Gittin 61b (סא:) — the Talmud in English

They grind

grain that has been properly prepared [which contains neither produce subject to the prohibitions of shemitta nor tevel]],

and

likewise

they deposit

it:

both

with those who eat produce of the seventh year [who are suspected of violating the prohibition against eating produce of the seventh year after the time for its removal has passed], since they are not suspected of exchanging this grain for produce of the seventh year that is forbidden to eat.

And

both

with those who eat their produce in a state of ritual impurity! That is, with amei ha-aretz who are not careful to eat their non-sacred food in a state of purity, since they are not suspected of touching the grain and rendering it impure.

That is, with common people who are not careful to eat their non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity, because they are not suspected of touching the produce and rendering it impure.

But they may not

grind

for those who eat produce of the seventh year, nor for those who eat their produce in a state of ritual impurity,

their grain, because their grain is subject either to the concern that it is prohibited as produce of the seventh year or to the prohibition of impurity, and it is forbidden to assist them in transgressing and eating it in a prohibited manner.

This indicates that even with regard to the prohibition against eating non-sacred food in a state of impurity, which is only rabbinic, it is forbidden to assist them. But this is difficult from the Mishna, which teaches with regard to the wife of an am ha-aretz: “She sorts, grinds, and sifts with her,” even though this involves a concern that she is assisting in the prohibition against eating non-sacred food in a state of impurity!?

He

explained

Abaye:

There,

in the beraita that teaches: “those who eat their produce in a state of ritual impurity,”

we are dealing with a priest suspected of eating teruma in a state of ritual impurity, which is a Torah-level impurity,

that is, eating it in a state of impurity is a Torah prohibition!

Whereas our Mishna permitted, on account of the ways of peace, only assistance involving a concern of a rabbinic prohibition, such as eating non-sacred food in a state of impurity.

And we raise an objection:

if so,

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

they deposit [grain]

with those who eat their produce in a state of ritual impurity,” is referring to teruma, and it follows that it is permitted to deposit it even with a priest suspected of eating his produce in a state of ritual impurity—

But we juxtapose to this the following: “Teruma may be deposited with an Israelite who is an

am ha-aretz!”

Since he is unaccustomed to teruma, as it is forbidden to non-priests, there is no concern that he will touch it and render it impure.

But one may not

deposit teruma

with a priest who is an am ha-aretz, because he is familiar with it!

Since he is accustomed to eating teruma, we are concerned that he may touch even the teruma belonging to a ḥaver that was deposited with him and render it impure. For the Sages decreed that amei ha-aretz have the status of zavim, and therefore they render objects impure through contact.

And this is difficult from the aforementioned beraita, which teaches: Teruma may be deposited with a priest suspected of eating impure teruma!?

Rabbi Ilai

explained:

Here,

in the beraita that teaches: “They deposit,”

what are we dealing with? With

teruma located inside

an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly fitting cover [whose cover is attached to it]. Since the vessel is sealed, the teruma inside it cannot become impure, not even through the vessel, for the vessel itself cannot become impure while it is sealed. An earthenware vessel contracts impurity only when the impurity touches its interior, not when it touches its exterior.

We nevertheless ask:

But let us be concerned lest she move it [the vessel]

the vessel

the wife

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

a menstruating woman! Although she does not touch the teruma, she renders it impure by moving it, since a menstruating woman renders objects impure through movement.

Although she does not touch the sacrificial food, she renders it impure by shifting it, since a menstruating woman renders objects impure through shifting them.

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said

to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot:

the contradiction is not difficult

between these beraitot, for:

here,

in the beraita that teaches: “One may not deposit teruma with a priest who is an am ha-aretz,” we are dealing

with

teruma of

produce that had been rendered susceptible

by liquids to contract impurity, and with regard to such produce there is concern that this priest might render it impure.

And

here,

in the beraita that teaches: “One may deposit it with those who eat their produce in a state of ritual impurity,” we are dealing

with produce that had not been rendered susceptible

to contract impurity through water. Therefore, there is no concern that he might render it impure.

Nevertheless, it is forbidden to assist them in grinding their wheat, for the ḥaver does not know whether the produce had been rendered susceptible or not.

And

still

we juxtapose to this

a contradiction from that which we learned in the Mishna:

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

am ha-aretz—

these retain their presumptive status with regard to

the matter of

tithes and the seventh year!

For the grinder is not suspected of exchanging this wheat for wheat that is tevel or for wheat forbidden as produce of the seventh year.

But one may not rely on the grinder

with regard

to

the matter of

impurity!

And we are concerned that he may have touched them and rendered them impure.

This is difficult from the aforementioned beraita, in which we learned: “One may deposit it with those who eat their produce in a state of ritual impurity,” and we are not concerned that he may touch the produce and render it impure.

What sort of juxtaposition is this [what difficulty is there]!?

[that is, what difficulty is this]!?

And

did we not establish

the beraita “They deposit”

as referring to produce that had not been rendered susceptible

to contract impurity?

But the Mishna, “One who brings wheat to an am ha-aretz grinder,” deals with produce that had been rendered susceptible, and therefore it does not retain a presumption of purity.

And we ask:

But the one who raised it, what did he see in raising it? How did it occur to the questioner to raise this difficulty? The beraita must necessarily be dealing with produce that had not been rendered susceptible, as stated.

How could the questioner have thought to raise this difficulty from that source? The beraita must necessarily be dealing with produce that had not been made susceptible, as stated.

And we answer:

Because the Gemara wished

the Gemara

to raise an objection [to ask]

from another Mishna

against it [against the Mishna “One who brings wheat”], the Gemara brought the Mishna “One who brings wheat” in our passage. Since it had already brought it, the Gemara first took the trouble to explain it so that it would not present a difficulty from the aforementioned beraita, even though the answer was simple and self-evident to the questioner as well.

[against the Mishna “One who brings wheat”], the Gemara brought the Mishna “One who brings wheat” in this discussion. Once it had brought it, the Gemara first took the trouble to explain it so that it would not pose a difficulty for the earlier beraita, even though the answer was simple and self-evident even to the questioner.

And this is the difficulty in the Mishna’s statement, on account of which these matters were brought in our passage:

For in this Mishna we learned: “

these retain their presumptive status

with regard to tithes and the seventh year,”

and with regard to exchange—

that the grinder might exchange them for prohibited wheat—

we are not concerned.

But we juxtapose to this,

and raise the following difficulty from that which we learned in the Mishna:

A ḥaver

who gives to his mother-in-law,

who is the wife of an am ha-aretz, 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 becomes spoiled

in the oven, and giving him other bread of her own! Her bread is prohibited as demai, and therefore he must tithe it.

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

It is therefore established that we are concerned about exchange; and this is difficult from the Mishna concerning the grinder, which teaches that we are not concerned about exchange!?

And we answer:

There,

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

as it teaches

in that Mishna

the reason:

Rabbi Yehuda said: She wants what is beneficial for her daughter

and seeks her welfare,

and

likewise

she is ashamed

she is

before her son-in-law

to give him spoiled bread! Therefore, we are concerned that if the bread becomes spoiled, she will exchange it for bread of her own, which is prohibited as demai.

But with regard to a stranger, whom the am ha-aretz does not intend to benefit, there is no concern that the am ha-aretz will exchange his bread for other bread.

We nevertheless ask:

And

is it that

with regard to everyone [an ordinary person]

[an ordinary person]

we are not concerned

about exchange?

But did we not learn: A yeshiva student

A yeshiva student

who gives to an innkeeper,

an am ha-aretz with whom he is lodging, his dough and his pot, so that she may prepare them for him to eat:

he

tithes

first

that

which

he gives her, and

likewise tithes

that

which

he takes from her, because she is

suspected of

exchanging.

And it initially occurred to us that she exchanges it when she sees that his dough is better than her own. We have therefore learned that an am ha-aretz is suspected of exchanging items for anyone, 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 it for the other’s benefit,

because

she issues a ruling [to herself], as though there were a mitzva in making this exchange,

[the matter] for herself, as though there were a mitzva in making this exchange,

and says:

It is preferable that the

yeshiva student

the yeshiva student

eat the hot one [hot, meaning fresh],

[that is, fresh bread],

and

whereas

I will eat the cold one [cold, meaning old].

[that is, old bread].

We nevertheless

ask: Is it really the case that

with regard to everyone,

an ordinary person, when she has no intention of benefiting him,

we are not concerned

about exchange!?

But it was taught: The wife of a ḥaver grinds

and assists in operating the millstones, together

with the wife of an am ha-aretz,

grinding the grain of her am ha-aretz husband:

when she [the wife of the ḥaver] is

[the wife of the member of the religiously observant class]

impure.

For while she is impure, she is careful not to touch pure food with which she is occupied, so as not to render it impure. Therefore, there is no concern that she will forget that this wheat is prohibited for her to eat as demai and eat from it.

But she may not

grind with her

when she is pure,

because we are concerned that she may forget that the wheat is demai and put some into her mouth.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when

the wife of the ḥaver

is impure,

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

she may not grind

with the wife of the am ha-aretz,

because her companion [the wife of the am ha-aretz]

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

gives her

into her mouth

and

she

eats

from it.