כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בלחי וקוקרי:
everyone agrees that since they are receptacles that hold the fish or animal entering them, by right the trapped animals belong to the owner of the trap. When they disagree, it is with regard to a fishhook or other traps [kokrei] that merely catch the fish or animal but are not receptacles that hold it. In such cases, there is reason to say that the owner of the trap does not take possession of the trapped animal, and therefore another person who takes it is guilty only of robbery on account of the ways of peace.
מציאת חרש שוטה וכו' ר' יוסי אומר גזל גמור: אמר רב חסדא גזל גמור מדבריהם למאי נפקא מינה להוציאו בדיינין:
§ The mishna teaches: Taking a lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: It is full-fledged robbery. Rav Ḥisda says: Rabbi Yosei means that it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law but not by Torah law. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law and robbery on account of the ways of peace? The Gemara answers: If it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law, the victim of robbery can recover the property from the robber by appealing to judges, i.e., the court can expropriate it from him by force.
עני המנקף בראש הזית מה שתחתיו וכו': תנא אם ליקט ונתן ביד ה"ז גזל גמור
§ The mishna teaches that if a poor person gleans olives at the top of an olive tree and olives fall to the ground under the tree, then taking those olives that are beneath it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. According to Rabbi Yosei, it is full-fledged robbery. A Sage taught: If the poor person gathered the olives and placed them in his hand before they fell to the ground, this is full-fledged robbery, because the poor person had already acquired legal ownership of the olives when they were in his hand.
רב כהנא הוה קאזיל להוצל חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה שדי אופיי וקא נתרן תמרי אזל קא מנקיט ואכיל א"ל חזי מר דבידאי שדיתינהו א"ל מאתריה דר' יאשיה אתה קרי עליה (משלי י, כה) וצדיק יסוד עולם:
The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana was once walking to the city of Huzal when he saw a certain man who was throwing sticks at a palm tree and dates were falling to the ground. Rav Kahana went, gathered up some of the dates, and ate them. That man said to Rav Kahana: See, Master, that I threw them down with my hand, i.e., the dates were already in my hand, and therefore they are legally mine. Rav Kahana said to him: You are from the place of Rabbi Yoshiya, who was a great Sage in the city of Huzal. For that reason, you are knowledgeable in halakha. Rav Kahana read the verse about Rabbi Yoshiya: “And a righteous man is the foundation of the world” (Proverbs 10:25). Even after his death, Rabbi Yoshiya left a foundation for the world, as his city continued to be a center of Torah study.
אין ממחין ביד עניי נכרים בלקט בשכחה ובפאה מפני דרכי שלום: ת"ר מפרנסים עניי נכרים עם עניי ישראל ומבקרין חולי נכרים עם חולי ישראל וקוברין מתי נכרים עם מתי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום:
§ The mishna teaches: One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace. Similarly, the Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:4): One sustains poor gentiles along with poor Jews, and one visits sick gentiles along with sick Jews, and one buries dead gentiles along with dead Jews. All this is done on account of the ways of peace, to foster peaceful relations between Jews and gentiles.
מתני׳ משאלת אשה לחבירתה החשודה על השביעית נפה וכברה וריחים ותנור אבל לא תבור ולא תטחן עמה
MISHNA: A woman may lend utensils to her friend who is suspect with regard to eating produce that grew in the Sabbatical Year after the time that such produce must be removed from the house and may no longer be eaten. The utensils that she may lend her include: A winnow, a sieve, a mill, and an oven. Lending her such utensils is not considered aiding in the commission of a transgression. But she may not select the grain from the chaff or grind wheat with her, i.e., she may not actively assist her in the performance of a sin.
אשת חבר משאלת לאשת עם הארץ נפה וכברה ובוררת וטוחנת ומרקדת עמה אבל משתטיל את המים לא תגע עמה לפי שאין מחזיקין ידי עוברי עבירה וכולן לא אמרו אלא מפני דרכי שלום
The wife of a ḥaver, one who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, may lend the wife of an am ha’aretz, one who is not scrupulous in these areas, a winnow and a sieve, and she may even select, grind, and sift with her. But once the wife of the am ha’aretz pours water into the flour, thereby rendering it susceptible to ritual impurity, the wife of the ḥaver may not touch anything with her, because one may not assist those who commit transgressions. And all of the allowances mentioned in the mishna were stated only on account of the ways of peace.
ומחזיקין ידי נכרים בשביעית אבל לא ידי ישראל ושואלין בשלומן מפני דרכי שלום:
And one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year, but one may not assist Jews who do this. Similarly, one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace.
גמ׳ מאי שנא רישא ומ"ש סיפא אמר אביי רוב עמי הארץ מעשרין הן
GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the halakhot taught in the mishna: What is different in the first clause of the mishna that teaches that a woman may not select and grind grain with a woman who is suspected of eating produce of the Sabbatical Year after it is forbidden, and what is different in the latter clause that teaches that it is permitted for the wife of a ḥaver to assist the wife of an am ha’aretz in her selecting and grinding? Abaye said: Most amei ha’aretz tithe their produce, and therefore there is no reason to render it prohibited to assist the wife of an am ha’aretz in her work, as she is probably preparing a permitted food. Although there may be concern that the food was not tithed due to the minority of amei ha’aretz who do not separate tithes, this concern is ignored on account of the ways of peace.
רבא אמר הכא בעם הארץ דר"מ וטומאה וטהרה דרבנן דתניא איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו אוכל חוליו בטהרה דברי ר"מ וחכ"א כל שאינו מעשר פירותיו
Rava said: Here the mishna speaks about the am ha’aretz as defined by Rabbi Meir and the issue of ritual impurity and purity by rabbinic law. It does not speak about the matter of separating teruma and tithes. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:10): Who is an am ha’aretz? Anyone who does not eat his non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An am ha’aretz is anyone who does not tithe his produce. Since the mishna is referring to the type of am ha’aretz about whom there is an assumption that he tithes his produce but does not eat his non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity, and in light of the fact that eating non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity is stipulated by rabbinic law, on account of the ways of peace, the Sages did not prohibit the wife of a ḥaver from assisting the wife of an am ha’aretz.
והא מדקתני סיפא משתטיל את המים לא תגע עמה מכלל דרישא לאו בטומאה וטהרה עסקינן
The Gemara raises an objection: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Once the wife of the am ha’aretz pours water into the flour, the wife of the ḥaver may not touch anything with her because the water has rendered the dough susceptible to ritual impurity, it may be inferred that in the first clause in the mishna we are not dealing with concern about the halakhot of impurity and purity. Rather, the concern pertains to tithes.
רישא וסיפא בטומאה וטהרה ורישא בטומאת חולין וסיפא בטומאת חלה
The Gemara answers: Both in the first clause and in the latter clause the concern relates to impurity and purity. The difference is that in the first clause, even if the grain was already rendered susceptible to impurity, the concern is only about impurity of non-sacred produce. Rendering non-sacred produce impure is not prohibited by Torah law; it is a matter about which ḥaverim were meticulous. But in the latter clause, the concern is the impurity of ḥalla, the portion that must be separated from the dough and given to a priest. It is at the time that water is added to the flour that the obligation to separate ḥalla from the dough takes effect. Due to the ḥalla that will be separated from the dough, it is prohibited by Torah law for one to render the dough impure.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita (Tosefta, Demai 4:29):