Gittin 61

כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בלחי וקוקרי

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.

מציאת חרש שוטה וכו׳ רבי יוסי אומר גזל גמור אמר רב חסדא גזל גמור מדבריהם למאי נפקא מינה להוציאו בדיינין

§ 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 Ḥisda 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.

עני המנקף בראש הזית מה שתחתיו וכו׳ תנא אם ליקט ונתן ביד הרי זה גזל גמור

§ 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.

רב כהנא הוה קאזיל להוצל חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה שדי אופיי וקא נתרן תמרי אזל קא מנקיט ואכיל אמר ליה חזי מר דבידאי שדיתינהו אמר ליה מאתריה דרבי יאשיה אתה קרי עליה וצדיק יסוד עולם

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: “And a righteous man is the foundation of the world” (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.

אין ממחין ביד עניי גוים בלקט בשכחה ובפאה מפני דרכי שלום תנו רבנן מפרנסים עניי גוים עם עניי ישראל ומבקרין חולי גוים עם חולי ישראל וקוברין מתי גוים עם מתי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום

§ 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’a], 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.

מתני׳ משאלת אשה לחבירתה החשודה על השביעית נפה וכברה וריחים ותנור אבל לא תבור ולא תטחן עמה

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.

אשת חבר משאלת לאשת עם הארץ נפה וכברה ובוררת וטוחנת ומרקדת עמה אבל משתטיל את המים לא תגע עמה לפי שאין מחזיקין ידי עוברי עבירה וכולן לא אמרו אלא מפני דרכי שלום

The wife of a ḥaver, 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’aretz, 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’aretz pours water into the flour, thereby rendering it susceptible to ritual impurity, the wife of the ḥaver 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.

ומחזיקין ידי גוים בשביעית אבל לא ידי ישראל ושואלין בשלומן מפני דרכי שלום

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.

גמ׳ מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אמר אביי רוב עמי הארץ מעשרין הן

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 ḥaver to assist the wife of an am ha’aretz in her selecting and grinding? Abaye said: Most amei ha’aretz tithe their produce, and therefore there is no reason to render it prohibited to assist the wife of an am ha’aretz 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’aretz who do not separate tithes, this concern is ignored on account of the ways of peace.

רבא אמר הכא בעם הארץ דרבי מאיר וטומאה וטהרה דרבנן דתניא איזהו עם הארץ כל שאינו אוכל חוליו בטהרה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים כל שאינו מעשר פירותיו

Rava said: Here the mishna speaks about the am ha’aretz 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’aretz? 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’aretz is anyone who does not tithe his produce. Since the mishna is referring to the type of am ha’aretz 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 ḥaver from assisting the wife of an am ha’aretz.

והא מדקתני סיפא משתטיל את המים לא תגע עמה מכלל דרישא לאו בטומאה וטהרה עסקינן

The Gemara raises an objection: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Once the wife of the am ha’aretz pours water into the flour, the wife of the ḥaver 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.

רישא וסיפא בטומאה וטהרה ורישא בטומאת חולין וסיפא בטומאת חלה

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 ḥaverim were meticulous. But in the latter clause, the concern is the impurity of ḥalla, 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 ḥalla from the dough takes effect. Due to the ḥalla that will be separated from the dough, it is prohibited by Torah law for one to render the dough impure.

ורמינהו

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

טוחנין ומפקידין אצל אוכלי שביעית ואצל אוכלי פירותיהן בטומאה אבל לא לאוכלי שביעית ולא לאוכלי פירותיהן בטומאה

One may grind one’s 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’s explanation of the mishna, that the wife of a ḥaver may grind non-sacred produce with the wife of an am ha’aretz, who eats his own produce in a state of ritual impurity.

אמר אביי התם בכהן החשוד לאכול תרומה בטומאה עסקינן דהוה ליה טומאה דאורייתא

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.

אי הכי מפקידין ורמינהו מפקידין תרומה אצל ישראל עם הארץ ולא אצל כהן עם הארץ מפני שלבו גס בה

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’aretz. 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’aretz because he is accustomed to having teruma, and therefore he might not treat it properly and will touch and defile it.

אמר רבי אילעא הכא במאי עסקינן בכלי חרש המוקף צמיד פתיל

Rabbi Ile’a 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.

וליחוש שמא תסיטנו אשתו נדה

The Gemara asks: And let there nevertheless be a concern lest the priest’s 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.

אלא אמר רבי ירמיה לא קשיא כאן בפירות שהוכשרו כאן בפירות שלא הוכשרו

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.

ורמינהו המוליך חטין לטוחן כותי או לטוחן עם הארץ הרי אלו בחזקתן למעשר ולשביעית אבל לא לטומאה

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’aretz, 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.

האי מאי רומיא לאו אוקימנא בפירות שלא הוכשרו

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.

ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה משום דקא בעי למירמי אחריתי עלה הרי אלו בחזקתן למעשר ולשביעית ולחלופי לא חיישינן

The Gemara asks: And he who asked the question, why did he ask it? Wasn’t 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.

ורמינהו הנותן לחמותו מעשר את שהוא נותן לה ואת שהוא נוטל הימנה מפני שחשודה מחלפת המתקלקל

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’aretz, 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’aretz may exchange produce that he received with produce of his own.

התם כדקתני טעמא אמר רבי יהודה רוצה היא בתקנת בתה ובושה מחתנה

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.

ולעלמא לא חיישינן והתנן הנותן לפונדקית מעשר את שהוא נותן לה ואת שהוא נוטל הימנה מפני שמחלפת התם מוריא ואמרה בר בי רב ליכול חמימא ואנא איכול קרירא

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’t 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.

ואכתי לעלמא לא חיישינן והתניא אשת חבר טוחנת עם אשת עם הארץ בזמן שהיא טמאה אבל לא בזמן שהיא טהורה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף בזמן שהיא טמאה לא תטחון מפני שחברתה

The Gemara asks: And still, in the case of ordinary people, are we not concerned about food being switched? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 8:4): The wife of a ḥaver may grind with the wife of an am ha’aretz when she, the wife of the ḥaver, 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’aretz,