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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 4, 2021 | 讻状讞 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.

A month of shiurim are sponsored 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.

Beitzah 34

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Eran Bellin and Marcy Goldstein in memory of Rabbi David Eliach. He was a founding member of the Yeshivah of Flatbush and taught generations of students to love Torah and serious study.

A chicken that was trampled or thrown against a wall but managed to stay alive for 24 hours, can be slaughtered, but it should be checked after slaughtering that it had not become a treifa. Is it possible to slaughter on in that case on a Yom Tov? Should there be a concern that if it is found to be treifa, the slaughtering would have been performed for no reason, like the tiles that were heated up that may explode? A braita is brought regarding Shabbat, describing a case where there are several actions that if done by different people – one brings the fire, another the wood, the pot, the spices, etc., if you fire is brought first, all are liable 鈥 some for making a fire and some for cooking. The one who brought the pot 鈥 for what is he/she liable? This must be a new cauldron and like the tiles, by putting it on the fire, it is hardening it and preparing it for use. If there is a new oven, they are not muktze because it is possible to store things inside them, however, there are actions that should not be done with them because it is considered as preparing it for its first use. There are ways to remove animal hair but if done in the way the tanners do, it is forbidden. Do not cut vegetables with the type of scissors that are used to cut things from the ground because it will look like it was taken from the ground. But it is possible to do things that are a lot of work such as baking in a really big oven or cooking vegetables that require a lot of cooking. The Gemara brings a few more braitot that record permitted/forbidden actions in connection with food preparation. You can go to the muktze (the roof where the fruit is dried) before Shabbat even if the fruits are not fully dried and say that you want to eat from there the next day if it is the shemita year when you do not have to tithe the fruits. The Gemara brings two Mishnas that discuss what determines one’s obligation to tithe the produce tithe 鈥 when the food is ready for use (gmar melacha), when it is brought into the courtyard, and also planning to eat them on Shabbat (because every meal on Shabbat is considered a meal, even if it is just a snack because of the verse “and you called Shabbat oneg“). Rava asks Rav Nachman – since bringing into the courtyard does not obligate one in tithes unless the fruit is ready for use, does Shabbat determine tithes only if the fruit is ready to be eaten? Rav Nachman says that Shabbat determines in any case. Mar Zotra tries to prove this from our Mishnah but the Gemara rejects his proof.

h

砖爪专讬讱 诇讘讚拽谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讞住诪谉

it is necessary to test them to ensure that they do not burst when heated. If they are heated for the first time on a Festival, he will be thereby testing them, which is a prohibited labor. And some say: Because it is necessary to harden them by overheating them the first time to make them fit for use, which is considered preparing a vessel for use and is prohibited on a Festival.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讚专住讛 讗讜 砖讟专驻讛 讘讻讜转诇 讗讜 砖专爪爪转讛 讘讛诪讛 讜诪驻专讻住转 讜砖讛转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜砖讞讟讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬谞讗讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

In relation to the above, the Gemara cites the following teaching: We learned in a mishna there: If one trampled fowl with his foot, or threw it against a wall, or if an animal crushed it, and it is twitching but cannot stand; if the animal waited, i.e., remained alive, from the time of the injury until the same time twenty-four hours later, and he subsequently slaughtered it, it is kosher, provided no other defect is found in it that would have caused it to die within twelve months, which would render it a tereifa. Rabbi Elazar bar Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus: It requires examination after slaughtering, to make sure it does not have a defect.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讛讜 诇砖讞讟讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 专注讜转讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜 诇讗

In relation to the same issue, Rabbi Yirmeya inquired of Rabbi Zeira: What is the halakha with regard to slaughtering it on a Festival? Do we assume on a Festival that it has a flaw or not? In other words, may one rely on the assumption that a typical chicken has no defect? Or perhaps, since there is concern with regard to this particular bird and it requires examination, one should refrain from slaughtering it lest it turn out to be a tereifa. If so, he will have performed labor for no purpose.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 诪诇讘谞讬谉 讗转 讛专注驻讬诐 诇爪诇讜转 讘讛谉 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讗 讘专注驻讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讘讚拽谉

He said to him in response: We already learned that one may not whiten tiles in order to roast on them. And we discussed it: What does he thereby do? And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Here we are dealing with new tiles, and the Sages prohibited heating them because one first needs to test them, and they might crack when heated. If they were heated for the first time on a Festival and cracked, it would show that they were unfit for use, in which case heating them would have been an unnecessary labor. This indicates that one may not take a chance on a Festival with regard to something that might be flawed, and therefore a possible tereifa should be similarly prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讞住诪谉 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

He said to him: This is no proof; we learned that the reason for that halakha is because it is necessary to harden them in order to make them into proper vessels. Therefore, there is no connection between making a vessel and conducting an examination. Consequently, there is no reason to prohibit the slaughter of such a chicken on a Festival.

转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜专 讜讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讜驻转 讗转 讛拽讚专讛 讜讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讘转讜讻讜 转讘诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪讙讬住 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 讗讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 讗讜专 诇讘住讜祝

It is taught in a baraita: It is possible for several people to perform a single act of cooking on Shabbat, and all will be liable. How so? One brings the fire, and one brings the wood, and one places the pot on the stove, and one brings the water for the pot, and one puts spices into the food, and one stirs the pot; they are all liable for cooking. The Gemara wonders at this: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita that the last one is liable and all the rest are exempt? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This case, where all are liable, is referring to a situation in which he brought fire at the outset, and therefore each of them performed part of the act of cooking; that case, where only the last one is liable, is referring to a situation in which he brought fire at the end. In that case, none of the earlier people performed any aspect of cooking at all, as the labor of cooking begins only from when fire is brought.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 拽讗 注讘讚讬 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 砖讜驻转 讗转 讛拽讚专讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讗 讘拽讚专讛 讞讚砖讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讘讜谉 专注驻讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, all of them performed an action that constitutes a prohibited labor, and they are therefore partners in a prohibited act and the desecration of Shabbat. But the one who places the pot on the stove, what prohibited labor has he performed? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Here we are dealing with a new pot, and due to whitening tiles they applied the same prohibition to it. This means that one is not liable for cooking the food in the pot but for strengthening the pot itself, as is the case with heating tiles.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讟诇讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 住讻讬谉 讗讜转诐 砖诪谉 讜讗讬谉 讟砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘诪讟诇讬转 讜讗讬谉 诪驻讬讙讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讻讚讬 诇讞住诪谉 讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讗驻讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: New ovens and stoves are similar to all vessels that may be carried in a courtyard on a Festival, as one can place items on them. However, one may not anoint them with oil, nor rub them with a rag, nor cool them with cold liquids to harden them, as all these actions are considered preparing the vessel for use, which may not be done on a Festival. And if one did so in order to bake in the oven on the Festival itself, this is permitted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜诇讙讬谉 讗转 讛专讗砖 讜讗转 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜诪讛讘讛讘讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讗讜专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讗讜转诐 讘讞专住讬转 讜诇讗 讘讗讚诪讛 讜诇讗 讘住讬讚 讜讗讬谉 讙讜讝讝讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘诪住驻专讬诐

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: During a Festival one may scald the head and the feet of a slaughtered animal with hot water in order to remove the hairs from them, and one may singe them in fire for this purpose, but one may not smear them with clay, nor earth, nor lime in order to remove the hairs because this involves great effort, and it appears as though he is processing the skin. And one may not shear those hairs with scissors, as it appears as though he is performing the labor of shearing in an effort to obtain the hairs themselves.

讜讗讬谉 讙讜讝讝讬谉 讗转 讛讬专拽 讘转住驻讜专转 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜谞讚住 讜讗转 讛注讻讘讬讜转 讜诪住讬拽讬谉 讜讗讜驻讬谉 讘驻讜专谞讬 讜诪讞诪讬谉 讞诪讬谉 讘讗谞讟讬讻讬 讜讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 讘驻讜专谞讬 讞讚砖讛 砖诪讗 转驻讞转

Similarly, one may not trim the top of the leaves connected to the vegetable with its special shears, but one may prepare kundas and akaviyot, bitter vegetables that can be eaten only after extensive cooking, although this involves great effort. And one may kindle fire and bake in a large baker鈥檚 oven [purnei], and one may heat water in an antikhi, a kind of large urn, but one may not bake in a new baker鈥檚 oven lest it break. If the oven cracks when heated because it was not properly made, one will have performed unnecessary work on a Festival.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讜驻讞讬谉 讘诪驻讜讞 讗讘诇 谞讜驻讞讬谉 讘砖驻讜驻专转 讜讗讬谉 诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛砖驻讜讚 讜讗讬谉 诪讞讚讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪驻爪注讬谉 讗转 讛拽谞讛 诇爪诇讜转 讘讜 诪诇讬讞 讗讘诇 诪驻爪注讬谉 讗转 讛讗讙讜讝 讘诪讟诇讬转 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 转拽专注

The Sages taught similarly in the Tosefta: One may not blow a fire with bellows, because this is the manner of a weekday activity, but one may blow a fire with a tube, in an unusual manner. And one may not mend a skewer nor sharpen it. The Sages further taught in the Tosefta: One may not break a reed in order to make a kind of skewer upon which to roast salted fish, but one may crack a nut covered with a rag, and there is no concern lest it tear, for even if this occurs, no prohibited labor has been performed.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讜诪讚 讗讚诐 注诇 讛诪讜拽爪讛

MISHNA: And Rabbi Eliezer further stated the following leniency: A person may stand over objects in storage, such as produce that he has for some reason previously set aside from use,

注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讜诪专 诪讻讗谉 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬专砖讜诐 讜讬讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 讻讗谉

on Shabbat eve during the Sabbatical Year, during which no tithes are separated, which means one may take fruit on the following day without the need for any corrective measure, and say: From here, from these fruits, I will eat tomorrow. And the Rabbis say: He may not eat unless he marks the pile of fruit the day before and explicitly says: From here to there I will take.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 转讬谞讜拽讜转 砖讟诪谞讜 转讗谞讬诐 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注砖专讜 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖专讜 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讛诪注讘讬专 转讗谞讬诐 讘讞爪专讜 诇拽爪讜转 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜驻讟讜专讬诐

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there: (Ma’asrot 4:2) Children who hid figs for themselves in a field on Shabbat eve in order to eat them on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not separate tithes, not only are they prohibited from eating them on Shabbat, for eating on Shabbat is always considered a fixed meal that obligates the produce in tithes, but even after the conclusion of Shabbat, they may not eat until they have separated tithes. And we also learned in a mishna: One who transfers figs in his courtyard in order to make them into dry figs, his children and the members of his household may in the meantime partake of them in a casual manner, and they are exempt from tithes. The fact that the fruit has reached his courtyard, as opposed to his house, is not enough to cause it to be liable for tithing.

讘注讗 诪谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讘转 诪讛讜 砖转拽讘注 诪讜拽爪讛 诇诪注砖专 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜拽专讗转 诇砖讘转 注讜谞讙 拽讘注讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 拽讘注讛 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗 拽讘注讛

Based on these two sources, Rava inquired of Rav Na岣an: With regard to Shabbat, what is the halakha in terms of whether it establishes an obligation to tithe food that has been muktze on Shabbat? Specifically, in the case of an item whose labor has not been completed,does the fact that the food is muktze on Shabbat give it the status of completely prepared food, or not? Do we say that since it is written: 鈥淎nd call Shabbat a delight鈥 (Isaiah 58:13), this implies that any food one eats on Shabbat is considered a delight and not a casual meal, and therefore Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe, as if the food were fully completed and fit to be eaten as a fixed meal, even for an item that has not had its labor completed? Or perhaps Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe an item whose labor is completed, but regarding an item whose labor is not completed it does not establish an obligation to tithe?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘转 拽讜讘注转 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讬诪讗 砖讘转 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞爪专 诪讛 讞爪专 讗讬谞讛 拽讜讘注转 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讗祝 砖讘转 诇讗 转拽讘注 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讜讚 注专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬讚讬谞讜 砖讛砖讘转 拽讜讘注转 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜

Rav Na岣an said to Rava: Shabbat establishes the obligation for tithes, both with regard to an item whose work is completed and things whose work is not completed. Rava said to Rav Na岣an and challenged: But say that the law of Shabbat should be similar to that of a courtyard: Just as a courtyard establishes food placed inside it as a fixed meal with regard to tithes only when the work on an item is completed, so too, Shabbat should establish only an item whose work is completed as liable for tithing. Rav Na岣an said to Rava: I did not say this based on my own logic, which can be countered by logic of your own. Rather, we have it as an ordered teaching that Shabbat establishes both things whose work is completed and things whose work is not completed.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讜诪讚 讗讚诐 注诇 讛诪讜拽爪讛 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚砖讘讬注讬转 讚诇讗讜 讘专 注砖讜专讬 讛讜讗 讛讗 讘砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讘转 拽讘注讛

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, said: We, too, have learned in the mishna: And Rabbi Eliezer further stated that a person may stand over objects in the storage area on Shabbat eve during the Sabbatical Year and say: I will eat from here and here. The reason is that it is fruit of the Sabbatical Year, with regard to which one is not obligated to separate tithes. However, if it occurred in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, so too, you will say that it is prohibited to eat them without separating tithes. What is the reason for this? Is it not because Shabbat establishes them with regard to tithes, and consequently they not be eaten until tithes have been separated?

诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞专 拽讘注 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 砖讘转 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讟讘诇 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 砖讘转 砖讗诐 注讘专 讜转拽谞讜 诪转讜拽谉

The Gemara refutes this: This is no proof, for there it is different: Since he said: From here I will eat tomorrow, he has immediately established for himself a meal with them, by stating his intention to eat the food as it is. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna mention particularly Shabbat? Even if one said so on a weekday the same should also apply. Since he has set them aside for his meal, they are considered finished and are liable to tithes. The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us the following: One should not conclude that untithed produce is inherently muktze because one may not separate the tithes and eat it; rather, it is considered prepared with regard to Shabbat, in that if one transgressed the words of the Sages and corrected it by separating the tithes, it is considered corrected.

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: 31-35 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what is considered designated for use on the Festival and what is not ie. Muktza...
talking talmud_square

Beitzah 34: Labor-intensive Holidays

A series of halakhot of what is permitted and not permitted on yom tov. Beginning with some details of shechitah...
alon shvut women

Cook Prep on Yom Tov

Beitzah, Daf 34 Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/xkJBT_uQhEI

Beitzah 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 34

砖爪专讬讱 诇讘讚拽谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讞住诪谉

it is necessary to test them to ensure that they do not burst when heated. If they are heated for the first time on a Festival, he will be thereby testing them, which is a prohibited labor. And some say: Because it is necessary to harden them by overheating them the first time to make them fit for use, which is considered preparing a vessel for use and is prohibited on a Festival.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讚专住讛 讗讜 砖讟专驻讛 讘讻讜转诇 讗讜 砖专爪爪转讛 讘讛诪讛 讜诪驻专讻住转 讜砖讛转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜砖讞讟讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬谞讗讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

In relation to the above, the Gemara cites the following teaching: We learned in a mishna there: If one trampled fowl with his foot, or threw it against a wall, or if an animal crushed it, and it is twitching but cannot stand; if the animal waited, i.e., remained alive, from the time of the injury until the same time twenty-four hours later, and he subsequently slaughtered it, it is kosher, provided no other defect is found in it that would have caused it to die within twelve months, which would render it a tereifa. Rabbi Elazar bar Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus: It requires examination after slaughtering, to make sure it does not have a defect.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讛讜 诇砖讞讟讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 专注讜转讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜 诇讗

In relation to the same issue, Rabbi Yirmeya inquired of Rabbi Zeira: What is the halakha with regard to slaughtering it on a Festival? Do we assume on a Festival that it has a flaw or not? In other words, may one rely on the assumption that a typical chicken has no defect? Or perhaps, since there is concern with regard to this particular bird and it requires examination, one should refrain from slaughtering it lest it turn out to be a tereifa. If so, he will have performed labor for no purpose.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 诪诇讘谞讬谉 讗转 讛专注驻讬诐 诇爪诇讜转 讘讛谉 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讗 讘专注驻讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讘讚拽谉

He said to him in response: We already learned that one may not whiten tiles in order to roast on them. And we discussed it: What does he thereby do? And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Here we are dealing with new tiles, and the Sages prohibited heating them because one first needs to test them, and they might crack when heated. If they were heated for the first time on a Festival and cracked, it would show that they were unfit for use, in which case heating them would have been an unnecessary labor. This indicates that one may not take a chance on a Festival with regard to something that might be flawed, and therefore a possible tereifa should be similarly prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讞住诪谉 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

He said to him: This is no proof; we learned that the reason for that halakha is because it is necessary to harden them in order to make them into proper vessels. Therefore, there is no connection between making a vessel and conducting an examination. Consequently, there is no reason to prohibit the slaughter of such a chicken on a Festival.

转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜专 讜讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讜驻转 讗转 讛拽讚专讛 讜讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讘转讜讻讜 转讘诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪讙讬住 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 讗讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 讗讜专 诇讘住讜祝

It is taught in a baraita: It is possible for several people to perform a single act of cooking on Shabbat, and all will be liable. How so? One brings the fire, and one brings the wood, and one places the pot on the stove, and one brings the water for the pot, and one puts spices into the food, and one stirs the pot; they are all liable for cooking. The Gemara wonders at this: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita that the last one is liable and all the rest are exempt? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This case, where all are liable, is referring to a situation in which he brought fire at the outset, and therefore each of them performed part of the act of cooking; that case, where only the last one is liable, is referring to a situation in which he brought fire at the end. In that case, none of the earlier people performed any aspect of cooking at all, as the labor of cooking begins only from when fire is brought.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 拽讗 注讘讚讬 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 砖讜驻转 讗转 讛拽讚专讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讗 讘拽讚专讛 讞讚砖讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讘讜谉 专注驻讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, all of them performed an action that constitutes a prohibited labor, and they are therefore partners in a prohibited act and the desecration of Shabbat. But the one who places the pot on the stove, what prohibited labor has he performed? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Here we are dealing with a new pot, and due to whitening tiles they applied the same prohibition to it. This means that one is not liable for cooking the food in the pot but for strengthening the pot itself, as is the case with heating tiles.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讟诇讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 住讻讬谉 讗讜转诐 砖诪谉 讜讗讬谉 讟砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘诪讟诇讬转 讜讗讬谉 诪驻讬讙讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讻讚讬 诇讞住诪谉 讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讗驻讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: New ovens and stoves are similar to all vessels that may be carried in a courtyard on a Festival, as one can place items on them. However, one may not anoint them with oil, nor rub them with a rag, nor cool them with cold liquids to harden them, as all these actions are considered preparing the vessel for use, which may not be done on a Festival. And if one did so in order to bake in the oven on the Festival itself, this is permitted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜诇讙讬谉 讗转 讛专讗砖 讜讗转 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜诪讛讘讛讘讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讗讜专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讗讜转诐 讘讞专住讬转 讜诇讗 讘讗讚诪讛 讜诇讗 讘住讬讚 讜讗讬谉 讙讜讝讝讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘诪住驻专讬诐

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: During a Festival one may scald the head and the feet of a slaughtered animal with hot water in order to remove the hairs from them, and one may singe them in fire for this purpose, but one may not smear them with clay, nor earth, nor lime in order to remove the hairs because this involves great effort, and it appears as though he is processing the skin. And one may not shear those hairs with scissors, as it appears as though he is performing the labor of shearing in an effort to obtain the hairs themselves.

讜讗讬谉 讙讜讝讝讬谉 讗转 讛讬专拽 讘转住驻讜专转 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜谞讚住 讜讗转 讛注讻讘讬讜转 讜诪住讬拽讬谉 讜讗讜驻讬谉 讘驻讜专谞讬 讜诪讞诪讬谉 讞诪讬谉 讘讗谞讟讬讻讬 讜讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 讘驻讜专谞讬 讞讚砖讛 砖诪讗 转驻讞转

Similarly, one may not trim the top of the leaves connected to the vegetable with its special shears, but one may prepare kundas and akaviyot, bitter vegetables that can be eaten only after extensive cooking, although this involves great effort. And one may kindle fire and bake in a large baker鈥檚 oven [purnei], and one may heat water in an antikhi, a kind of large urn, but one may not bake in a new baker鈥檚 oven lest it break. If the oven cracks when heated because it was not properly made, one will have performed unnecessary work on a Festival.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讜驻讞讬谉 讘诪驻讜讞 讗讘诇 谞讜驻讞讬谉 讘砖驻讜驻专转 讜讗讬谉 诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛砖驻讜讚 讜讗讬谉 诪讞讚讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪驻爪注讬谉 讗转 讛拽谞讛 诇爪诇讜转 讘讜 诪诇讬讞 讗讘诇 诪驻爪注讬谉 讗转 讛讗讙讜讝 讘诪讟诇讬转 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 转拽专注

The Sages taught similarly in the Tosefta: One may not blow a fire with bellows, because this is the manner of a weekday activity, but one may blow a fire with a tube, in an unusual manner. And one may not mend a skewer nor sharpen it. The Sages further taught in the Tosefta: One may not break a reed in order to make a kind of skewer upon which to roast salted fish, but one may crack a nut covered with a rag, and there is no concern lest it tear, for even if this occurs, no prohibited labor has been performed.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讜诪讚 讗讚诐 注诇 讛诪讜拽爪讛

MISHNA: And Rabbi Eliezer further stated the following leniency: A person may stand over objects in storage, such as produce that he has for some reason previously set aside from use,

注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讜诪专 诪讻讗谉 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬专砖讜诐 讜讬讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 讻讗谉

on Shabbat eve during the Sabbatical Year, during which no tithes are separated, which means one may take fruit on the following day without the need for any corrective measure, and say: From here, from these fruits, I will eat tomorrow. And the Rabbis say: He may not eat unless he marks the pile of fruit the day before and explicitly says: From here to there I will take.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 转讬谞讜拽讜转 砖讟诪谞讜 转讗谞讬诐 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注砖专讜 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖专讜 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讛诪注讘讬专 转讗谞讬诐 讘讞爪专讜 诇拽爪讜转 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜驻讟讜专讬诐

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there: (Ma’asrot 4:2) Children who hid figs for themselves in a field on Shabbat eve in order to eat them on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not separate tithes, not only are they prohibited from eating them on Shabbat, for eating on Shabbat is always considered a fixed meal that obligates the produce in tithes, but even after the conclusion of Shabbat, they may not eat until they have separated tithes. And we also learned in a mishna: One who transfers figs in his courtyard in order to make them into dry figs, his children and the members of his household may in the meantime partake of them in a casual manner, and they are exempt from tithes. The fact that the fruit has reached his courtyard, as opposed to his house, is not enough to cause it to be liable for tithing.

讘注讗 诪谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讘转 诪讛讜 砖转拽讘注 诪讜拽爪讛 诇诪注砖专 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜拽专讗转 诇砖讘转 注讜谞讙 拽讘注讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 拽讘注讛 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗 拽讘注讛

Based on these two sources, Rava inquired of Rav Na岣an: With regard to Shabbat, what is the halakha in terms of whether it establishes an obligation to tithe food that has been muktze on Shabbat? Specifically, in the case of an item whose labor has not been completed,does the fact that the food is muktze on Shabbat give it the status of completely prepared food, or not? Do we say that since it is written: 鈥淎nd call Shabbat a delight鈥 (Isaiah 58:13), this implies that any food one eats on Shabbat is considered a delight and not a casual meal, and therefore Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe, as if the food were fully completed and fit to be eaten as a fixed meal, even for an item that has not had its labor completed? Or perhaps Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe an item whose labor is completed, but regarding an item whose labor is not completed it does not establish an obligation to tithe?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘转 拽讜讘注转 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讬诪讗 砖讘转 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞爪专 诪讛 讞爪专 讗讬谞讛 拽讜讘注转 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讗祝 砖讘转 诇讗 转拽讘注 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讜讚 注专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬讚讬谞讜 砖讛砖讘转 拽讜讘注转 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜

Rav Na岣an said to Rava: Shabbat establishes the obligation for tithes, both with regard to an item whose work is completed and things whose work is not completed. Rava said to Rav Na岣an and challenged: But say that the law of Shabbat should be similar to that of a courtyard: Just as a courtyard establishes food placed inside it as a fixed meal with regard to tithes only when the work on an item is completed, so too, Shabbat should establish only an item whose work is completed as liable for tithing. Rav Na岣an said to Rava: I did not say this based on my own logic, which can be countered by logic of your own. Rather, we have it as an ordered teaching that Shabbat establishes both things whose work is completed and things whose work is not completed.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讜诪讚 讗讚诐 注诇 讛诪讜拽爪讛 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚砖讘讬注讬转 讚诇讗讜 讘专 注砖讜专讬 讛讜讗 讛讗 讘砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讘转 拽讘注讛

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, said: We, too, have learned in the mishna: And Rabbi Eliezer further stated that a person may stand over objects in the storage area on Shabbat eve during the Sabbatical Year and say: I will eat from here and here. The reason is that it is fruit of the Sabbatical Year, with regard to which one is not obligated to separate tithes. However, if it occurred in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, so too, you will say that it is prohibited to eat them without separating tithes. What is the reason for this? Is it not because Shabbat establishes them with regard to tithes, and consequently they not be eaten until tithes have been separated?

诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞专 拽讘注 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 砖讘转 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讟讘诇 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 砖讘转 砖讗诐 注讘专 讜转拽谞讜 诪转讜拽谉

The Gemara refutes this: This is no proof, for there it is different: Since he said: From here I will eat tomorrow, he has immediately established for himself a meal with them, by stating his intention to eat the food as it is. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna mention particularly Shabbat? Even if one said so on a weekday the same should also apply. Since he has set them aside for his meal, they are considered finished and are liable to tithes. The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us the following: One should not conclude that untithed produce is inherently muktze because one may not separate the tithes and eat it; rather, it is considered prepared with regard to Shabbat, in that if one transgressed the words of the Sages and corrected it by separating the tithes, it is considered corrected.

Scroll To Top