Shabbat 74a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Abaye and Rava both say: Any matter that was in the Tabernacle

there — —

even though there is

another labor

that resembles it

in its nature, and the tannai has already counted the other labor resembling it among the primary labors, nevertheless —

he counted it

this labor as a primary labor in its own right, since it was in the Tabernacle.

And all these—the one who scatters, the one who sorts, and the one who sifts—were in the Tabernacle, in preparing the ingredients for dyeing; therefore each one was counted as a labor in its own right.

And we raise an objection: If so, that every labor that was in the Tabernacle is called a primary labor—

then let him count also the one who pounds

the wheat in a mortar in order to remove its husk, so that this too should be a primary labor in its own right, for they pounded the ingredients in a mortar in the Tabernacle.

Rather, certainly, since pounding resembles threshing, which separates the kernel from the ear, it is therefore not considered a primary labor in its own right, despite the fact that it was in the Tabernacle.

And if so, the question is difficult: Why are the one who scatters, the one who sorts, and the one who sifts each counted as a primary labor in its own right?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Therefore the one who pounds is not considered a primary labor in its own right—

for a poor person eats his bread without pounding

as he does not trouble himself to remove the husk from the wheat; only wealthy people do so in order to obtain clean fine flour. Therefore, although pounding is indeed a primary labor and not a derivative, it is not sufficiently significant to be counted as a primary labor in its own right; rather, it is included within threshing, and is a primary labor like it.

Rava said:

This

the tannai of our Mishna,

who is he?—

It is Rabbi, who says: There are forty less one primary labors

and derives from a verse that this is their number and no more.

And if he counted

also

“the one who pounds,”—

there would be forty

primary labors.

And we raise an objection to Rava’s answer:

Then let him remove

let the tannai remove from the number of labors in the Mishna

one of these

one primary labor from among those three similar labors—the one who scatters, the one who sorts, and the one who sifts—

and let him insert the one who pounds

in its place. Would it not be preferable to count two forms of the labor of sorting and two forms of the labor of separating, rather than counting three primary labors of sorting and one of separating?

And we conclude:

Rather, the answer of

his

Abaye is more evident!

The discussion of sorting

The nature of the labor of sorting is the improvement of the food by removing the waste from it, with the aim of storing it in a storehouse while it is clean of waste.

This labor is considered a labor only when it serves as preparation for storing the food in a storehouse; but if it is performed for the purpose of an imminent meal, it is not considered a labor, but rather preparation of food for a meal, which is something permitted to do on Shabbat.

Nevertheless, the Sages established that one who removes the waste from the food—even if he does so close to the meal—is treated as “sorting for storage,” and is liable for a sin-offering.

As for the actual time of eating, the early and later authorities [until our times] disagreed whether removing the waste from the food is considered a labor, or whether it is considered part of the act of eating.

Likewise, the later authorities discussed whether sorting objects found in a mixture, such as garments or utensils, is considered sorting, or whether sorting objects has no connection at all to sorting.

In this discussion a beraita is initially brought in which three laws were stated.

The first—a permitted form of sorting.

The second—a prohibited form of sorting.

And the third—when one is liable for a sin-offering for the labor of sorting.

In the discussion before us, several amoraim disagreed in explaining the three laws stated in the beraita. In practice, however, we take all their opinions into consideration, stringently.

The Sages taught: There were before him various kinds of food,

and in each one waste was mixed:

a.

He sorts

for himself

and eats; he sorts

for others

and leaves it

before them.

b.

But he should not sort.

c.

And if he sorted, he is liable for a sin-offering.

And we examine it:

What is it saying?

At first it said, “he sorts and eats,” and afterward it said, “but he should not sort.”

And we answer:

Ulla said: This is what it is saying:

a.

He sorts

the waste from the food for himself,

and eats

it.

And he is permitted to sort even when he prepares the food so that he will eat it later, provided that he prepares it

for that same day,

for the purpose of eating it on the day of Shabbat.

And

likewise

he sorts and leaves

for other people

for that same day,

according to their needs for the day of Shabbat.

b.

And

for the needs of the day

tomorrow—

he should not sort.

c.

And if he sorted

for the needs of tomorrow—

he is liable for a sin-offering.

Rav Hisda raised an objection to him: Is it permitted to bake for that same day?

Is it permitted to cook for that same day?!

For if you make him liable for a sin-offering when he sorted for tomorrow, it follows that sorting is a primary labor. If so, what is the permission to sort for that same day?

Rather, Rav Hisda said:

This is what it is saying:

a.

He sorts and eats

himself

less than the measure

of the labor of sorting, which is the size of a dried fig of food.

And likewise

he sorts and leaves

for other people

less than the measure.

b.

And the measure

of sorting, which is the size of a dried fig—

he should not sort.

c.

And if he sorted

the measure—

he is liable for a sin-offering.

Rav Yosef raised an objection to him: Is it permitted to bake

on Shabbat

less than the measure?!

Although indeed there is no liability for a sin-offering for less than the measure, it is initially prohibited, for we hold: “half a measure is prohibited by Torah law.”

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

This is what it is saying:

a.

He sorts and eats by hand,

and eats.

He sorts and leaves

for others

by hand.

b. But

with a kanon and a serving bowl,

which are utensils with which one can sort, but which are not intended for sorting—

he should not sort

initially, because this resembles sorting, whose principal form is with a sieve and a sifter [unlike by hand, for it does not resemble sorting at all].

And if he sorted

with a kanon and a serving bowl—

he is exempt

from a sin-offering, since this is not the usual manner of sorting, and it is like sorting in an unusual manner.

But it is prohibited

to do so.

c.

And with a sieve and a sifter—

he should not sort. And if

he sorted

with a sieve and a sifter—

he is liable for a sin-offering.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection: Is it something

that

“a kanon and a serving bowl” is taught

in the beraita?! [And likewise it is difficult that a sieve and a sifter are not taught.]

Rather, Rav Hamnuna said: This is what it is saying:

a.

He sorts and eats

the

food from the waste; he sorts and leaves food from the waste,

because this is not the manner of sorting, unless he sorts the waste from the food.

b. But the

waste from

the

food he should not sort.

c.

And if he sorted

waste from food—

he is liable for a sin-offering.

Abaye raised an objection: Is “food from waste” taught

in the beraita?!

Rather, Abaye said:

This is what it is saying:

a.

He sorts and eats

when the eating is

immediate, and he sorts and leaves

for others so that they will eat

immediately,

because this is not the manner of sorting.

b.

And

in order to eat

on that day [but not immediately]—

he should not sort.

c.

And if he sorted, he is treated as one who sorts for storage,

to store for a long time,

and he is liable for a sin-offering.

They said it

the Sages said this teaching of Abaye

before Rava.

He said

Rava:

Nahmani spoke well! [Abaye was called Nahmani.]

The Gemara now cites another beraita on the same matter, about which the amoraim disagreed as to how it should be taught.

And now the Gemara brings another beraita concerning the same matter, regarding which the amoraim disagreed how to teach it.

The Sages taught:

There were before him two kinds of food, and he sorted

one from the other [and one should regard sorting two foods as sorting waste from food, when he wishes to eat one kind and does not wish to eat the other],

and ate.

And he sorted and left:

Rav Ashi teaches

in the beraita: This person is

exempt

from an offering, but it is prohibited to do so.

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti teaches: This person is

not merely exempt; rather, he is

liable

for an offering.

And we examine it: How does

Rav Ashi teach,

that he reads in the second beraita

“exempt”

but prohibited?

For according to this version of Rav Ashi in the second beraita, according to which the one who sorts is exempt but prohibited, there is a difficulty either way: If Rav Ashi intends to establish it as sorting immediately, it is permitted for him to do so initially.

And if Rav Ashi establishes the beraita as sorting after some time, he is liable for a sin-offering; why, then, does Rav Ashi teach the wording of the beraita that he is exempt?

But it was taught

explicitly in the earlier beraita [according to Abaye’s establishment] that one who sorts after some time

is liable

for a sin-offering!?

And it was not taught at all in the earlier beraita [according to Abaye’s establishment] a case in which one is exempt but it is prohibited.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Both beraitot speak of sorting after some time, for sorting immediately is permitted. Rather, this is the distinction between them:

This,

the second beraita, in which Rav Ashi taught that he is exempt but it is prohibited, deals with one who sorts

with a kanon and a serving bowl,

which are not utensils intended for sorting. Therefore, even when one sorts after some time, he is not liable for a sin-offering.

This,

the earlier beraita, in which we taught that one who sorts is liable for a sin-offering, deals with one who sorts

with a sieve and a sifter,

in which case he is liable for a sin-offering when he sorted after some time.

And the Gemara brings an incident that occurred, from which we can learn another principle concerning the labor of sorting:

When Rav Dimi came, he said:

There was an incident, and

it was the Shabbat of Rav Bibi.

For Rav Bibi’s turn had arrived to stand and serve the students on the day of Shabbat.

And they happened to arrive

and came to that place

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

He cast,

Rav Bibi cast and spread before them

a basket

of fruit,

of fruit.

And in this manner the fruits became scattered and separated on their own from the leaves that had been mixed with them inside the basket.

And Rav Dimi added:

And I do not know

why Rav Bibi preferred to spread all the fruit before them in this manner, rather than separate the fruit from the leaves while they were in the basket and present them to the guests immediately, before each one of them:

If it was because

he did not wish to sort the fruit from the leaves even in order to present them to the guests immediately, because

he thought

that sorting

food from waste,

even immediately, is also

prohibited.

If it was because of “a generous eye” that he intended,

and this was the reason that he spread all the fruit of the basket before them together, and not because of the prohibition of sorting.

In any event, it is demonstrated from Rav Dimi’s words that the labor of sorting applies only when one takes one thing from another, but not when he scatters the mixture, thereby causing the food and the waste to separate on their own.

And it is permitted to do so initially: to scatter the mixture and take the food or the waste, since after the scattering they are no longer mixed together.

[And some were uncertain about this, but it is explicitly implied from our discussion that it is permitted initially.]

And the Gemara brings another matter, in which it is explained that food may be considered waste in relation to the matter of sorting.

Hezekiah said: One who sorts lupines

a kind of legume

from their waste,

for after cooking he sorts the food from the husk—

is liable.

And we examine it:

Shall we say that Hezekiah holds

that even

food from waste is prohibited?!