Beitzah 13a — the Talmud in English

,

that,

which we find that teruma is separated on a Festival, this is according to

Rabbi,

who holds that ears of grain become liable for teruma through melilot ,

But

that

which we find in our Mishna, that he is not entitled to separate teruma on a Festival, is according to the words of

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda

is.

And we find in a beraita that Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei disputed the liability for teruma through melilot:

For it was taught:

One who

brought ears of grain

into his house before threshing them, in order

to make dough from them,

and it is impossible to make dough from them unless he first threshes them—then the work of the ears of grain has still not been completed, and therefore he is permitted to be

eating from them casually, and is exempt

from separating terumot and tithes .

But if he brought them in in order

to rub them

with his hand

as melilot

little by little, intending to eat them as they are, merely removing the husks while eating the kernels by rubbing them with his hand—

Rabbi renders him liable

.for separating terumot and tithes, since from the time he brought them into the house their work was completed. For according to Rabbi, one who brings ears of grain into the house and does not intend to thresh them and make a pile from them has their work completed through the very bringing into the house, and they become liable for teruma; therefore, from now on he is forbidden to eat them casually.

And Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda exempts

them from terumot and tithes, since without “making a pile,” through gathering and collecting them into a heap after their threshing, there is no liability for terumot and tithes. And he is permitted to continue eating them casually, despite having brought them into his house .

And we object: If you establish it as referring to one who rubs melilot on the Festival, then

according to Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda as well, it can be found

that he would be entitled to separate it on the Festival!

For example, where he brought in ears of grain

with the intention

of making dough from them,

after setting up a pile and making a pile in the house,

and

afterward

changed his mind concerning them, to rub them on the Festival,

they then became liable for terumot and tithes,

for

since he brought them in with the intention of making a pile from them,

it became tevel on its day

retroactively, and he becomes liable on the Festival for separating teruma! Namely, bringing the ears of grain into the house with the intention of making a complete pile from them in the house is what imposes upon them the status of terumot and tithes. However, as long as, according to his intention, he plans to set up the pile, their work has still not been completed so as to render them liable for terumot and tithes. But when he changes his mind concerning them to make them melilot, the “pile” takes effect retroactively, at the time of bringing them into the house. For now it becomes clear that from that time they lacked no completion of work .

However, if at the time of bringing them in he intends to rub melilot, such bringing in does not impose upon the ears of grain the status of terumot and tithes, since this is bringing in with the intention of exemption from the tithe and not with the intention of liability for the tithe!

And we answer: Actually, both according to Rabbi and according to Rabbi Yosei, he is indeed entitled to separate teruma on the Festival.

But what of it

that which Beit Hillel said in our Mishna, “If you said concerning

teruma

that he is not entitled to separate it on the Festival”? Their intention is

the majority of teruma.

Namely, for the majority, teruma becomes obligatory only after threshing and making a pile, which are performed on the eve of the Festival and not on the Festival, because most ears of grain are threshed for dough, and one does not separate teruma from them on the Festival, since their work was completed on the eve of the Festival, for threshing is work forbidden on a Festival. [Indeed, from the minority of ears of grain designated for melilot it is possible to separate teruma on the Festival, but it is forbidden to bring them to a priest, because they decreed concerning all teruma on account of the majority].

Abaye said: The dispute concerns ears of grain,

only concerning them did Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda exempt from the tithe when he rubs them, since most of them are designated for threshing, and their pile is only through making a pile in a heap.

But concerning legumes,

which many people do not thresh in large quantities; rather, each time they thresh only the amount needed for their pot,

according to everyone

bringing them into the house while bound in bundles called

“asuriyata” -

is considered their pile, and therefore

it is tevel!

they become forbidden as tevel even through casual eating .

The Gemara now analyzes:

Let us say that this supports him,

to Abaye, from the words of the Mishna in tractate Terumot [10:6]:

For we learned:

One who had bundles of fenugreek that were tevel—

he may pound

the pods of the fenugreek, for this is the manner of threshing them,

and calculates how much seed there is in them.

And he separates

teruma only

for the seed, and he does not separate

teruma

for the “wood.”

That is, there is no obligation to separate also for the pods surrounding the seeds, despite the fact that the taste of the pods is equal to the taste of the seeds. Therefore, he pounds them before the separation, so that it will apply only to the seed and not to the wood .

The Gemara infers:

Is it not

that this Mishna is according to

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda, who said

that specifically

there,

with ears of grain that were not threshed and were not gathered together into a heap,

it is not tevel.

But

here,

with bundles of fenugreek, which people customarily pound little by little—

it is tevel

immediately upon bringing them into the house in a bundle.

And it is proven in accordance with Abaye, that Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda agrees concerning legumes that bringing the bundles into the house is sufficient to prohibit them with the prohibition of tevel.

And we reject this:

No,

you cannot support Abaye from here, because this Mishna is the words of

Rabbi,

who renders one liable even for ears of grain that he brought in for melilot.

And we object:

If

this Mishna is according to the opinion of

Rabbi—

why specifically

why did the tanna mention in his words bundles of

fenugreek?

For according to Rabbi,

even ears of grain also

become forbidden as tevel when brought in in bundles, even if no pile was made of them in a heap!?

The Gemara rejects the refutation:

But what of it,

according to your words, this Mishna is

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda

!? If so, the difficulty is:

let him teach us the other types of legumes,

for although many people thresh them and make a heap and a pile from them, nevertheless, if he brings bound bundles into the house, they thereby become forbidden as tevel, without a heap and a pile.

And

from this we would know by

“a fortiori”,

that bundles of

fenugreek

become forbidden as tevel, for this is the manner of fenugreek: to pound it little by little and place even the pods in the pot, without removing the seeds from within them!

Rather, actually this Mishna is according to the words of Rabbi. You cannot prove from the fact that the tanna did not mention ears of grain that this Mishna is not according to his words, since the tanna needed to teach us specifically the law of

“fenugreek was necessary for him to teach.”

in particular.

For

it might enter your mind to say

that

since

in fenugreek

the taste

of its wood and its fruit is equal—

he should also separate

teruma

for its wood.

Therefore

he teaches us

the tanna in the Mishna that its wood is not considered fruit, and he is exempt from separating for it.

But in truth, ears of grain are also forbidden when they are brought in in bundles.

There are those who say:

Abaye said: The dispute

between Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda is specifically

concerning ears of grain,

for with regard to them Rabbi renders one liable for teruma, since many people bring them in with the intention of eating them as melilot and as roasted grain, without making a heap from them. It follows that bringing the ears of grain into the house is their pile, which forbids them as tevel.

But concerning legumes,

since their ordinary bringing in is in order to make a pile of them afterward in a heap, their work has not been completed, and they are not forbidden as tevel; therefore

according to everyone

bringing them in

in asuriyata—

it is not tevel!

Meitivi

from the Mishna cited above from tractate Terumot:

One who had bundles of fenugreek of tevel—

he pounds them, calculates how much seed there is in them, and separates [the tithe] for the seed, but does not separate [the tithe] for the stalk.

Is it not

that this Mishna deals with bundles of fenugreek that are in the possession of an Israelite, and the

tevel

mentioned in it is

tevel subject to teruma gedola

which is the first of all the separations of terumot and tithes, and the teruma has not yet been separated?

And it is proven that bundles of fenugreek are considered tevel even if they have not been finished in the threshing floor!

And we reject this:

No,

the Mishna is not speaking of this, but of bundles of fenugreek already in the possession of the Levite.

And it is speaking here of bundles of fenugreek that the Levite took from the Israelite, in a case where the Israelite had already separated the tithe from the fenugreek before finishing it, and before separating teruma gedola from it.

And such fenugreek is henceforth obligated in the separation of terumat maaser by the Levite, even before it is finished, because it is

tevel subject to terumat maaser.

And this is in accordance with what Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

For Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: First tithe that they advanced

and the Israelite separated it

in the stalks,

before finishing—it acquires the designation of tithe, despite the fact that it had not yet become obligated in the tithe. And from now on,

its designation

as “first tithe”

makes it subject to terumat maaser

even before finishing, and the Levite is obligated to give terumat maaser from the tithe even before finishing, and he is forbidden to eat it before he separates terumat maaser from it, as [he would be forbidden to eat] tevel.

But ordinary bundles of fenugreek, before they have been finished, are exempt from the tithe, and are not tevel until they have been finished.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this: If so, that we have established the Mishna of the bundles of fenugreek with a Levite who received the tithe from an Israelite before finishing, this that we learned,

he pounds,

and we established this with a Levite, who gives them to a priest after pounding them—

why do I need

the Levite to pound them before giving them to the priest, in order to provide him with prepared seeds of fenugreek?

Let him say to him

the Levite to the priest:

Just as they gave me,

as the Israelite gave me the first tithe of fenugreek while it was in its pods—

so shall I give you,

so shall I give you from it the tithe of the tithe; why should I be obligated to prepare it and pound it?

For if the beraita were speaking of an Israelite and not of a Levite, it would be proper that the Israelite must pound the fenugreek before giving it to the priest.

For just as with grain he is obligated by Torah law to prepare the grain and give the priest something prepared, so too the Sages instituted concerning fenugreek, whose obligation is only rabbinic, that it should be treated like something whose obligation is by Torah law; therefore the Sages obligated the Israelite to pound it and prepare it before he gives it to the priest.

But if it is speaking of a Levite and of terumat maaser, we do not find that there is an obligation upon the Levite to prepare the terumat maaser that he gives to the priest.

And if so, the Levite need not prepare the terumat maaser by pounding; it is sufficient for him to give the priest the tithe of the tithe from the fenugreek just as he received the tithe from the Israelite.

Rava said:

This obligation to pound is by virtue of a

fine,

that the Sages imposed upon the Levite because he assisted the Israelite in transgressing the words of Torah, by accepting from him the tithe that he had advanced and separated before finishing it.

For the Torah obligated [one] to separate teruma gedola first, and this can be done only after finishing, and not before it, and only afterward to separate first tithe.

Therefore, they fined the priest who took such first tithe from the Israelite, that he must pound and prepare the fenugreek that he gives to the priest as terumat maaser, in the manner that the Israelite is obligated to trouble himself and prepare his teruma gedola that he gives to the priest.

It was taught likewise

that they fined the Levite to prepare the terumat maaser from the tithe that he took from the Israelite before finishing.

A son of Levi to whom they gave

the Israelite

stalks,

which had not been finished,

as his tithes,

as first tithe—

he makes them a threshing floor,

he is obligated to thresh them and prepare them before he gives terumat maaser to the priest.

And if they gave him first tithe

grapes,

before finishing, for as long as wine has not been made from the grapes, they are like “before finishing”—

he makes them wine.

And if they gave him

olives—

he makes them oil.

And

only after he has prepared them—

he separates upon them

the Levite

terumat maaser, and gives it to the priest.

For

just as teruma gedola

that is given to the priest by the Israelite

is not taken ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

except from the threshing floor and from the winepress,

after they have been completely prepared—

so terumat maaser,

that the Levite gives to the priest, even when the Levite advanced and took the tithe before its preparation,

is not taken except from the threshing floor and from the winepress.