Beitzah 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

And merely because the share of the woman who lent the ingredients is small, should you say that her share is nullified in the share of the woman who borrowed them, because it constitutes most of the dough?!

And

behold

if

one’s kav of wheat became mixed

his own

with ten kav of wheat belonging to another—

would it be said that his ownership of the small quantity is nullified by the majority of the wheat belonging to someone else, and

the other should eat—

the owner of the larger quantity of wheat—

and rejoice [that is, eat and take pleasure in his fellow’s wheat, in which he did not toil]?!

The Gemara discusses and clarifies his statement.

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, analyzes his words.

They laughed [the sages who had raised the difficulty against our Mishna]

at

it

at Rabbi Abba and at his resolution!

He said to them

Rabbi Abba: Is it the case that

you have taken your cloaks [a gulta, a fine outer wrap worn beneath one’s tallit; when one sits down, he removes the tallit, and the wrap is visible outside]

a gulta is a fine wrapped garment worn beneath one’s prayer shawl; when one sits down, he removes the prayer shawl, and the wrapped garment becomes visible]

that I should take them?!

That is, have I taken your garments, that you are mocking me?!

They resumed laughing at him,

the sages again laughed at him!

Rav Oshaya said: They did well to laugh at him [they were right to laugh at Rabbi Abba]!

For

what is the difference,

why did he distinguish

by stating that Rabbi Abba’s kav of “wheat” became mixed with ten kav of “wheat”—a kav of

wheat with

ten kav of

barley—which

he did not say to them,

Rabbi Abba?

It is certainly because in this mixture ownership of the smaller quantity would indeed be nullified, since

it became

a mixture of

one species with another species, and one species with another species

is

nullified.

And since that is so,

wheat with wheat

also

should not have been used for his objection.

For

although according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not nullified,

a mixture of one species with the same species in the case of all prohibitions,

according to the Rabbis it is indeed nullified.

[As their dispute was explained in Menahot 22a.]

The Rishonim disagree about the explanation of the sugya:

The view of the Ran [Nedarim 52a], in the name of the Rishonim, is that water and salt in dough are considered one species with the same species, since dough cannot be made without them; this is why the Gemara compared the law of our Mishna to a mixture of one species with the same species. The Meiri explained: At first, they thought that Rabbi Abba’s intention was that one species with the same species is not nullified. Therefore, they laughed at him, since the case in our Mishna is one species with another species.

When they saw that he was not retracting his position, they added to their argument: Even if our Mishna involved one species with the same species, Rabbi Abba’s resolution would still be inappropriate, since it is only according to Rabbi Yehuda that one species with the same species is not nullified; according to the Rabbis, even one species with the same species is nullified.

He said

in surprise

to him, Rav Safra

to Rav Oshaya:

Moshe [an oath invoking the honor of Moses our teacher]! Is it really the case that

an oath invoking the honor of Moses our teacher]! Did you really

you have spoken well [you have spoken correctly] in justifying the words of those who laughed?!

Rabbi Abba’s intention is not that one species with the same species is not nullified. His statement “wheat with wheat” was not precise, and the same applies to wheat and barley.

Rather, Rabbi Abba’s reason is that the law of nullification applies only to a prohibition that became mixed with permitted matter. But when one person’s property becomes mixed with another person’s property, the former does not lose what belongs to him. Accordingly, it is appropriate to say that the first person’s shevita does not cease to apply to it.

And if you would say that when such a small amount of property [water and salt in dough] becomes mixed into his own, he is not liable to repay the value—

And if you say that when such a small amount of property—water and salt in dough—becomes mixed with one’s property, he is not liable to repay its value—

and

is it really the case that

they had not heard

the sages who raised the difficulty against our Mishna

what Rabbi Ḥiyya of Katuspah said in the name of Rav?!

It is customary among wheat merchants not to remove pebbles from the wheat; the wheat is sold as it is. Therefore:

One who removes pebbles from another’s granary

without the owner’s knowledge

is liable to pay him the value of the wheat,

since had he not removed them, the other would have sold them together with the wheat, and he has lost the value of wheat equivalent to the measure of the pebbles.

Apparently, a measure [of wheat]

[a measure]

caused him to lose a measure; here too, a measure

[a measure]

caused him to lose a measure.

That is: Although it is a small amount of property, he is nevertheless obligated to return it. Similarly, even property such as water and salt in dough should not properly be nullified, for the law is that property is not nullified; and since the property is not nullified, the shevita of the owner of the property is likewise not nullified.

He said

in objection

to him, Abaye

to Rav Safra: What sort of resolution is this?!

Does my master not distinguish between property for which there is a claimant

which is not nullified

and property for which there is no claimant,

which is nullified?! In the case of our Mishna as well, it is property for which there is no claimant “today,” since she lent it to the owner of the dough, and the prohibition of the boundaries applies only today, so it should be nullified [Meiri].

He said to him,

This is deleted, since the following words are also Abaye’s, according to the Meiri:

And according to your reasoning,

that is, even if you say that you do not distinguish between property for which there is a claimant and property for which there is no claimant, and even property for which there is no claimant is not nullified [Meiri].

Rather,

this is what Rav Ḥisda said,

according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one species with the same species is not nullified:

A minority of

unslaughtered carcass that became mixed with a majority of slaughtered animals is

nullified among the slaughtered animals,

since it is one species with another species,

because it is impossible for a slaughtered animal to become an unslaughtered carcass;

that is, it is impossible for the slaughtered animal to become prohibited like the carcass.

But a minority of

slaughtered animals is not nullified among

a majority of

unslaughtered carcasses, because it is possible for a carcass to become a slaughtered animal

that is, it is fit to become permitted like the slaughtered animal if it putrefies and is no longer called a carcass; therefore, it is considered one species with the slaughtered animal.

We have thus learned that a carcass is nullified among slaughtered animals. Is it really the case that

in the same way

you would say:

when it has an owner

the carcass

is not nullified?!

You have learned: Since an ordinary carcass has no claimant, it is nullified [according to the Meiri].

And if you would say: So too?!

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: Objects that are ownerless acquire shevita, even though they have no owners; they are considered as though they have owners.

An explanation of this matter, in the Meiri’s wording:

The ownerless objects according to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri acquire shevita in their place, to the extent that one who finds them may transport them two thousand cubits in every direction, provided that the finder may walk there. But if the finder established an eruv in one direction, he may not transport these objects beyond two thousand cubits from the place where he found them, even if they have owners, since there are no claimants for them,

apparently, we follow the claimants and not the owners; anything for which there are no claimants is nullified, even if it has owners. If so, the difficulty remains: The water and salt should be nullified with regard to the dough, since they have no claimants during the time when the prohibition of the boundaries applies.

He said to him

Rav Safra to Abaye, upholding Rabbi Abba’s resolution:

Are you comparing a prohibition to property?!

A prohibition is nullified,

but

property is not nullified.

An explanation of the matter according to the Meiri:

That is: In the case of a carcass mixed with a slaughtered animal, and similar cases, the essential nature of the mixture is a prohibition mixed with permitted matter. Thus, when one describes the mixture, one does not say that so-and-so’s property became mixed with so-and-so’s property; rather, that a particular prohibition became mixed with a particular permitted substance, and it is appropriate to say that it should be nullified.

That is to say, the matter depends neither on owners nor on claimants, but on the categories of prohibition and permission and on the category of property. In the case of water and salt, the essential nature of the mixture is identified as property, even though the prohibition of the boundaries follows from it; therefore, it is not appropriate to say that it should be nullified.

[The Meiri does not have the words

“And what is the reason?”] The resolutions of the Gemara are explained according to the method of Tosafot.

Abaye said

another resolution, explaining why the water and salt are not nullified with regard to the dough:

This is a decree lest one make dough in partnership,

that is, lest this lead one to permit transporting it according to her feet even when it is dough in which she is a full partner with another woman. For the same reason, the spice is not nullified in a pot.

Rava said:

The spice is therefore not nullified in the pot, because

spices are used for their flavor, and flavor is not nullified [spice is intended to impart flavor to the pot, and in such a case the law of nullification does not apply]. The same applies to water and salt: Salt is not nullified in dough because it too imparts flavor, while water is not nullified because it is significant, as the dough is essentially made from water.

spices are intended to impart flavor, and flavor is not nullified [

a spice is intended to give flavor to the pot, and in such a case the rule of nullification does not apply]. The same applies to water and salt in dough: Salt is not nullified because it too imparts flavor, while water is not nullified because it is significant, since dough is primarily made from water.