Beitzah 12b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan:

Go out and teach it outside!

Go out and teach this ruling outside, and not here in the beit-midrash!

For what you taught, that he is liable to lashes because of

kindling and

because of

cooking

on a Festival—

is not a “Mishna”!

No such beraita was taught, for certainly he is not liable to lashes for them, since the labors of kindling and cooking were permitted even when not for a need, since they were permitted for a need.

And if you should say

through the different tannaim that the beraita was indeed taught

[as a] Mishna

in this wording—necessarily it was taught according to

the position of Beit Shammai,

for

he said

in our Mishna that

“since carrying out was permitted for a need—

it too was permitted when not for a need.”

And according to Beit Shammai,

here too,

with regard to the labor of kindling,

we do not say, “since kindling was permitted for a need—

it too was permitted when not for a need.”

And therefore he is liable to lashes, as you said, for kindling that is not for the need of preparing food.

For if it is according to Beit Hillel, since they say

in our Mishna

“since carrying out was permitted for a need—

it too was permitted when not for a need,”

according to them,

here too,

with regard to kindling, we say

“since kindling was permitted for a need—

it too was permitted when not for a need,”

and he is not liable to lashes for it.

And it is proven that the view of Rabbi Yohanan also is that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in our Mishna concerns the permission for a labor performed when not for a need: “since the labor was permitted for the purpose of preparing food.”

Mishna:

One may not separate terumot and tithes from untithed produce on a Festival, because it appears like “repairing,” or

like consecrating, and since he had the possibility of separating them on the eve of the Festival, they did not permit him to perform this labor on the Festival.

But the Sages permitted separating challa from dough on a Festival, so that a person could knead dough for himself on the Festival and eat hot bread. And if they required him to knead his dough on the eve of the Festival in order to separate the challa on the eve of the Festival, he would not have hot bread on the Festival.

Likewise, the Sages permitted removing [separating] from an animal slaughtered on the Festival the portions given from it to a koen: the foreleg, the cheeks, and the stomach. For although the rest of the meat is not forbidden for eating before they are separated, it is necessary to separate them from it, so that he will not eat them together with it and thereby nullify the positive commandment of the gifts of the priesthood.

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed in our Mishna whether the Sages also permitted bringing the challa and the gifts to the koen.

Beit Shammai say: One may not bring

the challa and the gifts to the koen on a Festival, whether they were separated

already

on the previous evening, or whether they were separated today,

Once the Sages enacted a general decree not to separate terumot and tithes on Shabbat and on a Festival, and within the decree they said not to transport them, and not even to give them to the priests and Levites in the house of the giver.

And the Sages permitted for the sake of food only the separation of the dough-offering, in order to remove the dough from the status of untithed produce, and the raising of the gifts from the animal, so that they would not eat them with the meat of the animal. But the giving and the transporting remained under their general prohibition: not to separate, not to transport, and not to give any of the priestly gifts on Shabbat and on a Festival.

And Beit Hillel permit

even transporting and giving the dough-offering and the animal gifts to a priest, whether they were raised today or whether they were raised yesterday.

Beit Shammai said to them

to Beit Hillel: We can derive this by means of a

“gezerah shavah,”

that is, to compare these rabbinic laws [for the entire law not to separate, give, or transport is only rabbinic], as follows:

The dough-offering and the gifts

are

a gift to a priest, and

also

teruma

is

a gift to a priest.

Just as

you concede to us that

one does not transport

on a Festival

the teruma

that was raised yesterday to the priest—

so

you should also concede to us that

one does not transport the gifts

to the priest, even if they were raised today, because there is no Festival need to transport them to him.

Beit Hillel said to them: No,

do not compare these laws! For

if you spoke of teruma

and said that one does not transport it on a Festival, that is because

he is not “entitled” to raise it

on a Festival: the Sages did not grant him the right and power to separate it on a Festival, and therefore one also does not give or transport to the priest the teruma that was separated yesterday.

But how

will you speak of the gifts

of the dough-offering and the animal,

to which he is entitled to raise them

on a Festival? After all, just as he has the right to raise them, so the Sages granted him the right to transport them and give them to the priest!

Gemara:

We find below in a beraita that several tannaim disagreed about how to establish the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning transporting the dough-offering and the gifts on a Festival. The Gemara comes to discuss according to which of these tannaim the Mishna understood their dispute, and to explain how our Mishna is understood according to those tannaim:

At first,

it might have entered your mind,

the Gemara assumed that the intent of the Mishna in the words of Beit Shammai, that “one does not transport on a Festival gifts that were raised, whether from today or from yesterday,” is as it appears:

Whether

they were raised today from

animals

that were slaughtered today, and

whether

they were raised yesterday, and

that is, from animals

that were slaughtered yesterday.

And this means that Beit Shammai hold that even gifts raised from an animal slaughtered today, or a dough-offering from dough kneaded today, are not transported to the priest.

And according to this assumption the Gemara takes a position:

Who is the author of our Mishna?—

Not Rabbi Yosei

is its author,

and not Rabbi Yehuda

is its author,

but rather

the Others

is its author.

For it was taught

that three tannaim disagreed about establishing the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

1.

Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning the gifts

of the animal [and the same is true of the dough-offering]

that were raised on the eve of the Festival—

that one transports

them to the priest together

with the gifts that were raised today and whose animals were slaughtered today.

And concerning gifts raised from an animal slaughtered today—it is obvious that even according to Beit Shammai one transports them, since it is permitted to raise them on a Festival, and he does not need to keep them with him until the next day.

They disagreed only with regard to transporting them

the gifts raised from an animal slaughtered yesterday,

by themselves:

For Beit Shammai say: One does not transport, and Beit Hillel say: One transports.

And this is how Beit Shammai reasoned: The dough-offering and the gifts

are

a gift to a priest, and

also

teruma

is

a gift to a priest.

Just as one does not transport

on a Festival

the teruma,

since one does not raise it on a Festival—

so

one does not transport the gifts

on a Festival.

Beit Hillel said to them: No! If you spoke of teruma

and said that one does not transport it, it is because

he is not entitled to raise it

the teruma on a Festival.

Will you say so with regard to the gifts

of an animal,

to which he is entitled to raise them

on a Festival, and therefore their transport to the priest was also permitted?

And once their transport was permitted, the transport of all animal gifts was also permitted, including those raised yesterday, and it is even permitted to transport them by themselves.

And in this beraita we find another position concerning what Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed about:

Rabbi Yosei said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning the gifts

of an animal, whether it was slaughtered today or whether it was slaughtered yesterday,

that one transports

them even by themselves. For they permitted transporting even gifts raised on the eve of the Festival, since it is permitted to raise and transport them on a Festival. [Like the view of Beit Hillel according to Rabbi Yehuda.]

They disagreed only concerning teruma—

For Beit Shammai say: One does not transport

teruma.

And Beit Hillel say: One transports

even teruma.

And this is how Beit Hillel reasoned: The dough-offering and the gifts are a gift to a priest, and teruma is a gift to a priest.

Just as one transports the gifts—

so one transports the teruma

on a Festival.

Beit Shammai said to them: No! If you spoke

of the gifts

and one transports them because he is

entitled to raise them

on a Festival, will you

say

so

with regard to teruma, to which he is not entitled to raise it!?

And when they prohibited separating teruma on a Festival, they also prohibited transporting the teruma to a priest on a Festival.

And another position was taught in this beraita in explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

The Others say: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning teruma, that one does not transport it.

They disagreed only concerning the gifts,

both with regard to gifts raised today and with regard to those raised yesterday.

For Beit Shammai say: One does not transport, and Beit Hillel say: One transports.

And in light of the Gemara’s assumption that Beit Shammai do not permit transporting even gifts from an animal slaughtered today, it is clear on the one hand that our Mishna is not according to Rabbi Yosei [who held that Beit Shammai permit transporting gifts, while Beit Hillel permit transporting even teruma], and on the other hand it is clear that the Mishna accords with the view of the Others.

And now the Gemara discusses: Is it necessary

to say

that our Mishna is only according to

the Others, and not

according to

Rabbi Yehuda!?

For Rabbi Yehuda said that Beit Shammai concede that one transports gifts raised on a Festival, [and he even permitted transporting together with them gifts raised on the eve of the Festival].

Rava said:

No, it is not necessary to say that the Mishna is specifically according to the view of the Others; in truth, it can also be established according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, one must alter the assumption that we made initially, that according to Beit Shammai it is impossible to transport any gifts at all on a Festival, even those raised today.

For

does

the Mishna

teach

that according to Beit Shammai the law that one does not transport gifts raised yesterday or on a Festival was stated even with regard to gifts

that

also

“were raised today” and that

also

“were slaughtered today”?

But “one does not transport the gifts

that were raised

today” alone

it teaches,

and it was not said that it concerns even those whose animals were slaughtered today.

And always—

their slaughtering

was

yesterday

and only their raising was today; therefore one does not transport them, since he could have done so yesterday, after their slaughtering yesterday.

But if they were slaughtered today, on the Festival, since it was not possible to bring them yesterday, it is permitted to bring them today even according to Beit Shammai.

And in light of this new assumption, our Mishna accords with the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raise an objection according to the new assumption by which Rava has now established our Mishna:

If so,

is it to be said

that our Mishna is only according to

Rabbi Yehuda, and not according to the Others!?

For according to the view of the Others, Beit Shammai prohibit transporting even gifts raised today.

And we conclude:

Even if you say,

nevertheless it can be said that our Mishna was taught also according to the view of

the Others

!

And

what Beit Shammai prohibit, according to the Others, concerning transporting gifts is only

those that were slaughtered yesterday,

but gifts from animals slaughtered today may be transported even according to Beit Shammai.

And we challenge:

If so, the view of the Others

is

the same

as the view of

Rabbi Yehuda,

and in what do they disagree!?

And we answer:

There is the matter of attaching them—

whether according to Beit Shammai it is permitted to transport together with gifts from animals slaughtered today also gifts from animals slaughtered yesterday.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, Beit Shammai permit “attaching” them and joining them for transport to the priest, whereas according to the Others it is prohibited.

And our Mishna, which does not deal with “attachment,” but only with the prohibition of transporting gifts from an animal slaughtered yesterday, accords both with Rabbi Yehuda and with the Others.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei,

according to Beit Hillel, who permit transporting even teruma.

Rav Tovi, son of Rav Nehemiah, had a jug of wine

a jug

of teruma.

He came before Rav Yosef.

He said to him: What is the law concerning bringing

this jug of teruma

to a priest today,

now, on the Festival?

He said to him: Thus said Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei,

who said that according to Beit Hillel it is permitted to transport even teruma.

His innkeeper,

the innkeeper

of Rava bar Rav Hannan, had bundles of mustard

bundles of mustard stalks [pods], containing mustard seeds.

He said to him

to Rava bar bar Hannan:

What is the law concerning shelling,

is it permitted to remove, by crushing with the hand, the mustard seeds from the pods in which they are found,

and eating from them

and eating them

on a Festival,

despite the fact that this dismantling is a derivative of the labor of threshing!? The issue is whether shelling is permitted on a Festival like cooking, because it is a need of food, or since he could have done it on the eve of the Festival, it is prohibited as a derivative of threshing.

He did not have an answer

to this question for Rava bar bar Hannan.

The innkeeper came

the innkeeper

before Rava,

and asked him.

Rava said to him

Rava:

One may shell

crush by rubbing with the hands

“soft ears of grain”

to remove the wheat kernels from the husks surrounding them,

and

likewise

one may shell,

rub forcefully, the pods of

legumes,

to remove the legumes from them,

on a Festival.

And although labors that one could have performed on the eve of the Festival were not permitted on a Festival even for the sake of food, the law of shelling and hand-shelling is different, for they are considered labor “in an unconventional manner” , and therefore on Shabbat it is prohibited to perform them only by rabbinic law , whereas on a Festival it is permitted to perform them for the sake of food .

Abaye raised an objection to Rava from

a beraita that we learned in the Tosefta:

For it was taught:

One who rubs ears of grain on the eve of Shabbat

and afterward, once he has rubbed them, the kernels and the husks remain mixed together—

the next day he winnows

in an unusual manner, not in the manner of winnowing on weekdays; that is, he blows them with the breath of his mouth and moves them by blowing

immediately

one

into the other

and thereby the kernels are separated from the waste—

and eats

the kernels immediately.

But not

shall he select them on Shabbat from among the husks,

neither with a kanon nor with a tamkhui,

which are utensils for separating waste from food, made for separating a small quantity .

One who rubs ears of grain on the eve of Yom Tov—

the next day

on Yom Tov

winnows “a little at a time”",

little by little,

and eats,

because it is permitted to select on Yom Tov without a change in order to eat on that very day.

And therefore he may select

even with a kanon and even with a tamkhui,

with which he selects a small amount for the needs of the day,

but not by

means of a

tray, nor with a sieve nor with a sifter,

which are utensils made for extensive selection, and one who selects with them appears to be doing so for the needs of the next day; and it is prohibited to perform work on Yom Tov for the needs of the next day, even if it is for the needs of food.

And it is implied from the beraita that rubbing the ears of grain only

on the eve of Yom Tov—

yes,

it is permitted to do it, but

on Yom Tov

itself

not

did they permit rubbing, since it is possible to do it on the eve of Yom Tov.

And it would apparently be proven contrary to the words of Rava, who permitted rubbing on Yom Tov.

Rava said to resolve it:

Even you may say,

it is possible to say that it is permitted to rub them

on Yom Tov.

And

what we learned in the latter clause of the beraita, “One who rubs on the eve of Yom Tov,” does not mean to prohibit rubbing on Yom Tov; rather,

since

because

the tanna

in the

first clause

of the beraita concerning Shabbat stated, “He rubs

on the eve of Shabbat”—

and he had to state it in this manner because it is prohibited to rub on Shabbat—

he stated

along with this, in

the latter clause as well, “

he rubs

on the eve of Yom Tov.”

And we raised a question about it:

If

so—since it is permitted to rub ears of grain in order to eat them on Yom Tov—apparently

we find teruma that he is entitled to set aside on Yom Tov! For by rubbing them, their work is completed and the status of tevel takes effect upon them, and they become obligated in the separation of teruma [because people do not ordinarily separate while they are still in the ears of grain, when they are exempt from separation]; and if he cannot set aside teruma from them on Yom Tov, he is not permitted to rub them, since rubbing was permitted only for the purpose of eating on Yom Tov. Necessarily, they permitted separating teruma from ears of grain on Yom Tov, since the obligation of teruma takes effect upon them that very day.

on a Festival! For when the ears are rubbed, their processing is completed and they acquire the status of tevel, produce from which the required offerings have not yet been separated, and they become subject to the separation of the teruma offering. [People do not normally separate the offering while the grain is still in the ears, when it is exempt from separation.] If one may not separate teruma from them on a Festival, he may not rub them, since rubbing was permitted only for the purpose of eating on the Festival. It must therefore be that they permitted separating teruma from rubbed grain ears on a Festival, since the obligation to separate teruma takes effect on that very day.

And

if we

had learned

in our Mishna that Beit Hillel say to Beit Shammai:

“No; if you said this with regard to teruma, from which he is not entitled to set aside, and so forth,”

and it would be implied that in every case it is prohibited to separate teruma on Yom Tov—!?

And we resolve: It is not difficult.

In truth, according to everyone, ears of grain may be rubbed on Yom Tov; however, according to everyone, teruma may not be separated on Yom Tov.