The statement "someone who eats in the shuk" needs to be understood.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 26b says - Rav Nachman says: Those who eat "Davar Acher" are Pasul l'Eidus; specifically in public, not in private; and specifically if he could have eaten it in private. This "Davar Acher" is interpreted by Rashi to refer to someone who receives Tzedakah from a non-Jew, as this leads to a Chilul Hash-m (since they would think that Jews could not take care of his Tzedakah needs OR because this gives the non-Jew the Mitzvah of Tzedakah - which will give him the reward of Olam ha'Ba).

The Gemara in Kidushin 40b says that one who eats in the market is like a dog, and some say he is Pasul l'Eidus.

The Nemukei Yosef on the Rif specifies that this situation applies only if he could have received Tzedakah in private - but went begging in public. However, if he couldn't, he is not Pasul l'Eidus. The Hagahos Ashiri (Sanhedrin 3:12 in the Rosh) reasons that this is an immoral thing to do. And since he was so immoral, he would also receive money to give false testimony.

It seems that someone who begs openly lacks 'Bushah' - embarrassment, and therefore will not be embarrassed to give false testimony.

See Shulchan Aruch 254:1 (& 2) and Drishah on Tur 254:1

Regards,

Rav S Bloom

There is an opinion in the Gemara according to which it is worse for a woman to eat in the street than it is for a man. This is Rabbi Meir's, in Gitin 89a, who maintains that if a woman eats in the shuk, she must leave her husband. Tosfos DH Ochla explains that she did this before she married a Kohen and therefore this immodest behavior arouses the suspicion that she might be a "Zonah", who is forbidden to a Kohen. The Halachah does not follow R. Meir, but instead follows Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri who maintains that if one would be concerned about such possibilities, then no daugther of our patriarch Avraham would be allowed to stay married to her husband.

However even though the Halachah does not follow R. Meir that she must be divorced, nevertheless one can assume that eating in the marketplace is considered by all of the Tana'im a contradiction to the modesty expected of a Jewish lady. Therefore I would describe it as more than simply a lack of Derech Eretz as you suggest. In fact for a man also, Shulchan Aruch CM 34:18 writes "The 'Bezuyin' (despicable people) are invalid mid'Rabanan for testimony. These are people who walk and eat in the street in front of everyone". 'Bezuyin' is a strong word to use about them, just as the Gemara's description of them as being "similar to a dog" is sharp language.

Because of their lowly behavior we cannot believe what these peole say. Rashi DH u'Pasul explains that since he does not care about his personal respect, he is not embarrased to make light of himself in Beis Din, so consequently he becomes invalid for testimony.

If so, the above syndrome also applies to women. The reason women are Pasul l'Eidus is not because we do not believe them but rather because there is a verse (Devarim 19:17) "The two men shall stand up", which teaches that men, not women, are fit for testimony (see Shevuos 30a). Eating in the Shuk however will adversely affect the self-resect of a woman as well, and we can no longer assume she is an honest person.

There might be a ramification for a Halachah in Shulchan Aruch CM 35:14 in the Rema, who writes that there is an ancient institution that in a place where it is not frequent to find men - for instance in the Ezras Nashim - women are believed to say what happened there. It seems probable however that Rema would agree that a woman who eats in the Shuk is no longer believed to say what happened in the ladies gallery, because she no longer cares about her own honor and in turn does not merit our trust of what she is saying.

A Gut Yomtov

Dovid Bloom

(1) I found that the Mishkan Ha-Edus (Gate 5 ch. 2 p.157

DH v'Od ,cited in Index Book of Frankel Rambam Edus 11:5 DH She'einan) - this is a book which was written in 1827 and received Haskomos from Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Chasam Sofer - writes that in fact the person who ate in the marketplace transgressed a deoraisa prohibition by doing so. The prohibition is that of disgracing himself ("Mevazeh Atzmo"). Since Gemara Berachos 20b-21a states that "Kovod habrius" (personal honor) defers a passive negative deoraisa prohibition, we see that the lack of personal respect represents a Torah prohibition. Therefore if a person puts himself to shame, even if done so voluntarily, this represents a deoraisa prohibition and consequently it is forbidden by the Torah to eat in the marketplace.

(I think this can be compared to the opinion in the Gemara Bava Kama 91b that a person is not allowed to injure himself even willingly. See Shulchan Arukh CM 420:31 that the Halacha follows this opinion. Similarly Mishkan Ha-Edus maintains that a person is not allowed to put himself to disgrace, even voluntarily.)

[ (2) If Mishkan Ha-Edus had not written the above, I should have thought that in fact eating in the shuk is not actually a Lo Ta'aseh but rather that the person who did so is invalid as a witness because he impugned his reputation as you wrote. To use Yeshiva terminology, eating in the shuk is not a "Sibah" (reason) to be rendered unfit but rather a "Siman" - an indication - that this person is not reliable. I would have said that this is what Rashi Kidushin, end 40b, means when he writes that "the person who eats in the shuk, since he is not particular about his honor, does not care about making light of himself and becoming invalidated for testimony" - i.e. he is not posul because he did an Aveira but rather he is posul because we can no longer believe him. However the above Mishkan Ha-Edus writes that Rashi had to give the above reason because eating in the shuk is considered a passive transgression - i.e. not being careful of one's honor, and one does not become posul th

rough

a passive Aveira.)

I think there might be a proof for my argument from the Bach on the Tur CM 34:29 who quotes the Yerushalmi cited in Tosfos DH v'Yesh that it is not praiseworthy for a Talmid Chacham to eat in the shuk. This suggests that it is merely not worthy for a Talmid Chacham, but is not so bad to warrant disqualification as a witness. Bach answers that the Yerushalmi is referring to occasional behavior - for which one does not become invalidated but even so it is not praiseworthy - whilst a person only becomes disqualified through regular eating in the Shuk. (Arukh Ha-Shulchan CM 34:18 also writes that only consistent eating in the shuk disqualifies). I would like to suggest that one sees from the Bach that the action of eating in the shuk is not in itself an issur deoraisa, because it is difficult to say that doing an action once is permitted mideoraisa, whilst doing it many times is forbidden Mideoraisa.

However the above argument does not agree with Mishkan Ha-Edus, so do not pay any attention to it, since I did not receive approval from R. Akiva Eiger and the Chasam Sofer ]

A Gut Yomtov

Dovid Bloom