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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 12, 2021 | 讻状讞 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 52

Today鈥檚 Daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in memory of Rabbi Ruby Davis z”l, “beloved father of Debby Rapps, who was in his 7th cycle of Daf Yomi, and Rabbi Moshe Rapps z”l, beloved father of AZ Rapps, who inspired thousands with a love of Torah and learning.”

When someone comes from a place that knew when Rosh Chodesh was and knew when the holiday was and didn’t keep two days of Yom Tov in his city but when to a city that did – what does one do? On what does it depend? There was a case of Rav Natan bar Asia who went outside of techum on Yom Tov – why did he think it was ok? Rav Yosef excommunicated him, or gave him lashes (according to a different version). Abaye questioned his actions. Can one excommunicate a Torah scholar even if it make cause a chilul HaShem, desecration of the name of God. The gemara brings 5 different explanations explaining the debate between tana kama and Rabbi Yehuda regarding someone going between two cities where there was still produce in one and not the other. There are three areas for considering whether there is no longer produce in the fields. From where is this derived? Tana kama and Rabbi Shimon debate whether produce taken out of Israel needs to be brought back to Israel to destroy after there are is no longer produce in the fields? How did Rav Safra rule in a case he was involved it? How did Rav Yosef relate to his ruling? Rabbi Ilai cut a tree for wood with some unripe fruits on it in the Sabbatical year. How was he allowed to do this if the dates were shmita produce and he was leaving them to be destroyed?

讘讬讬砖讜讘 诇讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讛诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讚讘专 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讘讬讬砖讜讘 讗住讜专 讘诪讚讘专 诪讜转专


we do not perform labor in the settled area due to the need to avoid deviation that causes dispute, as it is the custom in the Diaspora to refrain from performance of labor on those days. However, in the desert outside the Jewish community, what is the halakha? He said to him that this is what Rav Ami said: In a settled area it is prohibited; in the desert it is permitted.


专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗住讬讗 讗讝诇 诪讘讬 专讘 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 砖诇 注爪专转 砖诪转讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇谞讙讚讬讛 诪专 谞讙讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚讬驻讗 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讚讘诪注专讘讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗谞讙讬讚讗 讚讘专 讘讬 专讘 讜诇讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗砖诪转讗


Tangentially, it is reported that Rav Natan bar Asya relied upon his knowledge of the calendar and traveled from Rav鈥檚 study hall to Pumbedita on the second day of the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, and thereby desecrated the second day of the Festival by traveling beyond the town limits. Rav Yosef excommunicated him as punishment for this act. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master flog Rav Natan bar Asya for this grave sin. Rav Yosef said to him: I punished him more severely, as in Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar, but do not vote to punish him with excommunication, in deference to the Torah. Apparently, excommunication is a more severe punishment than lashes.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 谞砖诪转讬讛 诪专 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪谞讚讬谉 注诇 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 讙诇讬讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 讛讻讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讟讘讗 诇讬讛 注讘讚讬 讚讘诪注专讘讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗谞讙讚转讗 讚讘专 讘讬 专讘 讜诇讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗砖诪转讗:


Some say: Rav Yosef ordered the court officer to flog him. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master excommunicate him, as it is Rav and Shmuel who both say that one excommunicates for desecration of the second day of the Festival in the Diaspora. Rav Yosef said to him: That applies to an ordinary person. Here, he is a Torah scholar. I did what was best for him, as in Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar but do not vote to punish him with excommunication. Rav Yosef did not wish to sentence him to so severe a punishment.


讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛诪讜诇讬讱 驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻讜壮: 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚转谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讜诪专讬 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讬爪讗 诪砖诐 讜讞讜诪专讬 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讛诇讱 诇砖诐


We learned in the mishna: Similarly, one who transports Sabbatical Year produce from a place where a crop has ceased in the fields to a place where it has not yet ceased, or from a place where it has not yet ceased to a place where it has already ceased, is obligated to remove the produce from his possession, in accordance with the stringencies of both locations. Rabbi Yehuda says that one need not remove the produce, as he can say to a local resident: You too go out and bring this produce from a place where it remains in the field. Therefore, he may partake of the produce that he brought with him. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda not in agreement with that which we learned in the mishna: The Sages impose upon him the stringencies of both the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went?


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诪诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讻诇讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讻诇讜 讜砖诪注 砖讻诇讜 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讘注专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 爪讗 讜讛讘讗 诇讱 讗祝 讗转讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 诇讗 讻诇讜 诇讛讜


Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Rabbi Yehuda is stating a different matter, and this is what the mishna is saying: Or if one went from a place where a crop has not ceased in the fields to a place where it has also not ceased in the fields, and he heard that it now ceased in the fields in his original location, he is then required to remove the fruits from his possession. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not remove it and can say to the people of his location of origin: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from a place where they remain in the field, as they have not ceased in the fields here, and I may continue eating this produce.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讘注专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 爪讗 讜讛讘讗 诇讱 讗祝 讗转讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 讻诇讜 诇讛讜


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is stating his opinion as a leniency in his dispute with the Rabbis? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion as a stringency? Rather, reverse the statements in the mishna: If one travels from a place where a crop has not ceased in the fields to another place where it has not ceased in the fields, and hears that it has ceased in the fields in his original location, he is not required to remove that produce from his house. Rabbi Yehuda says: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from the place where I brought them, and the crop has ceased in the fields there, and therefore he is required to remove the produce from his house.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诪诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讻诇讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讻诇讜 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讻诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讘注专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 爪讗 讜讛讘讗 诇讱 讗祝 讗转讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 讻诇讜 诇讛讜


Abaye said: Actually, maintain the dispute in the mishna as it is taught, and this is what the mishna is saying: Or, if he brought it from a place where it has not ceased in the fields to a place where it has ceased in the fields, and he returned the fruits to their original place where they have still not ceased from the fields, he is not required to remove the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from the place where I brought them, and hasn鈥檛 the crop ceased from the fields there? When he brought the produce back, he took it from a location where the fruit had ceased to be available, and he is required to remove it.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讟讜 讗讙讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 拽诇讟讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜讘砖 砖诇砖讛 讻讘砖讬谉 讘讞讘讬转 讗讞转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉


Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: Is that to say that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, did the back of the donkey absorb these fruits? In other words, should this fruit be prohibited just because he transported the fruits on a donkey鈥檚 back through a place where it no longer exists in the field, even though it was neither grown there nor is he eating it there? Rather, Rav Ashi said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is parallel to the dispute of these tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who preserves three types of vegetable preserves in one barrel during the Sabbatical Year, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat all three vegetables based on the status of the first. One may eat all three only until the date that the first of those vegetables ceases in the field. Thereafter, he is required to remove all the vegetables because they form a mixture of the prohibited and the permitted.


专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讻诇讛 诪讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 讬讘注专 诪讬谞讜 诪谉 讛讞讘讬转 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬讜


Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may even continue eating all of them based on the status of the final type of those vegetables, until it is no longer present in the field. Rabban Gamliel says: Any of the vegetables whose type has ceased from the field, he will remove its type from the barrel and it may not be eaten; and the halakha is in accordance with his statement. The parallels between the dispute in this mishna and the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda are: The unattributed opinion in the mishna is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: As long as there is an element of leniency, it is all permitted. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: As long as there is an element of stringency, it is all prohibited (Rabbeinu 岣nanel).


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘转诪专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖讘爪讜注专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专


Ravina said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is parallel to the dispute of these tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna: One may eat dates in all of Judea until the last palm tree, which produces the latest dates, in Tzoar, has ceased producing dates. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:


讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛讻讬驻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖讘讬谉 讛砖讬爪讬谉


One may continue eating dates based on those that have fallen off the tree and are stuck between the palm branches. But one may not continue eating on the basis of the dates that have fallen between the thorn branches, as animals are unable to reach them there. According to the first tanna in the mishna cited, one may continue eating fruit as long as an animal has access to its type, parallel to the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to removal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 opinion is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: If the fruit from a certain place is not available to all, one is required to remove it.


转谞谉 讛转诐 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇讘讬注讜专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讙诇讬诇 讜砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 讘讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇讘讬注讜专 砖讬讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖讘讛


Since the Gemara discussed the point when Sabbatical Year produce must be removed in different places, it cites a mishna from tractate Shevi鈥檌t that deals with a similar topic. We learned there in a mishna: Eretz Yisrael is divided into three separate lands with regard to removal, Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. And there are three lands in each and every one of them: The valley, the mountains, and the plains, in which the halakhot of removal differ. And why did the Sages say that there are three lands with regard to removal if those lands themselves are further divided? It is so that people will eat in each and every one until a certain crop ceases from the field in the last of the regions that comprise it. Therefore, even if a certain fruit is no longer available in a particular region within the land, it may still be eaten there as long as it is available in one of the other regions.


诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讘讛诪转讱 讜诇讞讬讛 讗砖专 讘讗专爪讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讞讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 讛讗讻诇 诇讘讛诪讛 砖讘讘讬转 讻诇讛 诇讞讬讛 讗砖专 讘砖讚讛 讻诇讛 诇讘讛诪转讱 诪谉 讛讘讬转


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that it is permitted to continue eating a type of fruit that has ceased from the fields in a region, as long as it has not ceased elsewhere in the land, but that once it has ceased from the fields in the entire land it is prohibited, despite the fact that it has not ceased from the fields in the other lands? Rav 岣ma bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The verse says with regard to land during the Sabbatical Year: 鈥淎nd for the cattle and the beasts that are in your land, all its produce may be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 25:7), from which it is derived: As long as the undomesticated animals eat a type of produce from the field, one may feed that type to the domesticated animal in his house, as it still remains in the field. Deriving benefit from that type of produce is permitted. However, if that type of produce has ceased for the undomesticated animals in the field, cease providing it to your domesticated animal in the house.


讜讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬谉 讞讬讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讙讚讬诇讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讛 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讙讚讬诇讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛


And we learned as a tradition that an undomesticated animal in Judea does not develop on the produce of the Galilee, and an undomesticated animal in the Galilee does not develop on the fruits of Judea. In each region there are conditions uniquely suited to the species that live there (Sefat Emet). Animals wander from region to region within Judea or within the Galilee in search of food, but they do not stray beyond the borders of the land of their habitat.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 诪讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪转讘注专讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝专讜 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讜讬转讘注专讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讗专爪讱 讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛


The Sages taught: Sabbatical Year fruits that left Eretz Yisrael and went to the Diaspora must be removed in any place that they are located. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: That is not so. Rather, the fruits should return to their place of origin in Eretz Yisrael and be removed there. According to his opinion, removal may not be performed outside Eretz Yisrael because it is stated: 鈥淚n your land,鈥 indicating that this activity may be performed only in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 you derive from this verse that each of the three lands in Eretz Yisrael has a different halakhic status?


拽专讬 讘讬讛 讘讗专抓 讘讗专爪讱 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讗砖专 讘讗专爪讱


The Gemara answers: Read the phrase as both in the land and in your land. It is possible to derive two halakhot from this verse; one halakha is with regard to Eretz Yisrael in general, i.e., one may not perform removal outside of Eretz Yisrael, the land, and one is with regard to the different lands within Eretz Yisrael, your land. Alternatively, the second halakha can be derived from the extraneous words in the expression: 鈥淭hat are in your land,鈥 as the Torah could have sufficed with the phrase: 鈥淚n your land.鈥


专讘 住驻专讗 谞驻拽 诪讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讛讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讙专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚砖讘讬注讬转 诇讜讜 讘讛讚讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讜专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专


The Gemara relates: Rav Safra left Eretz Yisrael and went to the Diaspora, and he had with him a jug of Sabbatical Year wine. Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, and Rav Kahana accompanied him. He said to them: Is there anyone who heard from Rabbi Abbahu whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar or not? According to his opinion, Rav Safra would be required to return the wine to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Kahana said to him that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and one is required to return and perform removal of the Sabbatical Year produce in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, said that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and one may perform removal wherever he may be.


讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 谞拽讜讟 讛讗 讻诇诇讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬讚讱 讚讚讬讬拽 讜讙诪专 砖诪注转转讗 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚专讘讬讛 讻专讞讘讛 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讚讗诪专 专讞讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛专 讛讘讬转 住讟讬讜 讻驻讜诇 讛讬讛 住讟讬讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪住讟讬讜 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 注诪讬 讘注爪讜 讬砖讗诇 讜诪拽诇讜 讬讙讬讚 诇讜 讻诇 讛诪讬拽诇 诇讜 诪讙讬讚 诇讜


Rav Safra said: Take that principle of Rav Huna in your hand, i.e., rely on it, as he is scrupulous and he learned the halakha well from the mouth of its originator, as the Sage Ra岣va from the city of Pumbedita would do. Ra岣va was famous for the precision with which he would transmit material that he learned from his teacher. The Gemara cites an example: Ra岣va said that Rav Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade [stav], as there was a colonnade within a colonnade there. Here Ra岣va used his teacher鈥檚 language in describing the structure of the Temple and the rows of columns. He did not employ the common term used for a colonnade, itztaba, but rather stav, using the language he heard from his teacher. With regard to the case where Rav Safra relied on Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion and was lenient, Rav Yosef mockingly read the verse: 鈥淢y nation ask counsel of their stock, and its staff [maklo] tells to them鈥 (Hosea 4:12) and interpreted it homiletically with regard to Rav Safra: Anyone who is lenient [mekel] tells him the halakha. He listens to the opinion of only the Sage who rules leniently.


专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 拽抓 讻驻谞讬讬转讗 讚砖讘讬注讬转 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 诇讗讻诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 诇讛驻住讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讞讬转 诇驻讬专讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 谞讞讬转 诇驻讬专讗 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛谞讬 诪转讞诇讬 讚注专诇讛 讗住讬专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讜 砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬


The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year: Rabbi Elai chopped down a palm tree containing unripe dates of the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: How did he do this? The Merciful One says: 鈥淎nd the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for you to eat鈥 (Leviticus 25:6), from which it is inferred: To eat and not to destroy. It is prohibited to destroy Sabbatical Year produce, and it is permitted only to eat it. And if you say that this restriction applies only in a case where it has reached the status of fruit, but in a case where it has not yet reached the status of fruit, no, it does not apply; didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh said: Those orla date coverings are prohibited like other orla fruit, as their legal status is that of food because they became protection for the fruit? They are not considered part of the tree that may be eaten in the orla years.


讜砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬 讗讬诪转 讛讜讛 讘讻讜驻专讬 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讛讜 驻讬专讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 住诪讚专 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讬专讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛


The Gemara analyzes this: And when do these coverings serve as protection for the fruit? When the fruit is still young and one nevertheless calls them fruit. Dates are considered fruit even when they are undeveloped. Just as it is prohibited to eat these dates during the orla period, it is similarly prohibited to destroy them during the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara answers: It is Rav Na岣an who stated his opinion in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yosei, contrary to the majority opinion. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: The grape bud, i.e., a cluster of grapes in its earliest stage, immediately after the flowers drop from the vine, is prohibited due to orla because it is already considered a fruit. However, the Rabbis disagree with him, explaining that fruit at that stage is not considered fruit.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讗专 讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪讗讬诪转讬 讗讬谉 拽讜爪爪讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诪砖讬砖专砖专讜 讜讛讙驻谞讬诐


Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 strongly objects to this: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei with regard to the fruits of all other trees besides grapes, that even in the very first stage of ripening, they are considered fruit? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: From when may one no longer chop down trees during the Sabbatical Year, as he thereby damages the fruit? Beit Shammai say: In the case of all the trees, from when the blossoms fall and fruit begins to emerge in its earliest stage. And Beit Hillel say: There is a distinction between different types of trees. The carob trees may not be chopped down from when they form chains of carobs; and the vines,


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

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

Pesachim 46-52 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about 鈥渄eaf dough鈥 and if you can separate Challah from your impure matzah dough. We...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 52: Breaking Yom Tov

More on practices that change from place to place. Including travel on the second day of yom tov. [What's What:...

Pesachim 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 52

讘讬讬砖讜讘 诇讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讛诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讚讘专 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讘讬讬砖讜讘 讗住讜专 讘诪讚讘专 诪讜转专


we do not perform labor in the settled area due to the need to avoid deviation that causes dispute, as it is the custom in the Diaspora to refrain from performance of labor on those days. However, in the desert outside the Jewish community, what is the halakha? He said to him that this is what Rav Ami said: In a settled area it is prohibited; in the desert it is permitted.


专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗住讬讗 讗讝诇 诪讘讬 专讘 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 砖诇 注爪专转 砖诪转讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇谞讙讚讬讛 诪专 谞讙讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚讬驻讗 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讚讘诪注专讘讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗谞讙讬讚讗 讚讘专 讘讬 专讘 讜诇讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗砖诪转讗


Tangentially, it is reported that Rav Natan bar Asya relied upon his knowledge of the calendar and traveled from Rav鈥檚 study hall to Pumbedita on the second day of the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, and thereby desecrated the second day of the Festival by traveling beyond the town limits. Rav Yosef excommunicated him as punishment for this act. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master flog Rav Natan bar Asya for this grave sin. Rav Yosef said to him: I punished him more severely, as in Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar, but do not vote to punish him with excommunication, in deference to the Torah. Apparently, excommunication is a more severe punishment than lashes.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 谞砖诪转讬讛 诪专 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪谞讚讬谉 注诇 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 讙诇讬讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 讛讻讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讟讘讗 诇讬讛 注讘讚讬 讚讘诪注专讘讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗谞讙讚转讗 讚讘专 讘讬 专讘 讜诇讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗砖诪转讗:


Some say: Rav Yosef ordered the court officer to flog him. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master excommunicate him, as it is Rav and Shmuel who both say that one excommunicates for desecration of the second day of the Festival in the Diaspora. Rav Yosef said to him: That applies to an ordinary person. Here, he is a Torah scholar. I did what was best for him, as in Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar but do not vote to punish him with excommunication. Rav Yosef did not wish to sentence him to so severe a punishment.


讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛诪讜诇讬讱 驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻讜壮: 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚转谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讜诪专讬 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讬爪讗 诪砖诐 讜讞讜诪专讬 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讛诇讱 诇砖诐


We learned in the mishna: Similarly, one who transports Sabbatical Year produce from a place where a crop has ceased in the fields to a place where it has not yet ceased, or from a place where it has not yet ceased to a place where it has already ceased, is obligated to remove the produce from his possession, in accordance with the stringencies of both locations. Rabbi Yehuda says that one need not remove the produce, as he can say to a local resident: You too go out and bring this produce from a place where it remains in the field. Therefore, he may partake of the produce that he brought with him. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda not in agreement with that which we learned in the mishna: The Sages impose upon him the stringencies of both the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went?


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诪诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讻诇讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讻诇讜 讜砖诪注 砖讻诇讜 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讘注专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 爪讗 讜讛讘讗 诇讱 讗祝 讗转讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 诇讗 讻诇讜 诇讛讜


Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Rabbi Yehuda is stating a different matter, and this is what the mishna is saying: Or if one went from a place where a crop has not ceased in the fields to a place where it has also not ceased in the fields, and he heard that it now ceased in the fields in his original location, he is then required to remove the fruits from his possession. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not remove it and can say to the people of his location of origin: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from a place where they remain in the field, as they have not ceased in the fields here, and I may continue eating this produce.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讘注专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 爪讗 讜讛讘讗 诇讱 讗祝 讗转讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 讻诇讜 诇讛讜


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is stating his opinion as a leniency in his dispute with the Rabbis? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion as a stringency? Rather, reverse the statements in the mishna: If one travels from a place where a crop has not ceased in the fields to another place where it has not ceased in the fields, and hears that it has ceased in the fields in his original location, he is not required to remove that produce from his house. Rabbi Yehuda says: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from the place where I brought them, and the crop has ceased in the fields there, and therefore he is required to remove the produce from his house.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诪诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讻诇讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讻诇讜 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讻诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讘注专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 爪讗 讜讛讘讗 诇讱 讗祝 讗转讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 讻诇讜 诇讛讜


Abaye said: Actually, maintain the dispute in the mishna as it is taught, and this is what the mishna is saying: Or, if he brought it from a place where it has not ceased in the fields to a place where it has ceased in the fields, and he returned the fruits to their original place where they have still not ceased from the fields, he is not required to remove the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from the place where I brought them, and hasn鈥檛 the crop ceased from the fields there? When he brought the produce back, he took it from a location where the fruit had ceased to be available, and he is required to remove it.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讟讜 讗讙讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 拽诇讟讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜讘砖 砖诇砖讛 讻讘砖讬谉 讘讞讘讬转 讗讞转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉


Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: Is that to say that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, did the back of the donkey absorb these fruits? In other words, should this fruit be prohibited just because he transported the fruits on a donkey鈥檚 back through a place where it no longer exists in the field, even though it was neither grown there nor is he eating it there? Rather, Rav Ashi said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is parallel to the dispute of these tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who preserves three types of vegetable preserves in one barrel during the Sabbatical Year, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat all three vegetables based on the status of the first. One may eat all three only until the date that the first of those vegetables ceases in the field. Thereafter, he is required to remove all the vegetables because they form a mixture of the prohibited and the permitted.


专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讻诇讛 诪讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 讬讘注专 诪讬谞讜 诪谉 讛讞讘讬转 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬讜


Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may even continue eating all of them based on the status of the final type of those vegetables, until it is no longer present in the field. Rabban Gamliel says: Any of the vegetables whose type has ceased from the field, he will remove its type from the barrel and it may not be eaten; and the halakha is in accordance with his statement. The parallels between the dispute in this mishna and the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda are: The unattributed opinion in the mishna is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: As long as there is an element of leniency, it is all permitted. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: As long as there is an element of stringency, it is all prohibited (Rabbeinu 岣nanel).


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘转诪专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖讘爪讜注专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专


Ravina said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is parallel to the dispute of these tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna: One may eat dates in all of Judea until the last palm tree, which produces the latest dates, in Tzoar, has ceased producing dates. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:


讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛讻讬驻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖讘讬谉 讛砖讬爪讬谉


One may continue eating dates based on those that have fallen off the tree and are stuck between the palm branches. But one may not continue eating on the basis of the dates that have fallen between the thorn branches, as animals are unable to reach them there. According to the first tanna in the mishna cited, one may continue eating fruit as long as an animal has access to its type, parallel to the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to removal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 opinion is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: If the fruit from a certain place is not available to all, one is required to remove it.


转谞谉 讛转诐 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇讘讬注讜专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讙诇讬诇 讜砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 讘讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇讘讬注讜专 砖讬讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖讘讛


Since the Gemara discussed the point when Sabbatical Year produce must be removed in different places, it cites a mishna from tractate Shevi鈥檌t that deals with a similar topic. We learned there in a mishna: Eretz Yisrael is divided into three separate lands with regard to removal, Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. And there are three lands in each and every one of them: The valley, the mountains, and the plains, in which the halakhot of removal differ. And why did the Sages say that there are three lands with regard to removal if those lands themselves are further divided? It is so that people will eat in each and every one until a certain crop ceases from the field in the last of the regions that comprise it. Therefore, even if a certain fruit is no longer available in a particular region within the land, it may still be eaten there as long as it is available in one of the other regions.


诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讘讛诪转讱 讜诇讞讬讛 讗砖专 讘讗专爪讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讞讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 讛讗讻诇 诇讘讛诪讛 砖讘讘讬转 讻诇讛 诇讞讬讛 讗砖专 讘砖讚讛 讻诇讛 诇讘讛诪转讱 诪谉 讛讘讬转


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that it is permitted to continue eating a type of fruit that has ceased from the fields in a region, as long as it has not ceased elsewhere in the land, but that once it has ceased from the fields in the entire land it is prohibited, despite the fact that it has not ceased from the fields in the other lands? Rav 岣ma bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The verse says with regard to land during the Sabbatical Year: 鈥淎nd for the cattle and the beasts that are in your land, all its produce may be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 25:7), from which it is derived: As long as the undomesticated animals eat a type of produce from the field, one may feed that type to the domesticated animal in his house, as it still remains in the field. Deriving benefit from that type of produce is permitted. However, if that type of produce has ceased for the undomesticated animals in the field, cease providing it to your domesticated animal in the house.


讜讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬谉 讞讬讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讙讚讬诇讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讛 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讙讚讬诇讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛


And we learned as a tradition that an undomesticated animal in Judea does not develop on the produce of the Galilee, and an undomesticated animal in the Galilee does not develop on the fruits of Judea. In each region there are conditions uniquely suited to the species that live there (Sefat Emet). Animals wander from region to region within Judea or within the Galilee in search of food, but they do not stray beyond the borders of the land of their habitat.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 诪讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪转讘注专讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝专讜 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讜讬转讘注专讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讗专爪讱 讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛


The Sages taught: Sabbatical Year fruits that left Eretz Yisrael and went to the Diaspora must be removed in any place that they are located. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: That is not so. Rather, the fruits should return to their place of origin in Eretz Yisrael and be removed there. According to his opinion, removal may not be performed outside Eretz Yisrael because it is stated: 鈥淚n your land,鈥 indicating that this activity may be performed only in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 you derive from this verse that each of the three lands in Eretz Yisrael has a different halakhic status?


拽专讬 讘讬讛 讘讗专抓 讘讗专爪讱 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讗砖专 讘讗专爪讱


The Gemara answers: Read the phrase as both in the land and in your land. It is possible to derive two halakhot from this verse; one halakha is with regard to Eretz Yisrael in general, i.e., one may not perform removal outside of Eretz Yisrael, the land, and one is with regard to the different lands within Eretz Yisrael, your land. Alternatively, the second halakha can be derived from the extraneous words in the expression: 鈥淭hat are in your land,鈥 as the Torah could have sufficed with the phrase: 鈥淚n your land.鈥


专讘 住驻专讗 谞驻拽 诪讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讛讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讙专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚砖讘讬注讬转 诇讜讜 讘讛讚讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讜专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专


The Gemara relates: Rav Safra left Eretz Yisrael and went to the Diaspora, and he had with him a jug of Sabbatical Year wine. Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, and Rav Kahana accompanied him. He said to them: Is there anyone who heard from Rabbi Abbahu whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar or not? According to his opinion, Rav Safra would be required to return the wine to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Kahana said to him that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and one is required to return and perform removal of the Sabbatical Year produce in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, said that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and one may perform removal wherever he may be.


讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 谞拽讜讟 讛讗 讻诇诇讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬讚讱 讚讚讬讬拽 讜讙诪专 砖诪注转转讗 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚专讘讬讛 讻专讞讘讛 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讚讗诪专 专讞讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛专 讛讘讬转 住讟讬讜 讻驻讜诇 讛讬讛 住讟讬讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪住讟讬讜 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 注诪讬 讘注爪讜 讬砖讗诇 讜诪拽诇讜 讬讙讬讚 诇讜 讻诇 讛诪讬拽诇 诇讜 诪讙讬讚 诇讜


Rav Safra said: Take that principle of Rav Huna in your hand, i.e., rely on it, as he is scrupulous and he learned the halakha well from the mouth of its originator, as the Sage Ra岣va from the city of Pumbedita would do. Ra岣va was famous for the precision with which he would transmit material that he learned from his teacher. The Gemara cites an example: Ra岣va said that Rav Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade [stav], as there was a colonnade within a colonnade there. Here Ra岣va used his teacher鈥檚 language in describing the structure of the Temple and the rows of columns. He did not employ the common term used for a colonnade, itztaba, but rather stav, using the language he heard from his teacher. With regard to the case where Rav Safra relied on Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion and was lenient, Rav Yosef mockingly read the verse: 鈥淢y nation ask counsel of their stock, and its staff [maklo] tells to them鈥 (Hosea 4:12) and interpreted it homiletically with regard to Rav Safra: Anyone who is lenient [mekel] tells him the halakha. He listens to the opinion of only the Sage who rules leniently.


专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 拽抓 讻驻谞讬讬转讗 讚砖讘讬注讬转 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 诇讗讻诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 诇讛驻住讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讞讬转 诇驻讬专讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 谞讞讬转 诇驻讬专讗 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛谞讬 诪转讞诇讬 讚注专诇讛 讗住讬专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讜 砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬


The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year: Rabbi Elai chopped down a palm tree containing unripe dates of the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: How did he do this? The Merciful One says: 鈥淎nd the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for you to eat鈥 (Leviticus 25:6), from which it is inferred: To eat and not to destroy. It is prohibited to destroy Sabbatical Year produce, and it is permitted only to eat it. And if you say that this restriction applies only in a case where it has reached the status of fruit, but in a case where it has not yet reached the status of fruit, no, it does not apply; didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh said: Those orla date coverings are prohibited like other orla fruit, as their legal status is that of food because they became protection for the fruit? They are not considered part of the tree that may be eaten in the orla years.


讜砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬 讗讬诪转 讛讜讛 讘讻讜驻专讬 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讛讜 驻讬专讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 住诪讚专 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讬专讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛


The Gemara analyzes this: And when do these coverings serve as protection for the fruit? When the fruit is still young and one nevertheless calls them fruit. Dates are considered fruit even when they are undeveloped. Just as it is prohibited to eat these dates during the orla period, it is similarly prohibited to destroy them during the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara answers: It is Rav Na岣an who stated his opinion in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yosei, contrary to the majority opinion. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: The grape bud, i.e., a cluster of grapes in its earliest stage, immediately after the flowers drop from the vine, is prohibited due to orla because it is already considered a fruit. However, the Rabbis disagree with him, explaining that fruit at that stage is not considered fruit.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讗专 讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪讗讬诪转讬 讗讬谉 拽讜爪爪讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诪砖讬砖专砖专讜 讜讛讙驻谞讬诐


Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 strongly objects to this: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei with regard to the fruits of all other trees besides grapes, that even in the very first stage of ripening, they are considered fruit? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: From when may one no longer chop down trees during the Sabbatical Year, as he thereby damages the fruit? Beit Shammai say: In the case of all the trees, from when the blossoms fall and fruit begins to emerge in its earliest stage. And Beit Hillel say: There is a distinction between different types of trees. The carob trees may not be chopped down from when they form chains of carobs; and the vines,


Scroll To Top