1)

GIVING PRODUCE TO AN INNKEEPER'S WIFE (Yerushalmi Perek 3 Halachah 5 Daf 16b)

îùðä äðåúï ìôåðã÷éú îòùø àú ùäåà ðåúï ìä åàú ùäåà ðåèì îîðä îôðé ùäéà çùåãä ìçìó

(a)

(Mishnah): If a person gave flour to an innkeeper's wife to prepare dough, he must separate before he gives her and after he receives it back, as she is suspected of switching it.

àîø øáé éåñé àéï àðå àçøàéï ìøîàéï àéðå îòùø àìà îä ùäåà ðåèì îîðä áìáã:

(b)

(R. Yosi): We are not responsible for swindlers - he must only separate from what he takes back from her.

âîøà øáé éåñé åøùá"â àîøå ãáø àçã ëîä ãø' éåñé àîø àéï àðå àçøàéï ìøîàéï ëï øùá"â àîø àéï àðå àçøàéï ìøîàéï

(c)

(Gemara): R. Yosi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel both said the same law - just as R. Yosi said that we are not responsible for swindlers, so too Rabban Shimon said it.

îñúáøà øáé éåñé éåãé ìøùá"â åøùá"â ìà éåãé ìøáé éåñé ø' éåñé éåãé ìøùá"â ùàéï àðå àçøàéï ìøîàéï åøùá"â ìà éåãé ìøáé éåñé ùàéï ãøê çáø ìäéåú îåöéà îáéúå ãáø ùàéðå îúå÷ï:

(d)

It's logical to say that R. Yosi would agree to Rabban Shimon but Rabban Shimon would not agree with R. Yosi. R. Yosi would agree to Rabban Shimon that we are not responsible for swindlers; but Rabban Shimon would not agree with R. Yosi, as it's not normal for a Chaver to give out something that is not tithed.

2)

GIVING PRODUCE TO ONE'S MOTHER-IN-LAW (Yerushalmi Perek 3 Halachah 6 Daf 16b)

[ãó ìá òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] îùðä äðåúï ìçîåúå îòùø àú ùäåà ðåúï ìä åàú ùäåà ðåèì îîðä îôðé ùäéà çùåãä ìçìó àú äîú÷ì÷ì

(a)

(Mishnah): If one gives produce to his mother-in-law, he must separate before he gives her and after he receives it back, as she is suspected of switching it if it became spoiled.

àîø øáé éäåãä øåöä äéà áú÷ðú áúä åáåùä îçúðä

(b)

(R. Yehuda): (The reason she does this is because) she is concerned for the welfare of her daughter and she is embarrassed of her son-in-law (to give him spoiled food).

åîåãä øáé éäåãà áðåúï ìçîåúå ùáéòéú ùàéðä çùåãä ìäúçìó åìäàëéì àú áúä ùáéòéú:

(c)

And R. Yehuda agrees that if a person gives his mother-in-law Sheviis produce, she is not suspected of switching it and feeding it to her daughter.

âîøà àîø øáé éåçðï àåó ÷ãîééúà òì ãòúéä ãø"é äéà ãø' éåãà àîø äðåúï ìçîåúå ëðåúï ìôåðã÷éú åøáðï àîøé äðåúï ìçîåúå ëðåúï ìùëðúå

(d)

(Gemara) (R. Yochanan): Even the first clause of the Mishnah follows R. Yehuda and not the Rabbanan; as R. Yehuda said that giving to his mother-in-law is like giving to an innkeeper's wife. Rabbanan say that giving to his mother-in-law is like giving to a neighbor.

ëäãà ãúðéà äðåúï ìùëðúå ôú ìàôåú ìå úáùéì ìòùåú ìå àéðå çåùù ìà îùåí ùáéòéú åìà îùåí îòùøåú àéîúé áæîï ùðúï ìä ùàåø åúáìéï àáì àí ìà ðúï ìä ùàåø åúáìéï çåùù îùåí ùáéòéú åîùåí îòùøåú

1.

As the Baraisa taught - One who gives his neighbor bread to bake or a dish to cook, he need not be concerned for Sheviis or Maaseros. When is this? When he gave her yeast and spices; but if he did not, he must be concerned for Sheviis and Maaseros.

îä çîåúå îï äàéøåñéï àå çîåúå îï äðéùåàéï

(e)

Question: What type of mother-in-law is being discussed - where he is betrothed to her daughter or fully married to her?

ðùîòéðä îï äãà îåãä ø' éåãä áðåúï ìçîåúå ùáéòéú ùàéðä çùåãä ìäàëéì àú áúä ùáéòéú

(f)

Suggestion (our Mishnah): And R. Yehuda agrees that if a person gives his mother-in-law Sheviis produce, she is not suspected of switching it and feeding it to her daughter.

ùðééà äéà úîï áéï îï äàéøåñé' áéï îï äðéùåàéï àåó äëà ìà ùðééà áéï îï äàéøåñéï áéï îï äðéùåàéï:

1.

Conclusion of proof: There, is there any difference between during betrothal and after Nisuin (the completion of the marriage)?! Here also there's no difference between after betrothal and after the completion of the marriage.

HADRAN ALACH PEREK MA'ACHILIN