Beitzah 34b — the Talmud in English

b

The eve of Shabbat, in the

fifth

year of the Sabbatical cycle,

when it is not necessary to tithe from it,

and he says,

in order to designate:

“From here I shall eat tomorrow!”

The reason that such designation is effective, even though he does not designate specific dried figs, is because there is retroactive determination. For we say: the matter will become clear retroactively, that those dried figs which he will take and eat on Shabbat had originally been set aside for eating, and those are what he designated.

And the Sages say:

His designation is not a designation

until he marks

it with a sign and separates specific dried figs,

and says: “From here to here”

according to what he marked, I shall take tomorrow. And only those will he take, because the Sages hold that “there is no retroactive determination.”

Gemara:

A. Produce whose work has not yet been completed, such as grain that has not yet been smoothed into a pile, or figs that are standing to dry, is not tevel, and it is permitted to eat from it a temporary eating.

B. The Sages prohibited it as a fixed eating, but it is still permitted as a temporary eating, until it sees the face of the house or the courtyard.

C. Once it entered through the entrance into the house or courtyard, it was established to be prohibited as tevel by Torah law, and it was then prohibited even as a temporary eating.

D. In addition to “seeing the house,” which establishes the produce as tevel by Torah law, there are six other things that establish produce as rabbinic tevel.

One of the six things that establish it as rabbinic tevel is Shabbat.

Since the eating of Shabbat is considered a “fixed eating,” and this matter is learned from the verse, “And you shall call Shabbat a delight,” as will be explained in the Gemara, even if he merely intended the produce for preparation as Shabbat food, it is established as tevel and as subject to the obligation of tithing.

[And later in the discussion it will be explained that even the separation of teruma from the produce establishes it with regard to the other separations; likewise, dipping the food in salt, or making a sale involving it—all these establish it for tithing.]

Therefore, even if the produce did not see the face of the house, but he prepared it for eating on Shabbat [or separated teruma from it, or dipped it in salt, or made a sale involving it], it is forbidden to eat until he separates terumot and tithes from it.

E. Our discussion examines whether Shabbat is effective in establishing produce and prohibiting it as a temporary eating even before its work has been completed, or only once its work has been completed [and later in the discussion the law of the other establishing factors will be explained: whether they establish produce before its work has been completed].

We learned there

in tractate Maaserot that Shabbat is one of the things that establish produce for tithing:

Children who hid

in the field or garden

figs

whose work had been completed but which had not yet been established for tithing, because they had not been brought into a house or courtyard, and the children hid the figs

on the eve of Shabbat

in order to eat them on Shabbat,

and forgot and did not tithe

from them, and did not eat from them on Shabbat because they had been established for tithing. Behold—

At the conclusion of Shabbat,

when they come to eat from them [for on Shabbat they cannot tithe],

they may not eat

from them even a temporary eating

unless they have tithed

from them, even though they did not see the face of the house, and even though they were not eaten on Shabbat.

Since these fruits were hidden for eating on Shabbat, which is an important fixed eating, they were completely established for tithing, and one may not eat them even on weekdays, even a temporary eating!

We have therefore learned that Shabbat establishes produce for tithing.

And we also learned

in tractate Maaserot: Although the house and the courtyard establish produce for tithing, this is only after the completion of the work.

Therefore,

one who transfers,

one who spreads out

figs in his courtyard

in order

to make kציעות

from them [to dry them in order to make kציעות from them], even though they have already entered through the entrance of the courtyard [which establishes produce for tithing], nevertheless

his sons and the members of his household

eat from them

a

temporary eating, and are exempt

from tithing.

For since the work of these fruits has not yet been completed, “seeing the entrance of the courtyard” does not establish them for tithing.

We have therefore learned that the establishment by the courtyard is not effective with regard to something whose work has not been completed.

And

Rava asked Rav Naḥman: Shabbat—

what is the law: does it establish

the

“muktzeh”

for tithing?

And this means

with regard to something that

has

not yet had its work completed,

such as figs standing to dry, and Shabbat arrived?

The sides of the question are:

Do we say: Since it is written, “And you shall call Shabbat a delight”,

and the eating of Shabbat is called “delight,” so that it no longer has the status of a temporary eating but the status of a fixed eating, then

it established

the produce for tithing,

even with regard to something whose work has not been completed.

Or perhaps:

Only

with regard to something whose work has been completed did it establish

Shabbat for tithing, but

with regard to something whose work has not been completed—

it did not establish it!

He said to him

Rav Naḥman to Rava:

Shabbat establishes

for tithing

both something whose work has been completed and something whose work has not been completed.

Rava said to him,

Rava to Rav Naḥman:

But say: Shabbat

establishes produce for tithing

analogously to

the establishment of the

courtyard—

just as a courtyard establishes only something whose work has been completed, so too Shabbat should establish only something whose work has been completed?!

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman to Rava:

It is an established teaching

[a received tradition]

in our possession, that Shabbat establishes both something whose work has been completed and something whose work has not been completed.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: We too have learned

this in our Mishna:

For we learned:

And Rabbi Eliezer further said: A person may stand over muktzeh

[which is something whose work has ordinarily not yet been completed]

on the eve of Shabbat, in the

fifth

year of the Sabbatical cycle,

and say: “From here I shall take tomorrow.”

This implies:

The reason is that

this year

was the Sabbatical year,

and therefore it is possible for them to be permitted to eat without tithing, since

the

muktzeh during the Sabbatical year

is not subject to tithing.

But in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle,

when the fruits are obligated in tithing,

it is likewise forbidden

to eat them until they have been tithed. And necessarily,

what is the reason

that he cannot eat them in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle as a temporary eating, despite the fact that their work has not been completed? Is it

not because Shabbat established them!

You have therefore learned that Shabbat establishes even something whose work has not been completed.

And we reject this:

No,

one cannot prove from here that Shabbat establishes something whose work has not been completed.

Rather,

that case is different

in our Mishna, where he cannot eat the fruits as a temporary eating in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle for another reason:

since he said, “From here I shall ‘eat’ tomorrow,”

and called it “eating,”

he established it for himself,

his entire eating of these fruits being important to him as a fixed eating; therefore it is forbidden to eat it even though its work has not been completed. Shabbat does not “establish” the fruits for tithing; rather, he himself established the eating of these fruits for himself as a fixed eating. Therefore, the permission with regard to fruits that were not tithed is found only when the year was a Sabbatical year.

And we ask:

If so,

that the reason the fruits are forbidden in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle is his speech, by which he made his eating a fixed eating—

Why specifically

does the tanna teach us this novel law on

Shabbat,

when

even on an ordinary weekday

he could have taught us that his speech establishes his eating for himself as a fixed eating?!

The tanna should have taught us this novel law on an ordinary weekday, in its place in the Order of Seeds. And the principal novelty of Rabbi Eliezer in our Mishna, concerning designation, need not have been taught with fruits subject to tithing and in a case where it was the Sabbatical year, but with fledglings, as in the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning preparation of fledglings, in accordance with the principle of retroactive determination, above, 10a.

And we answer:

This teaches us

the tanna of our Mishna, and he introduced a great novelty by teaching the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages with fruits of this kind rather than with fledglings:

that tevel—

is prepared with regard to Shabbat!

This is because

if a person transgressed

the prohibition against separating terumot and tithes on Shabbat

and rectified

the tevel by separating a tithe from it, it is

rectified.

The tanna teaches us that if a person transgressed the rabbinic prohibition and lifted terumot and tithes from them on Shabbat, the fruits are permitted and are no longer muktzeh, even though during twilight they had been forbidden because of the prohibition of tevel and were then “muktzeh because of a prohibition.” We do not say, “Since they were set aside during twilight, they were set aside for the entire day”; rather, they are considered “prepared” from before Shabbat for eating, on the possibility that they would rectify them on Shabbat [even though this rectification depends upon transgressing a rabbinic prohibition]!

The reason for this is that food in itself is something prepared for eating, and only if a prohibition from the Torah takes effect upon it does it nullify its “preparedness”; but not the prohibition against lifting terumot and tithes on Shabbat, which is only rabbinic.