Beitzah 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

this

that we find that teruma is separated on a Festival is according to

Rabbi

who maintains that ears of grain become obligated in teruma from the time of threshing by hand (melilot) ,

Whereas

this

that we find in our Mishna—that he is not entitled to separate teruma on a Festival—is according to

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda

.

And we find in a beraita that Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei disputed the obligation of teruma with regard to ears of grain:

As 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 them into dough unless he first threshes them, their work has therefore not yet been completed, and consequently he may

eat from them casually, and is exempt

from separating terumot and ma’asrot .

But if he brought them in in order

to rub them

by hand

as melilot

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

Rabbi obligates him

to separate terumot and ma’asrot, since their work was completed from the moment he brought them into the house. For according to Rabbi, one who brings ears of grain into the house without intending to thresh them and make a threshing floor from them has completed their work by the very act of bringing them into the house, and they become subject to teruma. Consequently, from that point onward he is prohibited from casual eating.

And Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda exempts them

from terumot and ma’asrot, since without “processing” (miru’aḥ) by gathering and piling them into a heap after threshing, there is no obligation of terumot and ma’asrot. He may therefore continue eating them casually even though he brought them into his house .

And we challenge this: If you establish the case as one who rubs ears of grain on a Festival, then

according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, too, one can find a case

in which he would be entitled to separate it on the Festival!

For example, he brought in ears of grain

with the intention

of making dough from them,

after setting up a threshing floor and processing them in a heap,

and

afterward

changed his mind and decided to rub them on the Festival.

At that point they became liable for terumot and ma’asrot,

because

since he had brought them in with the intention of making a threshing floor,

they retroactively became untithed produce on that very day and he becomes liable to separate the teruma on the Festival! That is, bringing the ears of grain into the house with the intention of making a complete threshing floor there gives them the status of produce subject to terumot and ma’asrot. As long as, according to his intention, he plans to establish a threshing floor, his work has not yet been completed so as to create liability for terumot and ma’asrot. But when he changes his mind and decides to make them melilot, the “threshing floor” takes effect retroactively at the time they entered the house, since it is now clear that from that moment onward nothing was lacking for completion of the work . [

and he becomes obligated to separate the teruma on the Festival! That is, bringing the ears of grain into the house with the intention of making a complete threshing floor from them in the house gives them the status of produce subject to terumot and tithes. As long as, according to his intention, he plans to set up the threshing floor, the work is not yet complete enough to create an obligation for terumot and tithes. But when he changes his mind and decides to make them grain in the stage of ears, the “threshing floor” takes effect retroactively at the time he brought them into the house, since it is now clear that from that moment nothing was lacking for completion of the work .

Rather, if at the time he brought them in he intended to rub them as melilot, such an entry does not give the ears of grain the status of produce subject to terumot and ma’asrot, since it is entry with the intention of exemption from ma’aser, not with the intention of creating liability for ma’aser!]

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

Rather, what

is the meaning of what Beit Hillel said in our Mishna, “If you have argued with regard to

teruma,

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

the majority of teruma.

That is, in most cases, teruma becomes obligatory only after threshing and processing, which are performed on the eve of the Festival and not on the Festival, because most ears of grain are threshed for dough. One may not separate teruma from them on the Festival, since their work was completed on the eve of the Festival, as threshing is labor prohibited on a Festival. [Although it is possible to separate teruma on the Festival from the minority of ears designated for melilot, it is prohibited to bring them to a kohen, because the Sages issued a decree concerning all teruma on account of the majority].

Abaye said: The dispute concerns ears of grain,

only with regard to them did Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda exempt one from ma’aser when he rubs them, since most of them are designated for threshing and their threshing floor is established only through processing them in a heap.

But with regard to legumes,

which many people do not thresh in large quantities, but thresh each time only the small amount needed for their pot,

everyone agrees that bringing them into the house while they are tied

in bundles [“prohibited”] called

“asuriyyata” —

is considered their threshing floor, and therefore

they become untithed produce!

They are prohibited as tevel even through casual eating .

The Gemara now analyzes this:

Can we say that this supports

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

We learned:

One who had bundles of fenugreek that were tevel—

he crushes

the pods of the fenugreek, as this is the manner in which they are threshed,

and calculates how much seed they contain.

And he separates

teruma only

from the seed, and does not separate

teruma

from the “wood.”

That is, there is no obligation to separate teruma from the pods that surround the seeds, even though the pods have the same taste as the seeds. Therefore, he crushes them before separating teruma, so that the separation takes effect only upon the seed and not upon the “wood” .

The Gemara infers:

Is it not

that this Mishna is according to

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, who said

that specifically

there,

with regard to ears of grain that have not been threshed and have not been gathered together into a heap,

they do not become untithed produce?

But

here,

with regard to bundles of fenugreek, which people customarily crush little by little,

they become untithed produce

immediately upon being brought into the house as a bundle.

This proves Abaye’s position: Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda agrees that, with regard to legumes, bringing the bundles into the house is sufficient to prohibit them as tevel.

And we reject this:

No,

you cannot derive support for Abaye from here, because this Mishna is the opinion of

Rabbi,

who creates liability even with regard to ears of grain that one brought in for melilot.

And we challenge this:

If

this Mishna is according to

Rabbi,

why specifically

did the tanna mention bundles of

fenugreek?

For according to Rabbi,

even ears of grain as well

become prohibited as tevel when brought in as bundles, even if they were not processed in a heap!?

The Gemara rejects the challenge:

Rather, what

according to your argument, this Mishna is the opinion of

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda!? If so, the following difficulty arises:

let him teach us other types of legumes,

that,

even though many people thresh them and make a heap and process them, nevertheless, if they bring them into the house in tied bundles, they become prohibited as tevel through this act, without a heap and processing.

And

from this we would know by

a fortiori

that bundles of

fenugreek

become prohibited as tevel, since this is the usual practice with fenugreek: to crush it little by little and place even the pods in the pot, without removing the seeds from them!

Rather, this Mishna is indeed according to Rabbi. You cannot prove from the fact that the tanna did not mention ears of grain that the Mishna does not follow his opinion, because the tanna

needed to teach the law of fenugreek

in particular.

For

it might have entered your mind

that

since

with regard to fenugreek

the taste

of its wood and its fruit is the same,

one should also separate

teruma

from its wood.

Therefore,

it teaches us

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

But in truth, ears of grain too are prohibited when brought in as bundles.

There are those who say:

Abaye said: The dispute

between Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda applies specifically

with regard to ears of grain,

for Rabbi creates liability for teruma in their case because many people gather them in order to eat them as melilot or as parched grain, without making a heap from them. Consequently, bringing the ears of grain into the house constitutes their threshing floor, which prohibits them as tevel.

But with regard to legumes,

which are ordinarily brought in so that they will subsequently be processed in a heap, their work has not been completed and they are not prohibited as tevel. Therefore,

everyone agrees that bringing them in

in

asuriyyata—

does not make them untithed produce!

Meytivi

from the Mishna cited above, in tractate Terumot:

One who had bundles of fenugreek produce that was tevel—

he crushes them, calculates how much seed they contain, and separates teruma on the seed, but does not separate teruma on the stalk.

Is that not

the meaning of this Mishna: It deals with bundles of fenugreek in the possession of an Israelite, and the

tevel

mentioned there is

produce subject to teruma gedola,

which is the first of all the separations of terumot and ma'aserot, and from which the teruma has not yet been separated?

And it is thus proven that bundles of fenugreek are considered tevel even if they have not undergone goren processing!

And we reject this:

No,

the Mishna is not speaking of this; rather, it is speaking of bundles of fenugreek already in the possession of a Levite.

It is speaking of bundles of fenugreek that the Levite took from an Israelite, in a case where the Israelite had already separated the ma'aser from the fenugreek before processing it, and before separating teruma gedola from it.

Such fenugreek is now subject to the separation of terumat ma'aser by the Levite even before processing, because it is

tevel subject to terumat ma'aser.

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

As Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: In the case of a first tithe that one preceded

and the Israelite separated it

while it was still in stalks,

before processing it—its designation as ma'aser takes effect, although it has not yet become obligated in ma'aser. From this point onward,

its name

as “first tithe”

makes it subject to terumat ma'aser

even before processing; the Levite must give terumat ma'aser from the ma'aser even before processing, and he may not eat it before separating terumat ma'aser from it, as is the case with tevel.

But ordinary bundles of fenugreek, before processing, are exempt from ma'aser and are not tevel until they undergo processing.

And we inquire: If so, since we have established that the Mishna concerning bundles of fenugreek is speaking of a Levite who received ma'aser from an Israelite before processing, then regarding that which we learned,

he crushes,

and we established this as referring to a Levite who gives them to a kohen after crushing them—

why is it necessary

for the Levite to crush them before giving them to the kohen, so as to provide him with prepared fenugreek seeds?

Let him say

the Levite to the kohen:

Just as they gave it to me,

just as the Israelite gave me the first tithe of fenugreek while it was still in its pods,

so I give it to you—

so will I give you the tithe from the tithe, and why should I be obligated to process and crush it?

For if the beraita were speaking of an Israelite and not of a Levite, it would indeed be necessary for the Israelite to crush the fenugreek before giving it to the kohen.

For just as, in the case of grain, he is obligated by Torah law to process the grain and give the kohen produce that has been processed, so too the Sages instituted with regard to fenugreek, whose obligation is only rabbinic, that it should be treated like something subject to a biblical obligation. Therefore, the Sages obligated the Israelite to crush it and process it before giving it to the kohen.

But if the discussion is about a Levite and terumat ma'aser, we do not find that the Levite is obligated to process the terumat ma'aser that he gives to the kohen.

If so, the Levite need not process the terumat ma'aser by crushing it; it is sufficient for him to give the kohen the tithe from the tithe of the fenugreek in the same form in which he received the ma'aser from the Israelite.

Rava said:

This obligation to crush it is a

penalty,

for the Sages penalized the Levite because he assisted the Israelite in transgressing the words of Torah by accepting from him the ma'aser whose separation he had advanced before processing it.

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

Therefore, they penalized the kohen who took such a first tithe from the Israelite by requiring him to crush and process the fenugreek from which he gives the kohen terumat ma'aser, just as the Israelite is obligated to take the trouble to process and prepare his teruma gedola before giving it to the kohen.

It was taught likewise,

that the Levite was penalized by being required to process the terumat ma'aser from the ma'aser that he took from the Israelite before processing.

A son of Levi to whom

an Israelite gave

stalks,

which had not undergone processing,

as his tithes,

as first tithe—

he makes them into a threshing floor,

that is, he must thresh and process them before giving the kohen terumat ma'aser.

And if he was given first tithe in the form of

grapes

before processing—so long as the grapes have not been made into wine, they are considered “before processing”—

he makes them into wine.

And if he was given

olives—

he makes them into oil.

And

only after processing them—

he separates from them

the Levite

terumat ma'aser and gives it to the kohen.

For

just as teruma gedola

given to the kohen by an Israelite

is not taken

except from the threshing floor and the winepress,

after they have been completely processed—

so terumat ma'aser,

which the Levite gives to the kohen, even when the Levite advanced the taking of the ma'aser before processing it,

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