ביצה טו

ביצה טו

אֶלָּא בְּקָשִׁין, וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַאי נַמְטָא גַּמְדָּא דְּנַרֶשׁ — שַׁרְיָא.

Rather, it is referring to hard clothes, upon which it is permitted to sit even if they are a mixture of wool and linen. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With regard to this hard felt [namta] material produced in the town of Neresh, it is permitted to sit or recline on it, and one need not be concerned about the fact that it is a mixture of wool and linen.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: עַרְדָּלִין — אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם. אָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי צְרָרֵי דִּפְשִׁיטֵי — אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם, דְּבִזְרָנֵי — יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ חִמּוּם בְּכָךְ.

Rav Pappa said: With regard to felt socks [ardalayin], there is no prohibition of diverse kinds regarding them, as they are hard. Rava said: These bundles for coins, comprised of hard fabric or felt, there is no prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them. However, with regard to pouches for holding seeds, there is a prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them, as they are larger and softer than both felt socks and hard bundles for coins. Rav Ashi said: Both this and that have no prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them because using these items is not the usual manner of keeping warm. Even if these objects are placed close to one’s skin, this is not the usual way of wearing clothes and warming oneself, and therefore they are permitted.

אֲבָל לֹא סַנְדָּל הַמְסוּמָּר. סַנְדָּל הַמְסוּמָּר מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה.

§ The mishna taught: However, one may not send a spiked sandal on a Festival. The Gemara asks: A spiked sandal, what is the reason that it may not be worn? The Gemara answers: It is due to an incident that occurred. A great tragedy resulted when people wore spiked sandals on Shabbat, which led the Sages to decree that these sandals may not be worn on a Shabbat or Festival.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: סַנְדָּל הַמְסוּמָּר אָסוּר לְנׇעֳלוֹ וּמוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. אָסוּר לְנׇעֳלוֹ — מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה, וּמוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ — מִדְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין״, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ, הַשְׁתָּא לְטַלְטוֹלֵי אָסוּר, מְשַׁלְּחִין מִבַּעְיָא?

Abaye said: With regard to a spiked sandal, it is prohibited to wear it on Shabbat, but it is permitted to move it. He clarifies: It is prohibited to wear a spiked sandal, due to the incident that occurred. And it is permitted to move it, from the fact that the mishna teaches: One may not send. For if it enters your mind that it is prohibited even to move a spiked sandal, now consider: If it were prohibited to move it, is the mishna required to state that one may send it? Rather, it must certainly be permitted to move a spiked sandal inside the house, despite the fact that one may not wear it.

וְלֹא מִנְעָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּפוּר. פְּשִׁיטָא! לֹא נִצְרְכָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּנָקֵיט בְּסִיכֵּי.

The mishna further teaches: Nor may one send an unsewn shoe on a Festival. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as these shoes are unfit for wearing. The Gemara answers: This statement was necessary only to teach that although the shoe is attached with pins and can be worn, it may not be sent on a Festival. Since it is not properly sewn, it is not usually worn.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף לֹא מִנְעָל לָבָן. תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בְּשָׁחוֹר, וְאוֹסֵר בְּלָבָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ בֵּיצַת הַגִּיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר בַּשָּׁחוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְצַחְצְחוֹ.

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not even send a white shoe. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda permits the sending of a black shoe but prohibits the sending of a white one because a white one requires a lump of chalk to color it properly. Rabbi Yosei prohibits the sending of a black shoe because one needs to polish it.

וְלָא פְּלִיגִי. מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ. בְּאַתְרֵיהּ דְּמָר — בִּשְׂרָא לְתַחַת, בְּאַתְרֵיהּ דְּמָר — בִּשְׂרָא לְעֵיל.

The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree with regard to the halakha, as this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and this Sage ruled differently, in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the place of this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, the leather was made so that the side of the hide facing the flesh is on the underneath, facing the inside of the shoe, and therefore it does not require polishing; whereas in the place of that Sage, Rabbi Yosei, the leather was made so that side of the hide facing the flesh is above, facing the outside of the shoe. That side is often cracked and uneven and requires smoothing and polishing.

זֶה הַכְּלָל כֹּל שֶׁנֵּאוֹתִין בּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת שְׁרָא לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן לְשַׁדּוֹרֵי תְּפִלִּין בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן, כֹּל שֶׁנֵּאוֹתִין בּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב — מְשַׁלְּחִין אוֹתוֹ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁנֵּאוֹתִין בּוֹ בְּחוֹל — מְשַׁלְּחִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב.

§ The mishna taught that this is the general principle: With regard to any article that one may use on a Festival, one may send it. The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet permitted the Sages to send phylacteries on a Festival. Abaye said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: With regard to any article that one may use on a Festival, one may send it? Phylacteries are not worn on Festivals. The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: With regard to any article that one may use on a weekday, one may send it on a Festival.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תְּפִלִּין, הוֹאִיל וַאֲתוֹ לְיָדָן, נֵימָא בְּהוּ מִילְּתָא: הָיָה בָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּתְפִלִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, וְשָׁקְעָה עָלָיו חַמָּה — מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵיתוֹ. הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וּתְפִלִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וְקִדֵּשׁ עָלָיו הַיּוֹם — מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵיתוֹ.

Abaye said: With regard to phylacteries, since this topic has come before us in the previous discussion, let us say a novel matter about it: If someone was coming on the road on the eve of a Shabbat or Festival, and he had phylacteries on his head, as the practice then was to don phylacteries the entire day, but not at night, and the sun set before he arrived at his destination, signaling the beginning of the Shabbat or Festival, when phylacteries may not be worn or even moved, he places his hand upon them to cover them so that people will not see them until he reaches his house, at which point he removes them. If he was sitting in the study hall with phylacteries on his head, and the day of Shabbat or the Festival was sanctified, for which he was unprepared, he places his hand upon them until he reaches his house.

מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: הָיָה בָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּתְפִלִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וְקִדֵּשׁ עָלָיו הַיּוֹם — מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵית הַסָּמוּךְ לַחוֹמָה. הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְקִדֵּשׁ עָלָיו הַיּוֹם — מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַבַּיִת הַסָּמוּךְ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, raised an objection from the following teaching: If one was coming on the road with phylacteries on his head, and the day was sanctified before he arrived at his destination, he places his hand upon them until he reaches the house nearest the wall, where he removes them and leaves them there. If he was sitting in the study hall, outside the city, and the day was sanctified, for which he was unprepared, he places his hand upon them until he reaches a house that is near the study hall, where there are people who can guard the phylacteries. This shows that one may not bring phylacteries all the way to his house, but only to the nearest place within the city boundary.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּמִנַּטְרָא, הָא דְּלָא מִנַּטְרָא.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that one places the phylacteries in the house nearest the wall, is referring to a case where the phylacteries can be safeguarded there, whereas that baraita, which states that he may bring them all the way to his house, deals with a situation where they are not safeguarded in the nearest house.

אִי דְּלָא מִנַּטְרָא, מַאי אִירְיָא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ? אֲפִילּוּ מַחֲתָן בְּאַרְעָא נָמֵי, דְּהָא תְּנַן: הַמּוֹצֵא תְּפִלִּין — מַכְנִיסָן זוּג זוּג!

The Gemara challenges this: If the baraita is dealing with a case where the phylacteries are not safeguarded, why discuss specifically the case of phylacteries that were on his head? Even if one was not donning them but found them placed on the ground, he should also be required to don them and bring them to the house, for didn’t we learn in a mishna (Eiruvin 95a): One who finds phylacteries lying in a field outside of the city on Shabbat should don them and bring them into the city one pair at a time?

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּמִנַּטְרָא מֵחֲמַת גַּנָּבֵי וּמֵחֲמַת כַּלְבֵי. הָא — דְּמִנַּטְרָא מֵחֲמַת כַּלְבֵי וְלָא מִנַּטְרָא מֵחֲמַת גַּנָּבֵי.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that one need not don the phylacteries if they were not already on his head, is referring to a situation where they are safeguarded from thieves and also from dogs. That mishna, which stated that even if one found them on the ground, he must put them on and bring them into the city, is referring to a case where they are safeguarded from dogs but are not safeguarded from thieves.

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רוֹב לִסְטִים יִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ וְלָא מְזַלְזְלִי בְּהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara clarifies the novel element of the mishna’s ruling. Lest you say: Since most thieves [listim] are Jews, who would not treat phylacteries with contempt, one should not be allowed to carry them because there is no danger that they will be desecrated if they are left in their place, the mishna teaches us that the halakha takes the minority of cases into account. It is therefore appropriate to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בֵּיצָה

MISHNA: With regard to a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one may not cook on the Festival with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. However, he may cook on that day for the Festival itself, and if he left over any food, he left it over for Shabbat. The early Sages also instituted an ordinance: The joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], which the mishna explains. One may prepare a cooked dish designated for Shabbat on a Festival eve and rely on it to cook on the Festival for Shabbat.

יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בַּתְּחִלָּה מִיּוֹם טוֹב לְשַׁבָּת. אֲבָל מְבַשֵּׁל הוּא לְיוֹם טוֹב, וְאִם הוֹתִיר — הוֹתִיר לַשַּׁבָּת. וְעוֹשֶׂה תַּבְשִׁיל מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, וְסוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו לַשַּׁבָּת.

The tanna’im disagreed with regard to the details of this ordinance: Beit Shammai say: For the purpose of the joining of cooked foods one must prepare two cooked dishes, and Beit Hillel say: One dish is sufficient. And they both agree with regard to a fish and the egg that is fried on it that these are considered two dishes for this purpose.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁנֵי תַבְשִׁילִין, ובֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: תַּבְשִׁיל אֶחָד. וְשָׁוִין בְּדָג וּבֵיצָה שֶׁעָלָיו, שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי תַבְשִׁילִין.

If one ate the food prepared before the Festival as an eiruv and none of it remained for Shabbat, or if it was lost, he may not rely on it and cook with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. If he left any part of the eiruv, he may rely on it to cook for Shabbat.

אֲכָלוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד — לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל עָלָיו בַּתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם שִׁיֵּיר מִמֶּנּוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, — סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו לַשַּׁבָּת.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source of the halakha of the joining of cooked foods and of the halakha that one who failed to prepare such an eiruv may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat? Shmuel said that the source is as the verse states: “Remember the Shabbat day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8); from which he infers: Remember it and safeguard it from another day that comes to make it forgotten. When a Festival occurs on Friday, preoccupation with the Festival and the preparation and enjoyment of its meals could lead one to overlook Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance to ensure that Shabbat will be remembered even then.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״זָכוֹר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ״, זׇכְרֵהוּ — מֵאַחֵר שֶׁבָּא לְהַשְׁכִּיחוֹ.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages instituted this ordinance in particular to ensure that Shabbat would not be overlooked? Rava said: The Sages did so in deference to Shabbat, and they instituted an eiruv so that one will select a choice portion for Shabbat and a choice portion for the Festival. If one fails to prepare a dish specifically for Shabbat before the Festival, it could lead to failure to show the appropriate deference to Shabbat.

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רָבָא: כְּדַי שֶׁיִּבְרוֹר מָנָה יָפָה לַשַּׁבָּת וּמָנָה יָפָה לְיוֹם טוֹב.

Rav Ashi stated a different reason: The Sages did so in deference to the Festival, so that people will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat unless he began to bake the day before; all the more so, one may not bake on a Festival for a weekday.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ אֵין אוֹפִין מִיּוֹם טוֹב לַשַּׁבָּת, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיּוֹם טוֹב לְחוֹל.

We learned in the mishna: One may prepare a cooked dish on a Festival eve and rely on it to cook for Shabbat. Granted, according to Rav Ashi, who said that the reason for an eiruv is so that people will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat; that is why on a Festival eve, yes, one may prepare the eiruv, but on the Festival itself, no, one may not do so, as it is a reminder that in principle one may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat. However, according to Rava, who stated that the reason for the eiruv is to ensure that one selects choice portions for both the Festival and Shabbat, why does the mishna discuss specifically preparation on a Festival eve? Even were one to prepare a dish for Shabbat on the Festival as well, it would guarantee that he accord the appropriate deference to Shabbat.

תְּנַן: עוֹשֶׂה תַּבְשִׁיל מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וְסוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו לַשַּׁבָּת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי דְּאָמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ אֵין אוֹפִין מִיּוֹם טוֹב לַשַּׁבָּת, הַיְינוּ דְּמֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב — אִין, בְּיוֹם טוֹב — לָא. אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, מַאי אִירְיָא מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב? אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב נָמֵי!

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; that objective could have been achieved even on the Festival. However, the Sages issued a decree that the eiruv must be prepared on the Festival eve lest one be negligent and fail to prepare one entirely.

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִפְשַׁע.

The Gemara comments: And a tanna cites the proof for eiruv tavshilin from here, the following verse: “Tomorrow is a day of rest, a holy Shabbat to the Lord. Bake that which you will bake and cook that which you will cook, and all that remains put aside to be kept for you until the morning” (Exodus 16:23). From here Rabbi Eliezer said: One may bake on a Festival for Shabbat only by relying on that which was already baked for Shabbat the day before, and adding to it; and one may cook only by relying on that which was already cooked. From this verse the Sages established an allusion to the joining of cooked foods from the Torah.

וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא: ״אֵת אֲשֶׁר תֹּאפוּ אֵפוּ וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר תְּבַשְּׁלוּ בַּשֵּׁלוּ״, מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אֵין אוֹפִין אֶלָּא עַל הָאָפוּי, וְאֵין מְבַשְּׁלִין אֶלָּא עַל הַמְבוּשָּׁל. מִכָּאן סָמְכוּ חֲכָמִים לְעֵרוּבֵי תַבְשִׁילִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who was sitting and lecturing about the halakhot of the Festival throughout the entire Festival day. When the first group left in the middle of his lecture, he said: These must be owners of extremely large jugs [pittasin], who apparently have huge containers of wine awaiting them as well as a comparable amount of food, and they have left the house of study out of a craving for their food. After a while a second group departed. He said: These are owners of barrels, which are smaller than pittasin. Later a third group took its leave, and he said: These are owners of jugs, even smaller than barrels.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ בְּהִלְכוֹת יוֹם טוֹב. יָצְתָה כַּת רִאשׁוֹנָה, אָמַר: הַלָּלוּ בַּעֲלֵי פִטָּסִין. כַּת שְׁנִיָּה, אָמַר: הַלָּלוּ בַּעֲלֵי חָבִיּוֹת. כַּת שְׁלִישִׁית, אָמַר: הַלָּלוּ בַּעֲלֵי כַדִּין.

A fourth group left, and he said: These are owners of jars [laginin], which are smaller than jugs. Upon the departure of a fifth group, he said: These are owners of cups, which are smaller still. When a sixth group began to leave, he became upset that the house of study was being left almost completely empty and said: These are owners of a curse; i.e., they obviously do not have anything at home, so why are they leaving?

כַּת רְבִיעִית, אָמַר: הַלָּלוּ בַּעֲלֵי לְגִינִין. כַּת חֲמִישִׁית, אָמַר: הַלָּלוּ בַּעֲלֵי כוֹסוֹת. הִתְחִילוּ כַּת שִׁשִּׁית לָצֵאת, אָמַר: הַלָּלוּ בַּעֲלֵי מְאֵרָה.

He cast his eyes upon the students remaining in the house of study. Immediately, their faces began to change color out of shame, as they feared he was referring to them and that perhaps they should have departed along with the others instead of staying. He said to them: My sons, I did not say that about you but about those who left, because they abandon the eternal life of Torah and engage in the temporary life of eating.

נָתַן עֵינָיו בַּתַּלְמִידִים, הִתְחִילוּ פְּנֵיהֶם מִשְׁתַּנִּין. אָמַר לָהֶם: בָּנַי, לֹא לָכֶם אֲנִי אוֹמֵר, אֶלָּא לְהַלָּלוּ שֶׁיָּצְאוּ, שֶׁמַּנִּיחִים חַיֵּי עוֹלָם וְעוֹסְקִים בְּחַיֵּי שָׁעָה.

At the time of the remaining students’ departure at the conclusion of Rabbi Eliezer’s lecture, he said to them the verse: “Go your way, eat the fat and drink the sweet, and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared, for this day is holy to our Lord; and do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength” (Nehemiah 8:10).

בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתָן, אָמַר לָהֶם: ״לְכוּ אִכְלוּ מַשְׁמַנִּים וּשְׁתוּ מַמְתַקִּים וְשִׁלְחוּ מָנוֹת לְאֵין נָכוֹן לוֹ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ הַיּוֹם לַאֲדֹנֵינוּ וְאַל תֵּעָצֵבוּ כִּי חֶדְוַת ה׳ הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם״.

The Gemara clarifies this baraita. The Master said above: Because they abandon eternal life and engage in temporary life. The Gemara wonders at this: But isn’t the joy of the Festival itself a mitzva and therefore part of eternal life? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: Physical joy on a Festival is merely optional.

אָמַר מָר: שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין חַיֵּי עוֹלָם וְעוֹסְקִין בְּחַיֵּי שָׁעָה — וְהָא שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב מִצְוָה הִיא! רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב רְשׁוּת.

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has no way of fulfilling the mitzva of a Festival correctly apart from either eating and drinking, thereby fulfilling the mitzva of joy in a completely physical manner, or sitting and studying Torah, thereby emphasizing only the spiritual; and those who did not engage in Torah study to the fullest extent acted inappropriately. Rabbi Yehoshua says: There is no need for such a dichotomy; rather, simply divide it: Half to God, Torah study, and half to yourselves, engaging in eating, drinking, and other pleasurable activities.

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ לָאָדָם בְּיוֹם טוֹב, אֶלָּא אוֹ אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה, אוֹ יוֹשֵׁב וְשׁוֹנֶה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, חַלְּקֵהוּ: חֶצְיוֹ לַה׳, וְחֶצְיוֹ לָכֶם.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse, i.e., the two of them addressed the same apparent contradiction between two verses, resolving it in different ways. One verse states: “It shall be a solemn assembly for the Lord, your God” (Deuteronomy 16:8), indicating a Festival dedicated to the service of God, and one verse states: “It shall be a solemn assembly for you” (Numbers 29:35), indicating a celebratory assembly for the Jewish people. How is this to be reconciled? Rabbi Eliezer holds that the two verses should be understood as offering a choice: The day is to be either entirely for God, in accordance with the one verse, or entirely for you, as per the other verse; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is possible to fulfill both verses: Split the day into two, half of it for God and half of it for you.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ. כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״עֲצֶרֶת לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״עֲצֶרֶת תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם״. הָא כֵּיצַד? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ לַה׳, אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ לָכֶם. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: חַלְּקֵהוּ, חֶצְיוֹ לַה׳ וְחֶצְיוֹ לָכֶם.

§ Since the baraita mentions the verse from Nehemiah, the Gemara poses the following question: What is the meaning of: “Send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared” (Nehemiah 8:10)? Rav Ḥisda said: Send to one who does not have food of his own prepared for Shabbat that follows the Festival because he did not prepare a joining of cooked foods and must therefore rely on others. Some say that he said the following: It is necessary to provide food for one who did not have an opportunity to prepare a joining of cooked foods on the eve of the Festival; but one who had an opportunity to prepare a joining of cooked foods and did not prepare one is negligent, and there is no obligation to care for him.

מַאי ״לְאֵין נָכוֹן לוֹ״? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לְמִי שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ עֵירוּבֵי תַבְשִׁילִין. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ לְהַנִּיחַ עֵירוּבֵי תַבְשִׁילִין, אֲבָל מִי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהַנִּיחַ עֵירוּבֵי תַבְשִׁילִין וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ — פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא.

The Gemara poses another question with regard to the same verse: What is the meaning of: “For the joy of the Lord is your strength”? Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: My children, borrow on My account, and sanctify the sanctity of the day of Shabbat and the Festivals with wine, and trust in Me, and I will repay this debt.

מַאי ״כִּי חֶדְוַת ה׳ הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם״? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: בָּנַי, לְווּ עָלַי, וְקַדְּשׁוּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַיּוֹם, וְהַאֲמִינוּ בִּי וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ.

Apropos the statement attributed to Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara cites another statement that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon: One who wants his properties to be preserved and protected from ruin should plant an eder tree among them, as it is stated: “The Lord on high is mighty [adir]” (Psalms 93:4). Due to the similarity of the words eder and adir, this is understood to mean that the eder tree bestows permanence.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתְקַיְּימוּ נְכָסָיו — יִטַּע בָּהֶן אֶדֶר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַדִּיר בַּמָּרוֹם ה׳״.

Alternatively: The eder tree will preserve one’s property, as implied by its name, as people say: What is alluded to in the name of the eder? Its name hints that it endures for many generations [darei]. This is also taught in a baraita: A field that contains an eder tree will be neither stolen nor forcibly removed from one’s possession, as the eder serves as a clear indication of its owner, and its fruit is preserved, as the unique odor of the eder sap wards off insects.

אִי נָמֵי אַדְרָא כִּשְׁמֵיהּ, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: מַאי אַדְרָא — דְּקָיְימָא לְדָרֵי דָּרֵי. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: שָׂדֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ אֶדֶר אֵינָהּ נִגְזֶלֶת וְאֵינָהּ נֶחְמֶסֶת, וּפֵירוֹתֶיהָ מִשְׁתַּמְּרִין.

§ The Gemara returns to the previous issue: Rav Taḥlifa, brother of Ravnai Ḥoza’a, taught:

תָּנֵי רַב תַּחְלִיפָא אֲחוּהּ דְּרַבְנַאי חוֹזָאָה: