Yatza le’tarbut ra'ah ("departed to a negative culture") is a Hebrew expression from the Tannaitic period, meaning the abandonment of the Torah way of life, typically in favor of a pagan or hedonistic path.
In talmudic literature, this expression is used for several individuals who strayed from the way of the Torah. One of the most well-known figures in this context is Elisha ben Avuya. The expression is also mentioned regarding [biblical figures such as] Absalom, Doeg the Edomite, and others.
The expression used in the modern ultra-Orthodox Jewish world is “Off the derech“:
Off the derech (Hebrew: דֶּרֶךְ, pronounced: /ˈdɛrɛx/, meaning: "path"; OTD) is a Yeshiva-English expression used to describe the state of a Jew who has left an Orthodox way of life or community, and whose new lifestyle is secular, non-Jewish, or of a non-Orthodox form of Judaism […]
See my piece at my Academia page: “21st-century heresy, doubt, and criticism by disaffiliates of ultra-Orthodox Judaism in the US - a selected bibliography“.