Beitzah 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara now raises a question concerning our interpretation that the Mishna is dealing with terumat ma'aser and not with teruma gedola.

For according to this interpretation, it is evident from the Mishna that a Levite who separates terumat ma'aser from crushed fenugreek of first tithe may calculate how many fenugreek seeds are contained in what was crushed, and separate terumat ma'aser from them according to their proportion in the mixture.

And we raised a difficulty: How is it possible that the Levite should

"calculate"

the terumat ma'aser that he must give to the priest merely by estimation?

But

this

separation of terumat ma'aser

requires

precise

measurement!

Since terumat ma'aser is not like teruma gedola, which is separated by estimation.

For only in the case of teruma gedola, for which the Torah did not prescribe a measure, and for which only the Sages established a measure [a generous eye, a good eye, and an average eye], is it taken merely by estimation.

But terumat ma'aser, for which the Torah established a precise measure—“a tithe from the tithe”—must be separated on the basis of measurement!

And we answer:

Whose opinion is this?

It is the opinion of Abba Elazar ben Gimal,

who maintains that terumat ma'aser too may be taken by estimation.

As it was taught in a beraita: Abba Elazar ben Gimal says:

Regarding that which is written [Numbers 18] concerning the Levites, who raise terumat ma'aser from the tithe:

“And your teruma shall be reckoned

[from the tithe] like grain from the threshing floor [like teruma gedola, which an Israelite separates from grain at the threshing floor]”—

The verse is speaking of two terumot:

One is teruma gedola, and one is terumat ma'aser.

And the verse says “shall be reckoned” with regard to both of them, teaching you that the law of terumat ma'aser resembles the law of teruma in two respects:

Just as teruma gedola is taken:

a.

By estimation,

without the need for measurement.

b.

By thought,

without the need for verbal declaration or an actual act of separation. Rather, a person directs his attention to this side of the produce and designates it as teruma, while eating from the other side, without saying anything and without actually separating it—

so too terumat ma'aser—

is taken by estimation,

and by thought.

The essential statement: Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: With regard to first tithe that one advanced while it was still in stalks—

it has

the status

of “first tithe”—

it renders one subject to terumat ma'aser

and forbidden to eat.

Even while it is still in stalks, before miru'ah, it is tevel and may not be eaten.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the reason

that the designation “first tithe” causes an obligation of terumat ma'aser and the prohibition of tevel even before miru'ah?

Rava said: Since the name tithe has been applied to it!

For this is what the Torah says concerning the separation of terumat ma'aser: “And you shall raise from it [from the first tithe] a tithe from the tithe.” This implies that from the moment the produce is designated as a tithe [and this designation takes effect even if it was separated while still in stalks, before miru'ah], the status of tevel immediately applies to the tithe, since it is immediately obligated in the giving of terumat ma'aser.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: First tithe that

happened to be

advanced while it was still in stalks—

it is

exempt from teruma gedola.

As it is stated

[Numbers 18]:

“And you shall raise from it,

from the first tithe,

the teruma of the Lord—

a tithe from

the tithe.”

And it implies: only

“a tithe from the tithe”,

that is, terumat ma'aser alone,

have I told you

to separate.

from the first tithe.

And not

have I told you to separate

teruma gedola and terumat ma'aser—

from the

first tithe.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so,

since the verse taught you that from first tithe one takes only terumat ma'aser and not teruma gedola, then

even if they advanced

the first tithe, separating it before the separation of teruma gedola, when the produce was already

in the heap,

after miru'ah,

also

let us say that teruma gedola should not be separated from it! Why, then, did you say that it is exempt only when they advanced it while it was still in stalks?

He said to him—Abaye to Rav Pappa:

As for you,

in response to your question, that even if the produce underwent miru'ah before it was tithed, we can learn from the verse that teruma gedola should not be separated from first tithe—

the verse says

[Numbers 18], concerning the Levites:

“From all your gifts

you shall raise every teruma of the Lord.”

And from the word “all” we include that the Levite must give the priest every type of teruma that must be given from his tithes, including teruma gedola.

Rav Pappa said to him:

What did you see

that led you to exclude first tithe that they advanced while it was still in stalks from teruma gedola, and to include first tithe that was separated after miru'ah, when it was in the heap, rather than the reverse?

Abaye said to him:

This one,

when they advanced the first tithe before teruma gedola, after it had already become a heap—

had become grain,

the produce had already become grain, and once it reached the status of “grain,” it became obligated in teruma gedola, as it is written: “The first of your grain.”

And this one,

when they separated the tithe while it was still in stalks, the produce had still

not become grain,

and the designation of grain had not taken effect upon it, making it obligated in teruma gedola, which is called “the first of your grain.”

It therefore stands to reason that the inclusion “from all your gifts” comes to teach with regard to first tithe that was advanced before teruma gedola when the produce was already called “grain”: at that point the priest was already entitled to receive teruma gedola from it. Therefore, if the Israelite advanced and separated the first tithe before separating teruma gedola, that first tithe is obligated in teruma gedola, and it is not exempt from it by virtue of the prior separation of the tithe.

But if the designation of grain had not yet taken effect upon the produce, and it had not become obligated in teruma gedola, and he separated first tithe from it, it stands to reason that this tithe is exempt from teruma gedola, on the basis of the verse that excludes first tithe from teruma gedola.

The Gemara now discusses the activities performed on produce, and compares the completion of the activity that “determines” the produce with regard to the law of tevel, to the completion of the activity for which one is liable on account of the labor of Shabbat:

We learned there in

Tractate Ma'aserot [5:4]:

One who husks

barley

from the ear in order to eat it raw, without cooking, and the terumot and tithes have not yet been separated from it because its processing has not been completed—

husks

it

one at a time, and eats

it without tithing, because in this manner his eating is considered casual eating, for which he is exempt from tithing.

But if he husked

several barley grains together,

and placed

them

into his hand—

he is

liable

to tithe them, since this is the manner of regular eating.

And he may not eat from them before tithing them, not even casual eating.

Rabbi Elazar said: And so

with regard

to

the prohibition of labor on

Shabbat:

If he husks the barley one grain at a time, this is not the manner of threshing; rather, it is considered extracting in an unusual manner, and it is permitted to do so on Shabbat.

But if he husks several barley grains and does not eat each one immediately after husking it, but places them all together in his hand—

this

is the manner of the labor of threshing, and he is liable to bring a sin offering!

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Rav

had his wife husk them for him

on Shabbat

cup by cup

, she would fill cups for him with husked grains.

And

so too,

Rabbi Hiyya’s wife would husk them for him cup by cup!?

Missing text (Chavruta)

Rather, if it was stated

Rabbi Elazar’s statement, “And so with regard to Shabbat”—

it was stated with regard to the latter clause:

This is the continuation of the Mishna in Tractate Ma'aserot [there, mishna 6]:

One who rubs the kernels of wheat—

he winnows a little at a time,

a small amount at a time,

and eats

casual eating without tithing. Since he has not gathered the husked wheat in his hand, but it remained in his hand after he rubbed it, this is not considered regular eating, and it has not thereby become “fixed” for tithing.

But if he winnowed

the wheat that had been rubbed,

and placed

and gathered it after it had been cleaned of the waste from the ears [which had fallen away as he transferred it from one hand to the other],

into

the lower part of

his lap

his garment—then it has thereby become “fixed” for tithing, and he may not eat from it even casual eating; rather,

he is liable

to tithe it first.

And it is only with regard to this Mishna that

Rabbi Elazar said: And so with regard to

the matter of labor on

Shabbat:

it is permitted to winnow a little at a time, but it is prohibited to winnow a large amount and gather it into the lower part of his garment, because one who does so on Shabbat is liable for the labor of “winnowing” or “selecting.”

Rabbi Abba bar Memel challenged it: And

what we learned in

the first clause,

that one who husks several barley grains and places them into his hand is liable to tithe—is this only

with regard

to the matter of

tithing, yes

, he becomes liable to tithe by doing so, whereas

with regard

to liability for the labor of extracting on

Shabbat

he is

not

liable when he husks several barley grains and places them in his hand, since this is not considered the completion of a labor!?

Is there such a thing

—how can it be divided in one manner,

that with regard to Shabbat it is not

his act considered

“completion of labor,”

that is, that such an act is not considered the performance of labor on Shabbat, but merely an act of preparation for eating? [For “completion of labor” with regard to Shabbat is any act that completes a stage in preparing an object for use. Thus, the permission to husk the grains and gather them together proves that this is considered part of using them, and not their completion for the purpose of use.]

And

yet

with regard

to

tithing

it is

indeed

an act sufficiently significant to constitute

“completion of labor,”

rather than merely an act of preparation for eating, and it obligates one to tithe!?

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, challenged it: And

is it that

we do not

find such a distinction, in which something is not considered a form of preparation [“completion of labor”] with regard to the labor of Shabbat, and nevertheless is considered completion of processing that obligates one to tithe!?

But

we do find such a distinction with regard to the laws of

“their threshing floor for tithing,”

the term that encompasses many labors performed with grain, which are considered labors [“completion of processing”] that establish the grain for tithing and obligate one to tithe, while conversely they are not considered labors with regard to the desecration of Shabbat, but merely the preparation of food.

The obligation to tithe grain, fruit, or legumes takes effect only when they reach the stage of readiness known as “completion of processing.”

This stage occurs when the grain is gathered into a pile, and it is called “placing the grain in the threshing floor,” and is also called “smoothing.”

Fruit and legumes likewise have a stage of completion of processing. For some fruit, completion of processing occurs through an act performed upon it, while for other fruit it is a natural state that occurs automatically when the fruit itself reaches its final stage of readiness.

All the ways in which fruit reaches the stage at which it becomes established as tevel and becomes subject to tithing are included under the expression [borrowed from the completion of processing of grain] “threshing floor for tithing.”

As we learned: What is the threshing floor

of fruit, through which the fruit becomes established

for

the obligation of

tithing,

so that from then on one may not eat from it even casual eating?

Cucumbers and pumpkins—

their threshing floor for tithing is

when they are pikas.

When the pikas falls away on its own, or when one removes the “pikas” from their tops, which is like a flower. At this stage the cucumbers and pumpkins become completely ready for eating. This is an example of completion of processing that occurs automatically.

And

if the cucumbers and pumpkins

have not been pikased

on their own, their completion of processing [“their threshing floor that establishes them for tithing”] occurs when the person completes his work,

when he forms a pile

of cucumbers or pumpkins after gathering them.

And we likewise learned with regard to onions

that their completion of processing is

when he forms a pile

of onions.

But with regard to Shabbat—

forming a pile

is not considered the completion of a stage in the labor of preparing the produce, and he is

exempt

for it.

Rather, what can you say

to explain why he is not liable for forming a pile on Shabbat, even though it is an act of preparation? It is because this is not significant skilled labor sufficient to incur liability, and only

“constructive labor,”

which involves a small degree of craftsmanship,

did the Torah prohibit

on Shabbat.

Here too

when he shells several barley grains and places them in his hand, one can say that this is an important stage that determines liability for tithes, like the completion of the work; nevertheless, he is not liable for this on Shabbat, because

“the Torah prohibited creative labor”,

whereas shelling barley is not an important skilled labor.

The Gemara now explains Rava’s ruling above, that it is permitted to rub ears of grain on a Festival: How is this to be done with a deviation? Certainly, he must deviate from the weekday manner of rubbing [in which he rubs between the two palms of his hands], so that he will not be prohibited on account of performing a weekday activity.

How does one rub them?

Abaye said in the name of Rav Yosef:

one finger

on one

finger

.

He rubs between the thumb and one finger.

And Rav Avya said in the name of Rav Yosef: one on two -

he rubs between the thumb and two fingers.

Rava said: Since he deviates,

as he changes the manner of rubbing from rubbing between the palms of his hands to rubbing with his fingers -

even one

thumb

on all

the fingers

also

is permitted .

We further learned above in the beraita that it is permitted on Shabbat to remove the chaff from the ears of grain that one rubbed on the eve of Shabbat, by blowing with a deviation, namely, from one hand to the other; but not in the ordinary weekday manner, in which one blows between his two hands held together.

We raised the following difficulty:

How does one blow

what is the effective deviation that prevents the act from being prohibited as a weekday activity [is it sufficient that he does not blow with both hands, or must there be a deviation in the act of blowing itself]?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Rav: He blows

the chaff

from the joints of his fingers and upward,

and not from the palm of his hand.