Berakhot 47b (מז:) — the Talmud in English

“From all your tithes you shall raise,”

which means that one must separate teruma from every tithe that is subject to teruma. Since the produce had already become obligated in teruma, if the Levite took it before teruma had been separated, he must separate teruma from his own produce.

The Gemara clarifies:

What did you see

that led you to interpret the exemption stated in the verse “a tithe from the tithe” as referring to the case where the Levite took the produce while it was still in stalks, whereas you interpreted the obligation stated in the verse “from all your tithes you shall raise” as referring to the case where he took it after the grain had been heaped in the granary? Why not interpret the verses in the opposite manner: to obligate him when he took it in stalks and exempt him when he took it after it had been heaped in the granary? The Gemara explains:

This

case, where he took it after it had been heaped in the granary, is subject to teruma because it had already

become grain,

and the obligation of teruma takes effect upon produce from the time it is called “grain,” and thereafter does not lapse from it even if it was separated as first tithe.

But

if

this

case, where he took it while it was still in stalks, is exempt from teruma, because it had

not yet become grain,

and once he separated it as tithe, it no longer becomes obligated in teruma, even if afterward it became “grain.”

It is therefore more reasonable to interpret the additional expression “from all your tithes” as referring to first tithe that the Levite took before teruma gedola had been separated, when the produce was already called “grain.” At that point, the koen was already entitled to receive teruma gedola from it, and if the Levite took the first tithe before teruma gedola had been taken, this first tithe remains subject to teruma gedola and is not exempt by virtue of the first tithe having been taken first. But if the designation “grain” had not yet taken effect upon the produce, and it had not yet become obligated in teruma gedola, and he took first tithe from it, it is reasonable that this tithe is exempt from teruma gedola, since it became obligated only in “a tithe from the tithe.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Second tithe and consecrated property that were redeemed:

The Gemara asks:

Obviously,

since they are fully ordinary, non-sacred produce!?

The Gemara explains:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case where, when

redeeming them,

he gave the principal but did not give the added fifth,

although an owner who redeems his consecrated property or his tithes must add a fifth.

And this teaches us that the added fifth does not invalidate

the redemption, and they are fully ordinary, non-sacred produce. We learned in the Mishna:

The attendant who ate an olive-bulk:

The Gemara asks:

Obviously,

since he ate the quantity that obligates one to recite Birkat HaMazon?

The Gemara explains:

Lest you say that an attendant

does not join for a zimun because he

did not establish

a fixed place for himself, since he comes and goes to serve those dining,

this teaches us

that since this is the attendant’s normal manner of eating, he joins those dining for a zimun.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may include a Samaritan in a zimun.

The Gemara asks:

Why

may one include him in a zimun? Even if his status is that of a Jew,

he is nothing but an ignoramus,

since the Samaritans do not study Torah,

and it was taught in a beraita: “One may not include an ignoramus ”?

The version of the Rosh and Rashba is: “One does not summon with an am ha-aretz in a group,” and Tosafot Rosh explained that even when he is among ten and is not recognizable, one does not summon with him; see Be'er Hetev who discusses this.

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

Our Mishna is dealing

with

a case in which the

Samaritan was a

haber

(a Torah scholar).

Rava said: You may even say

that our Mishna is dealing

with a Samaritan ignoramus,

and in fact one may join even with an ignoramus who does not study Torah.

But

if

here,

in the beraita that states, “One may not include an ignoramus,” the reference is

to

a person who is considered

an “ignoramus”

according to the definition of

the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Meir

we are dealing.

As it was taught: What is

the definition of one called

“an ignoramus”?

Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity

like the practice of the “haberim,”

the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: Anyone who does not tithe his produce properly. And

therefore, one may join with the Samaritan even though he does not study Torah, since

these Samaritans do tithe properly

(as required), because

they are exceedingly careful with whatever is written in the Torah,

as

the Master said: With regard to every mitzva that the Samaritans adopted, they are more meticulous in its observance than Jews.

The Sages taught: What is “an ignoramus”?

Anyone

who

knows nothing at all, to the extent that he

does not recite the evening and morning Shema,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Anyone who does not put on tefillin.

Ben Azzai says: Anyone who does not have ritual fringes on his garment,

even though it has four corners.

Rabbi Natan says: Anyone who has no mezuzah on his doorway.

Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: Anyone who has children but does not raise them for Torah study.

Others say: Even if he read

Scripture,

and studied

Mishna,

but

did

not serve Torah scholars

to learn from them the reasons behind the Mishna that depend on analytical reasoning—

he is an ignoramus,

because he does not know how to distinguish between analogous laws, such as those concerning what is prohibited and permitted or monetary law.

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Others.

Rami bar Ḥama did not include him in a zimun

(he did not join him to a zimun)

because of Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa,

since he thought that he had not served Torah scholars and was therefore an ignoramus, even though he

taught Sifra, Sifrei, and halakhot.

When Rami bar Ḥama died, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only

as punishment for

not including Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a zimun,

thereby harming him by treating him as an ignoramus.

The Gemara challenges Rava:

But was it not taught: “Others

say: Even if he read and studied but did not serve Torah scholars, he is an ignoramus,”

and if so, Rami bar Ḥama acted properly; why was he held accountable?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, for

in fact, it appears that he

served

(that he did serve)

the Sages, and

it was only

Rami bar Ḥama who was not attentive to him

and mistakenly treated him as an ignoramus.

Alternatively,

in fact, Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa had not served Torah scholars in order to analyze the reasons behind the Mishna through logical reasoning. Nevertheless, he was not considered an ignoramus because

he heard teachings from the mouths of the Sages and studied them

according to their correct explanation, and therefore

he is considered like a Torah scholar.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who ate untithed produce and first tithe, etc.:

The Gemara asks: If he ate

untithed produce, it is obvious

that he does not join, since we have already learned that even one who eats demai does not join. The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

to teach this law specifically

with regard to untithed produce subject only to a rabbinic prohibition,

and to teach that even a rabbinic prohibition prevents him from joining for a zimun.

The Gemara further inquires:

What are the circumstances

of untithed produce subject only to a rabbinic prohibition? If it grew

in an unperforated flowerpot,

the Torah obligated tithing only for produce that grows directly in the ground; produce that is not attached to the ground is subject to the obligation of tithing only by rabbinic law.

We learned in the Mishna:

First tithe

from which its teruma has not been taken: one may not include him in a zimun.

The Gemara asks:

Obviously,

since its status is that of completely untithed produce?

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

to teach this law specifically

in a case where the Levite took it first

from the koen, after the produce had been processed

in the granary,

and took the first tithe from the householder before the koen had received teruma gedola. Even though he separated terumat ma’aser from it, it is forbidden to eat from the tithe until he separates teruma gedola from it—as stated in the Mishna, “from which its teruma has not been taken.” It was necessary to teach that it is forbidden to eat it because

lest you say, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye

above, that one should derive from “a tithe from the tithe” that first tithe is exempt from teruma even when it was taken first from produce already in the granary—

this teaches us, in accordance with what he answered him,

that the verse “from all your tithes” teaches that once the obligation took effect upon the produce when it was “grain,” it is no longer exempt when it was made into first tithe; the Levite’s portion, too, remains subject to teruma.

We learned in the Mishna:

Second tithe

and consecrated property that were not redeemed: one may not include him in a zimun.

The Gemara asks:

Obviously,

since as long as they have not been redeemed they are forbidden to eat!?

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

to teach this law in a case

where they were redeemed, but not redeemed in accordance with their laws,

as follows:

Second tithe

that was not redeemed in accordance with its law—

for example, he redeemed it on an asimon,

a piece of silver upon which no coin design had been stamped.

And the Merciful One said

with regard to the redemption of second tithe (Deuteronomy 14:25):

“And you shall bind the money in your hand,”

and they derived from the expression “you shall bind” that redemption may be performed only with

money that has

a design stamped upon it.

Consecrated property

that was not redeemed in accordance with its law—

for example, he exchanged it for land rather than redeeming it with money, and the Merciful One said

with regard to the redemption of consecrated property (Leviticus 27:19):

“And he shall give the money, and it shall be established for him.”

The intent of the Mishna is to teach that if he redeemed the property but did not fulfill these requirements, one may not include him in a zimun.

We learned in the Mishna:

And an attendant who ate less than an olive-bulk.

The Gemara asks:

Obviously,

since he did not eat the quantity that obligates one to recite a blessing?

The Gemara explains:

Since the first clause taught,

“the attendant who ate”

an olive-bulk,” it taught in the latter clause,

“who ate”

less than an olive-bulk.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one may not include a gentile in a zimmun.”

The Gemara is astonished: It is obvious,

for he is exempt from all the mitzvot?

The Gemara explains:

Here we are dealing with a convert who underwent circumcision but did not immerse,

and it teaches us that his status is that of a complete gentile.

As Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A person is never a convert until he undergoes circumcision and immerses.

And as long as he has not immersed —

he is a gentile.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Women, slaves, and minors may not be included in a zimmun.”

Rabbi Yosei said

“A minor lying in a cradle may be included in a zimmun.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

“But we learned: ‘Women, slaves, and minors may not be included in a zimmun’?”

The Gemara answers:

He stated his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Even though they said

in the Mishna

that a minor lying in a cradle may not be included in a zimmun,

that means specifically that he does not join them to create the obligation of a zimmun for three,

but they may make him an adjunct for ten,

because once the obligation of a zimmun has already taken effect upon them, he may join them so that they can mention the Divine Name, and this is the subject of Rabbi Yosei’s statement.

And

further,

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine and a slave join

to say a matter of sanctity, which may be said only in the presence of ten.

An objection was raised: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue

to pray with the congregation,

but did not find ten, so he emancipated his slave and completed the quorum of ten.

The Gemara infers: Only because he

“emancipated” him, yes,

could he join the quorum; this implies that had he

not emancipated him, he could not

have joined the quorum. But if a slave can be included to complete the ten, why did he need to emancipate him?

The Gemara answers:

Two

men

were needed,

because there were only eight men in the synagogue. Since only one slave may be included, he therefore

emancipated one

and he joined as a full-fledged Israelite,

and one was sufficient

because they included him as the tenth.

The Gemara is astonished:

How could he do this? But Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who emancipates his slave violates a positive commandment, as it is stated

(Leviticus 25:46)

“You shall work them forever”?

The Gemara answers:

For the sake of a mitzva, it is different.

The Gemara again raises an objection: But

is this not a mitzva performed through a transgression?

The Gemara answers:

A mitzva for the sake of the community,

to enable the congregation to fulfill its obligation of responding to the sanctification

is different.

And

further,

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A person should always rise early to the synagogue, so that he will merit being counted among the first ten; for even if a hundred come after him, he receives reward corresponding to them all.

The Gemara is astonished:

“Reward corresponding to them all”—can it enter your mind

that the other worshippers, apart from the first ten, receive no reward at all?

The Gemara explains:

Rather, say: “They give him reward corresponding to them all.”

Rav Huna said: Nine and an ark

join

for the quorum for prayer.

Rav Nahman said to him: And

is

an ark a person,

that it can join?

Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine

who

appear as ten join.

Some

say it,

that they appear as ten only

when they are gathered

[when they are assembled together], because then it is difficult to discern how many they are.

And

some

say it,

that they appear as ten only

when they are spread out

[when they are dispersed], because through their dispersal they appear numerous.

Rabbi Ami said: Two and Shabbat join

to create the obligation of a zimmun for three.

Rav Nahman said to him: And

is

Shabbat a person,

that it can join?

Rather, Rabbi Ami said: Two Torah scholars who sharpen one another in halakha join

to be considered three for a zimmun.

Rav Hisda gestured: For example, me and Rav Sheshet! Rav Sheshet gestured: For example, me and Rav Hisda.

Rabbi Yohanan said: A minor who is blossoming,

who developed the signs of maturity before the age of thirteen,

may be included in a zimmun

even for three.

It was also taught: A minor who has developed two hairs may be included in a zimmun; one who has not developed two hairs may not be included in a zimmun; and one need not scrutinize a minor.”

Seemingly,

this itself is difficult: You said, “He has developed two hairs”—yes,

he may be included; and this implies that if he

has not developed them, he may not

be included, because he is not an adult.

And

if

it then teaches, “One need not scrutinize a minor,”

implying that there may be a minor who can be included,

what does this come to include? Is it not

to include a blossoming minor,

so that if he has developed two hairs, one need not scrutinize his age, but if he has not developed them, one must ascertain that he is thirteen or older?