Gittin 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

And although the wife of a ḥaver is not suspected of theft, nor of demai, we are concerned that she may forget. For a person is accustomed to forget and eat what is given to him without checking whether the item is permitted to eat. Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbi Ḥananel explained that the case concerns grain belonging to a ḥaver. The meaning is that when the wife of an am ha-aretz considers herself impure, it is permitted for the wife of a ḥaver to assist her, since at that time she takes care not to touch the grain. But when she considers herself pure, she may not assist her, because she will touch the grain and render it impure. For the Sages decreed that ammei ha-aretz render items impure through their touch. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, however, held that even when the wife of an am ha-aretz considers herself impure, it is forbidden to assist her. For although she herself will not touch the grain, her friend—who is also the wife of an am ha-aretz and considers herself pure—will give her some of the grain, touch it, and render it impure.

If so, this is difficult:

now, if she steals

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

will she not exchange it

? [If she is suspected of stealing without compensation, certainly she is suspected of exchanging.] If so, the following Mishna is difficult: “One who conveys wheat to an am ha-aretz miller—these retain their presumptive status,” with regard to tithes and the Sabbatical Year. Yet there is reason for concern that perhaps the miller exchanged the flour: he will give the ḥaver his own flour, which is forbidden because of demai or the Sabbatical Year, and take the ḥaver’s flour for himself.

He said

[he answered]

Rav Yosef:

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

But

there, in the beraita, where we are concerned that perhaps the wife of an am ha-aretz will steal wheat from her husband and give it to her friend, this is

in the beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna—where it says that we are concerned that the wife of an am ha-aretz might steal wheat belonging to her husband and give it to her friend, this is

also

because she

justifies

the matter to herself, saying that it does not constitute theft,

and she says:

“After all, even

an ox eats from its threshing”

[even an ox eats from the grain it threshes].

That is to say: Just as an ox eats from the grain while it is threshing it, so too the wife of the ḥaver should eat from the wheat while she is assisting me.

Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam testified in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

his brother, who said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ḥisma: One may not prepare the ḥalla of an am ha-aretz in purity.

That is to say: If an am ha-aretz handed his dough to a ḥaver who kneads dough [the word refers to a person who kneads dough], and said to him, “Separate ḥalla from my dough and prepare it in purity,” the ḥaver refuses his request. Tosafot explained that the case is where he says to him: “Separate ḥalla for me on behalf of my dough, from your own dough that was made in purity.” He is forbidden to do so because we are concerned that the am ha-aretz may touch it after it is handed to him. Specifically, they permitted him to knead the entire dough for him because of the kneader’s livelihood, as the Gemara explains below. But they did not permit him to knead only the ḥalla, which is a small amount and is insufficient to provide the kneader with a livelihood. The early authorities likewise explained in the name of Rabbi Ḥananel, along the lines of Tosafot, but for a different reason: so that the ḥaver kneader’s livelihood would remain available. By prohibiting him from kneading only the ḥalla, no ḥaver would subsequently be found who would do this for him, and he would be forced to hire the ḥaver to knead the entire dough. The kneader’s wage would consequently be greater.

For if the ḥaver agrees to separate ḥalla for him in purity and then gives it to a kohen, the kohen will rely on this and assume that it is pure. In reality, however, it is impure, because it became impure while still in the possession of the am ha-aretz. For the Sages decreed that they have the status of zavim.

But ḥaverim may prepare

the

ordinary dough

of an am ha-aretz

in purity.

That is to say: If the dough was never in the possession of the am ha-aretz, but the ḥaver begins preparing the dough for him from the outset, he may prepare it.

And he takes

the ḥaver

from it the amount required for ḥalla and places it

the ḥalla that he separated

in a kefisha or an anḥuta

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

And when the am ha-aretz comes to take

his dough, he

takes

from the ḥaver

both of them

, both the dough and the ḥalla.

And the ḥaver is not concerned

that perhaps the am ha-aretz will render the ḥalla impure. The reason will be explained below.

And

likewise

the ḥaverim may not

prepare for

in purity

the

tithe of his olives

of an am ha-aretz

in purity.

That is to say: If an am ha-aretz put his olives into a ma’atan [a vessel in which olives are placed so that they will warm before being pressed in the olive press], and asks a ḥaver olive-press worker to separate the teruma from the olives in purity—

he may not do so, because these olives have already become impure through the am ha-aretz. For although an item contracts impurity only if it has first been rendered susceptible to impurity, when olives are placed in a ma’atan, liquid emerges from them that renders the olives susceptible to impurity. Once they have become impure, if the olive-press worker separates the teruma and gives it to a kohen, the kohen will rely on the ḥaver olive-press worker and eat impure teruma.

But ḥaverim may prepare

the

olives

of

his ordinary produce

of an am ha-aretz from the outset

in purity.

If he asks him to press his olives and separate teruma from them before the am ha-aretz has placed them in a ma’atan, he may do so, since they have not yet been rendered susceptible to impurity and are pure.

And

the ḥaver

takes from it the amount required for teruma and places it

the pure teruma

in the vessels of the

the

ḥaver,

so that it 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 ordinary produce and the pure teruma,

and the ḥaver is not concerned

that perhaps he will touch the teruma and render it impure.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the reason

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The Sages permitted this leniency

because of the kneader’s livelihood and because of the olive-press worker’s livelihood,

so that they would have a means of earning what they require for their subsistence.

And it is necessary

to teach this both with regard to dough and with regard to olives.

Because

if it had taught

the beraita this law only with regard to the

kneader,

I would have said that we were lenient only with regard to him

because his wage is not substantial

[his pay is not great]. Since he is poor and needs the money that the am ha-aretz will pay him for his work, he should not be prevented from doing what the am ha-aretz requests.

But with regard to an olive-press worker, whose wage is substantial, perhaps not

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

And if it had taught

this only with regard to an

olive-press worker,

I would have said that we were lenient only with regard to him

because work is not readily available to him

with which to earn a livelihood. For this work is not available throughout the year; rather, the olive-press season occurs only once a year. Therefore, we were lenient with regard to him and did not require concern that the am ha-aretz would render the teruma impure, so as not to deprive him of his livelihood.

But with regard to a kneader, for whom

kneading work is readily available all year, and if he does not agree to accept this dough he can easily find other dough,

perhaps

we would

not

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

Therefore,

it is necessary

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

The Master said: “He takes from it

[from the dough]

the amount required for ḥalla and places it in a kefisha or an anḥuta, 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 that perhaps he will touch it

and the am ha-aretz will render it impure. How can we be lenient, on the basis of “because of his livelihood,” with regard to such a likely concern?

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

we say to him:

Take care not to touch the ḥalla. And

see

[understand]:

if you touch

it

it

and render it impure,

it will revert to tevel.

The dough will once again become tevel and be forbidden to eat.

Since an am ha-aretz is not suspected of eating dough from which ḥalla has not been separated, he will be deterred by this and will not touch the ḥalla.

And we challenge this:

But

still,

let us be concerned that perhaps he does not care

that the dough will revert to its status as tevel, in which case there is once again reason for concern that he will touch the ḥalla and render it impure.

And we answer: He necessarily wants the dough to remain prepared for eating, for

now, he intends to rectify it,

as he instructed the ḥaver to separate ḥalla from it. Could it enter your mind that

he does not care

that it should revert to tevel after it has already been rectified?!

The Master said:

“But ḥaverim may prepare ordinary olives in purity, and

he takes from it the amount required for teruma and places it in the vessels of a ḥaver, 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 that perhaps he will touch it,

the am ha-aretz will touch the teruma, since this concern is even greater here than in the first clause, with regard to the ḥalla of the am ha-aretz.

For

granted, there

with regard to ḥalla,

he has

the am ha-aretz

a sign:

the ḥaver placed the ḥalla for him in a kefisha or an anḥuta, vessels in which it is not customary to place dough, and because of this he will remember that we threatened him not to touch it.

But here, with regard to the teruma of olives,

with regard to the tithe offering of olives,

what sign

does the am ha-aretz have to remind him not to touch the teruma?

And we answer: With what are we dealing here?

The ḥaver places the teruma

the tithe offering

in vessels of dung,

or

in stone vessels,

or

in earthen vessels,

which do not contract impurity.

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

Since 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. Although the Sages decreed that an am ha-aretz has the status of a zav, and a zav renders an item impure through carrying, nevertheless he does not have the status of a full-fledged zav and renders items impure only through touch.

We challenge this again: If the ḥaver places the teruma in vessels that do not contract impurity,

if so, why specifically

does it teach specifically, “He places it in the vessels of a

ḥaver”?

For

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 means:

He places it

in the vessels of an am ha-aretz that are fit for use by

even the

a

ḥaver as well, since they do not contract impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

And we support the hands of gentiles during the Sabbatical Year.

And it entered our minds that “we support” means that we actually assist them in agricultural work during the Sabbatical Year. Therefore, we challenge this:

But do we

support

them in this work?

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

his land

during the Sabbatical Year.

Although the land belongs to the gentile, a Jew may not perform work upon it that is forbidden during the Sabbatical Year. Hoeing is forbidden because it is a form of plowing, which is prohibited by Torah law during the Sabbatical Year.

And

he further said:

One may not extend a greeting of peace twice to a gentile.

For “peace” is one of the names of the Holy One, blessed be He. As a matter of strict law, it was permitted to say this only to a Jew, as we learned at the end of Berakhot. Several sources are cited there for this.

What they permitted one to say “peace” even to a gentile was only because of the ways of peace, and for this, saying it once is sufficient. But they did not permit repeating it and saying, “Peace, peace.”

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

And we answer:

It is necessary

that our Mishna did not permit

anything except saying to them: “

Strengthen yourselves”

in general!

That is to say, one may say to them, while they are engaged in agricultural work, “May your hands be strengthened.” But one may not assist them through action.

As in the case of Rav Yehuda, who 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: “

“

And this too is an expression of strengthening. [unclear: the source uses an Aramaic term whose precise English rendering is uncertain]

The Master said:

And one may not extend a greeting of peace twice to a gentile.

Rav Ḥisda

would

precede them with a greeting of peace

[he would precede the gentiles in extending a greeting of peace].

And

Rav Kahana would say to them: “Peace to you, sir”

[“Peace to my master”], but in his heart he intended this for his teacher, and not as a blessing for the gentile.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may inquire after their welfare

of the gentiles because of the ways of peace.

And we wonder:

Now, even when they are performing an act forbidden to a Jew—such as agricultural work during the Sabbatical Year—the Mishna teaches that

even when they are performing an act that is prohibited for a Jew—for example, agricultural work during the Sabbatical year—the Mishna teaches that

we strengthen them

with words, so that they should be told, “

We inquire after their welfare”

is it necessary

for the tanna to teach this to us?

Rav Yeiva said: It was necessary

for the Mishna to permit

only

inquiring after their welfare

on their festival day.

We are not concerned that perhaps the gentile will come to express gratitude for this to his idolatry.

And

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

Since the gentile considers the Jew so important that he came especially to his house to bless him, there is concern that he may go and offer thanks to his idolatry.

But if

he finds

the gentile

in the marketplace

on his festival day, then

he offers him

greetings

in a subdued tone and with a solemn demeanor!

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

Rav Huna and Rav Hisda were sitting

[they were sitting].

Geniva passed by

[he passed and went]

Geniva

[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 Torah scholar

[a son of Torah]

he is.

His companion said to him:

Would we

rise before a factionalist

[one who causes dispute]

rise,

[are we to stand before this factionalist]!? For Geniva disputed 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

[Geniva approached]

toward them,

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 Geniva]:

“From where do you know that the Sages are called

‘kings’

[from where do you know that the Sages were indeed called kings]!?

He said

[he replied]

to them

Geniva said to Rav Huna and Rav Hisda:

as it is written

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

By me kings reign

and princes decree justice.”

Then

Rav Huna and Rav Hisda said to him

Geniva:

“From where do you know that we repeat

‘greetings’

to kings,

since for that reason you repeated your greeting twice!?

He said

he replied

to them

Geniva:

“As Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that one repeats a greeting to a king?” —

as it is stated:

“And the spirit clothed Amasa, the 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

Geniva:

“Let the master taste something”

[let the master taste something]!

He said

he replied

to them

Geniva: I am forbidden to eat now, because I have not yet fed my animal—

for this is what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A person is forbidden to taste anything until he gives food to his animal.

As it is stated:

“And I will give grass in your field for your animal”,

and afterward it is written

“and you shall eat and be satisfied”!

Thus, the eating of his animal must precede his own eating.

We have concluded Tractate Gittin, chapter HaNizakin

Introduction

This chapter deals with the laws of agency concerning a get, and with the manner in which a na'ara or a ketana can acquire a get for herself, either by herself or through her father. The first Mishna in the chapter “The One Who Sends” had already begun dealing with this subject, but the matter was interrupted by the laws stated there for the sake of tikkun ha-olam or because of the ways of peace.

There are two types of agents: “

An agent for delivery,” appointed by the husband, and “an agent for receipt,” appointed by the wife. The Gemara in Kiddushin [41a] derives both of them from the biblical verses in the section concerning divorce: “And he shall send” teaches that he may appoint an agent; “and she shall be sent” teaches that she may appoint an agent. “

An agent for delivery” is an agent whom the husband appoints to bring the get to the wife. The divorce does not take effect until the husband’s agent hands the get either to the wife or to her agent.

Even though no legal status of divorce takes effect when the husband gives the get to his agent, the husband must nevertheless appoint him as an agent to deliver the get to the wife; he cannot transfer the get to the wife without an appointment of agency. For the Torah states: “And he shall write for her a scroll of severance

and place it in her hand

and send her from his house.” The verse teaches that the husband must give the wife the get from his hand into her hand. In order for this to be considered “from his hand into her hand” even when the husband gives her the get through another person, the husband must appoint that person as his agent, so that the matter is considered as though the husband himself gave the get from his hand into her hand. “

An agent for receipt” is an agent whom the wife appoints to receive the get from her husband,

and the law of an agent for receipt differs from that of an agent for delivery, for an agent for receipt is considered to stand in the wife’s place. Once the get reaches the agent for receipt, it is as though it has reached the wife, and she becomes divorced immediately upon the agent’s receipt of it.

According to Rambam [Divorce 6:4], there is an additional type of agent: an “agent for bringing,” whom the wife appoints to bring her the get and to be considered like her hand. This makes it as though the get was delivered directly from the husband’s hand to the wife’s hand, but she becomes divorced only when the get comes into her hand. Its law is like that of an agent for delivery whom the husband appoints to deliver the get.

When a husband appoints an agent using the expression “receive,” since he cannot appoint an “agent for receipt,” the agent is considered an agent for delivery.

A wife who appoints an agent for receipt requires the husband’s consent that she become divorced through the agent’s receipt. If he does not consent, he uproots her agency, and the agent becomes an agent for delivering the get to the wife alone.

Therefore, when the husband hands the get to the agent for receipt, the husband must say to him in wording that indicates his consent for the agent to be an agent for receipt;

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