Berakhot 47b — the Talmud in English

“From all your tithes you shall raise,”

whose meaning is to obligate one to separate every teruma that is found in the tithe; and since the produce had already become obligated in teruma, if the Levite took it before its separation, he must separate from his own.

The Gemara inquires:

“And what did you see”

to expound the exemption stated in the verse “a tithe from the tithe” with regard to one who anticipated [the Levite] in the stalks, whereas the obligation stated in the verse “from all your tithes you shall raise” you expounded to obligate one who anticipated [the Levite] in the heap? And why do you not expound the opposite: to obligate one who anticipated [the Levite] in the stalks and exempt one who anticipated [the Levite] in the heap? The Gemara explains:

“This one,”

the one who anticipated [the Levite] in the heap, is obligated in teruma because it already

became grain,

and the obligation of teruma takes effect upon the produce from the time it is called “grain,” and thereafter does not depart from it even if he separated it for the first tithe,

whereas

if

this one,

the one who anticipated [the Levite] in the stalks, is exempt from teruma, because it has

not yet become grain,

and since they separated it for the tithe, it again does not become obligated in teruma, even if afterward it became “grain.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to expound the additional expression “from all your tithes” with regard to a first tithe that he anticipated before great teruma, when the produce was already called “grain.” At that point the koen was already entitled to receive great teruma from it, and if he anticipated taking the first tithe before the great teruma was taken, this first tithe is obligated in great teruma, and is not exempt from it because of the anticipation of the tithe. But if the name “grain” had not yet taken effect upon the produce, and it had not become obligated in great teruma, and he took a first tithe from it, it is reasonable that this tithe is exempt from great teruma, because it had not become obligated in more than “a tithe from the tithe.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“Second tithe and consecrated property that were redeemed”:

The Gemara is astonished:

“It is obvious,”

for they are entirely ordinary produce!?

The Gemara explains:

“Here, with what are we dealing? For example, when

in their redemption

he gave the principal but did not give the fifth,

even though an owner who redeems his consecrated property or his tithes must add a fifth;

and it teaches us this: the fifth does not prevent

the redemption, and they are entirely ordinary produce. We learned in the Mishna:

“The attendant who ate an olive-sized portion”:

The Gemara is astonished:

“It is obvious,”

for he ate the measure that obligates [one] in the Grace after Meals?

The Gemara explains:

“Lest you say that an attendant”

does not join for zimun, because he

“did not establish”

a place for himself, since he goes and returns to serve those reclining at the meal,

it teaches us

that since this is the attendant’s manner of eating, he joins with those reclining at the meal for zimun.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one summons with the Samaritan.”

The Gemara asks:

“Why”

does one summon with him? After all, even if his law is like that of an Israelite,

“he is nothing but an am ha-aretz,”

for the Samaritans do not study Torah,

“and it was taught: ‘One does not summon with an am ha-aretz

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 situation in which the

Samaritan was a

fellow

of Torah scholars.

“Rava said: Even you may say

that our Mishna is dealing

with a Samaritan am ha-aretz,

and in truth one also summons with the inclusion of an am ha-aretz who does not study Torah,

but

if

here,

in the beraita in which they said, “One does not summon with an am ha-aretz,”

with

a person who is considered an

“am ha-aretz”

according to their definition

the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir

are we dealing.

For it was taught: What is

called

an “am ha-aretz”? —

Anyone who does not eat his non-sacred produce in purity

according to the practice of the “fellows,”

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

therefore, one summons with the Samaritan even though he does not study Torah, for

these Samaritans tithe as is fitting

[properly] , since

they are exceedingly careful regarding that which is written in the Torah,

as

the Master said: Every mitzva with which the Samaritans have occupied themselves extensively, they are more meticulous in it than Israelites.

The Sages taught: What is an “am ha-aretz”? —

Anyone

who

knows nothing at all, to the extent that he even

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 has no tzitzit 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 sons and does not raise them for Torah study.

Others say: Even if he read

Scripture,

and studied

Mishna,

but

nevertheless

did not serve Torah scholars

in order to learn from them the reasons of the Mishna that depend upon reasoning —

he is an am ha-aretz,

because he does not know how to distinguish between similar laws, such as in matters of prohibition and permission and monetary law.

Rav Huna said: The halakha is according to Others.

Rami bar Hama did not summon with him

[did not include him for zimun]

Rav Menashya bar Tahlifa,

because he held that he had not served Torah scholars, and he was therefore an am ha-aretz, despite the fact

that he taught Sifra, Sifrei, and halakhot.

When Rami bar Hama’s soul departed, Rava said: Rami bar Hama’s soul departed only

as punishment for

not having summoned with Rav Menashya bar Tahlifa,

and he was punished for considering him an am ha-aretz.

The Gemara challenges Rava:

“But it was taught: ‘Others

say: Even if he read and studied but did not serve Torah scholars, he is an am ha-aretz,’”

and if so, Rami bar Hama acted properly; for what was he held accountable?

The Gemara answers:

“Rav Menashya bar Tahlifa is different, for

in truth, it

appears

[that he served]

the Sages, and

only

Rami bar Hama did not examine after him,

and erred in considering him an am ha-aretz.

Another formulation:

In truth, Rav Menashya bar Tahlifa did not serve Torah scholars in order to discuss the reasons of the Mishna through reasoning, and nevertheless he was not considered an am ha-aretz, 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 young Torah scholar.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who ate tevel and tithe, etc.”

The Gemara asks: If he ate

“tevel, it is obvious”

that he does not join, for we already learned that even one who eats demai does not join? The Gemara explains:

“It is necessary”

to teach us this law, but rather

with tevel that is subject to a rabbinic prohibition,

and to teach that even a rabbinic prohibition causes him not to join for zimun.

And the Gemara inquires:

“What are the circumstances

of tevel that is subject only to a rabbinic prohibition?” If it grew

in an unperforated flowerpot,

for the Torah obligated only produce grown directly in the ground, whereas that which is not attached to the ground has no obligation of tithe for its produce except by rabbinic law.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A first tithe

from which its teruma was not taken—one does not summon with him.”

The Gemara is astonished:

“It is obvious,”

for its law is like that of entirely unseparated produce?

The Gemara explains:

“It is necessary”

to teach us this law, but rather

for example, when [the Levite] anticipated

the koen and came after the produce had been smoothed

in the heap,

and took the first tithe from the householder before the koen received the great teruma. And although he separated the tithe-teruma from it, it is forbidden to eat from the tithe until he separates great teruma from it [and concerning this it was taught, “from which its teruma was not taken”]. It was necessary to teach us that it is forbidden to eat it, because

lest you say, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye

above, that he should expound from “a tithe from the tithe” to exempt a first tithe from teruma even if he anticipated [the koen] in the heap —

it teaches us as he answered him,

that the verse “from all your tithes” teaches that if the obligation had already taken effect upon the produce when it was “grain,” it is no longer exempt when he made it a first tithe, and even the Levite’s portion is obligated in teruma.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Second tithe

and consecrated property that were not redeemed—one does not summon with them.”

The Gemara is astonished:

“It is obvious,”

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

The Gemara explains:

“It is necessary”

to teach us this law, but in a situation

“where they were redeemed, but were not redeemed according to their law,”

as follows:

Second tithe

that was not redeemed according to its law —

for example, he redeemed it upon 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 expounded from the wording “you shall bind” that the redemption may be performed only upon

silver that has

a design upon it.

Consecrated property

that was not redeemed according to its law:

he transferred its sanctity onto land, and did not redeem 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 intention of the Mishna is to teach that if he redeemed it but did not fulfill these details, one does not summon with them.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the attendant who ate less than an olive-sized portion.”

The Gemara is astonished:

“It is obvious,”

for he did not eat the measure that obligates [one] in a blessing?

The Gemara explains:

Since it taught in the first clause, “

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 concerning a gentile, one does not zimun with him.”

The Gemara wonders: It is obvious,

for he is exempt from all the mitzvot?

The Gemara explains:

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

and it taught us that his law is that of a completely gentile.

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: He 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—we do not zimun with them.”

Rabbi Yosei said

“With a minor lying in a cradle, one does zimun.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

“But did we not learn: ‘Women, slaves, and minors—we do not zimun with them’?”

The Gemara answers:

He stated his view in accordance with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: “Even though they said [במשנה]in the Mishna

in the Mishna

‘With a minor lying in a cradle, one does not zimun,’

that means specifically that he does not join to create an obligation of zimun with three,

but they make him an adjunct for ten,

for since the obligation of zimun has already taken effect upon them, he can join with them so that they can mention the Name, and Rabbi Yosei’s words revolve around this.

And

further

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: “Nine and a slave join

to say a matter of sanctity, which is said only with ten.”

An objection was raised: An incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered the synagogue

to pray with the congregation,

and did not find ten, so he emancipated his slave and completed ten with him.

The Gemara infers: Only because he

“emancipated [him]”—yes, [he could join the quorum],

and it follows that had he

not emancipated [him], he

could not join the quorum. And if a slave may be joined to complete ten, why did he need to emancipate him?

The Gemara answers:

Two

people

were needed,

for there were only eight people in the synagogue, and since only one slave may be joined, therefore

he emancipated one

and he joined as a complete Israelite,

and he managed with one

whom they joined as the tenth.

The Gemara wonders:

“And how could he do this? But Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who emancipates his slave violates a positive commandment, as it is stated [ויקרא כה מו]in Leviticus 25:46:

[Leviticus 25:46]:

‘You shall work them forever’?”

The Gemara answers:

“For a matter of a mitzva, it is different.”

The Gemara again raises an objection: But

“Is it not a mitzva that comes through a transgression?”

The Gemara answers:

“A mitzva of the many,”

to discharge the congregation’s obligation through sanctification —

“is different.”

And

further

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

The Gemara wonders:

“The reward of them all”—could it enter your mind

that the other worshippers, besides the first ten, have 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 man,

that it should 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],

for then it is difficult to discern how many they are.

And

some

say it

that they appear as ten only

when they are dispersed [when they are spread out],

for through their dispersion they appear numerous.

Rabbi Ami said: “Two and Shabbat join

for the obligation of zimun with three.”

Rav Nahman said to him: “And

is

Shabbat a man,

that it should join?”

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

to be considered as three for zimun.”

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 flourishing

who brought signs of maturity before the age of thirteen ,

one performs zimun with him

even with three .

It was taught likewise: “A minor who brought two hairs, one performs zimun with him; and one who did not bring two hairs, one does not perform zimun with him; and one is not exacting concerning a minor.”

And ostensibly

this itself is difficult: You said, “He brought two hairs”—yes, [one performs zimun with him],

and it follows that if he

did not bring [them], one does not

perform zimun with him, for he is not an adult.

And

if

it then taught, “One is not exacting concerning a minor,”

and it follows that there can be a minor with whom one performs zimun,

what does this come to include? Is it not ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location of the page")

to include a flourishing minor,

so that if he brought two hairs, one is not exacting regarding his age, but if he did not bring them, one is exacting that he be thirteen years old or older.