Beitzah 33b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said:

the one who prepares

fodder for animals,

such as one who breaks off straw and reed leaves [which are fodder for animals] in order to clean his teeth with them—for with other wood, this is considered preparation of a utensil—

there is no משום preparation of a utensil in them,

because anything fit for animal consumption does not have the status of a utensil [Mishna Berura].

Rav Kahana raised an objection to Rav Yehuda

from that which was taught in a beraita:

one may move fragrant branches

in order

to smell them,

and in order

to fan with them

cool air

for a sick person.

And he rubs it

the branch of a fragrant tree between his fingers in order to release its scent,

and smells it.

But he may not break it off,

he may not cut it so that the place of the break will be moist and its scent will spread,

in order to smell it,

as a decree lest he break it off in order to clean his teeth with it, for this act is forbidden by Torah law because he makes it into a utensil.

And if he broke it off

in order to smell it, he is

exempt,

since by Torah law it is not forbidden,

but it is forbidden

to do so by rabbinic law.

But in order

to clean his teeth with it—

he may not break it off.

he may not cut it.

And if he broke it off

on Shabbat in order to clean his teeth with it, he is

liable for a sin-offering,

because he makes it into a utensil.

And this is a difficulty for Rav Yehuda, for the beraita is speaking of fragrant branches, some of which are considered fodder for animals, and nevertheless one is liable for preparing them?!

He said to him

Rav Yehuda to Rav Kahana:

Now,

even if you had found a beraita in which it was written only: “One who breaks off fragrant branches in order to clean his teeth with it is

exempt but it is forbidden”—

exempt but it is prohibited”—

it would be difficult to me!

This beraita would be a refutation of my words, for I permit it ab initio.

Now that you have found a beraita written against me even more than this, that he is

liable

even for a

sin-offering—

and is it

necessary

to say that there is a refutation in it of my words?!

Rather,

but I can explain that it is not a refutation of me at all!

For when that was taught,

the beraita that you brought, which says that one who breaks off fragrant branches is liable for a sin-offering—

with

fragrant branches

that are hard

it is speaking, which are not fit for animal consumption. Whereas I permitted breaking off thin reed leaves or straw, which are soft and fit for animal consumption.

And we raise a difficulty: How did Rav Yehuda establish the beraita, which speaks of rubbing fragrant branches, as referring to hard branches?

But are

hard

branches fit for rubbing?!

After all, they would crumble through rubbing [Meiri]?!

And inevitably, the subject of the beraita is soft branches, which are fit for rubbing and are suitable for animal consumption, and the difficulty returns to Rav Yehuda: Why is one liable for a sin-offering for breaking them off?!

And we answer: The beraita

is incomplete, and this is what it teaches

in it:

He rubs it and smells it.

And even

he breaks it off and smells it,

or cleans his teeth with it.

When are these words said,

that it is permitted to break it off?

With

branches

that are soft,

since they are fodder for animals.

But with

branches

that are hard,

which are not fit for animals—

he may not break it off

in order to smell it;

and if he broke it off, he is exempt but it is forbidden.

But

to clean his teeth with it—

he may not break it off,

since hard wood is not animal fodder.

And if he broke it off—

he is liable for a sin-offering.

The Gemara brings a contradiction between two beraitot and reconciles them according to the distinction that the Gemara stated:

One beraita teaches

a beraita:

He breaks it off and smells it.

And another teaches

a beraita:

He may not break it off in order to smell it,

as a decree lest he break it off in order to clean his teeth with it.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Hisda: It is not difficult—

This

that we say, “He breaks it off and smells it”—

with

fragrant branches

that are soft,

which are fit for animal consumption, and fodder for animals does not involve preparation of a utensil.

This

that we say, “He may not break it off”—

with

fragrant branches

that are hard,

which are not fit for animal consumption.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov challenged this:

With

branches

that are hard —

why may he not

break it off in order to smell it? Do we decree against one who breaks it off without intending for the purpose of making a utensil, because of one who breaks it off with the intention of preparing a utensil?!

And

how is this different from that which we learned: A person may break

on Shabbat

the barrel,

with a knife or a sword, in order

to eat from it [from

the barrel]

dried figs

that are in the barrel, since there is no Shabbat prohibition in such destructive action [Rashi, Shabbat].

Provided that he does not intend

in his action

to make a utensil,

that he does not intend to pierce it properly with a pleasing opening [Rashi, Shabbat], for that is preparation of a utensil.

We have therefore learned from here that if his intention is not to make a utensil, the Sages did not decree against it because of one who intends to do so?!

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty concerning our having forbidden breaking it off in order to smell:

Rava bar Rav Adda and Ravin bar Rav Adda both said:

When we were in the house of Rav Yehuda

[when we were in Rav Yehuda’s house]

he would break off for us, and give us one branch after another,

[he would tear branches from a detached tree and give us one branch at a time] in order to smell it [Tosafot], and

although it was fit

these branches

to make handles

[to make handles, handgrips]

for axes and hatchets,

for the branches were fit to be handles for adzes and axes.

It follows that they did not decree to forbid breaking off a branch in order to smell it because of breaking it off in order to make a utensil from it.

And we answer:

It is not difficult

from that of Rav Yehuda:

For

this

that we forbid breaking off for smelling because of breaking off to clean one’s teeth with it—

it is Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds in the following beraita that breaking off for the purpose of making a utensil is considered preparation by Torah law.

Whereas

this

of Rav Yehuda is according to

the Rabbis,

who hold in this beraita that breaking off is not considered preparation of a utensil by Torah law, because it is an indirect preparation, and therefore they did not decree concerning breaking off for smelling.

For it was taught:

As it was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may take a splinter from

wood

that is before him

in order

to clean his teeth with it.

And the Sages say: He may take only from an animal’s trough,

for wood was designated only for kindling, except for something fit for human or animal consumption, which is prepared for every need.

And they agree,

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages,

that he may not break it off

from the splinter that he took from before him, because he is preparing a utensil [but if he took it from an animal’s trough, it is not forbidden to break it off, for it is fodder for animals, Shitah Mekubetzet].

And if he broke it off

in order

to clean his teeth with it, and

in order

to open the door

[for example, he breaks it off in order to insert it between two doors to open the door with it, Meiri], if he did so:

Unintentionally on Shabbat—

he is liable for a sin-offering.

Intentionally on a Festival—

he receives forty lashes, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: Both this one

Shabbat

and that one

the Festival

is not

forbidden by Torah law to break it off,

but only because of shevut,

for it is indirect preparation and not proper preparation, unless he cuts it and smooths it with a knife.

The Gemara explains the answer accordingly:

According to

Rabbi Eliezer, who says there

that if he breaks it off to clean his teeth with it, he is

liable for a sin-offering,

since it is forbidden by Torah law—

here,

when he breaks it off in order to smell it, he is

exempt but it is forbidden,

as a decree on account of breaking it off to clean his teeth with it; and this is the earlier beraita.

Whereas according to

the Rabbis, who say there

that if he breaks it off to clean his teeth with it, he is

exempt but it is forbidden—

here,

when he breaks it off in order to smell it, it is

permitted ab initio.

And even breaking off a branch in order to smell it is permitted according to the Rabbis, because even if he breaks it off in order to make handles from it, according to the Sages he is exempt but it is forbidden; and this is the ruling of Rav Yehuda.

The second difficulty above is thus resolved. Whereas the first difficulty, from the Mishna concerning breaking a barrel, will be resolved by the Gemara’s answer to the following difficulty.

The Gemara wonders about Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling in the beraita:

And

if

Rabbi Eliezer does not hold

that one decrees against making a utensil unintentionally on account of making a utensil intentionally—

that which we learned: A person may break the barrel to eat dried figs from it, provided that he does not intend to make a utensil.

It follows that we do not decree, as we challenged above?!

Rav Ashi said: For when that was taught

the Mishna permitting one to break the barrel, it was

in the case of a mustaki,

a defective barrel that they joined with tree resin called “mustaki”; and since it is defective, we do not decree concerning it lest he intend to make a utensil, because he will take care lest the barrel become damaged, and he makes at least a hole through which he can [Tosafot in understanding Rashi].

We learned in the Mishna:

And he gathers from the courtyard

and kindles it, for everything in the courtyard is prepared:

The Sages taught: He gathers from the courtyard and kindles it, for everything in the courtyard is prepared.

Provided that he does not make piles upon piles,

and the reason is explained in the Gemara below.

And Rabbi Shimon permits

even making it into piles upon piles.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

Over what do they disagree?

One

the first tanna

holds:

when he makes it into piles upon piles,

it appears that he is gathering it for tomorrow and for the following day

[it appears that he is gathering it for the needs of tomorrow and the following day], and therefore it is forbidden.

And the other

Rabbi Shimon

holds:

there is no concern that the observer will say that he is gathering it for tomorrow, because

his pot demonstrates it,

it is evident to all that he is gathering it for the pot and for the needs of the Festival.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not produce fire

from wood

etc.:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because he is “creating” [new fire] on the Festival.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may not whiten tiles

in order to roast with them:

And we raise a difficulty: But

what does he do,

what prohibition is there in the matter?!