Beitzah 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Taḥlifa, the brother of Ravina the Khuzite, taught:

A person should not make excessive expenditures, since

all

of a person's earnings for

a person's food are allotted to him

from the beginning of the year, during the Days of Judgment,

from Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur.

They do not add to what was allotted to him for his food, and he will consequently lack money for his food.

Except for expenditures for Shabbat and expenditures for Yom Tov, and expenditures for his sons' Torah study,

for which he may spend generously, because these expenses were not allotted to him at all for that year. Rather, the amount he usually spends for them is what Heaven provides him.

If he reduces—

they reduce his allotment; and if he increases—

they increase his allotment.

Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse

from which it may be learned that a person's earnings for his food are allotted to him at the beginning of the year?—

[Psalms 81]

“Sound the shofar at the new moon

[at the renewal of the moon], the sounding of the

shofar,

when the renewal of the moon is

covered

[hidden]—

for the day of our festival.”

Which is the festival on which the new moon

whose renewal

“is covered,”

so that throughout the day of Rosh Hashanah the moon is not visible throughout the world, but only in a small portion of it, since it is “covered” from the eyes of most of the world during the hours before and after the conjunction?

You must say that this is Rosh Hashanah.

For during the other festivals, when the moon is full, it is visible throughout the world.

And it is written

later in the verse

“For

on that festival, Rosh Hashanah—

a statute

[the allotment of food]

for Israel it is;

a judgment for the God of Jacob.”

And the Gemara explains:

What

is the source from which it is

understood that this “statute”

is an expression referring to food?

As it is written

[Genesis 47], concerning Pharaoh's priests:

“And they ate their allotted portion that Pharaoh gave them.”

Mar Zutra said: From here:

[Proverbs 30]

“Feed me my allotted bread.”

And now the Gemara brings several matters concerning the food of Shabbat.

It was taught in a baraita: They said about Shammai the Elder: All his days he ate for the honor of Shabbat:

If

he found a choice animal,

he

would say: This is for Shabbat.

And if afterward

he found another one more choice than it, he

would set the second one aside

for Shabbat

and eat the first one

on a weekday. Consequently, even eating the first one was for the honor of Shabbat, since it was precisely because he ate it first that he left the second one for Shabbat.

But Hillel the Elder had a different approach. For all

his deeds

were

for the sake of Heaven.

He would eat the first animal on a weekday before finding a second, more choice animal, trusting that he would find a choice animal also for Shabbat.

As it is stated

[Psalms 68]:

“Blessed is the Lord—

day by day.”

It was taught likewise: Beit Shammai say: From the first day of your week,

beginning on the first day of the week, prepare your needs

for your Shabbatot,

for the coming Shabbat.

And Beit Hillel say:

There is no need. Rather,

“Blessed is the Lord day by day.”

Another matter concerning Shabbat:

Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: One who gives a gift to his fellow—

need not inform him

that he gave it to him, so that the recipient will not wonder where this item came from.

As it is stated

[Exodus 34]:

“And Moses did not know that the skin of his face had become radiant.”

The Gemara raises an objection

from what we learned in a baraita: It was taught:

“To know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses! I have a precious gift in My treasury, and Shabbat is its name, and I wish to give it to Israel. Go and inform them.

From here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives bread to a child

must inform his mother,

by means of a sign, as will be explained below, that he gave him bread as a gift, so that affection and friendship will increase among Israel.

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

This statement is referring to a gift that is destined to be revealed,

which is likely to become known to the recipient; one need not inform him. Therefore, God did not inform Moses that the skin of his face had become radiant, since those who saw the radiance would inform him.

That statement is referring to a gift that is not destined to be revealed,

in which case the giver must inform the recipient.

And we challenge this:

Shabbat as well—

it is

a gift destined to be revealed,

since the Holy One, blessed be He, was destined to command the Children of Israel to observe it!

And we answer:

The reward

for observing Shabbat

was not destined to be revealed.

The Master said

in the baraita:

From here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives bread to a child must inform his mother.

What should he do

what should he do

to him,

the child, so that his mother will know that he gave him bread?

He should rub oil on him,

rubbing him with oil,

and fill him

and fill the area around his eyes with

kohl

[blue eye makeup]. His mother will then ask him who did this, and the child will tell her who did it, as well as telling her about the bread he was given.

But nowadays,

and now,

when we are concerned about sorcery

in rubbing him with oil and filling the area around his eyes with kohl—

what

should one do to him?

Rav Pappa said: He should rub him

rubbing him

with some of the same substance

that he fed him, and thus his mother will know what he fed him.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Every mitzva that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel, He gave it to them

as

a public matter,

except for

the mitzva of

Shabbat, which He gave them

as

a private matter.

As it is stated

concerning the mitzva of Shabbat [Exodus 31]:

“Between Me and the Children of Israel—

it is an everlasting sign.”

And we challenge this:

If so,

since it was given to us privately,

why will the gentiles not be punished

in the future

for it,

for not accepting it? For in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will judge the nations for refusing to accept the Torah when He offered it to them before the giving of the Torah at Sinai.

And if Shabbat was given privately, they did not know of it and did not refuse to accept it; therefore, they should not be punished for refraining from accepting it!?

And we answer: The mitzva of

Shabbat

was indeed

made known to them,

and only

its reward was not made known to them.

And if you wish, say instead: Its reward too was made known to them

to all the nations.

Rather, it was the matter of the

“additional soul”

that is given to a person on Shabbat, granting him an expansiveness of heart for rest and joy, so that he eats and drinks much without becoming disgusted by eating and drinking [Rashi]—this

was not made known to them.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The Holy One, blessed be He, gives a person an additional soul on the eve of Shabbat, and at the conclusion of Shabbat they take it from him.

As it is stated

[Exodus 31]:

“Shabbat—

and he was restored.”

And we expound:

Once Shabbat

has passed, with a person's cessation from labor on it having ended—

woe,

woe to the person because

a soul

that had been given to him has been lost!

We learned in the Mishna concerning the eruv tavshilin:

A person prepares a cooked dish on the eve of Yom Tov.

Abaye said: They taught

that a person makes an eruv tavshilin

only

when he prepares

a cooked dish. But

when he makes the eruv with

bread—

it is not

an eruv.

The Gemara considers this:

What is different about bread, that one may not

make the eruv with it?

If you say

that it is because

we require something that “serves as a relish,”

something eaten together with bread as a relish,

we require

for the eruv, since only in this way is it evident that it was prepared for the Shabbat meal,

and

if

bread does not “serve as a relish,”

since it is not a relish and preparing it does not demonstrate that it is for the Shabbat meal, as a person eats bread at his meal every day.

It is impossible to say that this is the reason.

For

porridge

[a dish made from crushed wheat or barley]

also

is something

that does not “serve as a relish,”

since it is not considered an important relish, but rather is considered like bread itself.

The proof is

that Rabbi Zeira said: These Babylonians

are

fools,

because

they eat bread with bread

[bread with porridge].

Thus, porridge too is considered like bread, since it is made from crushed wheat and barley.

And

nevertheless,

Rav Naḥumi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may make an eruv with porridge!

Rather,

this is the distinction between bread and a cooked dish with regard to the eruv:

For an eruv tavshilin,

we require something uncommon,

something that is not commonly prepared,

we require.

But bread is common, and

if

porridge is uncommon.

There are those who state:

Abaye said: They taught only that one may use a cooked dish, but

with

bread—

one may not

make an eruv.

The Gemara considers this:

What is the reason?

If you say that we require something uncommon, and bread is common.

But porridge is uncommon, and

nevertheless

Rav Naḥumi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may not make an eruv with porridge!

[This is the opposite of the first formulation, which maintains that one may make an eruv with porridge.]

Rather, we require something that serves as a relish, and bread does not serve as a relish.

But porridge also does not serve as a relish!

For Rabbi Zeira said: These Babylonians are fools, because they eat bread with bread.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Lentils that

remain

at the bottom of the

pot,

are

considered significant, and a person may

rely on them for an eruv tavshilin.

And this applies only when they contain an olive-bulk.

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: Fat clinging to a knife—

he scrapes it off

from the knife,

and relies on it

on the fat he scraped off,

for an eruv tavshilin.

And this applies only when

it contains an olive-bulk.

Rav Asi said that Rav said: Small salted fish,

which can be eaten because they have been salted even if they are not cooked,

are not subject to

the prohibition against eating

“food cooked by gentiles.”

This is because the Sages enacted the prohibition against food cooked by a gentile only with regard to significant cooking, where the food could not be eaten without the cooking.

Rav Yosef said: And if a gentile roasted them—

a Jew may rely on them

when cooking from Yom Tov for Shabbat, when he sets them down

as an eruv tavshilin.

And if a gentile prepared from them

the small fish a dish called

“kasa de-harsena,”

fish fried in fish entrail fat and flour—this is significant cooking, since flour cannot be eaten as it is, and

it is forbidden

to eat this dish.

And we challenge this:

Obviously!

For flour cannot be eaten raw.