Pt3 Rabbinic Elitism and the Am Ha’aretz: Hierarchy, Hostility, Hatred, and Distrust (Pesachim 49b)
This is the third and final part of a three-part series. Part 1 is here; Part 2 is here; the outline for the series can be found at the beginning of Part 1.
Seven Rules: Avoiding Trust and Responsibility with Am Ha’aretz in Legal, Financial, and Social Matters
The baraita lists prohibitions regarding am ha'aretzes, reflecting a general mistrust and precautionary stance toward am ha'aretzes in matters of integrity, responsibility, and safety:
Untrustworthiness in testimony: They should neither be entrusted with (מוסרין להן) testimony nor have their testimony accepted (מקבלין ממנו).
Secrets (סוד) should not be revealed to them.
Ineligibility for roles of responsibility (stewardship):
They should not be appointed as stewards1 over orphans' estates (due to concerns about misuse).
They should not manage charity (צדקה) funds (קופה)
Travel safety concerns: One should avoid traveling with them (as stated earlier as well; for personal safety).
Disregard for their lost items: Their lost items (אבידתו) should not be announced (מכריזין; or returned).2
תנו רבנן:
ששה דברים נאמרו בעמי הארץ:
אין מוסרין להן עדות.
ואין מקבלין ממנו עדות.
ואין מגלין להן סוד.
ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על היתומים.
ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על קופה של צדקה.
ואין מתלוין עמהן בדרך.
ויש אומרים: אף אין מכריזין על אבידתו.
The Sages taught:
Six statements were made with regard to am ha'aretzes:
One may not entrust them with testimony, i.e., one may not appoint them as witnesses to a particular event or transaction.
Additionally, one may not accept testimony from them, as they are not considered trustworthy,
and one should not reveal a secret to them, as they will reveal it.
One may not appoint them as steward [apotropos] over an estate belonging to orphans, due to concern that they might make improper use of the orphans’ property.
Likewise, one may not appoint them as guardian over a charity fund.
Finally, one should not accompany them while traveling on the road, due to concern for one’s safety.
And there are those who say: One does not even announce their lost items, meaning that if one finds a lost article from such a person, he is allowed to keep it without making an effort to locate the owner (Me’iri).
Appendix 1: Definitions of Am Ha’aretz; Rami bar Ḥama’s Assessment of Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa as an Am Ha’aretz and Its Deadly Consequences (Berakhot 47b)
Definitions of Am Ha’aretz: Six Opinions – Lacking Shema, Tefillin, Tzitzit, Mezuzah, or Torah
A baraita cites six opinions on what constitutes an am ha’aretz:
R' Eliezer: One who does not recite Shema (קריאת שמע) morning and evening.
R' Yehoshua: One who does not don phylacteries (tefillin).
Ben Azzai: One who lacks ritual fringes (tzitzit) on his garment.
R' Natan bar Yosef (רבי נתן בר יוסף): One who has children but does not teach them Torah (תלמוד תורה).
Aḥerim (“Others”): Even someone who studies Bible3 and Mishna (שנה) but does not serve (שמש) Torah scholars is an am ha’aretz.4
Rav Huna: The halakha follows Aḥerim's definition.
תנו רבנן:
איזהו עם הארץ?
כל שאינו קורא קריאת שמע ערבית ושחרית, דברי רבי אליעזר.
רבי יהושע אומר: כל שאינו מניח תפילין.
בן עזאי אומר: כל שאין לו ציצית בבגדו.
רבי נתן אומר: כל שאין מזוזה על פתחו.
רבי נתן בר יוסף אומר: כל שיש לו בנים, ואינו מגדלם לתלמוד תורה.
אחרים אומרים: אפילו קרא, ושנה, ולא שמש תלמידי חכמים — הרי זה עם הארץ.
אמר רב הונא: הלכה כאחרים.
The Gemara cites a baraita with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an am ha’aretz:
The Sages taught:
Who is an am ha’aretz?
One who does not recite Shema in the evening and morning. This is the statement of R' Eliezer.
R' Yehoshua says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not don phylacteries.
Ben Azzai says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment.
R' Natan says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have a mezuza on his doorway.
R' Natan bar Yosef says: An am ha’aretz is one who has children but who does not want them to study Torah, so he does not raise them to engage in Torah study.
Aḥerim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, that is an am ha’aretz.
Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim.
Rami bar Ḥama's Assessment of Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa as an Am Ha’aretz and Its Fatal Outcome
Rami bar Ḥama excluded Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa (רב מנשיא בר תחליפא) from a zimmun (זימון), despite his having studied Sifra, Sifrei, and halakhot (reasoning he was an am ha’aretz since he had not served Torah scholars).
When Rami bar Ḥama subsequently died, Rava asserted that his death resulted from this misjudgment.
רמי בר חמא לא אזמין עליה דרב מנשיא בר תחליפא,
דתני
סיפרא
וספרי
והלכתא.
כי נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא,
אמר רבא: לא נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אלא דלא אזמין ארב מנשיא בר תחליפא.
The Gemara relates: Rami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa,
who studied Sifra, Sifrei, and halakhot, in a zimmun because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars.
When Rami bar Ḥama passed away,
Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include R' Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a zimmun.
Appendix 2: Accepting Ḥaver Status—Requirements for Wives, Daughters, and Slaves Transitioning Between Am Ha’aretz and Ḥaver Households; From Tying Tefillin to Tying Tax Seals: The Husband's Decisive Role in His Wife's Behavior (Bekhorot 30b)
Accepting Ḥaver Status: Requirements for Wives, Daughters, and Slaves Moving Between Am Ha’aretz and Ḥaver Households
Acceptance of Ḥaver status is required for individuals transitioning from an am ha’aretz household to a ḥaver household; i.e. wife, daughter, or slave of an am ha’aretz joining a ḥaver.
It is not required for the opposite case: individuals transitioning from a ḥaver household to an am ha’aretz household (as they are already accustomed to ḥaver practices).
תנו רבנן:
אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר,
וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר,
וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר —
כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה.
אבל
אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ,
וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ,
וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ —
אין צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה.
The Sages taught in a baraita:
The former wife an am ha’aretz who later marries a ḥaver,
and likewise the daughter of an am ha’aretz who marries a ḥaver,
and likewise the slave of an am ha’aretz who is sold to a ḥaver,
must all accept upon themselves a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status.
But with regard to
the former wife of a ḥaver who later marries an am ha’aretz,
and likewise the daughter of a ḥaver who marries an am ha’aretz,
and likewise the slave of a ḥaver who was sold to an am ha’aretz,
these people need not accept upon themselves a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio, as each of them is already accustomed to behave as a ḥaver.
From Tying His Tefillin to Tying His Tax Seals: The Husband's Decisive Influence on His Wife
R' Meir emphasizes that those aspiring to ḥaver status must commit to observing its standards from the outset.
R' Shimon ben Elazar, citing R' Meir, supports this with a story of a woman who adapted her practices based on her husband's influence:
Initially tying phylacteries (tefillin) for her ḥaver husband, and later tying tax seals for her tax collector5 husband (illustrating how her husband's conduct shaped her level of piety).
רבי מאיר אומר:
אף הן צריכין לקבל עליהן דברי חבירות לכתחלה.
רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, משום רבי מאיר:
מעשה באשה אחת
שנשאת לחבר, והיתה קומעת לו תפילין על ידו,
נשאת לעם הארץ, והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו.
The baraita continues:
R' Meir says: They too must accept upon themselves a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio.
R' Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of R' Meir:
There was an incident involving a certain woman
who married a ḥaver and would tie [koma’at] for him phylacteries on his hand,
and she later married a tax collector and would tie for him tax seals on his hand, which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety.
Appendix 3 - Treatment of Outsiders and Transgressors: Rules for Rescuing Non-Jews, Shepherds, Heretics, Informers, and Apostates (Avodah Zarah 26a-b = Tosefta Bava Metzia 2:13)
A baraita states that one may neither rescue non-Jews (גוים) or shepherds of small domesticated animals7 from a pit nor lower them into one (to kill them).
An even harsher rule applies to heretics (מינין), informers (מסורות), and apostates:8 they are actively lowered into a pit (to kill them) and certainly not rescued from it.9
תני רבי אבהו קמיה דרבי יוחנן:
הגוים
ורועי בהמה דקה —
לא מעלין ולא מורידין,
אבל
המינין
והמסורות
והמשומדים —
מורידין ולא מעלין
R' Abbahu taught the following while standing before R' Yoḥanan:
With regard to gentiles
and shepherds of domesticated animals,
one may not raise them from a pit, and one may not lower them into a pit.
But
the heretics,
and the informers,
and the apostates [vehameshummadim]
are lowered into a pit, but not raised out of it.
אפוטרופוס - apotropos - from Greek ἐπίτροπος (epitropos: “guardian , protector , regent, caretaker , curator , housekeeper, trustee, protector , guardian“).
See there interesting and notable usage of this term in Shabbat.121a.5, where a baraita recounts an incident in which a fire broke out on Shabbat in the courtyard of someone named Yosef ben Simai in Shiḥin (שיחין). Soldiers from the local Roman military camp (גיסטרא - from Latin castra) of Tzippori came to extinguish it because Yosef was a local official (אפטרופוס) appointed by the Romans, but he refused their help out of respect for Shabbat. Miraculously, rain fell and put out the fire. After Shabbat, Yosef rewarded the soldiers with two sela each and their commander (אפרכוס - from Greek éparkhos) with fifty:
תנו רבנן:
מעשה ונפלה דליקה בחצירו של יוסף בן סימאי בשיחין,
ובאו אנשי גיסטרא של ציפורי לכבות,
מפני שאפטרופוס של מלך היה,
ולא הניחן מפני כבוד השבת,
ונעשה לו נס, וירדו גשמים וכיבו.
לערב,
שיגר לכל אחד מהן שתי סלעין,
ולאפרכוס שבהן — חמשים.
The Sages taught in a baraita:
There was an incident that a fire ignited on Shabbat in the courtyard of Yosef ben Simai in a place called Shiḥin.
And men came from the fortress [gistera] of Tzippori to extinguish the fire,
because he was a steward [apotropos] of the king and they wanted to help him.
However, Yosef ben Simai would not allow them to extinguish the fire in deference to Shabbat;
and a miracle transpired for him and rain fell and extinguished the fire.
That evening after Shabbat
he sent two sela to each one of the soldiers who came to his aid,
and fifty to their commander [iparkhos].
For another miracle due to keeping Shabbat in a baraita, see Shabbat.150b.4, where a pious man (חסיד - hasid) noticed a breach (פרצה) in his field’s fence on Shabbat and initially intended to repair it (לגודרה). Remembering the prohibition against labor, he refrained. A miracle occurred, and a caper bush (צלף) grew in the breach, which from then on provided a source of sustenance (פרנסתו) for him and his household:
אין מחשיכין.
תנו רבנן:
מעשה בחסיד אחד
שנפרצה לו פרצה בתוך שדהו
ונמלך עליה לגודרה,
ונזכר ששבת הוא,
ונמנע אותו חסיד ולא גדרה,
ונעשה לו נס
ועלתה בו צלף,
וממנה היתה פרנסתו ופרנסת אנשי ביתו.
The Sages taught:
There was an incident with a pious man
in which a breach was made in the fence around his field,
and when he saw it he decided to fence it in.
And then he remembered that it was Shabbat.
And that pious man refrained from fixing the fence
And a miracle was done for him,
and a caper bush grew in the breach, thereby closing it up.
And from it and its produce he then received his livelihood and the livelihood of the members of his household.
See Wikipedia, Hashavat Aveda:
Hashavat Aveda (Hebrew: השבת אבידה) is a "positive commandment" (i.e., a "thou shalt" instruction) in Jewish law that requires the return of lost property to its rightful owner.
The performance of the mitzvah of reuniting a lost object with its rightful owner obligates the holder of the lost item, whether apparently abandoned, misplaced, or forgotten, even if the owner might have despaired of finding the item or having it returned, to actively seek out the owner in order to return the item to them […]
And see Hebrew Wikipedia, השבת אבדה, section יוצאים מהכלל לחובת השבת אבדה, my translation:
Exceptions to the Obligation of Returning a Lost Item
Cases Where There Is No Obligation to Fulfill the Mitzvah of Returning a Lost Item:[….]
Non-Jew:
If there is no risk of desecrating God's name (chilul Hashem), such as when it is reasonable for the non-Jew to assume another non-Jew found the item, there is no obligation to return a lost item to a non-Jew who does not observe the seven Noahide laws […]Heretic or Apostate:
According to Maimonides, there is no obligation to return a lost item if the owner is a heretic (epikoros)—for instance, someone who defiantly eats non-kosher food or publicly desecrates the Sabbath.[…]
קרא - literally: “reads”.
See Hebrew Wikipedia, שימוש חכמים, my translation:
The term Shimush Chachamim (“serving [Torah] scholars“, also simply Shimush) refers to a form of apprenticeship in Torah study and is listed in the chapter Kinyan Torah as one of the forty-eight ways through which Torah is acquired.
Today, it is customary to undergo Shimush before receiving a heter hora’ah (rabbinic ordination).
In the Babylonian Talmud, the term Shimush Talmidei Chachamim is described as an essential step toward becoming a Torah scholar or rabbi.
This concept is mentioned extensively in the talmudic literature.
In the Jerusalem Talmud, R’ Akiva states that anyone who has not served Torah scholars is deserving of death, and it recounts how he himself engaged in Shimush Talmidei Chachamim.
The Talmud further emphasizes that this stage, Shimush Talmidei Chachamim, is even more important than Torah study itself.
With parallel inTosefta_Bava_Metzia.2.13, which is censored in the standard Sefaria edition.
בהמה דקה - i.e. sheep and goats.
משומדים - i.e. converts from Judaism to paganism, Christianity, or another religion.
See Hebrew Wikipedia, מורידין ולא מעלין, my translation:
"Lowered but not raised" is a [talmudic] term referring to a halakhic ruling permitting the causing of death to a moser (informer), min (heretic), and meshummad (apostate).
The phrase implies lowering the sinner into a pit to bring about their death and, all the more so, not assisting their ascent from the pit.
This is contrasted with the ruling of "not lowered and not raised," which applies to another group of people for whom it is prohibited to directly cause their death or lower them into a pit, but it is also prohibited to assist in saving them.
See also my piece “Instances in Jewish Literature of Extra-judicial Execution of Idol Worshippers, Informers, Apostates, and Heretics“, where I also cite this baraita, and discuss some historical incidences, based on that entry.