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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 13, 2021 | 讝壮 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 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 13

This week of learning is sponsored in memory of Florence Pine, Fayga bat Moshe Mordechai v鈥橲ara Rivka, on her first yartzeit, 7 Tishrei, by her daughter, Debbie Pine. “My mother was a passionate supporter of both education for women and Jewish education. She鈥檇 be awed by the enthusiasm and commitment of the women of Hadran. She is missed every day, but especially today. Yehi z鈥檆hra Baruch.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Danny and Sara Berelowitz in honor of聽 their newest granddaughter, Gaya Rachel, daughter of Yoel and Daniella Sterman.聽

In an attempt to explain Rava鈥檚 reading of a braita, that permitted husking kernels on Yom Tov, which would imply that one could take teruma (as one is not obligated in teruma until after that stage) with our mishna that says that one cannot separate teruma on Yom Tov, the gemara brings a debate between Rebbe and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda and reconciles the mishna with Rabbi Yosi鈥檚 position and the braita with Rebbe鈥檚. Their debate was about one who brought stalks into his house to husk them and eat the kernels, rather than to make it into flour and make a dough. According to Rabbi Yosi, one would not be obligated in teruma as they never become fully processed. Rebbe holds that since you want to eat the kernels, they are considered a finished product for the purpose you are intending and therefore would be obligated in teruma. Abaye holds that their debate is only regarding grains but legumes they would all agree. However, two different versions of Abaye are brought regarding legumes. Do they all agree legumes are obligated in tithes when they are bundled or do they both agree they are not obligated? For each version, the same braita is brought, either to support his claim or to refute. However, the support is disproven as it is inconclusive and the refutation is answered. In the second version, the law regarding a Levite who receives his tithe before the owner is even obligated to tithe the produce is discussed. As things were done out of the order (the kohen should have received teruma first) and before it was even obligated in teruma, what needs to happen? Can one compare the rules for what process is needed to obligated one to tithe their produce with what actions are forbidden on Shabbat? How exactly does one husk the kernels on Yom Tov, as it needs to be done in a way that is somewhat different from the usual manner?

讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻谞讬住 砖讘诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 注讬住讛 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜驻讟讜专

This source, the baraita, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that one must separate teruma from kernels of grain on the stalk, and one may separate terumot on a Festival. That source, the mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there is no need to separate teruma from kernels of grain on the stalk, as it is taught in a baraita: If one brought inside his house stalks of grain in order to grind them into flour and to make dough from them, he may eat from them, as a snack, before they are ground, and he is exempt from teruma. Provided that the grain has not yet been fully processed, the obligation to separate teruma does not apply. The Sages decreed that such produce may only be consumed casually and not as part of a regular meal.

诇诪讜诇诇谉 讘诪诇讬诇讜转 专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专

However, if from the outset one brought in the stalks of grain not to grind them but to husk the kernels and eat them a little at a time, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi obligates him to separate teruma from them and prohibits him from partaking of the grain until he has done so. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, exempts him from the obligation of teruma. He maintains that not even this intention renders one obligated to separate teruma, as the obligation for teruma applies only to fully processed grain.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讻谞讬住 砖讘诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 注讬住讛 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇诪讜诇诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讟讘诇讗 讘讬讜诪讬讛

The Gemara challenges this: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, you can also find a case when one must separate teruma from grain that has not been fully processed. How so? For example, if one brought inside his house stalks of grain to make dough from them, thereby rendering himself obligated to separate teruma from them, and he reconsidered and decided to husk them in order to eat the kernels on a Festival. In that case, the prohibition of untithed produce takes effect on that day and one is obligated to separate teruma, only afterward is he permitted to eat the kernels.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 转专讜诪讛 专讜讘 转专讜诪讛

Rather, one must say: What is the teruma that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree may not be separated on a Festival? It is referring to most teruma, e.g., grain that has been threshed and gathered into piles on the eve of the Festival. They do, however, admit that there are exceptional cases in which one may separate teruma on a Festival.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讬讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬讬转讗 讟讘诇讗

Abaye said: This dispute, concerning when the obligation to separate teruma and the prohibition of untithed produce takes effect, is referring only to stalks of grain, which are typically brought into a granary, where they are processed in a standard manner. Until that point, the grain is not prohibited as untithed produce. However, with regard to legumes, everyone agrees that the bundles are already regarded as untithed produce, and teruma must be separated from them at that stage.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞讘讬诇讬 转诇转谉 砖诇 讟讘诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讜转砖 讜诪讞砖讘 讻诪讛 讝专注 讬砖 讘讛诐 讜诪驻专讬砖 注诇 讛讝专注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪驻专讬砖 注诇 讛注抓 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛转诐 诇讗 讟讘诇讗 讛讻讗 讟讘诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following mishna supports him (Terumot 10:6): With regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek, a type of legume, of untithed produce, he may pound these bundles to remove the seeds from them. And he calculates how many seeds the bundles contain and separates teruma based on the quantity of seeds, but he does not calculate and separate teruma based on the quantity of stalks. Although the stalks and leaves are also used for cooking, it is not necessary to separate teruma from them. What, is it not the case that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: There, with regard to stalks of grain, it is not yet ready to be tithed, and therefore not prohibited as untithed produce, whereas here, i.e., with regard to the bundles of fenugreek, it is ready to be tithed and therefore prohibited as untithed produce?

诇讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转诇转谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘诇讬谉 谞诪讬

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is no proof, as it can be claimed that the mishna dealing with fenugreek is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who obligates one to separate teruma in the case of stalks of grain. The Gemara challenges this: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what novel element does the mishna provide? Why specifically discuss fenugreek? According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the same halakha applies even to stalks of grain as well.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬 拽讟谞讬讜转 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇转谉

The Gemara rejects this: Rather, what then? Is the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? If so, let him teach us this halakha with regard to other types of legumes, i.e., that they have the status of untithed produce when placed in bundles. And all the more so this would apply to fenugreek, which is eaten only in small quantities and is not processed in the manner of grain.

讗诇讗 转诇转谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 诇驻专讜砖 谞诪讬 讗注爪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, it cannot be proven that the mishna follows either the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, or that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was necessary for the tanna to state the case of fenugreek for a different reason: It could enter your mind to say: Since in the case of fenugreek the taste of its stalk and its fruit are identical, as the branches of the fenugreek add flavor to a dish, perhaps one should also separate teruma based on the quantity of fenugreek stalks, as well. The tanna of the mishna therefore teaches us that there is no obligation to do so, and this is the novel element of his statement.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讬讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讟讘诇讗 诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞讘讬诇讬 转诇转谉 砖诇 讟讘诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讜转砖 讜诪讞砖讘 讻诪讛 讝专注 讬砖 讘讛谉 讜诪驻专讬砖 注诇 讛讝专注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪驻专讬砖 注诇 讛注抓 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛

Some say that Abaye said the following: This dispute between Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to stalks of grain; however, with regard to legumes, everyone agrees that the bundles are not yet ready to be tithed and are therefore not prohibited as untithed produce. The Gemara raises an objection to this: With regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek of untithed produce, he may pound them and calculate how many seeds they contain and separate teruma based on the quantity of seeds, but he does not separate based on the quantity of stalks. What, is this not referring to the normal case of untithed produce of teruma, i.e., produce from which the regular teruma, the initial portion taken from produce as the priests鈥 portion, must be separated?

诇讗 讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 砖诇 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a different case, that of first tithe that is still regarded as untithed produce, because of teruma of the tithe that must still be separated from it. First tithe is given to the Levites, who must separate ten percent as teruma of the tithe, to give to the priests. Before teruma of the tithe is separated, the first tithe may not be eaten.

讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉

And this statement is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It can occur that a Levite might take the first tithe before the teruma is separated, while the grain is still on the stalks. The correct procedure is: After collecting the grain in a pile in the granary, one first separates teruma, and only afterward separates first tithe to give to the Levites.

砖诪讜 讟讜讘诇讜 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专

If this order was not followed, and the first tithe was separated first while the grain was still attached to the stalks, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish maintains that the following halakha applies: Its name, i.e., the fact that it has been designated first tithe, renders it ready to be tithed and therefore prohibited as untithed produce, as pertains to teruma of the tithe that must still be separated from it. This shows that there can be a separation of a type of teruma, specifically the teruma of the tithe, even before work on the produce has been completed, and this is the case to which the previously quoted mishna is referring.

讻讜转砖 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讬讛讘讜 诇讬 讛讻讬 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽谞住讗

The Gemara challenges this interpretation: If first tithe is considered untithed produce when it is named, why do I need the act of pounding? Let the Levite say to the priest: As they gave to me stalks of grain, or unprepared bundles, so I am giving them to you in the same state. Rava said: It is a penalty. In other words, the Levite should indeed be entitled to issue this claim; however, as he acted improperly by taking his tithe prematurely, the Sages decreed that he may not separate the priest鈥檚 portion in its current state, but must first improve it.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 砖讘诇讬谉 讘诪注砖专讜转讬讜 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 讙讜专谉 注谞讘讬诐 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 讬讬谉 讝讬转讬诐 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 砖诪谉 讜诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛诐 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 砖讻砖诐 砖转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讬讟诇转

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita. With regard to a Levite who was given stalks of grain as his tithes, he renders them into a granary, i.e., he must thresh and process them in the usual manner. Similarly, if he was given grapes, he renders them wine; if he was given olives, he renders them oil; and afterward he separates teruma of the tithe for them and gives them to a priest. For just as teruma gedola, i.e., standard teruma, is not separated from unprocessed produce,

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讙讜专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬拽讘 讻讱 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讛 谞讬讟诇转 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讙讜专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬拽讘

but only from the granary and the winepress, so too, teruma of the tithe is separated only from the granary and the winepress.

诪讞砖讘 讛讗 诪讚讬讚讛 讘注讬

The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to produce from which teruma gedola has not been separated, it is appropriate to use the term: Calculates. However, according to the suggestion that it is referring to a first tithe, from which teruma of the tithe must be separated, why does the mishna state: Calculates? The tanna of the mishna should have said: Measures. The amount of teruma gedola to be separated is calculated by estimation, as there is no fixed amount for this teruma according to Torah law. With regard to the teruma separated from first tithe, however, the Torah established the fixed amount of one-tenth, and one is required to measure precisely.

讛讗 诪谞讬 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙讬诪诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙讬诪诇 讗讜诪专 讜谞讞砖讘 诇讻诐 转专讜诪转讻诐 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讻砖诐 砖转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 谞讬讟诇转 讘讗讜诪讚 讜讘诪讞砖讘讛 讻讱 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 谞讬讟诇转 讘讗讜诪讚 讜讘诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Elazar ben Gimmel, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Elazar ben Gimmel says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd your teruma shall be reckoned to you as though it were the corn of the granary and as the fullness of the winepress鈥 (Numbers 18:27). The verse speaks of two terumot. One is teruma gedola, and the other one is teruma of the tithe. Just as teruma gedola is separated by estimation and is not measured exactly, and it is enough to separate it by thought, as the word 鈥渞eckoned鈥 implies that the mere intention to separate a particular portion serves to remove the rest of the produce from its untithed state, so too, teruma of the tithe can also be separated by estimation and by thought.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉 砖诪讜 讟讜讘诇讜 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖诐 诪注砖专

搂 Since it was mentioned incidentally, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: With regard to first tithe, in a case in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, its name renders it untithed produce, until he separates from it the teruma of the tithe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? Rava said: Since the name of the first tithe was called upon it, the obligation of the teruma of the tithe takes effect as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛

The Gemara cites a similar halakha that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: With regard to first tithe, in a case in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, before it was threshed and turned into a pile, the owner separated first tithe before teruma. In that case, the separated tithe is exempt from teruma gedola. Although teruma gedola should have been separated from the produce first, and it should have included some of the produce taken as the first tithe, the Levite is nevertheless exempt from separating this teruma.

砖谞讗诪专 讜讛专诪讜转诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 讛壮 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

This is because it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart from it a teruma for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26), which indicates: A tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, I, God, said to you that you must separate it, and you are not obligated in both teruma gedola and teruma of the tithe from the first tithe.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 (诪注砖专讜转讬讻诐) 转专讬诪讜 讗转 讻诇 转专讜诪转 讛壮

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, if there is a source for this halakha in the Torah, even if the Levite preceded the priest, i.e., first tithe was separated after the grain had been threshed and the kernels of grain placed in a pile, then it should also be exempt from teruma gedola. Abaye said to Rav Pappa: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma (Numbers 18:29). This verse indicates that God鈥檚 teruma, i.e., teruma gedola, must be taken from all the produce, including the tithe.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗讬 讗讚讙谉 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讚讙谉

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to require the separation of teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from processed grain piled in the granary but not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This, grain that has been threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that, grain that remains on the stalk, has not yet become grain. Until the grain is threshed and assembled in a pile, the obligation to separate teruma does not take effect, as it is not considered grain. When such unprocessed grain is designated first tithe, it ceases to be untithed produce and the opportunity to separate teruma from it has been missed. However, once the grain has been processed, and the obligation to separate teruma has taken effect, it is as if the teruma is already mixed in, and the obligation to separate it cannot be overridden by the fact that this produce has been designated first tithe.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪拽诇祝 砖注讜专讬谉 诪拽诇祝 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗诐 拽诇祝 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻谉 诇砖讘转

We learned in a mishna there (Ma鈥檃srot 4:5): One who peels grains of barley to eat them raw may peel them one by one and eat them immediately without tithing them, as this is considered a casual manner of eating. But if he peeled and placed several of them into his hand, he is obligated to separate tithes. Rabbi Elazar said: And a similar halakha applies to Shabbat. Peeling grains of barley one by one is not considered threshing, and it is permitted; if a whole handful of grains are peeled together, this does constitute the prohibited labor of threshing.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 诪拽诇驻讗 诇讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讻住讬 讻住讬 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪拽诇驻讗 诇讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讻住讬 讻住讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讗住讬驻讗 讗转诪专 讛诪讜诇诇 诪诇讬诇讜转 砖诇 讞讟讬诐 诪谞驻讞 注诇 讬讚 注诇 讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗诐 谞驻讞 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讞讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻谉 诇砖讘转

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav鈥檚 wife peel for him barley on Shabbat by the cupful? And likewise Rav 岣yya鈥檚 wife would peel barley for him on Shabbat by the cupful. Rather, if Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 comment was stated in this context, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of that same mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 4:5): With regard to one who husks kernels of wheat by hand, he may blow onto the chaff to disperse it a little at a time and eat the kernels without separating tithes. But if he blows on the kernels and puts a large amount of them into his lap, he is obligated to separate tithes from the food. It was with regard to this teaching that Rabbi Elazar said: And a similar halakha applies to Shabbat.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讜专讬砖讗 诇诪注砖专 讗讬谉 诇砖讘转 诇讗 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讜诇诪注砖专 讛讜讬 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel strongly objects to this: And with regard to the first clause of the mishna, one should conclude: Yes, if one peeled a handful of barley, it is considered prepared with regard to tithes, but no, it is not considered threshing with regard to Shabbat? But is there anything that, with regard to Shabbat, is not considered the completion of the labor and may be performed; and yet, with regard to tithes, it is considered the completion of the labor? Isn鈥檛 the prohibition against work on Shabbat far more stringent than tithes in all its details?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讙专谞谉 诇诪注砖专 讚转谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讙专谞谉 诇诪注砖专 讛拽砖讜讗讬谉 讜讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诪砖讬驻拽住讜 讜砖诇讗 驻拽住讜 诪砖讬注诪讬讚 注专诪讛 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 讘爪诇讬诐 诪砖讬注诪讬讚 注专诪讛 讜讗诇讜 讙讘讬 砖讘转 讛注诪讚转 注专诪讛 驻讟讜专

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, strongly objects to this claim: And is there no example of a halakha in which tithes are treated more stringently than Shabbat? And is there not the halakha of their granary for tithes, as we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 1:5): What is the equivalent of their granary, i.e., the point at which the processing of various vegetable is completed so that they become obligated in tithes? With regard to cucumbers and gourds, they become obligated from when one trims the thin hairs that cover them [misheyefaksu], and for those he did not trim, from when he assembles them in a pile. And we also learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 1:6), with regard to onions, that it is from when one assembles them in a pile. Whereas with regard to Shabbat, one who assembles produce in a pile is exempt, as this is not a prohibited labor on Shabbat.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

Rather, what have you to say? Why is one exempt if he forms a pile on Shabbat? The Torah prohibited only planned, constructive labor on Shabbat, the type of work that involves the creation of something new, and the formation of a pile is not considered that kind of labor. Here too, with regard to peeling barley, the Torah prohibited creative work. Although collecting the peeled barley in one鈥檚 hand is considered the completion of the labor in respect to tithes, it is not prohibited labor on Shabbat.

讻讬爪讚 诪讜诇诇 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讞讚讗 讗讞讚讗 讜专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讞讚讗 讗转专转讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚讗 讗讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬

Apropos husking kernels on Shabbat, the Gemara asks: How may one husk grain on a Festival? Abaye said in the name of Rav Yosef: One finger on another, i.e., one may place the kernels between two fingers and rub. And Rav Avya said in the name of Rav Yosef: One may even do so one on two, i.e., between the thumb and two fingers. Rava said: Since he alters the manner in which he performs the activity, he may even do so with one finger on all the rest.

讻讬爪讚 诪谞驻讞 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞驻讞

The Gemara further asks: How may one blow on the grain, to winnow it in a permitted manner on Shabbat? Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: One blows

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 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

Food Prep on Yom Tov

Beitzah Daf 13, Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/GCKyayuVIXI  

Beitzah 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 13

讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻谞讬住 砖讘诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 注讬住讛 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜驻讟讜专

This source, the baraita, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that one must separate teruma from kernels of grain on the stalk, and one may separate terumot on a Festival. That source, the mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there is no need to separate teruma from kernels of grain on the stalk, as it is taught in a baraita: If one brought inside his house stalks of grain in order to grind them into flour and to make dough from them, he may eat from them, as a snack, before they are ground, and he is exempt from teruma. Provided that the grain has not yet been fully processed, the obligation to separate teruma does not apply. The Sages decreed that such produce may only be consumed casually and not as part of a regular meal.

诇诪讜诇诇谉 讘诪诇讬诇讜转 专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专

However, if from the outset one brought in the stalks of grain not to grind them but to husk the kernels and eat them a little at a time, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi obligates him to separate teruma from them and prohibits him from partaking of the grain until he has done so. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, exempts him from the obligation of teruma. He maintains that not even this intention renders one obligated to separate teruma, as the obligation for teruma applies only to fully processed grain.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讻谞讬住 砖讘诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 注讬住讛 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇诪讜诇诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讟讘诇讗 讘讬讜诪讬讛

The Gemara challenges this: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, you can also find a case when one must separate teruma from grain that has not been fully processed. How so? For example, if one brought inside his house stalks of grain to make dough from them, thereby rendering himself obligated to separate teruma from them, and he reconsidered and decided to husk them in order to eat the kernels on a Festival. In that case, the prohibition of untithed produce takes effect on that day and one is obligated to separate teruma, only afterward is he permitted to eat the kernels.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 转专讜诪讛 专讜讘 转专讜诪讛

Rather, one must say: What is the teruma that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree may not be separated on a Festival? It is referring to most teruma, e.g., grain that has been threshed and gathered into piles on the eve of the Festival. They do, however, admit that there are exceptional cases in which one may separate teruma on a Festival.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讬讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬讬转讗 讟讘诇讗

Abaye said: This dispute, concerning when the obligation to separate teruma and the prohibition of untithed produce takes effect, is referring only to stalks of grain, which are typically brought into a granary, where they are processed in a standard manner. Until that point, the grain is not prohibited as untithed produce. However, with regard to legumes, everyone agrees that the bundles are already regarded as untithed produce, and teruma must be separated from them at that stage.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞讘讬诇讬 转诇转谉 砖诇 讟讘诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讜转砖 讜诪讞砖讘 讻诪讛 讝专注 讬砖 讘讛诐 讜诪驻专讬砖 注诇 讛讝专注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪驻专讬砖 注诇 讛注抓 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛转诐 诇讗 讟讘诇讗 讛讻讗 讟讘诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following mishna supports him (Terumot 10:6): With regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek, a type of legume, of untithed produce, he may pound these bundles to remove the seeds from them. And he calculates how many seeds the bundles contain and separates teruma based on the quantity of seeds, but he does not calculate and separate teruma based on the quantity of stalks. Although the stalks and leaves are also used for cooking, it is not necessary to separate teruma from them. What, is it not the case that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: There, with regard to stalks of grain, it is not yet ready to be tithed, and therefore not prohibited as untithed produce, whereas here, i.e., with regard to the bundles of fenugreek, it is ready to be tithed and therefore prohibited as untithed produce?

诇讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转诇转谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘诇讬谉 谞诪讬

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is no proof, as it can be claimed that the mishna dealing with fenugreek is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who obligates one to separate teruma in the case of stalks of grain. The Gemara challenges this: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what novel element does the mishna provide? Why specifically discuss fenugreek? According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the same halakha applies even to stalks of grain as well.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬 拽讟谞讬讜转 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇转谉

The Gemara rejects this: Rather, what then? Is the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? If so, let him teach us this halakha with regard to other types of legumes, i.e., that they have the status of untithed produce when placed in bundles. And all the more so this would apply to fenugreek, which is eaten only in small quantities and is not processed in the manner of grain.

讗诇讗 转诇转谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 诇驻专讜砖 谞诪讬 讗注爪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, it cannot be proven that the mishna follows either the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, or that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was necessary for the tanna to state the case of fenugreek for a different reason: It could enter your mind to say: Since in the case of fenugreek the taste of its stalk and its fruit are identical, as the branches of the fenugreek add flavor to a dish, perhaps one should also separate teruma based on the quantity of fenugreek stalks, as well. The tanna of the mishna therefore teaches us that there is no obligation to do so, and this is the novel element of his statement.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讬讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讟讘诇讗 诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞讘讬诇讬 转诇转谉 砖诇 讟讘诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讜转砖 讜诪讞砖讘 讻诪讛 讝专注 讬砖 讘讛谉 讜诪驻专讬砖 注诇 讛讝专注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪驻专讬砖 注诇 讛注抓 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛

Some say that Abaye said the following: This dispute between Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to stalks of grain; however, with regard to legumes, everyone agrees that the bundles are not yet ready to be tithed and are therefore not prohibited as untithed produce. The Gemara raises an objection to this: With regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek of untithed produce, he may pound them and calculate how many seeds they contain and separate teruma based on the quantity of seeds, but he does not separate based on the quantity of stalks. What, is this not referring to the normal case of untithed produce of teruma, i.e., produce from which the regular teruma, the initial portion taken from produce as the priests鈥 portion, must be separated?

诇讗 讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 砖诇 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a different case, that of first tithe that is still regarded as untithed produce, because of teruma of the tithe that must still be separated from it. First tithe is given to the Levites, who must separate ten percent as teruma of the tithe, to give to the priests. Before teruma of the tithe is separated, the first tithe may not be eaten.

讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉

And this statement is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It can occur that a Levite might take the first tithe before the teruma is separated, while the grain is still on the stalks. The correct procedure is: After collecting the grain in a pile in the granary, one first separates teruma, and only afterward separates first tithe to give to the Levites.

砖诪讜 讟讜讘诇讜 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专

If this order was not followed, and the first tithe was separated first while the grain was still attached to the stalks, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish maintains that the following halakha applies: Its name, i.e., the fact that it has been designated first tithe, renders it ready to be tithed and therefore prohibited as untithed produce, as pertains to teruma of the tithe that must still be separated from it. This shows that there can be a separation of a type of teruma, specifically the teruma of the tithe, even before work on the produce has been completed, and this is the case to which the previously quoted mishna is referring.

讻讜转砖 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讬讛讘讜 诇讬 讛讻讬 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽谞住讗

The Gemara challenges this interpretation: If first tithe is considered untithed produce when it is named, why do I need the act of pounding? Let the Levite say to the priest: As they gave to me stalks of grain, or unprepared bundles, so I am giving them to you in the same state. Rava said: It is a penalty. In other words, the Levite should indeed be entitled to issue this claim; however, as he acted improperly by taking his tithe prematurely, the Sages decreed that he may not separate the priest鈥檚 portion in its current state, but must first improve it.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 砖讘诇讬谉 讘诪注砖专讜转讬讜 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 讙讜专谉 注谞讘讬诐 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 讬讬谉 讝讬转讬诐 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 砖诪谉 讜诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛诐 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 砖讻砖诐 砖转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讬讟诇转

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita. With regard to a Levite who was given stalks of grain as his tithes, he renders them into a granary, i.e., he must thresh and process them in the usual manner. Similarly, if he was given grapes, he renders them wine; if he was given olives, he renders them oil; and afterward he separates teruma of the tithe for them and gives them to a priest. For just as teruma gedola, i.e., standard teruma, is not separated from unprocessed produce,

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讙讜专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬拽讘 讻讱 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讛 谞讬讟诇转 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讙讜专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬拽讘

but only from the granary and the winepress, so too, teruma of the tithe is separated only from the granary and the winepress.

诪讞砖讘 讛讗 诪讚讬讚讛 讘注讬

The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to produce from which teruma gedola has not been separated, it is appropriate to use the term: Calculates. However, according to the suggestion that it is referring to a first tithe, from which teruma of the tithe must be separated, why does the mishna state: Calculates? The tanna of the mishna should have said: Measures. The amount of teruma gedola to be separated is calculated by estimation, as there is no fixed amount for this teruma according to Torah law. With regard to the teruma separated from first tithe, however, the Torah established the fixed amount of one-tenth, and one is required to measure precisely.

讛讗 诪谞讬 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙讬诪诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙讬诪诇 讗讜诪专 讜谞讞砖讘 诇讻诐 转专讜诪转讻诐 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讻砖诐 砖转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 谞讬讟诇转 讘讗讜诪讚 讜讘诪讞砖讘讛 讻讱 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 谞讬讟诇转 讘讗讜诪讚 讜讘诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Elazar ben Gimmel, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Elazar ben Gimmel says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd your teruma shall be reckoned to you as though it were the corn of the granary and as the fullness of the winepress鈥 (Numbers 18:27). The verse speaks of two terumot. One is teruma gedola, and the other one is teruma of the tithe. Just as teruma gedola is separated by estimation and is not measured exactly, and it is enough to separate it by thought, as the word 鈥渞eckoned鈥 implies that the mere intention to separate a particular portion serves to remove the rest of the produce from its untithed state, so too, teruma of the tithe can also be separated by estimation and by thought.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉 砖诪讜 讟讜讘诇讜 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖诐 诪注砖专

搂 Since it was mentioned incidentally, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: With regard to first tithe, in a case in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, its name renders it untithed produce, until he separates from it the teruma of the tithe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? Rava said: Since the name of the first tithe was called upon it, the obligation of the teruma of the tithe takes effect as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛

The Gemara cites a similar halakha that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: With regard to first tithe, in a case in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, before it was threshed and turned into a pile, the owner separated first tithe before teruma. In that case, the separated tithe is exempt from teruma gedola. Although teruma gedola should have been separated from the produce first, and it should have included some of the produce taken as the first tithe, the Levite is nevertheless exempt from separating this teruma.

砖谞讗诪专 讜讛专诪讜转诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 讛壮 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

This is because it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart from it a teruma for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26), which indicates: A tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, I, God, said to you that you must separate it, and you are not obligated in both teruma gedola and teruma of the tithe from the first tithe.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 (诪注砖专讜转讬讻诐) 转专讬诪讜 讗转 讻诇 转专讜诪转 讛壮

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, if there is a source for this halakha in the Torah, even if the Levite preceded the priest, i.e., first tithe was separated after the grain had been threshed and the kernels of grain placed in a pile, then it should also be exempt from teruma gedola. Abaye said to Rav Pappa: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma (Numbers 18:29). This verse indicates that God鈥檚 teruma, i.e., teruma gedola, must be taken from all the produce, including the tithe.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗讬 讗讚讙谉 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讚讙谉

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to require the separation of teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from processed grain piled in the granary but not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This, grain that has been threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that, grain that remains on the stalk, has not yet become grain. Until the grain is threshed and assembled in a pile, the obligation to separate teruma does not take effect, as it is not considered grain. When such unprocessed grain is designated first tithe, it ceases to be untithed produce and the opportunity to separate teruma from it has been missed. However, once the grain has been processed, and the obligation to separate teruma has taken effect, it is as if the teruma is already mixed in, and the obligation to separate it cannot be overridden by the fact that this produce has been designated first tithe.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪拽诇祝 砖注讜专讬谉 诪拽诇祝 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗诐 拽诇祝 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻谉 诇砖讘转

We learned in a mishna there (Ma鈥檃srot 4:5): One who peels grains of barley to eat them raw may peel them one by one and eat them immediately without tithing them, as this is considered a casual manner of eating. But if he peeled and placed several of them into his hand, he is obligated to separate tithes. Rabbi Elazar said: And a similar halakha applies to Shabbat. Peeling grains of barley one by one is not considered threshing, and it is permitted; if a whole handful of grains are peeled together, this does constitute the prohibited labor of threshing.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 诪拽诇驻讗 诇讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讻住讬 讻住讬 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪拽诇驻讗 诇讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讻住讬 讻住讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讗住讬驻讗 讗转诪专 讛诪讜诇诇 诪诇讬诇讜转 砖诇 讞讟讬诐 诪谞驻讞 注诇 讬讚 注诇 讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗诐 谞驻讞 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讞讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻谉 诇砖讘转

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav鈥檚 wife peel for him barley on Shabbat by the cupful? And likewise Rav 岣yya鈥檚 wife would peel barley for him on Shabbat by the cupful. Rather, if Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 comment was stated in this context, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of that same mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 4:5): With regard to one who husks kernels of wheat by hand, he may blow onto the chaff to disperse it a little at a time and eat the kernels without separating tithes. But if he blows on the kernels and puts a large amount of them into his lap, he is obligated to separate tithes from the food. It was with regard to this teaching that Rabbi Elazar said: And a similar halakha applies to Shabbat.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讜专讬砖讗 诇诪注砖专 讗讬谉 诇砖讘转 诇讗 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讜诇诪注砖专 讛讜讬 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel strongly objects to this: And with regard to the first clause of the mishna, one should conclude: Yes, if one peeled a handful of barley, it is considered prepared with regard to tithes, but no, it is not considered threshing with regard to Shabbat? But is there anything that, with regard to Shabbat, is not considered the completion of the labor and may be performed; and yet, with regard to tithes, it is considered the completion of the labor? Isn鈥檛 the prohibition against work on Shabbat far more stringent than tithes in all its details?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讙专谞谉 诇诪注砖专 讚转谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讙专谞谉 诇诪注砖专 讛拽砖讜讗讬谉 讜讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诪砖讬驻拽住讜 讜砖诇讗 驻拽住讜 诪砖讬注诪讬讚 注专诪讛 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 讘爪诇讬诐 诪砖讬注诪讬讚 注专诪讛 讜讗诇讜 讙讘讬 砖讘转 讛注诪讚转 注专诪讛 驻讟讜专

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, strongly objects to this claim: And is there no example of a halakha in which tithes are treated more stringently than Shabbat? And is there not the halakha of their granary for tithes, as we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 1:5): What is the equivalent of their granary, i.e., the point at which the processing of various vegetable is completed so that they become obligated in tithes? With regard to cucumbers and gourds, they become obligated from when one trims the thin hairs that cover them [misheyefaksu], and for those he did not trim, from when he assembles them in a pile. And we also learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 1:6), with regard to onions, that it is from when one assembles them in a pile. Whereas with regard to Shabbat, one who assembles produce in a pile is exempt, as this is not a prohibited labor on Shabbat.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

Rather, what have you to say? Why is one exempt if he forms a pile on Shabbat? The Torah prohibited only planned, constructive labor on Shabbat, the type of work that involves the creation of something new, and the formation of a pile is not considered that kind of labor. Here too, with regard to peeling barley, the Torah prohibited creative work. Although collecting the peeled barley in one鈥檚 hand is considered the completion of the labor in respect to tithes, it is not prohibited labor on Shabbat.

讻讬爪讚 诪讜诇诇 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讞讚讗 讗讞讚讗 讜专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讞讚讗 讗转专转讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚讗 讗讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬

Apropos husking kernels on Shabbat, the Gemara asks: How may one husk grain on a Festival? Abaye said in the name of Rav Yosef: One finger on another, i.e., one may place the kernels between two fingers and rub. And Rav Avya said in the name of Rav Yosef: One may even do so one on two, i.e., between the thumb and two fingers. Rava said: Since he alters the manner in which he performs the activity, he may even do so with one finger on all the rest.

讻讬爪讚 诪谞驻讞 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞驻讞

The Gemara further asks: How may one blow on the grain, to winnow it in a permitted manner on Shabbat? Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: One blows

Scroll To Top