Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 3, 2014 | 讟壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chagigah 25

On Sunday we will learn daf 25 (the Yom Kippur daf) and will finish until almost the end of the masechet.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛诪讚讜诪注讜转 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讘砖注转 讛讙讬转讜转 讜讛讘讚讬诐 讜拽讜讚诐 诇讙讬转讜转 砖讘注讬诐 讬讜诐

that are mingled, amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted with regard to them during the period of the winepress and the olive press, and also up to seventy days before the winepress, for that is when people begin to purify their vessels in preparation for the wine-pressing season.

讙诪壮 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted with regard to the purity of sacrificial wine and oil in Judea. The Gemara infers: In Judea, yes, but in the Galilee, no. What is the reason for this distinction between the two places?

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪驻谞讬 砖专爪讜注讛 砖诇 讻讜转讬诐 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉

Reish Lakish said: It is because a strip of land inhabited by Samaritans [Kutim] separates between Judea and the Galilee, and it is impossible to travel from one land to the other without traversing this strip. The Sages decreed that lands inhabited by non-Jewish nations are considered ritually impure, so that it would be impossible to transport food from the Galilee to Judea, where the Temple is located, without the food becoming impure. Therefore, even oil and wine prepared by 岣verim who lived in the Galilee were not accepted for sacrificial use.

讜谞讬转讬讘 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let the residents of the Galilee place the wine and oil and transport it to Judea in a closed box, a chest, or a closet, whose contents cannot contract impurity, as they have the status of separate tents. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: A thrown tent, i.e., a moving tent, is not called a proper tent, and therefore its contents are subject to impurity. In our case, then, the contents would contract the impurity decreed upon the lands of non-Jewish nations. As it is taught in a baraita: Concerning one who enters a land of non-Jewish nations sitting in a box, a chest, or a closet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi declares him to be impure, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, declares him to be pure.

讜诇讬讬转讜讛 讘讻诇讬 讞专住 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讜谞讬谉 讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 谞讬爪讜诇 讘爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And let them bring oil and wine to the Temple in an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, which cannot contract impurity even if it is in the same tent as a corpse, as it states: 鈥淎nd every open vessel, which has no covering tightly bound upon it, is unclean鈥 (Numbers 19:15). Rabbi Eliezer said: The Sages taught in a baraita: Sacrificial food, unlike other items, is not spared from impurity by being in a container with a tightly bound cover.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 谞讬爪诇转 讘爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讚砖 谞讬爪讜诇 诇讗 讛讗 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪拽讜讚砖讬诐 谞讬爪讜诇讬谉 讘爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Water of purification containing ashes from the red heifer is not spared from impurity by being in a vessel with a tightly bound cover? What, is it not implied in the baraita this inference: That sacrificial food is spared from impurity in such a situation? The baraita seems to imply that this is a special stringency for water of purification, which does not apply to anything else, including sacrificial food. The Gemara rejects this: No, the baraita鈥檚 inference should be understood differently, as this: Water that has not yet been consecrated by being mixed with ashes of the red heifer is spared from impurity by being in a vessel with a tightly bound cover, even if they are designated for such a use at a later stage.

讜讛讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讞讘专讬讬讗 诪讚讻谉 讘讙诇讬诇讗 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讜诇讻砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Ulla say: 岣verim purify their wine and oil, i.e., they produce their wine and oil by the standards of purity used for sacrificial food in the Galilee, to be used for sacrificial purposes? This indicates that there must have been some way of transporting them from the Galilee to the Temple, for otherwise why would they have prepared such items? The Gemara answers: Indeed, they could not transfer these items to the Temple. Rather, they would leave them in their place, and their thought was that when Elijah comes in messianic times and purifies the road from Galilee to Judea, these items will become eligible for use.

讜讘砖注转 讛讙讬转讜转 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讙讜诪专 讝讬转讬讜 讬砖讬讬专 拽讜驻讛 讗讞转 讜讬转谞谞讛 诇注谞讬 讻讛谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And during the period of the winepress and olive press, amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted even with regard to the purity of teruma. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following teaching: An am ha鈥檃retz who finishes pressing his olives should leave over one sack of unpressed olives, and give it to a poor priest as teruma, so that the priest himself can make ritually pure oil from it. This shows that even during the period of the olive press the am ha鈥檃retz is not trusted to make pure olive oil himself.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞专驻讬 讛讗 讘讗驻诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讗讬 讻讗讜转谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讱

Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult. This case of the mishna, where amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted to produce pure olive oil themselves, is referring to people who press their olives early, during the regular season of the olive press, while that case is referring to those who press their olives later, after the period when most people press their olives has passed. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: Such as what case, for example? Such as those olives of your father鈥檚 house. Rav Na岣an鈥檚 father had many olives, and he often pressed them after the regular pressing season.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讙诇讬诇讗 砖谞讜 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讛讙诇讬诇 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讬讛讜讚讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘砖注转 讛讬讬谉 讜注诇 讛砖诪谉 讘砖注转 讛砖诪谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘砖注转 讛砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 讛砖诪谉 讘砖注转 讛讬讬谉

Rav Yosef said a different resolution of the above contradiction. The source that states that amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted was taught with regard to the Galilee, and as the mishna taught earlier concerning sacrificial wine and oil, amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted only in Judea and not in the Galilee. Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita: Transjordan and the Galilee are like Judea, in that they are trusted with regard to wine of teruma during the period of wine production, and with regard to oil of teruma during the period of oil production. However, they are not trusted with regard to wine during the period of oil production, nor are they trusted with regard to oil during the period of wine production. This baraita shows that with regard to teruma there is no difference between the trustworthiness of amei ha鈥檃retz who live in the Galilee and that of those who live in Judea.

讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

Rather, Rav Yosef鈥檚 answer must be rejected, and it is clear that the correct answer is as we answered initially, that it is speaking of the period following the conclusion of the winepress.

注讘专讜 讛讙讬转讜转 讜讛讘讚讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 诇讗 讬拽讘诇谞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讘诇 诪谞讬讞讛 诇讙转 讛讘讗讛 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 注讘专 讜拽讬讘诇讛 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇讙转 讛讘讗讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬转讜讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Once the periods of the winepress and olive press have passed, if amei ha鈥檃retz brought to a 岣ver priest a barrel of teruma wine, he may not accept it from them. But the giver may leave it over for the following winepress season, in the following year. They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If the priest violated the halakha and did accept the wine from an am ha鈥檃retz, what is the halakha? Is it permissible that he should leave it over for himself for the following winepress season? Since it is permissible to accept the wine and oil of an am ha鈥檃retz intentionally left until that time, perhaps it is also permissible if the priest himself intentionally leaves it over until that time. He said to him: You learned it in a mishna (Demai 6:9):

讞讘专 讜注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讬专砖讜 讗转 讗讘讬讛诐 注诐 讛讗专抓 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讗转讛 讞讟讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗谞讬 讞讟讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

In the case of a 岣ver and an am ha鈥檃retz, who are brothers and inherited property from their father, who was also an am ha鈥檃retz, the 岣ver can say to his am ha鈥檃retz brother: You take the wheat that is in such and such a place and I will take the wheat that is in such and such a place. The 岣ver knows that the former batch of wheat had been made susceptible to impurity, and he would therefore have no use for it, while the latter batch had not been made susceptible to impurity.

讟讜诇 讗转讛 讬讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗谞讬 讬讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

The mishna continues: Similarly, the 岣ver brother may say to the am ha鈥檃retz brother: You take the wine that is in such and such a place and I will take the wine that is in such and such a place. The 岣ver knows that the latter batch of wine has not been rendered impure, and he wants to take that batch as his share. When brothers inherit a quantity of a certain item they will each end up receiving an equal share of that item. Therefore, the principle of retroactive designation applies, meaning that it is considered that whatever portion any particular brother receives in the end is the one that had been designated for him as his inheritance from the beginning. It is not considered to be a trade or a business transaction with the other brothers in exchange for their portions.

讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讗转讛 诇讞 讜讗谞讬 讬讘砖 讟讜诇 讗转讛 讞讟讬谉 讜讗谞讬 砖注讜专讬诐

The mishna continues: But the 岣ver brother may not say to the am ha鈥檃retz brother: You take the wet produce and I will take the dry produce. Nor may he say: You take the wheat, and I will take the barley. The principle of retroactive designation does not apply to objects of different types. If one brother would take wheat and the other barley it would be considered a trade. And it is prohibited for a 岣ver to sell or transfer impure produce or produce that is susceptible to impurity to an am ha鈥檃retz, who does not strictly follow the principles of purity, as this would involve the prohibition of 鈥淵ou shall not place a stumbling-block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14).

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 砖讜专祝 讛诇讞 讜诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讬讘砖

And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna: If the 岣ver receives a share that consists of some items that are wet and some that are dry, that 岣ver must burn the wet produce if it was teruma, as it has certainly been defiled and impure teruma is burned, but he may leave the dry produce and use it, as it can be assumed that it has not been defiled.

讗诪讗讬 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇讙转 讛讘讗讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讙转 讜讬谞讬讞谞讜 诇专讙诇 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖转诪专 诇专讙诇

The Gemara draws a conclusion based on this baraita: Why must he burn the wet teruma? Let him leave it over until the following winepress season, during which time teruma from an am ha鈥檃retz is considered pure. The fact that this option is not taken into account indicates that one may not intentionally leave over teruma received from an am ha鈥檃retz until the next winepress season, which would resolve the dilemma presented to Rav Sheshet. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is referring to something that does not have a winepress, i.e., to liquids that are never used in the Temple service, as amei ha鈥檃retz are careful only with regard to liquids that may be used in the Temple service. The Gemara asks: Even so, there is another option: And let him leave it for the next pilgrimage Festival, for the mishna later teaches (26a) that amei ha鈥檃retz are assumed to observe all laws of ritual purity on Festivals. The Gemara answers: It is referring to something that would not last until the next pilgrimage Festival, but which would spoil beforehand. The dilemma presented to Rav Sheshet therefore remains unresolved.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 讛驻专砖转讬 诇转讜讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 拽讚砖 谞讗诪谉 转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讜讚讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇注讜砖讬 驻住讞 讜讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And if the giver says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma a quarterlog of sacrificial wine or oil, he is deemed credible. The Gemara proceeds to cite a mishna in tractate Oholot, the discussion of which ultimately relates to this mishna here: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Oholot 18:4): Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may examine the ground for those performing the paschal offering, but one may not examine the ground for those who eat teruma.

诪讗讬 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: One may examine? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may blow at the ground of a beit haperas and walk through it as he does so. A beit haperas is a patch of ground with a grave in it that was subsequently plowed over. The Sages were concerned that there might be small pieces of human bone scattered in the field, which would impart impurity to anyone moving them with his foot. Therefore, they decreed that whoever traverses such a field becomes impure. However, the Sages allowed one to pass through the field while maintaining his purity if he blows on the ground as he goes, the assumption being that any small pieces of bone would thereby be blown out of his path. This is the examination to which this mishna refers. The mishna teaches that this examination is sufficient to allow one to retain his purity as he goes to perform the paschal offering, but not to allow one to retain his purity with regard to the eating of teruma.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讚砖 讟讛讜专 诇注讜砖讬 驻住讞 诇讗 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said in the name of Ulla: A beit haperas that has been trodden by passersby who have beaten a path through it is considered pure for those who are on their way to perform the paschal offering, as the assumption is that no more bone fragments remain on the surface of the ground. The examination referred to in the mishna, then, is referring to ascertaining whether a particular beit haperas has been trodden or not. The reason for this leniency is that the impure status of a beit haperas is only a rabbinical decree, and the Sages did not uphold their words decreeing the field to be impure in a place where this affects one鈥檚 ability to perform a mitzva involving karet; and failure to bring a paschal offering is punishable by karet.

诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讬转讛

However, with regard to those who wish to eat teruma after traversing a beit haperas, the Sages did uphold their words decreeing the field to be impure in a place of a sin involving the punishment of death by God鈥檚 hand. The sin of eating teruma in a state of impurity is punishable by death by God鈥檚 hand, and the Sages were therefore strict in insisting that one not eat it after traversing a beit haperas.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讚拽 诇驻住讞讜 诪讛讜 砖讬讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪转讜 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讚拽 诇驻住讞讜 诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪转讜 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讚拽 诇驻住讞讜 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪转讜

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: If one examined a beit haperas for the purpose of bringing his paschal offering, what is the halakha with regard to teruma after he has traversed the field? Is it permissible that he can rely on this examination to eat his teruma as well, since his passage through the field has been established as not having defiled him? Ulla said: If he examined the ground for purposes of bringing his paschal offering, he is permitted afterward to eat his teruma, for once he is declared pure with regard to the offerings it would be inconsistent to declare him at the same time impure with regard to teruma. But Rabba bar Ulla said: If one examined the ground for purposes of bringing his paschal offering, it is prohibited for him to eat his teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诇讗 转驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讚转谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讛驻专砖转讬 诇转讜讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 拽讚砖 谞讗诪谉 讗诇诪讗 诪讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗拽讚砖 诪讛讬诪谉 谞诪讬 讗转专讜诪讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗驻住讞 诪讛讬诪谉 谞诪讬 讗转专讜诪讛

A certain older man said to Rabba bar Ulla: Do not argue with Ulla, as we learned in the mishna in accordance with his opinion, for the mishna states: And if the am ha鈥檃retz says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma a quarter-log of sacrificial wine or oil, he is deemed credible. Apparently, then, once the am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial items in the barrel he is also deemed credible with regard to the teruma in it. Here too, the same principle should be applied, so once he is deemed credible and is considered pure with regard to the paschal offering, he is also deemed credible with regard to teruma.

讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讻讜壮 转谞讗 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛拽谞拽谞讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讚拽讚砖 诪讬讙讜 讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗拽讚砖 诪讛讬诪谉 谞诪讬 讗拽谞拽谞讬诐 讗诇讗 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讚转专讜诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讗转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讗拽谞拽谞讬诐 诪讛讬诪谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Concerning jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are mingled, amei ha鈥檃retz are deemed credible during the period of the winepress and the olive press. A Sage taught in a baraita: Amei ha鈥檃retz are not deemed credible, neither with regard to flasks nor with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: Flasks of what? If it is referring to flasks of sacrificial food, since an am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible concerning the sacrificial items it contains, he must necessarily be deemed credible concerning the flasks as well. Rather, it is referring to flasks of teruma. But this is obvious: Now, if he is not deemed credible concerning the teruma itself, is it possible that he would be deemed credible concerning the flasks containing it?

讗诇讗 讘专讬拽谞讬诐 讚拽讚砖 讜讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讜讘诪诇讗讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 讜讘砖注转 讛讙讬转讜转

The Gemara answers: Rather, it is referring to empty flasks that had contained sacrificial food during the rest of the days of the year, i.e., during all the days of the year, for an am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food throughout the year, yet he is not deemed credible with regard to its flask once the food has been removed, and it is referring as well to flasks full of teruma wine during the period of the winepress, when they are deemed credible with regard to the teruma itself, but not the vessels.

转谞谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讛诪讚讜诪注讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讜诪注讜转 讚转专讜诪讛 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讚讜诪注讜转 讚拽讚砖

The Gemara asks a question: We learned in the mishna: With regard to jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are mingled [meduma], amei ha鈥檃retz are deemed credible during the period of the winepress and the olive press, and seventy days before the winepress. The Gemara asks: What, is it not so that mingled means that there is a mixture of teruma oil or wine in the jug, and yet the mishna states that amei ha鈥檃retz are deemed credible with regard to the jugs? This would appear to contradict the ruling of the baraita that they are not deemed credible with regard to flasks containing teruma. The Gemara answers: In the school of Rabbi 岣yya they say that the mishna in fact is referring to ordinary oil or wine mingled with sacrificial wine or oil, so that it contains a certain amount of sacrificial liquid.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讬诪讜注 诇拽讚砖 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘诪讟讛专 讗转 讟讘诇讜 诇讬讟讜诇 诪诪谞讜 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara asks: And does the concept of meduma apply to sacrificial foods at all? This term meduma applies only to teruma, not to sacrificial items. In the school of Rabbi Elai they say that the halakha of the mishna is stated with regard to one who is keeping his wine tevel, i.e., produce from which the requisite teruma and tithes have not yet been separated, in purity, because he intends to take wine for libations from it. It is therefore in a sense a mixture of sacrificial food, teruma and non-sacred food all in one, and accordingly the term meduma is applicable. The mishna is teaching that since the am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial food in this mixture, he is also deemed credible with regard to the teruma and the jugs.

拽讜讚诐 诇讙讬转讜转 砖讘注讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚注讬诇讜讬讛 讗专讬住讗 诇诪讬讟专讞 讗讙讜诇驻讬 砖讘注讬诐 讬讜诪讬谉 诪拽诪讬 诪注爪专转讗

搂 It is taught in the mishna that apart from the period of the winepress itself, amei ha鈥檃retz are also deemed credible seventy days before the period of the winepress. Abaye said: You can learn from here, incidental to the laws of purity, that the law is that a tenant farmer in a vineyard must make the effort of acquiring flasks for the wine seventy days before the time of the winepress, for the mishna considers this amount of time the period of preparation for the pressing of grapes.

诪转谞讬壮 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讜诇驻谞讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讜诇讞讜抓 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛拽讚专 砖讛讜讗 诪讜讻专 讛拽讚专讜转 谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讛讜讗 讛拽讚专 讜讛谉 讛拽讚专讜转 讜讛谉 讛诇讜拽讞讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讬爪讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

MISHNA: From Modi鈥檌m and inward toward Jerusalem, i.e., in the area surrounding Jerusalem, up to the distance of the town of Modi鈥檌m, which is fifteen mil from Jerusalem, all potters, including amei ha鈥檃retz, are deemed credible with regard to the purity of earthenware vessels that they have produced. Because these places supplied earthenware vessels for the people in Jerusalem, the Sages did not decree impurity for them. From Modi鈥檌m and outward, however, they are not deemed credible. The details of this ruling are specified: How so? A potter who sells pots, if he entered within Modi鈥檌m from outside it, although the potter, and the pots, and the customers were all previously located outside Modi鈥檌m, where he is not deemed credible with regard to purity, he is now deemed credible. And the opposite is true of the opposite case: If the same person who was deemed credible inside left the boundaries of Modi鈥檌m, he is no longer deemed credible.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 讻诇讞讜抓 讻讬爪讚 拽讚专 讬讜爪讗 讜讞讘专 谞讻谞住 讻诇驻谞讬诐 砖谞讬讛谉 谞讻谞住讬谉

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita: With regard to Modi鈥檌m itself, there are times that it is considered like inside the perimeter surrounding Jerusalem, and there are times that it is considered like outside that perimeter. How so? If a potter is leaving the perimeter and a 岣ver is entering it, and they meet in Modi鈥檌m, it is considered like inside, and the 岣ver may purchase the jugs. However, if both are entering the perimeter

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Chagigah: 21 – 27 + Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This we will continue learning about the world of purity and impurity. We will learn how and when vessels are...

Chagigah 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 25

讛诪讚讜诪注讜转 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讘砖注转 讛讙讬转讜转 讜讛讘讚讬诐 讜拽讜讚诐 诇讙讬转讜转 砖讘注讬诐 讬讜诐

that are mingled, amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted with regard to them during the period of the winepress and the olive press, and also up to seventy days before the winepress, for that is when people begin to purify their vessels in preparation for the wine-pressing season.

讙诪壮 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted with regard to the purity of sacrificial wine and oil in Judea. The Gemara infers: In Judea, yes, but in the Galilee, no. What is the reason for this distinction between the two places?

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪驻谞讬 砖专爪讜注讛 砖诇 讻讜转讬诐 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉

Reish Lakish said: It is because a strip of land inhabited by Samaritans [Kutim] separates between Judea and the Galilee, and it is impossible to travel from one land to the other without traversing this strip. The Sages decreed that lands inhabited by non-Jewish nations are considered ritually impure, so that it would be impossible to transport food from the Galilee to Judea, where the Temple is located, without the food becoming impure. Therefore, even oil and wine prepared by 岣verim who lived in the Galilee were not accepted for sacrificial use.

讜谞讬转讬讘 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let the residents of the Galilee place the wine and oil and transport it to Judea in a closed box, a chest, or a closet, whose contents cannot contract impurity, as they have the status of separate tents. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: A thrown tent, i.e., a moving tent, is not called a proper tent, and therefore its contents are subject to impurity. In our case, then, the contents would contract the impurity decreed upon the lands of non-Jewish nations. As it is taught in a baraita: Concerning one who enters a land of non-Jewish nations sitting in a box, a chest, or a closet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi declares him to be impure, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, declares him to be pure.

讜诇讬讬转讜讛 讘讻诇讬 讞专住 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讜谞讬谉 讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 谞讬爪讜诇 讘爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And let them bring oil and wine to the Temple in an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, which cannot contract impurity even if it is in the same tent as a corpse, as it states: 鈥淎nd every open vessel, which has no covering tightly bound upon it, is unclean鈥 (Numbers 19:15). Rabbi Eliezer said: The Sages taught in a baraita: Sacrificial food, unlike other items, is not spared from impurity by being in a container with a tightly bound cover.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 谞讬爪诇转 讘爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讚砖 谞讬爪讜诇 诇讗 讛讗 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪拽讜讚砖讬诐 谞讬爪讜诇讬谉 讘爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Water of purification containing ashes from the red heifer is not spared from impurity by being in a vessel with a tightly bound cover? What, is it not implied in the baraita this inference: That sacrificial food is spared from impurity in such a situation? The baraita seems to imply that this is a special stringency for water of purification, which does not apply to anything else, including sacrificial food. The Gemara rejects this: No, the baraita鈥檚 inference should be understood differently, as this: Water that has not yet been consecrated by being mixed with ashes of the red heifer is spared from impurity by being in a vessel with a tightly bound cover, even if they are designated for such a use at a later stage.

讜讛讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讞讘专讬讬讗 诪讚讻谉 讘讙诇讬诇讗 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讜诇讻砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Ulla say: 岣verim purify their wine and oil, i.e., they produce their wine and oil by the standards of purity used for sacrificial food in the Galilee, to be used for sacrificial purposes? This indicates that there must have been some way of transporting them from the Galilee to the Temple, for otherwise why would they have prepared such items? The Gemara answers: Indeed, they could not transfer these items to the Temple. Rather, they would leave them in their place, and their thought was that when Elijah comes in messianic times and purifies the road from Galilee to Judea, these items will become eligible for use.

讜讘砖注转 讛讙讬转讜转 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讙讜诪专 讝讬转讬讜 讬砖讬讬专 拽讜驻讛 讗讞转 讜讬转谞谞讛 诇注谞讬 讻讛谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And during the period of the winepress and olive press, amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted even with regard to the purity of teruma. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following teaching: An am ha鈥檃retz who finishes pressing his olives should leave over one sack of unpressed olives, and give it to a poor priest as teruma, so that the priest himself can make ritually pure oil from it. This shows that even during the period of the olive press the am ha鈥檃retz is not trusted to make pure olive oil himself.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞专驻讬 讛讗 讘讗驻诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讗讬 讻讗讜转谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讱

Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult. This case of the mishna, where amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted to produce pure olive oil themselves, is referring to people who press their olives early, during the regular season of the olive press, while that case is referring to those who press their olives later, after the period when most people press their olives has passed. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: Such as what case, for example? Such as those olives of your father鈥檚 house. Rav Na岣an鈥檚 father had many olives, and he often pressed them after the regular pressing season.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讙诇讬诇讗 砖谞讜 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讛讙诇讬诇 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讬讛讜讚讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘砖注转 讛讬讬谉 讜注诇 讛砖诪谉 讘砖注转 讛砖诪谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘砖注转 讛砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 讛砖诪谉 讘砖注转 讛讬讬谉

Rav Yosef said a different resolution of the above contradiction. The source that states that amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted was taught with regard to the Galilee, and as the mishna taught earlier concerning sacrificial wine and oil, amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted only in Judea and not in the Galilee. Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita: Transjordan and the Galilee are like Judea, in that they are trusted with regard to wine of teruma during the period of wine production, and with regard to oil of teruma during the period of oil production. However, they are not trusted with regard to wine during the period of oil production, nor are they trusted with regard to oil during the period of wine production. This baraita shows that with regard to teruma there is no difference between the trustworthiness of amei ha鈥檃retz who live in the Galilee and that of those who live in Judea.

讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

Rather, Rav Yosef鈥檚 answer must be rejected, and it is clear that the correct answer is as we answered initially, that it is speaking of the period following the conclusion of the winepress.

注讘专讜 讛讙讬转讜转 讜讛讘讚讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 诇讗 讬拽讘诇谞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讘诇 诪谞讬讞讛 诇讙转 讛讘讗讛 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 注讘专 讜拽讬讘诇讛 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇讙转 讛讘讗讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬转讜讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Once the periods of the winepress and olive press have passed, if amei ha鈥檃retz brought to a 岣ver priest a barrel of teruma wine, he may not accept it from them. But the giver may leave it over for the following winepress season, in the following year. They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If the priest violated the halakha and did accept the wine from an am ha鈥檃retz, what is the halakha? Is it permissible that he should leave it over for himself for the following winepress season? Since it is permissible to accept the wine and oil of an am ha鈥檃retz intentionally left until that time, perhaps it is also permissible if the priest himself intentionally leaves it over until that time. He said to him: You learned it in a mishna (Demai 6:9):

讞讘专 讜注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讬专砖讜 讗转 讗讘讬讛诐 注诐 讛讗专抓 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讗转讛 讞讟讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗谞讬 讞讟讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

In the case of a 岣ver and an am ha鈥檃retz, who are brothers and inherited property from their father, who was also an am ha鈥檃retz, the 岣ver can say to his am ha鈥檃retz brother: You take the wheat that is in such and such a place and I will take the wheat that is in such and such a place. The 岣ver knows that the former batch of wheat had been made susceptible to impurity, and he would therefore have no use for it, while the latter batch had not been made susceptible to impurity.

讟讜诇 讗转讛 讬讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗谞讬 讬讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

The mishna continues: Similarly, the 岣ver brother may say to the am ha鈥檃retz brother: You take the wine that is in such and such a place and I will take the wine that is in such and such a place. The 岣ver knows that the latter batch of wine has not been rendered impure, and he wants to take that batch as his share. When brothers inherit a quantity of a certain item they will each end up receiving an equal share of that item. Therefore, the principle of retroactive designation applies, meaning that it is considered that whatever portion any particular brother receives in the end is the one that had been designated for him as his inheritance from the beginning. It is not considered to be a trade or a business transaction with the other brothers in exchange for their portions.

讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讗转讛 诇讞 讜讗谞讬 讬讘砖 讟讜诇 讗转讛 讞讟讬谉 讜讗谞讬 砖注讜专讬诐

The mishna continues: But the 岣ver brother may not say to the am ha鈥檃retz brother: You take the wet produce and I will take the dry produce. Nor may he say: You take the wheat, and I will take the barley. The principle of retroactive designation does not apply to objects of different types. If one brother would take wheat and the other barley it would be considered a trade. And it is prohibited for a 岣ver to sell or transfer impure produce or produce that is susceptible to impurity to an am ha鈥檃retz, who does not strictly follow the principles of purity, as this would involve the prohibition of 鈥淵ou shall not place a stumbling-block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14).

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 砖讜专祝 讛诇讞 讜诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讬讘砖

And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna: If the 岣ver receives a share that consists of some items that are wet and some that are dry, that 岣ver must burn the wet produce if it was teruma, as it has certainly been defiled and impure teruma is burned, but he may leave the dry produce and use it, as it can be assumed that it has not been defiled.

讗诪讗讬 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇讙转 讛讘讗讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讙转 讜讬谞讬讞谞讜 诇专讙诇 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖转诪专 诇专讙诇

The Gemara draws a conclusion based on this baraita: Why must he burn the wet teruma? Let him leave it over until the following winepress season, during which time teruma from an am ha鈥檃retz is considered pure. The fact that this option is not taken into account indicates that one may not intentionally leave over teruma received from an am ha鈥檃retz until the next winepress season, which would resolve the dilemma presented to Rav Sheshet. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is referring to something that does not have a winepress, i.e., to liquids that are never used in the Temple service, as amei ha鈥檃retz are careful only with regard to liquids that may be used in the Temple service. The Gemara asks: Even so, there is another option: And let him leave it for the next pilgrimage Festival, for the mishna later teaches (26a) that amei ha鈥檃retz are assumed to observe all laws of ritual purity on Festivals. The Gemara answers: It is referring to something that would not last until the next pilgrimage Festival, but which would spoil beforehand. The dilemma presented to Rav Sheshet therefore remains unresolved.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 讛驻专砖转讬 诇转讜讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 拽讚砖 谞讗诪谉 转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讜讚讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇注讜砖讬 驻住讞 讜讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And if the giver says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma a quarterlog of sacrificial wine or oil, he is deemed credible. The Gemara proceeds to cite a mishna in tractate Oholot, the discussion of which ultimately relates to this mishna here: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Oholot 18:4): Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may examine the ground for those performing the paschal offering, but one may not examine the ground for those who eat teruma.

诪讗讬 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: One may examine? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may blow at the ground of a beit haperas and walk through it as he does so. A beit haperas is a patch of ground with a grave in it that was subsequently plowed over. The Sages were concerned that there might be small pieces of human bone scattered in the field, which would impart impurity to anyone moving them with his foot. Therefore, they decreed that whoever traverses such a field becomes impure. However, the Sages allowed one to pass through the field while maintaining his purity if he blows on the ground as he goes, the assumption being that any small pieces of bone would thereby be blown out of his path. This is the examination to which this mishna refers. The mishna teaches that this examination is sufficient to allow one to retain his purity as he goes to perform the paschal offering, but not to allow one to retain his purity with regard to the eating of teruma.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讚砖 讟讛讜专 诇注讜砖讬 驻住讞 诇讗 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said in the name of Ulla: A beit haperas that has been trodden by passersby who have beaten a path through it is considered pure for those who are on their way to perform the paschal offering, as the assumption is that no more bone fragments remain on the surface of the ground. The examination referred to in the mishna, then, is referring to ascertaining whether a particular beit haperas has been trodden or not. The reason for this leniency is that the impure status of a beit haperas is only a rabbinical decree, and the Sages did not uphold their words decreeing the field to be impure in a place where this affects one鈥檚 ability to perform a mitzva involving karet; and failure to bring a paschal offering is punishable by karet.

诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讬转讛

However, with regard to those who wish to eat teruma after traversing a beit haperas, the Sages did uphold their words decreeing the field to be impure in a place of a sin involving the punishment of death by God鈥檚 hand. The sin of eating teruma in a state of impurity is punishable by death by God鈥檚 hand, and the Sages were therefore strict in insisting that one not eat it after traversing a beit haperas.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讚拽 诇驻住讞讜 诪讛讜 砖讬讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪转讜 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讚拽 诇驻住讞讜 诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪转讜 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讚拽 诇驻住讞讜 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪转讜

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: If one examined a beit haperas for the purpose of bringing his paschal offering, what is the halakha with regard to teruma after he has traversed the field? Is it permissible that he can rely on this examination to eat his teruma as well, since his passage through the field has been established as not having defiled him? Ulla said: If he examined the ground for purposes of bringing his paschal offering, he is permitted afterward to eat his teruma, for once he is declared pure with regard to the offerings it would be inconsistent to declare him at the same time impure with regard to teruma. But Rabba bar Ulla said: If one examined the ground for purposes of bringing his paschal offering, it is prohibited for him to eat his teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诇讗 转驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讚转谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讛驻专砖转讬 诇转讜讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 拽讚砖 谞讗诪谉 讗诇诪讗 诪讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗拽讚砖 诪讛讬诪谉 谞诪讬 讗转专讜诪讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗驻住讞 诪讛讬诪谉 谞诪讬 讗转专讜诪讛

A certain older man said to Rabba bar Ulla: Do not argue with Ulla, as we learned in the mishna in accordance with his opinion, for the mishna states: And if the am ha鈥檃retz says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma a quarter-log of sacrificial wine or oil, he is deemed credible. Apparently, then, once the am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial items in the barrel he is also deemed credible with regard to the teruma in it. Here too, the same principle should be applied, so once he is deemed credible and is considered pure with regard to the paschal offering, he is also deemed credible with regard to teruma.

讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讻讜壮 转谞讗 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛拽谞拽谞讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讚拽讚砖 诪讬讙讜 讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗拽讚砖 诪讛讬诪谉 谞诪讬 讗拽谞拽谞讬诐 讗诇讗 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讚转专讜诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讗转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讗拽谞拽谞讬诐 诪讛讬诪谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Concerning jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are mingled, amei ha鈥檃retz are deemed credible during the period of the winepress and the olive press. A Sage taught in a baraita: Amei ha鈥檃retz are not deemed credible, neither with regard to flasks nor with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: Flasks of what? If it is referring to flasks of sacrificial food, since an am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible concerning the sacrificial items it contains, he must necessarily be deemed credible concerning the flasks as well. Rather, it is referring to flasks of teruma. But this is obvious: Now, if he is not deemed credible concerning the teruma itself, is it possible that he would be deemed credible concerning the flasks containing it?

讗诇讗 讘专讬拽谞讬诐 讚拽讚砖 讜讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讜讘诪诇讗讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 讜讘砖注转 讛讙讬转讜转

The Gemara answers: Rather, it is referring to empty flasks that had contained sacrificial food during the rest of the days of the year, i.e., during all the days of the year, for an am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food throughout the year, yet he is not deemed credible with regard to its flask once the food has been removed, and it is referring as well to flasks full of teruma wine during the period of the winepress, when they are deemed credible with regard to the teruma itself, but not the vessels.

转谞谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讛诪讚讜诪注讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讜诪注讜转 讚转专讜诪讛 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讚讜诪注讜转 讚拽讚砖

The Gemara asks a question: We learned in the mishna: With regard to jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are mingled [meduma], amei ha鈥檃retz are deemed credible during the period of the winepress and the olive press, and seventy days before the winepress. The Gemara asks: What, is it not so that mingled means that there is a mixture of teruma oil or wine in the jug, and yet the mishna states that amei ha鈥檃retz are deemed credible with regard to the jugs? This would appear to contradict the ruling of the baraita that they are not deemed credible with regard to flasks containing teruma. The Gemara answers: In the school of Rabbi 岣yya they say that the mishna in fact is referring to ordinary oil or wine mingled with sacrificial wine or oil, so that it contains a certain amount of sacrificial liquid.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讬诪讜注 诇拽讚砖 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘诪讟讛专 讗转 讟讘诇讜 诇讬讟讜诇 诪诪谞讜 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara asks: And does the concept of meduma apply to sacrificial foods at all? This term meduma applies only to teruma, not to sacrificial items. In the school of Rabbi Elai they say that the halakha of the mishna is stated with regard to one who is keeping his wine tevel, i.e., produce from which the requisite teruma and tithes have not yet been separated, in purity, because he intends to take wine for libations from it. It is therefore in a sense a mixture of sacrificial food, teruma and non-sacred food all in one, and accordingly the term meduma is applicable. The mishna is teaching that since the am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial food in this mixture, he is also deemed credible with regard to the teruma and the jugs.

拽讜讚诐 诇讙讬转讜转 砖讘注讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚注讬诇讜讬讛 讗专讬住讗 诇诪讬讟专讞 讗讙讜诇驻讬 砖讘注讬诐 讬讜诪讬谉 诪拽诪讬 诪注爪专转讗

搂 It is taught in the mishna that apart from the period of the winepress itself, amei ha鈥檃retz are also deemed credible seventy days before the period of the winepress. Abaye said: You can learn from here, incidental to the laws of purity, that the law is that a tenant farmer in a vineyard must make the effort of acquiring flasks for the wine seventy days before the time of the winepress, for the mishna considers this amount of time the period of preparation for the pressing of grapes.

诪转谞讬壮 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讜诇驻谞讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讜诇讞讜抓 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛拽讚专 砖讛讜讗 诪讜讻专 讛拽讚专讜转 谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讛讜讗 讛拽讚专 讜讛谉 讛拽讚专讜转 讜讛谉 讛诇讜拽讞讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讬爪讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

MISHNA: From Modi鈥檌m and inward toward Jerusalem, i.e., in the area surrounding Jerusalem, up to the distance of the town of Modi鈥檌m, which is fifteen mil from Jerusalem, all potters, including amei ha鈥檃retz, are deemed credible with regard to the purity of earthenware vessels that they have produced. Because these places supplied earthenware vessels for the people in Jerusalem, the Sages did not decree impurity for them. From Modi鈥檌m and outward, however, they are not deemed credible. The details of this ruling are specified: How so? A potter who sells pots, if he entered within Modi鈥檌m from outside it, although the potter, and the pots, and the customers were all previously located outside Modi鈥檌m, where he is not deemed credible with regard to purity, he is now deemed credible. And the opposite is true of the opposite case: If the same person who was deemed credible inside left the boundaries of Modi鈥檌m, he is no longer deemed credible.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 讻诇讞讜抓 讻讬爪讚 拽讚专 讬讜爪讗 讜讞讘专 谞讻谞住 讻诇驻谞讬诐 砖谞讬讛谉 谞讻谞住讬谉

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita: With regard to Modi鈥檌m itself, there are times that it is considered like inside the perimeter surrounding Jerusalem, and there are times that it is considered like outside that perimeter. How so? If a potter is leaving the perimeter and a 岣ver is entering it, and they meet in Modi鈥檌m, it is considered like inside, and the 岣ver may purchase the jugs. However, if both are entering the perimeter

Scroll To Top