Chagigah 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

a. If a ḥaver—a person careful concerning ritual purity—came to possess, through inheritance or the like, teruma from an am ha-aretz, which is presumed impure with regard to the ḥaver, it is not enough that he is forbidden to eat it; he is even forbidden to sell it or give it to someone else, because he would thereby cause him to violate the prohibition against eating impure teruma and transgress the verse, “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind”;

this includes that he may not exchange his portion with his brother, who is an am ha-aretz.

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

The first: Each portion that comes to one of the brothers is the portion that he inherited from his father, for according to the principle that there is bereira, we say that through the division it becomes retroactively clarified that this was his portion from the outset.

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

c. It follows that if a ḥaver and an am ha-aretz inherited from their father, who was 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 ḥaver came to take the non-sacred produce while leaving the impure teruma in the possession of his brother, the law will depend on the uncertainty mentioned above.

For if we assume that the teruma taken by the am ha-aretz is indeed the portion he inherited from his father, then the ḥaver has done nothing wrong by leaving the teruma in his brother’s possession.

But if it is not clear that the teruma is the am ha-aretz’s portion, and it is possible that it was the ḥaver’s portion, then when they divided the inheritance, the ḥaver exchanged his impure teruma with his brother and transgressed, “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind”.

d. The position of the tanna of our Mishna is that there is bereira: when they divide the inheritance, it becomes retroactively clarified that each one’s portion is the portion that came into his possession, and they did not exchange portions with one another.

Therefore:

A ḥaver and an am ha-aretz who inherited teruma from their father, who was an am ha-aretz

some of which was certainly pure, while the other portion had the same status as teruma in the possession of an am ha-aretz:

The ḥaver

may

say to him

the am ha-aretz:

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

for I do not know its status, and it is presumed impure, whereas

I

will take

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

which I know to be presumed pure.

For there is bereira, and it follows that the ḥaver did not exchange impure teruma with his brother.

Alternatively, when the ḥaver and the am ha-aretz inherited teruma wine, some of which was certainly not impure while the other portion had the same status as teruma in the possession of an am ha-aretz, the ḥaver may say to him:

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 the Meiri].

But the ḥaver may not say to him

when they inherited two types of produce, one pure and the other impure:

You take

the

wet

item from the teruma they inherited, which is impure,

and I

will take the

dry

item, which is pure; or

you take the wheat

which is impure,

and I

will take the

barley,

which is pure.

Rather, they must divide each type between the two of them.

The reason is that we do not apply bereira when dividing two types of inherited property. For certainly, when their father died, each type fell jointly to both of them; and when they divide the two types, assigning one type to one brother and the other type to the other brother, this is nothing but an exchange of portions, which is forbidden.

And it was taught concerning this

in a beraita:

That same ḥaver—

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

burns

the

wet

as required for impure teruma,

and leaves

for himself

the dry,

since it is pure. The Gemara explains how this beraita bears on the uncertainty raised by the Sages of the academy:

And

if you should say: If teruma belonging to an am ha-aretz comes into the possession of a ḥaver, he leaves it until the time of the winepresses and eats it, then

why

does the ḥaver burn the wet produce?!

Let him leave it

the ḥaver

until the next winepressing,

and eat it under the presumption that it is pure.

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

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

with an item that has no winepressing,

such as date beer made from teruma. We still ask:

Let him leave it until the pilgrimage festival,

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

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With an item that cannot be preserved until the pilgrimage festival.

.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if he said

the am ha-aretz to the ḥaver:

I separated into it

the teruma jug

a quarter-log

of

sacred produce, he is deemed trustworthy:

:

We learned there:

:

A field in which a grave was plowed is called a “field of beit hapras.” According to Torah law, there is no concern regarding impurity in such a field; however, the Sages declared one who walks through it impure, lest a barley-grain-sized bone remain in the field, which imparts impurity to one who touches it, carries it, or moves it [but it does not impart impurity in a tent]. There is concern that, while walking, he might have moved such a bone.

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that they inspect

the field of beit hapras, and the Gemara proceeds to explain how it is inspected—

for those who prepare the Paschal offering

those who pass through a field of beit hapras in order to prepare the Paschal offering may rely on the inspection and need not fear that they are impure and therefore unable to prepare the Paschal offering.

But they do not inspect

a field of beit hapras

for those who eat teruma

Those who eat teruma, who are forbidden to eat it when impure, may not 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 may blow over a field of beit hapras and walk through it,

that is, those preparing the Paschal offering blow away the earth with their mouths and check whether a barley-grain-sized bone is present.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Ulla

to explain the inspection:

A field of beit hapras that has been trampled

by people’s feet [Rashi, Berakhot 20b] is

pure,

because once it has been trampled and compacted, there is no longer concern that one walking through it will move a bone in the course of walking. Those preparing the Paschal offering inspect where the field of beit hapras has been trampled and pass through that area.

And we explain: They inspect

for those who prepare the Paschal offering,

because

they did not enforce

the Sages’

words in a matter involving karet,

that is, with regard to the Paschal offering, they declared it pure even though eating it in a state of impurity is punishable by karet.

But they do not inspect

for those who eat teruma,

because

they enforced

the Sages’

words in a matter involving death at the hands of Heaven, that is, the Sages upheld their decree and did not declare it pure, even though one who eats teruma in a state of impurity is liable only to death at the hands of Heaven. [Explained according to Tosafot in Eruvin 36b and Pesaḥim 92b.]

, meaning that the Sages maintained their ruling and did not declare the field pure, even though one who eats teruma while impure is liable only to death at the hand of Heaven. [This was explained according to Tosafot in Eruvin 36b and Pesahim 92b]. They raised a question before them

They raised a dilemma before them:

If

a person inspected

a field of beit hapras

for his Paschal offering—

, may he eat his teruma

may he eat his teruma

on the basis of the same 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 a Mishna in accordance with his opinion

Do not dispute Ulla’s statement, since there is support for it from a Mishna. For we learned in our Mishna:

And if he said

the am ha-aretz

I separated into it

the teruma jug

a quarter-log

of

sacred

produce, he is

deemed trustworthy

also concerning the teruma.

Apparently,

we say:

Since he is deemed trustworthy concerning sacred produce, he is also deemed trustworthy concerning teruma.

. Here too

Here too,

with regard to a field of beit hapras, we should say:

Since he is deemed trustworthy,

since the inspection is effective [Turei Even]

for the Paschal offering—

, he is also

he is also deemed trustworthy concerning teruma.

.

We learned in the Mishna:

Wine jugs and oil jugs

containing a mixture are deemed trustworthy concerning them during the season of the winepresses and olive presses:

The tanna

taught in a beraita:

The ammei ha-aretz are not deemed trustworthy

concerning

the jugs themselves,

and the Gemara proceeds to explain this,

nor concerning the teruma

outside the season of the winepresses and olive presses.

And we explain it:

What sort of jugs are meant by “the jugs”?

[What jugs does the beraita concern?]

If they are sacred jugs

[in which he brought sacred produce, and concerning which he is deemed trustworthy], then they are certainly deemed trustworthy, because

since he is deemed trustworthy

the am ha-aretz

concerning the sacred produce

inside the jugs,

he is also deemed trustworthy concerning the jugs

themselves?!

Rather, they are teruma jugs,

and

it is obvious

that they are not deemed trustworthy, for

if he is not deemed trustworthy concerning teruma, is he deemed trustworthy concerning the jugs?!

a.

Concerning

jugs

that had been emptied of sacred produce,

after the sacred produce had been poured from them,

and throughout the rest of the year.

That is, throughout the entire year he is not deemed trustworthy concerning the preservation of their ritual purity once they have been emptied.

b.

And

he is likewise not deemed trustworthy

concerning

the jugs themselves, even when they are

full of teruma, during the season of the winepresses and olive presses

[when he is deemed trustworthy concerning the teruma itself], and the priest will pour the teruma into his own vessels.

The Gemara challenges what we have said, that concerning teruma they are not deemed trustworthy regarding the jugs even during the season of the winepresses and olive presses:

But

we learned

in our Mishna:

Wine jugs and oil jugs containing a mixture

are deemed trustworthy concerning them during the season of the winepresses and olive presses, and for seventy days before the season of the winepresses—

and

is it not

the meaning of what we learned, “containing a mixture,” namely:

containing a mixture of teruma

[teruma became mixed into them]? And we learned that ammei ha-aretz are deemed trustworthy even concerning the purity of the jugs, since they contain teruma during the season of the winepresses and olive presses, when an am ha-aretz is deemed trustworthy concerning them.

You have therefore learned that even concerning teruma, during the season of the winepresses and olive presses, we say that since he is deemed trustworthy concerning the teruma, he is also deemed trustworthy concerning the jugs?!

The scholars of the academy of Rabbi Ḥiyya said:

Do not interpret “containing a mixture of teruma”; rather, it means

containing a mixture of sacred produce.

.

Sacred produce was mixed into them, and since he is deemed trustworthy concerning sacred produce, he is deemed trustworthy concerning the jugs.

But is there “a mixture” with regard to sacred produce,

and do we find the term “mixture” used with regard to sacred produce? We find it only with regard to teruma that became mixed with non-sacred produce [Rabbeinu Ḥananel]?!

The scholars of the academy of Rabbi Elai said:

Our Mishna concerns

one who purifies his untithed produce,

who did not separate teruma from it, and intended

to take libations from it

whenever he would need them, and placed them in jugs.

Since the jugs contain libations that are destined to become sacred, as well as teruma and non-sacred produce, since he is deemed trustworthy concerning the sacred produce, he is also deemed trustworthy concerning the teruma and the jugs [explained according to Tosafot’s understanding of Rashi].

We learned in the Mishna: And

for seventy days before the season of the winepresses:

: Abaye said: Learn from this

Abaye said: Learn from this

from our Mishna, which deemed him trustworthy concerning the jugs seventy days before the season of the winepresses, that the reason is that it is customary for people to prepare the vessels and purify them seventy days before the winepresses [Rav Ovadya of Bartenura]:

It is the law that the sharecropper must trouble himself to obtain jugs eighty days before the festival

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

Mishna:

There is also a stringency with regard to teruma over sacred produce:

Furnaces for producing earthenware vessels were not made in Jerusalem because of the smoke. Therefore, the residents of Jerusalem had to bring the earthenware vessels they needed from outside Jerusalem. But the majority of the public could not withstand the decree issued by the Sages that ammei ha-aretz impart impurity, and refrain from purchasing earthenware vessels from them. Therefore, the Sages deemed the potters who were ammei ha-aretz in the area surrounding Jerusalem trustworthy concerning the purity of thin earthenware vessels, such as cups and bowls that they made [Rashi], but they deemed them trustworthy only with regard to sacred produce [Gemara]. And how far are the potters deemed trustworthy:

From Modi'in [

a city situated fifteen mil from Jerusalem ]

and inward—

toward Jerusalem—the potters, who are amei ha-aretz,

are trusted concerning earthenware vessels

to say that they are pure.

And

from Modi'in outward, they are not trusted.

The law governing the city of Modi'in itself will be clarified in a beraita brought in the Gemara.

How so?

The potter who sells the pottery

who comes from outside Modi'in and

enters within Modi'in

is trusted when the following three conditions are met:

a.

He

himself,

the potter,

is the owner of the pottery being purchased.

He did not receive it for sale from a local resident; rather, he himself is selling it.

b.

And they are the pottery

itself that he brought from outside Modi'in. He is not trusted concerning other pottery that a local resident gave him to sell.

c.

And they—

the haverim who saw him bring the pottery and know that he is its owner—are themselves

the purchasers;

then he is

trusted

with regard to them. But other purchasers cannot rely on them that he is indeed the owner of the pottery.

But if

he leaves

that Modi'in potter leaves Modi'in, he

is no longer trusted.

Gemara:

A tanna

in a beraita taught:

The city of

Modi'in

itself

sometimes

has the status of

inside,

and they are trusted there, and

sometimes

has the status of

outside,

and they are not trusted there.

How so?

If

a potter leaves

from within Modi'in, entering the city with the intention of departing for his home and without intending to return now [Meiri],

and a haver

comes toward him from outside Modi'in and

enters

it—

then it is

like inside,

and the haver may purchase from the potter, since the potter will not return to within Modi'in so that the haver can purchase from him there. Therefore, he purchases in Modi'in itself, for if he does not purchase now, when will he?

If both of them—

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

enter

it, with both intending to proceed to Jerusalem [Meiri], the haver can wait until they enter within the city and purchase from him there;