Gittin

'It is allowed to grind corn and to deposit it with those who eat produce of the Sabbatical year and those who eat their produce in uncleanness,  but not for those who eat the produce of the Sabbatical year and for those who eat their produce in uncleanness'? — Abaye replied: 'We are dealing there with a priest who is suspected of eating terumah in uncleanness, the uncleanness there being of a kind recognised by the Torah. If that is so, how could the food be entrusted to him? 'Would not that contradict the following: 'Terumah may be entrusted to an Israelite 'am ha-arez but not to a priest 'am ha-arez, because he might take liberties with it?'  — R. Elai said: 'We are speaking here of [produce in] an earthenware vessel with a close fitting cover.  But is there not a danger that his wife might move it while niddah?  — R. Jeremiah replied: [Even so] there is no contradiction: in the one case we speak of produce which has become capable of receiving uncleanness,  in the other of produce which is not so capable. A further contradiction was raised:  'If a man takes wheat to a miller who is a Cuthean  or a heathen, it is presumed to remain in its original condition  as regards tithe or Sabbatical produce, but not as regards uncleanness'?  — 'What refutation is there here? Have you not just explained that the reference is to produce which has not been rendered capable of receiving uncleanness?  'What then was the point of the question? — Because the questioner wanted to adduce another contradiction  [as follows]; [You have just said], It is presumed to have remained in its original condition as regards tithe and Sabbatical year, that is to say, we have no fear of its having been changed. This seems to contradict the following: If a man [a haber] gives produce to his mother-in-law [the wife of an 'am ha-arez],  he tithes what he gives to her  and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of changing anything that becomes spoilt?  — There the reason is as was stated: 'R. Judah said; She is anxious for the well-being of her daughter and she is ashamed for her son-in-law.' But in general are we not afraid [of food being changed]? Have we not learnt:  'If a student gives produce to the mistress of his boarding house, he tithes what he gives to her and what he takes back from her, because she is likely to change it'? — There she finds an excuse for herself, saying. Let the student eat hot and I will eat cold.  And still we ask, in general are we not afraid? Has it not been taught: 'The wife of a haber can grind along with the wife of an 'am ha-arez, when she is ritually unclean,  but not when she is ritually clean.  R. Simeon b. Eleazar says; Even when she is ritually unclean she should not grind with her, because the other