ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(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) To explain why one cannot transport the wine or the oil in a Shidah, Teivah or Migdol (a sort of box), we establish the author of our Mishnah as Rebbi, who rules in a Beraisa that someone who enters Chutz la'Aretz via a Shidah, Teivah u'Migdol - is Tamei
(c) Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah declares him Tahor - because he holds 'Ohel Zaruk Lav Shmei Ohel' (a moving Ohel is considered an Ohel), whereas Rebbi holds 'Shmei Ohel'.
(d) Rebbi Yosi 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 of the Galil on their Hekdesh wine and oil no less than those who lived in Yehudah.
(a) Transporting the Hekdesh in a sealed earthenware barrel would not help either, according to Rebbi - because a sealed earthenware barrel does not protect Hekdesh from Tum'ah.
(b) We query this from the Mishnah in Parah 'Ein (Mei) Chatas Nitzeles b'Tzamid Pasil' - which implies that Hekdesh is saved (a Kashya on the previous answer).
(c) We counter the Kashya however - by suggesting that the Mishnah might be implying that the water of the Mei Parah itself is saved by Tzamid Pasil, as long as it has not yet been mixed with the ashes.
(d) Despite the strip of Eretz ha'Amim dividing between Yehudah and the Galil, Ula nevertheless stated that the Chaverim would prepare Nesachim b'Taharah, in case the Beis Hamikdash was rebuilt in their days (see Rabeinu Chananel and Rashi in Nidah 6b. DH 'Chavraya') - just in case Eliyahu would come and reveal a path that belongs to Eretz Yisrael, that leads from the Galil to Yehudah.
(a) The Mishnah 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 l'Kabel Tum'ah.
(b) Even though we just learn that he is believed anyway during the pressing season - 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) To answer the previous Kashya, Rav Yosef establishes 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 however, from a Beraisa - which explicitly gives Ever ha'Yarden 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.
(c) Based on Abaye's Kashya, the Sugya concludes - that Rav Nachman's distinction (between an Am-ha'Aretz who picked with everybody else and one who picked late) is the only acceptable one.
(a) They asked Rav Sheshes whether a Chaver who accepted a barrel of wine or oil from an Am-ha'Aretz after the termination of the pressing season - may put it aside until the following pressing season (as the Am-ha'Aretz would have otherwise had to do).
(b) In reply, he cited to them a Mishnah in Demai, which discusses two brothers, a Chaver and an Am ha'Aretz that inherit their father, permits the Chaver to make an agreement that his brother will receive the wheat and the wine that are Huchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah, whilst he receives the wheat and the wine that are not - because by the same species, we say 'Yesh Breirah' (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.
(c) On the other hand, the Tana forbids him to enter into an agreement whereby his brother takes one kind that is not Huchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah, whilst he receives another kind that is - because by two different species, we say 'Ein Breirah, in which case, he is trading in his portion in the Tamei produce for the Am ha'Aretz's portion in the Tahor produce.
(d) 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) The Beraisa adds that the Kohen may leave over solid Terumah until the next season, whereas liquid Terumah - must be burned as fuel.
(b) Rav Sheshes tries to prove from there - that if a Chaver accepted a barrel of wine or oil from an Am-ha'Aretz after the termination of the pressing season, he is not permitted to put it aside until the following pressing season.
(c) To refute Rav Sheshes proof, we re-interpret liquid in the Beraisa - with reference to one that does not have a pressing season (such as date-beer).
(d) 'Soref ha'Lach' now means - that he must literally burn (and destroy) the liquid.
(e) Neither can he leave it for the next Yom Tov - because date-beer will not last until then.
(a) Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai (in a Mishnah in Ohalos) agree that one examines a Beis ha'Pras (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. 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 b'Ohel (only Rov Minyan or Rov Binyan).
(b) 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 to pass straight through.
(c) The reason for the distinction between Ochlei Pesach and Ochlei Terumah is - because Chazal upheld their decree before the less stringent case of a Chiyuv Misah b'Yedei Shamayim (Terumah), but not before the more stringent one of Kares (Kares), and because Pesach has a fixed time, and the owner cannot wait seven days until after the two Haza'os.
(a) Ula maintains that a Kohen who examined the field for the Korban Pesach is automatically permitted to eat Terumah - because it would be a disgrace for the Mizbe'ach to say that the Terumah to which the Kodesh is attached is b'Chezkas Tum'ah, and the Kodesh is brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) According to Rabah bar Rav Huna however - the Kohen remains forbidden to eat Terumah.
(c) 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.
(a) The Beraisa says 'Ein Ne'emanim Lo al ha'Kankanim v'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, it is obvious that someone who is not believed on the Terumah that they contain, 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' regarding 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 Chaverim 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 v'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 b'Chezkas Tum'ah, whilst it was brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(a)We learned in our Mishnah that the Am ha'Aretz is believed on the barrels of wine (in the previous case) already seventy days before the pressing season - placing an obligation on the tenant-farmer to start preparing the barrels already as from that date.
(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 cope with.
(c) If the Am ha'Aretz potter is ...
1. ... from Modi'in and within - he is believed.
2. ... from Modi'in and without - he is not.
(d) When the of our Mishnah says (regarding the former case) 'Hu ha'Kadar, v'Hein ha'Kedeiros v'Hein ha'Lekuchin Ne'emanim' - he means that the concession is confined ...
1. ... to the potter who brought the vessels (but not to another potter, to whom he handed them).
2. ... to the pots that he brought with him (but not to other pots that another potter gave him).
3. ... to the Chaverim who saw the potter coming in with his pots (but not to other Chaverim, who are forbidden to buy from him on the basis of what the Chaverim who did see him, told them).
(a) The Beraisa states that Modi'in itself - is sometimes considered inside and sometimes outside.
(b) He considers it ...
1. ... inside - only if the potter is leaving and the Chaver is entering.
2. ... outside - if both are going either in or out (or if the potter is on his way in and the Chaver, on his way out).
(c) On the one hand, the potter is believed in the former case - because 'if not now, when?'
(d) On the other, he is not believed if ...
1. ... they are both on their way in - because the Chaver may as well wait until they are inside and purchase from him then.
2. ... they are both on their way out - because since the Chaver failed to take the opportunity when he was inside Modi'in, he cannot make up for it later.
3. ... the potter is on his way in and the Chaver, on his way out - because like we said earlier, when the latter returns on his way to Yerushalayim, he must wait until then to purchase the Kelim.
(a) Abaye proves this from the Mishnah itself. He extrapolates from the statement ...
1. ... 'ha'Kadar she'Mocher ha'Kedeiros, v'Nichnas Lif'nim min ha'Modi'in' - that if in Modi'in itself, he would not be believed.
2. ... 'Yatza Eino Ne'eman' - that in Modi'in itself, he would be believed.
(b) This proves - Abaye's original statement, that sometimes Modi'in is considered inside, and sometimes, outside.
(a) Commenting on the Beraisa, which qualifies the ruling in our Mishnah (believing a potter within Modi'in on Klei Cheres), confining it to small vessels, Resh Lakish establishes it by Klei Cheres that one can pick up with one hand. Rebbi Yochanan - does not differentiate.
(b) Resh Lakish adds - that the vessels must be empty; but there too, Rebbi Yochanan disagrees.
(c) When R. Yochanan adds 'Afilu Afipesuso b'Socho', he means - that even if it is full of his own wine.
(a) According to Rava, Rebbi Yochanan concedes - that the liquid remains Tamei.
(b) He cites a ruling regarding a Lagin - (an earthenware jar) full of liquid that renders Rebbi Yochanan's ruling not surprising ...
(c) ... inasmuch as - the jar is Tamei, even though the liquid remains Tahor.