Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 12, 2021 | 讜壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 12

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Adrienne Robb Fund in honor of Michelle Farber “for all that she does to promote learning! Thanks for coming to Long Island!”

Can one carry on Yom Tov in the public domain items that are not needed for eating, such as a child, a lulav, or a Sefer Torah? Beit Shamai does not permit it but Beit Hillel does. Is the root of their debate whether or not they think there is no prohibition to carry on Yom Tov or is it whether we say that since carrying was permitted for eating purposes, we, therefore, permit it for other things as well? Another debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel is whether or not one can bring a kohen the gifts that are meant for him, such as challah and parts of the animal after it is slaughtered. There are several different opinions about exactly what case they disagree – is it regarding gifts that were separated both before and during Yom Tov, or only ones that were separated before Yom Tov and they are brought without ones that were separated on Yom Tov, or is the debate only regarding truma? According to which opinion is the one stated in the mishna? According to which opinion do we hold by? A case was asked of Rava whether one could crush mustard stalks to remove the mustard seed on Yom Tov. Rava permitted it. Abaye questions him both from a braita and then from our mishna.

诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 爪讬专 讘讗诪爪注 讗讟讜 爪讬专 诪谉 讛爪讚 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

One Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that we issue a decree and prohibit a hinge in the middle due to a hinge on the side; and one Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that we do not issue this decree. Since placing a hinge of this type does not constitute the prohibited labor of building, it is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 讜诇讗 讗转 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may carry out on a Festival neither a minor child, nor a lulav, nor a Torah Scroll into the public domain, as none of these are required for the preparation of food; and Beit Hillel permit it.

讙诪壮 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讛砖讜讞讟 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讜拽讛

GEMARA: The tanna who reviews mishnayot teaches a baraita before Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi: One who slaughters a gift offering on a Festival is flogged for transgressing the prohibition: 鈥淣o manner of work shall be done on them鈥 (Exodus 12:16). Since this slaughtering was not performed for the purpose of eating, the action constitutes a prohibited labor on a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讱 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讚讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讗 讗诪专讬 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱

Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to that tanna: Who could have said this baraita to you? It is evidently in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that we do not say: Since carrying out was permitted on a Festival for the purpose of food preparation, it was also permitted not for that purpose. For if you say the baraita is accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, they say: Since carrying out was permitted for the requirements of food preparation, it was also permitted not for these requirements. Here, too, with regard to the prohibited labor of slaughtering, since slaughter was permitted for the requirements of food preparation, it was also permitted not for these requirements. It was permitted for any purpose that benefits people, whether directly or indirectly.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇诪讗 讘注专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rabba strongly objects to this reasoning: From where do you infer that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree over this issue? Perhaps they disagree about the following: The halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but there are no halakhot of eiruv nor a prohibition against carrying out on a Festival.

诪专 住讘专 注专讜讘 讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜注专讜讘 讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara clarifies the dispute according to this explanation: One Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that the halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, and similarly the halakhot of eiruv and carrying out apply to a Festival. The only difference is that, on a Festival, carrying, like other types of prohibited labor, is permitted for the sake of food preparation.

讜诪专 住讘专 注专讜讘 讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注专讜讘 讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 转讜爪讬讗讜 诪砖讗 诪讘转讬讻诐 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗

And one Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that the halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but there are no halakhot of eiruv nor a prohibition against carrying out on a Festival, as it is written: 鈥淣either carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Shabbat day鈥 (Jeremiah 17:22), from which Beit Hillel inferred: On Shabbat, yes, carrying from one domain to another is indeed prohibited; on a Festival, no, it is not prohibited. According to this explanation, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about whether a prohibited labor that is permitted for the purpose of food preparation on a Festival is also permitted when it does not serve that purpose.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讚诇讗 诪驻诇讙讬 讘讗讘谞讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation of Rabba: However, if that is so, that the dispute is whether the prohibition against carrying out applies on a Festival, Beit Hillel should permit one to move muktze objects, as the prohibition of handling muktze is an extension of the prohibition against carrying out. Consequently, let them differ with regard to whether or not it is permitted to carry out stones on a Festival. Rather, from the fact that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to stones but concerning objects that serve some sort of purpose, conclude from this: Everyone agrees that carrying out is prohibited on a Festival, and the Torah permitted it only when it is necessary for sustenance.

讘讛讜爪讗讛 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 驻诇讬讙讬

Instead, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to carrying out that is not for the purpose of food preparation. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, since carrying out is permitted for the sake of sustenance, it is entirely permitted. According to Beit Shammai, the Sages permitted only labor that serves the purpose of food preparation.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讘诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讘砖诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讻诇讜 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the principle: Since carrying out is permitted on a Festival for the purpose of food preparation, it was also permitted not for this purpose, as the tanna teaches a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: One who cooks the sciatic nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged for violating five distinct prohibitions.

诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讙讬讚 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜诇讜拽讛

How so? (1) He is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking the sciatic nerve, which is prohibited because the sciatic nerve is unfit for consumption; (2) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, which is explicitly prohibited by the Torah; (3) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking meat in milk; (4) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk; (5) and lastly, he is flogged

诪砖讜诐 讛讘注专讛

due to the prohibition of kindling a fire on a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讘专讗 讛讘注专讛 讜讘砖讜诇 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪砖谞讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讘注专讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to that tanna: Leave and teach it outside, i.e., this baraita is not fit for discussion in the study hall. The opinion that there is a prohibition against kindling and cooking on a Festival is not a mishna worthy of serious consideration. And if you say that it is a mishna rather than an error, this statement is still not in accordance with the halakha, as it is following the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: We do not say: Since carrying out was permitted on a Festival for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes. Here, too, we do not say: Since kindling was permitted on a Festival for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes.

讚讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讘注专讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱

The Gemara explains why the baraita cannot be attributed to Beit Hillel. If one were to suggest that this baraita follows the opinion of Beit Hillel, this cannot be the case, as they say: Since carrying out was permitted for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes. Here, too, since kindling was permitted for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes. Therefore, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, kindling cannot be included amongst those prohibitions for which one is liable on a Festival.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诇讻讛谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬谉 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讗诪砖 讘讬谉 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

MISHNA: The separation of 岣lla is permitted on a Festival, as one is permitted to prepare dough and bake it on a Festival, and bread may not be eaten without first separating 岣lla. Beit Shammai say: One may not bring separated 岣lla or any of the other priestly gifts, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of a slaughtered animal, to a priest on a Festival, though it is permitted to separate them from an animal slaughtered on a Festival. This is prohibited regardless of whether they were separated last evening, i.e., before the Festival, or whether they were separated today. And Beit Hillel permit it.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讜转专讜诪讛 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讜转

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: This halakha can be derived by an analogy: 岣lla and the other gifts are both considered a gift to the priest, and likewise teruma separated from produce is also a gift to the priest. Just as you agree that one may not bring teruma to a priest on a Festival, so too, one may not bring the other gifts.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛 转讗诪专讜 讘诪转谞讜转 砖讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转谉

Beit Hillel said to them: No, this analogy is incorrect. If you said that you derive the halakha from teruma, where its separation is not allowed on the Festival, how will you say the same with regard to the gifts from an animal or 岣lla, concerning which their separation is allowed on the Festival? Since it is not prohibited to separate these gifts, they may likewise be brought to a priest.

讙诪壮 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜砖谞砖讞讟讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讗诪砖 讜砖谞砖讞讟讜 诪讗诪砖 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪转谞讜转 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 注诐 讛诪转谞讜转 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜砖谞砖讞讟讜 诪讛讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜诇讬讻谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉

GEMARA: It enters your mind to explain that when the mishna states: They were separated today, it means: From animals slaughtered today. And the phrase: They were separated last evening, is referring to animals slaughtered last evening. The Gemara asks: If so, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not Rabbi Yosei nor Rabbi Yehuda, but the opinion of A岣rim, as it is taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute with regard to gifts separated on the eve of a Festival, that one may bring them to a priest on a Festival day itself along with gifts separated that day and from those animals slaughtered that day. They disputed only the halakha of bringing gifts separated the day before by themselves, as Beit Shammai say: One may not bring these gifts by themselves, and Beit Hillel say: One may bring them.

讜讻讱 讛讬讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚谞讬谉 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讜转专讜诪讛 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛 转讗诪专讜 讘诪转谞讜转 砖讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转谉

And Beit Shammai would reason as follows: 岣lla and gifts from a slaughtered animal are a gift to the priest, and teruma is a gift to the priest. Just as one may not bring teruma to a priest on a Festival, so too, one may not bring the other gifts. Beit Hillel said to them: No, granted, if you said so with regard to teruma, the reason is that separation is not allowed on a Festival, but how will you say the same with regard to the other gifts, concerning which separation is allowed on the Festival? It is therefore permitted to bring these gifts to a priest as well. This is Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 interpretation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, according to which Beit Shammai prohibit bringing even gifts separated on the Festival itself.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪转谞讜转 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚谞讬谉 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讜转专讜诪讛 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讻砖诐 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讜转 讻讱 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘诪转谞讜转 砖讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转谉 转讗诪专讜 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛

Rabbi Yosei said: That is not the correct record of the dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute about the fact that one may bring the gifts from an animal to a priest on a Festival. They disputed only with regard to teruma, as Beit Shammai say: One may not bring it, and Beit Hillel say: One may even bring teruma. And Beit Hillel would reason as follows: 岣lla and gifts are a gift to the priest, and teruma is a gift to the priest. Just as one may bring the other gifts on a Festival, so too, one may bring teruma. Beit Shammai said to them: No; if you said so with regard to the other gifts, concerning which their separation is allowed on the Festival, will you say the same with regard to teruma, whose separation is not allowed?

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪转谞讜转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 诇讬诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

A岣rim say that the dispute was as follows: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute with regard to teruma, that one may not bring it to a priest on a Festival. They disputed only the case of the other gifts, as Beit Shammai say: One may not bring the other gifts, and Beit Hillel say: One may bring them. The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara does not even suggest that the mishna might be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is clear that it cannot be reconciled with his explanation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜砖谞砖讞讟讜 诪讛讬讜诐 砖讛讜专诪讜 拽转谞讬 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 诪讗诪砖 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讛谞讱 讚谞砖讞讟讜 诪讗诪砖

Rava said: Is it taught in the mishna: They were separated that day and were slaughtered that day? No; it teaches: They were separated, and actually the mishna should be explained as follows: They were slaughtered last evening and separated today, which is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda said. The Gemara asks: If so, let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim? The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, it can still be claimed that, in their opinion, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed the case of these animals that were slaughtered last evening, not those slaughtered on the Festival.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讟驻诇讛

The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same opinion as that of Rabbi Yehuda. What, then, is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and A岣rim? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to secondary gifts. If one has gifts separated before a Festival, is he permitted to join them as secondary gifts along with others separated on the Festival and transport them together to a priest? Rabbi Yehuda maintains that secondary gifts may be brought to a priest, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, whereas A岣rim prohibit it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讙专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讗诪讟讜讬讬 诇讻讛谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

With regard to the dispute cited in the Tosefta, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara relates: Rav Tovi, son of Rabbi Ne岣mya, had a bottle of teruma wine. He came before Rav Yosef and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to bringing this wine to a priest now, on a Festival? Rav Yosef said to him: That is what Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that Beit Hillel permit one to bring teruma to a priest on a Festival, and the halakha is in accordance with their opinion.

讗讜砖驻讝讬讻谞讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗住讜专讬讬转讗 讚讞专讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇驻专讜讻讬 讜诪讬讻诇 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜诇诇讬谉 诪诇讬诇讜转 讜诪驻专讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬讜转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 The Gemara relates: The host of Rava, son of Rav 岣nan, had bundles of unprocessed mustard, whose seeds remained in their stems. He said to his guest, the Sage: What is the halakha with regard to crushing these mustard stalks and eating from them on a Festival? Rava, son of Rav 岣nan, did not have an answer readily available, so he came before Rava to ask his opinion. Rava said to him that it was taught: One may husk kernels by rubbing them between one鈥檚 fingers, and one may likewise crush legumes on a Festival. This statement indicates that it is permitted to crush mustard stalks.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪讜诇诇 诪诇讬诇讜转 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讞专 诪谞驻讞 诪讬讚 诇讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽谞讜谉 讜诇讗 讘转诪讞讜讬

Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: In the case of one who husks kernels of grain on Shabbat eve, on the following day, on Shabbat itself, he may winnow the chaff in an irregular manner by passing the kernels from hand to hand and then eat them. However, one may not do so, neither by means of a basket [kanon] that is occasionally used for sorting and separating the chaff nor with a large vessel.

讛诪讜诇诇 诪诇讬诇讜转 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇诪讞专 诪谞驻讞 注诇 讬讚 注诇 讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽谞讜谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转诪讞讜讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇讗 讜诇讗 讘谞驻讛 讜诇讗 讘讻讘专讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗

With regard to one who husks kernels of grain on a Festival eve, on the following day, he may winnow a little grain at a time and eat, even with a tray or a large vessel. However, he may not do so with a tablet, nor with a winnow, nor with a sieve. Since these vessels are designed for winnowing, they are used only for large quantities, and therefore it will appear as though he were preparing for after the Festival, which is certainly prohibited. In any case, the wording of the baraita indicates: On a Festival eve, yes, one may husk or crush legumes; on the Festival itself, no, it is prohibited to do so.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪注专讘 砖讘转 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara refutes this: Even if you say that it is permitted on a Festival, the baraita can be understood. The reason is as follows: Since he taught in the first clause of the baraita: On Shabbat eve, as husking grain may not be performed on Shabbat itself, for it might lead to a prohibited labor on Shabbat, he also taught in the latter clause: On a Festival eve. However, this does not mean that rubbing or crushing legumes is prohibited on the Festival itself.

讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 转专讜诪讛 砖讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛 讜转谞谉 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛 讜讻讜壮

Abaye raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rava from a different angle: If you say so, we have thereby found a case of teruma for which separation is allowed on a Festival. Before being rubbed, the grains of wheat were certainly not fit to be eaten, and therefore there was no obligation to separate teruma from them. Now that one has prepared them as food by rubbing them, he is obligated to separate teruma from them, and if one is permitted to eat them, he must be permitted to separate teruma from them first. And we learned explicitly in the mishna: No, if you said that you derive the halakha from teruma, where its separation is not allowed on the Festival. This statement indicates that even Beit Hillel agree that one may not separate teruma of any kind on a Festival.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara refutes this challenge: This is not difficult.

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah: 7-14 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue the discussion of finding an egg on a Festival and if you are allowed to...
alon shvut women

Priestly Gifts

Beitza 12 Thoughts by Susan Suna The Mishna on Amud b sites the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel...

Beitzah 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 12

诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 爪讬专 讘讗诪爪注 讗讟讜 爪讬专 诪谉 讛爪讚 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

One Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that we issue a decree and prohibit a hinge in the middle due to a hinge on the side; and one Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that we do not issue this decree. Since placing a hinge of this type does not constitute the prohibited labor of building, it is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 讜诇讗 讗转 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may carry out on a Festival neither a minor child, nor a lulav, nor a Torah Scroll into the public domain, as none of these are required for the preparation of food; and Beit Hillel permit it.

讙诪壮 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讛砖讜讞讟 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讜拽讛

GEMARA: The tanna who reviews mishnayot teaches a baraita before Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi: One who slaughters a gift offering on a Festival is flogged for transgressing the prohibition: 鈥淣o manner of work shall be done on them鈥 (Exodus 12:16). Since this slaughtering was not performed for the purpose of eating, the action constitutes a prohibited labor on a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讱 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讚讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讗 讗诪专讬 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱

Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to that tanna: Who could have said this baraita to you? It is evidently in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that we do not say: Since carrying out was permitted on a Festival for the purpose of food preparation, it was also permitted not for that purpose. For if you say the baraita is accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, they say: Since carrying out was permitted for the requirements of food preparation, it was also permitted not for these requirements. Here, too, with regard to the prohibited labor of slaughtering, since slaughter was permitted for the requirements of food preparation, it was also permitted not for these requirements. It was permitted for any purpose that benefits people, whether directly or indirectly.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇诪讗 讘注专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rabba strongly objects to this reasoning: From where do you infer that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree over this issue? Perhaps they disagree about the following: The halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but there are no halakhot of eiruv nor a prohibition against carrying out on a Festival.

诪专 住讘专 注专讜讘 讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜注专讜讘 讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara clarifies the dispute according to this explanation: One Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that the halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, and similarly the halakhot of eiruv and carrying out apply to a Festival. The only difference is that, on a Festival, carrying, like other types of prohibited labor, is permitted for the sake of food preparation.

讜诪专 住讘专 注专讜讘 讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注专讜讘 讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 转讜爪讬讗讜 诪砖讗 诪讘转讬讻诐 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗

And one Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that the halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but there are no halakhot of eiruv nor a prohibition against carrying out on a Festival, as it is written: 鈥淣either carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Shabbat day鈥 (Jeremiah 17:22), from which Beit Hillel inferred: On Shabbat, yes, carrying from one domain to another is indeed prohibited; on a Festival, no, it is not prohibited. According to this explanation, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about whether a prohibited labor that is permitted for the purpose of food preparation on a Festival is also permitted when it does not serve that purpose.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讚诇讗 诪驻诇讙讬 讘讗讘谞讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation of Rabba: However, if that is so, that the dispute is whether the prohibition against carrying out applies on a Festival, Beit Hillel should permit one to move muktze objects, as the prohibition of handling muktze is an extension of the prohibition against carrying out. Consequently, let them differ with regard to whether or not it is permitted to carry out stones on a Festival. Rather, from the fact that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to stones but concerning objects that serve some sort of purpose, conclude from this: Everyone agrees that carrying out is prohibited on a Festival, and the Torah permitted it only when it is necessary for sustenance.

讘讛讜爪讗讛 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 驻诇讬讙讬

Instead, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to carrying out that is not for the purpose of food preparation. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, since carrying out is permitted for the sake of sustenance, it is entirely permitted. According to Beit Shammai, the Sages permitted only labor that serves the purpose of food preparation.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讘诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讘砖诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讻诇讜 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the principle: Since carrying out is permitted on a Festival for the purpose of food preparation, it was also permitted not for this purpose, as the tanna teaches a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: One who cooks the sciatic nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged for violating five distinct prohibitions.

诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讙讬讚 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜诇讜拽讛

How so? (1) He is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking the sciatic nerve, which is prohibited because the sciatic nerve is unfit for consumption; (2) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, which is explicitly prohibited by the Torah; (3) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking meat in milk; (4) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk; (5) and lastly, he is flogged

诪砖讜诐 讛讘注专讛

due to the prohibition of kindling a fire on a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讘专讗 讛讘注专讛 讜讘砖讜诇 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪砖谞讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讘注专讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to that tanna: Leave and teach it outside, i.e., this baraita is not fit for discussion in the study hall. The opinion that there is a prohibition against kindling and cooking on a Festival is not a mishna worthy of serious consideration. And if you say that it is a mishna rather than an error, this statement is still not in accordance with the halakha, as it is following the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: We do not say: Since carrying out was permitted on a Festival for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes. Here, too, we do not say: Since kindling was permitted on a Festival for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes.

讚讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜爪讗讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讘注专讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱

The Gemara explains why the baraita cannot be attributed to Beit Hillel. If one were to suggest that this baraita follows the opinion of Beit Hillel, this cannot be the case, as they say: Since carrying out was permitted for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes. Here, too, since kindling was permitted for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes. Therefore, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, kindling cannot be included amongst those prohibitions for which one is liable on a Festival.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诇讻讛谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬谉 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讗诪砖 讘讬谉 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

MISHNA: The separation of 岣lla is permitted on a Festival, as one is permitted to prepare dough and bake it on a Festival, and bread may not be eaten without first separating 岣lla. Beit Shammai say: One may not bring separated 岣lla or any of the other priestly gifts, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of a slaughtered animal, to a priest on a Festival, though it is permitted to separate them from an animal slaughtered on a Festival. This is prohibited regardless of whether they were separated last evening, i.e., before the Festival, or whether they were separated today. And Beit Hillel permit it.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讜转专讜诪讛 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讜转

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: This halakha can be derived by an analogy: 岣lla and the other gifts are both considered a gift to the priest, and likewise teruma separated from produce is also a gift to the priest. Just as you agree that one may not bring teruma to a priest on a Festival, so too, one may not bring the other gifts.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛 转讗诪专讜 讘诪转谞讜转 砖讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转谉

Beit Hillel said to them: No, this analogy is incorrect. If you said that you derive the halakha from teruma, where its separation is not allowed on the Festival, how will you say the same with regard to the gifts from an animal or 岣lla, concerning which their separation is allowed on the Festival? Since it is not prohibited to separate these gifts, they may likewise be brought to a priest.

讙诪壮 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜砖谞砖讞讟讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讗诪砖 讜砖谞砖讞讟讜 诪讗诪砖 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪转谞讜转 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 注诐 讛诪转谞讜转 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜砖谞砖讞讟讜 诪讛讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜诇讬讻谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉

GEMARA: It enters your mind to explain that when the mishna states: They were separated today, it means: From animals slaughtered today. And the phrase: They were separated last evening, is referring to animals slaughtered last evening. The Gemara asks: If so, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not Rabbi Yosei nor Rabbi Yehuda, but the opinion of A岣rim, as it is taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute with regard to gifts separated on the eve of a Festival, that one may bring them to a priest on a Festival day itself along with gifts separated that day and from those animals slaughtered that day. They disputed only the halakha of bringing gifts separated the day before by themselves, as Beit Shammai say: One may not bring these gifts by themselves, and Beit Hillel say: One may bring them.

讜讻讱 讛讬讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚谞讬谉 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讜转专讜诪讛 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛 转讗诪专讜 讘诪转谞讜转 砖讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转谉

And Beit Shammai would reason as follows: 岣lla and gifts from a slaughtered animal are a gift to the priest, and teruma is a gift to the priest. Just as one may not bring teruma to a priest on a Festival, so too, one may not bring the other gifts. Beit Hillel said to them: No, granted, if you said so with regard to teruma, the reason is that separation is not allowed on a Festival, but how will you say the same with regard to the other gifts, concerning which separation is allowed on the Festival? It is therefore permitted to bring these gifts to a priest as well. This is Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 interpretation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, according to which Beit Shammai prohibit bringing even gifts separated on the Festival itself.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪转谞讜转 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚谞讬谉 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讜转专讜诪讛 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讻砖诐 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讜转 讻讱 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘诪转谞讜转 砖讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转谉 转讗诪专讜 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛

Rabbi Yosei said: That is not the correct record of the dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute about the fact that one may bring the gifts from an animal to a priest on a Festival. They disputed only with regard to teruma, as Beit Shammai say: One may not bring it, and Beit Hillel say: One may even bring teruma. And Beit Hillel would reason as follows: 岣lla and gifts are a gift to the priest, and teruma is a gift to the priest. Just as one may bring the other gifts on a Festival, so too, one may bring teruma. Beit Shammai said to them: No; if you said so with regard to the other gifts, concerning which their separation is allowed on the Festival, will you say the same with regard to teruma, whose separation is not allowed?

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪转谞讜转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 诇讬诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

A岣rim say that the dispute was as follows: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute with regard to teruma, that one may not bring it to a priest on a Festival. They disputed only the case of the other gifts, as Beit Shammai say: One may not bring the other gifts, and Beit Hillel say: One may bring them. The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara does not even suggest that the mishna might be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is clear that it cannot be reconciled with his explanation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜砖谞砖讞讟讜 诪讛讬讜诐 砖讛讜专诪讜 拽转谞讬 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 诪讗诪砖 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讛谞讱 讚谞砖讞讟讜 诪讗诪砖

Rava said: Is it taught in the mishna: They were separated that day and were slaughtered that day? No; it teaches: They were separated, and actually the mishna should be explained as follows: They were slaughtered last evening and separated today, which is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda said. The Gemara asks: If so, let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim? The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, it can still be claimed that, in their opinion, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed the case of these animals that were slaughtered last evening, not those slaughtered on the Festival.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讟驻诇讛

The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same opinion as that of Rabbi Yehuda. What, then, is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and A岣rim? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to secondary gifts. If one has gifts separated before a Festival, is he permitted to join them as secondary gifts along with others separated on the Festival and transport them together to a priest? Rabbi Yehuda maintains that secondary gifts may be brought to a priest, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, whereas A岣rim prohibit it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讙专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讗诪讟讜讬讬 诇讻讛谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

With regard to the dispute cited in the Tosefta, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara relates: Rav Tovi, son of Rabbi Ne岣mya, had a bottle of teruma wine. He came before Rav Yosef and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to bringing this wine to a priest now, on a Festival? Rav Yosef said to him: That is what Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that Beit Hillel permit one to bring teruma to a priest on a Festival, and the halakha is in accordance with their opinion.

讗讜砖驻讝讬讻谞讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗住讜专讬讬转讗 讚讞专讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇驻专讜讻讬 讜诪讬讻诇 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜诇诇讬谉 诪诇讬诇讜转 讜诪驻专讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬讜转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 The Gemara relates: The host of Rava, son of Rav 岣nan, had bundles of unprocessed mustard, whose seeds remained in their stems. He said to his guest, the Sage: What is the halakha with regard to crushing these mustard stalks and eating from them on a Festival? Rava, son of Rav 岣nan, did not have an answer readily available, so he came before Rava to ask his opinion. Rava said to him that it was taught: One may husk kernels by rubbing them between one鈥檚 fingers, and one may likewise crush legumes on a Festival. This statement indicates that it is permitted to crush mustard stalks.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪讜诇诇 诪诇讬诇讜转 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讞专 诪谞驻讞 诪讬讚 诇讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽谞讜谉 讜诇讗 讘转诪讞讜讬

Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: In the case of one who husks kernels of grain on Shabbat eve, on the following day, on Shabbat itself, he may winnow the chaff in an irregular manner by passing the kernels from hand to hand and then eat them. However, one may not do so, neither by means of a basket [kanon] that is occasionally used for sorting and separating the chaff nor with a large vessel.

讛诪讜诇诇 诪诇讬诇讜转 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇诪讞专 诪谞驻讞 注诇 讬讚 注诇 讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽谞讜谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转诪讞讜讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇讗 讜诇讗 讘谞驻讛 讜诇讗 讘讻讘专讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗

With regard to one who husks kernels of grain on a Festival eve, on the following day, he may winnow a little grain at a time and eat, even with a tray or a large vessel. However, he may not do so with a tablet, nor with a winnow, nor with a sieve. Since these vessels are designed for winnowing, they are used only for large quantities, and therefore it will appear as though he were preparing for after the Festival, which is certainly prohibited. In any case, the wording of the baraita indicates: On a Festival eve, yes, one may husk or crush legumes; on the Festival itself, no, it is prohibited to do so.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪注专讘 砖讘转 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara refutes this: Even if you say that it is permitted on a Festival, the baraita can be understood. The reason is as follows: Since he taught in the first clause of the baraita: On Shabbat eve, as husking grain may not be performed on Shabbat itself, for it might lead to a prohibited labor on Shabbat, he also taught in the latter clause: On a Festival eve. However, this does not mean that rubbing or crushing legumes is prohibited on the Festival itself.

讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 转专讜诪讛 砖讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛 讜转谞谉 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讻讗讬 讘讛专诪转讛 讜讻讜壮

Abaye raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rava from a different angle: If you say so, we have thereby found a case of teruma for which separation is allowed on a Festival. Before being rubbed, the grains of wheat were certainly not fit to be eaten, and therefore there was no obligation to separate teruma from them. Now that one has prepared them as food by rubbing them, he is obligated to separate teruma from them, and if one is permitted to eat them, he must be permitted to separate teruma from them first. And we learned explicitly in the mishna: No, if you said that you derive the halakha from teruma, where its separation is not allowed on the Festival. This statement indicates that even Beit Hillel agree that one may not separate teruma of any kind on a Festival.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara refutes this challenge: This is not difficult.

Scroll To Top