Talmud - Hagigah 25b חגיגה כ״ה ב׳

In the case of a ḥaver and an am ha’aretz, who are brothers and inherited property from their father, who was also an am ha’aretz, the ḥaver can say to his am ha’aretz brother: You take the wheat that is in such and such a place and I will take the wheat that is in such and such a place. The ḥaver knows that the former batch of wheat had been made susceptible to impurity, and he would therefore have no use for it, while the latter batch had not been made susceptible to impurity.

The mishna continues: Similarly, the ḥaver brother may say to the am ha’aretz brother: You take the wine that is in such and such a place and I will take the wine that is in such and such a place. The ḥaver knows that the latter batch of wine has not been rendered impure, and he wants to take that batch as his share. When brothers inherit a quantity of a certain item they will each end up receiving an equal share of that item. Therefore, the principle of retroactive designation applies, meaning that it is considered that whatever portion any particular brother receives in the end is the one that had been designated for him as his inheritance from the beginning. It is not considered to be a trade or a business transaction with the other brothers in exchange for their portions.

The mishna continues: But the ḥaver brother may not say to the am ha’aretz brother: You take the wet produce and I will take the dry produce. Nor may he say: You take the wheat, and I will take the barley. The principle of retroactive designation does not apply to objects of different types. If one brother would take wheat and the other barley it would be considered a trade. And it is prohibited for a ḥaver to sell or transfer impure produce or produce that is susceptible to impurity to an am ha’aretz, who does not strictly follow the principles of purity, as this would involve the prohibition of “You shall not place a stumbling-block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14).

And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna: If the ḥaver receives a share that consists of some items that are wet and some that are dry, that ḥaver must burn the wet produce if it was teruma, as it has certainly been defiled and impure teruma is burned, but he may leave the dry produce and use it, as it can be assumed that it has not been defiled.

The Gemara draws a conclusion based on this baraita: Why must he burn the wet teruma? Let him leave it over until the following winepress season, during which time teruma from an am ha’aretz is considered pure. The fact that this option is not taken into account indicates that one may not intentionally leave over teruma received from an am ha’aretz until the next winepress season, which would resolve the dilemma presented to Rav Sheshet. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is referring to something that does not have a winepress, i.e., to liquids that are never used in the Temple service, as amei ha’aretz are careful only with regard to liquids that may be used in the Temple service. The Gemara asks: Even so, there is another option: And let him leave it for the next pilgrimage Festival, for the mishna later teaches (26a) that amei ha’aretz are assumed to observe all laws of ritual purity on Festivals. The Gemara answers: It is referring to something that would not last until the next pilgrimage Festival, but which would spoil beforehand. The dilemma presented to Rav Sheshet therefore remains unresolved.

§ It was taught in the mishna: And if the giver says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma a quarter-log of sacrificial wine or oil, he is deemed credible. The Gemara proceeds to cite a mishna in tractate Oholot, the discussion of which ultimately relates to this mishna here: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Oholot 18:4): Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may examine the ground for those performing the paschal offering, but one may not examine the ground for those who eat teruma.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: One may examine? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may blow at the ground of a beit haperas and walk through it as he does so. A beit haperas is a patch of ground with a grave in it that was subsequently plowed over. The Sages were concerned that there might be small pieces of human bone scattered in the field, which would impart impurity to anyone moving them with his foot. Therefore, they decreed that whoever traverses such a field becomes impure. However, the Sages allowed one to pass through the field while maintaining his purity if he blows on the ground as he goes, the assumption being that any small pieces of bone would thereby be blown out of his path. This is the examination to which this mishna refers. The mishna teaches that this examination is sufficient to allow one to retain his purity as he goes to perform the paschal offering, but not to allow one to retain his purity with regard to the eating of teruma.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Ulla: A beit haperas that has been trodden by passersby who have beaten a path through it is considered pure for those who are on their way to perform the paschal offering, as the assumption is that no more bone fragments remain on the surface of the ground. The examination referred to in the mishna, then, is referring to ascertaining whether a particular beit haperas has been trodden or not. The reason for this leniency is that the impure status of a beit haperas is only a rabbinical decree, and the Sages did not uphold their words decreeing the field to be impure in a place where this affects one’s ability to perform a mitzva involving karet; and failure to bring a paschal offering is punishable by karet.

However, with regard to those who wish to eat teruma after traversing a beit haperas, the Sages did uphold their words decreeing the field to be impure in a place of a sin involving the punishment of death by God’s hand. The sin of eating teruma in a state of impurity is punishable by death by God’s hand, and the Sages were therefore strict in insisting that one not eat it after traversing a beit haperas.

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: If one examined a beit haperas for the purpose of bringing his paschal offering, what is the halakha with regard to teruma after he has traversed the field? Is it permissible that he can rely on this examination to eat his teruma as well, since his passage through the field has been established as not having defiled him? Ulla said: If he examined the ground for purposes of bringing his paschal offering, he is permitted afterward to eat his teruma, for once he is declared pure with regard to the offerings it would be inconsistent to declare him at the same time impure with regard to teruma. But Rabba bar Ulla said: If one examined the ground for purposes of bringing his paschal offering, it is prohibited for him to eat his teruma.

A certain older man said to Rabba bar Ulla: Do not argue with Ulla, as we learned in the mishna in accordance with his opinion, for the mishna states: And if the am ha’aretz says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma a quarter-log of sacrificial wine or oil, he is deemed credible. Apparently, then, once the am ha’aretz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial items in the barrel he is also deemed credible with regard to the teruma in it. Here too, the same principle should be applied, so once he is deemed credible and is considered pure with regard to the paschal offering, he is also deemed credible with regard to teruma.

§ It was taught in the mishna: Concerning jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are mingled, amei ha’aretz are deemed credible during the period of the winepress and the olive press. A Sage taught in a baraita: Amei ha’aretz are not deemed credible, neither with regard to flasks nor with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: Flasks of what? If it is referring to flasks of sacrificial food, since an am ha’aretz is deemed credible concerning the sacrificial items it contains, he must necessarily be deemed credible concerning the flasks as well. Rather, it is referring to flasks of teruma. But this is obvious: Now, if he is not deemed credible concerning the teruma itself, is it possible that he would be deemed credible concerning the flasks containing it?

The Gemara answers: Rather, it is referring to empty flasks that had contained sacrificial food during the rest of the days of the year, i.e., during all the days of the year, for an am ha’aretz is deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food throughout the year, yet he is not deemed credible with regard to its flask once the food has been removed, and it is referring as well to flasks full of teruma wine during the period of the winepress, when they are deemed credible with regard to the teruma itself, but not the vessels.

The Gemara asks a question: We learned in the mishna: With regard to jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are mingled [meduma], amei ha’aretz are deemed credible during the period of the winepress and the olive press, and seventy days before the winepress. The Gemara asks: What, is it not so that mingled means that there is a mixture of teruma oil or wine in the jug, and yet the mishna states that amei ha’aretz are deemed credible with regard to the jugs? This would appear to contradict the ruling of the baraita that they are not deemed credible with regard to flasks containing teruma. The Gemara answers: In the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya they say that the mishna in fact is referring to ordinary oil or wine mingled with sacrificial wine or oil, so that it contains a certain amount of sacrificial liquid.

The Gemara asks: And does the concept of meduma apply to sacrificial foods at all? This term meduma applies only to teruma, not to sacrificial items. In the school of Rabbi Elai they say that the halakha of the mishna is stated with regard to one who is keeping his wine tevel, i.e., produce from which the requisite teruma and tithes have not yet been separated, in purity, because he intends to take wine for libations from it. It is therefore in a sense a mixture of sacrificial food, teruma and non-sacred food all in one, and accordingly the term meduma is applicable. The mishna is teaching that since the am ha’aretz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial food in this mixture, he is also deemed credible with regard to the teruma and the jugs.

§ It is taught in the mishna that apart from the period of the winepress itself, amei ha’aretz are also deemed credible seventy days before the period of the winepress. Abaye said: You can learn from here, incidental to the laws of purity, that the law is that a tenant farmer in a vineyard must make the effort of acquiring flasks for the wine seventy days before the time of the winepress, for the mishna considers this amount of time the period of preparation for the pressing of grapes.

MISHNA: From Modi’im and inward toward Jerusalem, i.e., in the area surrounding Jerusalem, up to the distance of the town of Modi’im, which is fifteen mil from Jerusalem, all potters, including amei ha’aretz, are deemed credible with regard to the purity of earthenware vessels that they have produced. Because these places supplied earthenware vessels for the people in Jerusalem, the Sages did not decree impurity for them. From Modi’im and outward, however, they are not deemed credible. The details of this ruling are specified: How so? A potter who sells pots, if he entered within Modi’im from outside it, although the potter, and the pots, and the customers were all previously located outside Modi’im, where he is not deemed credible with regard to purity, he is now deemed credible. And the opposite is true of the opposite case: If the same person who was deemed credible inside left the boundaries of Modi’im, he is no longer deemed credible.

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita: With regard to Modi’im itself, there are times that it is considered like inside the perimeter surrounding Jerusalem, and there are times that it is considered like outside that perimeter. How so? If a potter is leaving the perimeter and a ḥaver is entering it, and they meet in Modi’im, it is considered like inside, and the ḥaver may purchase the jugs. However, if both are entering the perimeter

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chagiga 25b explores how a haver and an am ha’aretz sibling divide inherited wheat and wine while navigating ritual purity laws and retroactive inheritance designation.