QUESTION: The Gemara states that although people are suspected of transgressing the laws of Shemitah, they are not suspected of desecrating Shabbos. The Gemara clearly does not mean that a known, observant Jew who is scrupulous in his performance of the Mitzvos is not careful with the laws of Shemitah. Rather, the Gemara means that people who are not always careful about Mitzvos, such as Amei ha'Aaretz, are suspected of transgressing the laws of Shemitah but not the laws of Shabbos.

The Rishonim note that the Mishnah in Demai (3:5) apparently contradicts the supposition that Amei ha'Aretz are suspected of transgressing the laws of Shemitah. The Mishnah there states that when one gives an innkeeper his tithed produce to watch, he must separate Ma'aser again when he receives it back from the innkeeper because the innkeeper is suspected of replacing his food with food that was not tithed. The Mishnah there does not suspect the innkeeper of violating the laws of Shemitah.

How is this contradiction to be reconciled?

(a) The RAMBAN in Chulin (6a) quotes RABEINU SHMUEL of RAMERUPT who answers that the case in the Mishnah in Demai takes place in the fourth or fifth year of Shemitah when no produce of Shemitah is left, and thus the Am ha'Aretz is not suspected of violating Shemitah.

(b) The Ramban quotes RABEINU TAM who explains that the suspicion with regard to Shemitah applies only to an "Am ha'Aretz Chashud," a "suspected ignoramus" who is already suspected of violating such laws. An ordinary "Am ha'Aretz," in contrast, is generally careful about Shemitah. The Ramban agrees with the answer of Rabeinu Tam. (The RASHBA in Chulin also cites this answer in the name of the Ramban.)

(c) The Ramban quotes the RA'AVAD who answers the contradiction based on the words of the Gemara here. The Gemara states that in the area of Rebbi Yehudah the people took the laws of Shemitah very seriously. Accordingly, Rebbi Yehudah maintained that an ordinary Am ha'Aretz is not suspected of violating Shemitah. However, other Tana'im indeed maintain that an ordinary Am ha'Aretz is suspected of violating Shemitah. Any Mishnah (such as the Mishnah in Demai) which says (or implies) that an Am ha'Aretz is not suspected of violating Shemitah is in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. (Y. Montrose)

QUESTION: The Gemara (53b) states that Rebbi Yehudah did not penalize a person who accidentally transgressed a rabbinic prohibition. However, Rebbi Yehudah did penalize a person who accidentally transgressed a Torah law; Rebbi Yehudah prohibited him from benefiting from the outcome of his transgression in order that he not come to transgress a Torah law willfully.

The Gemara poses a contradiction to Rebbi Yehudah's opinion from his own ruling in a Beraisa. The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehudah who rules that forbidden fruits which become mixed with permitted ones and then become crushed there render the entire mixture forbidden, whether they become crushed by accident or on purpose. RASHI (DH Naflu) explains that the Beraisa refers to a case in which certain choice nuts, "Egozei Perech," of Orlah fall into a batch of similar nuts that are not Orlah. The forbidden nuts render the entire mixture forbidden even if only one forbidden nut falls into a thousand or more permitted nuts. Why are the forbidden nuts not Batel when they are outnumbered by permitted nuts? Bitul does not apply because of the significance of Egozei Perech.

This law applies only when the nuts fell into the mixture and then were crushed. If, however, the nuts of Orlah were crushed before they became mixed with the permitted nuts, they lose their importance because they are no longer whole and thus they become Batel.

Rashi (DH Lo Ya'alu) explains that the prohibition of the mixture of Egozei Perech of Orlah with many permitted Egozei Perech is only mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, since the permitted nuts are the majority, the forbidden nuts are Batel (based on the verse, "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" (Shemos 23:2)).

This Beraisa clearly shows that Rebbi Yehudah does impose a penalty (he forbids the mixture) in the case of one who accidentally transgresses a rabbinic prohibition.

The Gemara's question is difficult to understand. The Gemara assumes that Rebbi Yehudah understands that according to Torah law, in this case the forbidden Egozei Perech are Batel in a majority of permitted nuts. However, this is not Rebbi Yehudah's opinion. Rebbi Yehudah's position, as expressed in a number of places (see, for example, Chulin 98b), is that "Min b'Mino Lo Batel": when a forbidden item becomes mixed with a permitted item of the same species, even one forbidden item prohibits an unlimited number of permitted items due to the mixture. Why does the Gemara assume that Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa contradicts his own opinion with regard to penalizing one who transgresses a rabbinic prohibition?

(a) The RITVA answers in the name of the RA'AVAD that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that "Min b'Mino Lo Batel" applies only in the case of a mixture of liquids. However, in the case of a mixture of solids Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the forbidden item is Batel b'Rov (according to Torah law).

Indeed, the Gemara in Chulin (98b) states that Rebbi Yehudah's source that "Min b'Mino Lo Batel" is the verse, "And he shall take from the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat and place it all around, on the corners of the Mizbe'ach" (Vayikra 16:18). Rashi in Chulin (DH v'Lakach) explains that everyone knows that a slaughtered cow produces more blood than a slaughtered goat, and yet the Torah still specifies that the mixture of the blood of the two animals contains the "blood of a goat." This teaches that "Min b'Mino Lo Batel" applies only to two of the same types of liquid which become mixed with each other. In such a case, the forbidden liquid does not lose its identity and is not Batel, even when it is mixed with a majority of permitted liquid.

This answer is also suggested by RABEINU TAM, as cited by TOSFOS in Zevachim (73a, DH Rebbi Yehudah). Although Tosfos writes that Rabeinu Tam later retracted this answer, Tosfos upholds it.

(b) The RITVA cites others who answer that when Rebbi Yehudah expresses the view "Min b'Mino Lo Batel," he is not expressing his own opinion but rather that of his teacher. Rebbi Yehudah's own opinion is that Bitul indeed applies for "Min b'Mino." This is consistent with his opinion here that one forbidden Egoz Perech is Batel in a mixture with two permitted Egozim.

This second answer of the Ritva is also mentioned by the RI HA'LAVAN, as cited by Tosfos in Zevachim (ibid.), and the SHITAH MEKUBETZES there. Indeed, the Gemara in Zevachim (79a) records an opinion (that of Abaye) that only Rebbi Yehudah's teacher rules "Min b'Mino Lo Batel," but not Rebbi Yehudah himself. However, Tosfos there in Zevachim points out that this is more of a refutation than a proof, because Rava seemingly argues with Abaye on this point in the Gemara (79a). Since the Halachah always follows the view of Rava over Abaye (see Bava Metzia 22b), the Gemara's conclusion should be that Rebbi Yehudah does rule that "Min b'Mino Lo Batel." (D. Bloom)