Pesachim 52a — the Talmud in English

If I find myself

in

a

settled area

—

I will not perform

labor.

Even though I myself have no doubt about the matter, I will not depart from the custom of the place,

because of the appearance of dispute

, since departing from the local custom leads to dispute.

But if I find myself

in the wilderness

, a place where no people are found and to which the messengers of the court did not reach, the question is:

what

should one do there?

Is it that since no people are found there, I may depart from the practice of that place, because there is no concern there that this will cause 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 it is prohibited

for him to perform labor, because of dispute.

But

in the wilderness

, he is

permitted

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

Rav Natan bar Asia traveled from the house of Rav to Pumbedita on the second day of the festival of Shavuot. Rav Yosef placed him under a ban

[excommunicated him]

Rav Yosef

because he treated the second day of the Diaspora festivals lightly and violated the prohibition against traveling beyond the permitted Shabbat boundary.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master flog him! He said to him: I imposed upon him a punishment that is preferable

to Rav Yosef: a punishment

that is preferable

, meaning more severe than lashes—

I imposed upon him.

For placing someone under a ban is more severe than lashes, as can be demonstrated:

In the West, they would count votes concerning flogging a student of the house of study

, meaning they would deliberate whether to flog a student who had acted improperly,

but they would not

deliberate

concerning placing him under a ban

, and they did not vote to excommunicate him because they were concerned for the honor of Torah. Evidently, placing someone under a ban is more severe than lashes.

Some say: Rav Yosef flogged

[flogged]

Rav Yosef

Rav Natan bar Asia and did not place him under a ban.

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

[Excommunicate him]

since

it is the case that

Rav and Shmuel both said: One places a person under a ban for

treating

the two days of the Diaspora festivals lightly!

Rav Yosef said to him

:

These words

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

with regard to an ordinary person

. But

here, since he is a Torah scholar

, one should not place him under a ban. Rather, the punishment

that is better for him

[the lighter punishment, namely lashes]

I imposed upon him.

And the proof that it is a lighter punishment is:

In the West, they would count votes

concerning flogging

[to flog]

a student of the house of study

who had acted improperly,

but they would not count votes concerning placing him under a ban

[excommunicating him].

Evidently, the punishment of lashes is lighter than the punishment of being placed under a ban.

We learned in the Mishna:

Similarly, one who transports produce of the Sabbatical year

from a place where that produce has been exhausted in the fields 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 from his possession.

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

The Gemara—the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna—now assumes that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement refers to the latter part 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 from his possession.

And concerning this Rabbi Yehuda said: The person who came from a place where the produce had not been exhausted may say to a resident of the place to which he came, where the produce had already been exhausted: I am permitted to eat the produce from my own place that I brought with me, because the time for removing it from one’s possession has not yet arrived there.

This does not lead to dispute, because he can say to him: You too can bring produce from that place and eat it here. You are prohibited only from eating produce that grew here.

For the time for removing the produce from one’s possession depends on the place where the produce grew, not on the place where it is eaten.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

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 the first tanna’s statement here.

Rather,

Rabbi Yehuda is stating a different matter.

And this is what

the first tanna says in the beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

One who transports produce of the Sabbatical year 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 another place where it has not been exhausted

. And

then he hears

that

the produce had already

been exhausted

the produce has already

in his place

, and the time for removing it from his possession had arrived—

he is obligated to remove it from his possession!

Even though this is neither one of the stringencies of the place from which he departed [since at the time he left, the produce was still permitted] nor one of the stringencies of the place to which he went, one applies a 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 departed in any way from your custom. For I transported the produce to a place where it had not been exhausted.

And he says to each person from his former place:

Go out and bring some 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

from the field, and the time for removing it from one’s possession has not arrived here.

And we challenge this:

Does this mean that Rabbi Yehuda is stating a lenient position

, permitting the produce even where the first tanna prohibited it?!

This cannot be said. For—

Rabbi Elazar did say: Rabbi Yehuda stated his view only as a stringency

, to prohibit what the first tanna permitted.

Rather, reverse

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

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

he is not obligated to remove it from his possession!

For in the place from which he came [at the time he left], no stringency had been applied to this produce. And in the place to which he went, too, no stringency is applied to it.

Rabbi Yehuda says

: He is obligated to remove it from his possession, so that he will not treat the place from which he came lightly.

Because the resident of his place says to him:

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

, from the place where you brought it!

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

And

already

it has been exhausted

there for the wild animals of the field, and we have already become obligated to remove it from our possession.

Abaye said

: It is unnecessary to say that the Mishna is discussing one who brings produce from one place to another place with the same status as it.

Rather,

it is indeed as it teaches

, and it is discussing only 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 from his possession.

Rabbi Yehuda says

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

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

, from the place to which you brought it,

and there

it has already

been exhausted

. Since the produce remained in a place where the produce had already been exhausted for the wild animals of the field, it became subject to removal from one’s possession.

Rav Ashi raised an objection

: Why would Rabbi Yehuda prohibit the produce?

Did it absorb the stringencies of the place merely from the back of the donkey?

Did the back of the donkey that carried it into the second place cause it to acquire the stringencies of that place? But it did not grow there. Moreover, he is not eating it there now; rather, he is returning it to a place where the produce had not been exhausted.

Rather, Rav Ashi said

: The first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree

in the dispute between these tannaitic sages

in tractate Sheviit.

As we learned:

One who pickles three pickled vegetables

[three types of vegetables possessing the sanctity of the Sabbatical year]

in a single barrel

, although each vegetable is exhausted for the wild animals of the field at a different time and their times for removal are not the same—

Rabbi Eliezer says: They may eat

all three

on

the basis of the time when the

first

of them is available to eat. When the first one is exhausted from the field and becomes subject to removal from one’s possession, they all become subject to removal. Since pickling makes them one entity, they are all judged according to the most stringent of them.

Rabbi Yehoshua says

: They may all be eaten

even on

the basis of the time for removing the

last

one from one’s possession. As long as the last one has not been exhausted, one may also eat the first two types, which have already been exhausted, since they are considered one type.

Rabban Gamliel says: Whenever a type is exhausted from the field

—one must remove

that vegetable which is

its type from the barrel

, and not all the pickled vegetables in the barrel are judged by one rule. Rather, each type becomes subject to removal at its own time.

And the halakha is in accordance with his statement

of Rabban Gamliel.

And likewise, this is the basis of the dispute 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 for removing the last one from one’s possession. And this is what he says: One who brings several types of produce that were pickled together from a place where they had not been exhausted to a place where they had all been exhausted is obligated to remove them from his possession. This implies that if they had not all been exhausted, but only some of them had, none of them is subject to removal. This is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

And Rabbi Yehuda says: Go out and bring some for yourself as well of the type that has already been exhausted. But you will not find it. Therefore, he is obligated to remove it from his possession. This is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel.

Ravina said: The first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree in

another

dispute between these tannaitic sages

.

As we learned: One may eat dates

from throughout the land of Judea

until

the date has been exhausted for the wild animals of the field—

the last one in Zoar

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

They do not judge each place separately, determining when the produce in that place was exhausted. Rather, as long as produce remains in the field somewhere else 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.