Gittin 61b — the Talmud in English

They grind

prepared grain [which contains neither prohibitions of the Sabbatical year nor untithed produce]],

and

so

they deposit

it:

They

with those who eat Sabbatical-year produce [who are suspected of violating the prohibition against Sabbatical-year produce after the time of removal]! Since they are not suspected of exchanging this grain for Sabbatical-year grain that is forbidden for eating.

And

they

with those who eat their produce in impurity!

That is, with ammei haaretz who are not careful to eat their non-sacred produce in purity, since they are not suspected of touching the grain and rendering it impure.

But not

grind

for those who eat Sabbatical-year produce, nor for those who eat their produce in impurity, their own grain!

Because their grain is subject either to the concern of the prohibition of the Sabbatical year or to the prohibition of impurity, and it is forbidden to assist them in transgressing and eating it in prohibition.

It follows that even with regard to the prohibition of eating non-sacred produce in impurity, which is only rabbinic, it is forbidden to assist them. And this is difficult from the Mishna, which teaches concerning the wife of an am haaretz: “She sorts, grinds, and sifts with her,” even though there is in this a concern of assisting the prohibition against eating non-sacred produce in impurity!?

He said

he answered,

Abaye:

There—

in the beraita that teaches: “those who eat their produce in impurity”—

we are dealing with a priest suspected of eating teruma in impurity, for it is a Torah impurity

that is, it is a Torah prohibition to eat it in impurity!

But our Mishna permitted, on account of the ways of peace, only assistance with a concern of a rabbinic prohibition, such as eating non-sacred produce in impurity.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so—

that the beraita is dealing with teruma—even that which it teaches: “

They deposit [grain] with those who eat their produce in impurity,” is dealing with teruma, and it follows that it is permitted to deposit it even with a priest suspected of eating his produce in impurity—

[produce] with those who eat their produce in a state of ritual impurity,” must also be referring to sacrificial food. This implies that it is permitted to deposit it even with a priest suspected of eating his produce in a state of ritual impurity—

And we oppose to this: They deposit teruma with an Israelite am

haaretz!

Since he is not accustomed to teruma, for it is forbidden to non-priests, there is no concern that he will touch it and render it impure.

But they do not

deposit teruma

with a priest who is an am haaretz, because his heart is familiar with it!

For since he is accustomed to eating teruma, we are concerned lest he also touch the teruma of the haver deposited with him and render it impure. For they decreed that ammei haaretz have the status of zavim, and therefore they render things impure through their touch.

And this is difficult from the beraita above, which teaches in it: They deposit teruma with a priest suspected of eating impure teruma!

He said

he answered,

Rabbi Ilaa: Here—

in the beraita that teaches “They deposit”—

with what are we dealing? With

teruma found inside

an earthenware vessel enclosed with a tightly sealed cover [whose cover is attached to it]! Since the vessel is closed, the teruma inside it cannot receive impurity, not even through the vessel. For the vessel too cannot become impure while it is closed, since an earthenware vessel receives impurity only when the impurity touches its inside, and not when it touches it from the outside.

But we still raise a difficulty:

And let us be concerned lest she move it

the vessel

the wife

of the one suspected with regard to impurity, when she is

menstruant!

And although she does not touch the teruma, she renders it impure by moving it, for a menstruant woman renders things impure through movement.

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said

to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot:

It is not difficult

these beraitot with one another, for:

Here—

in the beraita that teaches: “But they do not deposit teruma with a priest who is an am haaretz”—it is dealing

with

teruma of

produce that was prepared

by liquids to receive impurity, and in their case there is concern lest that priest render it impure.

And

here—

in the beraita that teaches: “They deposit with those who eat their produce in impurity”—it is dealing

with produce that was not prepared

with water to receive impurity, therefore there is no concern in their case lest they render it impure,

Nevertheless, to assist them in grinding their wheat is forbidden, for the haver does not know whether the produce was prepared or not.

And

still

we oppose to this

a contradiction from that which we learned:

One who brings wheat to a Samaritan grinder or to an am

haaretz grinder—

these retain their presumptive status, with regard to

the matter of

tithes and the Sabbatical year!

For the grinder is not suspected of exchanging this wheat for wheat that is untithed, or for wheat forbidden by the prohibition of the Sabbatical year.

But they do not

rely on the grinder

with regard to

the matter of

impurity!

And we are concerned lest he touched it and rendered it impure.

And this is difficult from the beraita above, in which we learned: “They deposit with those who eat their produce in impurity,” and we are not concerned lest he touch the produce and render it impure.

What sort of comparison is this

[and what difficulty is this]!?

And

did we not establish

the beraita of “They deposit”

as referring to produce that was not prepared

to receive impurity?

But the Mishna of “One who brings wheat to an am haaretz grinder” deals with produce that was prepared, and therefore it does not retain a presumption of purity.

And we ask:

And as for the one who raised it, what did he raise it for?

The one who raised the difficulty from there—how did it enter his mind to raise this difficulty? After all, the beraita necessarily deals with produce that was not prepared, as stated.

And we answer:

Because the Gemara seeks

to

raise

[as a difficulty] from another Mishna

against it

[against the Mishna of “One who brings wheat”], the Gemara brought the Mishna of “One who brings wheat” in our passage. And since it had already brought it, the Gemara first took pains to explain it, so that there should not be a difficulty from the beraita above, even though the answer was simple and self-evident to the one who raised the difficulty as well.

And this is the difficulty in the words of the Mishna, on account of which they were brought in this passage:

For in this Mishna we learned: “

These retain their presumptive status

with regard to tithes and the Sabbatical year,”

and concerning exchange—

that the grinder would exchange them for forbidden wheat—

we are not concerned.

And we oppose to this,

and concerning this there is a difficulty from that which we learned:

A haver

who gives to his mother-in-law,

who is the wife of an am haaretz, dough to bake for him,

tithes

first

the

dough

that he gives her,

and he must also tithe afterward

the

bread

that he takes from her!

Because

she is

suspected

of

exchanging

his bread

that spoils

in the oven and giving him other bread of her own! And hers is forbidden on account of demai, and therefore he must tithe it.

Nevertheless, he must tithe first the dough that he gives her [even though in any event he will tithe the bread afterward], so that if she takes it for herself, she will not stumble into the prohibition of untithed produce.

It is thus proven that we are concerned about exchange; and this is difficult from the Mishna of the grinder, which teaches that we are not concerned about exchange!?

And we answer:

There—

in the case of one who gives to his mother-in-law—

as it teaches

in it

the reason:

Rabbi Judah said: She desires the benefit of her daughter

and her welfare,

and

so

she is ashamed

before

her son-in-law

to give him spoiled bread! Therefore we are concerned that if the bread spoils, she will exchange it for bread of her own, which is forbidden by the prohibition of demai.

But in the case of a stranger, when the am haaretz does not intend to benefit him, there is no concern that the am haaretz will exchange his bread for other bread.

And we still raise a difficulty:

And

if

in general

[for an ordinary person]

we are not concerned

about exchange,

yet we learned:

A yeshiva student

who gives to an innkeeper,

an am haaretz at whose home he lodges, his dough and his pot so that she may prepare them for him to eat:

he

tithes

first

what

he

gives her, and

likewise tithes

what

he

takes from her because

she is suspected of

exchanging.

And it might enter our minds that she exchanges it when she sees that his dough is better than her dough; we have therefore learned that an am haaretz is suspected of exchanging for every person, and not specifically a mother-in-law for her son-in-law!?

And we answer:

There—

in the case of the innkeeper—

she too intends for the good,

for

she gives herself a ruling

[she issues herself a ruling] that it is as though there is a mitzva in this exchange,

and she says:

It is preferable that the

son of the yeshiva

[the yeshiva student]

eat hot

[hot, that is, fresh bread],

and

I

eat cold

[cold, that is, old bread].

And still

we raise a difficulty: Is it really the case that

in general,

for an ordinary person and when she does not intend to benefit him,

we are not concerned

about exchange!?

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

and assists in operating the millstones, together

with the wife of an am haaretz,

in grinding the produce of her husband, the am haaretz:

when she is

[the wife of the haver]

impure.

Because during the time of her impurity she is careful not to touch pure food with which she is occupied, so as not to render it impure, and therefore there is no concern lest she forget that this wheat is forbidden for her to eat on account of demai and eat from it.

But she may not

grind with her

when she is pure,

because we are concerned lest she forget that they are demai wheat and put some into her mouth.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when

the wife of the haver

is impure,

and indeed there is no concern lest she herself take some and put it into her mouth, nevertheless

she may not grind

with the wife of the am haaretz,

because her companion ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page position") [the wife of the am haaretz]

gives her

into her mouth,

and

she

eats

from them.