Explanation: (Note: Tosfos is bothered by the fact that this seems obvious.) It appears that the Beraisa had to teach that if he uprooted them with his hands and knocked them down, even though they did not stay in his hands, and he only held them briefly in order to knock them down, it is still considered stealing.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that "Ofi" refers to sticks (which he was using to knock down the dates).

Question: This is difficult. How could Rav Kahana have taken and eaten from these fruits? Didn't he worry about "the ways of peace?" (Note: The Rashba answers this question by saying that Rav Kahana thought the person was a Nochri.)

Opinion#2: It therefore appears that Rabeinu Chananel's opinion is correct. He explains that "Ofi" refers to palm branches. This person was taking palm branches from the palm tree, and the dates would fall off. Rav Kahana thought that the problem was not in taking the fruit (from this person), but rather the branches. The person therefore told him, I took these with my hands, and therefore the prohibition against stealing (the fruit from me) also applies.

Explanation: The second part of the Mishnah explains that the reason for all of the laws of this Mishnah is "the ways of peace."

Question#1: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this. We should derive that this is permitted because we can suppose that she used grain that was permitted. This is as we find in Shevi'is (5:8), "Beis Shamai says one should not sell him a cow that plows on Shevi'is. Beis Hillel permits this because he can slaughter it (perhaps he is not going to use it for forbidden purposes)."

Question#2: It also states in Shevi'is (5:6), "These are vessels that a professional cannot sell on Shemitah: A plow, parts for the yoke, etc...This is the rule: Whatever is only used for sinning (on Shevi'is) is forbidden to sell. What is used in a permissible fashion is permitted."

One cannot say that there, too, this is only permitted due to "the ways of peace," as this concept should not apply regarding a sale.

Question#3: Additionally, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (15b) deduces from Beis Hillel's law regarding Shevi'is (quoted above from Shevi'is 5:8) that one may sell a cow to a Nochri, because the Nochri may only be buying it for the purpose of slaughtering it.

Even if one will say that "the ways of peace" apply when selling to a Jew, as otherwise it will look suspicious when he does not want to sell something to him, this clearly does not apply to a Nochri.

Question#4: Additionally, the Mishnayos there (in Shevi'is) are clearly not due to "the ways of peace," as they are not stated in our Mishnah (which lists laws due to the ways of peace).

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that here (our Mishnah in Gitin) it is clear that she only has fruit of Shevi'is. Therefore, if it would not be for the reason of "the ways of peace," it would be forbidden.

Regarding a sale where "the ways of peace" do not apply, it is indeed forbidden where there is no possibility that it will be used in a permitted fashion. This is also implied by the Yerushalmi that states, "I say that a sifter can be sold to help count money, a sieve to sift sand, a grindstone to with which to grind spices, an oven to put in it bundles of flax." This implies that the case is where there is no permitted produce to rely on (and even so, as long as it can be used in a permitted fashion it is permitted).

This Yerushalmi is not as solid of a possibility as a cow being used for slaughtering, as if so even without "the ways of peace" it would be permitted just like a sale.

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation, what is the Gemara's question when it asks, "What is the difference between the first part of the Mishnah and the second part of the Mishnah?" It is talking about a case when the person definitely (only) has fruit of Shevi'is.

Answer: The Gemara holds that the Rabbanan were stringent with the produce of people suspected not to keep the laws of Terumos and Ma'aseros as if it was certainly untithed, as we rely on their status (of not being careful).

Implied Question: Regarding the wife of an ignoramus, the Mishnah does not state an oven and a grindstone. (Note: Why not?)

Answer#1: This is because the Mishnah stated a sifter and sieve. It obviously follows that this is also the law regarding a grindstone and an oven, as "its friend testifies for it" (meaning that if a sifter is mentioned, it clearly includes the other items mentioned with it in the first case).

Answer#2: Alternatively, this is because it is not common to lend an oven, as it becomes impure easily and requires being broken (if it indeed becomes impure). Being that it therefore did not state an oven, it also did not state a grindstone. However, regarding someone suspected of Shevi'is violations it will not become impure, as such a person is not necessarily suspected to make things impure.

Question: However, this is difficult. In Bechoros (30a), the Mishnah states that, "one who is suspected on this is suspected on this." This means that one who is suspected on Ma'asros is also suspected that they are not careful with Taharos (keeping things pure).

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara there (Bechoros ibid.) is discussing fruit becoming impure. However, they are not suspected to be impure themselves.

Explanation: Abaye is more lenient to allow helping them with Ma'aser than with Rabbinic laws of impurity and purity, as is apparent from the Gemara later. Rava holds the opposite is true.

Rava also holds that most of the Amei ha'Aretz take off Ma'aser, and the Rabbanan were therefore somewhat lenient regarding Dmai in Kesuvos (56b) and Shabbos (23a). However, Rava holds that even though most Amei ha'Aretz take Ma'aser, there is a prohibition of Dmai which makes it forbidden to help them.

Abaye in Shabbos (13a), regarding the law that a Zav who is a Parush (meaning he eats Chulin b'Taharah) should not eat together with a Zav who is an Am ha'Aretz, suspects that the latter Zav might feed the Parush untithed food, despite the fact that most Amei ha'Aretz take Ma'aser. Rava does not suspect this. (Note: Tosfos seems to point out that while Abaye holds that one can help an Am ha'Aretz based on the majority of Amei ha'Aretz who tithe, he holds that a Parush should not rely on this to the extent that he should trust his tithing.)

Explanation: The Tosefta in Avodah Zarah (3:9) states this regarding the law that one can give an older girl to an Am ha'Aretz (to work by him) on condition that she not prepare Taharos with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that this condition is unnecessary.

Afterwards the Tosefta states, "Who is an Am ha'Aretz? Whoever does not eat his Chulin b'Taharah (in a pure manner). These are the words of Rebbi Meir." Being that the Am ha'Aretz takes off Ma'aseros, there is no reason to be stringent and not allow him to marry the daughter of a Chaver. The Chachamim permit this even if he does not take off Ma'aser, as long as she will be able to act as a Chaver would in his house.

Question: In Sotah (22a), Rebbi Meir says, "Who is an Am ha'Aretz? Whoever does not read Shema morning and night with its blessings. The Chachamim say this refers to whoever does not put on Tefilin. Ben Azai says this refers to someone who does not wear Tzitzis." (Note: These seem to be different standards than those mentioned in the Tosfeta.)

Answer: It appears that the Gemara in Sotah is coming to explain the type of Am ha'Aretz that one is not allowed to make a Zimun with, as stated in Berachos (47b), nor does one have to announce his lost objects, as stated in Pesachim (49b).

Question: The prohibition of making Chalah impure should therefore forbid being involved in the separating, grinding, and sifting! This is as is found in Avodah Zarah (56a), that one cannot harvest with a Jew who prepares his fruit in an impure state. Even though the Gemara there permits him to harvest with a Nochri, it is forbidden with such a Jew because of the Tevel that will eventually be taken as Terumah.

This is despite the fact that until the produce goes into the pit or is gathered together, it is not considered being in a finished state that mandates the taking of Terumah. (Note: Why, then, don't we similarly forbid dealing with the beginning of the making of Chalah that will eventually be made impure?)

Answer: The cases are incomparable. In our case, if he separates the Chalah before it is made into dough, it is not called Chalah at all. However, there the Terumah is valid before the grain is finished being processed, such as a case where one took Ma'aser when the grain was still in its sheath. The grain is also prohibited from being eaten in a permanent fashion (before Ma'aser is taken). Even so, it is forbidden to help once the grain is put into the water, even though it is not obligated in Chalah until it is rolled into dough.

Question: However, there is a difficulty. The Mishnah states in Avodah Zarah (55b) that if a baker bakes in a state of impurity, one cannot knead or set up the dough with him. The Beraisa states regarding this that one cannot even separate with him. The Yerushalmi asks that the Beraisa seems to argue on the Mishnah, and concludes that the difference is whether or not the grain is put into water.

However, this answer is only good for Abaye, who is more stringent regarding laws of purity than those of Dmai. However, according to Rava this would be permitted even if the mixture was made wet and therefore able to become impure. This is because it is only Chulin anyway, and does not become forbidden until it is put into the water.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (56a) is referring to someone who prepares his fruit when impure. This implies that he is definitely preparing them in a state of impurity. The Mishnah there (55a) is similarly discussing a baker who bakes in an impure state. They were therefore stringent that one should not help him from the time of harvest and separating the chaff from the fruit. However, here we are merely dealing with someone who is suspected (of preparing in an impure state).

Implied Question: We ask here from a Beraisa that states one cannot grind with those who eat their fruit when impure. (Note: This implies we are talking here about people who definitely eat their fruit when impure, unlike the answer above.)

Answer: "To those who eat" only implies that they are suspected of eating. They are indeed labeled as "suspected" later.

Question: In Nidah (6b), we say that the Mishnah states that if she possibly became impure and she did not yet finish rolling the dough, she could do so while impure. If she already started rolling the dough, she should only do so when pure. In our Gemara, however, we forbid being involved in making it once it is put into the water!

Answer: The case in Nidah is different. Being that the possible impurity already occurred, we do not worry as long as it is not yet obligated to have Chalah taken, and there is no loss to the Kohen. In any event, the Kohen will not eat this Chalah. However, in our case where the grain starts off pure (and will only become impure because of the processing of the Am ha'Aretz), it is forbidden to start dealing with it once it is put into the water.

Explanation: Abaye is answering according to the position of Rava, as according to Abaye himself the question never started. We find a similar thing (people answering a question for those who argue on them) in many places. For example, this is found in Eiruvin (56b) in the Sugya of a square tablet, and in Chulin (76b).

Implied Question: However, we do not worry about the Am ha'Aretz himself causing this to be moved. Similarly, we see later that the Am ha'Aretz comes and takes both vessels, and one does not have to be worried (that he makes the Chalah inside them impure). (Note: Why don't we worry about the Am ha'Aretz himself?)

Answer: This is because they did not decree that an Am ha'Aretz has any special stringency, such as making things impure through lying down, sitting, or causing things to move, as the public could not bear such stringencies.

Proof: This is also apparent in Taharos (7:6). The Mishnah states that thieves who come into the house have only made impure the area where they stepped. What do they make impure in that area? They make food, drink, and open earthenware vessels impure. However, mattresses, chairs, and earthenware vessels that are covered are pure. If there is a Nochri or woman with them, everything is impure. This implies that an Am ha'Aretz does not cause something to become impure just because he lied on it or sat on it.

Accordingly, when the Mishnah in Chagigah (18b) states that the clothes of an Am ha'Aretz make a Parush impure, and the clothes of a Parush etc., and Rava explains in Chulin (35b) that this is because we suspect his wife who was a Nidah sat on them, this is all only relative to his clothes (not he himself).

Implied Question: In Nidah (33b), the Beraisa discusses a case where a Kusi immersed himself in a Mikvah, and then stepped on the clothing of a Chaver. The Beraisa says that he stepped on it, not that he touched it. (Note: This implies that if he would not have immersed in the Mikvah, it would have been problematic that he stepped on it (as he would cause it to become impure because he rested his weight on it).)

Answer: This is not because if he would not have immersed himself that he would make it impure by stepping on it. Rather, it says he stepped on it because it wanted to make a case where the clothing of a Chaver was under the foot of a Kusi. This is as the Mishnah there states, that the laying down or sitting of a Kusi makes things impure just as the carrying of a Zav (only food and drink, not people or vessels).

However, his spittle which a person can protect himself from and can clearly determine (whether or not it in fact landed on him), was decreed as causing impurity, as is apparent from the Gemara in Chagigah (23a) and Nidah (33b).

Opinion: Rav Moshe from Fontisa explained that the Chachamim did not make an Am ha'Aretz like a Zav at all. The only reason he imparts impurity is because of his clothes, which we suspect his wife sat on when she was a Nidah, making him someone who is carrying something which has impurity because it was sat on. His spittle is impure because it touched his own lips, not because it emanated from someone who is inherently impure.

Question#1: This does not seem accurate. The Gemara in Nidah (33b) asks, if the problem is the impurity of an Am ha'Aretz, he immersed in a Mikvah! If R' Moshe from Fontisa is correct, why did it say he immersed in the Mikvah? Even if he did not immerse in the Mikvah there should be no problem, as the Am ha'Aretz is not currently wearing any clothes (he just stepped out of the Mikvah)! A person carrying something with Tumas Medras does not make earthenware vessels impure when he is no longer touching the item that has the Tumas Medras, as stated in the Mishnah in Zavim (5:1).

Question#2: Additionally, the Gemara in Nidah (ibid.) asks regarding a Tzeduki (whose spit ended up on the Kohen Gadol), "What did it help that the Kohen Gadol went to his wife? It should be clear that he became impure because of the spittle of an Am ha'Aretz (that landed on his shirt)!" According to Rav Moshe from Fontisa it is understandable why he went, as if the Tzeduki did not keep the laws of Nidah, him (the Kohen Gadol) and his clothing became impure, like one who carries the spit of a Zav. If the problem is merely the spit of an Am ha'Aretz, only his clothes became impure as it is a liquid that makes vessels (i.e. clothes) impure according to Rabbinic law.

Question: The Gemara here implies that an Am ha'Aretz does not make Terumah impure by causing it to move. The Tosefta in Chagigah (3:8) states that if there is a doubt regarding an Am ha'Aretz, whether it involves him sitting on something, his item blocking impurity, or his moving an item, this doubt is ruled pure regarding Chulin, but impure regarding Terumah.

Answer: In the Tosefta, we suspect him because of his wife. However, regarding Chulin we do not suspect that his wife either sat on or moved this object.

Implied Question: Earlier, we discussed a case of thieves who entered a house. (Note: The place where their footsteps are is ruled impure. If we are not stringent about the impurity of a possible Am ha'Aretz regarding Chulin, why are we stringent in this case?)

Answer: This is also discussing a case of Terumah.

Implied Question: Even though this question could be asked on the Beraisa quoted above as well, as the Beraisa states we allow them to grind and we deposit it (tithed grain) by them, and we do not suspect that they will switch it with something else, the Gemara does not ask its question on that Beraisa. (Note: Why didn't the Gemara ask the question on the Beraisa it quoted?)

Answer: Even so, it brought this second Mishnah as well because it wanted to ask a question from a case of an Am ha'Aretz to another case regarding an Am ha'Aretz.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that she means that she has good intentions, and is ruling for herself in this fashion because she thinks she is doing a Mitzvah.

Implied Question#1: The term, "Moria" does not imply this, but rather that she is ruling in order to permit herself to do something, as in the Gemara in Chulin (6b) that states, "Moria" -- "she ruled" and said, the ox is eating from his threshing."

Implied Question#2: Additionally, in the Mishnah, Rebbi Meir says about such a woman that, "we are not responsible for dishonest people." (Note: This implies that it is not a case where she thinks she is doing a Mitzvah.)

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Menachem explains that she is saying this as if she is bewildered. "Will the student of the Rabbi eat hot...didn't I bother for him!?"

Implied Question: We do not suspect that the food will be switched in Chulin (6a), regarding a person who gave his dough to his neighbor to bake and his pot to cook, even though she is bothering to prepare his food. (Note: Why not?)

Answer: This is because it is normal for neighbors to go out of their way for each other (as opposed to the woman who is hosting the Rabbi's student).

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the wife of a Chaver can help the wife of an Am ha'Aretz when she (the wife of the Chaver) is impure. We do not suspect that she will take the grain and put something untithed in her mouth when is impure. However, she cannot work with the wife of an Am ha'Aretz when she is pure. Being that she will touch the food, we suspect that she might eat something that is not tithed.

The Gemara says, "now she steals." This means that the wife of the Am ha'Aretz is letting her friend eat without the permission of her husband.

In Chulin (6b), Rashi explains that even though the wife of a Chaver is not suspected to knowingly eat stolen items or something that is not tithed, we suspect she may forget. A person sometimes forgets to be careful, and eats that which is given to him. However, if she would not be suspected of stealing she would not forget and give to others.

Implied Question: This difference is forced.

Question#1: Additionally, this is not stealing, as we accept a small amount (of Tzedakah, and so too anything) from women, as is stated in Bava Kama (119a). (Note: Accordingly, there is no stealing involved when a woman gives her friend something to eat without her husband's permission.)

Question#2: Additionally, she is supporting those who sin (as Rashi implies that the grain is certainly not tithed, see Maharam Shif), and this is forbidden according to Rava (see 61a and Tosfos there, DH "Rava Amar").

According to Abaye who says that most Amei ha'Aretz take Ma'aser, it would be permitted to help even when she is pure, as the Mishnah says she is separating, and it is impossible that she will not touch the grain (and yet she is allowed to do so). (Note: Abaye allows one to help an Am ha'Aretz, as they probably are taking Ma'aser (see 61a and Tosfos there, DH "Rava Amar").)

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam and Rabeinu Chananel explain that the case where the wife of a Chaver is grinding with the wife of an Am ha'Aretz is when they are grinding the grain belonging to the Chaver.

The Tosefta that similarly writes that the wife of an Am ha'Aretz grinds with the wife of a Chaver is referring to a case where the wife of the Am ha'Aretz holds she is impure. She is therefore careful not to touch the grain. However, she cannot grind with the Chaver's wife when she holds she is pure, as she then is not careful to abstain from touching the grain and making it impure.

Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that even when she holds that she is impure, she should not grind (her own grain). This is because her friend, who is the wife of another Am ha'Aretz (a third woman), thinks that she is pure, and will give her grain and she will eat.

Now the Gemara is asking a simple question. If the wife of an Am ha'Aretz will steal the grain of the wife of the Chaver against her will, is it a question that she will switch the grain?