Gittin 62a — the Talmud in English

And even though the wife of a haver is not suspected of theft, nor concerning demai, we are concerned that she may forget. For a person is accustomed to forget and to eat what they give him without examining whether the thing is permitted to be eaten.

And if so, it is difficult:

now, if she steals

the wife of an am ha-aretz’s property from her husband and gives it to her companion, then

does she not exchange

if she is suspected of stealing without compensation, all the more so she is suspected of exchanging. And if so, this is difficult from that which we learned: “One who conveys wheat to an am ha-aretz miller: these retain their presumptive status,” with regard to tithe and the Sabbatical year. Yet there is reason for concern: perhaps the miller exchanged the flour, giving the haver his own flour, which is forbidden because of demai or the Sabbatical year, and taking the haver’s flour for himself.

He said

he answered:

Rav Yosef:

The ammei ha-aretz are never suspected of theft, nor of exchanging their produce for the produce of others.

And

there

in the beraita, this that we are concerned lest the wife of an am ha-aretz steal wheat from her husband and give it to her companion, is

also

because she

justifies

to herself that this does not involve theft,

and she says:

For even

an ox eats from its threshing

even an ox eats from its threshing.

That is to say: just as the ox eats from the grain while it is threshing it, so too it is fitting that the wife of the haver should eat from the wheat while she is assisting me.

Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam testified in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

his brother, who said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hisma: One does not prepare the am ha-aretz’s hallah in purity.

That is to say: if an am ha-aretz gave his dough to a haver kneader and said to him, “Separate hallah from my dough and make it in purity,” the haver refuses his request.

For if the haver agrees to separate hallah for him in purity and afterward gives it to a kohen, that kohen will rely on this and assume that it is pure. In truth, it is impure, because it already became impure while it was still in the hands of the am ha-aretz. For they decreed concerning them that they have the status of zavim.

But they do prepare

hav­erim

the non-sacred dough

of an am ha-aretz

in purity.

That is to say: if the dough was never in the hands of an am ha-aretz, but rather the haver begins the dough for him from its beginning, he makes it.

And the haver takes

the observant person

from it the measure of hallah and places it

the hallah that he separated

in a kefisha or an anhuta

vessels made from worn-out baskets, which do not contract impurity, and in which it is also not customary to place dough.

And when the am ha-aretz comes to take

his dough, he

takes

from the haver

both of them

both the dough and the hallah.

And the haver is not concerned

lest the am ha-aretz render the hallah impure; the reason will be explained below.

And

likewise

the haverim do not

prepare

prepare

the

teruma of his olives

of an am ha-aretz

in purity.

That is to say: if the am ha-aretz placed his olives in a ma’atan, a vessel in which olives are placed so that they will warm before they are pressed in the olive press, and he asks a haver olive-presser to separate teruma from the olives in purity—

he does not do so, because these olives have already become impure through the am ha-aretz. For although nothing contracts impurity unless it has first been rendered susceptible, when the olives are placed in the ma’atan, liquid emerges from them that renders the olives susceptible to contracting impurity. And once they have become impure, if the olive-presser separates the teruma and gives it to a kohen, the kohen will rely on the haver olive-presser and eat impure teruma.

But the haverim do prepare

the

olives

of

the non-sacred produce

of an am ha-aretz from their beginning

in purity.

For if he asked him to press his olives and separate teruma from them before the am ha-aretz placed them in the ma’atan, he does so, since they have not yet been rendered susceptible to contracting impurity and are pure.

And the haver takes

the observant person

from it the measure of teruma and places it

the pure teruma

in the vessels of the

the

haver,

so that they will not become impure in the am ha-aretz’s vessel.

And when the am ha-aretz comes to take

his oil, he

takes both of them,

both the prepared non-sacred produce and the pure teruma,

and the haver is not concerned

lest he touch the teruma and render it impure.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What is the reason

that we are not concerned that the am ha-aretz will touch the hallah and the teruma? And why did we permit the haver to separate them and hand them over to him?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The Sages permitted this leniency

because of the livelihood of the kneader, and because of the livelihood of the olive-presser,

so that they would have by which to earn their livelihood.

And it is necessary

to inform us of this both with regard to dough and with regard to olives.

Because

if it had informed us

the beraita of this law concerning the

kneader

alone, I would have said that specifically with regard to him we were lenient in this way,

because his wage is not great

his wage is not substantial. And since he is poor and needs the money that the am ha-aretz will give him for his work, he should not be prevented from doing what he requests.

But with regard to the olive-presser, whose wage is great, say that it is not so

that we were lenient with him. Since his livelihood is not constrained, we should be stringent with him, being concerned that the am ha-aretz will render the teruma impure, and he should not perform the work for him.

And if it had informed us

with regard to the

olive-presser,

that they were lenient with him, I would have said that specifically with regard to him we were lenient,

because work is not readily available to him

with which to earn money. For this work is not available throughout the entire year, but only once a year, during the season of the olive press. Therefore we were lenient with him, not being concerned that the am ha-aretz would render the teruma impure, so as not to deprive him of his livelihood.

But with regard to the kneader, for whom

the work of kneading is available throughout the entire year, and if he does not agree to accept this dough, he will easily find another dough,

say

that

we should not

permit him to hand the hallah to the am ha-aretz.

Therefore

it is necessary

for the beraita to inform us of this with regard to both of them: because of their livelihoods, we were lenient with them and did not have this concern.

The Master said: “He takes from it”

from the dough

the measure of hallah, and places it in a kefisha or an anhuta, and when the am ha-aretz comes to take it, he takes both of them, and is not concerned.

And we challenge this:

But let us be concerned lest he touch it

the am ha-aretz, and render it impure. How can one be lenient because of the reason of “his livelihood” in the face of such a likely concern?

And we answer: Indeed, we must threaten the am ha-aretz when the hallah is handed to him, and

we say to him:

Be careful not to touch the hallah. And

see,

and behold,

if you touch

it

it

and render it impure,

it returns to being tevel.

The dough will return to being tevel and will become forbidden to eat.

And since an am ha-aretz is not suspected of eating dough that is tevel concerning hallah, he will recoil from this and will not touch the hallah.

And we challenge this:

And

still,

let us be concerned: perhaps he does not care

that the dough should return to being tevel, and again there is reason for concern that he will touch the hallah and render it impure.

And we answer: Surely he necessarily wants the dough to remain prepared,

for now, he intends to prepare it,

since he instructed the haver to separate hallah from it. And would it enter your mind that

he does not care

that it should return to being tevel after it has already been prepared?!

The Master said:

But the haverim prepare the non-sacred olives in purity, and

he takes from it the measure of teruma and places it in the haver’s vessels, and when the am ha-aretz comes to take it, he takes both of them, and is not concerned.

And we challenge this:

But let us be concerned lest he touch it

the am ha-aretz touches the teruma, for with this there is greater reason for concern than in the first clause, concerning the am ha-aretz’s hallah.

For

granted, there

with regard to hallah,

he has

the am ha-aretz

a sign.

By virtue of the fact that the haver placed the hallah for him in a kefisha and an anhuta, vessels in which it is not customary to place dough, he will remember that we threatened him not to touch it.

But here,

with regard to the teruma of olives,

what sign

does the am ha-aretz have by which to remember not to touch the teruma?

And we answer: With what are we dealing here?

That he places it

the haver places the teruma

in vessels of dung

or

in vessels of stone

or

in earthen vessels,

which do not contract impurity.

For if he places it in a vessel that contracts impurity, the am ha-aretz will render the vessel impure through his touch, and the vessel will render the teruma impure.

And because the teruma is placed in these vessels, the am ha-aretz will remember that he is forbidden to touch it.

And although he carries the teruma, he does not render it impure through carrying. And although they decreed that an am ha-aretz has the status of a zav, and a zav renders things impure through carrying, nevertheless he is not a complete zav, and he renders things impure only through touch.

And we again challenge: If the haver places the teruma in vessels that do not contract impurity,

if so, why is it specifically that

it teaches specifically, “he places it in the vessels of the

haver”?

But

even

in the vessels

of an am ha-aretz as well

he can place it, since there is no concern that they will render the teruma impure.

And we answer: Yes,

this is also what it says:

And he places it

in the vessels of the am ha-aretz that are fit to be used by him

even by the

haver,

since they do not contract impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they strengthen the hands of gentiles during the Sabbatical year.

And it entered our minds that “they strengthen” means that they actually assist them in the work of the land during the Sabbatical year. Therefore we challenge:

And do they

strengthen

them in this work of theirs?!

But Rav Dimi bar Shishna said in the name of Rav: One does not hoe with a gentile

the land

during the Sabbatical year.

And although the land belongs to the gentile, a Jew may not perform in it work that is forbidden during the Sabbatical year. And hoeing is forbidden because of plowing, which is prohibited by Torah law during the Sabbatical year.

And

he further said:

One does not repeat a greeting to a gentile.

For “peace” is one of the Names of the Holy One, blessed be He. And according to the essential law, they permitted saying this only to a Jew, as we learned in the final chapter of Berakhot. Several sources were brought there for this.

And what they permitted one to say “peace” even to a gentile is only because of the ways of peace, and for this one time alone is sufficient. But to repeat it and say, “Peace, peace,” they did not permit.

And from the beginning of Rav Dimi’s statement, when he said, “One does not hoe with a gentile during the Sabbatical year,” a difficulty arises against our Mishna.

And we answer:

It is necessary;

our Mishna did not permit

except to say to them: “

Strengthen yourselves

in general!”

That is to say, to say to them while they are engaged in agricultural work, “May your hands be strengthened.” But it was not permitted to assist them in deed.

As in that which Rav Yehuda would say to them

to gentiles while they were working the land during the Sabbatical year: “

Strengthen yourselves.”

Rav Sheshet would say to these gentiles: “

Ashareta!”

Ashareta!

And this too is an expression of strengthening.

The Master said:

And one does not repeat a greeting to a gentile.

Rav Hisda

would

precede them with a greeting of peace

he would greet the gentiles first.

And

Rav Kahana said to them: “Peace to you, my master”

“Peace to my master,” and in his heart he intended it for his master, not to bless the gentile.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one asks about their welfare

the welfare of the gentiles, because of the ways of peace.

And we wondered:

Now,

even when they are doing something forbidden to a Jew—such as agricultural work during the Sabbatical year—the Mishna teaches that

we strengthen them

with words, so that they should be “

asked about their welfare”;

is it necessary

for the tanna to inform us of this?!

Rav Yeiva said: It was not necessary

for the Mishna to permit

except

asking about their welfare

on their festival day.

And we are not concerned that perhaps the gentile will come to give thanks for this to his idolatry.

And

as it is taught: A person should not enter the house of a gentile on his festival day and offer him greetings.

Since he has accorded the Israelite such great importance, that he came especially to his house to bless him, there is concern lest he go and give thanks to his idolatry.

But if

he found

a gentile

in the marketplace

on his festival day, then

he offers him

greetings

in a subdued manner and with a bowed head!

For since he encountered him only by chance and offered him greetings, there is no concern lest he go and give thanks to his idolatry.

Rav Huna and Rav Hisda were sitting

[they were sitting].

Ganiva passed and went

[he passed and went]

Ganiva

[that was the man’s name] before them.

One of them said

to the other

“Let us rise before him”

[let us stand because of him],

for

he is

a son of Torah

[a Torah scholar]

he.

His fellow said to him:

“Is it so that

before a contentious person

[one who causes dispute]

we should rise

[should we stand before this contentious person]!? For Ganiva disagreed with the words of the Sages and caused distress to Mar Ukva, who was the head of the court in his time.”

Meanwhile

[in the meantime],

he came

[Ganiva drew near]

to them

of Rav Huna and Rav Hisda.

He said to them: “Greetings to you, kings; greetings to you, kings”

[peace be upon you, kings]!

They said to him

[Rav Huna and Rav Hisda asked Ganiva]:

“From where do you have that the Sages are called “

kings”

[from where do you have this, that the Sages were indeed called kings]!?

He said

[he answered]

to them

Ganiva to Rav Huna and Rav Hisda:

“As it is written

[Proverbs 8, with omissions]: “Does not wisdom call out, and understanding give forth her voice?

By me kings reign

and rulers decree justice.””

Furthermore,

they said to him

Rav Huna and Rav Hisda to Ganiva:

“And from where do you have that we double “

greetings”

to kings

, that because of this you doubled your greeting of peace twice!?”

He said

he answered

to them

Ganiva:

“For Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav: From where is it that one doubles greetings to a king?” —

as it is stated: “

And a spirit clothed Amasa, chief of the captains

[and he said], ‘Go, David, and with you, son of Jesse; greetings, greetings to you.’”

Rav Hisda and Rav Huna said to him

to Ganiva:

“Let the Master taste something”

[let the Master taste something]!

He said

he answered

to them

Ganiva: “It is forbidden for me to eat now, because I have not yet fed my animal” —

for thus Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: It is forbidden for a person to taste anything until he gives food to his animal.

As it is stated: “

And I shall give grass in your field for your animal,”

and afterward it is written “

and you shall eat and be satisfied”!

Thus, he must give precedence to the eating of his animal over his own eating.

We return to you, chapter Hanezikkin.

Introduction

The chapter before us deals with the laws of agency for a get, and in what manner a young woman or a minor girl has a hand with which to acquire the get herself or through her father. The first Mishna in the chapter “The One Who Sends” had already begun this subject, but the matter was interrupted by the laws stated in it on account of the correction of the world or on account of the ways of peace.

There are two types of agents: "

The agent of delivery" of the man, and "the agent of acceptance" of the woman, and the Gemara in Kiddushin [41a] derives both of them from the exposition of the verse in the section of divorce: "And he shall send"—this teaches that he appoints an agent. "And she shall be sent"—this teaches that she appoints an agent. "

An agent of delivery"—he is an agent whom the husband appoints to bring the get to the woman, and the divorce does not take effect until the husband's agent hands the get either to the woman or to her agent.

Even though no legal effect of divorce takes place at the time when the husband gives the get to his agent, nevertheless the husband must appoint him as an agent to hand the get to the woman, and he cannot transfer the get to the woman without an appointment of agency. For it is written in the Torah, “And he shall write for her a document of severance

and place it in her hand

and he shall send her from his house”; the verse teaches that the husband must give the get to the woman from his hand to her hand. And in order that it be considered “from his hand to her hand” also when the husband hands her the get through another person, the husband must appoint him as an agent, so that the matter will be considered as though the husband himself gives the get from his hand to her hand. "

An agent of acceptance"—he is an agent whom the woman appoints to receive the get from her husband,

and the law of an agent of acceptance differs from that of an agent of delivery, for an agent of acceptance is considered in place of the woman, and once the get reaches the hand of the agent of acceptance, it is as though the get reached the woman's hand, and she becomes divorced immediately upon the agent's acceptance.

According to Maimonides [Laws of Divorce 6, 4], there is an additional type of agent: “an agent of bringing,” whom the woman appoints as an agent to bring the get to her, and who will be like her hand, so that it will be considered that the get was delivered from the husband's hand to the woman's hand, but she will become divorced only when the get comes into her hand; and its law is like that of an “agent of delivery” whom the husband appoints for the delivery of the get.

A husband who appointed an agent using the expression “receive,” since he cannot appoint an “agent of acceptance,” [the agent] is therefore like an agent of delivery.

A woman who appoints an agent of acceptance requires that the husband agree that she become divorced through the agent's acceptance, and if he does not agree, he uproots her agency, and the agent becomes an agent for delivering the get to the woman alone.

Therefore, when the husband hands [the get] to the agent of acceptance, the husband must say to him in wording that is understood to mean that he agrees that the agent be an agent of acceptance;

Our Mishna discusses whether the husband can retract after the get has been handed to the agent: