The gemara gets into lots of details regarding how one can remove 4 or 5 baskets from the storage house in the case where it is needed for a mitzva – can one carry in out in many smaller utensils or only in 4 or 5 baskets. Can one carry that amount for each person that needs the space or for all the guests? If for all the guests, can one person do all the moving or does each person move for oneself? The gemara discusses the importance of having guests. A list is brought by Rabbi Yochanan of the top 6 mitzvot. One of them is judging one’s friend favorably. The gemara brings several stories of people who judged others favorably. The gemara then goes through each of the items mentioned in the mishna that can be carried out of the storage house – meaning it is not muktze and explains why it was mentioned if it was obvious or why it isn’t considered muktze?
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Shabbat 127
כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי, וְאִי בָּעֵי אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי מְפַנִּין. וּמַאי ״אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הָאוֹצָר״ — שֶׁלֹּא יִגְמוֹר כּוּלּוֹ, דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאַשְׁווֹיֵי גּוּמּוֹת. אֲבָל אַתְחוֹלֵי מַתְחִיל. וּמַנִּי — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ מוּקְצֶה.
as people who are not so precise in their formulation say: Four or five. And if one so desires, he may clear even more. And what then is the meaning of: However, one may not move these items to create space in the storeroom? It means that one may not finish moving the baskets out of the entire storeroom, lest he come to level the floor by filling the holes. However, one may begin removing baskets from the storeroom. And whose opinion is cited in this mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מַתְחִילִין בָּאוֹצָר תְּחִילָּה, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ שְׁבִיל כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס וְיֵצֵא. עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ שְׁבִיל?! וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ אֵין מַתְחִילִין! הָכִי קָאָמַר: עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ שְׁבִיל בְּרַגְלָיו בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ וּבִיצִיאָתוֹ.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not use the storeroom for the first time. If one has never taken supplies from this storeroom, he may not begin moving baskets from it. However, he makes a path in it, so that he will be able to enter and exit. The Gemara asks: He makes a path in it? Did you not say: One may not use the storeroom for the first time? The Gemara answers that the baraita is saying as follows: He makes a path in it by moving baskets with his feet, as he enters the storehouse and as he exits. He may not move the basket with his hand.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תְּבוּאָה צְבוּרָה, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְחִיל בָּהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — מוּתָּר לְהִסְתַּפֵּק מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאִם לָאו — אָסוּר לְהִסְתַּפֵּק מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי אַחָא מַתִּיר: כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אַחָא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to piled grain, if one had started to take grain from the pile on Shabbat eve, it is permitted to satisfy his needs from it on Shabbat, and if not, it is prohibited to satisfy his needs from it on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Aḥa permits doing so in any case. The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary; it is Rabbi Shimon who is lenient with regard to the halakhot of set-aside. Rather, emend the baraita and say: This is the statement of Rabbi Aḥa. Rabbi Shimon permits doing so in any case.
תָּנָא: כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּר תְּבוּאָה צְבוּרָה — לֶתֶךְ. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב נְחוּמִי בַּר זְכַרְיָה מֵאַבָּיֵי: שִׁיעוּר תְּבוּאָה צְבוּרָה בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: שִׁיעוּר תְּבוּאָה צְבוּרָה — לֶתֶךְ.
It was taught: How much is the measure of piled grain needed to confer the legal status of a storeroom? A half-kor. Rav Naḥumi bar Zekharya raised a dilemma before Abaye: The measure of piled grain, how much is it? Abaye said to him that they said: The measure of piled grain is a half-kor.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ קוּפּוֹת דְּקָאָמַר, בְּאַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ קוּפּוֹת — אִין, טְפֵי — לָא, אַלְמָא לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּהִילּוּכָא עֲדִיף, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַשּׂוֹי עֲדִיף.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: These four or five baskets, which the tanna stated in the mishna, is he saying the following: Four or five baskets, yes, one may move them, more baskets, no, one may not move them? This would indicate that it is preferable to minimize the walking distance because fewer baskets results in less walking in and out of the storeroom. Or perhaps it is preferable to minimize the size of the burden by carrying smaller baskets, as long as the total measure of all that one carries does not exceed the capacity of five large baskets?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: מְפַנִּין אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ קוּפּוֹת שֶׁל כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וְשֶׁל כַּדֵּי יַיִן. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בְּעֶשֶׂר וּבַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר מַעוֹטֵי בְּהִילּוּכָא עָדִיף, וּמָר סָבַר מַעוֹטֵי בְּמַשּׂוֹי עֲדִיף?
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma, as one baraita taught: One may move even four or five baskets containing jugs of oil and jugs of wine. And it was taught in another baraita: One may move them even in ten and in fifteen baskets. What, is it not that the two baraitot disagree concerning the following matter, as this Sage in the first baraita holds that it is preferable to minimize the walking distance by moving fewer, heavier baskets, and this Sage in the second baraita holds that it is preferable to minimize the size of the burden by moving lighter baskets over the course of several trips.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מַעוֹטֵי בְּהִילּוּכָא עֲדִיף, וּמִי סָבְרַתְּ ״בְּעֶשֶׂר וּבַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה״ אַקּוּפּוֹת קָאֵי? אַכַּדִּין קָאֵי, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּמִשְׁתַּקְלִי חַד חַד בְּקוּפָּה, וְהָא דְּמִישְׁתַּקְלִי תְּרֵי תְּרֵי, וְהָא דְּמִשְׁתַּקְלִי תְּלָתָא תְּלָתָא — וּבִדְקוּרֵי דְהַרְפַּנְיָא.
The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that it is preferable to minimize the walking distance. And do you hold that: In ten and in fifteen, is referring to baskets? It is referring to jugs, and there is no dispute between the baraitot. And this is not difficult: This baraita, which spoke of moving five, is referring to a case in which the jugs are taken one by one in each basket. And that baraita, which speaks of moving ten, is referring to a case in which the jugs are taken two by two in each basket. And that baraita, which speaks of moving fifteen, is referring to a case in which the jugs are taken three by three, e.g., in the case of the small jugs of Harpanya.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ דְּקָאָמַר, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ אוֹרְחִין טוּבָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא הַכֹּל לְפִי הָאוֹרְחִין? וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר הַכֹּל לְפִי הָאוֹרְחִין, חַד גַּבְרָא מְפַנֵּי לְכוּלְּהוּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא גַּבְרָא גַּבְרָא מְפַנֵּי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: These four or five baskets, which the tanna stated in the mishna, is he saying that one may move only four or five baskets even though he has many guests? Or perhaps, it is all according to the number of guests, and if there are more guests one may move more baskets. And if you say it is all according to the number of guests, does one man move the baskets to make room for all of them, or perhaps each and every man moves a basket to make room for himself?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַךְ רַבִּי לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְרָאָה מָקוֹם דָּחוּק לַתַּלְמִידִים, וְיָצָא לַשָּׂדֶה וּמָצָא שָׂדֶה מְלֵאָה עוֹמָרִים, וְעִימֵּר רַבִּי כׇּל הַשָּׂדֶה כּוּלָּהּ. (שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַכֹּל לְפִי הָאוֹרְחִין.)
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which Rabba said that Rav Ḥiyya said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to a certain place and saw that the place was too crowded for the students. And he went to the field and found a field full of bundles of grain, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi cleared the bundles from the whole field in its entirety. Conclude from it that the quantity that can be moved is all according to the number of guests.
וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַךְ רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְרָאָה מָקוֹם דָּחוּק לַתַּלְמִידִים, וְיָצָא לַשָּׂדֶה וּמָצָא שָׂדֶה מְלֵאָה עוֹמָרִים, וְעִימֵּר רַבִּי חִיָּיא כׇּל הַשָּׂדֶה כּוּלָּהּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַכֹּל לְפִי הָאוֹרְחִין.
And Rav Yosef said that Rav Hoshaya said: Once Rabbi Ḥiyya went to a certain place and saw that the place was too crowded for the students. And he went to the field and found a field full of bundles of grain, and Rabbi Ḥiyya cleared the bundles from the whole field in its entirety. Conclude from it that the quantity that can be moved is all according to the number of guests.
וַעֲדַיִין תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ: חַד גַּבְרָא מְפַנֵּי (לֵיהּ) לְכוּלְּהוּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא כׇּל גַּבְרָא וְגַבְרָא מְפַנֵּי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ?
The Gemara continues: And still you have a dilemma. Does one man move the baskets to make room for all of them, or perhaps each and every man moves baskets to make room for himself?
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְעִימֵּר רַבִּי. וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, רַבִּי בְּדִנְפָשֶׁיהָ עִימֵּר?! אֶלָּא צִוָּה וְעִימֵּר, וּלְעוֹלָם כׇּל חַד וְחַד מְפַנֵּי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
Come and hear a resolution to this question. We learned: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi cleared the bundles. Apparently, one person moved the bundles to make room for the others. The Gemara rejects the proof: And according to your reasoning, your opinion, do you think Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the spiritual leader of his generation, cleared the bundles himself? Rather, he ordered others to do so, and he thereby cleared the bundles. And actually, each and every one moves a bundle to make room for himself.
מִפְּנֵי הָאוֹרְחִין וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גְּדוֹלָה הַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִין כְּהַשְׁכָּמַת בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״מִפְּנֵי הָאוֹרְחִין וּמִפְּנֵי בִּטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ״. וְרַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אָמַר: יוֹתֵר מֵהַשְׁכָּמַת בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, דְּקָתָנֵי ״מִפְּנֵי הָאוֹרְחִין״, וַהֲדַר ״וּמִפְּנֵי בִּטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: גְּדוֹלָה הַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִין מֵהַקְבָּלַת פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמַר ה׳ אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אַל נָא תַעֲבֹר וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם. מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וְדָם, אֵין קָטָן יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לַגָּדוֹל ״הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁאָבֹא אֶצְלְךָ״, וְאִילּוּ בְּהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּתִיב ״וַיֹּאמַר ה׳ אִם נָא מָצָאתִי וְגוֹ׳״.
We learned in the mishna: One may move baskets of produce due to the guests and in order to prevent the suspension of Torah study in the study hall. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Hospitality toward guests is as great as rising early to go to the study hall, as the mishna equates them and teaches: Due to the guests and due to suspension of Torah study in the study hall. And Rav Dimi from Neharde’a says: Hospitality toward guests is greater than rising early to the study hall, as it teaches: Due to the guests, and only afterward: And due to suspension of Torah study in the study hall. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said on a related note: Hospitality toward guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence, as when Abraham invited his guests it is written: “And he said: Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please pass not from Your servant” (Genesis 18:3). Abraham requested that God, the Divine Presence, wait for him while he tended to his guests appropriately. Rabbi Elazar said: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like that of flesh and blood. The attribute of flesh and blood people is such that a less significant person is unable to say to a more significant person: Wait until I come to you, while with regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, it is written: “And he said: Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please pass not from Your servant.” Abraham requested that God wait for him due to his guests.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים אָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִין, וּבִיקּוּר חוֹלִים, וְעִיּוּן תְּפִלָּה, וְהַשְׁכָּמַת בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְהַמְגַדֵּל בָּנָיו לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, וְהַדָּן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ לְכַף זְכוּת.
Rav Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There are six matters a person enjoys the profits of in this world, and nevertheless the principal exists for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Hospitality toward guests, and visiting the sick, and consideration during prayer, and rising early to the study hall, and one who raises his sons to engage in Torah study, and one who judges another favorably, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
אִינִי?! וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָם וְאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: כִּיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם [הָנֵי — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא]!
The Gemara asks: Is that so? And did we not learn in a mishna: These are the matters that a person does them and enjoys their profits in this world, and nevertheless the principal exists for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, and acts of loving kindness, and bringing peace between a person and another, and Torah study is equal to all of them. By inference: These matters, yes, one enjoys their profits in this world and the principal exists for him in the World-to-Come; other matters, no.
הָנֵי נָמֵי, (בִּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים שָׁיְיכִי. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: הָנֵי) בְּהָנֵי שָׁיְיכִי.
The Gemara answers: These too, hospitality toward guests and visiting the sick, are in the category of acts of loving-kindness. A different version of that answer: These matters on the longer list are attributable to those, the matters on the shorter list.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַדָּן חֲבֵירוֹ לְכַף זְכוּת — דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ לִזְכוּת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁיָּרַד מִגָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן וְנִשְׂכַּר אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶחָד בַּדָּרוֹם שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אָמַר לוֹ: תֵּן לִי שְׂכָרִי, וְאֵלֵךְ וְאָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי. אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין לִי מָעוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ: תֵּן לִי פֵּירוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין לִי. תֵּן לִי קַרְקַע — אֵין לִי. תֵּן לִי בְּהֵמָה — אֵין לִי. תֵּן לִי כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת — אֵין לִי. הִפְשִׁיל כֵּלָיו לַאֲחוֹרָיו, וְהָלַךְ לְבֵיתוֹ בְּפַחֵי נֶפֶשׁ.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who judges another favorably is himself judged favorably. And there was an incident involving a certain person who descended from the Upper Galilee and was hired to work for a certain homeowner in the South for three years. On the eve of the Day of Atonement, he said to the homeowner: Give me my wages, and I will go and feed my wife and children. The homeowner said to him: I have no money. He said to him: In that case, give me my wages in the form of produce. He said to him: I have none. The worker said to him: Give me my wages in the form of land. The homeowner said to him: I have none. The worker said to him: Give me my wages in the form of animals. He said to him: I have none. The worker said to him: Give me cushions and blankets. He said to him: I have none. The worker slung his tools over his shoulder behind him and went to his home in anguish.
לְאַחַר הָרֶגֶל נָטַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׂכָרוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, וְעִמּוֹ מַשּׂוֹי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲמוֹרִים, אֶחָד שֶׁל מַאֲכָל, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִשְׁתֶּה, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִינֵי מְגָדִים, וְהָלַךְ לוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ. אַחַר שֶׁאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ נָתַן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ.
After the festival of Sukkot, the homeowner took the worker’s wages in his hand, along with a burden that required three donkeys, one laden with food, one laden with drink, and one laden with types of sweets, and went to the worker’s home. After they ate and drank, the homeowner gave him his wages.
אָמַר לוֹ: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לִי ״תֵּן לִי שְׂכָרִי״ וְאָמַרְתִּי ״אֵין לִי מָעוֹת״, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא פְּרַקְמַטְיָא בְּזוֹל נִזְדַּמְּנָה לְךָ, וְלָקַחְתָּ בָּהֶן. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לִי ״תֵּן לִי בְּהֵמָה״, וְאָמַרְתִּי ״אֵין לִי בְּהֵמָה״, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא מוּשְׂכֶּרֶת בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לִי ״תֵּן לִי קַרְקַע״, וְאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ ״אֵין לִי קַרְקַע״, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא מוּחְכֶּרֶת בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים הִיא. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ ״אֵין לִי פֵּירוֹת״ בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא אֵינָן מְעוּשָּׂרוֹת. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ ״אֵין לִי כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת״ בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא הִקְדִּישׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו לַשָּׁמַיִם.
The homeowner said to him: When you said to me: Give me my wages, and I said: I have no money, of what did you suspect me? Why did you not suspect me of trying to avoid paying you? The worker answered, I said: Perhaps the opportunity to purchase merchandise [perakmatya] inexpensively presented itself, and you purchased it with the money that you owed me, and therefore you had no money available. The homeowner asked: And when you said to me: Give me animals, and I said: I have no animals, of what did you suspect me? The worker answered: I said: Perhaps the animals are hired to others. The homeowner asked: When you said to me: Give me land, and I said: I have no land, of what did you suspect me? The worker answered: I said: Perhaps the land is leased to others, and you cannot take the land from the lessees. The homeowner asked: And when you said to me: Give me produce, and I said: I have no produce, of what did you suspect me? The worker answered: I said: Perhaps they are not tithed, and that was why you could not give them to me. The homeowner asked: And when I said: I have no cushions or blankets, of what did you suspect me? The worker answered: I said: Perhaps he consecrated all his property to Heaven and therefore has nothing available at present.
אָמַר לוֹ: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ הָיָה. הִדַּרְתִּי כׇּל נְכָסַי בִּשְׁבִיל הוּרְקָנוֹס בְּנִי שֶׁלֹּא עָסַק בַּתּוֹרָה. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי אֵצֶל חֲבֵירַי בַּדָּרוֹם הִתִּירוּ לִי כָּל נְדָרַי. וְאַתָּה, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּנְתַּנִי לִזְכוּת, הַמָּקוֹם יָדִין אוֹתְךָ לִזְכוּת.
The homeowner said to him: I swear by the Temple service that it was so. I had no money available at the time because I vowed and consecrated all my property on account of Hyrcanus, my son, who did not engage in Torah study. The homeowner sought to avoid leaving an inheritance for his son. And when I came to my colleagues in the South, the Sages of that generation, they dissolved all my vows. At that point, the homeowner had immediately gone to pay his worker. Now the homeowner said: And you, just as you judged favorably, so may God judge you favorably.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָסִיד אֶחָד שֶׁפָּדָה רִיבָה אַחַת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלַמָּלוֹן הִשְׁכִּיבָהּ תַּחַת מַרְגְּלוֹתָיו. לְמָחָר יָרַד וְטָבַל וְשָׁנָה לְתַלְמִידָיו.
On a similar note, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who redeemed a young Jewish woman from captivity. When they arrived at the inn he had her lie beneath his feet. The next day, he descended, and immersed in a ritual bath to purify himself before Torah study and prayer, and taught his students. This conduct could arouse suspicion that the pious man kept the maiden for himself, as immersion in the morning is customary for men who have experienced a seminal emission by engaging in sexual relations.
וְאָמַר לָהֶן: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִשְׁכַּבְתִּיהָ תַּחַת מַרְגְּלוֹתַי, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי? אָמַרְנוּ: שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּנוּ תַּלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּדוּק לְרַבִּי.
And the pious man said to his students: When I had her lie beneath my feet, of what did you suspect me? They said to him: We said: Perhaps there is a student among us whose conduct is not established before the rabbi, and he wanted to make certain that this student would not inappropriately accost the young woman. Therefore, the rabbi kept the woman close by.
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיָּרַדְתִּי וְטָבַלְתִּי, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי? אָמַרְנוּ: שֶׁמָּא מִפְּנֵי טוֹרַח הַדֶּרֶךְ אֵירַע קֶרִי לְרַבִּי. אָמַר לָהֶם: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ הָיָה. וְאַתֶּם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּנְתּוּנִי לְכַף זְכוּת, הַמָּקוֹם יָדִין אֶתְכֶם לְכַף זְכוּת.
He said to them: When I descended and immersed, of what did you suspect me? They answered: Perhaps due to the exertion of travel, a seminal emission befell the rabbi. He said to them: I swear by the Temple service that it was so. And you, just as you judged me favorably, so may God judge you favorably.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פַּעַם אַחַת הוּצְרַךְ דָּבָר אֶחָד לְתַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵצֶל מַטְרוֹנִיתָא אַחַת שֶׁכׇּל גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי מְצוּיִין אֶצְלָהּ. אָמְרוּ: מִי יֵלֵךְ? אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֲנִי אֵלֵךְ.
The Sages taught a similar baraita: Once there was a certain matter needed by Torah scholars. They wanted to discuss an issue with a certain matron whose company was kept by all the prominent people of Rome. The Torah scholars wanted to address the government on behalf of the Jewish people, and they sought the matron’s advice. They said: Who will go? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: I shall go.
הָלַךְ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְתַלְמִידָיו. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְפֶתַח בֵּיתָהּ, חָלַץ תְּפִילָּיו בְּרִחוּק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וְנִכְנַס וְנָעַל הַדֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵיהֶן. אַחַר שֶׁיָּצָא, יָרַד וְטָבַל וְשָׁנָה לְתַלְמִידָיו.
Rabbi Yehoshua and his students went to her. When he arrived with his students at the entrance of her house, he removed his phylacteries at a distance of four cubits from the door, and entered, and locked the door before them. After he emerged, he descended and immersed in a ritual bath, and taught his students. Here too, this was conduct that could arouse suspicion that something improper transpired.
וְאָמַר לָהֶן: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁחָלַצְתִּי תְּפִילִּין, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי? אָמַרְנוּ: כְּסָבוּר רַבִּי, לֹא יִכָּנְסוּ דִּבְרֵי קְדוּשָּׁה בִּמְקוֹם טוּמְאָה.
And he said to his students: When I removed the phylacteries, of what did you suspect me? They said to him, we said: The rabbi must hold that sacred items may not enter a place of impurity. Therefore, it would have been inappropriate to enter the house with phylacteries.
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנָּעַלְתִּי, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי? אָמַרְנוּ: שֶׁמָּא דְּבַר מַלְכוּת יֵשׁ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ.
He asked: When I locked the door, of what did you suspect me? They said to him: We said: Perhaps there is a discreet royal matter that must be discussed between him and her and should not be revealed.
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיָּרַדְתִּי וְטָבַלְתִּי בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי, אָמַרְנוּ: שֶׁמָּא נִיתְּזָה צִינּוֹרָא מִפִּיהָ עַל בְּגָדָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי. אָמַר לָהֶם: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ הָיָה. וְאַתֶּם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּנְתּוּנִי לִזְכוּת, הַמָּקוֹם יָדִין אֶתְכֶם לִזְכוּת.
Rabbi Yehoshua asked: When I descended and immersed, of what did you suspect me? They said to him, we said: Perhaps a bit of spittle sprayed from her mouth onto the rabbi’s clothes. The Sages decreed that the legal status of a gentile is like that of a zav; their bodily fluids transmit ritual impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: I swear by the Temple service that it was so. And you, just as you judged favorably, so may God judge you favorably.
מְפַנִּין תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּמַנְּחָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חַזְיָא לֵיהּ — אָסוּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כֵּיוָן דְּחַזְיָא לְכֹהֵן — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
We learned in the mishna: One may move ritually pure teruma on Shabbat. The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach this only in a case in which it is placed in Israelite hands. Lest you say: Since it is not suitable for the Israelite to eat, he is prohibited to move it on Shabbat; therefore, it teaches us that since it is suitable for a priest to eat, one may well move it on Shabbat.
וּדְמַאי וְכוּ׳. דְּמַאי, הָא לָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לֵיהּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵה עָנִי, וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ. דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי.
And we also learned in the mishna: One may move doubtfully tithed produce. The Gemara asks: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce, why may one move it? It is not suitable for him to eat. The Gemara answers: Since if he so desires, he may renounce all his property, declaring it ownerless, and he would then be poor, and the doubtfully tithed produce would be suitable for him, now too it is suitable for him. A pauper may eat doubtfully tithed produce, as we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce and soldiers [akhsanya] doubtfully tithed produce. And Rav Huna said that it was taught: Beit Shammai say: One may neither feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce nor feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce and feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבּוֹלִים, וְנִטְּלָה הֵימֶנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְלֹא נִטְּלָה הֵימֶנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה.
We learned in the mishna: And one may move first tithe whose teruma of the tithe has already been taken. The Gemara poses a question: It is obvious that if the teruma was already tithed it is non-sacred produce in every sense. The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach this halakha only in the following case: A Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks and brought it to the threshing floor, and before the grain was threshed, the teruma of the tithes was taken and the teruma gedola was not taken.
וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבּוֹלִין — פָּטוּר מִתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲרֵמוֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳ מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״. מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
And the above mentioned halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to first tithe, in a case in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, one is exempt from separating teruma gedola from it, as it is stated: “And you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). By inference: A tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, I, God, said to you that you must take, and not both teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי לִיפְּטַר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִכֹּל מַתְּנוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ וְגוֹ׳״.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should also be exempt from taking teruma gedola. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord’s teruma” (Numbers 18:29). God’s teruma, i.e., teruma gedola, must be taken from all the Levites’ gifts.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ? הַאי אִידְּגַן, וְהַאי לָא אִידְּגַן.
The Gemara asks: What did you see that led you to require teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles, and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This, stalks that were threshed and placed into piles, are completely processed and have become grain, and that, grains that have remained on the stalk, have not yet become grain. The verse states the following with regard to teruma gedola: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4) is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the rights of the priest take effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola.
וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.
We learned in the mishna: One may move second tithe that was redeemed. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha only in a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the fifth that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated. And the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption, and the second tithe assumes non-sacred status from the moment that one pays the principal.
וְהַתּוֹרְמוֹס הַיָּבֵשׁ כּוּ׳. דַּוְוקָא יָבֵשׁ, אֲבָל לַח — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּמָרִיר לָא אָכְלָה.
And we learned in the mishna: One may move even dry lupine, which is not fit for consumption by a person, because it is goat food. The Gemara comments: This applies only when lupine is dry. However, when it is moist, no it is prohibited to move it. What is the reason for this prohibition? Since lupine is extremely bitter when wet, an animal will not eat it.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Raanana, Israel
Minnesota, United States
Los Angeles, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
Shabbat 127
כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי, וְאִי בָּעֵי אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי מְפַנִּין. וּמַאי ״אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הָאוֹצָר״ — שֶׁלֹּא יִגְמוֹר כּוּלּוֹ, דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאַשְׁווֹיֵי גּוּמּוֹת. אֲבָל אַתְחוֹלֵי מַתְחִיל. וּמַנִּי — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ מוּקְצֶה.
as people who are not so precise in their formulation say: Four or five. And if one so desires, he may clear even more. And what then is the meaning of: However, one may not move these items to create space in the storeroom? It means that one may not finish moving the baskets out of the entire storeroom, lest he come to level the floor by filling the holes. However, one may begin removing baskets from the storeroom. And whose opinion is cited in this mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מַתְחִילִין בָּאוֹצָר תְּחִילָּה, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ שְׁבִיל כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס וְיֵצֵא. עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ שְׁבִיל?! וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ אֵין מַתְחִילִין! הָכִי קָאָמַר: עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ שְׁבִיל בְּרַגְלָיו בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ וּבִיצִיאָתוֹ.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not use the storeroom for the first time. If one has never taken supplies from this storeroom, he may not begin moving baskets from it. However, he makes a path in it, so that he will be able to enter and exit. The Gemara asks: He makes a path in it? Did you not say: One may not use the storeroom for the first time? The Gemara answers that the baraita is saying as follows: He makes a path in it by moving baskets with his feet, as he enters the storehouse and as he exits. He may not move the basket with his hand.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תְּבוּאָה צְבוּרָה, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְחִיל בָּהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — מוּתָּר לְהִסְתַּפֵּק מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאִם לָאו — אָסוּר לְהִסְתַּפֵּק מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי אַחָא מַתִּיר: כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אַחָא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to piled grain, if one had started to take grain from the pile on Shabbat eve, it is permitted to satisfy his needs from it on Shabbat, and if not, it is prohibited to satisfy his needs from it on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Aḥa permits doing so in any case. The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary; it is Rabbi Shimon who is lenient with regard to the halakhot of set-aside. Rather, emend the baraita and say: This is the statement of Rabbi Aḥa. Rabbi Shimon permits doing so in any case.
תָּנָא: כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּר תְּבוּאָה צְבוּרָה — לֶתֶךְ. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב נְחוּמִי בַּר זְכַרְיָה מֵאַבָּיֵי: שִׁיעוּר תְּבוּאָה צְבוּרָה בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: שִׁיעוּר תְּבוּאָה צְבוּרָה — לֶתֶךְ.
It was taught: How much is the measure of piled grain needed to confer the legal status of a storeroom? A half-kor. Rav Naḥumi bar Zekharya raised a dilemma before Abaye: The measure of piled grain, how much is it? Abaye said to him that they said: The measure of piled grain is a half-kor.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ קוּפּוֹת דְּקָאָמַר, בְּאַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ קוּפּוֹת — אִין, טְפֵי — לָא, אַלְמָא לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּהִילּוּכָא עֲדִיף, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַשּׂוֹי עֲדִיף.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: These four or five baskets, which the tanna stated in the mishna, is he saying the following: Four or five baskets, yes, one may move them, more baskets, no, one may not move them? This would indicate that it is preferable to minimize the walking distance because fewer baskets results in less walking in and out of the storeroom. Or perhaps it is preferable to minimize the size of the burden by carrying smaller baskets, as long as the total measure of all that one carries does not exceed the capacity of five large baskets?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: מְפַנִּין אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ קוּפּוֹת שֶׁל כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וְשֶׁל כַּדֵּי יַיִן. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בְּעֶשֶׂר וּבַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר מַעוֹטֵי בְּהִילּוּכָא עָדִיף, וּמָר סָבַר מַעוֹטֵי בְּמַשּׂוֹי עֲדִיף?
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma, as one baraita taught: One may move even four or five baskets containing jugs of oil and jugs of wine. And it was taught in another baraita: One may move them even in ten and in fifteen baskets. What, is it not that the two baraitot disagree concerning the following matter, as this Sage in the first baraita holds that it is preferable to minimize the walking distance by moving fewer, heavier baskets, and this Sage in the second baraita holds that it is preferable to minimize the size of the burden by moving lighter baskets over the course of several trips.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מַעוֹטֵי בְּהִילּוּכָא עֲדִיף, וּמִי סָבְרַתְּ ״בְּעֶשֶׂר וּבַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה״ אַקּוּפּוֹת קָאֵי? אַכַּדִּין קָאֵי, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּמִשְׁתַּקְלִי חַד חַד בְּקוּפָּה, וְהָא דְּמִישְׁתַּקְלִי תְּרֵי תְּרֵי, וְהָא דְּמִשְׁתַּקְלִי תְּלָתָא תְּלָתָא — וּבִדְקוּרֵי דְהַרְפַּנְיָא.
The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that it is preferable to minimize the walking distance. And do you hold that: In ten and in fifteen, is referring to baskets? It is referring to jugs, and there is no dispute between the baraitot. And this is not difficult: This baraita, which spoke of moving five, is referring to a case in which the jugs are taken one by one in each basket. And that baraita, which speaks of moving ten, is referring to a case in which the jugs are taken two by two in each basket. And that baraita, which speaks of moving fifteen, is referring to a case in which the jugs are taken three by three, e.g., in the case of the small jugs of Harpanya.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ דְּקָאָמַר, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ אוֹרְחִין טוּבָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא הַכֹּל לְפִי הָאוֹרְחִין? וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר הַכֹּל לְפִי הָאוֹרְחִין, חַד גַּבְרָא מְפַנֵּי לְכוּלְּהוּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא גַּבְרָא גַּבְרָא מְפַנֵּי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: These four or five baskets, which the tanna stated in the mishna, is he saying that one may move only four or five baskets even though he has many guests? Or perhaps, it is all according to the number of guests, and if there are more guests one may move more baskets. And if you say it is all according to the number of guests, does one man move the baskets to make room for all of them, or perhaps each and every man moves a basket to make room for himself?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַךְ רַבִּי לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְרָאָה מָקוֹם דָּחוּק לַתַּלְמִידִים, וְיָצָא לַשָּׂדֶה וּמָצָא שָׂדֶה מְלֵאָה עוֹמָרִים, וְעִימֵּר רַבִּי כׇּל הַשָּׂדֶה כּוּלָּהּ. (שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַכֹּל לְפִי הָאוֹרְחִין.)
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which Rabba said that Rav Ḥiyya said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to a certain place and saw that the place was too crowded for the students. And he went to the field and found a field full of bundles of grain, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi cleared the bundles from the whole field in its entirety. Conclude from it that the quantity that can be moved is all according to the number of guests.
וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַךְ רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְרָאָה מָקוֹם דָּחוּק לַתַּלְמִידִים, וְיָצָא לַשָּׂדֶה וּמָצָא שָׂדֶה מְלֵאָה עוֹמָרִים, וְעִימֵּר רַבִּי חִיָּיא כׇּל הַשָּׂדֶה כּוּלָּהּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַכֹּל לְפִי הָאוֹרְחִין.
And Rav Yosef said that Rav Hoshaya said: Once Rabbi Ḥiyya went to a certain place and saw that the place was too crowded for the students. And he went to the field and found a field full of bundles of grain, and Rabbi Ḥiyya cleared the bundles from the whole field in its entirety. Conclude from it that the quantity that can be moved is all according to the number of guests.
וַעֲדַיִין תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ: חַד גַּבְרָא מְפַנֵּי (לֵיהּ) לְכוּלְּהוּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא כׇּל גַּבְרָא וְגַבְרָא מְפַנֵּי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ?
The Gemara continues: And still you have a dilemma. Does one man move the baskets to make room for all of them, or perhaps each and every man moves baskets to make room for himself?
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְעִימֵּר רַבִּי. וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, רַבִּי בְּדִנְפָשֶׁיהָ עִימֵּר?! אֶלָּא צִוָּה וְעִימֵּר, וּלְעוֹלָם כׇּל חַד וְחַד מְפַנֵּי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
Come and hear a resolution to this question. We learned: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi cleared the bundles. Apparently, one person moved the bundles to make room for the others. The Gemara rejects the proof: And according to your reasoning, your opinion, do you think Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the spiritual leader of his generation, cleared the bundles himself? Rather, he ordered others to do so, and he thereby cleared the bundles. And actually, each and every one moves a bundle to make room for himself.
מִפְּנֵי הָאוֹרְחִין וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גְּדוֹלָה הַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִין כְּהַשְׁכָּמַת בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״מִפְּנֵי הָאוֹרְחִין וּמִפְּנֵי בִּטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ״. וְרַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אָמַר: יוֹתֵר מֵהַשְׁכָּמַת בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, דְּקָתָנֵי ״מִפְּנֵי הָאוֹרְחִין״, וַהֲדַר ״וּמִפְּנֵי בִּטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: גְּדוֹלָה הַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִין מֵהַקְבָּלַת פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמַר ה׳ אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אַל נָא תַעֲבֹר וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם. מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וְדָם, אֵין קָטָן יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לַגָּדוֹל ״הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁאָבֹא אֶצְלְךָ״, וְאִילּוּ בְּהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּתִיב ״וַיֹּאמַר ה׳ אִם נָא מָצָאתִי וְגוֹ׳״.
We learned in the mishna: One may move baskets of produce due to the guests and in order to prevent the suspension of Torah study in the study hall. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Hospitality toward guests is as great as rising early to go to the study hall, as the mishna equates them and teaches: Due to the guests and due to suspension of Torah study in the study hall. And Rav Dimi from Neharde’a says: Hospitality toward guests is greater than rising early to the study hall, as it teaches: Due to the guests, and only afterward: And due to suspension of Torah study in the study hall. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said on a related note: Hospitality toward guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence, as when Abraham invited his guests it is written: “And he said: Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please pass not from Your servant” (Genesis 18:3). Abraham requested that God, the Divine Presence, wait for him while he tended to his guests appropriately. Rabbi Elazar said: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like that of flesh and blood. The attribute of flesh and blood people is such that a less significant person is unable to say to a more significant person: Wait until I come to you, while with regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, it is written: “And he said: Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please pass not from Your servant.” Abraham requested that God wait for him due to his guests.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים אָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִין, וּבִיקּוּר חוֹלִים, וְעִיּוּן תְּפִלָּה, וְהַשְׁכָּמַת בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְהַמְגַדֵּל בָּנָיו לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, וְהַדָּן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ לְכַף זְכוּת.
Rav Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There are six matters a person enjoys the profits of in this world, and nevertheless the principal exists for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Hospitality toward guests, and visiting the sick, and consideration during prayer, and rising early to the study hall, and one who raises his sons to engage in Torah study, and one who judges another favorably, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
אִינִי?! וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָם וְאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: כִּיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם [הָנֵי — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא]!
The Gemara asks: Is that so? And did we not learn in a mishna: These are the matters that a person does them and enjoys their profits in this world, and nevertheless the principal exists for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, and acts of loving kindness, and bringing peace between a person and another, and Torah study is equal to all of them. By inference: These matters, yes, one enjoys their profits in this world and the principal exists for him in the World-to-Come; other matters, no.
הָנֵי נָמֵי, (בִּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים שָׁיְיכִי. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: הָנֵי) בְּהָנֵי שָׁיְיכִי.
The Gemara answers: These too, hospitality toward guests and visiting the sick, are in the category of acts of loving-kindness. A different version of that answer: These matters on the longer list are attributable to those, the matters on the shorter list.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַדָּן חֲבֵירוֹ לְכַף זְכוּת — דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ לִזְכוּת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁיָּרַד מִגָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן וְנִשְׂכַּר אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶחָד בַּדָּרוֹם שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אָמַר לוֹ: תֵּן לִי שְׂכָרִי, וְאֵלֵךְ וְאָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי. אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין לִי מָעוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ: תֵּן לִי פֵּירוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין לִי. תֵּן לִי קַרְקַע — אֵין לִי. תֵּן לִי בְּהֵמָה — אֵין לִי. תֵּן לִי כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת — אֵין לִי. הִפְשִׁיל כֵּלָיו לַאֲחוֹרָיו, וְהָלַךְ לְבֵיתוֹ בְּפַחֵי נֶפֶשׁ.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who judges another favorably is himself judged favorably. And there was an incident involving a certain person who descended from the Upper Galilee and was hired to work for a certain homeowner in the South for three years. On the eve of the Day of Atonement, he said to the homeowner: Give me my wages, and I will go and feed my wife and children. The homeowner said to him: I have no money. He said to him: In that case, give me my wages in the form of produce. He said to him: I have none. The worker said to him: Give me my wages in the form of land. The homeowner said to him: I have none. The worker said to him: Give me my wages in the form of animals. He said to him: I have none. The worker said to him: Give me cushions and blankets. He said to him: I have none. The worker slung his tools over his shoulder behind him and went to his home in anguish.
לְאַחַר הָרֶגֶל נָטַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׂכָרוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, וְעִמּוֹ מַשּׂוֹי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲמוֹרִים, אֶחָד שֶׁל מַאֲכָל, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִשְׁתֶּה, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִינֵי מְגָדִים, וְהָלַךְ לוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ. אַחַר שֶׁאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ נָתַן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ.
After the festival of Sukkot, the homeowner took the worker’s wages in his hand, along with a burden that required three donkeys, one laden with food, one laden with drink, and one laden with types of sweets, and went to the worker’s home. After they ate and drank, the homeowner gave him his wages.
אָמַר לוֹ: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לִי ״תֵּן לִי שְׂכָרִי״ וְאָמַרְתִּי ״אֵין לִי מָעוֹת״, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא פְּרַקְמַטְיָא בְּזוֹל נִזְדַּמְּנָה לְךָ, וְלָקַחְתָּ בָּהֶן. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לִי ״תֵּן לִי בְּהֵמָה״, וְאָמַרְתִּי ״אֵין לִי בְּהֵמָה״, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא מוּשְׂכֶּרֶת בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לִי ״תֵּן לִי קַרְקַע״, וְאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ ״אֵין לִי קַרְקַע״, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא מוּחְכֶּרֶת בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים הִיא. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ ״אֵין לִי פֵּירוֹת״ בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא אֵינָן מְעוּשָּׂרוֹת. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ ״אֵין לִי כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת״ בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתַּנִי? אָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא הִקְדִּישׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו לַשָּׁמַיִם.
The homeowner said to him: When you said to me: Give me my wages, and I said: I have no money, of what did you suspect me? Why did you not suspect me of trying to avoid paying you? The worker answered, I said: Perhaps the opportunity to purchase merchandise [perakmatya] inexpensively presented itself, and you purchased it with the money that you owed me, and therefore you had no money available. The homeowner asked: And when you said to me: Give me animals, and I said: I have no animals, of what did you suspect me? The worker answered: I said: Perhaps the animals are hired to others. The homeowner asked: When you said to me: Give me land, and I said: I have no land, of what did you suspect me? The worker answered: I said: Perhaps the land is leased to others, and you cannot take the land from the lessees. The homeowner asked: And when you said to me: Give me produce, and I said: I have no produce, of what did you suspect me? The worker answered: I said: Perhaps they are not tithed, and that was why you could not give them to me. The homeowner asked: And when I said: I have no cushions or blankets, of what did you suspect me? The worker answered: I said: Perhaps he consecrated all his property to Heaven and therefore has nothing available at present.
אָמַר לוֹ: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ הָיָה. הִדַּרְתִּי כׇּל נְכָסַי בִּשְׁבִיל הוּרְקָנוֹס בְּנִי שֶׁלֹּא עָסַק בַּתּוֹרָה. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי אֵצֶל חֲבֵירַי בַּדָּרוֹם הִתִּירוּ לִי כָּל נְדָרַי. וְאַתָּה, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּנְתַּנִי לִזְכוּת, הַמָּקוֹם יָדִין אוֹתְךָ לִזְכוּת.
The homeowner said to him: I swear by the Temple service that it was so. I had no money available at the time because I vowed and consecrated all my property on account of Hyrcanus, my son, who did not engage in Torah study. The homeowner sought to avoid leaving an inheritance for his son. And when I came to my colleagues in the South, the Sages of that generation, they dissolved all my vows. At that point, the homeowner had immediately gone to pay his worker. Now the homeowner said: And you, just as you judged favorably, so may God judge you favorably.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָסִיד אֶחָד שֶׁפָּדָה רִיבָה אַחַת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלַמָּלוֹן הִשְׁכִּיבָהּ תַּחַת מַרְגְּלוֹתָיו. לְמָחָר יָרַד וְטָבַל וְשָׁנָה לְתַלְמִידָיו.
On a similar note, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who redeemed a young Jewish woman from captivity. When they arrived at the inn he had her lie beneath his feet. The next day, he descended, and immersed in a ritual bath to purify himself before Torah study and prayer, and taught his students. This conduct could arouse suspicion that the pious man kept the maiden for himself, as immersion in the morning is customary for men who have experienced a seminal emission by engaging in sexual relations.
וְאָמַר לָהֶן: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִשְׁכַּבְתִּיהָ תַּחַת מַרְגְּלוֹתַי, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי? אָמַרְנוּ: שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּנוּ תַּלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּדוּק לְרַבִּי.
And the pious man said to his students: When I had her lie beneath my feet, of what did you suspect me? They said to him: We said: Perhaps there is a student among us whose conduct is not established before the rabbi, and he wanted to make certain that this student would not inappropriately accost the young woman. Therefore, the rabbi kept the woman close by.
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיָּרַדְתִּי וְטָבַלְתִּי, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי? אָמַרְנוּ: שֶׁמָּא מִפְּנֵי טוֹרַח הַדֶּרֶךְ אֵירַע קֶרִי לְרַבִּי. אָמַר לָהֶם: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ הָיָה. וְאַתֶּם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּנְתּוּנִי לְכַף זְכוּת, הַמָּקוֹם יָדִין אֶתְכֶם לְכַף זְכוּת.
He said to them: When I descended and immersed, of what did you suspect me? They answered: Perhaps due to the exertion of travel, a seminal emission befell the rabbi. He said to them: I swear by the Temple service that it was so. And you, just as you judged me favorably, so may God judge you favorably.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פַּעַם אַחַת הוּצְרַךְ דָּבָר אֶחָד לְתַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵצֶל מַטְרוֹנִיתָא אַחַת שֶׁכׇּל גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי מְצוּיִין אֶצְלָהּ. אָמְרוּ: מִי יֵלֵךְ? אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֲנִי אֵלֵךְ.
The Sages taught a similar baraita: Once there was a certain matter needed by Torah scholars. They wanted to discuss an issue with a certain matron whose company was kept by all the prominent people of Rome. The Torah scholars wanted to address the government on behalf of the Jewish people, and they sought the matron’s advice. They said: Who will go? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: I shall go.
הָלַךְ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְתַלְמִידָיו. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְפֶתַח בֵּיתָהּ, חָלַץ תְּפִילָּיו בְּרִחוּק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וְנִכְנַס וְנָעַל הַדֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵיהֶן. אַחַר שֶׁיָּצָא, יָרַד וְטָבַל וְשָׁנָה לְתַלְמִידָיו.
Rabbi Yehoshua and his students went to her. When he arrived with his students at the entrance of her house, he removed his phylacteries at a distance of four cubits from the door, and entered, and locked the door before them. After he emerged, he descended and immersed in a ritual bath, and taught his students. Here too, this was conduct that could arouse suspicion that something improper transpired.
וְאָמַר לָהֶן: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁחָלַצְתִּי תְּפִילִּין, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי? אָמַרְנוּ: כְּסָבוּר רַבִּי, לֹא יִכָּנְסוּ דִּבְרֵי קְדוּשָּׁה בִּמְקוֹם טוּמְאָה.
And he said to his students: When I removed the phylacteries, of what did you suspect me? They said to him, we said: The rabbi must hold that sacred items may not enter a place of impurity. Therefore, it would have been inappropriate to enter the house with phylacteries.
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנָּעַלְתִּי, בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי? אָמַרְנוּ: שֶׁמָּא דְּבַר מַלְכוּת יֵשׁ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ.
He asked: When I locked the door, of what did you suspect me? They said to him: We said: Perhaps there is a discreet royal matter that must be discussed between him and her and should not be revealed.
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיָּרַדְתִּי וְטָבַלְתִּי בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁדְתּוּנִי, אָמַרְנוּ: שֶׁמָּא נִיתְּזָה צִינּוֹרָא מִפִּיהָ עַל בְּגָדָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי. אָמַר לָהֶם: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ הָיָה. וְאַתֶּם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּנְתּוּנִי לִזְכוּת, הַמָּקוֹם יָדִין אֶתְכֶם לִזְכוּת.
Rabbi Yehoshua asked: When I descended and immersed, of what did you suspect me? They said to him, we said: Perhaps a bit of spittle sprayed from her mouth onto the rabbi’s clothes. The Sages decreed that the legal status of a gentile is like that of a zav; their bodily fluids transmit ritual impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: I swear by the Temple service that it was so. And you, just as you judged favorably, so may God judge you favorably.
מְפַנִּין תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּמַנְּחָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חַזְיָא לֵיהּ — אָסוּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כֵּיוָן דְּחַזְיָא לְכֹהֵן — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
We learned in the mishna: One may move ritually pure teruma on Shabbat. The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach this only in a case in which it is placed in Israelite hands. Lest you say: Since it is not suitable for the Israelite to eat, he is prohibited to move it on Shabbat; therefore, it teaches us that since it is suitable for a priest to eat, one may well move it on Shabbat.
וּדְמַאי וְכוּ׳. דְּמַאי, הָא לָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לֵיהּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵה עָנִי, וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ. דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי.
And we also learned in the mishna: One may move doubtfully tithed produce. The Gemara asks: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce, why may one move it? It is not suitable for him to eat. The Gemara answers: Since if he so desires, he may renounce all his property, declaring it ownerless, and he would then be poor, and the doubtfully tithed produce would be suitable for him, now too it is suitable for him. A pauper may eat doubtfully tithed produce, as we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce and soldiers [akhsanya] doubtfully tithed produce. And Rav Huna said that it was taught: Beit Shammai say: One may neither feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce nor feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce and feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבּוֹלִים, וְנִטְּלָה הֵימֶנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְלֹא נִטְּלָה הֵימֶנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה.
We learned in the mishna: And one may move first tithe whose teruma of the tithe has already been taken. The Gemara poses a question: It is obvious that if the teruma was already tithed it is non-sacred produce in every sense. The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach this halakha only in the following case: A Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks and brought it to the threshing floor, and before the grain was threshed, the teruma of the tithes was taken and the teruma gedola was not taken.
וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבּוֹלִין — פָּטוּר מִתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲרֵמוֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳ מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״. מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
And the above mentioned halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to first tithe, in a case in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, one is exempt from separating teruma gedola from it, as it is stated: “And you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). By inference: A tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, I, God, said to you that you must take, and not both teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי לִיפְּטַר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִכֹּל מַתְּנוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ וְגוֹ׳״.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should also be exempt from taking teruma gedola. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord’s teruma” (Numbers 18:29). God’s teruma, i.e., teruma gedola, must be taken from all the Levites’ gifts.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ? הַאי אִידְּגַן, וְהַאי לָא אִידְּגַן.
The Gemara asks: What did you see that led you to require teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles, and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This, stalks that were threshed and placed into piles, are completely processed and have become grain, and that, grains that have remained on the stalk, have not yet become grain. The verse states the following with regard to teruma gedola: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4) is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the rights of the priest take effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola.
וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.
We learned in the mishna: One may move second tithe that was redeemed. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha only in a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the fifth that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated. And the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption, and the second tithe assumes non-sacred status from the moment that one pays the principal.
וְהַתּוֹרְמוֹס הַיָּבֵשׁ כּוּ׳. דַּוְוקָא יָבֵשׁ, אֲבָל לַח — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּמָרִיר לָא אָכְלָה.
And we learned in the mishna: One may move even dry lupine, which is not fit for consumption by a person, because it is goat food. The Gemara comments: This applies only when lupine is dry. However, when it is moist, no it is prohibited to move it. What is the reason for this prohibition? Since lupine is extremely bitter when wet, an animal will not eat it.
