Beitzah 14b — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

The entire first beraita is one matter. The tannait came to say that one does not pound tisanei, neither in a large mortar nor in a small one, and he gives a reason for the matter: one does not pound anything at all in a mortar.

And as for what we learned in the second beraita, that one pounds in a small mortar,

it is not difficult.

For:

This

the second beraita, which permitted pounding in a small one, is

for us,

it was taught for us, for the Babylonians, since we pound the wheat ourselves, and we will not come to pound in a large mortar.

And

if

this

the beraita that prohibits even in a small one, was stated

for them,

for the inhabitants of the Land of Israel, whose Jewish slaves pound for them, and they are contemptuous of the mitzvot, and they will pound in a large one and say that they did so in a small one , and therefore they prohibited them from pounding.

In general .

Rav Pappi happened to come to the house of Mar Shmuel

on a festival.

They brought him disa, and he did not eat

because he thought that they had pounded the wheat in a large mortar.

And we object:

Perhaps they made it in a small mortar?

And we answer:

He saw

that Rav Pappi discerned

that it was exceptionally fine,

for it was very fine, and it is impossible to make it thus except in a large mortar.

And we further object:

Perhaps they made it on the previous day?

And we answer:

He saw

Rav Pappi

that its surface was peeled and bright.

Its surface, its appearance, was white, and this is possible only with disa made from wheat that was pounded that day.

And if you wish, say: The house of Mar Shmuel is different,

for Rav Pappi was concerned that they had made it in a large mortar because

there is

in Shmuel’s house

licentiousness of slaves .

Mishna:

The labor of selecting was permitted by Torah law on a festival, since it is included among the labors of food preparation . And the Sages prohibited it only with things from which people are accustomed to select a great deal , or where it appears as though one is selecting for the needs of an ordinary weekday. And therefore they prohibited selecting with utensils designated for selecting a large quantity, or for the needs of a long time; but with some of these utensils they permitted selecting by means of a change, even things from which people select for a long time.

The Mishna and the passage below will explain the manners in which it is permitted to select, and the preferred form of selecting in each permitted manner.

One who selects legumes on a festival,

Beit Shammai say: He selects

the

food

from the waste, and he must not select the waste from the food.

And he eats

the food that he selected immediately,

because

if he leaves it for later, it is considered as though he is performing the labor of selecting for a storehouse, and not for eating. [And according to their opinion, the labor of selecting is prohibited on a festival.]

And Beit Hillel say: He sorts in his usual manner,

even waste from food, because in their view even the labor of sorting was permitted on a Festival for the sake of food preparation.

And therefore it is permitted to sort even by means of a sheet that he places

in his lap,

and shakes the sheet until the legumes roll downward and the waste remains above, or he sorts it

with a kanon,

which is a utensil made in the shape of a funnel, from which only the legumes come out, while the waste remains in it,

and with a tamhui,

which is a large bowl, having a slope and, in it, a depression in which the legumes gather.

But

the Sages said that

he shall not

sort legumes—even according to Beit Hillel—

on a tray, nor with a sieve, nor with a sifter,

because they are utensils designated for sorting for a long time.

Rabban Gamliel says: He may even

sort legumes by

washing them—

he pours water over them—

and draws out

the waste floating on the water.

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabban Gamliel said: In what case are these words stated

that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed whether on a Festival one takes the food or the waste, and Beit Hillel permitted taking even the waste?

When the food is greater than the waste,

and there is an advantage in taking the waste, in order to lessen the exertion on the Festival.

But

if the

waste was greater than the food,

so that there is more exertion in taking the waste than in taking the food—

according to everyone, he takes the food and leaves the waste.

The Gemara wondered:

“The waste is greater than the food”—

is there anyone who permits it

does anyone permit even moving it? For since the majority is waste, it is considered entirely waste, and it is muktzeh!

And we explain:

It is necessary [to state this],

what the beraita said—that if the waste is greater than the food, according to everyone he takes the food—speaks of a case

in which the waste is greater

the waste

in exertion, and is smaller

and is a minority

in measure.

The entire beraita speaks of a case in which the food is greater than the waste, but the law differs between ordinary waste, for which the exertion of removing the food is greater than the exertion of removing the waste—and therefore Beit Hillel said that he should remove the waste from the food, in order to exert himself less on the Festival—and fine waste, for which there is more exertion in removing it than in removing the food; in that case, according to everyone, he takes the food from the waste.

And the intention of the tanna in saying, “When the waste is greater, according to everyone he takes food from the waste,” is to say that when the exertion in removing the waste is greater, he should remove the food, in order to lessen the exertion.

We learned in our Mishna:

“Rabban Gamliel says: He may even wash and draw out.”

It was taught: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok said: This was

the practice of the household of Rabban Gamliel: they would bring a bucket full of lentils

mixed with refuse,

and pour water over it, and the food was found

sinking

downward, while

the

refuse

floated

upward,

and they would take it away, and the lentils would remain clean.

And we raise an objection:

but was it not taught the opposite,

that the refuse sinks and the food floats upward?

This is not difficult:

This—

the second beraita—deals

with

a situation in which the refuse is

earth—

and therefore it stated that the refuse sinks and the food floats upward; and is it possible? One may take the food and leave the refuse.

Whereas

this—

the first beraita—deals

with

refuse of

gili—

straw; and in this situation the refuse floats and the food sinks beneath it, and one must take the refuse and leave the food.

Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: One may not send

a gift from one person to his fellow

on a Festival except portions

that are prepared and fit to be eaten today, and are not intended to be eaten tomorrow, so that his exertion should be solely for the need of the Festival.

And Beit Hillel say: One may send cattle, wild animals, and birds, whether alive or slaughtered,

since his fellow can eat them today.

And likewise,

one may send wines, oils, fine flours, and legumes,

for these too are fit to make into food for this day.

But not

may one send

grain,

since it is forbidden to grind it today, despite the fact that the grinding is for the need of food—because one can grind it yesterday, and the taste of the flour will not deteriorate.

And Rabbi Shimon permits

sending a gift

of grain,

since one can pound it with a small mortar and cook a dish from it in a pot.

Gemara:

Rav Yehiel taught:

sending a gift on a Festival is subject to the condition

that one does not make it a procession.

He should not send it publicly, with a large gathering, walking one after another in a line, because the matter appears as though they are transporting it to sell in the marketplace.

It was taught: A procession is not fewer than three people.

Rav Ashi asked: Three men and three types of items—

Rav Ashi inquired: Three men and three kinds—

what is the law?

Are they considered, for purposes of the prohibition of publicizing it, a “procession,” as one group of three people, or as three separate people?

And we conclude:

teyku.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon permits grain.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon permits grain.

For example:

Wheat—

since one can

make from it

a food called

“Ludite”,

which does not require grinding, because it is made from whole, cooked wheat kernels.

Barley—

since one can

put

some of it

before his animal

to eat. [And the first tanna, who prohibited sending grain, maintains that most barley is intended for grinding for human use.]

Lentils—

since one can

make from them

a dish of whole lentils, called

“rasisin”.

Mishna:

One may send

a gift from one person to his fellow on a Festival

utensils,

clothing,

whether sewn or whether not sewn, and even though they contain shaatnez, and

provided that

they are needed for the festival.

And the Gemara will explain what constitutes the need of the festival with regard to all these garments.

But not

may one send

a nailed sandal,

made of wood and covered with leather,

nailed

on its underside with nails, because the Sages prohibited wearing it on a Festival.

And not

may one send

a shoe that is not sewn,

which is not fit to wear on a Festival.

Rabbi Judah says: Nor a white shoe,

which has not been dyed black,

because it requires a craftsman

to blacken it, and it is not customary to wear it while it is white.

This is the general rule: Anything

that

one enjoys,

that one uses

on it

on a Festival, one may send it.

Gemara:

And we raised it:

Granted

garments

stitched

are sent—for when

they are seen

they are fit

for clothing,

and are considered “a need of the Festival.”

Garments

that are not stitched as well

may properly be sent—for when

they are fit for covering .

Rather,

garments that have

shaatnez—for what are they fit ?

And what “need of the Festival” is there in them?

And if you should say: They are fit to lie

by folding them

beneath him

under him, and to sit upon them.

This is not correct. For:

And it was taught:

It is stated concerning the prohibition of wearing kilayim [Leviticus 19:19], “And a garment of kilayim, shaatnez,

shall not come upon you”—

but you may spread it beneath yourself,

for lying or sitting upon a kilayim garment was not prohibited by Torah law.

But the Sages said: It is forbidden to do so, lest a thread become wrapped around him

a thread from the kilayim garment

upon his flesh,

and it will be found that he derives benefit from wearing kilayim .

And if you should say

that it is fit to sit upon it in a case

where something

intervenes

a thing

in between,

between him and the kilayim garment, and then there is no concern that a thread from the kilayim will become wrapped around him.

This answer too is not correct. For:

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said:

Rabbi said in the name of the holy community in Jerusalem: Even ten coverings

of permitted fabric placed

one upon another, with kilayim beneath them—

the Sages decreed that it should be

forbidden to sleep upon them.

(Because it is stated, “It shall not

come upon you.”)

And it is proven that it is forbidden to sit upon shaatnez even with a garment of permitted material intervening.

Rather,

it must be said that our Mishna is speaking

of

sending

a curtain

that contains kilayim, which is not worn, but is spread over the doorway, and seemingly the prohibition of kilayim does not apply to it.

But this answer too is not correct, for it is forbidden to spread a kilayim curtain, because of the concern lest one wrap himself in it. For:

Ulla said: For what reason did they say that a curtain

is considered a “utensil” and becomes

impure

with the impurity of utensils [and is not considered part of the house, which does not contract impurity]—

because the attendant

is accustomed to wrap himself in the lower part of the curtain, and

warms himself against it,

and it is considered a “garment.” And since it is fit for warming oneself with it, it is also forbidden to make it shaatnez . And the question returns: why is it permitted to send a shaatnez garment on a Festival, when it is not fit for any use?