וְאֵינוֹ מִתְקַבֵּל. and unacceptable.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְעוֹלָם יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם כׇּל מַה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, וְיִשָּׂא בַּת תַּלְמִיד חָכָם. לֹא מָצָא בַּת תַּלְמִיד חָכָם — יִשָּׂא בַּת גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר. לֹא מָצָא בַּת גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר — יִשָּׂא בַּת רָאשֵׁי כְנֵסִיּוֹת. לֹא מָצָא בַּת רָאשֵׁי כְנֵסִיּוֹת — יִשָּׂא בַּת גַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה. לֹא מָצָא בַּת גַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה — יִשָּׂא בַּת מְלַמְּדֵי תִּינוֹקוֹת. וְלֹא יִשָּׂא בַּת עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שֶׁקֶץ, וּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁרֶץ, וְעַל בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אָרוּר שׁוֹכֵב עִם כׇּל בְּהֵמָה״. The Sages taught: A person should always be willing to sell all he has in order to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar. If he cannot find the daughter of a Torah scholar, he should marry the daughter of one of the great people of the generation, who are pious although they are not Torah scholars. If he cannot find the daughter of one of the great people of the generation, he should marry the daughter of one of the heads of the congregations. If he cannot find the daughter of one of the heads of the congregations, he should marry the daughter of one of the charity collectors. If he cannot find the daughter of one of the charity collectors, he should marry the daughter of one of the schoolteachers. However, he should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus [am ha’aretz] because they are vermin and their wives are similar to a creeping animal, as their lifestyle involves the violation of numerous prohibitions. And with regard to their daughters the verse states: “Cursed is he who lies with an animal” (Deuteronomy 27:21), as they are similar to animals in that they lack any knowledge or moral sense.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: עַם הָאָרֶץ אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל בְּשַׂר, (בְּהֵמָה) שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״: כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וָעוֹף, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל בָּשָׂר בְּהֵמָה וָעוֹף. The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to an ignoramus. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is prohibited for an ignoramus 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עַם הָאָרֶץ מוּתָּר לְנוֹחֳרוֹ בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, אֱמוֹר לְשׁוֹחְטוֹ! אָמַר לָהֶן: זֶה טָעוּן בְּרָכָה, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ טָעוּן בְּרָכָה. The Gemara proceeds to mention some sharply negative statements of the Sages in which they overstated their negative sentiments with regard to ignoramuses, although these ignoramuses were wicked in addition to being boors (ge’onim). Rabbi Elazar said: It is permitted to stab an ignoramus 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עַם הָאָרֶץ אָסוּר לְהִתְלַוּוֹת עִמּוֹ בַּדֶּרֶךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הִיא חַיֶּיךָ וְאוֹרֶךְ יָמֶיךָ״, עַל חַיָּיו לֹא חָס, עַל חַיֵּי חֲבֵירוֹ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן. Rabbi Elazar said: It is prohibited to accompany an ignoramus while traveling on the road due to concern that the ignoramus 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 ignoramus 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַם הָאָרֶץ מוּתָּר לְקוֹרְעוֹ כְּדָג. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: וּמִגַּבּוֹ. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is permitted to tear open an ignoramus like a fish. Rabbi 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.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כְּשֶׁהָיִיתִי עַם הָאָרֶץ אָמַרְתִּי: מִי יִתֵּן לִי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וַאֲנַשְּׁכֶנּוּ כַּחֲמוֹר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, אֱמוֹר כְּכֶלֶב! אָמַר לָהֶן: זֶה נוֹשֵׁךְ וְשׁוֹבֵר עֶצֶם, וְזֶה נוֹשֵׁךְ וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹבֵר עֶצֶם. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: When I was an ignoramus 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.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַמַּשִּׂיא בִּתּוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ, כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹפְתָהּ וּמַנִּיחָהּ לִפְנֵי אֲרִי. מָה אֲרִי דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל, וְאֵין לוֹ בּוֹשֶׁת פָּנִים — אַף עַם הָאָרֶץ מַכֶּה וּבוֹעֵל, וְאֵין לוֹ בּוֹשֶׁת פָּנִים. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: Anyone who marries off his daughter to an ignoramus 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 ignoramus strikes his wife and then engages in sexual relations with her without appeasing her first, and has no shame.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִילְמָלֵא אָנוּ צְרִיכִין לָהֶם לְמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן, הָיוּ הוֹרְגִין אוֹתָנוּ. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If we did not need the ignoramuses for business, they would kill us.
תָּנֵא רַבִּי חִיָּיא: כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה לִפְנֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ, כְּאִילּוּ בּוֹעֵל אֲרוּסָתוֹ בְּפָנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה״. אַל תִּקְרֵי: ״מוֹרָשָׁה״, אֶלָּא: מְאוֹרָסָה. The Gemara shifts to a discussion of an ignoramus who has some degree of sensitivity (Me’iri). Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Anyone who engages in Torah study in the presence of an ignoramus, causing the ignoramus embarrassment and anguish over his inability to study Torah, is considered as though he had sexual relations with the ignoramus’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.
גְּדוֹלָה שִׂנְאָה שֶׁשּׂוֹנְאִין עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם יוֹתֵר מִשִּׂנְאָה שֶׁשּׂוֹנְאִין אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן יוֹתֵר מֵהֶן. תָּנָא שָׁנָה וּפֵירַשׁ, יוֹתֵר מִכּוּלָּן. Similarly, he said: The hatred which ignoramuses 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 ignoramuses hate Torah scholars more than the ignoramuses themselves. It was taught in the Tosefta that one who studied Torah and left his studies hates Torah scholars more than all of them.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ: אֵין מוֹסְרִין לָהֶן עֵדוּת. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ עֵדוּת. וְאֵין מְגַלִּין לָהֶן סוֹד. וְאֵין מְמַנִּין אוֹתָן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל הַיְּתוֹמִים. וְאֵין מְמַנִּין אוֹתָן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל קוּפָּה שֶׁל צְדָקָה. וְאֵין מִתְלַוִּין עִמָּהֶן בַּדֶּרֶךְ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף אֵין מַכְרִיזִין עַל אֲבֵידָתוֹ. The Sages taught: Six statements were made with regard to ignoramuses: 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).
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא? זִמְנִין דְּנָפֵיק מִינֵּיהּ זַרְעָא מְעַלְּיָא וְאָכֵיל לֵיהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יָכִין וְצַדִּיק יִלְבַּשׁ״. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who holds that one must announce having found the lost article of an ignoramus? The Gemara explains: Sometimes upstanding offspring will come from him and will consume the property, as it is stated: “He may prepare it but the just shall put it on” (Job 27:17). It is possible for a wicked person to prepare something for himself that will later be used by a righteous person.
וְכֵן מִי שֶׁיָּצָא וְכוּ׳. The Gemara returns to explaining the mishna. It was taught: And so too, one who left Jerusalem with sacrificial meat in his possession must return to Jerusalem to burn it, just as one is required to return in order to remove leaven from his possession. According to Rabbi Meir, this halakha applies with regard to an egg-bulk of sacrificial meat or leaven, whereas Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says the minimum amount for both is an olive-bulk.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר כְּבֵיצָה הוּא דַּחֲשִׁיב, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר כְּזַיִת נָמֵי חֲשִׁיב. וּרְמִינְהִי: עַד כַּמָּה הֵן מְזַמְּנִין? עַד כְּזַיִת, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד כְּבֵיצָה! The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds that an egg-bulk is the minimal amount that is considered significant, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that an olive-bulk is also considered significant? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in Berakhot: How much food must one eat in order to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun? An olive-bulk of food is sufficient according to the unattributed opinion in the mishna, which is generally that of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom one ate in a zimmun. This seems to contradict the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna here.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The opinions are reversed in one of these sources, and must be emended.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ. הָתָם — בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי, הָכָא — בִּסְבָרָא פְּלִיגִי. הָתָם בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״ — זוֹ אֲכִילָה, ״וְשָׂבָעְתָּ״ — זוֹ שְׁתִיָּה, וַאֲכִילָה בִּכְזַיִת. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ״ — אֲכִילָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שְׂבִיעָה, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? בִּכְבֵיצָה. Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse the opinions. There, they disagree with regard to the interpretation of verses, while here, they disagree with regard to logical reasoning. How so? There, with regard to zimmun, they disagree with regard to the interpretation of verses. Rabbi Meir holds that the verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10) should be understood as follows: “And you shall eat,” that is eating; “and be satisfied,” that is drinking. The standard halakhic principle is that eating is defined as the consumption of an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: “And you shall eat and you shall be satisfied” refers to eating that includes satisfaction. And what is considered eating with satisfaction? It is consumption of an egg-bulk.
הָכָא בִּסְבָרָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר חֲזָרָתוֹ כְּטוּמְאָתוֹ: מָה טוּמְאָתוֹ בִּכְבֵיצָה, אַף חֲזָרָתוֹ בִּכְבֵיצָה. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר חֲזָרָתוֹ However, here, in the cases of leaven and consecrated food, they disagree not with regard to the interpretation of verses but with regard to logical reasoning, as Rabbi Meir holds: The requirement to return consecrated food is analogous to its ritual impurity. Just as its susceptibility to ritual impurity is only when it is the size of an egg-bulk, so too, the requirement to return it is only when it is the size of an egg-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The requirement to return consecrated food