Chullin 6b — the Talmud in English

And further we ask:

and

for

in general, where there is no reason to say that she intends for his benefit,

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

do we not fear

a substitution, lest she take the better one for herself?

And we learned: One who gives his innkeeper woman

dough and a pot to prepare for him,

tithes what he gives her and what he takes from her, because she is suspected

of theft,

and substitutes

his own for hers. Behold, we fear substitution in every case. And again there is a difficulty against the beraita of: “One who gives his neighbor woman dough does not fear leaven”!

And we answer:

There, too,

it is not because of suspicion of theft, but

she declares

a permission for herself to make the substitution,

and says:

It is preferable that

a son of the schoolhouse eat

bread

hot, and

if

I eat

bread

cold!

And therefore she substitutes his bread, if it has already cooled, with her bread, which is still hot, so that he will eat hot bread. And there, too, her intention is for his benefit. But with his neighbor woman, upon whom he does not always rely, there is no fear of this, since she does not substitute for his benefit, for he does not always rely upon her; and to substitute to his detriment, she is not suspected of theft.

And further we ask:

and

for

substitution

in general

do we not fear?

And it was taught in a beraita: The wife of a haver grinds

and assists her in operating the mill together

with the wife of an am ha-aretz,

in grinding the produce of the am ha-aretz. And she is permitted to join her specifically

when she is,

the wife of the haver,

impure,

for then we do not fear lest she forget and put into her mouth something that has not been tithed. Since she is impure, she is not accustomed at that time to touch what she is occupied with, because perhaps she will make it impure; and 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 fear lest she forget and eat from it, and behold, it is forbidden to her because of demai.

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 the produce of her husband,

and

she

eats.

And although the wife of the haver is not suspected regarding theft or demai—a person can forget, and eat what is given to him.

In any event, it is proven from here that the wife of an am ha-aretz is suspected of stealing from her husband and giving to others [for in giving to others it is not applicable to say: it is forgetfulness].

And the Gemara proves:

Now,

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

does steal,

and if so,

substitution,

substituting hers for that of others, which is less than complete theft,

is it necessary

to say that she is suspected of doing so? And if so, why do we not fear, in the case of one who gives his neighbor woman dough, that she will substitute his for hers, and the dough will become forbidden because of demai?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: There, too, she declares

the wife of the am ha-aretz a permission for herself

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

Just as the ox eats from the produce while threshing it, so it is fitting that the wife of the haver, who assists her in grinding, should eat; and she reasons that it is not theft. But in general she is not suspected regarding theft, and there is no reason to fear substitution.

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

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

that had not been tithed

in Beit Shean, and Rabbi permitted all of Beit Shean,

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 proven that Beit Shean is outside the Land of Israel. For if it were in the Land of Israel, even after the Destruction it would be obligated in tithes. For the second sanctification with which Ezra sanctified the Land of Israel sanctified it even for the future.

His brothers and his father’s household gathered against him[

upon Rabbi]

and said to him: In a place where your fathers and your fathers’ fathers practiced the prohibition

of untithed produce,

will you practice permissibility there?!

на неотделенную от десятины продукцию,

Rabbi expounded for them

Rabbi

this verse:

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

“And he smashed the copper serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the Children of Israel were burning incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan.”

Is it possible—

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

But did Asa and Jehoshaphat not remove every idolatry in the world?!