Chullin 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

And we ask further:

and

if

in general,

where there is no reason to say that she intends to benefit him,

we are not concerned

that she will exchange them, lest she take the superior one for herself?

And we learned: “One who gives his innkeeper

dough and a pot to prepare for him,

must tithe what he gives her and what he takes from her, because she is suspect

of theft,

and exchanges

his for hers.” Thus, we are concerned about exchanges in every case. And this again presents a difficulty against the beraita: “One who gives dough to his neighbor’s wife need not be concerned about leavening,”!?

And we answer:

There too,

it is not because of suspicion of theft; rather,

she justifies

to herself the permissibility of exchanging them,

and says:

It is preferable that

a student of Torah eat

bread

hot, and

that

I eat

bread

cold!

Therefore, if his bread has already cooled, she exchanges his bread for hers, which is still hot, so that he will eat hot bread. And there too, her intention is for his benefit. But with his neighbor’s wife, who is not constantly dependent upon him, there is no concern for this, since she would not exchange them for his benefit; after all, he is not constantly dependent upon her. And as for exchanging them to his detriment, she is not suspect of theft.

And we ask further:

and

if

with regard to exchanges

in general

are we not concerned?

But it was taught in a beraita: The wife of a chaver may grind

and assist in turning the millstone

together with the wife of an am ha-aretz,

while grinding the produce of the am ha-aretz. And she may join her specifically

when she is,

the wife of the chaver,

impure,

for then we are not concerned that she may forget and put something untithed into her mouth. Since she is impure, she is not accustomed at that time to touch what she is handling, lest she render it impure; generally, she stands at a distance and does not touch it.

But she may not

assist in grinding the produce of the am ha-aretz

when she is pure.

Since ordinarily she touches it, we are concerned that she may forget and eat from it, although it is forbidden to her because of dema'i.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when she is impure—

she may not grind, because her companion,

the wife of the am ha-aretz,

gives her

from her husband’s produce,

and

she

eats.

And although the wife of the chaver is not suspect with regard to theft or dema'i, a person may forget and eat what is given to him.

In any event, this proves from here that the wife of an am ha-aretz is suspected of stealing from her husband and giving it to others [for when something is given to others, it cannot be said that it was merely forgotten].

The Gemara proves this:

Now,

we have found that the wife of an am ha-aretz

does steal,

and if so,

exchanging

her own for that of others, which is a lesser offense than outright theft,

need it be said

that she is suspected of doing so? And if so, why are we not concerned, when one gives dough to his neighbor’s wife, that she will exchange his for hers, thereby rendering the dough forbidden as dema'i?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: There too, she justifies

to herself—the wife of the am ha-aretz—the permissibility,

and says: “The ox eats from its threshing!”

Just as the ox eats from the produce while threshing it, so too it is fitting that the wife of the chaver, who assists her in grinding, should eat. And she reasons that this is not theft. But in general she is not suspect with regard to theft, and there is no concern that she will exchange them.

The Gemara brings another incident in which the matter of “the animals of the righteous” was mentioned.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz, the son of Rabbi Meir’s father-in-law, testified before Rabbi concerning Rabbi Meir, that he ate a vegetable leaf

that had not been tithed

in Beit She’an, and Rabbi permitted all of Beit She’an,

exempting it

on his authority,

on the basis of this testimony, from the obligation to tithe vegetables and fruits.

Since Rabbi Meir ate without tithing, it is evident that Beit She’an was outside Eretz Yisrael. For if it had been in Eretz Yisrael, it would have remained obligated in tithes even after the Destruction, since the second sanctification, with which Ezra sanctified Eretz Yisrael, sanctified it for the future as well.

His brothers and his father’s household rose against him

[against Rabbi]

and said to him: “In a place where your fathers and your forefathers practiced prohibition

of untithed produce,

will you practice permissibility?!”

Rabbi expounded to them

Rabbi

this verse:

It is written concerning Hezekiah, king of Judah [II Kings 18]:

“And he broke into pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan.”

Is it possible—

Asa came and did not destroy it, and Jehoshaphat came and did not destroy it?

But did Asa and Jehoshaphat not destroy every form of idolatry in the world?!