Pesachim 56b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

Who is the one from whom you hear that he says

that all six matters were not with the approval of the Sages, except that with regard to the first group the Sages

protested

against them,

whereas with regard to

the second group the Sages

did not protest?

Is it not

Rabbi Judah

who said so?

And that Mishna proceeds according to his view,

and it teaches

in it

“They reap with the approval of the Sages.”

And how did Rabbi Judah include “they reap” in the beraita among the six matters that were done without the approval of the Sages?

And we answer:

But according to your reasoning,

even if you say that what is taught in Rabbi Judah’s words, “these and those were without the approval of the Sages,” is a textual error, this too is difficult:

How could Rabbi Judah say that concerning three matters they did not protest?

But

there are four:

a. They grafted palm trees all day. b. They recited the Shema in a single sequence. c. They reaped before the omer. d. They heaped up produce before the omer.

Rather,

necessarily,

erase

the word

from here

“reaping,”

and do not read it. And it is not included among the six matters mentioned, since it was with the approval of the Sages.

We learned above:

and

they were

permitting the shoots of consecrated property of carob and sycamore trees.

And we explain: They did so because

they said: “Our ancestors consecrated only the beams,”

for at the time the trees were consecrated, they contained only the trunk, without the shoots.

Therefore,

we shall permit

the

shoots of the consecrated property of

the

carob and of

the

sycamore trees,

for the shoots were not included in the consecration.

And we are dealing with the growths that came afterward

[after the consecration],

and the people of Jericho held

that

like the one who says

“there is no misuse of consecrated property in the growths

of consecrated property,” since the growths do not become the property of consecrated property. [Rashbam, Bava Batra 79a].

And the Rabbis,

who protested against them,

held: Granted that there is no misuse of consecrated property

in the growths, but

a prohibition

to derive benefit from them

does exist, at least.

We learned above:

and

they were

making breaches

in their gardens and orchards to feed fallen fruit to the poor on Shabbatot and festivals, during years of drought!

Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

The

dispute

between the Sages and the people of Jericho was

concerning

fallen fruit

from the palm-cluster branches

of the date palms. For the palm fronds at the top of the palm tree bend toward one another, forming something resembling a vessel, and the dates that fall drop into them.

The Rabbis held,

since they are high and one must climb the palm tree in order to take them, they are prohibited on Shabbat and festivals. For

we decree lest he climb

the palm tree

and

then

pluck

attached fruit from it, and violate the labor of reaping, which is a labor from the Torah.

But the people of Jericho held: We do not decree lest he climb and pluck.

But with regard to

fallen fruit

from between the branches

[at the bottom of the palm tree],

according to everyone

it is

permitted

on Shabbat and festivals.

For he does not need to climb the tree in order to take them. And in the place where they are found, there is no attached fruit. And we are not concerned about them lest he climb and pluck.

Rabba said to him:

Even though this decree does not apply to them, nevertheless they are prohibited. For

are they not muktzeh!

For at twilight on the eve of Shabbat they were still attached, and they were muktzeh on account of the prohibition of plucking that applied to them. And since they were set aside at twilight, they were set aside for the entire Shabbat.

And if you should say,

the fruits that fall on Shabbat are not muktzeh at twilight on the eve of Shabbat,

since they were fit for the

food of

ravens

even when they were attached—

this cannot be said.

For now,

a thing that is

“prepared for a person”—

is not prepared for dogs.

For its lack of preparation for dogs renders it prohibited under the law of muktzeh of “preparation.”

As we learned: Rabbi Judah says:

An animal that during its lifetime is considered “prepared” for human consumption, since that is what it is intended for, and not for the consumption of dogs, which became an animal carcass—

if it was not a carcass

already

before Shabbat—

it is prohibited

to feed it to dogs on Shabbat

because it is not among the prepared!

Since it was not prepared during twilight for dogs, but was designated for a person, it is muktzeh with regard to dogs.

Thus, even something that was prepared for a person is muktzeh because it was not prepared for dogs.

And if so, can one say that something

prepared for ravens

is

like

prepared

also

with regard to a person?!

He said to him,

Ulla:

Yes.

Indeed, something that is

“prepared for a person”

is not

“prepared for dogs,”

because

anything that is fit for a person, he does not set aside

designate

for it, from his mind,

for the need of dogs; rather, he sets it aside—designates it—only for his own need.

But

something prepared for ravens is prepared

also

for a person.

Because

anything that is fit for a person—

his mind is upon it!

Therefore, even though on the eve of Shabbat it was fit only for ravens, nevertheless his intention is that if in the end the thing will also become fit for him, he will eat it.

And it is properly considered thereby prepared also for a person.

When Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The dispute

between the Sages and the people of Jericho was

concerning

fallen fruit

from between the branches.

The Rabbis held,

it is prohibited because of muktzeh. Since

something prepared for ravens is not prepared for a person.

And the people of Jericho held: Something prepared for ravens is prepared

also

for a person,

and it is not muktzeh.

But with regard to

fallen fruit

from

the

palm-cluster branches, according to everyone

it is

prohibited,

because

we decree lest he climb and pluck.

We learned in the Mishna:

and

they were

giving peah for vegetables!

And we raised it:

and

do

the people of Jericho not have that which we learned: “They stated a general principle concerning peah: Every

thing

that is food

[a thing fit for eating],

and

is not ownerless but rather

guarded

by its owner,

and its growth is from the earth, and its harvesting is all at once

[so that all its fruit is harvested at one time],

and

the owners

bring it in for preservation—

it is

liable for peah!

And we explain:

“Every thing that is food”—

to exclude the shoots of woad and safflower,

which are difficult to eat. Therefore they are exempt from peah.

“And guarded”—

to exclude ownerless produce,

which is exempt from peah.

“And its growth is from the earth”—

to exclude truffles and mushrooms!

For they have no root in the earth, and their growth is from the air and not from the soil.

“And their harvesting is all at once”—

to exclude figs,

which are not harvested all at once, but one by one, each fig when its ripening is complete.

“And he brings it in for preservation”—

to exclude vegetables,

which do not endure for a long time, but immediately become moldy. And they are not stored in order to preserve them for a long time.

Thus, we explicitly learned that vegetables are exempt from peah. And what did the people of Jericho think, that they gave peah from them?

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: Here

in the act of the people of Jericho

we are dealing with the tops

[leaves]

of turnips.

For they themselves do not endure. But the turnip roots endure for a long time. And when the leaves are brought in together with the roots, they endure.

And

they dispute concerning something that

is brought in for preservation through another thing.

One

[the people of Jericho]

holds: Bringing it in for preservation through another thing is called preservation.

And the tops of the turnips, too, are preserved through the roots. Therefore they gave peah from them.

And one

[the Sages]

holds

that bringing in for preservation through another thing

is not called preservation.

Therefore they exempted the tops of the turnips from peah.

The Sages taught

:

At first they would give peah for turnips

[the leaves of turnips]

and for cabbage.

Rabbi Yose says: They would give peah also for leek,

they would give peah.

And another [teaching] was taught:

At first

they would give peah for turnips and leek.

Rabbi Shimon says: They would give

also for cabbage.