Trusting and Am Ha'Aretz with Kodesh

Chagigah (3:4) | Yisrael Bankier | a year ago

The beginning of the third perek compares the laws that apply to terumah and kodesh (korbanot) and how in different cases we treat one stricter than the other. One of those difference (3:4) relates to the when we can trust an am ha'aretz if they say terumah or kodesh is tahor. Recall that an am ha'aretz is an individual that is not particular with the laws of tumah and taharah. In this case, kodesh is more lenient and they can be trusted in all cases. We shall try to understand why.

The Bartenura explains that given the severity of kodesh, the am ha'aretz will be careful and not lie.

The Gemara (22a) however cites a beraita where R' Yossi maintains that the reason why an am ha'aretz is trusted for kodesh is because of the animosity (eiva) it might cause. He explains that we are concerned that if they are not trusted, then each person would just build their own mizbeach for their korbanot outside the Beit HaMikdash.

The Gemara continues by asking on which opinion do we rely that we accept testimonies from amei ha'araetz without being concerned that they were not precise with the details. The Gemara responds it is the opinion of R' Yossi who is concerned for eiva. Rashi explains that the Chachamim disagree with this rationale. Based on Rashi's understanding, we now understand why the Bartenura provided a different explanation in our Mishnah.

The Tosfot (24b, s.v she'be'yehuda) comments that when the Mishnah teaches that we can trust an am ha'aretz about the tahara of wine and oil of kodesh throughout the year, they cite Rashi that this is only when they were set aside at the time when grapes and olives are pressed. The Chazon Ish explains that the reason is not because at that time they are trusted also for terumah, because it is a time when all the keilim are tahor. Rather the reason is that that it is the time it can first become tameh. Consequently, even if some later season grapes were pressed after that time, the law would be the same. The Tosfot cite R' Elchanan who explains that were it not the case, it would mean that wine set aside for kodesh, that till now is assumed to be tameh, suddenly becomes tahor. How can the tumah just disappear?

The Tosfot however also suggest that the Mishnah could be where the am ha'aretz set aside the wine and oil for the purpose of kodesh at the time of pressing even though it was only consecrated later in the year. When they eventually consecrate it, when can trust that it was kept tahor due to the severity of kodesh itself (eimat kodesh)

Interestingly the Chazon Ish (129, 24b) comments on the explanation of R' Elchanan that even though the motivation to believe them is due to eiva (R' Yossi) we still need a "smach tahara" -- we need to have something on which to rely that it could be tahor. Consequently, the Tosfot add the reason of eimat kodesh so that we can assume it remains tahor. We find therefore that according to the Chazon Ish's, the reason the Rishonim give, and the reason found provided by R' Yossi cited in the Gemara work together.

The Lechem Mishnah (Edut 11:2) explains that the Rambam also understands that both reasons are required. Eiva is not enough without some basis that the kodesh is tahor (like the Chazon Ish explained above). Similarly, eimat kodesh alone is not enough either since they may not be careful enough despite the eima.

We can however find a position that explains our Mishnah without also combing the reason of eiva. The Tosfot Rid disagrees with Rashi who required that the wine be consecrated already at the time of pressing. He asks, how would anyone know when the am ha'aretz consecrated the wine. Rather we assume that if he consecrated the wine, he was certain it was kept in a state of tahara. It would seem that according to the Tosfot Rid, eimat ha'kodesh is enough for us to assume that the wine is tahor.

Download