Gittin 61a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains:

with uzlei and oharei

—they are nets made of threads and rushes that have an interior—

everyone—

both the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei—

do not disagree,

for one who takes from them is complete robbery, since the vessels of the one who spreads the trap acquire for him, by the law of a “courtyard.”

They disagree—

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei—and according to the Rabbis it is not complete robbery, with a

lehi

[a fishhook]

and kokrei

[a long thread is placed in the river, and needles are strung along its entire length, and the fish are caught on the needles], for these are types of traps that have no interior, and the one who spreads the trap has nothing by which to acquire.

We learned in the Mishna:

the found object of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor

contains robbery because of the ways of peace;

Rabbi Yosei says: complete robbery:

Rav Hisda said:

Even when Rabbi Yosei said that it is “complete robbery,” he did not intend to say that it is complete robbery by Torah law; rather, even according to his view it is only

complete robbery by rabbinic ordinance

[by rabbinic law].

And

what practical difference is there if it is complete robbery by rabbinic ordinance, or if it is a rabbinic enactment not to take from them because of the ways of peace?

whether it is outright robbery by rabbinic decree or a rabbinic ordinance not to take from them on account of the ways of peace?

To extract it through the judges

from the one who took it from them: if it is only an enactment not to take from them, they do not extract it from the taker through the judges. We learned in the Mishna:

a poor person cutting down olives at the top of an olive tree—

what is beneath him is robbery because of the ways of peace:

The tanna

in a beraita:

If he gathered

the olives, the poor man,

and placed them in his hand,

and another came and took them from him,

this is complete robbery.

Rav Kahana was going to Hutzal

[he was on his way to Hutzal, the place of Rabbi Yashya],

he saw a certain man who was throwing sticks and the dates were falling

[he saw a man who was throwing sticks toward the palm tree and thereby causing dates to fall],

Rav Kahana went

Rav Kahana

and gathered and ate

[he took some of the dates and ate], since he had not acquired them.

He said to him,

that man to Abaye:

You see, Master, that I threw them with my own hands

[know that it was by my hands that the sticks were thrown], meaning: yet we learned: “He gathered and placed them in his hand—this is complete robbery.”

He said to him,

Abaye to that man: It is recognizable about you that

you are from the place of Rabbi Yashya

[you are from Hutzal, the city of Rabbi Yashya], and therefore you are expert in laws, for he expounds and teaches halakhot to the public.

He recited concerning him

Abaye recited concerning Rabbi Yashya: “

and the righteous is the foundation of the world.”

We learned in the Mishna:

They do not prevent the poor of gentiles from taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, because of the ways of peace:

The Sages taught:

They support the poor of gentiles together with the poor of Israel,

meaning: when they support the poor of Israel, they support their poor together with them as well.

And they visit the sick of gentiles together with the sick of Israel.

And they bury the dead of gentiles together with the gentiles of Israel.

And everything is

because of the ways of peace.

Mishna:

A. Produce of the seventh year is required to be removed from the house after its kind has already been exhausted from the field; and as long as one has not removed it and declared it ownerless, it is forbidden to eat; nevertheless:

A woman may lend her fellow woman, who is suspected concerning the seventh year, a sieve, a sifter, a millstone, and an oven!

And although the lender is suspected of transgressing this prohibition, and when she lends her these utensils there is concern that she will use them for produce of the seventh year after the time of removal, in order to prepare it for eating, and she thereby turns out to be assisting her in committing a transgression—

nevertheless, the Sages permitted her to lend her these utensils, since she is not assisting her at the time of the transgression itself.

But she may not sift

[sort out] the wheat together with her,

and she may not grind

it

with her,

lest they be from produce of the seventh year whose time of removal has already passed, and through this she assists with her hands in a matter of transgression at the time of the transgression itself.

B.

The wife of a haver may lend the wife of an am ha-aretz a sieve and a sifter!

And although she is suspected of using them for a prohibited purpose, and the Gemara will explain for which prohibition there is concern here,

and

not only this, but she also

sorts

the wheat together with her,

and grinds

it together with her,

and sifts together with her

the flour! And the Gemara will explain: what is different from the woman suspected concerning the seventh year, where we forbade assisting her at the time of the labor itself?

However, since it is forbidden to cause impurity to teruma and halla, because it is written, “the charge of My terumot,” therefore:

But once she places

the wife of the am ha-aretz

the water

into the flour, she should no longer

touch

the wife of the haver

with her

to assist her in kneading the dough and baking it! And because through placing the water the dough becomes obligated in halla, and since the utensils of the wife of the am ha-aretz are presumed impure, they render the halla mixed into this dough impure—

Because we do not strengthen

the

hands of transgressors!

And all of them—

the lending of utensils to a woman suspected concerning the seventh year, and assistance not at the time of the transgression, concerning which we learned that the Sages permitted them—

they did not say

so and permit them

except because of the ways of peace!

For by strict law there would be reason to forbid this, because they do not support the hands of transgressors; rather, because of the ways of peace they permitted this assistance, since it is not at the time of the transgression itself.

C.

And they support the hands of gentiles

when they are occupied with agricultural labor

during the seventh year!

Although the Israelite is commanded to cause the land to rest during the seventh year; and it is explained in the Gemara that they support their hands by verbal expression alone.

But they do not

support

the hands of Israelites

when they are occupied with agricultural labor during the seventh year!

And

so they

inquire about the welfare of gentiles on their festival days! And we are not concerned that the gentile will go and give thanks to idolatry for this; and this too they permitted only

because of the ways of peace!

Gemara:

We learned in the first clause of the Mishna: A woman may lend her fellow woman, who is suspected concerning the seventh year, and so on, but she may not sift or grind together with her! Whereas in the latter clause, concerning the wife of an am ha-aretz, we learned: She sorts, grinds, and sifts together with her!

And we raised an objection concerning it:

What is different in the first clause, and what is different in the latter clause!?

For just as we forbade assistance in the labor itself where there is concern for the prohibition of the seventh year, so too we should forbid assistance in the latter clause because of the prohibition of tevel, since ammei ha-aretz are suspected concerning the tithes.

He said

he answered

Abaye:

Most ammei ha-aretz tithe

their produce, and their produce is forbidden only by rabbinic law, since the Sages were concerned for the minority who do not tithe; this is the prohibition of demai. And since the assistance is to transgressors of a merely rabbinic prohibition, they therefore permitted assisting them because of the ways of peace.

Rava said:

An ordinary am ha-aretz is suspected by Torah law concerning the tithes, for half of them tithe and half of them do not tithe, and it is an even doubt; indeed, it is forbidden to assist them—

And

here,

in our Mishna, with what are we dealing?

With Rabbi Meir’s am ha-aretz

[and he proceeds to explain it], who is not suspected concerning the tithes, but is suspected only of eating non-sacred produce in a state of impurity.

And the prohibitions of

impurity and purity

in non-sacred produce are only

rabbinic!

For by Torah law there is a prohibition only in eating impure teruma and sacred offerings.

As it was taught:

Who is an am ha-aretz?—

Anyone who does not eat

his

non-sacred produce in purity!—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Anyone who does not tithe

his

produce

is called an am ha-aretz!

And our Mishna is dealing with the wife of an am ha-aretz, like the am ha-aretz of whom Rabbi Meir spoke, whose produce has no concern of the prohibition of tevel, but only the prohibition of impurity, which is not a Torah prohibition.

is called an am haaretz!

Our Mishna is discussing the wife of an am haaretz like the am haaretz described by Rabbi Meir, whose produce is not subject to concern regarding the prohibition of tevel, but only regarding ritual impurity, which is not a Torah prohibition.

And we raise an objection:

But since it teaches in the latter clause

of our Mishna: “

Once she has poured the water, do not touch it with her,”

by inference,

it necessarily follows,

that the first clause

—which is before the pouring of the water and before they have been rendered susceptible to impurity—

is not

concerned with the possibility of

impurity and purity!

For the produce does not receive impurity until it has been rendered susceptible to it by liquids falling upon it, and this is difficult for Rava, who establishes even the first clause as being concerned with the possibility of impurity!?

And we answer: It is not so; rather, also in the

first clause

of the Mishna, which deals with the time before the pouring of the water,

and

also in the

latter clause,

the subject is

the

possibility of

impurity and purity,

and this is a case where the wheat had already been rendered susceptible to receiving impurity.

And the reason for the distinction between the first clause and the latter clause is:

The first clause

—which deals with wheat and flour that have not yet become subject to challah, since its obligation takes effect only from the time of kneading— deals only

with the

possibility of

the impurity of non-sacred produce,

for its prohibition is not from the Torah, as stated, and therefore they permitted assisting the wife of an am haaretz on account of the ways of peace.

Whereas in the

latter clause

—where she has already poured water into the dough and the obligation of challah has taken effect—

we are dealing with the impurity of challah,

and the impurity of challah is from the Torah, on account of “the safeguarding of My terumot”; therefore it is forbidden to assist her.

And we raise a contradiction,

the Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a beraita: