Resolving Repentance, Market Sales, and Redundant Phrasings

Tosafot on Bekhorot 31 examines who qualifies for fellowship, the Biblical prohibition against marketing sacred meat, and textual repetition across the Talmud.

The Status of a Backsliding Associate

The Gemara cites a baraita regarding someone who retracted and wishes to rejoin the community of scholars. Rabbi Meir states that we never accept him back.

Rashi in tractate Avodah Zarah explained that this refers to an עם הארץ (commoner) who repented and sought to adopt the standards of a חבר (associate). Tosafot strongly objects to this reading, arguing that it would absurdly lock the door before penitents.

Furthermore, the phrasing 'ever' implies that the person previously held this status. Additionally, Rabbi Yehuda's distinction between secret and public conduct makes no sense if it refers to positive repentance.

Hypocrisy Versus Genuine Return

To resolve these difficulties, Rabbeinu Tam reinterprets the passage based on the Tosefta in Demai. The baraita is not discussing a newcomer, but rather individuals who previously accepted חברות (fellowship) and subsequently backslid to their corrupt ways.

Rabbi Yehuda rejects one who backslid in secret while maintaining a righteous facade because his hypocrisy proves he is untrustworthy. However, one who sinned openly never deceived the community. When such an open transgressor repents, his return is genuine and accepted.

Selling Disqualified Sacrifices in Public

The Mishnah teaches that פסולי המוקדשין (disqualified consecrated animals) are sold in an איטליז (butcher's market) to maximize Temple revenue. However, a בכור (firstborn offering) and מעשר בהמה (animal tithe offering) cannot be sold there, because their benefit belongs to the owner.

The Mishnah presents this rule as depending on who receives the financial profit. This phrasing might suggest that the restriction is merely a rabbinic safeguarding measure.

Tosafot demonstrates from discussions in Temurah and Sanhedrin concerning an עיר הנדחת (condemned city) that this rule is actually mandated by Torah law. Scripture directly forbids treating these sacrifices with disrespect in the market whenever the profit does not accrue to the Temple treasury.

Explaining Repeated Terms Across the Talmud

Later in the sugya, Rava challenges Abaye's interpretation of a baraita concerning animal tithes. Rava asks why the baraita would repeat the phrase מעשר בהמה twice if it only discusses a single case.

Tosafot is troubled by Rava's objection, noting that the Gemara elsewhere routinely accepts repetitions by explaining that the text is simply פרושי קא מפרש (it is elaborating). Why could Abaye not offer that same defense here?

Tosafot answers that the Gemara only challenges repetition when the syntax cannot comfortably be read as elaboration. Because the two clauses in this baraita describe distinct legal mechanisms, reading the second clause as a mere clarification of the first is structurally impossible.

וי"ל דבכל הני דוכתי דפריך תרי זימני למה לי לא שייך לומר כל כך פרושי קמפרש כמו בהנך דוכתי דלא פריך

And one can answer: in all those places where it challenges 'Why do I need it twice?', it is not as fitting to say 'it is elaborating' as it is in those places where it does not challenge. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 31b:17:1)

Tosafot demonstrates that rabbinic acceptance demands genuine sincerity, sacred market restrictions stem from the Torah, and Talmudic textual challenges arise only when syntax cannot sustain simple elaboration.

Learn Bekhorot 31 on Super Daf