Beitzah 13b — the Talmud in English

And now the Gemara is perplexed concerning what we established—that the Mishna is dealing with terumat maaser and not with teruma gedola.

For according to this, it is explained in the Mishna that the Levite who separates terumat maaser from the crushed fenugreek of maaser rishon has the ability to calculate how many fenugreek seeds there are in what was crushed, and to separate from them terumat maaser according to their proportion in the mixture.

And we raised the matter: How can it be that the Levite is

“calculating”

the terumat maaser that he must give to the priest by mere estimation?!

But

this

for the separation of terumat maaser requires—

measurement

precise

!

Since terumat maaser is not like teruma gedola, which is separated by estimation.

For only with regard to teruma gedola, for which the Torah did not give a measure, and only the Sages established a measure for it [a generous eye, a good eye, and an average eye], is it taken by mere estimation.

But terumat maaser, for which the Torah established a precise measure—“a tithe from the tithe”—must be separated according to measurement?!

And we answer:

Who is this? —

It is Abba Elazar ben Gimmel

, who holds that even terumat maaser is taken by estimation.

For it was taught in a beraita: Abba Elazar ben Gimmel says:

This is what is written [Numbers 18] concerning the Levites, who raise terumat maaser from the tithe:

“And your teruma shall be reckoned

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

The verse is speaking of two terumot:

One is teruma gedola, and one is terumat maaser.

And the verse said “shall be reckoned” concerning both of them—to teach you that the law of terumat maaser resembles the law of teruma in two matters:

Just as teruma gedola is taken:

a.

By estimation,

without the need for measurement.

b.

And by thought,

without the need for speech or an actual act of separation, but rather a person directs his eyes to this side of the produce and designates it as teruma, and eats from its other side, without saying anything and without actual separation—

so terumat maaser

is taken by estimation,

and by thought.

The essential matter: Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: With regard to maaser rishon that they advanced while it was still in ears of grain—

behold,

its name is

“maaser rishon”—

renders it tevel

with regard to terumat maaser,

and even while it is still ears of grain, before smoothing, it is tevel and forbidden to eat.

And we raised the matter:

What is the reason

that the designation “maaser rishon” causes an obligation of terumat maaser and the prohibition of tevel, even before smoothing?

Rava said: Since the designation of maaser has gone out over it!

For this is what the Torah said concerning the separation of terumat maaser: “And you shall raise from it [from the first tithe] a tithe from the tithe.” And it implies that from the time that the designation of maaser is applied to the produce [and it applies to it even if they separated it while it was still in ears of grain, before smoothing], the designation of tevel immediately applies to the tithe, since it is immediately obligated in giving terumat maaser.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: With regard to maaser rishon that

happened to be

advanced while it was still in ears of grain—

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 maaser alone,

I told you

to separate.

from maaser rishon.

And not

did I tell you to separate

both teruma gedola and terumat maaser—

from the

first tithe.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so,

since the verse taught you that from maaser rishon one takes only terumat maaser and not teruma gedola, then

even if they advanced it

as maaser rishon, to separate it before the separation of teruma gedola, when the produce was already situated

in the heap,

after smoothing—

also

let us say that they should not separate teruma gedola from it! And why did you say that he is exempt only if he advanced it while it was still in ears of grain?!

He said to him,

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

As for you,

in response to your question—that even if the produce was smoothed before he tithed it, we can learn from the verse that one should not separate teruma gedola from maaser rishon—

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 aspect of teruma that must be given from his tithes, including teruma gedola.

Rav Pappa said to him:

And what did you see

that you exclude from teruma gedola maaser rishon that they advanced while it was still in ears of grain, and include maaser rishon that was separated after smoothing in the heap, rather than the reverse?

Abaye said to him:

This one,

when they advanced it as maaser rishon before teruma gedola, after it had already become a heap—

had become grain,

the produce had already become grain, and since it had reached the status of “grain,” it is 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 ears of grain—the produce had still

not become grain,

the designation of grain had not yet applied to it, to obligate it in teruma gedola, which is called “the first of your grain.”

And now it is logical to say that the inclusion “from all your gifts” comes to teach concerning maaser rishon that they 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 tithed maaser rishon before he separated teruma gedola, this maaser rishon is obligated in teruma gedola, and it is not exempt from it through advancing the tithe.

But if the designation of grain had not yet applied to the produce, and it had not become obligated in teruma gedola, and he separated maaser rishon from it, it is logical that this tithe is exempt from teruma gedola, by virtue of the verse that excludes maaser rishon from teruma gedola.

And now the Gemara discusses the processes performed on produce, and compares the completion of the process that “establishes” the produce with regard to the law of tevel with the completion of the process for which one is liable on account of the labor of Shabbat:

We learned there in

tractate Ma'asrot [chapter 5, mishnah 4]:

One who husks

barley

from the ear in order to chew it raw, without cooking, and terumot and tithes have still not been separated from it, since its work has not been completed—

husks

them

one by one, and eats

them without tithing, because in this manner his eating is a casual eating, and he is exempt from the tithe.

But if he husked

several of the barley grains together,

and placed

them

into his hand—

he is

liable

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

And he may not eat any of them before tithing them, not even a casual eating.

Rabbi Elazar said: And likewise

with regard

to

the prohibition of work on

Shabbat:

If he husks the barley grains one by one, 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—

it

is the manner of the work of threshing, and he is liable for a sin-offering!

And we object:

Is this so? But Rav—

his wife would husk for him

on Shabbat

cup by cup,

she would fill cups for him with grains from ears that she had husked.

And

so too,

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

Text missing (Chavruta)

Rather, if it was stated

Rabbi Elazar’s words, “And likewise with regard to Shabbat”—

they were stated concerning the latter clause:

And this is the continuation of the Mishna in tractate Ma'asrot [there, mishnah 6]:

One who rubs ears of wheat—

winnows by hand little by little,

a small amount at a time,

and eats

a casual eating without tithing, because since he did not gather the husked wheat in his hand, but it remained in his hand after he rubbed it, this is not considered fixed eating, and by this it did not become “fixed” for the tithe.

And if he winnowed

the wheat that had been rubbed,

and placed

and gathered it while it was cleansed of the refuse of the ears [which fell along the way from his one hand to the other],

into

the lower fold of

his lap

his garment—then by this it became “fixed” for the tithe, and he may not eat from it even a casual eating; rather, he is

liable

to tithe it beforehand.

And only concerning this Mishna

did Rabbi Elazar say: And likewise with regard to

the matter of work on

Shabbat,

it is permitted to winnow little by little, and it is forbidden to winnow a great deal and gather it into the lower fold of his garment, because one who does this on Shabbat is liable on account of the work of “winnowing” or “sorting.”

Rabbi Abba bar Mamal 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—only

with regard

to

the matter of

tithing, yes,

he becomes liable by this to tithe, whereas

with regard

to liability for the work 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 a completion of the work!?

And is there such a thing,

how can one distinguish in this manner,

that with regard to Shabbat it is not

his act considered a

“completion of the work,”

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

And

if

with regard

to

tithing

it is

considered

such an act important enough as a

“completion of the work,”

and not merely an act of preparation for eating, and it obligates one to tithe!?

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

why

do we not

find such a distinction, concerning something that is not considered a form of improvement [“completion of the work”] with regard to the work of Shabbat, yet is considered completion of the work that obligates one to tithe!?

But

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

“their granary for tithing,”

which is a designation encompassing many works performed on grain, considered works [“completion of the work”] that fix the grain for tithing and obligate it in tithing, while, on the other hand, they are not considered works with regard to the desecration of Shabbat, but merely the improvement of food.

The obligation of the tithe for grain, fruit, or legumes takes effect only when they reach the stage of readiness called “completion of the work.”

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

There is likewise a stage of completion of the work for fruit and legumes, when, for some fruit, their “completion of the work” is through an act performed upon them, while for other fruit their completion of the work is factual, occurring by itself when the fruit reaches its final stage of readiness on its own.

All the ways in which fruit reaches the stage at which it becomes established as untithed produce, thereby obligating it in tithing, are included in the expression [borrowed from the completion of the work of grain] “granary for tithing.”

For we learned: What is their granary

of fruit, through whose making the fruit becomes fixed

for

liability for

tithing,

and from then on one may not eat from them even a casual eating?

Cucumbers and pumpkins—

their granary for tithing is

when they are pikas-ed.

When the pikas falls off by itself, or when they remove from it the “pikas” at its head, which resembles a flower. At this stage the cucumbers and pumpkins become completely ready for eating. This is an example of completion of the work that occurs by itself.

And

if the cucumbers and pumpkins

were not pikas-ed

by themselves—their completion of the work [“their granary that fixes them for tithing”] is through the completion of the person’s work,

when he makes a pile

of cucumbers or pumpkins, after gathering them.

And we also learned concerning onions

that their completion of the work is

when he makes a pile

of onions.

Whereas with regard to Shabbat—

making a pile

is not considered the completion of a stage in the work of improvement, and one is

exempt

for it.

Rather, what can you say

to explain why one is not liable for making a pile on Shabbat even though it is “work of improvement”? Because it is not important skilled work sufficient to make one liable for it, and only

“thoughtful work,”

which requires a little skill,

did the Torah forbid

on Shabbat.

Here too

when he peels several barley grains and places them into his hand, it may be said that this is an important stage that determines liability for tithes, like the completion of the work, and nevertheless he is not liable for this on Shabbat, because

“a planned labor the Torah prohibited”

whereas peeling barley is not an important skilled labor.

And now the Gemara explains the ruling of Rava above, that it is permitted to rub ears of grain on a Festival: how should he do this with a modification? For he certainly must modify it from the manner of rubbing on a weekday [when he rubs between the two palms of his hands], so that he will not be prohibited on account of performing “weekday activity.”

How does he rub?

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 modifies,

by changing the form of the rubbing from rubbing between the palms of the hands to rubbing with the fingers —

even one

thumb

against all

the fingers

also

is permitted .

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

And we raised the question:

How does he blow

what is the effective modification through which he will not be prohibited on account of “weekday activity” [is the modification that he does not blow with both hands sufficient, or is a modification in the act of blowing itself required]?

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

the chaff from

between the joints of his fingers and upward,

and not from within his palm.