Gittin 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains:

“in nets and fish traps”

(these are nets made of threads and rushes that have an interior),

everyone—

both the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei—

agree,

that one who takes from them is an outright robber, for the one who spread the trap acquires the items for himself, by virtue of the law of a “courtyard.”

They disagree—

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei—and according to the Rabbis it is not outright robbery, in the case of

the fishing rod

(a hook)

and the fishing line

(they place a long thread in the river and string needles along its entire length, and the fish are caught on the needles), which are types of traps that have no interior, and the one who spread the trap has nothing with which to acquire the fish.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The find of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor”

is subject to robbery on account of the ways of peace;

Rabbi Yosei says: It is outright robbery:

Rav Ḥisda said:

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

outright robbery by rabbinic decree

(by rabbinic law).

And

what practical difference does it make

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 recover it through the courts

from the person who took it from them. For if it is merely an ordinance not to take from them, the court does not confiscate it from the taker. We learned in the Mishna:

“A poor person who is gathering olives from the top of an olive tree”

what is beneath him is subject to robbery on account of the ways of peace:

Rashi wrote: “Nevertheless, according to Rabbi Yosei it is not genuine robbery, such as would disqualify one from bearing witness or cause him to transgress a negative commandment.” The tanna

taught in a beraita:

“If he gathered

olives

and placed them in his hand,

and another came and took them from him,

this is outright robbery.”

Rav Kahana was going to Hutzal

(he was on his way to Hutzal, the place of Rabbi Yoshiya),

when he saw a certain man throwing sticks and causing dates to fall

(he saw a man throwing sticks toward the palm tree and thereby causing dates to fall),

Rav Kahana went

Rav Kahana

and gathered them and ate them

(he took some of the dates and ate them), since he had not acquired them.

He said to him,

that man said to Abaye:

“You should see, master, that I threw them with my hands”

(know that I caused the dates to fall with my own hands), meaning: We learned: “If he gathered them and placed them in his hand, this is outright robbery.”

He said to him,

Abaye said to that man: It is evident about you that

“you are from the place of Rabbi Yoshiya”

(you are from Hutzal, the city of Rabbi Yoshiya), and therefore you are well versed in laws, since he expounds and teaches halakhot to the public.

He applied to him

Abaye applied to Rabbi Yoshiya: “

And the righteous is the foundation of the world.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“One may not prevent the poor of gentiles from taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, on account of the ways of peace”:

The Sages taught:

One supports the poor of gentiles together with the poor of Israel,

that is, when one supports the poor of Israel, one supports their poor together with them as well.

One visits the sick of gentiles together with the sick of Israel.

And one buries the dead of gentiles together with the dead of Israel.

And all this is

on account of the ways of peace.

Mishna:

A. Produce of the Sabbatical year must be removed from the house once that species has ceased to exist in the field. As long as one has not removed it and declared it ownerless, it is forbidden to eat; nevertheless:

A woman may lend her neighbor who is suspected with regard to the Sabbatical year a sieve, a sifter, a millstone, and an oven!

Even though the borrower 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 Sabbatical year after the time for removal, in order to prepare it for eating, so that she would 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 sort

(separate) the wheat with her,

nor grind

it

with her,

lest it be produce of the Sabbatical year whose time for removal has already passed, and thereby she would be directly assisting in a transgression at the time of the transgression itself.

B.

The wife of a haver may lend the wife of an am haaretz a sieve and a sifter!

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

and

not only that, but she may also

sort

the wheat with her,

grind

it with her,

and sift with her

the flour! The Gemara will explain why this differs from the woman suspected with regard to the Sabbatical year, whom we prohibited assisting at the very time of the activity.

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

But once she places

the wife of the am haaretz

the water

in the flour, she may no longer

touch

the haver

with her

to assist her in kneading the dough and baking it! Since by placing the water the dough becomes obligated in ḥalla, and since the utensils of the wife of the am haaretz are presumed impure, they render the ḥalla mixed into this dough impure—

Because we do not strengthen

the

hands of transgressors!

And all of them—

lending utensils to a woman suspected with regard to the Sabbatical year, and assisting when it is not the time of the transgression, cases concerning which we learned that the Sages permitted them—

they said

this and permitted them

only on account of the ways of peace!

For by strict law there would have been reason to prohibit this, because we do not strengthen the hands of transgressors. Rather, on account of the ways of peace they permitted this assistance, since it does not take place at the time of the transgression itself.

C.

And one strengthens the hands of gentiles

when they are engaged in agricultural work

during the Sabbatical year!

Although an Israelite is commanded to cause the land to rest during the Sabbatical year, the Gemara explains that one strengthens their hands merely by verbally encouraging them.

But one may not

strengthen

the hands of Israelites

when they are engaged in agricultural work during the Sabbatical year!

And

likewise,

one may inquire about the welfare

of gentiles on their festival days. We are not concerned that the gentile will go and offer thanks for this to idolatry; and this too was permitted only

on account of the ways of peace!

Gemara:

We learned in the first clause of the Mishna: A woman may lend her neighbor who is suspected with regard to the Sabbatical year, and so on, but she may not sort or grind with her. Whereas in the latter clause, concerning the wife of an am haaretz, we learned: She may sort, grind, and sift with her!

And we raised the question:

What is the difference between the first clause and the latter clause!?

For just as we prohibited assistance in the activity itself where there is concern about a prohibition of the Sabbatical year, so too we should prohibit assistance in the latter clause because of the prohibition of tevel, since amei haaretz are suspected with regard to tithes.

He said

in response,

Abaye:

Most amei haaretz tithe

their produce, and their produce is forbidden only by rabbinic law, since the Sages were concerned about the minority who do not tithe; this is the prohibition of demai. Since the assistance is being given only to those who violate a rabbinic prohibition, they permitted assisting them on account of the ways of peace.

Rava said:

An ordinary am haaretz is suspected by Torah law with regard to tithes, because half of them tithe and half do not tithe, so it is an evenly balanced doubt. Indeed, it is forbidden to assist them—

And

here

in our Mishna, what case are we discussing?

An am haaretz according to Rabbi Meir

(and the Gemara proceeds to explain it), who is not suspected with regard to tithes, but is suspected only of eating ordinary produce in a state of impurity.

And the prohibitions of

ritual

impurity and purity

with regard to ordinary produce are only

rabbinic!

For by Torah law, the prohibition applies only to eating impure teruma and consecrated food.

As it was taught:

Who is an am haaretz?—

Anyone who does not eat

his

ordinary food in purity!—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Anyone who does not tithe

his

produce

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.