Beitzah 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

Yet there is still room to question: How can you say that designation takes effect through speech

when, in fact, what remains

is returned?!

For even if he took a large quantity of untithed produce and placed it before himself, so that it appeared that he intended to eat a fixed meal, he would still not be obligated in tithes! Since

we have heard Rabbi Eliezer say: Whenever what remains is returned

to its place [anything that he can return after eating what he needs to the place from which he took it]—

it does not acquire designation

through his taking it, because untithed produce does not acquire designation for tithes through such a taking, when he can return it to the place from which he took it.

And all the more so in the case of speech alone, when he says that he will take it but does not take it, rather leaving it in its place, it should not acquire designation [Rashi and the Meiri]?!

And as

we learned

in tractate Ma'asrot [4:3]:

One who takes olives

of untithed produce

from the vat [a large vessel in which the olives are gathered before they are pressed in the olive press, so that they warm and their oil ripens inside them, making them easier to press].

[bolshoi sosud, v kotorom olivki nakaplivayut do ikh otzhima v masloboine, chtoby oni nagrelis i ikh maslo sozrelo vnutri, blagodarya chemu ikh bylo by legche otzhat].

He may

dip

the olives

“one by one” in salt and eat them

immediately, and he need not tithe them.

Although salting food is one of the actions that cause produce to acquire designation for tithes, here, since he eats them one by one immediately, they do not acquire designation.

But if he dipped

them in salt

and placed ten

olives before himself, he is

liable

for tithes, because the salt causes them to acquire designation.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

If he took the olives

from the vat

that was

pure

while he himself was impure [as explained below], he is

liable

for tithes.

But if he took them

from the vat

that was

impure,

he is

exempt

from tithes

because he returns

[he is fit to return]

what remains

of the olives after he eats his portion, as will be explained.

And we raised the following difficulty

concerning this Mishna:

What is the difference between the first clause

which says that if he took them from a pure vat he is liable for tithes, and we do not say, “what remains is returned,”

and what is the difference between the latter clause

which says that he is exempt from tithes because “what remains is returned”?

And Rabbi Abbahu said

to explain the Mishna:

The first clause

deals

with a pure vat, and

if the

man

who took the olives was

impure

[for ordinarily people are impure, Meiri]. Therefore he is exempt, since

he cannot return it

[he cannot return what remains], because if he returned it, the olives rendered impure through his contact would become mixed with the pure olives, and their oil would be ruined.

The latter clause

deals

with an impure vat, and

the

man was also impure,

so he can return it

[he can return the olives that remain in his hand].

In any event, we have learned that according to Rabbi Eliezer, whenever what remains can be returned, the produce does not acquire designation for tithes—and all the more so through mere speech. How, then, will you explain our Mishna, which indicates that speech causes designation according to Rabbi Eliezer?!

And we answer:

Our Mishna

also

indeed

deals

with a pure designated area and an impure man, who cannot return it.

And we object:

But

in our Mishna, where he did not take anything at all and merely said that he would eat them,

they are “already returned and standing”!?

For there is no greater act of returning than this: he did not take them in the first place. If so, surely, according to Rabbi Eliezer, his speech cannot cause designation?!

By force of this objection, the explanation that we offered is rejected: namely, that during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle the produce acquires designation through his speech. Necessarily, it acquired designation because of Shabbat.

The support from our Mishna therefore returns to the statement of Rav Naḥman, who says: Shabbat causes produce to acquire designation even when its work has not yet been completed.

Rather, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said

another rejection of the attempt to support Rav Naḥman from our Mishna:

Are you speaking of Rabbi Eliezer?!

Are you seeking to prove Rav Naḥman’s position from the words of Rabbi Eliezer?!

That is not so, for

Rabbi Eliezer follows his own reasoning, as he says: Teruma causes designation

even when the work on the produce has not yet been completed. As will be shown in the Mishna that the Gemara now cites, this means: If a person separated teruma from produce whose work was not yet completed, the remainder becomes designated and is forbidden even as an irregular meal until he separates the other tithes from it.

And all the more so Shabbat,

whose eating is an important form of eating and therefore causes designation even when the work on the produce has not yet been completed.

But according to the Sages, who maintain that teruma does not cause designation when the work on the produce has not yet been completed, we have still not learned Rav Naḥman’s position—that Shabbat causes designation even in such a case.

And where do Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagree on this matter?

As we learned

in tractate Ma'asrot [2:4]:

Produce from which teruma was separated before

[even before]

its work was completed:

Rabbi Eliezer prohibits eating a casual meal from it,

until he separates the rest of its tithes.

But the Sages permit it,

because they maintain that teruma does not cause designation when the work on the produce has not yet been completed.

Come and hear

support for Rav Naḥman’s statement, that Shabbat causes designation for tithes even when the work has not yet been completed,

from the latter clause

of our Mishna, which is the statement of the Sages, following the same line by which we sought to prove it from our Mishna according to Rabbi Eliezer:

For we learned in the latter clause: A person may stand beside the designated area on the eve of Shabbat during the Sabbatical year.

And the Sages say:

On the eve of Shabbat of the seventh year, he may not take from the designated area

until he marks it and says, “From here to here”

I will take. But after he marks the figs that he wishes to take, he may eat them on Shabbat even without tithing them.

And we should infer:

The reason

that he may mark the figs and that this alone suffices, without having to tithe them as a result of designating them for eating on Shabbat [despite the fact that eating on Shabbat is an important form of eating that causes designation for tithes], is

that it is the eve of the

year of

the seventh

year,

when it is not subject to tithing,

as tithing is not required during the Sabbatical year.

But during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, when

the figs

are subject to tithing—they are

forbidden

to eat before tithes are separated.

What is the reason?

Is it

not because Shabbat causes designation?!

That is, the Mishna proves, according to Rabbi Eliezer, that during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle the produce was forbidden because Shabbat caused designation, and the Sages disagreed with him only concerning the law of retroactive clarification, not concerning this law [Rishonim].

You have therefore learned that even according to the Sages, Shabbat causes produce in the designated area to acquire designation, despite the fact that its work has not yet been completed.

And we reject this:

No;

it is not Shabbat that causes designation when the work on the produce has not yet been completed.

Rather,

that case is different,

because the reason that it is permitted to eat the produce during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle is

that he said, “From here to here I will eat tomorrow,”

and he caused it to acquire designation

through his speech. And we challenge this as we challenged it above:

If so, why specifically

does speech cause designation on

Shabbat? It should do so on weekdays as well?!

Let the tanna teach us that speech causes designation [according to the Sages] on weekdays, in the order of Zeraim, whereas their dispute concerning designation should be taught in the context of doves?!

And we answer:

This is what the tanna teaches us

by recording their dispute with regard to produce:

Untithed produce

during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle

is prepared with regard to Shabbat, for if one transgressed and rectified it, it is rectified,

and it is permitted to eat; its prohibition during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle is only because it has not yet been rectified.

And we raise a contradiction

between one statement of Rabbi Eliezer and another statement of Rabbi Eliezer concerning Shabbat’s causing designation when the work on the produce has not yet been completed:

For Rabbi Eliezer’s statement in our Mishna provides proof that Shabbat causes designation even when the work on the produce has not yet been completed!

For according to him, our Mishna cannot be explained as saying that during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle the produce acquired designation because of his speech [as we answered concerning the Sages], since they were “already returned and standing” and therefore constituted a case in which “what remains is returned.” According to Rabbi Eliezer, that does not cause designation, as explained above. Rather, according to him, only Shabbat can cause designation.

Yet another Mishna indicates that according to him Shabbat does not cause designation when the work on the produce has not yet been completed:

As we learned in tractate Terumot [8:3]:

If he was eating a cluster

of grapes [and ordinarily the work on a cluster has not yet been completed, since grapes are generally intended for pressing into wine, so that they have not yet acquired designation for tithes], and

he entered

with the cluster

from the roof into the courtyard,

which causes designation for tithes after the completion of the work:

Rabbi Eliezer says: He may finish

the cluster even before tithing it, since the courtyard into which he entered does not cause designation when the work on the produce has not yet been completed [Rashi].

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He may not finish,

because according to Rabbi Yehoshua, entering the courtyard causes designation even when the work on the produce has not yet been completed.

And similarly, if he was eating a cluster on the eve of Shabbat and

it became dark on the night of Shabbat:

Rabbi Eliezer says: He may finish,

because Shabbat does not cause designation when the work on the produce has not yet been completed.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He may not finish,

because Shabbat causes it to acquire designation even though its work has not yet been completed.

We have thus learned according to Rabbi Eliezer that Shabbat does not cause designation when the work on the produce has not yet been completed, whereas our Mishna clearly proves according to Rabbi Eliezer that Shabbat does cause designation even when the work has not yet been completed?!

And we answer:

There,

in tractate Terumot,

the reason is as it is taught.

The Mishna in tractate Terumot is not to be understood according to its plain meaning—as though Rabbi Eliezer says that he may finish because the produce has not yet acquired designation—but as Rabbi Natan explained it:

Rabbi Natan says: No,

that was not Rabbi Eliezer’s intent

when Rabbi Eliezer said

in the Mishna in Terumot that if he entered the courtyard,

“he may finish”

—that

he may finish in the courtyard.

Rather,

his intent was to say that he must be

outside the courtyard—

and

there

he may finish

eating the cluster!

And when

Rabbi Eliezer said that if it became dark on the night of Shabbat,

he may finish,

his intent was not that

he may finish on Shabbat,

because eating on Shabbat is a fixed meal and is forbidden even in the case of produce whose work has not yet been completed.

Rather, he waits

before continuing his eating

until the conclusion of Shabbat,

and

only then

may he finish.

At that point it is not Shabbat eating, nor was it designated for Shabbat eating in a manner that would cause it to acquire designation; therefore, at the conclusion of Shabbat he may eat it.

According to Rabbi Natan’s explanation, there is no contradiction to Rabbi Eliezer’s statement in our Mishna that Shabbat causes designation even when the work on the produce has not yet been completed.

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said

contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who maintains that Shabbat causes designation even when the work on the produce has not yet been completed. Rather:

Whether Shabbat, whether teruma, whether a courtyard, or whether

a purchase [a purchase too is among the factors that cause designation for tithes]—they

[pokupka takzhe yavlyaetsya odnim iz faktorov, opredelyayushchikh plody dlya desyatiny] —

all cause no designation

for tithes

unless the work on the produce has been completed.

And we explain: The

Shabbat

mentioned by Rabbi Yoḥanan, which causes designation only when the work on the produce has been completed, is

excluding

Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position

from that of Hillel,

who maintains that Shabbat causes designation even when the work on the produce has not yet been completed.

As it was taught in a beraita: One who gathers produce from one place to another

in order

to cut

[as emended by the Gra in the Tosefta], when its work has not yet been completed,

and the day became sanctified over it—

Rabbi Yehuda said: Hillel alone

[he alone, while the other members of his generation disagreed with him]

prohibits.

For he maintains that Shabbat causes designation even when the work on the produce has not yet been completed.

And in order to exclude Hillel’s approach, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that Shabbat does not cause designation when the work on the produce has not yet been completed. Rabbi Yoḥanan derived this from the wording of the beraita, which says that Hillel “alone” prohibits; this wording implies that all the members of his generation disagreed with him, and the halakha follows them.