Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that in Yehudah during the pressing season, the Amei ha'Aretz were believed to say that their Hekdesh wine and oil was Tahor. Specifically in Yehudah - because the strip of land belonging to Nochrim that divided between them cut out any possibility of transporting any Hekdesh from Galil to Yerushalayim (since Chazal decreed Tum'ah on Eretz Nochrim - see Tosfos DH 'she'Retzu'ah' and Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(b) Transporting the wine or the oil in a box would not help - because the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi, who holds that a moving Ohel does not protect from Tum'ah.

(c) Transporting the Hekdesh in a sealed earthenware barrel would not help either - because a sealed earthenware barrel does not protect Hekdesh from Tum'ah.

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that a moving Ohel protects from Tum'ah just like one that is still, would believe the Amei ha'Aretz in Galil on their Hekdesh wine and oil no less than those who lived in Yehudah.

(a) The Mishnah in Parah says 'Ein *(Mei) Chatas* Nitzeles be'Tzamid Pasil', not to imply that Kodesh *is* saved - but that the Mei Chatas onto which he has not yet poured the ashes is.

(b) Ula said that the Chaveirim would prepare Nesachim be'Taharah, in case the Beis Hamikdash was rebuilt in their days, in spite of the strip of Eretz ha'Amim dividing between Yehudah and the Galil - because before the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash, Eliyahu will perhaps clarify that they were not Tamei (in addition to the question 'Which Safek will Eliyahu clarify'? it is also unclear why Eliyahu should be needed to declare it Tahor, seeing as when Mashi'ach comes and the whole of Eretz Yisrael will revert to us, that strip of land will no longer belong to the Nochrim).

(a) The Tana in Taharos instructs an Am ha'Aretz who has finished picking his olives and wants to give Terumah - to leave one box of olives open for the Kohen to see that they have not yet become Muchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah.

(b) We did indeed just learn that he is believed anyway during the pressing season - but this Mishnah is speaking about an Am ha'Aretz who finished picking his olives late, after most people had already picked theirs, in which case, he is no longer believed.

(c) When Rav Ada bar Ahavah asked Rav Nachman for an example of this - he told him to look at his own father, who used to pick his olives late.

(a) In an attempt to answer the previous Kashya, Rav Yosef established the Mishnah in Taharos (which does not believe the Am ha'Aretz - even during the pressing season) in the Galil, whilst our Mishnah is confined to Yehudah. Abaye proves him wrong from a Beraisa - which explicitly gives Eiver ha'Yardein and the Galil the same Din as Yehudah.

(b) The Am ha'Aretz is not believed however, on wine during the olive-pressing season, or on olives during the wine-pressing season.

5)

(a) If two brothers, a Chaver and an Am ha'Aretz, both inherit their father, the Chaver is permitted to make an agreement that his brother receives the wheat and the wine which are *not* Huchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah, whilst he receives the wheat and the wine that *are* - because by the same species, we say 'Yesh Bereirah' (it becomes clarified that what each one received, was his retroactively), in which case, the Chaver has not traded in his portion in the produce that is Tamei for the Am ha'Aretz's portion in the produce that is Tahor.

(b) He may not, however, enter into an agreement whereby his brother takes one kind that is *not* Huchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah, whilst he receives another kind that *is* - because by two kinds, we say 'Ein Bereirah, in which case, he *is* trading in his portion in the Tamei produce for the Am ha'Aretz's portion in the Tahor produce

(c) In the latter case, assuming that they are Kohanim, the Chaver must ...

1. ... use any oil (the liquid referred to by the Mishnah) that he received in his inheritance, as fuel - which the Tana refers to as 'burning it'.
2. ... leave any food until the next season, when it will become permitted.

(a) He cannot leave the liquid for the next pressing-season, when it will become permitted - because we are not talking about oil (like we initially thought) but about another liquid such as date-beer, which has no pressing season. In this way, we refute Rav Sheishes' proof that someone who transgressed and accepted wine or oil after the termination of the pressing-season is forbidden to leave it until next year's pressing-season.

(b) 'Soref ha'Lach' now means that he must literally burn (and destroy) the liquid.

(c) Neither is he able to leave it for the next Yom-Tov - because it speaks about a commodity (possibly the date-beer that we just mentioned) that will not last until then.

(a) Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai (in a Mishnah in Ohalos) agree that one examines a Beis ha'P'ras (a field in which a grave was dug up) for those who are going to bring their Korban Pesach, but not for Kohanim who are going to eat Terumah - because Chazal upheld their decree before the less stringent case of a Chiyuv Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim, but not before the more stringent one of Kareis. Rashi adds the reason that Pesach has a fixed time, and the owner cannot wait seven days until after the two Haza'os; whereas Terumah has no fixed time and the owner can wait. This reason however, appears to clash with the reason given by the Gemara.

(b) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel 'examines' means that one blows one's way through the field. We are not concerned that he may walk over the small bones - because even if he does, such small bones are not Metamei be'Ohel (only Rov Minyan or Rov Binyan).

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba in the Name of Ula explains the word 'examines' - to mean that we inspect whether the field was not well trodden, because, if it was, then the person bringing his Pesach is permitted.

(d) According to Rabah bar Ula, even a Kohen who examined the field on his way to bring his Korban Pesach cannot rely on that to eat Terumah. Based on our Mishnah however, that old man told Rabah bar Ula not to argue with Ula - because we learned there that if the Am ha'Aretz says that he added Kodesh to the barrel of wine, he is believed even on the Terumah. In that case, we should say here too, that since the inspection helps for Pesach, it will also help for Terumah.

9)

(a) The Beraisa says 'Ein Ne'emanim Lo al ha'Kankanim ve'Lo al ha'Terumah'. We have difficulty with establishing the first half of this statement - because if this refers to jars of Kodesh, why is he not believed because of the Kodesh that they contain; whereas if it refers to jars of Terumah, why is it not obvious? Because if he is not believed on the Terumah that they contain, he will not be believed on the jars either?

(b) In fact, we conclude, there are two possible ways of establishing the Beraisa, either by empty barrels of Hekdesh throughout the year or by barrels of Terumah during the time of wine-pressing.

(c) Not to be believed by barrels of ...

1. ... Hekdesh - means that he had poured out the Hekdesh and was now guarding the empty barrels against Tum'ah.
2. ... Terumah - means that, even during the pressing season, the Am ha'Aretz is only believed on the wine (in order not to deprive the Chaveirim of the bulk of Terumah of Eretz Yisrael), but not on the barrels. Consequently, the Chaverim must make sure that the wine is poured into their own vessels before accepting it from the Amei-ha'Aretz.

(a) In light of what we just learned (that the Am ha'Aretz is not believed on his barrels), our Mishnah, which says 'Kadei Yayin ve'Kadei Shemen he'Meduma'os Ne'emanim Aleihen ... ' - must mean that he designated some of the Tevel wine for Kodesh, in which case, he is believed not only on the Kodesh, but also on the Terumah and on the barrels.

(b) This is called 'Dimu'a' - since Hekdesh is mixed with the Tevel.

(c) Chazal believed the Am ha'Aretz in this case more than in the case of barrels of Terumah - because it would be a disgrace for Hekdesh if either the Terumah or the barrel was be'Chezkas Tum'ah, whilst *it* was brought on the Mizbei'ach.

12)

(a) Modi'in is fifteen Mil from Yerushalayim.

(b) Chazal are lenient with regard to believing the potters on their small vessels in the Yerushalayim area - because furnaces (to make clay vessels) were prohibited in Yerushalayim. Consequently, certain concessions were necessary, due to the principle that one does not issue a decree on the community which they cannot possibly live with.

(c) If the potter is ...

1. ... from Modi'in and within - the Amei-ha'Aretz potter *is* believed.
2. ... from Modi'in and without - he is *not*.

(d) When our Mishnah says (regarding the former case) 'Hu ha'Kadar, ve'Hein ha'Kedeiros ve'Hein ha'Lekuchin Ne'emanim' - he means that the concession is confined ... 1. ... to the potter who brought the vessels (but another potter, to whom he handed them, is not believed); 2. ... to the pots that he brought with him (but not to other pots that another potter gave him); 3. ... to the Chaveirim who saw the potter coming in with his pots (but not to other Chaveirim, who are forbidden to buy from him on the basis of what the Chaverim who did see him, told them).