## Gittin Daf 61b

###### Gittin 61b:1
[Gittin 61b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:1)

טוֹחֲנִין וּמַפְקִידִין אֵצֶל אוֹכְלֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וְאֵצֶל אוֹכְלֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן בְּטוּמְאָה; אֲבָל לֹא לְאוֹכְלֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וְלֹא לְאוֹכְלֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן בְּטוּמְאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One may grind** one’s tithed produce **and deposit** it **with those who eat Sabbatical-**Year produce **and those who eat their own produce in** a state of **impurity,** because there is no concern that they will exchange this produce with Sabbatical-Year produce or with impure produce, or that they will touch the produce. **But** one may **not** grind **for those who eat Sabbatical-**Year produce **or for those who eat their own produce in** a state of **impurity,** so as not to assist them in committing a transgression. This is difficult according to Rava’s explanation of the mishna, that the wife of a *ḥaver* may grind non-sacred produce with the wife of an *am ha’aretz*, who eats his own produce in a state of ritual impurity.


###### Gittin 61b:2
[Gittin 61b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:2)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָתָם, בְּכֹהֵן הֶחָשׁוּד לֶאֱכוֹל תְּרוּמָה בְּטוּמְאָה עָסְקִינַן – דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: There,** in that *baraita*, **we are dealing with a priest who is suspected with regard to partaking of *teruma* in** a state of **ritual impurity, which** involves a prohibition of **impurity by Torah law.**


###### Gittin 61b:3
[Gittin 61b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:3)

אִי הָכִי, מַפְקִידִין?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: מַפְקִידִין תְּרוּמָה אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְלֹא אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** if the *baraita* is referring to a priest, how then may one **deposit** tithed produce with him? The Gemara **raises a contradiction** from that which was taught in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Demai* 4:28): **One may deposit *teruma* with an Israelite** who is **an *am ha’aretz*.** Although he is not meticulous about the *halakhot* of purity, there is no concern that he will defile the *teruma*. **But** one may **not** deposit *teruma* **with a priest** who is **an *am ha’aretz* because he is accustomed** to having *teruma*, and therefore he might not treat it properly and will touch and defile it.


###### Gittin 61b:4
[Gittin 61b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ הַמּוּקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ile’a says: With what are we dealing here,** in the previously mentioned *baraita*, which teaches that one may deposit his tithed produce with one who eats his own produce in a state of ritual purity? This is referring to a case where one deposited the produce **in an earthenware vessel with a tightly bound cover.** In such a case, there is no concern that the priest who is suspected of partaking of *teruma* in a state of ritual impurity will touch the produce and render it impure.


###### Gittin 61b:5
[Gittin 61b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:5)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא תְּסִיטֶנּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let** there nevertheless **be a concern lest** the priest’s **menstruating wife move** the vessel and impart ritual impurity to the produce inside it. A menstruating woman imparts impurity to the produce inside the vessel through moving it, even if the contents are tightly sealed in the vessel, and she does not come into direct contact with the contents.


###### Gittin 61b:6
[Gittin 61b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:6)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ, כָּאן בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says** that this is **not difficult. Here,** where it is prohibited to deposit produce with a priest who is suspected with regard to partaking of *teruma* in a state of ritual impurity, we are dealing with **produce that** came into contact with a liquid and **became susceptible** to contracting ritual impurity. Consequently, there is concern that the priest may impart impurity to it. **There,** where it is permitted to deposit produce with such a priest, we are dealing with **produce that has not** yet **become susceptible** to contracting ritual impurity, in which case there is no concern that the priest will impart impurity to it.


###### Gittin 61b:7
[Gittin 61b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:7)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּין לְטָחוֹן כּוּתִי אוֹ לְטָחוֹן עַם הָאָרֶץ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקָתָן לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְלִשְׁבִיעִית, אֲבָל לֹא לְטוּמְאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from what is taught in a mishna (*Demai* 3:4): With regard to **one who takes** tithed **wheat to a Samaritan grinder or to a grinder who is an *am ha’aretz*,** the wheat retains **its presumptive status with regard to tithes and Sabbatical-**Year produce, as there is no concern that the grinder switched the grain. **But** the wheat does **not** retain its presumptive status **with regard to impurity,** as there is concern that perhaps the grinder touched it and rendered it impure.


###### Gittin 61b:8
[Gittin 61b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:8)

הַאי מַאי רוּמְיָא? לָאו אוֹקֵימְנָא בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What contradiction is** there here? **Did we not establish** that the *baraita* that permits depositing produce is dealing with **produce that has not** yet **become susceptible** to contracting ritual impurity, and so it does not become impure when touched by an impure person? Here, the mishna in tractate *Demai* is dealing with produce that already became susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and therefore there is concern that the produce will be rendered impure.


###### Gittin 61b:9
[Gittin 61b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:9)

וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ – מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִירְמֵי אַחֲרִיתִי עֲלַהּ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקָתָן לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְלִשְׁבִיעִית, וּלְחַלּוֹפֵי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And he who asked** the question, **why did he ask it?** Wasn’t this answer already stated earlier? The Gemara answers: The one who asked the question cited this mishna only **because he wished to raise a contradiction to it from another** mishna, as according to this mishna the wheat that was brought to the suspect grinder retains **its presumptive status with regard to tithes and Sabbatical-**Year produce, **and we are not concerned that** perhaps the grinder **exchanged** the grain he had received with grain of his own that was forbidden in some way.


###### Gittin 61b:10
[Gittin 61b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:10)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַנּוֹתֵן לַחֲמוֹתוֹ, מְעַשֵּׂר אֵת שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ וְאֵת שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדָה מַחְלֶפֶת הַמִּתְקַלְקֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** to this from what was taught in a mishna (*Demai* 3:6): With regard to **one who gives** food **to his mother-in-law,** who is the wife of an *am ha’aretz*, so that she may prepare it for him, **he must tithe** everything **that he gives her and** everything **that he takes from her.** This is **because she is suspected of exchanging** any food received from him **that was spoiled** with her own food that was not spoiled. Perhaps, then, she did not return the food that he had given her but rather food that was not yet tithed. In this mishna, there is concern that an *am ha’aretz* may exchange produce that he received with produce of his own.


###### Gittin 61b:11
[Gittin 61b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:11)

הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: רוֹצֶה הִיא בְּתַקָּנַת בִּתָּהּ, וּבוֹשָׁה מֵחֲתָנָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **there** the concern is for **the reason that was** explicitly **taught** in that mishna: **Rabbi Yehuda said:** His mother-in-law **wants** what is **good for her daughter,** that she not eat anything that is spoiled, **and she is ashamed before her son-in-law** to tell him that he had given her something that was spoiled. For this reason, she does not tell him that she exchanged the food.


###### Gittin 61b:12
[Gittin 61b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:12)

וּלְעָלְמָא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן?! וְהָתְנַן: הַנּוֹתֵן לַפּוּנְדָּקִית, מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּחְלֶפֶת! הָתָם מוֹרְיָא וְאָמְרָה: בַּר בֵּי רַב לֵיכוֹל חַמִּימָא, וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל קָרִירָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is this to say that in the case of **ordinary** people **we are not concerned** that food will be exchanged in a similar situation? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Demai* 3:5): If **one gives** food **to an innkeeper [*pundakit*]** so that she can prepare it for him, **he must tithe** everything **that he gives her and** everything **that he takes from her, because she exchanges** the food received from him with food of her own? This indicates that the concern is not limited to the case of a mother-in-law. The Gemara answers: **There,** the innkeeper **rules** for herself that it is permitted for her to do this **and says:** Why **should** this **student** of Torah **eat hot** food **while I will eat cold** food? In other words, the innkeeper may justify her behavior to herself and exchange his food for hers.


###### Gittin 61b:13
[Gittin 61b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/61b:13)

וְאַכַּתִּי, לְעָלְמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן?! וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר טוֹחֶנֶת עִם אֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה לֹא תִּטְחוֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲבֶרְתָּהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And still,** in the case of **ordinary** people, **are we not concerned** about food being switched? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Teharot* 8:4): **The wife of a *ḥaver* may grind with the wife of an *am ha’aretz* when she,** the wife of the *ḥaver*, **is impure,** e.g., when she is menstruating and therefore careful not to touch food. And there is no concern that she will come to eat untithed produce. **But** she may **not** do this **when she is pure. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may not grind even when she is impure, because the other** woman, the wife of the *am ha’aretz*,