Beitzah 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

Courtyard

as Rabbi Yohanan said: it does not establish produce for tithing when its processing is not yet complete,

excluding

the view of Rabbi Yohanan

from that of Rabbi Yaakov,

who maintains that a courtyard establishes produce for tithing even when its processing is not yet complete.

As we learned in the Mishna: One who carries figs into his courtyard in order to dry them—

his sons and the members of his household may eat from them casually, and they are exempt from tithing.

This is because a courtyard does not establish produce for tithing when its processing is not yet complete.

And it was taught concerning this: Rabbi Yaakov obligates them,

because a courtyard establishes produce in every circumstance,

whereas Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, exempts them.

And in order to exclude the position of Rabbi Yaakov, Rabbi Yohanan ruled not in accordance with it.

Teruma

as Rabbi Yohanan said: it does not establish produce for tithing when its processing is not yet complete,

excluding the view of Rabbi Eliezer:

As we learned in the Mishna: With regard to produce whose teruma was separated before its processing was complete:

Rabbi Eliezer prohibits eating from it casually,

since it was established for tithing through the separation of teruma, even though its processing was not yet complete.

And the Sages permit it,

since its processing was not yet complete; and Rabbi Yohanan ruled in accordance with the Sages.

And with regard to a purchase, concerning which Rabbi Yohanan said: it establishes produce for tithing only when its processing is not yet complete, the Gemara explains two matters:

The first:

purchase,

when Rabbi Yohanan said that it does not establish produce for tithing when its processing is not yet complete, his statement in this regard is

as it was taught in a beraita:

a tannaitic source that was not included in the Mishna:

One who purchases figs from an am ha-aretz—

who are suspect with regard to tithes, and the Sages decreed that one must separate tithes from produce purchased from them—

in a place where most people

dry them and

press

them into a circular form to make “fig cakes,” and consequently their processing is still not complete, he

may eat from them casually,

even though a purchase was made, since a purchase establishes produce for tithing only when its processing is complete.

And

when he

tithes them,

he tithes them only as

demai,

that is, as a matter of doubt, like other produce purchased from an am ha-aretz; we do not say: Since their processing was not yet complete, the am ha-aretz certainly did not tithe them, and therefore one must tithe them as produce of definite untithed status.

And this is because this tanna holds that there are people who tithe before the completion of processing, and that this is the customary practice; therefore, as a matter of fundamental law, we should presume that the am ha-aretz tithed them. Their obligation to tithe is only rabbinic and is treated as a matter of doubt.

And the Gemara explains:

Infer from this

beraita

three things:

a.

Infer from this: a purchase establishes produce for tithing only when its processing is complete,

and therefore he may eat from it casually even though he “purchased it” from an am ha-aretz, as Rabbi Yohanan said.

b.

And infer from this: most amei ha-aretz do tithe,

since we follow the lenient position that he tithes it as demai; the stringency is merely that the Sages required one to separate the other tithes from it because of the doubt concerning which they are suspected [the wording of Rashi

]. c.

And infer from this: one tithes produce as demai

[and not as produce of definite untithed status]

purchased from an am ha-aretz, even when its processing is not yet complete.

The second:

and to exclude

the view that Rabbi Yohanan expressed, namely, that a purchase establishes produce for tithing only when its processing is complete,

from that which we learned in the Mishna: One who exchanges

—an exchange between two people is considered a purchase that establishes produce for tithing—

produce—

such as figs, which some people eat as they are, in which case their processing is complete, while others set aside for drying, in which case their processing is not yet complete—

with another person:

Whether the purpose of their exchange was for

this one

to

eat

them as they are,

and

also

this one

to

eat

them, or even

this one

to

set them aside for drying, and this one

to

set them aside for drying, or one exchanged them with

with

this one

to

eat

them and this one

to

set them aside for drying—

each one is obligated

to tithe, because the purchase established the produce for tithing; even the one who acquired the produce in order to set it aside for drying, whose processing was not yet complete, is obligated, since a purchase establishes produce for tithing even when its processing is not yet complete.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The one who exchanged it in order to

eat

eat

it, and whose processing was complete, is

obligated

to tithe, because the purchase established it for tithing; but the one who exchanged it in order to

set it aside for drying is

is

exempt

from tithing, because a purchase does not establish produce for tithing when its processing is not yet complete.

And in order to exclude the opinion of the first tanna and to teach us in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yohanan taught that a purchase establishes produce for tithing only when its processing is complete.

We have returned to you, chapter “One Who Brings.”

Mishna:

Mashilin throw down, according to Rav Ovadya of Bartenura and the Tosafot Yom Tov,

produce—

which a person spread out on his roof in order to dry, provided that it is fit to be moved and is not muktze [Meiri]; and see below, “when rain is imminent”—

through the skylight

in the roof

on a Festival

so that it will fall to the ground and not be spoiled by the rain. Since throwing it down through the skylight does not constitute excessive exertion, the Sages permitted exerting oneself to throw it down.

But not on Shabbat.

And one may cover produce with vessels because of the dripping

rain dripping from the roof, so that it will not fall upon the produce. One does not say that this is unnecessary exertion on a Festival; rather, the Sages permitted this exertion because of financial loss. [Rashi].

And likewise

one may cover on a Festival because of dripping even

barrels of wine and barrels of oil,

and the Gemara will explain what the Mishna comes to teach by this.

And one may place a vessel beneath the dripping

to receive the water in the vessel so that it will not soil the house, even

on Shabbat.

Gemara:

It was stated:

Rav Yehuda and Rav Natan disagreed concerning the wording of our Mishna:

One tanna teaches

that our Mishna used the wording

“Mashilin

produce through a skylight.”

And one tanna teaches

that our Mishna used the wording

“Mashchilin

produce through a skylight.”

Mar Zutra said:

Both

the one who teaches, “Mashilin,” is not mistaken;

this wording is not corrupt, since it indeed denotes dropping and lowering.

And

both

the one who teaches, “Mashchilin,” is not mistaken,

since this too denotes lowering.

Mar Zutra proves that these expressions denote dropping and lowering:

The one who teaches, “Mashilin,” is not mistaken, as

it is

written

in the rebuke in the portion of Ki Tavo: “You shall have olive trees throughout all your borders, but you shall not anoint yourself with oil,

for ‘your olive will shed’,” that is, it will drop its fruit before it ripens; this demonstrates that the expression denotes dropping.

And the one who teaches, “Mashchilin,” is not mistaken, as

it is

taught

in tractate Bekhorot among the blemishes of a firstborn:

“shachul and kasul.”

The Mishna explains:

“Shachul”

means

that its thigh has become dislocated—

its legs were originally equal, but one of them became dislocated from its joint and was lowered until it became longer than the other [Meiri]; this demonstrates that the expression denotes lowering.

“Kasul”

means

that one of its thighs is higher than the other.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Even

the one who teaches, “Mashirin,” is not mistaken, and

even

the one who teaches, “Mashchirin,” is not mistaken, and

even

the one who teaches, “Manshirin,” is not mistaken,

since these expressions, too, denote dropping and lowering.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak proves that these too are expressions of lowering and dropping:

The one who teaches, “Mashirin,” is not mistaken, as

it is

taught: Rabbi Yishmael says: A nazirite

who is prohibited from shaving his hair,

may not scrub his head with earth, because it “causes to drop

the hair

,”

this demonstrates that the expression denotes dropping.

And the one who teaches, “Mashchirin,” is not mistaken, as

it is

taught: A razor a razor, which consists of two parts—a handle and a blade, according to Rashi and the Meiri—

and a pair of a barber’s scissors scissors like ours, which have two blades that come apart from each other; therefore they are called a “pair,”

even though they have come apart

from each other, they are

impure,

since they are still vessels, as each part is fit to be used independently.

We have therefore learned that the razor, which “causes the hair to fall,” is called “shachor” because it makes the hair black.

And

also

the one who teaches, “Manshirin,” is not mistaken, as

it is

taught: One whose garments fell into water his clothing fell into water, on Shabbat,

may walk in them and need not be concerned

that people might say that he laundered them on Shabbat.

Alternatively,

one can prove that neshira denotes falling

from what we learned:

What is leket

that must be left for the poor?

That which falls

at the time of reaping.

The Gemara now returns to explain the law stated in our Mishna:

We learned

in our Mishna:

One may throw down produce through a skylight on a Festival:

And we explain:

How much

produce may be thrown down on a Festival, since it is not considered excessive exertion?

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Asi; and some say, Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: [It is] like that

measure

which we learned

elsewhere, concerning Shabbat.

As we learned:

One may clear

on Shabbat

four or five baskets of three se'a each, according to Tosafot, Shabbat 126b,

of straw and produce because of guests

whom he invited for a meal and who have no place to sit,

and

one may likewise clear them

because of the cancellation of the study hall,

when the students have no place to sit, and he clears away the straw and produce to prepare a place for them.

It is this measure that they permitted here as well.

And we ask:

Perhaps it is different there,

since the Sages permitted such a large measure because

there is cancellation of the study hall

or because of the honor due to guests,

but here, where there is no cancellation of the study hall

and there is not even the honor due to guests, but merely financial loss—perhaps

they did not

permit exerting oneself to such a great extent?!

Alternatively,

one can distinguish the case of our Mishna from the Mishna in Shabbat and say that they did not permit exerting oneself to such a great extent in our Mishna, because

there—

where the discussion concerns Shabbat—

the reason that four or five baskets are permitted is that Shabbat is stringent

since performing labor on it entails stoning,

and people will not come to treat it lightly

there is no concern that they will thereby come to treat stringent Shabbat lightly.

But a Festival is lenient it is lenient, since performing labor on it entails lashes rather than death,

and

there is concern that people may

come to treat it lightly.

Therefore, perhaps

we do not permit so much according to the Meiri’s version.

Alternatively,

one can distinguish

in the opposite direction

and say that, on the contrary, one should be more lenient here than there, because

the reason there is that there is no financial loss, whereas here there is financial loss;

perhaps

even considerably more more than four or five baskets

as well

the Sages permitted?!