that are mingled, amei ha’aretz are trusted with regard to them during the period of the winepress and the olive press, and also up to seventy days before the winepress, for that is when people begin to purify their vessels in preparation for the wine-pressing season.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that amei ha’aretz are trusted with regard to the purity of sacrificial wine and oil in Judea. The Gemara infers: In Judea, yes, but in the Galilee, no. What is the reason for this distinction between the two places?

Reish Lakish said: It is because a strip of land inhabited by Samaritans [Kutim] separates between Judea and the Galilee, and it is impossible to travel from one land to the other without traversing this strip. The Sages decreed that lands inhabited by non-Jewish nations are considered ritually impure, so that it would be impossible to transport food from the Galilee to Judea, where the Temple is located, without the food becoming impure. Therefore, even oil and wine prepared by ḥaverim who lived in the Galilee were not accepted for sacrificial use.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let the residents of the Galilee place the wine and oil and transport it to Judea in a closed box, a chest, or a closet, whose contents cannot contract impurity, as they have the status of separate tents. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: A thrown tent, i.e., a moving tent, is not called a proper tent, and therefore its contents are subject to impurity. In our case, then, the contents would contract the impurity decreed upon the lands of non-Jewish nations. As it is taught in a baraita: Concerning one who enters a land of non-Jewish nations sitting in a box, a chest, or a closet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi declares him to be impure, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, declares him to be pure.

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And let them bring oil and wine to the Temple in an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, which cannot contract impurity even if it is in the same tent as a corpse, as it states: “And every open vessel, which has no covering tightly bound upon it, is unclean” (Numbers 19:15). Rabbi Eliezer said: The Sages taught in a baraita: Sacrificial food, unlike other items, is not spared from impurity by being in a container with a tightly bound cover.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Water of purification containing ashes from the red heifer is not spared from impurity by being in a vessel with a tightly bound cover? What, is it not implied in the baraita this inference: That sacrificial food is spared from impurity in such a situation? The baraita seems to imply that this is a special stringency for water of purification, which does not apply to anything else, including sacrificial food. The Gemara rejects this: No, the baraita’s inference should be understood differently, as this: Water that has not yet been consecrated by being mixed with ashes of the red heifer is spared from impurity by being in a vessel with a tightly bound cover, even if they are designated for such a use at a later stage.

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But didn’t Ulla say: Ḥaverim purify their wine and oil, i.e., they produce their wine and oil by the standards of purity used for sacrificial food in the Galilee, to be used for sacrificial purposes? This indicates that there must have been some way of transporting them from the Galilee to the Temple, for otherwise why would they have prepared such items? The Gemara answers: Indeed, they could not transfer these items to the Temple. Rather, they would leave them in their place, and their thought was that when Elijah comes in messianic times and purifies the road from Galilee to Judea, these items will become eligible for use.

§ It was taught in the mishna: And during the period of the winepress and olive press, amei ha’aretz are trusted even with regard to the purity of teruma. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following teaching: An am ha’aretz who finishes pressing his olives should leave over one sack of unpressed olives, and give it to a poor priest as teruma, so that the priest himself can make ritually pure oil from it. This shows that even during the period of the olive press the am ha’aretz is not trusted to make pure olive oil himself.

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. This case of the mishna, where amei ha’aretz are trusted to produce pure olive oil themselves, is referring to people who press their olives early, during the regular season of the olive press, while that case is referring to those who press their olives later, after the period when most people press their olives has passed. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: Such as what case, for example? Such as those olives of your father’s house. Rav Naḥman’s father had many olives, and he often pressed them after the regular pressing season.

Rav Yosef said a different resolution of the above contradiction. The source that states that amei ha’aretz are not trusted was taught with regard to the Galilee, and as the mishna taught earlier concerning sacrificial wine and oil, amei ha’aretz are trusted only in Judea and not in the Galilee. Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita: Transjordan and the Galilee are like Judea, in that they are trusted with regard to wine of teruma during the period of wine production, and with regard to oil of teruma during the period of oil production. However, they are not trusted with regard to wine during the period of oil production, nor are they trusted with regard to oil during the period of wine production. This baraita shows that with regard to teruma there is no difference between the trustworthiness of amei ha’aretz who live in the Galilee and that of those who live in Judea.

Rather, Rav Yosef’s answer must be rejected, and it is clear that the correct answer is as we answered initially, that it is speaking of the period following the conclusion of the winepress.

§ It was taught in the mishna: Once the periods of the winepress and olive press have passed, if amei ha’aretz brought to a ḥaver priest a barrel of teruma wine, he may not accept it from them. But the giver may leave it over for the following winepress season, in the following year. They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If the priest violated the halakha and did accept the wine from an am ha’aretz, what is the halakha? Is it permissible that he should leave it over for himself for the following winepress season? Since it is permissible to accept the wine and oil of an am ha’aretz intentionally left until that time, perhaps it is also permissible if the priest himself intentionally leaves it over until that time. He said to him: You learned it in a mishna (Demai 6:9):