Gittin 122

טוחנין ומפקידין אצל אוכלי שביעית ואצל אוכלי פירותיהן בטומאה אבל לא לאוכלי שביעית ולא לאוכלי פירותיהן בטומאה

'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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We do not fear lest they exchange it for some produce of their own or defile it by touching it. ');">¹</span>

אמר אביי התם בכהן החשוד לאכול תרומה בטומאה עסקינן דהוה ליה טומאה דאורייתא

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 <i>terumah</i> 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?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being used to eating terumah. ');">²</span>

אי הכי מפקידין ורמינהו מפקידין תרומה אצל ישראל עם הארץ ולא אצל כהן ע"ה מפני שלבו גס בה

— R. Elai said: 'We are speaking here of [produce in] an earthenware vessel with a close fitting cover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not become unclean by touching, v. Hul. 24b. ');">³</span>

א"ר אילעא הכא במאי עסקינן בכלי חרש המוקף צמיד פתיל

But is there not a danger that his wife might move it while <i>niddah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. This is known as hesset, a defilement communicated by moving an object without actually touching it. ');">⁴</span>

וליחוש שמא תסיטנו אשתו נדה

— R. Jeremiah replied: [Even so] there is no contradiction: in the one case we speak of produce which has become capable of receiving uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of a liquid, v. Lev. XI, 38. ');">⁵</span>

אלא א"ר ירמיה לא קשיא כאן בפירות שהוכשרו כאן בפירות שלא הוכשרו

in the other of produce which is not so capable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is this which may be entrusted to a priest who is suspected of eating terumah in uncleanness. ');">⁶</span>

ורמינהו המוליך חטין לטוחן כותי או לטוחן ע"ה הרי אלו בחזקתן למעשר ולשביעית אבל לא לטומאה

A further contradiction was raised:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Demai III, 4. ');">⁷</span>

האי מאי רומיא לאו אוקימנא בפירות שלא הוכשרו

'If a man takes wheat to a miller who is a Cuthean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span>

ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה משום דקא בעי למירמי אחריתי עלה הרי אלו בחזקתן למעשר ולשביעית ולחלופי לא חיישינן

or a heathen, it is presumed to remain in its original condition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not to have been exchanged or mixed. ');">⁹</span>

ורמינהו הנותן לחמותו מעשר את שהוא נותן לה ואת שהוא נוטל הימנה מפני שחשודה מחלפת המתקלקל

as regards tithe or Sabbatical produce, but not as regards uncleanness'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it may have been touched by the miller, whereas in the first Baraitha it is permitted. ');">¹⁰</span>

התם כדקתני טעמא אמר רבי יהודה רוצה היא בתקנת בתה ובושה מחתנה

— '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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., grain on which water has not yet fallen. ');">¹¹</span>

ולעלמא לא חיישינן והתנן הנותן לפונדקית מעשר את שהוא נותן לה ואת שהוא נוטל הימנה מפני שמחלפת התם מוריא ואמרה בר בי רב ליכול חמימא ואנא איכול קרירא

'What then was the point of the question? — Because the questioner wanted to adduce another contradiction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not on the point of uncleanness but of tithe etc. ');">¹²</span>

ואכתי לעלמא לא חיישינן והתניא אשת חבר טוחנת עם אשת עם הארץ בזמן שהיא טמאה אבל לא בזמן שהיא טהורה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אף בזמן שהיא טמאה לא תטחון מפני שחברתה

[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],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prepare a dish for him. ');">¹³</span> he tithes what he gives to her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that she should not through him eat something untithed. ');">¹⁴</span> and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of changing anything that becomes spoilt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Demai III, 6. ');">¹⁵</span> — 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is no Mishnah, and preference is to be given to [H] in MS.M.] ');">¹⁶</span> '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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Al. 'Is the student to eat hot and I cold?' V. Tosaf. ');">¹⁷</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she is not likely to put anything in her mouth. ');">¹⁸</span> but not when she is ritually clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because being clean she might inadvertently put untithed food in her mouth. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Simeon b. Eleazar says; Even when she is ritually unclean she should not grind with her, because the other