Commentary page

Beitzah 13a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Beitzah 13a

Beitzah 13a. The full printed text of this folio side — 15 numbered segments, about 270 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

הָא רַבִּי, הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא: הִכְנִיס שִׁבֳּלִין לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן עִיסָּה — אוֹכֵל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי, וּפָטוּר.

This source, the baraita , is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that one must separate teruma from kernels of grain on the stalk, and one may separate terumot on a Festival. That source, the mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there is no need to separate teruma from kernels of grain on the stalk, as it is taught in a baraita : If one brought inside his house stalks of grain in order to grind them into flour and to make dough from them, he may eat from them, as a snack, before they are ground, and he is exempt from teruma . Provided that the grain has not yet been fully processed, the obligation to separate teruma does not apply. The Sages decreed that such produce may only be consumed casually and not as part of a regular meal.

Segment 2

לְמוֹלְלָן בִּמְלִילוֹת — רַבִּי מְחַיֵּיב וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר.

However, if from the outset one brought in the stalks of grain not to grind them but to husk the kernels and eat them a little at a time, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi obligates him to separate teruma from them and prohibits him from partaking of the grain until he has done so. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, exempts him from the obligation of teruma . He maintains that not even this intention renders one obligated to separate teruma , as the obligation for teruma applies only to fully processed grain.

Segment 3

וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ — כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכְנִיס שִׁבֳּלִין לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן עִיסָּה, וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן לְמוֹלְלָן בְּיוֹם טוֹב, דְּטָבְלָא בְּיוֹמֵיהּ!

The Gemara challenges this: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, you can also find a case when one must separate teruma from grain that has not been fully processed. How so? For example, if one brought inside his house stalks of grain to make dough from them, thereby rendering himself obligated to separate teruma from them, and he reconsidered and decided to husk them in order to eat the kernels on a Festival. In that case, the prohibition of untithed produce takes effect on that day and one is obligated to separate teruma , only afterward is he permitted to eat the kernels.

Segment 4

אֶלָּא: מַאי תְּרוּמָה — רוֹב תְּרוּמָה.

Rather, one must say: What is the teruma that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree may not be separated on a Festival? It is referring to most teruma , e.g., grain that has been threshed and gathered into piles on the eve of the Festival. They do, however, admit that there are exceptional cases in which one may separate teruma on a Festival.

Segment 5

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשִׁבֳּלִין. אֲבָל בְּקִטְנִיּוֹת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אִסּוּרְיָיתָא טָבְלָא.

Abaye said: This dispute, concerning when the obligation to separate teruma and the prohibition of untithed produce takes effect, is referring only to stalks of grain, which are typically brought into a granary, where they are processed in a standard manner. Until that point, the grain is not prohibited as untithed produce. However, with regard to legumes, everyone agrees that the bundles are already regarded as untithed produce, and teruma must be separated from them at that stage.

Segment 6

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חֲבִילֵי תִלְתָּן שֶׁל טֶבֶל — הֲרֵי זֶה כּוֹתֵשׁ, וּמְחַשֵּׁב כַּמָּה זֶרַע יֵשׁ בָּהֶם, וּמַפְרִישׁ עַל הַזֶּרַע וְאֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ עַל הָעֵץ. מַאי לָאו — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הָתָם לָא טָבְלָא הָכָא טָבְלָא!

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following mishna supports him ( Terumot 10:6): With regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek, a type of legume, of untithed produce, he may pound these bundles to remove the seeds from them. And he calculates how many seeds the bundles contain and separates teruma based on the quantity of seeds, but he does not calculate and separate teruma based on the quantity of stalks. Although the stalks and leaves are also used for cooking, it is not necessary to separate teruma from them. What, is it not the case that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: There, with regard to stalks of grain, it is not yet ready to be tithed, and therefore not prohibited as untithed produce, whereas here, i.e., with regard to the bundles of fenugreek, it is ready to be tithed and therefore prohibited as untithed produce?

Segment 7

לָא, רַבִּי הִיא. אִי רַבִּי הִיא, מַאי אִירְיָא תִּלְתָּן, אֲפִילּוּ שִׁבֳּלִין נָמֵי?

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is no proof, as it can be claimed that the mishna dealing with fenugreek is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who obligates one to separate teruma in the case of stalks of grain. The Gemara challenges this: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what novel element does the mishna provide? Why specifically discuss fenugreek? According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the same halakha applies even to stalks of grain as well.

Segment 8

אֶלָּא מַאי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — לַשְׁמְעִינַן שְׁאָר מִינֵי קִטְנִיּוֹת, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן תִּלְתָּן.

The Gemara rejects this: Rather, what then? Is the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? If so, let him teach us this halakha with regard to other types of legumes, i.e., that they have the status of untithed produce when placed in bundles. And all the more so this would apply to fenugreek, which is eaten only in small quantities and is not processed in the manner of grain.

Segment 9

אֶלָּא תִּלְתָּן אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְטַעַם עֵצוֹ וּפִרְיוֹ שָׁוֶה, לִפְרוֹשׁ נָמֵי אַעֵצוֹ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Rather, it cannot be proven that the mishna follows either the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, or that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was necessary for the tanna to state the case of fenugreek for a different reason: It could enter your mind to say: Since in the case of fenugreek the taste of its stalk and its fruit are identical, as the branches of the fenugreek add flavor to a dish, perhaps one should also separate teruma based on the quantity of fenugreek stalks, as well. The tanna of the mishna therefore teaches us that there is no obligation to do so, and this is the novel element of his statement.

Segment 10

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשִׁבֳּלִין, אֲבָל בְּקִטְנִיּוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אִסּוּרְיָיתָא לָא טָבְלָא. מֵיתִיבִי: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חֲבִילֵי תִלְתָּן שֶׁל טֶבֶל הֲרֵי זֶה כּוֹתֵשׁ, וּמְחַשֵּׁב כַּמָּה זֶרַע יֵשׁ בָּהֶן, וּמַפְרִישׁ עַל הַזֶּרַע וְאֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ עַל הָעֵץ. מַאי לָאו, טֶבֶל טָבוּל שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה!

Some say that Abaye said the following: This dispute between Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to stalks of grain; however, with regard to legumes, everyone agrees that the bundles are not yet ready to be tithed and are therefore not prohibited as untithed produce. The Gemara raises an objection to this: With regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek of untithed produce, he may pound them and calculate how many seeds they contain and separate teruma based on the quantity of seeds, but he does not separate based on the quantity of stalks. What, is this not referring to the normal case of untithed produce of teruma , i.e., produce from which the regular teruma , the initial portion taken from produce as the priests’ portion, must be separated?

Segment 11

לָא, טֶבֶל טָבוּל שֶׁל תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר.

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a different case, that of first tithe that is still regarded as untithed produce, because of teruma of the tithe that must still be separated from it. First tithe is given to the Levites, who must separate ten percent as teruma of the tithe, to give to the priests. Before teruma of the tithe is separated, the first tithe may not be eaten.

Segment 12

וְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבֳּלִין,

And this statement is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It can occur that a Levite might take the first tithe before the teruma is separated, while the grain is still on the stalks. The correct procedure is: After collecting the grain in a pile in the granary, one first separates teruma , and only afterward separates first tithe to give to the Levites.

Segment 13

שְׁמוֹ טוֹבְלוֹ לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר.

If this order was not followed, and the first tithe was separated first while the grain was still attached to the stalks, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish maintains that the following halakha applies: Its name, i.e., the fact that it has been designated first tithe, renders it ready to be tithed and therefore prohibited as untithed produce, as pertains to teruma of the tithe that must still be separated from it. This shows that there can be a separation of a type of teruma , specifically the teruma of the tithe, even before work on the produce has been completed, and this is the case to which the previously quoted mishna is referring.

Segment 14

כּוֹתֵשׁ לְמָה לִי? לֵימָא לֵיהּ: כִּי הֵיכִי דִּיהַבוּ לִי, הָכִי יָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ! אֲמַר רָבָא: קְנָסָא.

The Gemara challenges this interpretation: If first tithe is considered untithed produce when it is named, why do I need the act of pounding? Let the Levite say to the priest: As they gave to me stalks of grain, or unprepared bundles, so I am giving them to you in the same state. Rava said: It is a penalty. In other words, the Levite should indeed be entitled to issue this claim; however, as he acted improperly by taking his tithe prematurely, the Sages decreed that he may not separate the priest’s portion in its current state, but must first improve it.

Segment 15

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ שִׁבֳּלִין בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹתָיו — עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן גּוֹרֶן, עֲנָבִים — עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן יַיִן, זֵיתִים — עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן שֶׁמֶן, וּמַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶם תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְנוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה אֵינָהּ נִיטֶּלֶת

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita . With regard to a Levite who was given stalks of grain as his tithes, he renders them into a granary, i.e., he must thresh and process them in the usual manner. Similarly, if he was given grapes, he renders them wine; if he was given olives, he renders them oil; and afterward he separates teruma of the tithe for them and gives them to a priest. For just as teruma gedola , i.e., standard teruma , is not separated from unprocessed produce,

Beitzah 13a

Beitzah 13a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Shita Mekubetzet

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text