Tractate Bechoros, chapter 4, Mishnah 10 - This is the final Mishnah of the chapter, concluding the topic of the laws concerning a person whose halachic status is a suspect, meaning he is suspected of transgressing Torah law in one of the ways we have learned. The question discussed here is: If a person is considered a suspect in one area, is he also suspected in another area? For example, someone suspected regarding tithes, from whom we said one may not buy food items - may we buy flax from him during the Shemittah year? Conversely, someone suspected regarding the seventh year, from whom one may not buy agricultural produce during the seventh year - may we buy produce from him in a non-Shemittah year and rely on its kashrus?
The Underlying Principle:
If there is reason to assume that the person is stricter in the other area - meaning he was lenient in the area where he stumbled because he views it as less severe, whereas he views the other area as more severe and will not treat it lightly - he can be trusted in that area until proven otherwise. This is all the more so when he is known to have transgressed a rabbinic prohibition, which is no proof that he would also transgress a Torah prohibition. Conversely, when he has transgressed the stricter area - a Torah prohibition - he is still suspected of transgressing the lighter rabbinic prohibition.
"Hechashud al hashevi'is eino chashud al hamaasros" - Someone suspected regarding the seventh year is not suspected regarding tithes:
A person whose halachic status is a suspect because we know that in the past he transgressed the laws of the seventh year - he sold produce in a commercial manner and lied, saying it was permitted - one may not buy produce from him during the seventh year, nor even flax. However, he is not suspected regarding tithes, and there is no restriction on buying from him in this regard. This refers to what he says concerning the mitzvah of the second tithe: we do not suspect that he will sell second-tithe produce during the first, second, fourth, or fifth years of the Shemittah cycle, outside of Jerusalem, and claim that it is not second tithe. Why? Even though both are Torah laws, the second tithe carries a severity that is psychologically significant, as it cannot be eaten outside of Jerusalem. Therefore, this person who transgressed the laws of Shemittah because he perceives it as less severe, will view the tithe as more severe and will not transgress its laws.
"Hechashud al hamaasros eino chashud al hashevi'is" - Someone suspected regarding tithes is not suspected regarding the seventh year:
If someone is suspected regarding tithes, it means that he sold second-tithe produce as if it were non-sacred (chullin) and without any restriction, and from now on one may not buy tithed produce from him, as we suspect he does not observe the halachah. However, he is not suspected regarding the seventh year: we do not suspect that he will sell produce during the Shemittah year and claim they are not seventh-year produce when they actually are. Why? Even though both are Torah laws, seventh-year produce has a severity that tithes do not have - for the tithe can be redeemed, transferring the sanctity from the produce to coins, bringing the coins to Jerusalem, and eating there. In contrast, for produce growing during the Shemittah year, there is no concept of redemption at all: if they possess seventh-year sanctity, their sanctity remains inherent. Tree fruits and nuts, for example, have seventh-year sanctity and must be eaten accordingly, and there is no possibility to redeem their sanctity and eat them elsewhere, in Jerusalem. Due to this severity, we assume that this person is stricter with seventh-year produce than with tithes, and therefore his seventh-year produce can be relied upon even though we know he has previously transgressed the laws of tithes.
An Introduction to the Laws of Purity:
There is no obligation whatsoever to eat pure produce. A person is permitted to be ritually impure, and his food is also permitted to be impure, and if he eats non-sacred food (chullin) in a state of impurity or intentionally allows it to become impure - there is no prohibition in doing so. The strictures aimed at preventing the spread of tumah apply to sacrificial foods (kodashim), and there are restrictions regarding Terumah and even the second tithe that goes up to Jerusalem, but for regular chullin there is no restriction at all. Nevertheless, the Sages established that it is proper for a person to eat even his chullin in a state of purity, meaning that this is a rabbinic matter.
Consequently, a person who we know lied and claimed that impure food was pure - he does not observe the laws of purity and is not careful regarding the purity of his food. Should he be suspected of also transgressing the laws of the seventh year and tithes and lying about them? The answer is no, for these are Torah prohibitions, and it is reasonable to assume that he will be stricter and more careful with them. However, on the other side of the coin: someone who is known not to observe tithes and lies about it, or does not observe the seventh year and lies about it, must certainly be suspected of lying even regarding a rabbinic matter, such as guarding chullin in a state of purity.
And so we learned in the Mishnah: One who is suspected regarding these - regarding tithes or the seventh year - having done forbidden things and attempted to deceive the public and was caught in the past, is definitely suspected that his food is not pure even if he says it is. And on the flip side, someone suspected regarding purities, who previously testified that impure food was pure and the truth was discovered, is not suspected regarding either of these: we do not suspect that he will also lie about seventh-year produce, and one may buy seventh-year produce from him; and we do not assume that he will lie about second-tithe produce or Terumah, and one may buy them from him properly, each according to its context. For the fact that he is not careful with a rabbinic law is no proof that he is not careful with a Torah law.
Practical Halachah:
One who buys produce from an am ha'aretz - not from someone who is suspect, but from someone who is completely righteous just not particularly learned, and who did not take it upon himself to maintain purity, and therefore he is defined as an am ha'aretz as opposed to a chaver, as we learned at length in Tractate Demai - must assume that he did not properly separate Terumas ma'aser. According to the halachah we learned in Tractate Demai, we are concerned about Terumas ma'aser and also ma'aser sheni. Without getting into the details, the point is that one who buys produce from an am ha'aretz, or from anyone who did not officially take it upon himself to be a chaver and act properly, must treat the produce as doubtful - and this is what is called demai, perhaps it was tithed and perhaps not. Therefore, he must tithe it again, separate the Terumas ma'aser and redeem the ma'aser sheni properly, but without a berachah, since it is possible that the seller already did so.
Now, when we say that a person is suspect regarding tithes, it means that one who buys produce from him must not only tithe them but even recite a berachah over doing so, since they are treated as produce that was certainly not tithed, even if he claims otherwise, and we do not believe him at all. And this is the point of the Mishnah:
"Hachashud al ma'aser sheni" - one who is suspect regarding ma'aser sheni: one must tithe his produce with a berachah, but one may buy flax or food items from him during the Shemittah year.
"Hachashud al hashevi'is" - one who is suspect regarding the Shemittah year: one may not buy food items, nor even flax or flax fabrics, from him during the Shemittah year, but one may buy food items from him without being concerned about ma'aser sheni and the like - except that his status is like that of an am ha'aretz, and one must still separate tithes according to the laws of demai, produce which is doubtfully tithed.
"Zeh haklal" - this is the general rule:
The final line of the Mishnah, and of the entire chapter, is somewhat surprising. Almost always, when a Mishnah ends with the phrase "zeh haklal", its intention is to summarize what was stated previously, to the point that the Gemara usually asks: we have just read the Mishnah, so why is there a need to summarize it for us? The principle can be understood on its own. Therefore, it asks regarding the words "zeh haklal" - "le'esuyei mai", what does this rule come to add and what new information arises from it.
Whereas here, in our Mishnah, the phrase "zeh haklal" refers to a new matter. It is not a summary of what has been said until now and of the principle that guided the Mishnah, but rather a new rule: "Kol hachashud al hadavar lo dano velo me'ido" - a person whose status is suspect regarding a certain matter, Shemittah for example, cannot serve as a judge in laws of Shemittah, nor can he serve as a witness testifying about another person's observance of Shemittah, and his testimony is not accepted. The assumption of the Tanna is that if he lies in his own actions, he will also lie regarding the actions of others.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned that one who is suspect in one area is not necessarily suspect in another area, and this is when there is reason to assume that the other area is more stringent in his eyes. One who is suspect regarding Shemittah is not suspect regarding tithes due to the stringency of ma'aser sheni which may not be eaten outside of Jerusalem, and one who is suspect regarding tithes is not suspect regarding Shemittah because there is no redemption for the sanctity of Shemittah. We also learned that one who is suspect regarding Torah laws is also suspect regarding rabbinic laws of taharah, whereas one who is suspect regarding taharah is not suspect regarding Torah laws, as well as the new rule that anyone who is suspect regarding a matter may neither judge it nor testify regarding it.
The halachah regarding this last matter is more complex, and therefore we will not discuss it now. In the next chapter, in Mishnah 4, we will return to it and discuss it in much greater detail.