Shabbat 74a (עד.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Abaye and Rava both say: Anything that was performed in the Tabernacle

, behold,

even though there is

another labor

similar to it

in its essential nature, and the tanna already counted that other, similar labor among the primary labors, nevertheless

he counts it

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

And all these labors—winnowing, selecting, and sifting—were performed in the Tabernacle in preparing the ingredients for dyeing; therefore, each was counted as a labor in its own right.

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

then let him also count pounding

wheat in a mortar to remove its husk, so that it too should be a primary labor in its own right, since the ingredients were pounded in a mortar in the Tabernacle.

Rather, certainly, since pounding resembles threshing, which separates the kernel from the stalk, it is not considered a primary labor in its own right, despite having been performed in the Tabernacle.

And if so, the difficulty arises: Why are winnowing, selecting, and sifting each counted as a primary labor in its own right?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

It is for this reason that pounding 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 the wealthy do so, in order to obtain fine, clean flour. Therefore, although pounding is indeed a primary labor and not a derivative labor, it is not sufficiently significant to be counted as a primary labor in its own right; rather, it is included under threshing, and it is a primary labor just like it.

Rava said:

This

tanna of the Mishna

is

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: There are forty less one primary labors

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

And if he counts

also

“pounding”

there would be forty

primary labors.

And we raise an objection to Rava’s answer:

Let him remove

—let the tanna remove from the number of labors in the Mishna

one of these

, one primary labor from among those three similar labors, winnowing, selecting, and sifting,

and insert pounding

in its place. It would be preferable to count two forms of the labor of selecting and two forms of the labor of separating, rather than three primary labors of selecting and one of separating.

And we conclude:

Rather, the explanation of

his answer

Abaye’s is the more apparent one!

The discussion of selecting

The essence of the labor of selecting is improving the food by removing the refuse from it, with the intention of storing it in a storehouse while it is free of refuse.

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

Nevertheless, the Sages established that one who removes refuse from food is considered, even if he does so close to the meal, to be “selecting for storage,” and is liable to bring a sin-offering.

The early and later authorities [up to our own times] disagreed about whether, during the meal itself, removing refuse from food is considered a labor or is considered part of the act of eating.

The later authorities likewise discussed whether sorting objects found in a mixture, such as garments or utensils, is considered selecting, or whether sorting objects is not at all included in the category of selecting.

This discussion initially cites a beraita containing three halakhot.

The first: a permitted form of selecting.

The second: a prohibited form of selecting.

And the third: when one is liable to bring a sin-offering for the labor of selecting.

In the discussion before us, several amoraim disagree about the explanation of the three halakhot stated in the beraita. In practice, we take all their opinions into consideration stringently.

The Sages taught: If various types of food were before him],

with refuse mixed into each of them:

a.

He selects

for himself

and eats; he selects

for others

and sets it down

before them.

b.

But he may not select.

c.

And if he selected, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

We inquire about this:

What is he saying?

Initially, it said, “He selects and eats,” and afterward it said, “But he may not select.”

And we answer:

Ulla said: This is what it is saying:

a. He

selects

the refuse from the food for himself,

and eats

it.

He is permitted to select even when preparing the food so that he will eat it later, provided that he prepares it

for that same day

, for his eating on Shabbat.

And

likewise, he

selects and sets it down

for other people

for that same day

, according to their needs for that day of Shabbat.

b.

And

for the needs of

the following day—

he may not select.

c.

And if he selected

for the needs of the following day—

he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Rav Hisda strongly objected: Is it permitted to bake for that same day?

Is it permitted to cook for that same day?!

If you hold him liable to bring a sin-offering when he selected for the following day, it follows that selecting is a primary labor. If so, what is the basis for permitting selecting for that same day?

Rather, Rav Hisda said:

This is what it is saying:

a.

He selects and eats

himself

less than the measure

of the labor of selecting, which is the measure of a dried fig of food.

And likewise, he

selects and sets it down

for other people

less than the measure.

b.

And the measure

of selecting, which is a dried-fig measure—

he may not select.

c.

And if he selected

the measure—

he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Rav Yosef strongly objected: Is it permitted to bake

on Shabbat

less than the measure?!

Indeed, although one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for less than the measure, it is initially prohibited, as we hold: “A half-measure is prohibited by Torah law.”

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

This is what it is saying:

a.

He selects and eats by hand

, and eats. He

selects and sets it down

for others

by hand.

b. But

with a kanon or a tamhui

, which are utensils with which one can select, although they are not designated for selecting—

he may not select

initially, because this resembles selecting, whose primary form is performed with a sieve and a sifter [unlike selecting by hand, which does not at all resemble the usual form of selecting].

And if he selected

with a kanon or a tamhui—he is

exempt

from a sin-offering, since this is not the normal manner of selecting, and it is an unusual manner of performing the labor.

But it is prohibited

to do so.

c.

And with a sieve and a sifter—

he may not select. And if

he selected

with a sieve and a sifter—he

is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Rav Hamnuna strongly objected: Is it

the case that

a kanon and a tamhui are what it teaches

in the beraita?! [And there is a similar difficulty, since it does not teach about a sieve and a sifter.]

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

a. He

selects and eats

the

food from the refuse; he selects and sets down food from the refuse

, because this is not the usual manner of selecting; rather, the usual manner is to select the refuse from the food.

b. But

the refuse from

the

food he may not select.

c.

And if he selected

refuse from food—he

is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Abaye strongly objected: Is it

food from refuse that the beraita teaches?!

Rather, Abaye said:

This is what it is saying:

a. He

selects and eats

when the eating is

immediate, and selects and sets down

for others so that they will eat

immediately

, because this is not the usual manner of selecting.

b.

And

in order to eat

on that same day [but not immediately]—he

may not select.

c.

And if he selected, he is considered one who selects for storage

, to store it for a long time,

and he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

The Sages stated

Abaye’s teaching

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.

The Sages taught:

If there were two types of food before him, and he

selected

one from the other [and selecting one type of food from another is treated as selecting refuse from food, when he wishes to eat one type but does not wish to eat the other],

and ate.

And he selected and set it down:

Rav Ashi teaches

the beraita as follows: He is

exempt

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

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti teaches: He is

not merely exempt; rather, he is

liable

to bring an offering.

We inquire about this: How does

Rav Ashi teach

, reading the second beraita as

“exempt”

but prohibited?

According to this version of the second beraita taught by Rav Ashi, according to which one who selects is exempt but prohibited, there is a difficulty either way: If Rav Ashi understands it as referring to one who selects immediately, then he is permitted to do so initially.

And if Rav Ashi understands the beraita as referring to one who selects after some time, then he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Why, then, does Rav Ashi teach the wording of the beraita as stating that he is exempt?

But it teaches

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

is liable

to bring a sin-offering?!

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

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Both beraitot are discussing one who selects after some time, since selecting immediately is permitted. Rather, the distinction between them is as follows:

This

, the second beraita, which Rav Ashi taught as stating that one is exempt but it is prohibited, is discussing a case in which he selects

with a kanon or a tamhui

, which are not utensils designated for selecting. Therefore, even when one selects after some time, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

This

, the earlier beraita, in which we taught that one who selects is liable to bring a sin-offering, is discussing a case in which he selects

with a sieve and a sifter

, in which case he is liable to bring a sin-offering when he selected after some time.

The Gemara cites an incident that occurred, from which we can learn another fundamental principle concerning the labor of selecting:

When Rav Dimi came, he said:

This is what happened:

It was Rav Bibi’s Shabbat

, meaning that it was Rav Bibi’s turn to stand and serve the students on Shabbat.

And

they happened to come to that place—

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

He cast

and spread out before them, Rav Bibi

a basket

, a small basket,

of fruit

. In this manner the fruit became scattered and separated on its own from the leaves that had been mixed with it 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 separating the fruit from the leaves while they were still in the basket and presenting them to the guests immediately, before each one of them:

If it was because

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

he held

that selecting

food from refuse

, even immediately, is also

prohibited.

If it was because he intended to display “a generous eye,”

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

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

It is permitted to do so initially—to scatter the mixture and then take either the food or the refuse—since after the scattering they are no longer mixed together.

[There were some who were uncertain about this, but it is explicitly apparent from our discussion that it is permitted initially.]

The Gemara cites another matter, in which it is clarified that food may be considered refuse with regard to the laws of selecting.

Hezekiah said: One who selects lupines

, a type of legume,

from their refuse

, for after cooking he selects the food from the husk—he

is liable.

We inquire about this:

Shall we say that Hezekiah holds

that even

selecting food from refuse is prohibited?!