Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 61a

there is no difference of opinion between the Rabbis and R. Jose.¹  Where they differ is when fishhooks and traps²  [are used].

[TO TAKE AWAY] ANYTHING FOUND BY A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR … R. JOSE SAYS THAT THIS IS ACTUAL ROBBERY. R. Hisda says: [R. Jose means], actual robbery according to the Rabbis.³  'What [then] is the practical effect of R. Jose's ruling? — That the article can be recovered by process of law.⁴

IF A POOR MAN IS GLEANING THE TOP OF AN OLIVE TREE, TO TAKE THE FRUIT BENEATH HIM. A Tanna taught: If the poor man had gathered the fruit and placed it on the ground with his hands, to take it is actual robbery.⁵  R. Kahana was once going to Huzal⁶  when he saw a man throwing sticks [at a tree] and bringing dates down,⁷  so he went and picked up some and ate them. Said the other to him: See, Sir, that I have thrown them down with my own hands. He said to him: You are from the same place as R. Josiah.⁸  and he applied to him the verse, The righteous man is the foundation of the world.⁹

THE POOR OF THE HEATHEN ARE NOT PREVENTED FROM GATHERING GLEANINGS, FORGOTTEN SHEAVES AND THE CORNER OF THE FIELD, TO AVOID ILL FEELING. Our Rabbis have taught: 'We support the poor of the heathen along with the poor of Israel, and visit the sick of the heathen along with the sick of Israel, and bury the poor of the heathen along with the dead of Israel,¹⁰  in the interests of peace'.

MISHNAH. A WOMAN MAY LEND TO ANOTHER WHO IS SUSPECTED OF NOT OBSERVING THE SABBATICAL YEAR¹¹  A FAN OR A SIEVE OR A HANDMILL OR A STOVE, BUT SHE SHOULD NOT SIFT OR GRIND WITH HER. THE WIFE OF A HABER¹²  MAY LEND TO THE WIFE OF AN 'AM HA-AREZ¹²  A FAN OR A SIEVE AND MAY WINNOW AND GRIND AND SIFT WITH HER, BUT ONCE SHE HAS POURED WATER OVER THE FLOUR SHE SHOULD NOT TOUCH ANYTHING WITH HER, BECAUSE IT IS NOT RIGHT TO ASSIST THOSE WHO COMMIT A TRANSGRESSION.¹³  ALL THESE RULES¹⁴  WERE LAID DOWN ONLY IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. HEATHENS MAY BE ASSISTED¹⁵  IN THE SABBATICAL YEAR BUT NOT ISRAELITES, AND GREETING MAY BE GIVEN TO THEM, IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE.¹⁶

GEMARA. Why is the rule in the first case¹⁷  different from that in the second?¹⁸  — Abaye said: Most 'amme ha-arez separate their tithes.¹⁹  Raba said: [We are speaking] here of the 'am ha-arez [specified] by R. Meir²⁰  and the cleanness and uncleanness recognised [only] by the Rabbis,²¹  as it has been taught: Who is an 'am ha-arez? One who does not insist on eating ordinary food in a ritually clean condition.²²  So R. Meir. The Sages, however, say it is one who does not tithe his produce. But since it says in the later clause of the Mishnah, ONCE SHE HAS POURED WATER OVER THE FLOUR SHE SHOULD NOT TOUCH ANYTHING WITH HER,²³  does not this show that the earlier clause²⁴  is not speaking of cleanness and uncleanness?²⁵  — Both the earlier and the later clause speak of cleanness and uncleanness, the former, however, of the uncleanness of ordinary food and the latter of that of the hallah.²⁶

The following was adduced in contradiction:²⁷

1. As these, having a hollow, certainly confer ownership on the one who set them, and to take the contents would be robbery.
2. Made of little joists.
3. And not according to the Torah.
4. But the robber is not disqualified from giving evidence, whereas according to the Rabbis the article cannot even be recovered by process of law.
5. Because by handling it he had acquired possession.
6. [Between Neahardea and Sura (Obermeyer, op. cit. p. 300).]
7. So Rashi. Tosaf., however, translates, 'was throwing down twigs (which he cut of) from a tree, and dates fell off,' which certainly renders the incident more intelligible.
8. And have learnt from his teaching.
9. Prov. X, 25. E.V., 'the righteous is an everlasting foundation.'
10. I.e., if there is no-one else to bury them, but not in the same cemetery.
11. I.e., of keeping produce which has been gathered after the inauguration of the Sabbatical year.
12. V. Glos.
13. In the case of the Sabbatical year, by breaking the precept of eating produce of the year; in the case of the 'am ha-arez, the (Rabbinical) precept of preserving the loaf from uncleanness.
14. That assistance may be given other than at the time of the actual breaking of the precept.
15. To what extent is discussed in the Gemara.
16. V. supra p. 279, n. 1.
17. Not to grind with one who does not observe the Sabbatical year.
18. That grinding may be done with the wife of an 'am ha-arez.
19. And with the ordinary 'am ha-arez this would be forbidden.
20. Whereas the first clause deals with a woman who is suspected in regard to the Sabbatical year.
21. Being only Rabbinic we need not be so particular.
22. Even though he is careful about tithes.
23. Apparently because the water renders the flour capable of becoming unclean.
24. That she shall not sift etc.
25. I.e., that the reason is not anything to do with uncleanness, and must therefore be because of tithe.
26. Lit., 'loaf': 'the first of the dough' which had to be offered as a heave-offering. Num. XV, 19. As this was a precept of the Torah, greater care had to be exercised not to assist in its transgression.
27. Of the statement that it is permitted to help an 'am ha-arez to grind.

'It is allowed to grind corn and to deposit it with those who eat produce of the Sabbatical year and those who eat their produce in uncleanness,¹  but not for those who eat the produce of the Sabbatical year and for those who eat their produce in uncleanness'? — Abaye replied: 'We are dealing there with a priest who is suspected of eating terumah in uncleanness, the uncleanness there being of a kind recognised by the Torah. If that is so, how could the food be entrusted to him? 'Would not that contradict the following: 'Terumah may be entrusted to an Israelite 'am ha-arez but not to a priest 'am ha-arez, because he might take liberties with it?'²  — R. Elai said: 'We are speaking here of [produce in] an earthenware vessel with a close fitting cover.³  But is there not a danger that his wife might move it while niddah?⁴  — R. Jeremiah replied: [Even so] there is no contradiction: in the one case we speak of produce which has become capable of receiving uncleanness,⁵  in the other of produce which is not so capable.⁶

A further contradiction was raised:⁷  'If a man takes wheat to a miller who is a Cuthean⁸  or a heathen, it is presumed to remain in its original condition⁹  as regards tithe or Sabbatical produce, but not as regards uncleanness'?¹⁰  — 'What refutation is there here? Have you not just explained that the reference is to produce which has not been rendered capable of receiving uncleanness?¹¹  'What then was the point of the question? — Because the questioner wanted to adduce another contradiction¹²  [as follows]; [You have just said], It is presumed to have remained in its original condition as regards tithe and Sabbatical year, that is to say, we have no fear of its having been changed. This seems to contradict the following: If a man [a haber] gives produce to his mother-in-law [the wife of an 'am ha-arez],¹³  he tithes what he gives to her¹⁴  and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of changing anything that becomes spoilt?¹⁵  — There the reason is as was stated: 'R. Judah said; She is anxious for the well-being of her daughter and she is ashamed for her son-in-law.' But in general are we not afraid [of food being changed]? Have we not learnt:¹⁶  'If a student gives produce to the mistress of his boarding house, he tithes what he gives to her and what he takes back from her, because she is likely to change it'? — There she finds an excuse for herself, saying. Let the student eat hot and I will eat cold.¹⁷  And still we ask, in general are we not afraid? Has it not been taught: 'The wife of a haber can grind along with the wife of an 'am ha-arez, when she is ritually unclean,¹⁸  but not when she is ritually clean.¹⁹  R. Simeon b. Eleazar says; Even when she is ritually unclean she should not grind with her, because the other

1. We do not fear lest they exchange it for some produce of their own or defile it by touching it.
2. Being used to eating terumah.
3. Which does not become unclean by touching, v. Hul. 24b.
4. V. Glos. This is known as hesset, a defilement communicated by moving an object without actually touching it.
5. By means of a liquid, v. Lev. XI, 38.
6. And it is this which may be entrusted to a priest who is suspected of eating terumah in uncleanness.
7. V. Demai III, 4.
8. V. Glos.
9. I.e., not to have been exchanged or mixed.
10. I.e., it may have been touched by the miller, whereas in the first Baraitha it is permitted.
11. I.e., grain on which water has not yet fallen.
12. I.e., not on the point of uncleanness but of tithe etc.
13. To prepare a dish for him.
14. So that she should not through him eat something untithed.
15. Demai III, 6.
16. [This is no Mishnah, and preference is to be given to [H] in MS.M.]
17. Al. 'Is the student to eat hot and I cold?' V. Tosaf.
18. Because she is not likely to put anything in her mouth.
19. Because being clean she might inadvertently put untithed food in her mouth.