Pesachim 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

If I find myself

in

the

settled area

, where they observe two Festival days because of the uncertainty, I

will not perform

labor.

Although I myself am not uncertain about the matter, I will not deviate from the custom of the place,

because of the change that causes dispute

, as deviation from the custom of the place leads to dispute.

But if I find myself

in the desert

, a place where people are not found, and to which the agents of the court would not reach, the matter is uncertain:

what?

How should one conduct oneself there?

Is it perhaps that since people are not found there, I am permitted to deviate from the law of that place, since there is no concern there of causing dispute?

Rabbi Abba said

to him:

This is what Rav Ami said

: One who travels from a place where they observe one Festival day to a place where they observe two Festival days:

in

the

settled area he is prohibited

from performing labor, because of dispute.

But

in the desert,

he is

permitted

to perform labor, because this concern does not apply there.

Rav Natan bar Asya traveled from the study hall to Pumbedita on the second Festival day of Atzeret. He excommunicated him

[placed him under a ban]

Rav Yosef

for treating the second Festival day observed in the Diaspora lightly and violating the prohibition against traveling beyond the Shabbat limits on it.

Abaye said to him: And should the Master not flog him? He said to him: I imposed upon him a punishment that is preferable

to Rav Yosef: a punishment

that is preferable

, as it is more severe than flogging,

I imposed upon him.

A ban is more severe than flogging, as is evident from the following:

For in the West they would count those subject to flogging of a member of the study hall

, they would determine whether to flog a student who had sinned,

but

they would

not count those subject to a ban

; they would not determine whether to place him under a ban, because they were concerned for the honor of Torah. Evidently, a ban is more severe than flogging.

Some say: Rav Yosef flogged

[flogged]

Rav Yosef

Rav Natan bar Asya, but did not place him under a ban.

Abaye said to him: Let the Master place him under a ban!

[Place him under a ban]

for

it is the case that

Rav and Shmuel both say: One places under a ban for

treating

the two Festival days of the Diaspora lightly!

Rav Yosef said to him

:

These words

—that one places him under a ban for this—were said

with regard to an ordinary person

. But

here, since he is a Torah scholar,

he should not be placed under a ban. Rather, the punishment

that is better for him

[the lighter punishment, namely, flogging]

I imposed upon him.

The proof that it is a lighter punishment is:

For in the West they would count

those subject to flogging

[to flog] a student

of the study hall

who had sinned,

but they would not count those subject to a ban

[to place him under a ban].

Evidently, the punishment of flogging is lighter than the punishment of a ban.

We learned in the Mishna:

Similarly, one who transports Shemitta produce

from a place where the produce has been exhausted to a place where it has not been exhausted, or from a place where it has not been exhausted to a place where it has been exhausted, is obligated to remove it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Go out and bring produce for yourself as well!

The Gemara now assumes that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement refers to the end of the first tanna’s statement, that one who brings produce from a place where it has not been exhausted to a place where it has been exhausted is obligated to remove it.

And concerning this Rabbi Yehuda said: The one who comes from a place where the produce has not been exhausted may say to the resident of the place to which he came, where the produce has already been exhausted: I am permitted to eat the produce of my place that I brought with me, since the time for its removal has not yet arrived there.

And this does not lead to dispute, since he can say to him: You too can bring produce for yourself from that place and eat it here. You are prohibited only with regard to produce that grew here.

For the time for removal depends on the place where the produce grew, and not on the place where it is eaten.

And we raise an objection:

And

does

does Rabbi Yehuda not accept that which we learned: One applies to him the stringencies of the place from which he departed and the stringencies of the place to which he went?!

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said

: Rabbi Yehuda is not referring to this statement of the first tanna.

Rather,

Rabbi Yehuda is stating a different matter.

Rashi’s version reads simply “he says,” and attributes this statement to the first tanna.

And this is what

the first tanna in the beraita says:

One who transports Shemitta produce from a place where it has not been exhausted to a place where it has been exhausted,

or

transports it

from a place where it has not been exhausted to a place where it has not been exhausted

, and

he hears

that

later

that

the produce has already

been exhausted in his place

and the time for its removal has arrived—

he is obligated to remove it!

And although this is neither among the stringencies of the place from which he departed [since, when he left there, the produce was still permitted] nor among the stringencies of the place to which he went, they nevertheless apply stringency to it.

Rabbi Yehuda says

: He is permitted to eat it, because he can say to the residents of the place from which he departed: I have not deviated at all from your custom, since I transported the produce to a place where it had not been exhausted.

And he says to each one of the residents of his former place:

Go out and bring for yourself

produce as well

from where I brought it

, from this place to which I brought the produce,

and here

the produce

has not been exhausted for them

from the field, and the time for removal has not arrived here.

And we ask:

Does this mean that Rabbi Yehuda is stating a lenient position,

permitting even in a case where the first tanna prohibits?!

This cannot be said. For—

Rabbi Elazar did not say: Rabbi Yehuda stated his position only as a stringency,

to prohibit what the first tanna permitted?

Rather, reverse

their positions in this addition that we added to the beraita beyond the Mishna.

And this is what the first tanna says: One who brings produce from a place where it has not been exhausted from the field to a place where it has not been exhausted, and afterward hears that the produce has been exhausted in his place,

is not obligated to remove it!

For in the place from which he came [at the time he left], they had not imposed stringency with regard to this produce. And even in the place to which he went, they do not impose stringency with regard to it.

Rabbi Yehuda says

: He is obligated to remove it, so that there will not be a demeaning of the place from which he came.

Because the resident of his place says to him:

Go out and bring for yourself as well from where you brought it

, from the place from which you brought it!

That is, can you now also bring produce from this place?!

And

it has

already been exhausted for them

there, as food for the wild animals, and we have already become obligated in this removal.

Abaye said

: There is no need to say that the Mishna is speaking of one who brings produce from one place to another equivalent place.

Rather,

it is indeed as it teaches,

as it is speaking only of one who brings produce from one place to a different place.

And this is what it says: Or

one who brings produce

from a place where it has not been exhausted to a place where it has been exhausted, and

afterward

returns it to its original place

,

and it has still not been exhausted

—he is not obligated to remove it.

Rabbi Yehuda says

: The residents of the place where it had been exhausted say to him:

Go out and bring for yourself as well from where you brought it

, from the place to which you brought it,

and

it has

already been exhausted for them

there. And since the produce remained in a place where the produce had already been exhausted as food for the wild animals, it became subject to removal.

Rav Ashi challenges this

: Why would Rabbi Yehuda prohibit the produce?

Did it absorb the status from the back of the donkey?

Did the back of the donkey that carried it into the second place confer upon it the stringencies of that place? But it did not grow there. And he is not even eating it there now, but is returning it to the place where it had not been exhausted.

Rather, Rav Ashi said

: The first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree

in the dispute between these tannaim

in tractate Shevi’it.

As we learned:

One who pickles three pickled preparations

[three types of vegetables possessing the sanctity of Shemitta]

in one barrel,

and each of the vegetables is exhausted as food for the wild animals at a different time, and the time for their removal is not the same—

Rabbi Eliezer says: They may be eaten

all three

based on

the time when the

first

of them is eaten. When the first is exhausted from the field and becomes subject to removal, they all become subject to removal, because the pickling makes them into a single entity. Therefore, they are all judged according to the most stringent among them.

Rabbi Yehoshua says

: They may all be eaten

even based on

the time of removal of the

last

. As long as the last one has not been exhausted, the first two types, which have already been exhausted, may also be eaten, since they are considered one type.

Rabban Gamliel says: Whenever its species has been exhausted from the field

—he must remove

that vegetable which is

its species from the barrel

, and all the pickled preparations in the barrel are not judged by a single law. Rather, each species becomes subject to removal at its own time.

And the halakha is in accordance with his statement

of Rabban Gamliel.

And they likewise disagree on this basis in the Mishna: The first tanna of the Mishna holds like Rabbi Yehoshua, who is lenient with regard to all of them until the time of removal of the last. And this is what he says: One who brings several types of pickled produce together from a place where they have not been exhausted to a place where they have all been exhausted—is obligated to remove them! It follows that if not all of them have been exhausted, but only some of them, they are not subject to removal at all. And this is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

And Rabbi Yehuda says: Go out and bring for yourself as well from that species which has already been exhausted. But you will not find it. Therefore, he is obligated to remove it. And this is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel.

Ravina said: In another dispute

another

between these tannaim

the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree.

As we learned: One may eat dates

throughout the entire land of Judea

until

the date has been exhausted as food for the wild animals

in Zoar, the last

[the city of date palms in Judea, where the dates remain for a long time].

For they do not judge each place separately as to when the produce was exhausted there. Rather, as long as produce remains in the field elsewhere in this land, it is still considered available to the wild animals even in this place, because when the wild animal does not find food here, it goes to another place in the same land.