ולעלמא לא חיישינן והתנן הנותן לפונדקית שלו מעשר את שהוא נותן לה ואת שהוא נוטל הימנה מפני שחשודה מחלפת התם נמי מוריא ואמרה בר בי רב ליכול חמימא ואנא איכול קרירא
The Gemara asks: And in general, in a case not involving one’s mother-in-law, are we not concerned about the possibility of replacement? But didn’t we learn in a mishna ( Demai 3: 5): One who gives dough or a pot of food to his innkeeper [pundakit] who is an am ha’aretz to bake or cook, tithes what he gives her and tithes what he takes back from her, due to the fact that she is suspected of replacing the ingredients? The Gemara answers: There too, her intentions are good, as the innkeeper rationalizes her deception and says: Let the student of Torah eat my hot food and I will eat his cold food.
ולחלופי לא חיישינן והתניא אשת חבר טוחנת עם אשת עם הארץ בזמן שהיא טמאה אבל לא בזמן שהיא טהורה
The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients? But isn’t it taught in a baraita:
The wife of a ḥaver, one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, grinds grain with the wife of an am ha’aretz when the wife of the ḥaver is ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. In that case, there is no concern that she will eat her counterpart’s untithed produce, as, since she is impure she will refrain from touching the grain so that she will not render it impure. But she may not do so when she is ritually pure, due to the concern that she will eat the untithed produce.
רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף בזמן שהיא טמאה לא תטחון מפני שחבירתה נותנת לה ואוכלת
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when she is impure, the wife of the ḥaver may not grind grain together with the wife of the am ha’aretz, due to the fact that her counterpart gives her grain and she eats it without touching the rest of the grain.
השתא מיגזל גזלה חלופי מיבעיא אמר רב יוסף התם נמי מוריא ואמרה תורא מדישיה קאכיל
The Gemara infers: Now that there is suspicion that the wife of the am ha’aretz steals from her husband’s grain and gives it to her counterparts, is it necessary to say that she is suspect with regard to replacing ingredients? Rav Yosef said: There too there are special circumstances, as the wife of the am ha’aretz rationalizes her behavior and says metaphorically: The ox eats from its threshing, and believes that the wife of the ḥaver is entitled to some of the grain that she is grinding.
העיד רבי יהושע בן זרוז בן חמיו של רבי מאיר לפני רבי על רבי מאיר שאכל עלה של ירק בבית שאן והתיר רבי את בית שאן כולה על ידו
§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz, son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Meir, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about Rabbi Meir that he ate the leaf of a vegetable in Beit She’an without tithing or separating teruma, as he holds that Beit She’an is not part of Eretz Yisrael and therefore is not sacred with its sanctity. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted all the produce of Beit She’an on the basis of his testimony.
חברו עליו אחיו ובית אביו אמרו לו מקום שאבותיך ואבות אבותיך נהגו בו איסור אתה תנהוג בו היתר
His brothers and his father’s household united against him and said to him: In a place where your fathers and the fathers of your fathers treated untithed produce as forbidden, will you treat it as permitted?
דרש להן מקרא זה וכתת נחש הנחשת אשר עשה משה כי עד הימים ההמה היו בני ישראל מקטרים לו ויקרא לו נחשתן אפשר בא אסא ולא ביערו בא יהושפט ולא ביערו והלא כל עבודה זרה שבעולם אסא ויהושפט ביערום
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted this verse to them: “ And he broke in pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan” (II Kings 18: 4). Is it possible that they burned incense to it and Asa, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and Jehoshaphat, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and it remained until the time of Hezekiah? But didn’t Asa and Jehoshaphat eradicate all objects of idol worship in the world?