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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 12, 2016 | 讙壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Gittin 61

Who has first rights to the water from the irrigation channel? 聽Can you loan your kitchen equipment or help grind wheat of those who are suspect of storing shmita produce or amei haaretz (who are either suspected of not tithing their produce or of not keeping laws of purity)?

Study Guide Gittin 61

讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜拽专讬

everyone agrees that since they are receptacles that hold the fish or animal entering them, by right the trapped animals belong to the owner of the trap. When they disagree, it is with regard to a fishhook or other traps [kokrei] that merely catch the fish or animal but are not receptacles that hold it. In such cases, there is reason to say that the owner of the trap does not take possession of the trapped animal, and therefore another person who takes it is guilty only of robbery on account of the ways of peace.

诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Taking a lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: It is full-fledged robbery. Rav 岣sda says: Rabbi Yosei means that it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law but not by Torah law. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law and robbery on account of the ways of peace? The Gemara answers: If it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law, the victim of robbery can recover the property from the robber by appealing to judges, i.e., the court can expropriate it from him by force.

注谞讬 讛诪谞拽祝 讘专讗砖 讛讝讬转 诪讛 砖转讞转讬讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讗诐 诇讬拽讟 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专

搂 The mishna teaches that if a poor person gleans olives at the top of an olive tree and olives fall to the ground under the tree, then taking those olives that are beneath it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. According to Rabbi Yosei, it is full-fledged robbery. A Sage taught: If the poor person gathered the olives and placed them in his hand before they fell to the ground, this is full-fledged robbery, because the poor person had already acquired legal ownership of the olives when they were in his hand.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 诇讛讜爪诇 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 砖讚讬 讗讜驻讬讬 讜拽讗 谞转专谉 转诪专讬 讗讝诇 拽讗 诪谞拽讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 讚讘讬讚讗讬 砖讚讬转讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗转讛 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讜爪讚讬拽 讬住讜讚 注讜诇诐

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana was once walking to the city of Huzal when he saw a certain man who was throwing sticks at a palm tree and dates were falling to the ground. Rav Kahana went, gathered up some of the dates, and ate them. That man said to Rav Kahana: See, Master, that I threw them down with my hand, i.e., the dates were already in my hand, and therefore they are legally mine. Rav Kahana said to him: You are from the place of Rabbi Yoshiya, who was a great Sage in the city of Huzal. For that reason, you are knowledgeable in halakha. Rav Kahana read the verse about Rabbi Yoshiya: 鈥淎nd a righteous man is the foundation of the world鈥 (Proverbs 10:25). Even after his death, Rabbi Yoshiya left a foundation for the world, as his city continued to be a center of Torah study.

讗讬谉 诪诪讞讬谉 讘讬讚 注谞讬讬 讙讜讬诐 讘诇拽讟 讘砖讻讞讛 讜讘驻讗讛 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪驻专谞住讬诐 注谞讬讬 讙讜讬诐 注诐 注谞讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讘拽专讬谉 讞讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 注诐 讞讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 诪转讬 讙讜讬诐 注诐 诪转讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe鈥檃], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace. Similarly, the Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:4): One sustains poor gentiles along with poor Jews, and one visits sick gentiles along with sick Jews, and one buries dead gentiles along with dead Jews. All this is done on account of the ways of peace, to foster peaceful relations between Jews and gentiles.

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖讗诇转 讗砖讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讛讞砖讜讚讛 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 讜专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘讜专 讜诇讗 转讟讞谉 注诪讛

MISHNA: A woman may lend utensils to her friend who is suspect with regard to eating produce that grew in the Sabbatical Year after the time that such produce must be removed from the house and may no longer be eaten. The utensils that she may lend her include: A winnow, a sieve, a mill, and an oven. Lending her such utensils is not considered aiding in the commission of a transgression. But she may not select the grain from the chaff or grind wheat with her, i.e., she may not actively assist her in the performance of a sin.

讗砖转 讞讘专 诪砖讗诇转 诇讗砖转 注诐 讛讗专抓 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 讜讘讜专专转 讜讟讜讞谞转 讜诪专拽讚转 注诪讛 讗讘诇 诪砖转讟讬诇 讗转 讛诪讬诐 诇讗 转讙注 注诪讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讬讚讬 注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

The wife of a 岣ver, one who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, may lend the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not scrupulous in these areas, a winnow and a sieve, and she may even select, grind, and sift with her. But once the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz pours water into the flour, thereby rendering it susceptible to ritual impurity, the wife of the 岣ver may not touch anything with her, because one may not assist those who commit transgressions. And all of the allowances mentioned in the mishna were stated only on account of the ways of peace.

讜诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讬讚讬 讙讜讬诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘砖诇讜诪谉 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

And one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year, but one may not assist Jews who do this. Similarly, one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the halakhot taught in the mishna: What is different in the first clause of the mishna that teaches that a woman may not select and grind grain with a woman who is suspected of eating produce of the Sabbatical Year after it is forbidden, and what is different in the latter clause that teaches that it is permitted for the wife of a 岣ver to assist the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz in her selecting and grinding? Abaye said: Most amei ha鈥檃retz tithe their produce, and therefore there is no reason to render it prohibited to assist the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz in her work, as she is probably preparing a permitted food. Although there may be concern that the food was not tithed due to the minority of amei ha鈥檃retz who do not separate tithes, this concern is ignored on account of the ways of peace.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讛专讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讞讜诇讬讜 讘讟讛专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注砖专 驻讬专讜转讬讜

Rava said: Here the mishna speaks about the am ha鈥檃retz as defined by Rabbi Meir and the issue of ritual impurity and purity by rabbinic law. It does not speak about the matter of separating teruma and tithes. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:10): Who is an am ha鈥檃retz? Anyone who does not eat his non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An am ha鈥檃retz is anyone who does not tithe his produce. Since the mishna is referring to the type of am ha鈥檃retz about whom there is an assumption that he tithes his produce but does not eat his non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity, and in light of the fact that eating non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity is stipulated by rabbinic law, on account of the ways of peace, the Sages did not prohibit the wife of a 岣ver from assisting the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪砖转讟讬诇 讗转 讛诪讬诐 诇讗 转讙注 注诪讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讛专讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara raises an objection: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Once the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz pours water into the flour, the wife of the 岣ver may not touch anything with her because the water has rendered the dough susceptible to ritual impurity, it may be inferred that in the first clause in the mishna we are not dealing with concern about the halakhot of impurity and purity. Rather, the concern pertains to tithes.

专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讛专讛 讜专讬砖讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讞讜诇讬谉 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讞诇讛

The Gemara answers: Both in the first clause and in the latter clause the concern relates to impurity and purity. The difference is that in the first clause, even if the grain was already rendered susceptible to impurity, the concern is only about impurity of non-sacred produce. Rendering non-sacred produce impure is not prohibited by Torah law; it is a matter about which 岣verim were meticulous. But in the latter clause, the concern is the impurity of 岣lla, the portion that must be separated from the dough and given to a priest. It is at the time that water is added to the flour that the obligation to separate 岣lla from the dough takes effect. Due to the 岣lla that will be separated from the dough, it is prohibited by Torah law for one to render the dough impure.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita (Tosefta, Demai 4:29):

讟讜讞谞讬谉 讜诪驻拽讬讚讬谉 讗爪诇 讗讜讻诇讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗爪诇 讗讜讻诇讬 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛

One may grind one鈥檚 tithed produce and deposit it with those who eat Sabbatical-Year produce and those who eat their own produce in a state of impurity, because there is no concern that they will exchange this produce with Sabbatical-Year produce or with impure produce, or that they will touch the produce. But one may not grind for those who eat Sabbatical-Year produce or for those who eat their own produce in a state of impurity, so as not to assist them in committing a transgression. This is difficult according to Rava鈥檚 explanation of the mishna, that the wife of a 岣ver may grind non-sacred produce with the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz, who eats his own produce in a state of ritual impurity.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 讘讻讛谉 讛讞砖讜讚 诇讗讻讜诇 转专讜诪讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Abaye said: There, in that baraita, we are dealing with a priest who is suspected with regard to partaking of teruma in a state of ritual impurity, which involves a prohibition of impurity by Torah law.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪驻拽讬讚讬谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪驻拽讬讚讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讗爪诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜诇讗 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

The Gemara asks: If so, if the baraita is referring to a priest, how then may one deposit tithed produce with him? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 4:28): One may deposit teruma with an Israelite who is an am ha鈥檃retz. Although he is not meticulous about the halakhot of purity, there is no concern that he will defile the teruma. But one may not deposit teruma with a priest who is an am ha鈥檃retz because he is accustomed to having teruma, and therefore he might not treat it properly and will touch and defile it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: With what are we dealing here, in the previously mentioned baraita, which teaches that one may deposit his tithed produce with one who eats his own produce in a state of ritual purity? This is referring to a case where one deposited the produce in an earthenware vessel with a tightly bound cover. In such a case, there is no concern that the priest who is suspected of partaking of teruma in a state of ritual impurity will touch the produce and render it impure.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转住讬讟谞讜 讗砖转讜 谞讚讛

The Gemara asks: And let there nevertheless be a concern lest the priest鈥檚 menstruating wife move the vessel and impart ritual impurity to the produce inside it. A menstruating woman imparts impurity to the produce inside the vessel through moving it, even if the contents are tightly sealed in the vessel, and she does not come into direct contact with the contents.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讛讜讻砖专讜 讻讗谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says that this is not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited to deposit produce with a priest who is suspected with regard to partaking of teruma in a state of ritual impurity, we are dealing with produce that came into contact with a liquid and became susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. Consequently, there is concern that the priest may impart impurity to it. There, where it is permitted to deposit produce with such a priest, we are dealing with produce that has not yet become susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, in which case there is no concern that the priest will impart impurity to it.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪讜诇讬讱 讞讟讬谉 诇讟讜讞谉 讻讜转讬 讗讜 诇讟讜讞谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转谉 诇诪注砖专 讜诇砖讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from what is taught in a mishna (Demai 3:4): With regard to one who takes tithed wheat to a Samaritan grinder or to a grinder who is an am ha鈥檃retz, the wheat retains its presumptive status with regard to tithes and Sabbatical-Year produce, as there is no concern that the grinder switched the grain. But the wheat does not retain its presumptive status with regard to impurity, as there is concern that perhaps the grinder touched it and rendered it impure.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 专讜诪讬讗 诇讗讜 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘驻讬专讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜

The Gemara asks: What contradiction is there here? Did we not establish that the baraita that permits depositing produce is dealing with produce that has not yet become susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and so it does not become impure when touched by an impure person? Here, the mishna in tractate Demai is dealing with produce that already became susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and therefore there is concern that the produce will be rendered impure.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬专诪讬 讗讞专讬转讬 注诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转谉 诇诪注砖专 讜诇砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讞诇讜驻讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And he who asked the question, why did he ask it? Wasn鈥檛 this answer already stated earlier? The Gemara answers: The one who asked the question cited this mishna only because he wished to raise a contradiction to it from another mishna, as according to this mishna the wheat that was brought to the suspect grinder retains its presumptive status with regard to tithes and Sabbatical-Year produce, and we are not concerned that perhaps the grinder exchanged the grain he had received with grain of his own that was forbidden in some way.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛谞讜转谉 诇讞诪讜转讜 诪注砖专 讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讛 诪讞诇驻转 讛诪转拽诇拽诇

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from what was taught in a mishna (Demai 3:6): With regard to one who gives food to his mother-in-law, who is the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz, so that she may prepare it for him, he must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes from her. This is because she is suspected of exchanging any food received from him that was spoiled with her own food that was not spoiled. Perhaps, then, she did not return the food that he had given her but rather food that was not yet tithed. In this mishna, there is concern that an am ha鈥檃retz may exchange produce that he received with produce of his own.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讜爪讛 讛讬讗 讘转拽谞转 讘转讛 讜讘讜砖讛 诪讞转谞讛

The Gemara answers that there the concern is for the reason that was explicitly taught in that mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: His mother-in-law wants what is good for her daughter, that she not eat anything that is spoiled, and she is ashamed before her son-in-law to tell him that he had given her something that was spoiled. For this reason, she does not tell him that she exchanged the food.

讜诇注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 诇驻讜谞讚拽讬转 诪注砖专 讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞诇驻转 讛转诐 诪讜专讬讗 讜讗诪专讛 讘专 讘讬 专讘 诇讬讻讜诇 讞诪讬诪讗 讜讗谞讗 讗讬讻讜诇 拽专讬专讗

The Gemara asks: And is this to say that in the case of ordinary people we are not concerned that food will be exchanged in a similar situation? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:5): If one gives food to an innkeeper [pundakit] so that she can prepare it for him, he must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes from her, because she exchanges the food received from him with food of her own? This indicates that the concern is not limited to the case of a mother-in-law. The Gemara answers: There, the innkeeper rules for herself that it is permitted for her to do this and says: Why should this student of Torah eat hot food while I will eat cold food? In other words, the innkeeper may justify her behavior to herself and exchange his food for hers.

讜讗讻转讬 诇注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗砖转 讞讘专 讟讜讞谞转 注诐 讗砖转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 转讟讞讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讘专转讛

The Gemara asks: And still, in the case of ordinary people, are we not concerned about food being switched? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 8:4): The wife of a 岣ver may grind with the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz when she, the wife of the 岣ver, is impure, e.g., when she is menstruating and therefore careful not to touch food. And there is no concern that she will come to eat untithed produce. But she may not do this when she is pure. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may not grind even when she is impure, because the other woman, the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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!

Gittin 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 61

讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜拽专讬

everyone agrees that since they are receptacles that hold the fish or animal entering them, by right the trapped animals belong to the owner of the trap. When they disagree, it is with regard to a fishhook or other traps [kokrei] that merely catch the fish or animal but are not receptacles that hold it. In such cases, there is reason to say that the owner of the trap does not take possession of the trapped animal, and therefore another person who takes it is guilty only of robbery on account of the ways of peace.

诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Taking a lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: It is full-fledged robbery. Rav 岣sda says: Rabbi Yosei means that it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law but not by Torah law. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law and robbery on account of the ways of peace? The Gemara answers: If it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law, the victim of robbery can recover the property from the robber by appealing to judges, i.e., the court can expropriate it from him by force.

注谞讬 讛诪谞拽祝 讘专讗砖 讛讝讬转 诪讛 砖转讞转讬讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讗诐 诇讬拽讟 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专

搂 The mishna teaches that if a poor person gleans olives at the top of an olive tree and olives fall to the ground under the tree, then taking those olives that are beneath it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. According to Rabbi Yosei, it is full-fledged robbery. A Sage taught: If the poor person gathered the olives and placed them in his hand before they fell to the ground, this is full-fledged robbery, because the poor person had already acquired legal ownership of the olives when they were in his hand.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 诇讛讜爪诇 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 砖讚讬 讗讜驻讬讬 讜拽讗 谞转专谉 转诪专讬 讗讝诇 拽讗 诪谞拽讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 讚讘讬讚讗讬 砖讚讬转讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗转讛 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讜爪讚讬拽 讬住讜讚 注讜诇诐

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana was once walking to the city of Huzal when he saw a certain man who was throwing sticks at a palm tree and dates were falling to the ground. Rav Kahana went, gathered up some of the dates, and ate them. That man said to Rav Kahana: See, Master, that I threw them down with my hand, i.e., the dates were already in my hand, and therefore they are legally mine. Rav Kahana said to him: You are from the place of Rabbi Yoshiya, who was a great Sage in the city of Huzal. For that reason, you are knowledgeable in halakha. Rav Kahana read the verse about Rabbi Yoshiya: 鈥淎nd a righteous man is the foundation of the world鈥 (Proverbs 10:25). Even after his death, Rabbi Yoshiya left a foundation for the world, as his city continued to be a center of Torah study.

讗讬谉 诪诪讞讬谉 讘讬讚 注谞讬讬 讙讜讬诐 讘诇拽讟 讘砖讻讞讛 讜讘驻讗讛 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪驻专谞住讬诐 注谞讬讬 讙讜讬诐 注诐 注谞讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讘拽专讬谉 讞讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 注诐 讞讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 诪转讬 讙讜讬诐 注诐 诪转讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe鈥檃], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace. Similarly, the Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:4): One sustains poor gentiles along with poor Jews, and one visits sick gentiles along with sick Jews, and one buries dead gentiles along with dead Jews. All this is done on account of the ways of peace, to foster peaceful relations between Jews and gentiles.

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖讗诇转 讗砖讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讛讞砖讜讚讛 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 讜专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘讜专 讜诇讗 转讟讞谉 注诪讛

MISHNA: A woman may lend utensils to her friend who is suspect with regard to eating produce that grew in the Sabbatical Year after the time that such produce must be removed from the house and may no longer be eaten. The utensils that she may lend her include: A winnow, a sieve, a mill, and an oven. Lending her such utensils is not considered aiding in the commission of a transgression. But she may not select the grain from the chaff or grind wheat with her, i.e., she may not actively assist her in the performance of a sin.

讗砖转 讞讘专 诪砖讗诇转 诇讗砖转 注诐 讛讗专抓 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 讜讘讜专专转 讜讟讜讞谞转 讜诪专拽讚转 注诪讛 讗讘诇 诪砖转讟讬诇 讗转 讛诪讬诐 诇讗 转讙注 注诪讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讬讚讬 注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

The wife of a 岣ver, one who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, may lend the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not scrupulous in these areas, a winnow and a sieve, and she may even select, grind, and sift with her. But once the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz pours water into the flour, thereby rendering it susceptible to ritual impurity, the wife of the 岣ver may not touch anything with her, because one may not assist those who commit transgressions. And all of the allowances mentioned in the mishna were stated only on account of the ways of peace.

讜诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讬讚讬 讙讜讬诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘砖诇讜诪谉 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

And one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year, but one may not assist Jews who do this. Similarly, one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the halakhot taught in the mishna: What is different in the first clause of the mishna that teaches that a woman may not select and grind grain with a woman who is suspected of eating produce of the Sabbatical Year after it is forbidden, and what is different in the latter clause that teaches that it is permitted for the wife of a 岣ver to assist the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz in her selecting and grinding? Abaye said: Most amei ha鈥檃retz tithe their produce, and therefore there is no reason to render it prohibited to assist the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz in her work, as she is probably preparing a permitted food. Although there may be concern that the food was not tithed due to the minority of amei ha鈥檃retz who do not separate tithes, this concern is ignored on account of the ways of peace.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讛专讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讞讜诇讬讜 讘讟讛专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注砖专 驻讬专讜转讬讜

Rava said: Here the mishna speaks about the am ha鈥檃retz as defined by Rabbi Meir and the issue of ritual impurity and purity by rabbinic law. It does not speak about the matter of separating teruma and tithes. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:10): Who is an am ha鈥檃retz? Anyone who does not eat his non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An am ha鈥檃retz is anyone who does not tithe his produce. Since the mishna is referring to the type of am ha鈥檃retz about whom there is an assumption that he tithes his produce but does not eat his non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity, and in light of the fact that eating non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity is stipulated by rabbinic law, on account of the ways of peace, the Sages did not prohibit the wife of a 岣ver from assisting the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪砖转讟讬诇 讗转 讛诪讬诐 诇讗 转讙注 注诪讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讛专讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara raises an objection: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Once the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz pours water into the flour, the wife of the 岣ver may not touch anything with her because the water has rendered the dough susceptible to ritual impurity, it may be inferred that in the first clause in the mishna we are not dealing with concern about the halakhot of impurity and purity. Rather, the concern pertains to tithes.

专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讛专讛 讜专讬砖讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讞讜诇讬谉 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讞诇讛

The Gemara answers: Both in the first clause and in the latter clause the concern relates to impurity and purity. The difference is that in the first clause, even if the grain was already rendered susceptible to impurity, the concern is only about impurity of non-sacred produce. Rendering non-sacred produce impure is not prohibited by Torah law; it is a matter about which 岣verim were meticulous. But in the latter clause, the concern is the impurity of 岣lla, the portion that must be separated from the dough and given to a priest. It is at the time that water is added to the flour that the obligation to separate 岣lla from the dough takes effect. Due to the 岣lla that will be separated from the dough, it is prohibited by Torah law for one to render the dough impure.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita (Tosefta, Demai 4:29):

讟讜讞谞讬谉 讜诪驻拽讬讚讬谉 讗爪诇 讗讜讻诇讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗爪诇 讗讜讻诇讬 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛

One may grind one鈥檚 tithed produce and deposit it with those who eat Sabbatical-Year produce and those who eat their own produce in a state of impurity, because there is no concern that they will exchange this produce with Sabbatical-Year produce or with impure produce, or that they will touch the produce. But one may not grind for those who eat Sabbatical-Year produce or for those who eat their own produce in a state of impurity, so as not to assist them in committing a transgression. This is difficult according to Rava鈥檚 explanation of the mishna, that the wife of a 岣ver may grind non-sacred produce with the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz, who eats his own produce in a state of ritual impurity.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 讘讻讛谉 讛讞砖讜讚 诇讗讻讜诇 转专讜诪讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Abaye said: There, in that baraita, we are dealing with a priest who is suspected with regard to partaking of teruma in a state of ritual impurity, which involves a prohibition of impurity by Torah law.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪驻拽讬讚讬谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪驻拽讬讚讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讗爪诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜诇讗 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

The Gemara asks: If so, if the baraita is referring to a priest, how then may one deposit tithed produce with him? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 4:28): One may deposit teruma with an Israelite who is an am ha鈥檃retz. Although he is not meticulous about the halakhot of purity, there is no concern that he will defile the teruma. But one may not deposit teruma with a priest who is an am ha鈥檃retz because he is accustomed to having teruma, and therefore he might not treat it properly and will touch and defile it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: With what are we dealing here, in the previously mentioned baraita, which teaches that one may deposit his tithed produce with one who eats his own produce in a state of ritual purity? This is referring to a case where one deposited the produce in an earthenware vessel with a tightly bound cover. In such a case, there is no concern that the priest who is suspected of partaking of teruma in a state of ritual impurity will touch the produce and render it impure.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转住讬讟谞讜 讗砖转讜 谞讚讛

The Gemara asks: And let there nevertheless be a concern lest the priest鈥檚 menstruating wife move the vessel and impart ritual impurity to the produce inside it. A menstruating woman imparts impurity to the produce inside the vessel through moving it, even if the contents are tightly sealed in the vessel, and she does not come into direct contact with the contents.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讛讜讻砖专讜 讻讗谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says that this is not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited to deposit produce with a priest who is suspected with regard to partaking of teruma in a state of ritual impurity, we are dealing with produce that came into contact with a liquid and became susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. Consequently, there is concern that the priest may impart impurity to it. There, where it is permitted to deposit produce with such a priest, we are dealing with produce that has not yet become susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, in which case there is no concern that the priest will impart impurity to it.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪讜诇讬讱 讞讟讬谉 诇讟讜讞谉 讻讜转讬 讗讜 诇讟讜讞谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转谉 诇诪注砖专 讜诇砖讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from what is taught in a mishna (Demai 3:4): With regard to one who takes tithed wheat to a Samaritan grinder or to a grinder who is an am ha鈥檃retz, the wheat retains its presumptive status with regard to tithes and Sabbatical-Year produce, as there is no concern that the grinder switched the grain. But the wheat does not retain its presumptive status with regard to impurity, as there is concern that perhaps the grinder touched it and rendered it impure.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 专讜诪讬讗 诇讗讜 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘驻讬专讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜

The Gemara asks: What contradiction is there here? Did we not establish that the baraita that permits depositing produce is dealing with produce that has not yet become susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and so it does not become impure when touched by an impure person? Here, the mishna in tractate Demai is dealing with produce that already became susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and therefore there is concern that the produce will be rendered impure.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬专诪讬 讗讞专讬转讬 注诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转谉 诇诪注砖专 讜诇砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讞诇讜驻讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And he who asked the question, why did he ask it? Wasn鈥檛 this answer already stated earlier? The Gemara answers: The one who asked the question cited this mishna only because he wished to raise a contradiction to it from another mishna, as according to this mishna the wheat that was brought to the suspect grinder retains its presumptive status with regard to tithes and Sabbatical-Year produce, and we are not concerned that perhaps the grinder exchanged the grain he had received with grain of his own that was forbidden in some way.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛谞讜转谉 诇讞诪讜转讜 诪注砖专 讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讛 诪讞诇驻转 讛诪转拽诇拽诇

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from what was taught in a mishna (Demai 3:6): With regard to one who gives food to his mother-in-law, who is the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz, so that she may prepare it for him, he must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes from her. This is because she is suspected of exchanging any food received from him that was spoiled with her own food that was not spoiled. Perhaps, then, she did not return the food that he had given her but rather food that was not yet tithed. In this mishna, there is concern that an am ha鈥檃retz may exchange produce that he received with produce of his own.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讜爪讛 讛讬讗 讘转拽谞转 讘转讛 讜讘讜砖讛 诪讞转谞讛

The Gemara answers that there the concern is for the reason that was explicitly taught in that mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: His mother-in-law wants what is good for her daughter, that she not eat anything that is spoiled, and she is ashamed before her son-in-law to tell him that he had given her something that was spoiled. For this reason, she does not tell him that she exchanged the food.

讜诇注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 诇驻讜谞讚拽讬转 诪注砖专 讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞诇驻转 讛转诐 诪讜专讬讗 讜讗诪专讛 讘专 讘讬 专讘 诇讬讻讜诇 讞诪讬诪讗 讜讗谞讗 讗讬讻讜诇 拽专讬专讗

The Gemara asks: And is this to say that in the case of ordinary people we are not concerned that food will be exchanged in a similar situation? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:5): If one gives food to an innkeeper [pundakit] so that she can prepare it for him, he must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes from her, because she exchanges the food received from him with food of her own? This indicates that the concern is not limited to the case of a mother-in-law. The Gemara answers: There, the innkeeper rules for herself that it is permitted for her to do this and says: Why should this student of Torah eat hot food while I will eat cold food? In other words, the innkeeper may justify her behavior to herself and exchange his food for hers.

讜讗讻转讬 诇注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗砖转 讞讘专 讟讜讞谞转 注诐 讗砖转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 转讟讞讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讘专转讛

The Gemara asks: And still, in the case of ordinary people, are we not concerned about food being switched? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 8:4): The wife of a 岣ver may grind with the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz when she, the wife of the 岣ver, is impure, e.g., when she is menstruating and therefore careful not to touch food. And there is no concern that she will come to eat untithed produce. But she may not do this when she is pure. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may not grind even when she is impure, because the other woman, the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz,

Scroll To Top