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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 3, 2018 | ื›ืดื” ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • 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.

Chullin 6

Why did the rabbis forbid eating from shechita of the Cutim and forbade their wine? How did the rabbinic decrees relating to theย Cutim change over time? Does one need to worry about demaiย (whether tithes were taken) in a food that contains produce from an am haaretz? If one gives the am haaretz the ingredients, in what cases would one need to be concerned that the am haaretzย switched the ingredients with their own? What were the reactions of others to Rebbi’s permitting fruits of Beit Shean to be eaten without separating tithes and how did Rebbi respond to them?


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

ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืš ืœื ืงื‘ืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืœื™ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ืืŸ ื›ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื• ื›ืืŸ ื›ืฉืื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื• ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื‘ืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Zeira did not accept from Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi that Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan even when a Jew was standing over him, let Rabbi Zeira resolve the matter for himself in a different manner: Here, where Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was standing over him; there, where Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was not standing over him. Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Zeira accepted the response from Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn this from it.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื’ื–ืจื• ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืฉื“ืจื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื—ืžืจื ืžื‘ื™ ื›ื•ืชืื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืกื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืžืช ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœืขืš ืื ื‘ืขืœ ื ืคืฉ ืืชื” ื”ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ืกืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ

ยง The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages, Rabban Gamliel and his court, issued a decree rendering it prohibited to eat from the slaughter of Samaritans? The Gemara answers: It is like that case involving Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, in which Rabbi Meir dispatched him to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: โ€œAnd put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetiteโ€ (Proverbs 23:2),as a warning to distance himself from them and not to drink their wine, because they were not reliable. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar went and related those matters before Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir issued a decree against them.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื“ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ื ื” ืžืฆืื• ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืจืืฉ ื”ืจ ื’ืจื™ื–ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ื—ื™ื™ืฉ ืœืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ื•ื’ื–ืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ืื˜ื• ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ื ืžื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื•

What is the reason that the Samaritans are deemed unreliable? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: At the peak of Mount Gerizim they found the image of a dove, which the Samaritan residents of Mount Gerizim would worship; and Rabbi Meir issued the decree according to his line of reasoning that he takes the minority into consideration, and therefore, despite the fact that the majority of Samaritans did not live on Mount Gerizim, he issued a decree rendering meat slaughtered by the majority forbidden due to the minority that worshipped that idol. And Rabban Gamliel and his court also hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

ืคืฉื˜ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื ื‘ืžืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื”ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื• ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื›ื™ ืชืฉื‘ ืœืœื—ื•ื ืืช ืžื•ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœืคื ื™ืš ื•ืฉืžืช ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœืขืš ืื ื‘ืขืœ ื ืคืฉ ืืชื”

The Gemara asks: As to the plain meaning of that verse: โ€œAnd put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite,โ€ with regard to what matter is it written? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to a student who is sitting before his teacher, as he must consider his words carefully. As Rabbi แธคiyya teaches a baraita interpreting the verses: โ€œWhen you sit to eat with a ruler, consider well [bin tavin] him that is before you; and put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetiteโ€ (Proverbs 23:1โ€“2).

ืื ื™ื•ื“ืข ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื‘ืจื‘ื• ืฉื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืœื• ื˜ืขื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœืคื ื™ืš ื•ืฉืžืช ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœืขืš ืื ื‘ืขืœ ื ืคืฉ ืืชื” ืคืจื•ืฉ ื”ื™ืžื ื•

The tanna explains the verse: If a student knows about his teacher that he knows to respond to him with a reasoned answer, seek wisdom [bin] from him. And if the student believes that the teacher is not capable of doing so, understand [tavin] who is sitting before you, and put a knife to your throat and refrain from embarrassing him with questions that he cannot answer. And if you are a man given to appetite and you seek an answer to your question, distance yourself from him.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืฉื“ืจื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื—ืžืจื ืžื‘ื™ ื›ื•ืชืื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืกื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืช ื›ืืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจื™ ืชื•ืจื” ื”ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ืกืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื•ื”ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื•ืกืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ื•ืœื ื–ื–ื• ืžืฉื ืขื“ ืฉืขืฉืื•ื ื’ื•ื™ื ื’ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ

Rabbi Abbahu dispatched Rabbi Yitzแธฅak ben Yosef to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: The people here are not keepers of the Torah. Rabbi Yitzแธฅak went and related the matters before Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Abbahu went and related the matters before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, and they did not move from there until they rendered the Samaritans full-fledged gentiles.

ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ืžื”ืชื ื’ื–ืจื• ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ืœื• ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ื’ื–ืจื• ื•ืงื‘ืœื• ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: For what matters did those Sages render them full-fledged gentiles? If it was to prohibit eating from their slaughter and to render their wine as wine used for a libation in idol worship, these prohibitions were issued previously. From there, from the generations of Rabbi Meir and Rabban Gamliel, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting them. The Gemara answers: They issued a decree, and the people did not accept it from them. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi came and issued a decree, and the people accepted it from them.

ืžืื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ื’ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of full-fledged gentiles? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: It means that the halakhic status of a Samaritan is like that of a gentile with regard to renouncing his domain in a jointly-owned courtyard on Shabbat and to transferring his domain in the courtyard to residents of that courtyard.

ื•ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฉื•ืžื“ ืžืฉืžืจ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืžืจ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a Jewish transgressor who nevertheless observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, i.e., in public, if he failed to establish a joining of houses in a courtyard before Shabbat, his halakhic status is that of an observant Jew, and he may renounce his domain in the courtyard and transfer his domain in the courtyard. But a transgressor who does not observe his Shabbat in the marketplace may neither renounce his domain in the courtyard nor transfer his domain in the courtyard.

ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉื›ื•ืจ

This is because the Sages said: Only a Jew may verbally transfer rights in his domain or renounce his rights in his domain, but with regard to a gentile, the other residents cannot establish a joining of courtyards unless the residents of the courtyard lease his domain from him. The halakhic status of one who publicly desecrates Shabbat is that of a gentile.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืœืš ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ืžื‘ื•ื˜ืœืช ืœืš ืงื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื–ื›ื•ืช

How does a Jew transfer or renounce his domain? If a Jew says to his neighbor: My domain is transferred to you or my domain is renounced to you, his neighbor has acquired his domain, and it is not necessary for him to grant it to his neighbor by means of one of the standard modes of acquisition.

ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื™ืงืœืขื• ืœืคื•ื ื“ืงื ื“ื™ืื™ ืื™ื™ืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื”ืžืฆื•ืžืงื•ืช ื‘ื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœื ืื›ืœ ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื›ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœืจื‘ ืืกื™ ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉ ืžืจ ืœืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื“ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืื“ืขืชืื™

ยง The Gemara revisits the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Zeira and Rav Asi happened to come to the inn of the town of Yaโ€™ei. In the inn, they brought before these Sages eggs that shriveled after being cooked in wine. Rabbi Zeira did not eat the eggs, and Rav Asi ate them. Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: And is the Master not concerned about the possibility that the dish is a mixture containing wine that is doubtfully tithed produce [demai]? Rav Asi said to him: It did not enter my mind.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืคืฉืจ ื’ื–ืจื• ืขืœ ื”ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื“ืžืื™ ื•ืžืกืชื™ื™ืขื ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืžื™ื›ืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ื”ืžืชืŸ ืฉืœ ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื™ื ืชืงืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ืŸ ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืขืฆืžืŸ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

Rabbi Zeira said to himself: Is it possible that the Sages issued a decree on a mixture containing demai and the matter eventuated that Rav Asi ate forbidden food? Now, since even with regard to the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not generate mishaps through them, is it not all the more so true that the righteous themselves would not experience mishaps?

ื ืคืง ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื“ืง ื•ืืฉื›ื— ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืชืช ืœืชื•ืš ื”ืžื•ืจื™ื™ืก ืื• ืœืชื•ืš ื”ืืœื•ื ืชื™ืช ื›ืจืฉื™ื ื™ืŸ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžื”ืŸ ื˜ื—ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืจืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžืื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื•ื“ืื™

Rabbi Zeira emerged, analyzed, and found that no mishap was generated through Rav Asi, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 1:24): In the case of one who purchases wine to place into fish gravy [hamorayes] or into aluntit, a beverage in which wine is mixed, or one who purchases vetch to prepare grist from it, or lentils to prepare groats from it, if it is uncertain whether what he purchased is tithed, e.g., he bought it from one who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am haโ€™aretz], one is obligated to tithe it, due to the fact that it is demai. And needless to say, if it is certain that what he purchased is not tithed, he is obligated to tithe it due to the fact that it is certain that it is untithed produce.

ื•ื”ืŸ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ืŸ ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช

And they themselves, the gravy, aluntit, grist, and groats that one purchased from an am haโ€™aretz, are permitted, because they are a mixture. Since only one element of the mixture must be tithed, the food is permitted.

ื•ืœื ื’ื–ืจื• ืขืœ ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื“ืžืื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืฉื›ื ืชื• ืขื™ืกื” ืœืืคื•ืช ื•ืงื“ื™ืจื” ืœื‘ืฉืœ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ืœืฉืื•ืจ ื•ืชื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: And is it so that the Sages did not issue a decree on a mixture containing demai? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who gives his neighbor, who is an am haโ€™aretz, dough to bake and gives her leaven for the dough to rise, or gives her a pot of food and the spices to cook in it, he need not be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, that perhaps she replaced them with her own, neither with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce nor with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated.

ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืขืฉื™ ืœื™ ืžืฉืœื™ื›ื™ ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ืœืฉืื•ืจ ื•ืชื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉืจ

And if he says to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me with your own leaven and spices, he must be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce and with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated, even though it is a mixture containing demai.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืœื” ืขืฉื™ ืœื™ ืžืฉืœื™ื›ื™ ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืขืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื ื“ืžื™ ืจืคืจื ืืžืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืื•ืจ ื•ืชื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืœื˜ืขืžื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ื‘ื˜ื™ืœ

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as, since he said to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me from your own, it is like one who mixed it by direct action. Rafram said: Leaven and spices are different, as each of them is made for the purpose of adding taste to the mixture, and taste is not nullified in a mixture.

ื•ืœื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื—ืžื•ืชื• ืžืขืฉืจ ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื•ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืžืžื ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื” ืžื—ืœืคืช ื”ืžืชืงืœืงืœ ื”ืชื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื•ืฆื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืชืงื ืช ื‘ืชื” ื•ื‘ื•ืฉื” ืžื—ืชื ื”

The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients that he gave his neighbor with her own? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:6): One who gives dough to his mother-in-law, who is suspect with regard to tithing, so that she will prepare it for him, must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes back from her. This is because she is suspected of replacing an ingredient that spoils. The Gemara answers: There, the reason is like it is taught explicitly in that mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda said: The mother-in-law desires her daughterโ€™s well-being and wants to ensure that she eats quality food, and is reticent to tell her son-in-law that she replaced the ingredients that spoiled.

ื•ืœืขืœืžื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืคื•ื ื“ืงื™ืช ืฉืœื• ืžืขืฉืจ ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื•ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื” ืžื—ืœืคืช ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžื•ืจื™ื ื•ืืžืจื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืœื™ื›ื•ืœ ื—ืžื™ืžื ื•ืื ื ืื™ื›ื•ืœ ืงืจื™ืจื

The Gemara asks: And in general, in a case not involving oneโ€™s mother-in-law, are we not concerned about the possibility of replacement? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:5): One who gives dough or a pot of food to his innkeeper [pundakit] who is an am haโ€™aretz to bake or cook, tithes what he gives her and tithes what he takes back from her, due to the fact that she is suspected of replacing the ingredients? The Gemara answers: There too, her intentions are good, as the innkeeper rationalizes her deception and says: Let the student of Torah eat my hot food and I will eat his cold food.

ื•ืœื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืช ื—ื‘ืจ ื˜ื•ื—ื ืช ืขื ืืฉืช ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื˜ืžืื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The wife of a แธฅaver, one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes,grinds grain with the wife of an am haโ€™aretz when the wife of the แธฅaver is ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. In that case, there is no concern that she will eat her counterpartโ€™s untithed produce, as, since she is impure she will refrain from touching the grain so that she will not render it impure. But she may not do so when she is ritually pure, due to the concern that she will eat the untithed produce.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœื ืชื˜ื—ื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ื‘ื™ืจืชื” ื ื•ืชื ืช ืœื” ื•ืื•ื›ืœืช

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when she is impure, the wife of the แธฅaver may not grind grain together with the wife of the am haโ€™aretz, due to the fact that her counterpart gives her grain and she eats it without touching the rest of the grain.

ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื’ื–ืœ ื’ื–ืœื” ื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžื•ืจื™ื ื•ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื ืžื“ื™ืฉื™ื” ืงืื›ื™ืœ

The Gemara infers: Now that there is suspicion that the wife of the am haโ€™aretz steals from her husbandโ€™s grain and gives it to her counterparts, is it necessary to say that she is suspect with regard to replacing ingredients? Rav Yosef said: There too there are special circumstances, as the wife of the am haโ€™aretz rationalizes her behavior and says metaphorically: The ox eats from its threshing, and believes that the wife of the แธฅaver is entitled to some of the grain that she is grinding.

ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื–ืจื•ื– ื‘ืŸ ื—ืžื™ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืฉืื›ืœ ืขืœื” ืฉืœ ื™ืจืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืืŸ ื•ื”ืชื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืช ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืืŸ ื›ื•ืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื•

ยง The Gemara resumes its discussion of the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz, son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Meir, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about Rabbi Meir that he ate the leaf of a vegetable in Beit Sheโ€™an without tithing or separating teruma, as he holds that Beit Sheโ€™an is not part of Eretz Yisrael and therefore is not sacred with its sanctity. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted all the produce of Beit Sheโ€™an on the basis of his testimony.

ื—ื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ืื—ื™ื• ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื‘ื•ืชื™ืš ื•ืื‘ื•ืช ืื‘ื•ืชื™ืš ื ื”ื’ื• ื‘ื• ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืืชื” ืชื ื”ื•ื’ ื‘ื• ื”ื™ืชืจ

His brothers and his fatherโ€™s household united against him and said to him: In a place where your fathers and the fathers of your fathers treated untithed produce as forbidden, will you treat it as permitted?

ื“ืจืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืงืจื ื–ื” ื•ื›ืชืช ื ื—ืฉ ื”ื ื—ืฉืช ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ื›ื™ ืขื“ ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื”ื”ืžื” ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืงื˜ืจื™ื ืœื• ื•ื™ืงืจื ืœื• ื ื—ืฉืชืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ื ืืกื ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืขืจื• ื‘ื ื™ื”ื•ืฉืคื˜ ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืขืจื• ื•ื”ืœื ื›ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื‘ืขื•ืœื ืืกื ื•ื™ื”ื•ืฉืคื˜ ื‘ื™ืขืจื•ื

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted this verse to them: โ€œAnd he broke in pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtanโ€ (IIย Kings 18:4). Is it possible that they burned incense to it and Asa, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and Jehoshaphat, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and it remained until the time of Hezekiah? But didnโ€™t Asa and Jehoshaphat eradicate all objects of idol worship in the world?

  • 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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 6

ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืš ืœื ืงื‘ืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืœื™ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ืืŸ ื›ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื• ื›ืืŸ ื›ืฉืื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื• ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื‘ืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Zeira did not accept from Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi that Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan even when a Jew was standing over him, let Rabbi Zeira resolve the matter for himself in a different manner: Here, where Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was standing over him; there, where Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was not standing over him. Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Zeira accepted the response from Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn this from it.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื’ื–ืจื• ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืฉื“ืจื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื—ืžืจื ืžื‘ื™ ื›ื•ืชืื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืกื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืžืช ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœืขืš ืื ื‘ืขืœ ื ืคืฉ ืืชื” ื”ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ืกืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ

ยง The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages, Rabban Gamliel and his court, issued a decree rendering it prohibited to eat from the slaughter of Samaritans? The Gemara answers: It is like that case involving Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, in which Rabbi Meir dispatched him to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: โ€œAnd put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetiteโ€ (Proverbs 23:2),as a warning to distance himself from them and not to drink their wine, because they were not reliable. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar went and related those matters before Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir issued a decree against them.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื“ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ื ื” ืžืฆืื• ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืจืืฉ ื”ืจ ื’ืจื™ื–ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ื—ื™ื™ืฉ ืœืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ื•ื’ื–ืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ืื˜ื• ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ื ืžื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื•

What is the reason that the Samaritans are deemed unreliable? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: At the peak of Mount Gerizim they found the image of a dove, which the Samaritan residents of Mount Gerizim would worship; and Rabbi Meir issued the decree according to his line of reasoning that he takes the minority into consideration, and therefore, despite the fact that the majority of Samaritans did not live on Mount Gerizim, he issued a decree rendering meat slaughtered by the majority forbidden due to the minority that worshipped that idol. And Rabban Gamliel and his court also hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

ืคืฉื˜ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื ื‘ืžืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื”ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื• ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื›ื™ ืชืฉื‘ ืœืœื—ื•ื ืืช ืžื•ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœืคื ื™ืš ื•ืฉืžืช ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœืขืš ืื ื‘ืขืœ ื ืคืฉ ืืชื”

The Gemara asks: As to the plain meaning of that verse: โ€œAnd put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite,โ€ with regard to what matter is it written? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to a student who is sitting before his teacher, as he must consider his words carefully. As Rabbi แธคiyya teaches a baraita interpreting the verses: โ€œWhen you sit to eat with a ruler, consider well [bin tavin] him that is before you; and put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetiteโ€ (Proverbs 23:1โ€“2).

ืื ื™ื•ื“ืข ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื‘ืจื‘ื• ืฉื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืœื• ื˜ืขื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœืคื ื™ืš ื•ืฉืžืช ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœืขืš ืื ื‘ืขืœ ื ืคืฉ ืืชื” ืคืจื•ืฉ ื”ื™ืžื ื•

The tanna explains the verse: If a student knows about his teacher that he knows to respond to him with a reasoned answer, seek wisdom [bin] from him. And if the student believes that the teacher is not capable of doing so, understand [tavin] who is sitting before you, and put a knife to your throat and refrain from embarrassing him with questions that he cannot answer. And if you are a man given to appetite and you seek an answer to your question, distance yourself from him.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืฉื“ืจื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื—ืžืจื ืžื‘ื™ ื›ื•ืชืื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืกื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืช ื›ืืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจื™ ืชื•ืจื” ื”ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ืกืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื•ื”ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื•ืกืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ื•ืœื ื–ื–ื• ืžืฉื ืขื“ ืฉืขืฉืื•ื ื’ื•ื™ื ื’ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ

Rabbi Abbahu dispatched Rabbi Yitzแธฅak ben Yosef to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: The people here are not keepers of the Torah. Rabbi Yitzแธฅak went and related the matters before Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Abbahu went and related the matters before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, and they did not move from there until they rendered the Samaritans full-fledged gentiles.

ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ืžื”ืชื ื’ื–ืจื• ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ืœื• ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ื’ื–ืจื• ื•ืงื‘ืœื• ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: For what matters did those Sages render them full-fledged gentiles? If it was to prohibit eating from their slaughter and to render their wine as wine used for a libation in idol worship, these prohibitions were issued previously. From there, from the generations of Rabbi Meir and Rabban Gamliel, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting them. The Gemara answers: They issued a decree, and the people did not accept it from them. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi came and issued a decree, and the people accepted it from them.

ืžืื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ื’ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of full-fledged gentiles? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: It means that the halakhic status of a Samaritan is like that of a gentile with regard to renouncing his domain in a jointly-owned courtyard on Shabbat and to transferring his domain in the courtyard to residents of that courtyard.

ื•ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฉื•ืžื“ ืžืฉืžืจ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืžืจ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a Jewish transgressor who nevertheless observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, i.e., in public, if he failed to establish a joining of houses in a courtyard before Shabbat, his halakhic status is that of an observant Jew, and he may renounce his domain in the courtyard and transfer his domain in the courtyard. But a transgressor who does not observe his Shabbat in the marketplace may neither renounce his domain in the courtyard nor transfer his domain in the courtyard.

ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉื›ื•ืจ

This is because the Sages said: Only a Jew may verbally transfer rights in his domain or renounce his rights in his domain, but with regard to a gentile, the other residents cannot establish a joining of courtyards unless the residents of the courtyard lease his domain from him. The halakhic status of one who publicly desecrates Shabbat is that of a gentile.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืœืš ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ืžื‘ื•ื˜ืœืช ืœืš ืงื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื–ื›ื•ืช

How does a Jew transfer or renounce his domain? If a Jew says to his neighbor: My domain is transferred to you or my domain is renounced to you, his neighbor has acquired his domain, and it is not necessary for him to grant it to his neighbor by means of one of the standard modes of acquisition.

ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื™ืงืœืขื• ืœืคื•ื ื“ืงื ื“ื™ืื™ ืื™ื™ืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื”ืžืฆื•ืžืงื•ืช ื‘ื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœื ืื›ืœ ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื›ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœืจื‘ ืืกื™ ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉ ืžืจ ืœืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื“ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืื“ืขืชืื™

ยง The Gemara revisits the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Zeira and Rav Asi happened to come to the inn of the town of Yaโ€™ei. In the inn, they brought before these Sages eggs that shriveled after being cooked in wine. Rabbi Zeira did not eat the eggs, and Rav Asi ate them. Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: And is the Master not concerned about the possibility that the dish is a mixture containing wine that is doubtfully tithed produce [demai]? Rav Asi said to him: It did not enter my mind.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืคืฉืจ ื’ื–ืจื• ืขืœ ื”ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื“ืžืื™ ื•ืžืกืชื™ื™ืขื ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืžื™ื›ืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ื”ืžืชืŸ ืฉืœ ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื™ื ืชืงืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ืŸ ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืขืฆืžืŸ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

Rabbi Zeira said to himself: Is it possible that the Sages issued a decree on a mixture containing demai and the matter eventuated that Rav Asi ate forbidden food? Now, since even with regard to the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not generate mishaps through them, is it not all the more so true that the righteous themselves would not experience mishaps?

ื ืคืง ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื“ืง ื•ืืฉื›ื— ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืชืช ืœืชื•ืš ื”ืžื•ืจื™ื™ืก ืื• ืœืชื•ืš ื”ืืœื•ื ืชื™ืช ื›ืจืฉื™ื ื™ืŸ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžื”ืŸ ื˜ื—ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืจืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžืื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื•ื“ืื™

Rabbi Zeira emerged, analyzed, and found that no mishap was generated through Rav Asi, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 1:24): In the case of one who purchases wine to place into fish gravy [hamorayes] or into aluntit, a beverage in which wine is mixed, or one who purchases vetch to prepare grist from it, or lentils to prepare groats from it, if it is uncertain whether what he purchased is tithed, e.g., he bought it from one who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am haโ€™aretz], one is obligated to tithe it, due to the fact that it is demai. And needless to say, if it is certain that what he purchased is not tithed, he is obligated to tithe it due to the fact that it is certain that it is untithed produce.

ื•ื”ืŸ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ืŸ ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช

And they themselves, the gravy, aluntit, grist, and groats that one purchased from an am haโ€™aretz, are permitted, because they are a mixture. Since only one element of the mixture must be tithed, the food is permitted.

ื•ืœื ื’ื–ืจื• ืขืœ ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื“ืžืื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืฉื›ื ืชื• ืขื™ืกื” ืœืืคื•ืช ื•ืงื“ื™ืจื” ืœื‘ืฉืœ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ืœืฉืื•ืจ ื•ืชื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: And is it so that the Sages did not issue a decree on a mixture containing demai? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who gives his neighbor, who is an am haโ€™aretz, dough to bake and gives her leaven for the dough to rise, or gives her a pot of food and the spices to cook in it, he need not be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, that perhaps she replaced them with her own, neither with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce nor with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated.

ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืขืฉื™ ืœื™ ืžืฉืœื™ื›ื™ ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ืœืฉืื•ืจ ื•ืชื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉืจ

And if he says to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me with your own leaven and spices, he must be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce and with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated, even though it is a mixture containing demai.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืœื” ืขืฉื™ ืœื™ ืžืฉืœื™ื›ื™ ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืขืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื ื“ืžื™ ืจืคืจื ืืžืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืื•ืจ ื•ืชื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืœื˜ืขืžื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ื‘ื˜ื™ืœ

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as, since he said to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me from your own, it is like one who mixed it by direct action. Rafram said: Leaven and spices are different, as each of them is made for the purpose of adding taste to the mixture, and taste is not nullified in a mixture.

ื•ืœื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื—ืžื•ืชื• ืžืขืฉืจ ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื•ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืžืžื ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื” ืžื—ืœืคืช ื”ืžืชืงืœืงืœ ื”ืชื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื•ืฆื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืชืงื ืช ื‘ืชื” ื•ื‘ื•ืฉื” ืžื—ืชื ื”

The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients that he gave his neighbor with her own? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:6): One who gives dough to his mother-in-law, who is suspect with regard to tithing, so that she will prepare it for him, must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes back from her. This is because she is suspected of replacing an ingredient that spoils. The Gemara answers: There, the reason is like it is taught explicitly in that mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda said: The mother-in-law desires her daughterโ€™s well-being and wants to ensure that she eats quality food, and is reticent to tell her son-in-law that she replaced the ingredients that spoiled.

ื•ืœืขืœืžื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืคื•ื ื“ืงื™ืช ืฉืœื• ืžืขืฉืจ ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื•ืืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื” ืžื—ืœืคืช ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžื•ืจื™ื ื•ืืžืจื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืœื™ื›ื•ืœ ื—ืžื™ืžื ื•ืื ื ืื™ื›ื•ืœ ืงืจื™ืจื

The Gemara asks: And in general, in a case not involving oneโ€™s mother-in-law, are we not concerned about the possibility of replacement? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:5): One who gives dough or a pot of food to his innkeeper [pundakit] who is an am haโ€™aretz to bake or cook, tithes what he gives her and tithes what he takes back from her, due to the fact that she is suspected of replacing the ingredients? The Gemara answers: There too, her intentions are good, as the innkeeper rationalizes her deception and says: Let the student of Torah eat my hot food and I will eat his cold food.

ื•ืœื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืช ื—ื‘ืจ ื˜ื•ื—ื ืช ืขื ืืฉืช ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื˜ืžืื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The wife of a แธฅaver, one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes,grinds grain with the wife of an am haโ€™aretz when the wife of the แธฅaver is ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. In that case, there is no concern that she will eat her counterpartโ€™s untithed produce, as, since she is impure she will refrain from touching the grain so that she will not render it impure. But she may not do so when she is ritually pure, due to the concern that she will eat the untithed produce.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœื ืชื˜ื—ื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ื‘ื™ืจืชื” ื ื•ืชื ืช ืœื” ื•ืื•ื›ืœืช

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when she is impure, the wife of the แธฅaver may not grind grain together with the wife of the am haโ€™aretz, due to the fact that her counterpart gives her grain and she eats it without touching the rest of the grain.

ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื’ื–ืœ ื’ื–ืœื” ื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžื•ืจื™ื ื•ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื ืžื“ื™ืฉื™ื” ืงืื›ื™ืœ

The Gemara infers: Now that there is suspicion that the wife of the am haโ€™aretz steals from her husbandโ€™s grain and gives it to her counterparts, is it necessary to say that she is suspect with regard to replacing ingredients? Rav Yosef said: There too there are special circumstances, as the wife of the am haโ€™aretz rationalizes her behavior and says metaphorically: The ox eats from its threshing, and believes that the wife of the แธฅaver is entitled to some of the grain that she is grinding.

ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื–ืจื•ื– ื‘ืŸ ื—ืžื™ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืฉืื›ืœ ืขืœื” ืฉืœ ื™ืจืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืืŸ ื•ื”ืชื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืช ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืืŸ ื›ื•ืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื•

ยง The Gemara resumes its discussion of the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz, son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Meir, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about Rabbi Meir that he ate the leaf of a vegetable in Beit Sheโ€™an without tithing or separating teruma, as he holds that Beit Sheโ€™an is not part of Eretz Yisrael and therefore is not sacred with its sanctity. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted all the produce of Beit Sheโ€™an on the basis of his testimony.

ื—ื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ืื—ื™ื• ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื‘ื•ืชื™ืš ื•ืื‘ื•ืช ืื‘ื•ืชื™ืš ื ื”ื’ื• ื‘ื• ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืืชื” ืชื ื”ื•ื’ ื‘ื• ื”ื™ืชืจ

His brothers and his fatherโ€™s household united against him and said to him: In a place where your fathers and the fathers of your fathers treated untithed produce as forbidden, will you treat it as permitted?

ื“ืจืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืงืจื ื–ื” ื•ื›ืชืช ื ื—ืฉ ื”ื ื—ืฉืช ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ื›ื™ ืขื“ ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื”ื”ืžื” ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืงื˜ืจื™ื ืœื• ื•ื™ืงืจื ืœื• ื ื—ืฉืชืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ื ืืกื ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืขืจื• ื‘ื ื™ื”ื•ืฉืคื˜ ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืขืจื• ื•ื”ืœื ื›ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื‘ืขื•ืœื ืืกื ื•ื™ื”ื•ืฉืคื˜ ื‘ื™ืขืจื•ื

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted this verse to them: โ€œAnd he broke in pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtanโ€ (IIย Kings 18:4). Is it possible that they burned incense to it and Asa, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and Jehoshaphat, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and it remained until the time of Hezekiah? But didnโ€™t Asa and Jehoshaphat eradicate all objects of idol worship in the world?

Scroll To Top