Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 13, 2021 | כ״ט בטבת תשפ״א

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 53

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in memory of her mother Helena K. Baum on her fifth Yartzeit. “Mom was a lifelong learner and lover of Torah studies, an anomaly for women of her generation. She is sorely missed by those whose lives she touched.”

How did Rabbi Ilai cut wood with unripe fruits? It seems even the rabbis consider them fruits? The gemara brings contradictory braitot regarding when one needs to get rid of one’s fruits in the house. Do they really contradict? A bratia is brought describing what different types of land or water is known for – mountains, valleys, streams and plains. What is the halachic relevance? There is a custom not to sell small animals, however large animals are always forbidden. Why? Are there exceptions to the rule? There was a custom to eat roasted meat on Pesach night and not to eat roasted meat. If one says they are doing it for Pesach, it is forbidden. The gemara brings a contradiction from a braita regarding a story with Todos. Who was Todos and why according to the story did the rabbis not excommunicate him because of his stature – why did he have stature? There was a custom to light candles on erev Yom Kippur and a custom not to light. Both customs had the same intent in mind – to prevent sexual relations between husband and wife. Some said that Rabbi Yochanan said one only lights a candle for havdala on Saturday night but not after holidays and Yom Kippur. Did he really say that or did he say that if Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat, one does not light candles before?

משיגריעו והזיתים משיניצו ושאר כל האילנות משיוציאו ואמר רב אסי הוא בוסר הוא גירוע הוא פול הלבן פול הלבן סלקא דעתך אלא אימא שיעורו כפול הלבן

from when the grapes form kernels and grow slightly; and olive trees, from when they blossom; and all other trees may not be chopped down from when they produce fruit. And Rav Asi said: It is an unripe grape, it is a grape kernel, it is a white bean, i.e., their legal status is the same. Before this is explained, the Gemara expresses astonishment: Does it enter your mind that the grape is at any stage a white bean? Rather, say: The size of an unripe grape is equivalent to the size of a white bean.

ומאן שמעת ליה דאמר בוסר אין סמדר לא רבנן וקתני שאר כל האילנות משיוציאו אלא רבי אילעאי בדניסחני קץ

In any case, whom did you hear that said: An unripe grape, yes, is considered fruit, while a grape bud, no, it is not considered fruit? Wasn’t it the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei? And it is taught that, according to the Rabbis, it is prohibited to chop down all other trees from when they produce fruit. This indicates that unripe dates have the same status as ordinary dates. Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer and explains that Rabbi Elai chopped down a palm tree with stunted dates, which never ripen on the tree. It was permitted to chop down the tree because the dates can be ripened only after they are removed from the tree.

תנו רבנן אוכלין בענבים עד שיכלו דליות של אוכל אם יש מאוחרות מהן אוכלין עליהן

The Sages taught: One may eat grapes during the Sabbatical Year until the grapes on the vine branches in the place called Okhel have ceased. And if there are grapes elsewhere later than those, one may continue eating grapes on their basis, as the Sages’ statement is merely based on the assumption that the grapes in Okhel are the last to remain in the field, but the halakha is not specific to them.

אוכלים בזיתים עד שיכלה אחרון שבתקוע רבי אליעזר אומר עד שיכלה אחרון של גוש חלב כדי שיהא עני יוצא ואינו מוצא לא בנופו ולא בעיקרו רובע אוכלין בגרוגרות עד שיכלו פגי בית היני

Similarly, one may eat olives until the final olives have ceased on the trees in Tekoa. Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat olives until the final olives have ceased on the trees in Gush Ḥalav. At what point is the fruit considered to have ceased? At the point that a poor person will go out to search for fruit and find, neither in the tree’s branches nor in the proximity of its trunk, a quarter-kav of olives that have fallen. One may eat dried figs until the unripe figs of Beit Hini have ceased.

אמר רבי יהודה לא הוזכרו פגי בית היני אלא לענין מעשר (דתנן) פגי בית היני ואהיני דטובינא חייבין במעשר:

Rabbi Yehuda said: The unripe figs of Beit Hini were mentioned only with regard to tithes, not with regard to the Sabbatical Year. As we learned in a mishna: The unripe figs of Beit Hini and the dates of Tovyana, both of which never completely ripen but are nonetheless edible, one is obligated to tithe them.

אוכלין בתמרים עד שיכלה האחרון שבצוער רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אוכלין על של בין הכיפין ואין אוכלין על של בין השיצין

We learned in the mishna: One may eat dates in all of Judea until the last palm tree in Tzoar has ceased producing dates. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may continue eating dates based on those between the palm branches; but one may not continue eating on the basis of those between the thorn branches.

ורמינהי אוכלין בענבים עד הפסח בזיתים עד העצרת בגרוגרות עד החנוכה בתמרים עד הפורים ואמר רב ביבי רבי יוחנן תרתי בתרייתא מחליף אידי ואידי חד שיעורא הוא ואי בעית אימא הא קתני בהדיא אם יש מאוחרות מהן אוכלין עליהן

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a different baraita: One may eat from the grapes until Passover; from the olives, until the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot; from the dried figs, until Hanukkah; and from the dates, until Purim. And Rav Beivai said: Rabbi Yoḥanan transposes the last two. According to his version of the baraita, one may eat dried figs until Purim and dates until Hanukkah. This is inconsistent with the previous statement that dates may be eaten until those in Tzoar have ceased. The Gemara resolves this contradiction: Both this time and that time are one period. The first Sage designated the deadline in terms of the place where dates grow, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel designated the deadline in terms of the dates. And if you wish, say instead that it is taught explicitly: And if there are fruits elsewhere later than those, one may continue eating on their basis. This indicates that the places and the times mentioned are merely indicators, but that the prohibition depends on actual conditions in the field.

תניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר סימן להרים מילין סימן לעמקים דקלים סימן לנחלים קנים סימן לשפלה שקמה ואף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר ויתן המלך את הכסף בירושלים כאבנים ואת הארזים נתן כשקמים אשר בשפלה לרוב

The Gemara continues: It was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A good sign for mountains is that gallnut oaks, used in the preparation of ink, grow there. A good sign for valleys is palm trees. A good sign for streams is reeds. A good sign for the plain is a sycamore tree. And although there is no proof for these indicators, there is an allusion to the matter in the verse, as it is stated: “And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem like stones, and he made cedars to be as the sycamore trees in the plain” (I Kings 10:27).

סימן להרים מילין סימן לעמקים דקלים נפקא מינה לבכורים דתנן אין מביאין בכורים אלא משבעת המינין ולא מדקלים שבהרים ולא מפירות שבעמקים

The Gemara elaborates on this baraita: A good sign for mountains is gallnut oaks, a good sign for valleys is palm trees. What purpose is served by these signs? The practical difference of these signs pertains to the halakha of first fruits. As we learned in a mishna: One may bring first fruits only from the seven species and only from the highest quality fruit. Therefore, one may not bring first fruits from palm trees that grow in the mountains. Since the mountains are not a suitable location for palm trees, the dates grown there are inferior. Similarly, one does not bring first fruits from produce, i.e., from wheat and barley, that grow in the valleys, because mountain fruits do not grow there properly.

סימן לנחלים קנים נפקא מינה לנחל איתן סימן לשפלה שקמה נפקא מינה למקח וממכר השתא דאתית להכי כולהו נמי למקח וממכר:

A good sign for streams is reeds. The case where this sign makes a practical halakhic difference is with regard to the rough dried-up stream mentioned in the Torah. When a corpse is found between two towns and the murderer cannot be identified, the Torah states that a calf’s neck is broken in a rough stream. The baraita teaches that growing reeds identify the spot as a stream. A good sign for the plain is a sycamore tree. The Gemara explains that the case where this sign makes a practical difference is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying land in the plains, it is defined as an area where sycamore trees grow. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this practical halakhic difference with regard to assessing the quality of land for the purpose of transactions, all the signs can be understood as pertaining to buying and selling as well, to identify valleys and mountainous regions.

מתני׳ מקום שנהגו למכור בהמה דקה לגוים מוכרין מקום שלא נהגו למכור אין מוכרין ובכל מקום אין מוכרין להם בהמה גסה עגלים וסייחין שלמין ושבורין רבי יהודה מתיר בשבורה בן בתירא מתיר בסוס

MISHNA: Apropos different local customs discussed in the first mishna in this chapter, this mishna discusses various halakhot with regard to which there are different customs. In a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles, one may sell them. In a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them due to certain concerns and decrees, one may not sell them. However, in every place, one may sell to gentiles neither large livestock, e.g., cows and camels, nor calves or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Sages prohibited those sales due to the concern lest the transaction be voided or one side reconsider, creating retroactively a situation where a Jew’s animal performed labor for the gentile on Shabbat in violation of an explicit Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a damaged animal because it is incapable of performing labor. Ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse for riding, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.

מקום שנהגו לאכול צלי בלילי פסחים אוכלין מקום שנהגו שלא לאכול אין אוכלין:

The mishna cites another custom related to Passover. In a place where people were accustomed to eat roasted meat on Passover evenings, outside of Jerusalem or after the Temple was destroyed, one may eat it. In a place where people were accustomed not to eat outside Jerusalem, one may not eat it.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסור לו לאדם שיאמר בשר זה לפסח הוא מפני שנראה כמקדיש בהמתו ואוכל קדשים בחוץ אמר רב פפא דוקא בשר אבל חיטי לא דמינטר לפסחא קאמר

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that it is prohibited for a person to say in modern times: This meat is for Passover, due to the fact that one appears to be consecrating his animal as his Paschal lamb, and he thereby eats consecrated items outside the permitted area. Rav Pappa said: This prohibition against saying: This is for Passover, applies specifically to meat, which is similar to consecrated meat; however, with regard to wheat, no, it does not apply. In that case, it is clear that one is saying that the flour be watched for Passover.

ובשר לא מיתיבי אמר רבי יוסי תודוס איש רומי הנהיג את בני רומי לאכול גדיים מקולסין בלילי פסחים שלחו לו אלמלא תודוס אתה גזרנו עליך נדוי שאתה מאכיל את ישראל קדשים בחוץ קדשים סלקא דעתך אלא אימא

The Gemara asks: And with regard to meat is that not the case? Is it really prohibited to say that meat is for Passover? The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Yosei said: Theodosius [Todos] of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat kids roasted [mekulas] whole with their entrails over their heads on the evenings of Passover, as was the custom in the Temple. The Sages sent a message to him: If you were not Theodosius, an important person, we would have decreed ostracism upon you, as it appears as if you are feeding Israel consecrated food, which may be eaten only in and around the Temple itself, outside the permitted area. The Gemara asks about the terminology used here: Could it enter your mind that this meat was actually consecrated meat? That was certainly not the case. Rather, say instead:

קרוב להאכיל את ישראל קדשים בחוץ מקולס אין שאין מקולס לא אמרי מקולס לא שנא אמר לא שנא לא אמר שאינו מקולס פירש אין לא פירש לא

Doing so is akin to feeding Jews consecrated meat outside the permitted area, as due to its resemblance to the Paschal lamb it could be misleading. The Gemara analyzes this statement: A goat roasted whole, yes, it is prohibited; a goat not roasted whole, no, it is not prohibited. This contradicts Rav, who prohibited roasting even ordinary meat. The Sages say that this is the distinction: With regard to a goat roasted whole, there is no difference if one said it is for Passover, and there is no difference if one did not say it is for Passover. In either case, it looks like a sacrifice and it is prohibited. With regard to a goat not roasted whole, if one specified that it is for Passover, yes, it is prohibited because it appears that he is consecrating it as a sacrifice. However, if one did not specify that it is for Passover, no, it is not prohibited, as there is no need for concern.

רב אחא מתני לה להא מתניתין כרבי שמעון מתקיף לה רב ששת בשלמא למאן דתני לה כרבי יוסי ניחא אלא למאן דמתני כרבי שמעון מי ניחא

Rav Aḥa teaches this baraita about Theodosius in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Sheshet strongly objected to this: Granted, according to the one who learns it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it works out well. However, according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, does it work out well? Didn’t we learn in a mishna about a dispute with regard to one who consecrated an item for a purpose for which it was unsuited, e.g., a case where one sought to bring a meal-offering of barley, although meal-offerings may be brought only from wheat? In that case, the Rabbis say he is required to bring a meal-offering of wheat because in the first part of his statement he vowed to bring a meal-offering.

והתנן רבי שמעון פוטר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבים

Rabbi Shimon exempts him from any obligation, as in his opinion, he did not donate in the manner typical of donors. In other words, Rabbi Shimon relates to the statement: A meal-offering of barley, as a single entity. Since no meal-offering of that kind exists, one is not required to bring an offering at all. Similarly, with regard to Passover, since one can consecrate only a living animal as a sacrifice and cannot consecrate meat as a sacrifice, if one declares: This meat is for Passover, it is in no way similar to consecrating an animal, and the meat has no sanctity.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ומאן דמתני לה כרבי יוסי מי ניחא והאמר רבא רבי שמעון בשיטת רבי יוסי אמרה דאמר אף בגמר דבריו אדם נתפס

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, does it work out well? Didn’t Rava say: With regard to a meal-offering of barley, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of his statement. The Sages disagreed with regard to the halakhot of consecration in a case where one consecrates an animal for two objectives in the same statement, e.g., as both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. According to Rabbi Meir, one is held accountable for the beginning of his statement. Since he mentioned the burnt-offering first, the animal assumes the status of a burnt-offering. However, Rabbi Yosei says that the one’s entire statement is significant, and that the animal is consecrated for two sacrifices. The owner must wait until the animal becomes blemished, redeem it, and use the money to purchase a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei’s opinion concerning a barley meal-offering. He maintains that one is held accountable not only for his first expression, i.e., that it is a meal-offering, but also for his second expression, i.e., that it is of barley. In that case, the second part of his statement negates the first part.

מאי לאו מדרבי שמעון סבר לה כרבי יוסי רבי יוסי נמי סבר לה כרבי שמעון לא רבי שמעון סבר לה כרבי יוסי ולא רבי יוסי סבר לה כרבי שמעון

What, is it not concluded from the fact that Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that if one did not donate in the manner typical of donors, his act is meaningless? If that is the case, then any difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon would be similarly difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara rejects this: No, although Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

איבעיא להו תודוס איש רומי גברא רבה הוה או בעל אגרופין הוה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the above incident. Was Theodosius of Rome a great man in terms of his Torah scholarship, and the Sages refrained from ostracizing him in deference to the Torah that he studied? Or, was he a violent man who could not be punished due to his local influence?

תא שמע עוד זו דרש תודוס איש רומי מה ראו חנניה מישאל ועזריה שמסרו [עצמן] על קדושת השם לכבשן האש

Come and hear: This was also taught by Theodosius of Rome: What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see that led them to deliver themselves to the fiery furnace for sanctification of the name of God during the rule of Nebuchadnezzar rather than worship idols under duress?

נשאו קל וחומר בעצמן מצפרדעים ומה צפרדעים שאין מצווין על קדושת השם כתיב בהו ובאו [ועלו] בביתך [וגו׳] ובתנוריך ובמשארותיך אימתי משארות מצויות אצל תנור הוי אומר בשעה שהתנור חם אנו שמצווין על קדושת השם על אחת כמה וכמה

They drew an a fortiori inference on their own from the plague of frogs in Egypt. With regard to frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, it is written: “And the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into your house, and into your bedchamber, and onto your bed, and into the houses of your servants, and upon your people, and into their ovens and kneading bowls” (Exodus 7:28). When are kneading bowls found near the oven? You must say that it is when the oven is hot. If in fulfilling the command to harass the Egyptians, the frogs entered burning ovens, all the more so, we, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, should deliver ourselves to be killed in the fiery furnace for that purpose. Apparently, Theodosius taught Torah in public, which indicates that he was a great man.

רבי יוסי בר אבין אמר מטיל מלאי לכיס של תלמידי חכמים היה דאמר רבי יוחנן כל המטיל מלאי לכיס תלמידי חכמים זוכה ויושב בישיבה של מעלה שנאמר כי בצל החכמה בצל הכסף:

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: Theodosius was one who cast the profits from merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars. He would lend them money and enter into partnership with them so they could open businesses, and that is praiseworthy, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who casts merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars is rewarded and sits in the heavenly academy, as it is stated: “For in the shadow of wisdom, is the shadow of money” (Ecclesiastes 7:12). One who provides Torah scholars with money will merit being with them in the shadow of wisdom.

מתני׳ מקום שנהגו להדליק את הנר בלילי יום הכפורים מדליקין מקום שנהגו שלא להדליק אין מדליקין ומדליקין בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובמבואות האפלים ועל גבי החולים:

MISHNA: The mishna discusses additional differences between local customs. In a place where people were accustomed to kindle a lamp in the house on Yom Kippur evenings, one kindles it. In a place where people were accustomed not to kindle a lamp, one does not kindle it. However, even in a place where the custom is not to kindle lamps in houses, one kindles in synagogues and study halls, in deference to these places. Similarly, lamps should be kindled in dark alleyways, so people will not be hurt, and next to the sick.

גמ׳ תנא בין שאמרו להדליק ובין שאמרו שלא להדליק שניהן לדבר אחד נתכוונו אמר רב יהושע דרש רבא ועמך כלם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ וגו׳ בין שאמרו להדליק ובין שאמרו שלא להדליק שניהם לא נתכוונו אלא לדבר אחד

GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they both intended to achieve the same objective, i.e., to distance people from sin, as conjugal relations are prohibited on Yom Kippur. Those who said that one kindles a lamp believe that because people do not engage in relations while a lamp is lit, the lamp will discourage intimacy. Those who maintain the opposite believe that spouses who are unable to see each other will not be tempted to engage in conjugal relations, and therefore it is preferable not to have a lamp lit on Yom Kippur. Rav Yehoshua said that Rava taught: “Your people are all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:21). Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they intended only to achieve the same objective, fulfilling a mitzva. Even though different places have different customs, the Jewish people all aspire to sanctity.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין מברכין על האור אלא במוצאי שבת הואיל ותחלת ברייתו הוא אמר ליה ההוא סבא ואיתימא רבה בר בר חנה ישר וכן אמר רבי יוחנן עולא הוה רכיב חמרא ואזיל והוה שקיל ואזיל רבי אבא מימיניה ורבה בר בר חנה משמאליה אמר ליה רבי אבא לעולא ודאי דאמריתו משמיה דרבי יוחנן אין מברכין על האור אלא במוצאי שבת הואיל ותחלת ברייתו הוא

On the topic of kindling a lamp for Yom Kippur, the Gemara discusses a related point. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One should recite the blessing over fire: Who creates the lights of fire, only at the conclusion of Shabbat, since the conclusion of Shabbat is the time of its original creation. A certain Elder said to him, and some say it was Rabba bar bar Ḥana who said: That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara relates: Ulla was riding on a donkey and going along, and Rabbi Abba was going along on his right and Rabba bar bar Ḥana on his left. Rabbi Abba said to Ulla: Is it true that you said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that one recites the blessing over fire only at the conclusion of Shabbat, not at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, since the time of its original creation is the conclusion of Shabbat?

הדר עולא חזא ביה ברבה בר בר חנה בישות אמר ליה אנא לאו אהא אמרי אלא אהא אמרי דתני תנא קמיה דרבי יוחנן רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר יום הכפורים שחל להיות בשבת אף במקום שאמרו שלא להדליק מדליקין מפני כבוד השבת ועני רבי יוחנן בתריה וחכמים אוסרים אמר ליה עדא תהא

Since Ulla never transmitted that statement, he understood that it must have been Rabba bar bar Ḥana who heard it from Rabbi Yoḥanan and transmitted it when he came from Eretz Yisrael. Ulla turned around and looked angrily at Rabba bar bar Ḥana for misquoting Rabbi Yoḥanan. Still, Ulla said nothing. However, Rabba bar bar Ḥana understood what had happened and said to him: I did not say anything about that matter; rather, what I said was about that which the reciter of the tannaitic literature taught in a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan in which Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat, even in a place where they said not to kindle a lamp on Yom Kippur, one kindles in deference to Shabbat. Rabbi Yoḥanan answered after him and completed the statement: And the Rabbis prohibit kindling a lamp even when Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat. Ulla said to Rabbi Abba: Let it be that Rabbi Yoḥanan indeed made this statement.

קרי עליה רב יוסף מים עמוקים עצה בלב איש

Rav Yosef read the following verse about this event: “Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water;

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 53-59 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we continue discussing different customs of different areas. We will learn what was created before the world, before...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 53: A Jewish Leader in Rome

Defining Israel's topography based on what grows where. Also, more on different practices in different places. Beginning with commerce between...

Pesachim 53

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 53

משיגריעו והזיתים משיניצו ושאר כל האילנות משיוציאו ואמר רב אסי הוא בוסר הוא גירוע הוא פול הלבן פול הלבן סלקא דעתך אלא אימא שיעורו כפול הלבן

from when the grapes form kernels and grow slightly; and olive trees, from when they blossom; and all other trees may not be chopped down from when they produce fruit. And Rav Asi said: It is an unripe grape, it is a grape kernel, it is a white bean, i.e., their legal status is the same. Before this is explained, the Gemara expresses astonishment: Does it enter your mind that the grape is at any stage a white bean? Rather, say: The size of an unripe grape is equivalent to the size of a white bean.

ומאן שמעת ליה דאמר בוסר אין סמדר לא רבנן וקתני שאר כל האילנות משיוציאו אלא רבי אילעאי בדניסחני קץ

In any case, whom did you hear that said: An unripe grape, yes, is considered fruit, while a grape bud, no, it is not considered fruit? Wasn’t it the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei? And it is taught that, according to the Rabbis, it is prohibited to chop down all other trees from when they produce fruit. This indicates that unripe dates have the same status as ordinary dates. Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer and explains that Rabbi Elai chopped down a palm tree with stunted dates, which never ripen on the tree. It was permitted to chop down the tree because the dates can be ripened only after they are removed from the tree.

תנו רבנן אוכלין בענבים עד שיכלו דליות של אוכל אם יש מאוחרות מהן אוכלין עליהן

The Sages taught: One may eat grapes during the Sabbatical Year until the grapes on the vine branches in the place called Okhel have ceased. And if there are grapes elsewhere later than those, one may continue eating grapes on their basis, as the Sages’ statement is merely based on the assumption that the grapes in Okhel are the last to remain in the field, but the halakha is not specific to them.

אוכלים בזיתים עד שיכלה אחרון שבתקוע רבי אליעזר אומר עד שיכלה אחרון של גוש חלב כדי שיהא עני יוצא ואינו מוצא לא בנופו ולא בעיקרו רובע אוכלין בגרוגרות עד שיכלו פגי בית היני

Similarly, one may eat olives until the final olives have ceased on the trees in Tekoa. Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat olives until the final olives have ceased on the trees in Gush Ḥalav. At what point is the fruit considered to have ceased? At the point that a poor person will go out to search for fruit and find, neither in the tree’s branches nor in the proximity of its trunk, a quarter-kav of olives that have fallen. One may eat dried figs until the unripe figs of Beit Hini have ceased.

אמר רבי יהודה לא הוזכרו פגי בית היני אלא לענין מעשר (דתנן) פגי בית היני ואהיני דטובינא חייבין במעשר:

Rabbi Yehuda said: The unripe figs of Beit Hini were mentioned only with regard to tithes, not with regard to the Sabbatical Year. As we learned in a mishna: The unripe figs of Beit Hini and the dates of Tovyana, both of which never completely ripen but are nonetheless edible, one is obligated to tithe them.

אוכלין בתמרים עד שיכלה האחרון שבצוער רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אוכלין על של בין הכיפין ואין אוכלין על של בין השיצין

We learned in the mishna: One may eat dates in all of Judea until the last palm tree in Tzoar has ceased producing dates. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may continue eating dates based on those between the palm branches; but one may not continue eating on the basis of those between the thorn branches.

ורמינהי אוכלין בענבים עד הפסח בזיתים עד העצרת בגרוגרות עד החנוכה בתמרים עד הפורים ואמר רב ביבי רבי יוחנן תרתי בתרייתא מחליף אידי ואידי חד שיעורא הוא ואי בעית אימא הא קתני בהדיא אם יש מאוחרות מהן אוכלין עליהן

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a different baraita: One may eat from the grapes until Passover; from the olives, until the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot; from the dried figs, until Hanukkah; and from the dates, until Purim. And Rav Beivai said: Rabbi Yoḥanan transposes the last two. According to his version of the baraita, one may eat dried figs until Purim and dates until Hanukkah. This is inconsistent with the previous statement that dates may be eaten until those in Tzoar have ceased. The Gemara resolves this contradiction: Both this time and that time are one period. The first Sage designated the deadline in terms of the place where dates grow, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel designated the deadline in terms of the dates. And if you wish, say instead that it is taught explicitly: And if there are fruits elsewhere later than those, one may continue eating on their basis. This indicates that the places and the times mentioned are merely indicators, but that the prohibition depends on actual conditions in the field.

תניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר סימן להרים מילין סימן לעמקים דקלים סימן לנחלים קנים סימן לשפלה שקמה ואף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר ויתן המלך את הכסף בירושלים כאבנים ואת הארזים נתן כשקמים אשר בשפלה לרוב

The Gemara continues: It was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A good sign for mountains is that gallnut oaks, used in the preparation of ink, grow there. A good sign for valleys is palm trees. A good sign for streams is reeds. A good sign for the plain is a sycamore tree. And although there is no proof for these indicators, there is an allusion to the matter in the verse, as it is stated: “And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem like stones, and he made cedars to be as the sycamore trees in the plain” (I Kings 10:27).

סימן להרים מילין סימן לעמקים דקלים נפקא מינה לבכורים דתנן אין מביאין בכורים אלא משבעת המינין ולא מדקלים שבהרים ולא מפירות שבעמקים

The Gemara elaborates on this baraita: A good sign for mountains is gallnut oaks, a good sign for valleys is palm trees. What purpose is served by these signs? The practical difference of these signs pertains to the halakha of first fruits. As we learned in a mishna: One may bring first fruits only from the seven species and only from the highest quality fruit. Therefore, one may not bring first fruits from palm trees that grow in the mountains. Since the mountains are not a suitable location for palm trees, the dates grown there are inferior. Similarly, one does not bring first fruits from produce, i.e., from wheat and barley, that grow in the valleys, because mountain fruits do not grow there properly.

סימן לנחלים קנים נפקא מינה לנחל איתן סימן לשפלה שקמה נפקא מינה למקח וממכר השתא דאתית להכי כולהו נמי למקח וממכר:

A good sign for streams is reeds. The case where this sign makes a practical halakhic difference is with regard to the rough dried-up stream mentioned in the Torah. When a corpse is found between two towns and the murderer cannot be identified, the Torah states that a calf’s neck is broken in a rough stream. The baraita teaches that growing reeds identify the spot as a stream. A good sign for the plain is a sycamore tree. The Gemara explains that the case where this sign makes a practical difference is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying land in the plains, it is defined as an area where sycamore trees grow. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this practical halakhic difference with regard to assessing the quality of land for the purpose of transactions, all the signs can be understood as pertaining to buying and selling as well, to identify valleys and mountainous regions.

מתני׳ מקום שנהגו למכור בהמה דקה לגוים מוכרין מקום שלא נהגו למכור אין מוכרין ובכל מקום אין מוכרין להם בהמה גסה עגלים וסייחין שלמין ושבורין רבי יהודה מתיר בשבורה בן בתירא מתיר בסוס

MISHNA: Apropos different local customs discussed in the first mishna in this chapter, this mishna discusses various halakhot with regard to which there are different customs. In a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles, one may sell them. In a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them due to certain concerns and decrees, one may not sell them. However, in every place, one may sell to gentiles neither large livestock, e.g., cows and camels, nor calves or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Sages prohibited those sales due to the concern lest the transaction be voided or one side reconsider, creating retroactively a situation where a Jew’s animal performed labor for the gentile on Shabbat in violation of an explicit Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a damaged animal because it is incapable of performing labor. Ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse for riding, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.

מקום שנהגו לאכול צלי בלילי פסחים אוכלין מקום שנהגו שלא לאכול אין אוכלין:

The mishna cites another custom related to Passover. In a place where people were accustomed to eat roasted meat on Passover evenings, outside of Jerusalem or after the Temple was destroyed, one may eat it. In a place where people were accustomed not to eat outside Jerusalem, one may not eat it.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסור לו לאדם שיאמר בשר זה לפסח הוא מפני שנראה כמקדיש בהמתו ואוכל קדשים בחוץ אמר רב פפא דוקא בשר אבל חיטי לא דמינטר לפסחא קאמר

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that it is prohibited for a person to say in modern times: This meat is for Passover, due to the fact that one appears to be consecrating his animal as his Paschal lamb, and he thereby eats consecrated items outside the permitted area. Rav Pappa said: This prohibition against saying: This is for Passover, applies specifically to meat, which is similar to consecrated meat; however, with regard to wheat, no, it does not apply. In that case, it is clear that one is saying that the flour be watched for Passover.

ובשר לא מיתיבי אמר רבי יוסי תודוס איש רומי הנהיג את בני רומי לאכול גדיים מקולסין בלילי פסחים שלחו לו אלמלא תודוס אתה גזרנו עליך נדוי שאתה מאכיל את ישראל קדשים בחוץ קדשים סלקא דעתך אלא אימא

The Gemara asks: And with regard to meat is that not the case? Is it really prohibited to say that meat is for Passover? The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Yosei said: Theodosius [Todos] of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat kids roasted [mekulas] whole with their entrails over their heads on the evenings of Passover, as was the custom in the Temple. The Sages sent a message to him: If you were not Theodosius, an important person, we would have decreed ostracism upon you, as it appears as if you are feeding Israel consecrated food, which may be eaten only in and around the Temple itself, outside the permitted area. The Gemara asks about the terminology used here: Could it enter your mind that this meat was actually consecrated meat? That was certainly not the case. Rather, say instead:

קרוב להאכיל את ישראל קדשים בחוץ מקולס אין שאין מקולס לא אמרי מקולס לא שנא אמר לא שנא לא אמר שאינו מקולס פירש אין לא פירש לא

Doing so is akin to feeding Jews consecrated meat outside the permitted area, as due to its resemblance to the Paschal lamb it could be misleading. The Gemara analyzes this statement: A goat roasted whole, yes, it is prohibited; a goat not roasted whole, no, it is not prohibited. This contradicts Rav, who prohibited roasting even ordinary meat. The Sages say that this is the distinction: With regard to a goat roasted whole, there is no difference if one said it is for Passover, and there is no difference if one did not say it is for Passover. In either case, it looks like a sacrifice and it is prohibited. With regard to a goat not roasted whole, if one specified that it is for Passover, yes, it is prohibited because it appears that he is consecrating it as a sacrifice. However, if one did not specify that it is for Passover, no, it is not prohibited, as there is no need for concern.

רב אחא מתני לה להא מתניתין כרבי שמעון מתקיף לה רב ששת בשלמא למאן דתני לה כרבי יוסי ניחא אלא למאן דמתני כרבי שמעון מי ניחא

Rav Aḥa teaches this baraita about Theodosius in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Sheshet strongly objected to this: Granted, according to the one who learns it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it works out well. However, according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, does it work out well? Didn’t we learn in a mishna about a dispute with regard to one who consecrated an item for a purpose for which it was unsuited, e.g., a case where one sought to bring a meal-offering of barley, although meal-offerings may be brought only from wheat? In that case, the Rabbis say he is required to bring a meal-offering of wheat because in the first part of his statement he vowed to bring a meal-offering.

והתנן רבי שמעון פוטר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבים

Rabbi Shimon exempts him from any obligation, as in his opinion, he did not donate in the manner typical of donors. In other words, Rabbi Shimon relates to the statement: A meal-offering of barley, as a single entity. Since no meal-offering of that kind exists, one is not required to bring an offering at all. Similarly, with regard to Passover, since one can consecrate only a living animal as a sacrifice and cannot consecrate meat as a sacrifice, if one declares: This meat is for Passover, it is in no way similar to consecrating an animal, and the meat has no sanctity.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ומאן דמתני לה כרבי יוסי מי ניחא והאמר רבא רבי שמעון בשיטת רבי יוסי אמרה דאמר אף בגמר דבריו אדם נתפס

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, does it work out well? Didn’t Rava say: With regard to a meal-offering of barley, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of his statement. The Sages disagreed with regard to the halakhot of consecration in a case where one consecrates an animal for two objectives in the same statement, e.g., as both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. According to Rabbi Meir, one is held accountable for the beginning of his statement. Since he mentioned the burnt-offering first, the animal assumes the status of a burnt-offering. However, Rabbi Yosei says that the one’s entire statement is significant, and that the animal is consecrated for two sacrifices. The owner must wait until the animal becomes blemished, redeem it, and use the money to purchase a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei’s opinion concerning a barley meal-offering. He maintains that one is held accountable not only for his first expression, i.e., that it is a meal-offering, but also for his second expression, i.e., that it is of barley. In that case, the second part of his statement negates the first part.

מאי לאו מדרבי שמעון סבר לה כרבי יוסי רבי יוסי נמי סבר לה כרבי שמעון לא רבי שמעון סבר לה כרבי יוסי ולא רבי יוסי סבר לה כרבי שמעון

What, is it not concluded from the fact that Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that if one did not donate in the manner typical of donors, his act is meaningless? If that is the case, then any difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon would be similarly difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara rejects this: No, although Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

איבעיא להו תודוס איש רומי גברא רבה הוה או בעל אגרופין הוה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the above incident. Was Theodosius of Rome a great man in terms of his Torah scholarship, and the Sages refrained from ostracizing him in deference to the Torah that he studied? Or, was he a violent man who could not be punished due to his local influence?

תא שמע עוד זו דרש תודוס איש רומי מה ראו חנניה מישאל ועזריה שמסרו [עצמן] על קדושת השם לכבשן האש

Come and hear: This was also taught by Theodosius of Rome: What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see that led them to deliver themselves to the fiery furnace for sanctification of the name of God during the rule of Nebuchadnezzar rather than worship idols under duress?

נשאו קל וחומר בעצמן מצפרדעים ומה צפרדעים שאין מצווין על קדושת השם כתיב בהו ובאו [ועלו] בביתך [וגו׳] ובתנוריך ובמשארותיך אימתי משארות מצויות אצל תנור הוי אומר בשעה שהתנור חם אנו שמצווין על קדושת השם על אחת כמה וכמה

They drew an a fortiori inference on their own from the plague of frogs in Egypt. With regard to frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, it is written: “And the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into your house, and into your bedchamber, and onto your bed, and into the houses of your servants, and upon your people, and into their ovens and kneading bowls” (Exodus 7:28). When are kneading bowls found near the oven? You must say that it is when the oven is hot. If in fulfilling the command to harass the Egyptians, the frogs entered burning ovens, all the more so, we, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, should deliver ourselves to be killed in the fiery furnace for that purpose. Apparently, Theodosius taught Torah in public, which indicates that he was a great man.

רבי יוסי בר אבין אמר מטיל מלאי לכיס של תלמידי חכמים היה דאמר רבי יוחנן כל המטיל מלאי לכיס תלמידי חכמים זוכה ויושב בישיבה של מעלה שנאמר כי בצל החכמה בצל הכסף:

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: Theodosius was one who cast the profits from merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars. He would lend them money and enter into partnership with them so they could open businesses, and that is praiseworthy, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who casts merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars is rewarded and sits in the heavenly academy, as it is stated: “For in the shadow of wisdom, is the shadow of money” (Ecclesiastes 7:12). One who provides Torah scholars with money will merit being with them in the shadow of wisdom.

מתני׳ מקום שנהגו להדליק את הנר בלילי יום הכפורים מדליקין מקום שנהגו שלא להדליק אין מדליקין ומדליקין בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובמבואות האפלים ועל גבי החולים:

MISHNA: The mishna discusses additional differences between local customs. In a place where people were accustomed to kindle a lamp in the house on Yom Kippur evenings, one kindles it. In a place where people were accustomed not to kindle a lamp, one does not kindle it. However, even in a place where the custom is not to kindle lamps in houses, one kindles in synagogues and study halls, in deference to these places. Similarly, lamps should be kindled in dark alleyways, so people will not be hurt, and next to the sick.

גמ׳ תנא בין שאמרו להדליק ובין שאמרו שלא להדליק שניהן לדבר אחד נתכוונו אמר רב יהושע דרש רבא ועמך כלם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ וגו׳ בין שאמרו להדליק ובין שאמרו שלא להדליק שניהם לא נתכוונו אלא לדבר אחד

GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they both intended to achieve the same objective, i.e., to distance people from sin, as conjugal relations are prohibited on Yom Kippur. Those who said that one kindles a lamp believe that because people do not engage in relations while a lamp is lit, the lamp will discourage intimacy. Those who maintain the opposite believe that spouses who are unable to see each other will not be tempted to engage in conjugal relations, and therefore it is preferable not to have a lamp lit on Yom Kippur. Rav Yehoshua said that Rava taught: “Your people are all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:21). Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they intended only to achieve the same objective, fulfilling a mitzva. Even though different places have different customs, the Jewish people all aspire to sanctity.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין מברכין על האור אלא במוצאי שבת הואיל ותחלת ברייתו הוא אמר ליה ההוא סבא ואיתימא רבה בר בר חנה ישר וכן אמר רבי יוחנן עולא הוה רכיב חמרא ואזיל והוה שקיל ואזיל רבי אבא מימיניה ורבה בר בר חנה משמאליה אמר ליה רבי אבא לעולא ודאי דאמריתו משמיה דרבי יוחנן אין מברכין על האור אלא במוצאי שבת הואיל ותחלת ברייתו הוא

On the topic of kindling a lamp for Yom Kippur, the Gemara discusses a related point. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One should recite the blessing over fire: Who creates the lights of fire, only at the conclusion of Shabbat, since the conclusion of Shabbat is the time of its original creation. A certain Elder said to him, and some say it was Rabba bar bar Ḥana who said: That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara relates: Ulla was riding on a donkey and going along, and Rabbi Abba was going along on his right and Rabba bar bar Ḥana on his left. Rabbi Abba said to Ulla: Is it true that you said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that one recites the blessing over fire only at the conclusion of Shabbat, not at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, since the time of its original creation is the conclusion of Shabbat?

הדר עולא חזא ביה ברבה בר בר חנה בישות אמר ליה אנא לאו אהא אמרי אלא אהא אמרי דתני תנא קמיה דרבי יוחנן רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר יום הכפורים שחל להיות בשבת אף במקום שאמרו שלא להדליק מדליקין מפני כבוד השבת ועני רבי יוחנן בתריה וחכמים אוסרים אמר ליה עדא תהא

Since Ulla never transmitted that statement, he understood that it must have been Rabba bar bar Ḥana who heard it from Rabbi Yoḥanan and transmitted it when he came from Eretz Yisrael. Ulla turned around and looked angrily at Rabba bar bar Ḥana for misquoting Rabbi Yoḥanan. Still, Ulla said nothing. However, Rabba bar bar Ḥana understood what had happened and said to him: I did not say anything about that matter; rather, what I said was about that which the reciter of the tannaitic literature taught in a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan in which Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat, even in a place where they said not to kindle a lamp on Yom Kippur, one kindles in deference to Shabbat. Rabbi Yoḥanan answered after him and completed the statement: And the Rabbis prohibit kindling a lamp even when Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat. Ulla said to Rabbi Abba: Let it be that Rabbi Yoḥanan indeed made this statement.

קרי עליה רב יוסף מים עמוקים עצה בלב איש

Rav Yosef read the following verse about this event: “Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water;

×

דף יומי לנשים

עם הרבנית מישל פרבר

ראשון עד שישי ב6:20 בזום

Scroll To Top