Chagigah 25b — the Talmud in English

a. If a chaver has come into possession, by way of inheritance or something similar, of teruma from an am ha-aretz, which is presumed impure with regard to the chaver, it is not enough that he is forbidden to eat it; rather, he is even forbidden to sell it or give it to another, because he causes him to stumble in the prohibition against eating impure teruma and transgresses, “And before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block";

and included in this is that he may not exchange his portion with his brother, the am ha-aretz.

b. When brothers divide an inheritance, their division is to be defined in two ways:

The first: Every portion that comes to one of the brothers is the portion that he inherited from his father, for by the law of “there is retroactive clarification” we say that through the division it became retroactively clear that this was his portion from the outset.

The second: We do not say that it became retroactively clear that this was the portion that he inherited from his father; rather, perhaps it was his brother’s portion, and when they divided, each one exchanged his portion with his brother.

c. It follows that if a chaver and an am ha-aretz inherited from their father, an am ha-aretz, teruma [which is presumed impure, since it had been in the possession of an am ha-aretz] and non-sacred produce, and the chaver comes to take the non-sacred produce and leave the impure teruma in the possession of his brother, the law depends on the uncertainty mentioned.

For if we assume that the teruma taken by the am ha-aretz is itself the portion that he inherited from his father, then the chaver has done nothing at all by leaving the teruma in the possession of his brother.

But if it is not clear that the teruma is the am ha-aretz’s portion, and it is possible that it belonged to the chaver, then when they divided, it turns out that the chaver exchanged his impure teruma with his brother, and transgressed, “And before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block.”

d. The method of the tan-nay of the Mishna before us is that “there is retroactive clarification”: when they divide, it becomes retroactively clear that each one’s portion is the one that came into his possession, and they did not exchange with one another.

Therefore:

a chaver and an am ha-aretz who inherited their father, an am ha-aretz,

teruma, one part of which is certainly pure, while its other part is like the teruma of an am ha-aretz:

The chaver

may

say to him

the am ha-aretz:

“You take the wheat that is in such-and-such a place,”

of which I do not know the nature, and it is presumed impure, whereas

I

will take

the wheat that is in such-and-such a place,

which is known to me to be presumed pure.

For “there is retroactive clarification,” and it turns out that the chaver did not exchange impure teruma with his brother.

Or the chaver may say to the am ha-aretz, when they inherited teruma wine, part of which is certainly not impure, while another part is like other teruma in the possession of an am ha-aretz:

“You take the wine that is in such-and-such a place,”

which is presumed impure,

and

whereas

I

will take

the wine that is in such-and-such a place,

which is pure [according to Meiri].

But he may not say to him

the am ha-aretz, when they inherited two species, one of which is pure and the other impure:

“You take

the

wet

thing from the teruma that they inherited, which is impure,

and I

will take

the dry

thing, which is pure”; or

“You take the wheat

which is impure,

and I

will take

the barley,

which is pure.

Rather, they divide each and every species between the two of them.

And the reason is: because we do not say “retroactive clarification” in the division of two species of an inheritance. For certainly, when their father died, each species fell to both of them together, and when they divided the two species, this species to one and that species to the other, this is nothing but an exchange of the portions, and it is forbidden.

And it was taught concerning it

in a beraita:

That chaver —

who was compelled to take half of the impure wet teruma and half of the pure dry teruma —

burns

he

the wet

according to the law of impure teruma,

and leaves

for himself

the dry,

for it is pure. And the Gemara explains the proof from this beraita for the uncertainty that the members of the academy raised:

And

if you should say: A chaver who comes into possession of the teruma of an am ha-aretz leaves it until the time of the winepresses and eats it, if so,

why

does the chaver burn the wet?!

Let him leave it

the chaver

until the next winepresses,

and eat it with the presumption that it is pure.

You have thus learned: Since his father died not during the time of the winepresses and olive presses, and the teruma came into his possession at that time, he is no longer permitted to eat it even during the time of the winepresses and olive presses.

The Gemara rejects the necessity from this Mishna, for it can be said that our Mishna deals

with an object that has no winepress,

such as date beer of teruma. And we still ask:

“Then let him leave it until the pilgrimage,”

for during the pilgrimage even an object belonging to an am ha-aretz is permitted, as will be explained in the following mishnayot?!

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With an object that is not preserved until the pilgrimage.

.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And if he said” [

the am ha-aretz to the chaver ]

“I separated into it” [

of the barrel of teruma ]

a quarter

of

sacred property, he is trusted:

:

We learned there:

:

A field in which a grave was plowed is called a “field of beit ha-peras.” According to Torah law, one need not be concerned there about impurity; but the Sages rendered one who walks through it impure, lest a bone the size of a barley-grain remain in the field, which conveys impurity to one who touches it and to one who carries or moves it [but it does not convey impurity in a tent]. One must be concerned that perhaps, while walking, he moved a barley-grain-sized bone.

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that they inspect —

beit ha-peras, and he proceeds to explain in what manner they inspect it —

for those who make the Paschal offering.

Those who pass through beit ha-peras in order to make the Paschal offering rely on the inspection, and need not be concerned that perhaps they are impure and unable to make the Paschal offering.

But they do not inspect

beit ha-peras

for those who eat teruma.

Those who eat teruma — who are forbidden to eat it when they are impure — cannot rely on an inspection in order to eat teruma.

And we explain it:

What does “they inspect” mean,

how do they inspect it?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A person blows on beit ha-peras and proceeds.

That is, those who make the Paschal offering blow on the earth with their mouths and examine whether there is a barley-grain-sized bone in it.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Ulla

to explain the inspection:

A beit ha-peras that has been trodden down

by human feet [Rashi, Berakhot 20b] is

pure,

because once it has been trodden down and compacted, there is no longer concern that one who passes through it will move it while walking; and those who make the Paschal offering inspect where the beit ha-peras has been trodden down and pass through it.

And we explain: They inspect

for those who make the Paschal offering,

because

they did not establish

the Sages’

words in a place involving karet.

That is, with regard to the Paschal offering they declared it pure, even though there is karet for eating it in impurity.

But they do not inspect

for those who eat teruma,

because

they established

the Sages’

words in a place involving death

at the hands of Heaven. That is, the Sages upheld their words and did not declare it pure, even though for one who eats teruma in impurity there is only death at the hands of Heaven [explained according to Tosafot in Eruvin 36b and Pesahim 92b].

They raised a question before them:

if

a person inspected

a beit ha-peras

for his Paschal offering —

, may he eat his teruma

what is the law: may he eat his teruma

on the basis of that inspection that he performed for the sake of the Paschal offering?

Ulla said: If he inspected it for his Paschal offering, he may eat his teruma.

.

Rabba bar Ulla said: If he inspected it for his Paschal offering, he may not eat his teruma.

. A certain elder said

A certain elder said

to Rabba bar Ulla:

“Do not disagree with Ulla,”

since

we learned in accordance with him [do not dispute Ulla’s words, for his words are supported by a Mishna], as we learned in our Mishna:

“And if he said

“I separated into it”

the am ha-aretz

“a quarter”

of the barrel of teruma

“of”

the

sacred property,

he is

trusted

also concerning the teruma.

Evidently,

we say:

Since he is trusted concerning sacred property, he is also trusted concerning teruma.

. Here too

Here too,

with regard to beit ha-peras, we should say:

Since he is trusted,

since the inspection is effective [Turei Even],

for the Paschal offering,

, he is also

he is also trusted concerning teruma.

.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Wine-jars and oil-jars”

that contain mixtures are trusted concerning them during the time of the winepresses and olive presses:

A tan-nay

in a beraita:

The ammei ha-aretz are not trusted

concerning

the jars themselves,

and he proceeds to explain it,

nor concerning the teruma

outside the time of the winepresses and olive presses.

And we explain it:

“What kind of jars?” [in what jars does the beraita deal?]

If they are jars belonging to sacred property

If they are sacred-property jars

that were used to bring sacred property, and he is trusted concerning the sacred property, then surely they are trusted, because

since he is trusted

the am ha-aretz

concerning sacred property

inside the jars,

he is also trusted concerning the jars

themselves?!

Rather, they are teruma jars.

But

it is obvious

that they are not trusted, for

“Now, if he is not trusted concerning teruma, is he trusted concerning the jars?!”

a.

In

jars

that are empty sacred-property jars,

after he poured the sacred property out of them,

and during the rest of the year.

That is, throughout the entire year he is not trusted concerning the preservation of their purity once they have become empty.

b.

And

so too he is not trusted

concerning

the jars themselves, even when they are

full of teruma, and during the time of the winepresses [when he is trusted concerning the teruma itself], and the kohen will pour the teruma into his own vessels.

The Gemara raises an objection to what we said, that with regard to teruma, even during the time of the winepresses they are not trusted concerning the jars:

But

we

learned

in our Mishna:

“Wine-jars and oil-jars that contain mixtures”

are trusted concerning them during the time of the winepresses and olive presses, and for seventy days before the winepresses —

and

is it not so

that what we learned, “that contain mixtures,” means:

“that contain mixtures of teruma” [teruma became mixed into them], and we learned that the ammei ha-aretz are trusted even concerning the purity of the jars, since they contain teruma during the time of the olive presses, when an am ha-aretz is trusted concerning it?

You have thus learned that even with regard to teruma, during the time of the winepresses and olive presses, we say: Since he is trusted concerning the teruma, he is trusted even concerning the jars?!

The academy of Rabbi Hiyya said: Do not explain “mixtures of teruma,” but rather

“mixtures of sacred property.”

Sacred property was mixed into them, and since he is trusted concerning sacred property, he is trusted concerning the jars.

But is there “mixture” with regard to sacred property?

.

Do we find the expression “mixture” with regard to sacred property? We have found it only with regard to teruma that became mixed with non-sacred produce [Rabbeinu Hananel]?!

But is there such a thing as a “mixture” of sacred property

? Do we ever find the expression “mixture” used with regard to sacred property? We find it only with regard to teruma that became mixed with ordinary produce [Rabbeinu Hananel]?! The scholars of the academy of Rabbi Ilai

The academy of Rabbi Ilai said:

Our Mishna deals

with one who purifies his tevel,

who did not separate teruma from it, and intended

to take libations from it

when he would need them, and put them into jars.

And since there are in the jars libations destined to become sacred property, as well as teruma and non-sacred produce, since he is trusted concerning the sacred property, he is trusted also concerning the teruma and the jars [explained according to Tosafot in their understanding of Rashi].

We learned in the Mishna: and

“for seventy days before the winepresses”:

: Abaye said: Learn from this

Abaye said: Learn from this

from our Mishna, which trusted him concerning the jars for seventy days before the winepresses, that the reason is because it is the way of the world to prepare the vessels and purify them seventy days before the winepresses [Rabbenu Ovadia]:

“It is the law that a sharecropper must trouble himself to obtain jars for seventy days before the festival of Shavuot.”

[The sharecropper who works at the winepress or olive press is obligated to trouble himself and obtain jars beginning seventy days before the time of the olive presses.]

Mishna:

And there is an additional stringency concerning teruma over sacred property:

Kilns for earthenware vessels are not made in Jerusalem because of the smoke; therefore, the inhabitants of Jerusalem must bring the earthenware vessels they need from outside Jerusalem. The majority of the public cannot withstand the decree that the Sages decreed impurity upon ammei ha-aretz, and refrain from purchasing earthenware vessels from them. Therefore, the Sages trusted the potters, ammei ha-aretz, surrounding Jerusalem concerning the purity of thin earthenware vessels, such as cups and bowls that they make [Rashi], but they trusted them only with regard to sacred property, [Gemara]. And how far are the potters trusted?

From Modi'in [

a town situated fifteen mil from Jerusalem ]

and inward

toward Jerusalem, the potters are amei ha-aretz

are trusted concerning earthenware vessels

to say that they are pure.

And

from Modi'in and outward they are not trusted.

The law of the city of Modi'in itself will be explained in the beraita brought in the Gemara.

How so:

The potter who sells the earthenware vessels

who comes from Modi'in and outward, and

enters inward from Modi'in,

this one is trusted when the following three conditions have been fulfilled:

a.

He

himself

is the potter

of the earthenware vessels being purchased.

He did not give them over for sale through a resident of the place, but he himself sells them.

b.

And they are the earthenware vessels

themselves that he brought from outside Modi'in. And he is not trusted concerning other earthenware vessels that a resident of the place gave him in order to sell them.

c.

And they are

the haverim who saw him bringing the earthenware vessels and know that he is the owner of the earthenware vessels—

the purchasers

themselves;

he is trusted

with regard to them, but other purchasers cannot rely on them that he is indeed the owner of the earthenware vessels.

And if

that potter leaves

Modi'in, again

he is not trusted.

Gemara:

Tannai

in a beraita:

The city

Modi'in

itself

sometimes

has the law

as inside

and they are trusted in it, and

sometimes

has the law

as outside

and they are not trusted in it.

How so?

If

a potter leaves

from inside Modi'in, and enters the city with the intention of departing to his country, and he does not intend to return now [Meiri],

and a haver

comes toward him from outside Modi'in and

enters

it—

it is

as inside,

and the haver may purchase from the potter, since the potter will no longer return to inside Modi'in so that the haver could take from him there, and therefore he purchases in Modi'in itself, for if he does not purchase now—when?

Both of them,

the haver and the potter, come from outside Modi'in, and

enter

it, and both intend to go to Jerusalem [Meiri], so that the haver can wait until they enter inside the city and purchase from him there;