## Chagigah Daf 25b

###### Chagigah 25b:1
[Chagigah 25b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:1)

חָבֵר וְעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶם עַם הָאָרֶץ, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: טוֹל אַתָּה חִטִּין שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וַאֲנִי חִטִּין שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 25b:2
[Chagigah 25b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:2)

טוֹל אַתָּה יַיִן שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וַאֲנִי יַיִן שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 25b:3
[Chagigah 25b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:3)

אֲבָל לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: טוֹל אַתָּה לַח וַאֲנִי יָבֵשׁ, טוֹל אַתָּה חִטִּין וַאֲנִי שְׂעוֹרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Chagigah 25b:4
[Chagigah 25b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:4)

וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אוֹתוֹ חָבֵר שׂוֹרֵף הַלַּח, וּמַנִּיחַ אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 25b:5
[Chagigah 25b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:5)

אַמַּאי? יַנִּיחֶנָּה לַגַּת הַבָּאָה! בַּדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גַּת. וְיַנִּיחֶנּוּ לָרֶגֶל! בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַּמֵּר לָרֶגֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 25b:6
[Chagigah 25b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:6)

וְאִם אָמַר הִפְרַשְׁתִּי לְתוֹכָהּ רְבִיעִית קֹדֶשׁ — נֶאֱמָן. תְּנַן הָתָם: מוֹדִין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין לְעוֹשֵׂי פֶסַח, וְאֵין בּוֹדְקִין לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*.**


###### Chagigah 25b:7
[Chagigah 25b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:7)

מַאי בּוֹדְקִין? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְנַפֵּחַ אָדָם בֵּית הַפְּרָס וְהוֹלֵךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Chagigah 25b:8
[Chagigah 25b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:8)

וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס שֶׁנִּדַּשׁ — טָהוֹר לְעוֹשֵׂי פֶסַח. לֹא הֶעֱמִידוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶן בִּמְקוֹם כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Chagigah 25b:9
[Chagigah 25b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:9)

לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה הֶעֱמִידוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶן בִּמְקוֹם מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Chagigah 25b:10
[Chagigah 25b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בָּדַק לְפִסְחוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָתוֹ? עוּלָּא אָמַר: בָּדַק לְפִסְחוֹ — מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָתוֹ. רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר: בָּדַק לְפִסְחוֹ — אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.**


###### Chagigah 25b:11
[Chagigah 25b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: לָא תִּפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא, דִּתְנַן כְּווֹתֵיהּ: וְאִם אָמַר הִפְרַשְׁתִּי לְתוֹכָהּ רְבִיעִית קֹדֶשׁ — נֶאֱמָן, אַלְמָא: מִדִּמְהֵימַן אַקֹּדֶשׁ מְהֵימַן נָמֵי אַתְּרוּמָה, הָכָא נָמֵי: מִדִּמְהֵימַן אַפֶּסַח, מְהֵימַן נָמֵי אַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.**


###### Chagigah 25b:12
[Chagigah 25b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:12)

כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לֹא עַל הַקַּנְקַנִּים וְלֹא עַל הַתְּרוּמָה. קַנְקַנִּים דְּמַאי? אִי קַנְקַנִּים דְּקֹדֶשׁ — מִיגּוֹ דִּמְהֵימַן אַקֹּדֶשׁ, מְהֵימַן נָמֵי אַקַּנְקַנִּים! אֶלָּא קַנְקַנִּים דִּתְרוּמָה — פְּשִׁיטָא, הַשְׁתָּא אַתְּרוּמָה לָא מְהֵימַן, אַקַּנְקַנִּים מְהֵימַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Chagigah 25b:13
[Chagigah 25b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:13)

אֶלָּא בְּרֵיקָנִים דְּקֹדֶשׁ וּבִשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, וּבִמְלֵאִין דִּתְרוּמָה וּבִשְׁעַת הַגִּיתּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 25b:14
[Chagigah 25b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:14)

תְּנַן: כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן הַמְדוּמָּעוֹת. מַאי לָאו, מְדוּמָּעוֹת דִּתְרוּמָה. אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מְדוּמָּעוֹת דְּקֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 25b:15
[Chagigah 25b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:15)

וּמִי אִיכָּא דִּימּוּעַ לְקֹדֶשׁ? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בִּמְטַהֵר אֶת טִבְלוֹ לִיטּוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ נְסָכִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 25b:16
[Chagigah 25b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:16)

קוֹדֶם לַגִּיתּוֹת שִׁבְעִים יוֹם. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: דִּינָא הוּא דְּעִילָּוֵי אֲרִיסָא לְמִיטְרַח אַגּוּלְפֵי שִׁבְעִים יוֹמִין מִקַּמֵּי מַעְצַרְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chagigah 25b:17
[Chagigah 25b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִים וְלִפְנִים נֶאֱמָנִין עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶס. מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִים וְלַחוּץ — אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין. כֵּיצַד? הַקַּדָּר שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר הַקְּדֵרוֹת, נִכְנַס לִפְנִים מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִים, הוּא הַקַּדָּר וְהֵן הַקְּדֵרוֹת וְהֵן הַלּוֹקְחִין — נֶאֱמָן, יָצָא — אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chagigah 25b:18
[Chagigah 25b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/25b:18)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא: מוֹדִיעִים — פְּעָמִים כְּלִפְנִים, פְּעָמִים כְּלַחוּץ. כֵּיצַד? קַדָּר יוֹצֵא וְחָבֵר נִכְנָס — כְּלִפְנִים. שְׁנֵיהֶן נִכְנָסִין

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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