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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 5, 2021 | 讻状讟 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 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 35

This week’s learning is sponsored by Eliana Gurfinkiel in memory of her grandmother, Alice Djamila Ventura Bat Moshe and Leah, who passed away this past December. She never had a chance to learn about her Jewish roots, not even talking about Torah. I’m sure that in the Olam Haemet she’s delighted that her granddaughters learn Torah and do mitzvot in her honour. Her neshama should have an Aliyah.”

And today’s daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Chaya Sara bat Raitza.

Mar Zutra tried to prove from our Mishnah (from Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion) Rav Nachman鈥檚 response to Rava that designating something to eat on Shabbat brings with it an obligation to tithe the produce even if the produce is not completely ready (gmar melacha). The Gemara rejected his proof and claimed that Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna implied that the produce must be tithed not due to Shabbat but due to the person鈥檚 statement indicated he/she planned to eat the produce. If so, the Gemara questions it as it is inconsistent with another statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Thus rejecting the difficulty against Mar Zutra and reinstating his proof for Rav Nachman. Rabbi Shimi Bar Ashi rejects Mar Zutra proof in a different way as he shows that Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with the rabbis concerning a similar issue 鈥 whether separating truma before gmar melacha would obligate one. And since the rabbis disagree there, they must disagree here, in which case we can鈥檛 learn halacha from Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara tries to prove Rav Nachman鈥檚 answer from the words of the rabbis in the Mishnah, however, this too is rejected. The Gemara brings a contradiction to Mar Zutra鈥檚 understanding of Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishnah (that Shabbat brings with it an obligation to tithe the produce even if there isn鈥檛 gmar melacha) from Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion in a braita but e contradiction is resolved. Ravin brings the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan, who disagrees with Rav Nachman, and says that Shabbat, truma, courtyard, and a sale do not obligate one to tithe one鈥檚 produce if it is not at the stage of gmar melacha. The Gemara explains why Rabbi Yochanan had to refer to each category – in each matter he came to disagree with a certain opinion. The Gemara brings the opinion on which he disagrees on each subject. Chapter five begins with actions that are allowed to be performed on a Yom Tov even though it is burdensome work, as to avoid financial loss, such as lowering fruits through the chimney from the rains. The Gemara discusses different traditions regarding what is the first word in the Mishnah and proves that all possibilities can work. How much can be lowered through a chimney? Rabbi Yochanan derived it from Maseachet Shabbat 鈥 how many boxes can be removed from a storage house to make room for guests or a Beit Midrash. 聽But the Gemara raises several possibilities to distinguish between the cases 鈥 some suggest being stricter on Yom Tov and some more lenient.

讜讛诇讗 诪讜转专讜 讞讜讝专 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讜转专讜 讞讜讝专 诇讗 拽讘注

The Gemara challenges: How can one say that the very decision to partake of the fruit establishes it as fixed with regard to tithes? But isn鈥檛 it true that even if one declared his intention to eat it the following day, it can nevertheless be assumed that the remaining fruit is restored to the pile? And we have heard that Rabbi Eliezer explicitly said: Anywhere that its leftovers are restored, it is not established with regard to liability for tithes at all.

讚转谞谉 讛谞讜讟诇 讝讬转讬诐 诪谉 讛诪注讟谉 讟讜讘诇 讗讞转 讗讞转 讘诪诇讞 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗诐 讟讘诇 讜谞转谉 诇驻谞讬讜 注砖专讛 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛诪注讟谉 讟讛讜专 讞讬讬讘 诪谉 讛诪注讟谉 讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛诪讜转专

This is as we learned in a mishna in tractate Ma鈥檃srot: One who removes olives from a vat [ma鈥檃tan] where they are temporarily stored before being pressed may dip them one by one in salt and eat without tithing them first, since he is eating them one at a time. Although he is eating them with salt, it is not considered a fixed meal. And if he dipped and placed several olives before him, such as ten, they are liable in tithes. However, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats from a ritually pure vat is liable to separate tithes; one who eats from a ritually impure vat is exempt because he returns the surplus to the vat.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专讬砖讗 讘诪注讟谉 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘专讗 讟诪讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛

And we discussed it: What is different in the first clause of the mishna and what is different in the latter clause; why is the issue of purity relevant to this case? And Rabbi Abbahu said: The first case is referring to a ritually pure vat and a ritually impure person, who transfers his impurity to the olives he touches. He may not return the olives to the vat because he would thereby render all the remaining olives ritually impure. Therefore, from the outset he takes only the amount he wishes to eat. This is enough to consider it a fixed meal, and he must tithe them.

住讬驻讗 讘诪注讟谉 讟诪讗 讜讙讘专讗 讟诪讗 讚诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛

However, the latter clause is referring to a ritually impure vat and a person who is ritually impure, who may return the olives to the vat, as the olives it contains are already ritually impure. He is not particular to take the exact amount he wants to eat, since he knows he may return the remaining olives, and they are therefore not considered fixed for tithes. For the purposes of this discussion, it can be seen from here that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that whenever one may restore the food, it is not considered fixed until its work is complete.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讘诪讜拽爪讛 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘专讗 讟诪讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 诪讜讞讝专讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬谉 讛谉

The Gemara answers: The mishna also deals with the case of a ritually pure storage area, containing pure food, and a ritually impure person, who may not return them to the vat. The Gemara challenges this answer: But aren鈥檛 they already returned? This is not a case where a person takes all the fruit and replaces what remains after his meal; rather, he takes the amount he explicitly designated the day before, while the rest remains in place.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗 讗诪专转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 拽讘注讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讘转 讚转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖转专诪谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉

Rather, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: The previous explanation is to be rejected, and it should be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer, you said? There is no difficulty according to his approach. Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said that the separation of teruma itself establishes the work of fruit as completed, so that one may not eat it even in a casual manner without first separating the other tithes. And, all the more so, Shabbat itself establishes food as fixed with regard to tithes, as we learned in a mishna: Fruits from which teruma has been separated before their work was completed, Rabbi Eliezer prohibits eating from them in a casual manner without separating the rest of the tithes, as the teruma establishes the food as fixed; but the Rabbis permit it.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 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 讟注诪讗 讚注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 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 讚讘谞讬 注砖讜专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗住讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讘转 拽讘注讛

The Gemara suggests a different answer to Rava鈥檚 question as to whether Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe food whose labor is incomplete: Come and hear a resolution from the latter clause of the mishna, which states: And the Rabbis say: Even in the Sabbatical Year, when teruma and tithes are not separated from fruit, a declaration from the day before is not enough to render the food prepared for Shabbat, unless one marks the fruit he is preparing and says explicitly: From here to there. The Gemara infers from this: The reason is that the eve of Shabbat during the Sabbatical Year is not fit for tithes; but during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, which are fit for and obligated in tithes, the fruits are prohibited. What is the reason? Is it not because Shabbat itself establishes them as fixed? If this is the view of the Rabbis, one may not reject it in favor of a minority opinion such as Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚.

诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 讻讗谉 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞专 拽讘注 诇讬讛 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: No, this is no proof; there it is different. Since he said: From here to there I will eat tomorrow, he has thereby established his meal, and the reason is not due to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, why discuss particularly Shabbat; even on a weekday as well the same law applies? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us, as stated above, that untithed produce is not fundamentally muktze because it is prohibited to remove the dues and tithes on Shabbat; rather, it is considered prepared with regard to Shabbat, in that if one transgressed the words of the Sages and tithed it, it is tithed.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讗砖讻讜诇 讜谞讻谞住 诪讙谞讛 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专

And we raise a contradiction from a different source, in which it is taught: If one was eating from a cluster of grapes, whose work is not completed, as grapes are designated for juice extraction, and came in from a garden, where one may eat fruit in a casual manner without separating tithes, to a courtyard, Rabbi Eliezer says: He may finish eating the cluster, as the courtyard itself does not establish the fruit with regard to tithes, if their work was not completed beforehand. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He may not finish. He maintains that a courtyard does establish the fruit as fixed for tithes, even if their work has not been completed.

讞砖讻讛 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专

Similarly, if it grew dark on Friday evening, the night of Shabbat, while one was eating the cluster, and eating on Shabbat is considered a fixed meal, Rabbi Eliezer says: He may finish, as not even Shabbat establishes fruit as fixed if its work was not completed. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: He may not finish. He holds that Shabbat does indeed establish fruit as fixed for tithes even if its work has not been completed. This indicates that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that Shabbat does not establish food with regard to tithes, whereas the mishna here indicates that he agrees that the beginning of Shabbat does establish them as fixed.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬讙诪讜专 讘讞爪专 讬讙诪讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜爪讗 讞讜抓 诇讞爪专 讜讬讙诪讜专 讜诇讗 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬讙诪讜专 讘砖讘转 讬讙诪讜专 讗诇讗 诪诪转讬谉 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讜讬讙诪讜专

The Gemara answers: There, the reason is as he taught explicitly that Rabbi Natan says: It is not that when Rabbi Eliezer said: He may finish, he meant that he may finish in the courtyard itself; but rather he meant: He may exit the courtyard and finish. And similarly, it is not that when Rabbi Eliezer said: He may finish, he meant that he may finish on Shabbat itself; but rather, he meant that he may wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and finish. If so, this source does not contradict the mishna here.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讞爪专 讜讗讞讚 诪拽讞 讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 拽讜讘注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉

With regard to the halakhic ruling in this case, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Whether with regard to Shabbat; or with regard to the separation of teruma from fruit; or with regard to a courtyard into which the fruit is brought; or with regard to a transaction; all of these cases establish a requirement for tithes only for items whose labor is completed.

砖讘转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讛诇诇 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪注诪专 驻讬专讜转 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 诇拽爪讜专 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讛谉 讛讬讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇诇 诇注爪诪讜 讗讜住专

The Gemara notes that each of these details teaches a novel halakha. How so? Shabbat comes to exclude the opinion of Hillel, as it is taught in a baraita: One who gathers fruits from one place to another in order to reap them, and the day sanctified upon them, i.e., Shabbat commenced, Rabbi Yehuda said: Hillel prohibits the food from the gatherer himself. In other words, Hillel alone prohibits eating the fruit in that case until its tithes have been separated, for he believes that the beginning of Shabbat itself causes the fruit to be considered completed. Rabbi Yo岣nan teaches that the halakha in this case is not in accordance with the opinion of Hillel.

讞爪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚转谞谉 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 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 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

In addition, it was necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan to teach the law that a courtyard does not establish fruit for tithes unless its work is completed, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov. As we learned in a mishna: One who was transporting figs in his courtyard to make them into dried figs, his children and the members of his household may eat from them in a casual manner, and they are exempt from tithes. And a baraita is taught in that regard: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov obligates him, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, exempts him.

转专讜诪讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖转专诪谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉

With regard to the law that the separation of teruma does not establish fruit as fixed for tithes, this comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna: Fruits from which teruma had been separated before their work was completed, Rabbi Eliezer prohibits eating from them in a casual manner, and the Rabbis permit it.

诪拽讞 (讻讚转谞谉) 讛诇讜拽讞 转讗谞讬诐 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讜讘 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讚讜专住讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜诪注砖专谉 讚诪讗讬

With regard to the statement that a transaction does not fix fruit for tithes, this is as we learned in a baraita: In the case of one who acquires figs from an am ha鈥檃retz in a place where most people press and dry their figs in order to make them into cakes, the work of the figs is not completed before this stage, and he may therefore partake of them in a casual manner. And when their work is completed, he need only tithe them as doubtfully tithed produce, in accordance with the law with regard to all produce bought from an uneducated person.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讞 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 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪注砖专讬谉 讚诪讗讬 诪注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜

The Gemara comments: One can learn from this baraita three halakhot: Learn from here that a transaction establishes produce as fixed only with regard to an item whose work is completed, but if its work has not been completed, even selling it does not obligate it in tithes. And learn from here that most people who are in the category of am ha鈥檃retz separate tithes, and therefore one need only separate tithes as doubtfully tithed produce, rather than definitively untithed produce. And one can learn from here another law: One may tithe doubtfully tithed produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, even with regard to something whose work is not completed.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讞诇讬祝 驻讬专讜转 注诐 讞讘讬专讜 讝讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讜讝讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讝讛 诇拽爪讜转 讜讝讛 诇拽爪讜转 讝讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讜讝讛 诇拽爪讜转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗讻讜诇 讞讬讬讘 诇拽爪讜转 驻讟讜专

Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in accordance with this opinion to exclude that which we learned in a mishna: One who exchanges fruits with his friend, which is considered a commercial transaction, if their intention was for this one to eat and that one to eat, or for this one to make them into dried fruit and for that one to make them into dried fruit, this one to eat and that one to make them into dried fruit, they are both obligated in tithes. Rabbi Yehuda, however, says: The one who took the fruits in order to eat is obligated, as for him their labor is completed, but the one who intended to make them into dried fruit is exempt and may partake of the fruit in a casual manner, as for him their work has not yet been completed. Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in opposition to the first tanna. He maintains that the transaction itself does not make the fruit liable to tithes unless its work has been completed.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪讘讬讗

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讚专讱 讗专讜讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转 讜诪讻住讬诐 驻讬专讜转 讘讻诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇祝 讜讻谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转

MISHNA: One may lower produce, which had been laid out on a roof to dry, into the house through a skylight on a Festival, in order to prevent it from becoming ruined in the rain. Although it is a strenuous activity, it is permitted do to so on a Festival in order to prevent a financial loss; however, one may not do so on Shabbat. And one may cover produce inside a building with cloths to prevent damage due to a leak in the ceiling over it, and similarly one may cover jugs of wine and jugs of oil for the same reason. And one may place a vessel beneath a leak in order to catch the water on Shabbat, to prevent it from dirtying the house.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 谞转谉 讞讚 转谞讬 诪砖讬诇讬谉 讜讞讚 转谞讬 诪砖讞讬诇讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara discusses the first word of the mishna from a linguistic standpoint. It was said: Rav Yehuda and Rav Natan recited differing versions of the mishna鈥檚 opening word, which is in all versions a verb meaning to lower. One of them taught mashilin, as in the text of this mishna, and the other one taught mash岣lin.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讬诇讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讞讬诇讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讬诇讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬砖诇 讝讬转讱 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讞讬诇讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚转谞谉 讛砖讞讜诇 讜讛讻住讜诇 砖讞讜诇 砖谞砖诪讟讛 讬专讻讜 讻住讜诇 砖讗讞讚 诪讬专讻讜转讬讜 讙讘讜讛讛 诪讞讘专转讛

Mar Zutra said: The one who teaches mashilin is not mistaken, and the one who teaches mash岣lin is not mistaken, as support can be found for both versions. He elaborates: The one who teaches mashilin is not mistaken, as it is written: 鈥淔or your olives will fall [yishal]鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:40). Mashilin would therefore mean: To cause to fall. And he who teaches mash岣lin is not mistaken, as we learned the following cases in a mishna that lists blemishes that invalidate an animal for sacrifice: The sha岣l and the kasul. The mishna explains these terms: Sha岣l is referring to an animal whose thigh is dislocated, i.e., it has slipped out of place; kasul is referring to an animal one of whose thighs is higher than the other. This shows that the root sh-岣-l- is referring to something that has slipped down from its place.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讞讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪谞砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there are other possible variations of this word as well. One who teaches mashirin is not mistaken, and one who teaches mash岣rin is not mistaken, and one who teaches manshirin is not mistaken.

诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 诇讗 讬讞讜祝 专讗砖讜 讘讗讚诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬专 讗转 讛砖注专 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讞讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚转谞谉 讛砖讞讜专 讜讛讝讜讙 砖诇 住驻专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讟诪讗讬谉

He elaborates: One who teaches mashirin is not mistaken, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yishmael says: A nazirite may not wash the hair of his head with clay as a kind of shampoo, because it causes hair to fall off [mashir], and a nazirite is prohibited to remove the hairs of his head. This shows that mashir indicates causing something to fall. And one who teaches mash岣rin is also not mistaken, as we learned in a mishna: The she岣r, a type of razor, and a barber鈥檚 scissors, even if their blades are detached, are subject to ritual impurity. The fact that a razor is called she岣r implies that the root sh-岣-r indicates causing to fall down.

讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪谞砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖谞砖专讜 讻诇讬讜 讘诪讬诐 诪讛诇讱 讘讛诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诇拽讟 讛谞讜砖专 讘砖注转 拽爪讬专讛

And one who teaches manshirin is not mistaken either, as we learned in a mishna: One whose clothes fell down [nashru] into water on Shabbat may continue to walk in them while they dry of their own accord, and he need not be concerned that people might suspect him of having washed them on Shabbat. Alternatively, another support can be found from that which we learned in the following mishna: What is gleaning [leket], which must be left for the poor as commanded in Leviticus 19:9? That which falls [nosher] during reaping. These sources show that the root n-sh-r means: To fall down, and manshirin would consequently mean: To cause to fall down.

转谞谉 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讚专讱 讗专讜讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪驻谞讬谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 拽讜驻讜转 砖诇 转讘谉 讜砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讜专讞讬诐 讜诪驻谞讬 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖

搂 The Gemara discusses the halakha in the mishna: We learned that one may lower produce through a skylight on a Festival. The Gemara asks: Up to how much produce may be lowered in this manner? At what point is it considered to be too strenuous an activity to be performed on the Festival? Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Asi said, and some say that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is like that which we learned in a mishna with regard to a different case: One may clear out four or five sacks of hay or grain from a room on Shabbat due to visitors, to clear a place for them to sit, or due to suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., to make room there for more people, who would not be able to study Torah otherwise. Here too, only four or five sacks鈥 worth of produce may be lowered from the roof.

讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 拽讜驻讜转 砖专讬 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the comparison of the two cases. But perhaps there it is different, since there is the matter of preventing suspension of study in the study hall or of providing hospitality to guests, i.e., moving those items is permitted in order to facilitate a mitzva. But here, where there is no suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., no facilitation of any mitzva, they did not permit one to move such a large amount. Alternatively: There, this is the reasoning that four or five sacks are permitted: Because Shabbat is severe in people鈥檚 eyes and they will not come to belittle it; but on a Festival, which is regarded more lightly and which people might come to belittle, one may not move the items at all.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬

Alternatively, a claim can be made from the other perspective: There, this is the reasoning that it is permitted to carry only four or five sacks: Because there is no monetary loss involved. But here, where there is monetary loss if the produce is not moved, one may carry even a larger amount than four or five sacks.

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: 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 35: Dropping Your Fruit through the Ancient Skylight

A long discussion on R. Nachman's position from the previous daf regarding how one demonstrates intent to tithe. Including timing....

Beitzah 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 35

讜讛诇讗 诪讜转专讜 讞讜讝专 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讜转专讜 讞讜讝专 诇讗 拽讘注

The Gemara challenges: How can one say that the very decision to partake of the fruit establishes it as fixed with regard to tithes? But isn鈥檛 it true that even if one declared his intention to eat it the following day, it can nevertheless be assumed that the remaining fruit is restored to the pile? And we have heard that Rabbi Eliezer explicitly said: Anywhere that its leftovers are restored, it is not established with regard to liability for tithes at all.

讚转谞谉 讛谞讜讟诇 讝讬转讬诐 诪谉 讛诪注讟谉 讟讜讘诇 讗讞转 讗讞转 讘诪诇讞 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗诐 讟讘诇 讜谞转谉 诇驻谞讬讜 注砖专讛 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛诪注讟谉 讟讛讜专 讞讬讬讘 诪谉 讛诪注讟谉 讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛诪讜转专

This is as we learned in a mishna in tractate Ma鈥檃srot: One who removes olives from a vat [ma鈥檃tan] where they are temporarily stored before being pressed may dip them one by one in salt and eat without tithing them first, since he is eating them one at a time. Although he is eating them with salt, it is not considered a fixed meal. And if he dipped and placed several olives before him, such as ten, they are liable in tithes. However, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats from a ritually pure vat is liable to separate tithes; one who eats from a ritually impure vat is exempt because he returns the surplus to the vat.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专讬砖讗 讘诪注讟谉 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘专讗 讟诪讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛

And we discussed it: What is different in the first clause of the mishna and what is different in the latter clause; why is the issue of purity relevant to this case? And Rabbi Abbahu said: The first case is referring to a ritually pure vat and a ritually impure person, who transfers his impurity to the olives he touches. He may not return the olives to the vat because he would thereby render all the remaining olives ritually impure. Therefore, from the outset he takes only the amount he wishes to eat. This is enough to consider it a fixed meal, and he must tithe them.

住讬驻讗 讘诪注讟谉 讟诪讗 讜讙讘专讗 讟诪讗 讚诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛

However, the latter clause is referring to a ritually impure vat and a person who is ritually impure, who may return the olives to the vat, as the olives it contains are already ritually impure. He is not particular to take the exact amount he wants to eat, since he knows he may return the remaining olives, and they are therefore not considered fixed for tithes. For the purposes of this discussion, it can be seen from here that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that whenever one may restore the food, it is not considered fixed until its work is complete.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讘诪讜拽爪讛 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘专讗 讟诪讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 诪讜讞讝专讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬谉 讛谉

The Gemara answers: The mishna also deals with the case of a ritually pure storage area, containing pure food, and a ritually impure person, who may not return them to the vat. The Gemara challenges this answer: But aren鈥檛 they already returned? This is not a case where a person takes all the fruit and replaces what remains after his meal; rather, he takes the amount he explicitly designated the day before, while the rest remains in place.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗 讗诪专转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 拽讘注讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讘转 讚转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖转专诪谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉

Rather, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: The previous explanation is to be rejected, and it should be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer, you said? There is no difficulty according to his approach. Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said that the separation of teruma itself establishes the work of fruit as completed, so that one may not eat it even in a casual manner without first separating the other tithes. And, all the more so, Shabbat itself establishes food as fixed with regard to tithes, as we learned in a mishna: Fruits from which teruma has been separated before their work was completed, Rabbi Eliezer prohibits eating from them in a casual manner without separating the rest of the tithes, as the teruma establishes the food as fixed; but the Rabbis permit it.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 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 讟注诪讗 讚注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 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 讚讘谞讬 注砖讜专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗住讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讘转 拽讘注讛

The Gemara suggests a different answer to Rava鈥檚 question as to whether Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe food whose labor is incomplete: Come and hear a resolution from the latter clause of the mishna, which states: And the Rabbis say: Even in the Sabbatical Year, when teruma and tithes are not separated from fruit, a declaration from the day before is not enough to render the food prepared for Shabbat, unless one marks the fruit he is preparing and says explicitly: From here to there. The Gemara infers from this: The reason is that the eve of Shabbat during the Sabbatical Year is not fit for tithes; but during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, which are fit for and obligated in tithes, the fruits are prohibited. What is the reason? Is it not because Shabbat itself establishes them as fixed? If this is the view of the Rabbis, one may not reject it in favor of a minority opinion such as Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚.

诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 讻讗谉 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞专 拽讘注 诇讬讛 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: No, this is no proof; there it is different. Since he said: From here to there I will eat tomorrow, he has thereby established his meal, and the reason is not due to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, why discuss particularly Shabbat; even on a weekday as well the same law applies? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us, as stated above, that untithed produce is not fundamentally muktze because it is prohibited to remove the dues and tithes on Shabbat; rather, it is considered prepared with regard to Shabbat, in that if one transgressed the words of the Sages and tithed it, it is tithed.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讗砖讻讜诇 讜谞讻谞住 诪讙谞讛 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专

And we raise a contradiction from a different source, in which it is taught: If one was eating from a cluster of grapes, whose work is not completed, as grapes are designated for juice extraction, and came in from a garden, where one may eat fruit in a casual manner without separating tithes, to a courtyard, Rabbi Eliezer says: He may finish eating the cluster, as the courtyard itself does not establish the fruit with regard to tithes, if their work was not completed beforehand. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He may not finish. He maintains that a courtyard does establish the fruit as fixed for tithes, even if their work has not been completed.

讞砖讻讛 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专

Similarly, if it grew dark on Friday evening, the night of Shabbat, while one was eating the cluster, and eating on Shabbat is considered a fixed meal, Rabbi Eliezer says: He may finish, as not even Shabbat establishes fruit as fixed if its work was not completed. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: He may not finish. He holds that Shabbat does indeed establish fruit as fixed for tithes even if its work has not been completed. This indicates that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that Shabbat does not establish food with regard to tithes, whereas the mishna here indicates that he agrees that the beginning of Shabbat does establish them as fixed.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬讙诪讜专 讘讞爪专 讬讙诪讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜爪讗 讞讜抓 诇讞爪专 讜讬讙诪讜专 讜诇讗 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬讙诪讜专 讘砖讘转 讬讙诪讜专 讗诇讗 诪诪转讬谉 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讜讬讙诪讜专

The Gemara answers: There, the reason is as he taught explicitly that Rabbi Natan says: It is not that when Rabbi Eliezer said: He may finish, he meant that he may finish in the courtyard itself; but rather he meant: He may exit the courtyard and finish. And similarly, it is not that when Rabbi Eliezer said: He may finish, he meant that he may finish on Shabbat itself; but rather, he meant that he may wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and finish. If so, this source does not contradict the mishna here.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讞爪专 讜讗讞讚 诪拽讞 讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 拽讜讘注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉

With regard to the halakhic ruling in this case, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Whether with regard to Shabbat; or with regard to the separation of teruma from fruit; or with regard to a courtyard into which the fruit is brought; or with regard to a transaction; all of these cases establish a requirement for tithes only for items whose labor is completed.

砖讘转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讛诇诇 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪注诪专 驻讬专讜转 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 诇拽爪讜专 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讛谉 讛讬讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇诇 诇注爪诪讜 讗讜住专

The Gemara notes that each of these details teaches a novel halakha. How so? Shabbat comes to exclude the opinion of Hillel, as it is taught in a baraita: One who gathers fruits from one place to another in order to reap them, and the day sanctified upon them, i.e., Shabbat commenced, Rabbi Yehuda said: Hillel prohibits the food from the gatherer himself. In other words, Hillel alone prohibits eating the fruit in that case until its tithes have been separated, for he believes that the beginning of Shabbat itself causes the fruit to be considered completed. Rabbi Yo岣nan teaches that the halakha in this case is not in accordance with the opinion of Hillel.

讞爪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚转谞谉 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 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 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

In addition, it was necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan to teach the law that a courtyard does not establish fruit for tithes unless its work is completed, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov. As we learned in a mishna: One who was transporting figs in his courtyard to make them into dried figs, his children and the members of his household may eat from them in a casual manner, and they are exempt from tithes. And a baraita is taught in that regard: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov obligates him, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, exempts him.

转专讜诪讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖转专诪谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉

With regard to the law that the separation of teruma does not establish fruit as fixed for tithes, this comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna: Fruits from which teruma had been separated before their work was completed, Rabbi Eliezer prohibits eating from them in a casual manner, and the Rabbis permit it.

诪拽讞 (讻讚转谞谉) 讛诇讜拽讞 转讗谞讬诐 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讜讘 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讚讜专住讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜诪注砖专谉 讚诪讗讬

With regard to the statement that a transaction does not fix fruit for tithes, this is as we learned in a baraita: In the case of one who acquires figs from an am ha鈥檃retz in a place where most people press and dry their figs in order to make them into cakes, the work of the figs is not completed before this stage, and he may therefore partake of them in a casual manner. And when their work is completed, he need only tithe them as doubtfully tithed produce, in accordance with the law with regard to all produce bought from an uneducated person.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讞 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 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪注砖专讬谉 讚诪讗讬 诪注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜

The Gemara comments: One can learn from this baraita three halakhot: Learn from here that a transaction establishes produce as fixed only with regard to an item whose work is completed, but if its work has not been completed, even selling it does not obligate it in tithes. And learn from here that most people who are in the category of am ha鈥檃retz separate tithes, and therefore one need only separate tithes as doubtfully tithed produce, rather than definitively untithed produce. And one can learn from here another law: One may tithe doubtfully tithed produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, even with regard to something whose work is not completed.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讞诇讬祝 驻讬专讜转 注诐 讞讘讬专讜 讝讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讜讝讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讝讛 诇拽爪讜转 讜讝讛 诇拽爪讜转 讝讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讜讝讛 诇拽爪讜转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗讻讜诇 讞讬讬讘 诇拽爪讜转 驻讟讜专

Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in accordance with this opinion to exclude that which we learned in a mishna: One who exchanges fruits with his friend, which is considered a commercial transaction, if their intention was for this one to eat and that one to eat, or for this one to make them into dried fruit and for that one to make them into dried fruit, this one to eat and that one to make them into dried fruit, they are both obligated in tithes. Rabbi Yehuda, however, says: The one who took the fruits in order to eat is obligated, as for him their labor is completed, but the one who intended to make them into dried fruit is exempt and may partake of the fruit in a casual manner, as for him their work has not yet been completed. Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in opposition to the first tanna. He maintains that the transaction itself does not make the fruit liable to tithes unless its work has been completed.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪讘讬讗

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讚专讱 讗专讜讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转 讜诪讻住讬诐 驻讬专讜转 讘讻诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇祝 讜讻谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转

MISHNA: One may lower produce, which had been laid out on a roof to dry, into the house through a skylight on a Festival, in order to prevent it from becoming ruined in the rain. Although it is a strenuous activity, it is permitted do to so on a Festival in order to prevent a financial loss; however, one may not do so on Shabbat. And one may cover produce inside a building with cloths to prevent damage due to a leak in the ceiling over it, and similarly one may cover jugs of wine and jugs of oil for the same reason. And one may place a vessel beneath a leak in order to catch the water on Shabbat, to prevent it from dirtying the house.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 谞转谉 讞讚 转谞讬 诪砖讬诇讬谉 讜讞讚 转谞讬 诪砖讞讬诇讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara discusses the first word of the mishna from a linguistic standpoint. It was said: Rav Yehuda and Rav Natan recited differing versions of the mishna鈥檚 opening word, which is in all versions a verb meaning to lower. One of them taught mashilin, as in the text of this mishna, and the other one taught mash岣lin.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讬诇讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讞讬诇讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讬诇讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬砖诇 讝讬转讱 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讞讬诇讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚转谞谉 讛砖讞讜诇 讜讛讻住讜诇 砖讞讜诇 砖谞砖诪讟讛 讬专讻讜 讻住讜诇 砖讗讞讚 诪讬专讻讜转讬讜 讙讘讜讛讛 诪讞讘专转讛

Mar Zutra said: The one who teaches mashilin is not mistaken, and the one who teaches mash岣lin is not mistaken, as support can be found for both versions. He elaborates: The one who teaches mashilin is not mistaken, as it is written: 鈥淔or your olives will fall [yishal]鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:40). Mashilin would therefore mean: To cause to fall. And he who teaches mash岣lin is not mistaken, as we learned the following cases in a mishna that lists blemishes that invalidate an animal for sacrifice: The sha岣l and the kasul. The mishna explains these terms: Sha岣l is referring to an animal whose thigh is dislocated, i.e., it has slipped out of place; kasul is referring to an animal one of whose thighs is higher than the other. This shows that the root sh-岣-l- is referring to something that has slipped down from its place.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讞讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪谞砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there are other possible variations of this word as well. One who teaches mashirin is not mistaken, and one who teaches mash岣rin is not mistaken, and one who teaches manshirin is not mistaken.

诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 诇讗 讬讞讜祝 专讗砖讜 讘讗讚诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬专 讗转 讛砖注专 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪砖讞讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚转谞谉 讛砖讞讜专 讜讛讝讜讙 砖诇 住驻专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讟诪讗讬谉

He elaborates: One who teaches mashirin is not mistaken, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yishmael says: A nazirite may not wash the hair of his head with clay as a kind of shampoo, because it causes hair to fall off [mashir], and a nazirite is prohibited to remove the hairs of his head. This shows that mashir indicates causing something to fall. And one who teaches mash岣rin is also not mistaken, as we learned in a mishna: The she岣r, a type of razor, and a barber鈥檚 scissors, even if their blades are detached, are subject to ritual impurity. The fact that a razor is called she岣r implies that the root sh-岣-r indicates causing to fall down.

讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诪谞砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖谞砖专讜 讻诇讬讜 讘诪讬诐 诪讛诇讱 讘讛诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诇拽讟 讛谞讜砖专 讘砖注转 拽爪讬专讛

And one who teaches manshirin is not mistaken either, as we learned in a mishna: One whose clothes fell down [nashru] into water on Shabbat may continue to walk in them while they dry of their own accord, and he need not be concerned that people might suspect him of having washed them on Shabbat. Alternatively, another support can be found from that which we learned in the following mishna: What is gleaning [leket], which must be left for the poor as commanded in Leviticus 19:9? That which falls [nosher] during reaping. These sources show that the root n-sh-r means: To fall down, and manshirin would consequently mean: To cause to fall down.

转谞谉 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讚专讱 讗专讜讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪驻谞讬谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 拽讜驻讜转 砖诇 转讘谉 讜砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讜专讞讬诐 讜诪驻谞讬 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖

搂 The Gemara discusses the halakha in the mishna: We learned that one may lower produce through a skylight on a Festival. The Gemara asks: Up to how much produce may be lowered in this manner? At what point is it considered to be too strenuous an activity to be performed on the Festival? Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Asi said, and some say that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is like that which we learned in a mishna with regard to a different case: One may clear out four or five sacks of hay or grain from a room on Shabbat due to visitors, to clear a place for them to sit, or due to suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., to make room there for more people, who would not be able to study Torah otherwise. Here too, only four or five sacks鈥 worth of produce may be lowered from the roof.

讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 拽讜驻讜转 砖专讬 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the comparison of the two cases. But perhaps there it is different, since there is the matter of preventing suspension of study in the study hall or of providing hospitality to guests, i.e., moving those items is permitted in order to facilitate a mitzva. But here, where there is no suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., no facilitation of any mitzva, they did not permit one to move such a large amount. Alternatively: There, this is the reasoning that four or five sacks are permitted: Because Shabbat is severe in people鈥檚 eyes and they will not come to belittle it; but on a Festival, which is regarded more lightly and which people might come to belittle, one may not move the items at all.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬

Alternatively, a claim can be made from the other perspective: There, this is the reasoning that it is permitted to carry only four or five sacks: Because there is no monetary loss involved. But here, where there is monetary loss if the produce is not moved, one may carry even a larger amount than four or five sacks.

Scroll To Top