Save "בית שמאי ובית הלל"
בית שמאי ובית הלל
אַרְבָּעָה רָאשֵׁי שָׁנִים הֵם. בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַמְּלָכִים וְלָרְגָלִים. בְּאֶחָד בֶּאֱלוּל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי. בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַשָּׁנִים וְלַשְּׁמִטִּין וְלַיּוֹבְלוֹת, לַנְּטִיעָה וְלַיְרָקוֹת. בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט, רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָאִילָן, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ:
The four new years are: On the first of Nisan, the new year for the kings and for the festivals; On the first of Elul, the new year for the tithing of animals; Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say, on the first of Tishrei. On the first of Tishrei, the new year for years, for the Sabbatical years and for the Jubilee years and for the planting and for the vegetables. On the first of Shevat, the new year for the trees according to the words of the House of Shammai; The House of Hillel says, on the fifteenth thereof.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, נֵר וּמָזוֹן וּבְשָׂמִים וְהַבְדָּלָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, נֵר וּבְשָׂמִים וּמָזוֹן וְהַבְדָּלָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שֶׁבָּרָא מְאוֹר הָאֵשׁ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בּוֹרֵא מְאוֹרֵי הָאֵשׁ:
The school of Shammai says, "Flame, and [then] Grace after Meals, and [then] spices, and [then] Havdalah." The school of Hillel says, "Flame, and [then] spices, and [then] Grace after Meals, and [then] Havdalah." The school of Shammai says, "Who created the light of fire." The school of Hillel says, "Creator of the lights of fire."
שמאי אומרים שברא כו׳: אמר רבא בברא כולי עלמא לא פליגי דברא משמע כי פליגי בבורא בית שמאי סברי בורא דעתיד למברא ובית הלל סברי בורא נמי דברא משמע מתיב רב יוסף יוצר אור ובורא חשך יוצר הרים ובורא רוח בורא השמים ונוטיהם אלא אמר רב יוסף בברא ובורא כולי עלמא לא פליגי דברא משמע כי פליגי במאור ומאורי דבית שמאי סברי חדא נהורא איכא בנורא ובית הלל סברי טובא נהורי איכא בנורא תניא נמי הכי אמרו להם בית הלל לבית שמאי הרבה מאורות יש באור:
The mishna cited a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to the formula of the blessing over fire in havdala. Beit Shammai say: Who created [bara] the light of fire. And Beit Hillel say: Who creates [boreh] the lights of fire. Regarding this, Rava says: With regard to the word bara, everyone agrees that it means created in the past. Where they disagree is with regard to the word boreh. Beit Shammai hold: Boreh means that God will create in the future, and Beit Hillel hold: Boreh also means that He has created in the past. Rav Yosef raised an objection: How can there be a dispute over the meaning of the word boreh? In the following verses it is clear that it refers to acts of creation in the past: “Who forms light and creates [boreh] darkness” (Isaiah 45:7), “Who forms mountains and creates [boreh] wind” (Amos 4:13), or “Who creates [boreh] the heavens and stretches them out” (Isaiah 42:5). Rather, said Rav Yosef: With regard to both bara and boreh, everyone agrees that they mean created. Where they disagree is with regard to the light of the fire or the lights of the fire. As Beit Shammai hold that there is one light in a fire, and Beit Hillel hold that there are many lights in a fire, as a flame consists of red, green, and white light. That was also taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: There are many lights in the fire.

שנות אליהו שם:

בש"א שברא מאור האש ובה"א בורא מאורי האש, ואמרינן בגמרא בברא כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי במאור ומאורי כו'. וקשה הא ב"ש אמרו ברא ובה"א בורא והאיך אמרו שלא פליגי, ועוד האיך אפשר שיהיו פליגי אי טובא נהורא איכא בנורא אי חדא נהורא הא עינינו רואות שטובא נהורא איכא בנורא.

ונראה ד"ברא" הוא לשון עבר ו"בורא" לשון עבר והוה, אך שאמרינן כ"ע לא פליגי בברא ובורא משום דבאש שייך הני תרי לישני משום שהקב"ה ברא יסוד האש וגם אנו מוציאין בכל יום יום אש מחדש והכל בא מיסוד האש, אך החילוק שביניהן דביסוד האש גוון אחד ובאש שלנו יש הרבה גוונים. וזה שאמרו כי פליגי במאור ומאורי, דהיינו בית שמאי ובית הלל פליגי אם מברכין על מאור אחד דהיינו על יסוד האש או על מאורי האש שלנו שיש בה הרבה גוונים, דבית שמאי סברי חדא נהורא איכא בנורא, פי' דביסוד האש הוא גוון אחד ועל כרחך צריך לומר "ברא" מאור, שביסוד האש שייך לשון עבר שכבר ברא, וב"ה סברי שאנו מברכין נמי על שלנו שאנו מוציאין תמיד והרבה גוונים יש בו וגם על יסוד האש שהוא גוון א', ע"כ צריך לומר "בורא", דשייך בו לשון הווה נמי, שאנו מוציאין תמיד מחדש."

תנו רבנן מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו והמהדרין נר לכל אחד ואחד והמהדרין מן המהדרין בית שמאי אומרים יום ראשון מדליק שמנה מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך ובית הלל אומרים יום ראשון מדליק אחת מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך אמר עולא פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא חד אמר טעמא דבית שמאי כנגד ימים הנכנסין וטעמא דבית הלל כנגד ימים היוצאין וחד אמר טעמא דבית שמאי כנגד פרי החג וטעמא דבית הלל דמעלין בקדש ואין מורידין

one is not bound to attend to it. Therefore, there is no reason to make certain from the outset to light it with materials that burn well, as even if it is extinguished, he is not required to relight it. However, he also holds that it is permitted to use its light. As a result, he must ensure that the wick burns well on Shabbat; if not, he is liable to come to adjust the flame in order to use its light. The third opinion is that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Mattana said, and others say that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The wicks and oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, one may, nevertheless, light with them on Hanukkah, both during the week and on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: What is Rav’s reason? He holds that if it is extinguished, one is not bound to attend to it and relight it, and it is prohibited to use its light. Therefore, even on Shabbat, there is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick, as it is prohibited to utilize its light. The Gemara relates that the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya and he did not accept it, as he did not hold Rabbi Yirmeya in high regard. However, subsequently, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he accepted it. Then Abaye said regretfully: Had I merited, I would have learned this halakha from the outset. The Gemara wonders: Didn’t he ultimately learn it and accept it? What difference does it make from whom and at what point he learned it? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to knowledge acquired in one’s youth, which is better remembered. With regard to the opinion that one need not rekindle the Hanukkah light if it is extinguished, the Gemara asks: And is it true that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished one is not bound to attend to it? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah lights is from sunset until traffic in the marketplace ceases. Does that not mean that if the light is extinguished, he must rekindle it so that it will remain lit for the duration of that period? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita can be understood otherwise: That if one did not yet light at sunset, he may still light the Hanukkah lights until traffic ceases. Alternatively, one could say that this is referring to the matter of its measure. One must prepare a wick and oil sufficient to burn for the period lasting from sunset until traffic ceases. If he did so, even if the light is extinguished beforehand, he need not relight it. The expression until traffic in the marketplace ceases is mentioned here, and the Gemara asks: Until when exactly is this time? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until the traffic of the people of Tadmor [tarmodaei] ceases. They sold kindling wood and remained in the marketplace later than everyone else. People who discovered at sunset that they had exhausted their wood supply could purchase wood from them. The Sages taught in a baraita: The basic mitzva of Hanukkah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say: On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights. Ulla said: There were two amoraim in the West, Eretz Yisrael, who disagreed with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the incoming days, i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the outgoing days. Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. And one said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot: Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12–31). The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There were two Elders in Sidon, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Each provided a reason for his actions: One gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the Festival. And one gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp at the entrance to one’s house on the outside, so that all can see it. If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, when the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, he places it on the table and that is sufficient to fulfill his obligation. Rava said: One must kindle another light in addition to the Hanukkah lights in order to use its light, as it is prohibited to use the light of the Hanukkah lights. And if there is a bonfire, he need not light an additional light, as he can use the light of the bonfire. However, if he is an important person, who is unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, even though there is a bonfire, he must kindle another light. The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Taanit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings. We learned there in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case of a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out of the artisan’s workshop, and caused damage, the one who struck the hammer is liable. Similarly, in the case of a camel that is laden with flax and it passed through the public domain, and its flax entered into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper’s lamp, and set fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. Since his flax entered into another’s domain, which he had no permission to enter, all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside the store and it set fire to the flax, the storekeeper is liable, as he placed the lamp outside his domain where he had no right to place it. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the flax was set on fire by the storekeeper’s Hanukkah lamp that he placed outside the entrance to his store, he is not liable, as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to place his lamp outside. Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is to say that it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within ten handbreadths of the ground. As if it should enter your mind to say that he may place it above ten handbreadths, why is the storekeeper exempt? Let the camel owner say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps one is also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths, and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. He held that if you burden one excessively, he will come to refrain from performing the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take extra precautions. With regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum:

מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים אין שורין דיו וסמנים וכרשינין אלא כדי שישורו מבעוד יום ובית הלל מתירין בית שמאי אומרים אין נותנין אונין של פשתן לתוך התנור אלא כדי שיהבילו מבעוד יום ולא את הצמר ליורה אלא כדי שיקלוט העין ובית הלל מתירין...

Tavi the bird hunter [rishba] that Shmuel said: The decree that growths of teruma, i.e., produce that grows from teruma that was planted in the ground, are considered teruma, the Sages also issued on that day. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this decree? Rabbi Ḥanina said: A decree due to pure teruma in the hand of a non-priest Israelite. One who seeks to avoid giving teruma to a priest would plant it in the ground and thereby negate its teruma status. To prevent him from doing so, the Sages decreed that that which grows from the teruma is also considered teruma. Consequently, one would gain nothing by replanting the teruma. Rava said: If they are suspected of that, let them refrain from separating teruma altogether. Rather, Rava said: We know that with regard to an Israelite, as opposed to a Levite, fundamentally it is possible to perform the mitzva of teruma by separating merely one grain of wheat, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that by Torah law there is no fixed measure for teruma. By separating one grain of wheat as teruma for all the wheat on the threshing floor, one fulfills his obligation. Since he nevertheless did not take advantage of that possibility to exempt himself from the obligation of separating teruma, he is trustworthy, and there is no reason to suspect that he will seek to avoid giving teruma to the priest by planting it. Rather, the reason for the decree is due to impure teruma in the hand of a priest. A priest is forbidden to eat impure teruma and he is required to burn it. However, the priest is permitted to derive benefit from its burning. The Sages were concerned lest he keep the impure teruma with him until the season of sowing and sow his field with it, and, as a result, he encounter a stumbling-block because over time he is liable to forget that the teruma is impure and eat it. With regard to the total of eighteen decrees, the Gemara asks: And what is the other decree? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: In a case of one who was carrying a purse with money in it on Shabbat eve, and it got dark for him on the way, the Torah law permitted him to carry the purse in increments, each of which is less than four cubits. However, the Sages issued the following decree: It is prohibited to carry in increments; he should give his purse to a gentile accompanying him. This decree was also issued on that day. And the other decree: The Sage Bali said that Avimi of Sanvata said: The decrees with regard to gentiles that prohibit their bread, and their oil, and their wine, and their daughters are all one decree of the eighteen matters. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, as according to his opinion the Gemara already enumerated eighteen decrees. However, according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the dispute remains with regard to the matter of vessels in the courtyard, they are only seventeen. The Gemara answers: There is also that statement of Rav Aḥa bar Adda, as Rav Aḥa bar Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Sages issued a decree prohibiting eating their bread due to their oil. And they issued a decree prohibiting their oil due to their wine. Consequently, there are two separate decrees. The Gemara wonders: They issued a decree on their bread because of their oil. In what way is the prohibition on oil stronger than the prohibition on bread? Rather, say that they issued a decree prohibiting their bread and their oil due to their wine. And they issued a decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that it leads to familiarity, and people will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else, idolatry, due to something else. The Gemara asks: What is the something else alluded to here? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They issued a decree on a gentile baby, according him the legal status that he transmits impurity as one with the legal status of a great zav, who experienced three emissions, even though he did not experience an emission. This was in order to distance Jewish children from gentile children so that a Jewish boy should not be accustomed to be with a gentile in homosexual relations. The Gemara asks: If so, according to Rabbi Meir it is difficult as well, as they are now nineteen decrees. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir counts the decrees of food items and vessels that became impure through contact with liquids as one. Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir, too, there are only eighteen decrees. MISHNA: In this mishna there is a fundamental dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai: Must one begin refraining from actions prohibited on Shabbat on Shabbat eve? Or, may one initiate an action prior to Shabbat, even if he knows that it will continue on its own on Shabbat itself? These are the details of that dispute: Beit Shammai say: One may only soak dry ink in water and dry plants, which produce dyes, in water and vetch for animal food to soften them in water on Shabbat eve, adjacent to Shabbat,if there is clearly sufficient time for them to soak for their designated purpose while it is still day, before Shabbat begins, and their continued soaking on Shabbat will have no effect. And Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Shammai say: One may only place bundles of combed flax inside the oven on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time so that they will be heated while it is still day. And one may only place wool into the dyer’s kettle if there is sufficient time for the wool to absorb the dye while it is still day. And Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Shammai say: One may spread traps for an animal and birds and fish only if there is sufficient time remaining in the day for them to be trapped in them while it is still day, and Beit Hillel permit doing so even if there is not sufficient time remaining in the day. Beit Shammai say: One may only sell an item to a gentile on Shabbat eve, and one may only load a burden on his donkey with him, and one may only lift a burden on him if there remains sufficient time for the gentile to arrive to a near place prior to Shabbat, and the Jew will play no role in the performance of a prohibited labor by the gentile on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Shammai say: One may not give skins to a gentile tanner, nor clothes to a gentile launderer, unless there is sufficient time for work on them to be completed while it is still day, before Shabbat begins. And in all of them Beit Hillel permit doing so with

תניא אמרו עליו על שמאי הזקן כל ימיו היה אוכל לכבוד שבת מצא בהמה נאה אומר זו לשבת מצא אחרת נאה הימנה מניח את השניה ואוכל את הראשונה אבל הלל הזקן מדה אחרת היתה לו שכל מעשיו לשם שמים שנאמר (תהלים סח, כ) ברוך ה' יום יום

A person’s entire livelihood is allocated to him during the period from Rosh HaShana to Yom Kippur. During that time, as each individual is judged, it is decreed exactly how much money he will earn for all his expenditures of the coming year, except for expenditures for Shabbatot, and expenditures for Festivals, and expenditures for the school fees of his sons’ Torah study. In these areas, no exact amount is determined at the beginning of the year; rather, if he reduced the amount he spends for these purposes, his income is reduced and he earns that much less money in that year, and if he increased his expenditures in these areas, his income is increased to ensure that he can cover the expense. Therefore, one may borrow for these purposes, since he is guaranteed to have enough income to cover whatever he spends for them. Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse from which this dictum is derived? The source is: “Blow the shofar at the New Moon, at the concealed time for our Festival day” (Psalms 81:4). On which Festival is the new moon concealed? You must say that it is Rosh HaShana, which occurs on the first of the month, when the moon is not yet visible, while the moon is visible during the other Festivals, which occur in the middle of the month. And it is written in the next verse: “For it is a statute [ḥok] for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob” (Psalms 81:5). The Gemara explains: From where may it be inferred that this word “statute [ḥok]” is a term relating to food? As it is written: “And they ate their allotment [ḥukkam], which Pharaoh gave them” (Genesis 47:22). Mar Zutra said: One can learn that ḥok is referring to food from here: “Feed me with my allotted [ḥukki] bread” (Proverbs 30:8). It is taught in a baraita: They said about Shammai the Elder that all his days he would eat in honor of Shabbat. How so? If he found a choice animal, he would say: This is for Shabbat. If he subsequently found another one choicer than it, he would set aside the second for Shabbat and eat the first. He would eat the first to leave the better-quality animal for Shabbat, which continually rendered his eating an act of honoring Shabbat. However, Hillel the Elder had a different trait, that all his actions, including those on a weekday, were for the sake of Heaven, as it is stated: “Blessed be the Lord, day by day; He bears our burden, our God who is our salvation; Selah” (Psalms 68:20), meaning that God gives a blessing for each and every day. That is also taught in a baraita in more general terms: Beit Shammai say: From the first day of the week, Sunday, start preparing already for your Shabbat. And Beit Hillel say: “Blessed be the Lord, day by day.” § Apropos the statements about honoring Shabbat, the Gemara cites another statement on the same topic. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: One who gives a gift to his friend need not inform him that he has given it to him, and he need not concern himself that the recipient might not realize who gave it to him. As it is stated: “And Moses did not know that the skin of his face was radiant” (Exodus 34:29); Moses received this gift unawares. The Gemara raises an objection to this. Isn’t it written: “Nevertheless, you must keep My Shabbatot, for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord Who sanctifies you” (Exodus 31:13), which the Sages expounded as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, I have a good gift in My treasury, and its name is Shabbat, and I wish to give it to the Jewish people. Go and inform them of this intention of Mine. And from here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives a gift of a piece of bread to a child must inform his mother of his actions, so that the child’s parents will be aware of the giver’s fond feelings for them, thereby enhancing friendly relations and companionship among Jews. This appears to be in direct contradiction to Rabbi Ḥama’s statement. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, where one need not inform the recipient, is referring to a gift that is likely to be revealed, such as Moses’ shining face, which everyone would point out to him; that case, where one must inform the recipient, is referring to a gift that is not likely to be revealed in the natural course of events. The Gemara challenges: Isn’t Shabbat also a gift that is likely to be revealed, as the Jews would eventually be instructed with regard to the time and nature of Shabbat? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, its reward is not likely to be revealed. Therefore, God told Moses to inform the Jews of the gift of Shabbat and its reward. The Master said earlier that from here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives a piece of bread to a child must inform his mother. The Gemara asks: What does he do to him; how does he inform the child’s mother? He rubs oil on him and paints his eyes blue, so that when the child arrives home his mother will ask him who did this to him and he will reply that it was a person who also gave him a piece of bread. The Gemara comments: And nowadays, when we are concerned about witchcraft, i.e., that painting the child’s eyes might have been performed as an act of sorcery, what should one do? Rav Pappa said: He rubs on the child a little of that same type of food that he put on the bread, such as butter or cheese, and this will cause the child’s mother to notice that he received a present. The Gemara cites a further statement with regard to the gift of Shabbat to the Jewish people. Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: All the mitzvot that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave to the Jewish people, He gave to them in public [parhesya] except for Shabbat, which he gave to them in private. As it is stated: “It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever” (Exodus 31:17), meaning that in a sense, it is a secret between God and the Jewish people. The Gemara challenges: If it is so that it was given in secret so that not everyone knew about it, the gentiles should not be punished for not wanting to accept it; they are liable to receive punishment for refusing to accept the other mitzvot of the Torah. The Gemara answers: The Holy One, Blessed be He, did inform them of the concept of Shabbat, but He did not inform them of the reward for the fulfillment of the mitzva. And if you wish, say instead that He also informed the gentiles of its reward, but about the idea of the additional soul given to each person on Shabbat He did not inform them. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gives a person an additional soul on Shabbat eve, and at the conclusion of Shabbat removes it from him, as it is stated: “He ceased from work and was refreshed [vayinafash]” (Exodus 31:17). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish expounds the verse as follows: Since he ceased from work, and now Shabbat has concluded and his additional soul is removed from him, woe [vai] for the additional soul [nefesh] that is lost. It was taught in the mishna that a person may prepare a cooked dish on a Festival eve and rely on it for Shabbat for the joining of cooked foods. Abaye said: They taught that the joining of cooked foods allows one to cook on a Festival for Shabbat only when it is made from a cooked dish; however, if it is composed of bread alone, no, this is not sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is different about bread that makes it not fit for this purpose? If we say that we require something that accompanies bread, and bread does not accompany itself, the following difficulty arises: Porridge also does not accompany bread, as Rabbi Zeira said: Those foolish Babylonians eat bread with bread, referring to their custom of eating bread with porridge. This shows that porridge is no better accompaniment to bread than bread itself, and yet Rav Neḥumi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may establish an eiruv with porridge. Rather, one must say as follows: We require something that is not routine, so that it will be clear that one is setting it aside for the purpose of an eiruv, and bread is routine, whereas porridge is not routine. Some say a different version of this discussion: Abaye said: They taught that a joining of cooked foods allows one to cook on a Festival for Shabbat only when it is made from a cooked dish; however, if it is composed of bread, no, that is not sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If we say that we require something that is not routine, and bread is routine, the following difficulty arises: Isn’t porridge not particularly routine? And yet Rav Neḥumi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may not establish an eiruv with porridge. Rather, one should say as follows: We require something that accompanies bread, and bread does not accompany itself, and porridge, too, does not accompany bread, as Rabbi Zeira said: Those foolish Babylonians eat bread with bread, from which it is clear that like bread, porridge does not accompany bread and consequently cannot constitute an eiruv. Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: With regard to lentils that remain at the bottom of a pot on the eve of a Festival, one may rely on them for the joining of cooked foods. Although they were not prepared with this purpose in mind, they are nevertheless considered a cooked dish. And this applies only if there is an olive-bulk of lentils in total. Similarly, Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: With regard to fat of meat and the like that is on a knife, one may scrape it off the knife and rely on it for the joining of cooked foods; and this applies only if there is an olive-bulk of fat in total. Rav Asi said that Rav said: Small salted fish that a gentile then cooked are not considered the cooked food of gentiles because cooking does not prepare them to be food any more than they already were, as they can be eaten in their salted state. Rav Yosef said: And even if a gentile roasted them, a Jew may rely on them for the joining of cooked foods, as they are not considered the cooked food of a gentile and are indeed already edible. However, if the gentile made them into fish fried with oil and flour [kasa deharsena], it is prohibited to eat them. In this case they are considered the cooked food of a gentile, since his actions have made them into noteworthy food. The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that this is the case; it need not be taught. The Gemara answers: The justification for teaching it is lest you say that
בפסוק מי אנכי כו'. וכי אוציא. דרשו חז"ל מה זכות יש להם. וקשה דא"כ מה שייכות למי אנכי כו'. ועוד וכי מרע"ה בא לקטרג על בנ"י ח"ו. אך מרע"ה הי' בחי' התורה ממש. וכל מעשיו הי' עפ"י התורה והמשפט. ובאמת גאולת בנ"י רצה הקב"ה שיהי' עפ"י התורה. ומרע"ה רצה שיהי' עפ"י החסד שהוא מדתו של אהרן. ואמר מי אנכי. וכי אוציא. מאחר שהוא השליח צריכין בנ"י להיות ראוים לגאולה. והש"י השיב לו כי אהי'. והיינו כי נגלה לפניו ית' הזכות שעתידים בנ"י לזכות אח"כ. וכמו שבני ישראל הקדימו נעשה לנשמע. כן הי' הנהגות הש"י עמנו להיות עתיד והוה הכל אחד. וע"ז דרשו חז"ל כתפוח בעצי היער כו' שהקדימו נעשה לנשמע. והקשו דהא המשל קאי על הבורא ית'. וכתבנו במ"א הפי' כי הקב"ה מנהיג את בנ"י בזה הדרך כאשר הם מקדימין נעשה לנשמע. והענין הוא כי פנימיות בנ"י מאד נעלה. וחלק ה' עמו. וכביכול כמו שלפניו ית' הי' הוה ויהי' הכל אחד. כן לבנ"י עבר והוה ועתיד הכל א'. ולעולם נמצא בהם בחי' התורה ואלקיות. רק שיש זמנים שאין יכולין להוציא מכח אל הפועל הפנימיות שלהם. וז"ש בהוציאך כו' תעבדון את האלקים. כי עתה הוא בכח. וכשיגאלו יצא אל הפועל ויקבלו התורה מן השמים בפועל ממש כנ"ל:

אשר חכמים יגידו ושמענו מרבותינו ז"ל כי יצ"מ הי' תיקון כל מעשה בראשית. וכלל הדברים שבאמצעות עשר מכות נתקנו עשרה מאמרות ונעשה אח"כ עשרת הדברות. אשר ע"כ כמו שמצינו בראשית הבריאה עלה במחשבה לפניו לבראותו במדה"ד וראה שאינו מתקיים חזר ושיתף עמו מדה"ר. כמו כן נעשה בגאולה זו התחיל במדה"ד ושיתף מדה"ר. ולהבין דבריהם ז"ל כי ח"ו שמחשבת השי"ת לא נתקיימה. אכן פי' דבריהם כי מעשה בראשית בפועל א"א להתקיים במדה"ד פי' שיתנהגו כל הברואים ממש במשפט הש"י. אך נתקיימה מחשבתו בבנ"י אשר הם עלו במחשבה לפניו ואנחנו בנ"י צריכין בוודאי לקיים הכל ע"פ התורה. ואם אמנם גם זה א"א לקיים בפועל כמאמר אין צדיק בארץ כו' ולא יחטא כי החסרון דבוק ומוכרח כמעט במעשה. עכ"ז במחשבה צריך להיות מוכן כל איש ישראל למס"נ וכל מעשיו לשמים.

ולפי דרכינו זה יש לפרש הקדמת מצוות קה"ח למצות הפסח, דהנה ישו להתבונן בענין ר"ח שמהותו נשתנה ממהות השבת שבא אחר שהוקדם לו ששת ימי המעשה, ומי שטרח בע"ש יאכל בשבת, והיינו שהאור של שבת הוא זוכה לעומת הכנתו בששת ימי המעשה בהתיקונים והברורין כידוע, אבל ר"ח אינו בא אלא בתחילת החודש, מורה שאין אור ר"ח לעומת המעש"ט של כל החודש, אלא להיפוך שניתן אור ר"ח מקודם אף לבלתי מוכנים עדיין למען יתחזק ידם בעבודה בכל ימי חודש העתידין לבוא, ונראה שדורות הראשונים מאדה"ר ואילך עדיין לא זכו לענין זה שתקדים להם אורות להמעש"ט, ואף שקבעו החדשים לפי החשבון, לא הי' להם יום ראשון של החודש ליום הנכבד, וזה החסד ניתן רק לישראל שנצטוו במצוות קידוש חדשים ולא סגי להו בקביעות החודש עפ"י חשבון, והיינו שממשיכין קדושה בהחודש, וע"כ יום המשכת הקדושה הוא יום הנכבד שממנו מסתעפת קדושה לכל ימי החודש:

מ"ט אמר רבי אלעזר א"ר אושעיא הואיל ויצאו רוב גשמי שנה ועדיין רוב תקופה מבחוץ מאי קאמר ה"ק אע"פ שרוב תקופה מבחוץ הואיל ויצאו רוב גשמי שנה

The Gemara comments: It is necessary to state all three statements of Shmuel in order to clarify his position, as had Shmuel taught us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, I would have said that this is due to the fact that he holds that there is mixing even with regard to solids. Therefore, he teaches us the second statement, that there is no mixing for anything except wine, oil, and other liquids. And had Shmuel taught us only that there is no mixing for anything except liquids, I would have said that he holds like the Sages with regard to tithes, that the mixture of cowpeas cannot be tithed together. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. And had Shmuel taught us only these two statements, I would have said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira that it is difficult to reconcile one statement of Shmuel with another statement of Shmuel. Therefore, he teaches us that in all cases, the tithe year follows the time of the full ripening of the produce, and it is for this reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. And had Shmuel taught us only that in all cases the tithe year follows the time of the full ripening of the produce, I would have said that this applies even to grain and olives. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri with regard to his dispute with the Sages, i.e., with regard to beans, but with regard to grain and olives the tithe year follows the time that they reach one-third of their growth. The Gemara asks: But let him teach us only these two statements, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri and that in all cases the tithe year follows the full ripening of the fruit, which would suffice to clarify Shmuel’s position. Why do I need to be told that there is no mixing for anything? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us not that there is no mixing for solids, but that there is mixing for wine, oil, and other liquids. § It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The verse states: “After you have gathered in from your threshing floor and from your winepress” (Deuteronomy 16:13). This teaches that just as the grain that is brought to the threshing floor and the wine that is brought to the winepress are special in that they grow on the outgoing year’s water, i.e., the moisture in the ground from the previous winter’s rain, and the halakha is that they are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, so too, anything that grows on the outgoing year’s water is tithed in accordance with the outgoing year. This comes to exclude vegetables, which grow on the incoming year’s water, as their growth cycle is short and they are nurtured by the rain that falls while they are growing. Consequently, they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year. Rabbi Akiva says: This is the way the verse should be expounded: “After you have gathered in from your threshing floor and from your winepress”; this teaches us that just as the grain that is brought to the threshing floor and the wine that is brought to the winepress are special in that they grow on most water, i.e., rainfall is sufficient and they do not require irrigation, and the halakha is that they are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, so too, anything that grows on most water is tithed in accordance with the outgoing year. This comes to exclude vegetables, which grow on all water, i.e., they require irrigation as well. Consequently, they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva? Rabbi Abbahu said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to seedless onions and cowpeas, as we learned in a mishna: Seedless onions, which are cultivated for their greens and not for their bulbs or seeds, and the cowpea plant, which was planted to be eaten as a vegetable, from which one withheld water for thirty days before Rosh HaShana, so that their green portions stopped growing and they began to grow for seed, are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, and they are permitted if the new year is the Sabbatical Year. And if not, they are prohibited if it is the Sabbatical Year, and in ordinary years they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year. Therefore, the halakha depends not on the species of plant but on whether the crop is in fact nurtured by the previous year’s water or the new year’s water, and this mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. § The mishna taught: On the first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the statement of Beit Shammai. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the new year for trees was set on this date? Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The reason is since by that time most of the year’s rains have already fallen, and most of the season, i.e., winter, is yet to come, as it continues until the spring equinox, which usually occurs in Nisan. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? The Gemara explains: This is what he said: Even though most of the winter season is yet to come, nevertheless, since most of the year’s rains have already fallen, it is considered the end of the previous year of rain, and anything that grows from then on is considered produce of the next year. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was once an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who picked an etrog on the first of Shevat and set aside two tithes. This occurred in the second or the fifth year of the Sabbatical cycle. In the second and fifth years one sets aside second tithe, whereas in the third and sixth years one sets aside poor man’s tithe. Rabbi Akiva set aside both second tithe and poor man’s tithe because he was in doubt about the halakha.
באחד בשבט מ"ט. מפרש נמי לב"ה כמו לב"ש אלא קמא נקט דלמר זמן חניטתה של גשמי שנה זו באחד בשבט ולמר בט"ו בשבט וכל החנוטים קודם זמן הזה היינו על גשמי שנה שלפני תשרי והא דלא אזיל באילנות בתר תשרי כמו בשליש בתבואה משום דדרשינן לעיל (ראש השנה דף י.) פעמים שברביעית ועדיין אסורין משום ערלה:

המאירי

באחד בשבט ר"ה לאילן - לענין מעשר. שאף הפירות אינן מתעשרות מן החדש על הישן... וזמן חנטה הוא בשבט שעברו רוב גשמים. ומפני זה קבעו ר"ה שלו באחד בשבט, שלא לעשר מן הפירות שנחנטו קודם שבט על אותן שנחנטו לאחר שבט. ובית הלל אומרים בחמשה עשר בו, שנמשכו מטבת עד חצי שבט ששה שבועות שהם חצי ימי תקופת טבת. שהתקופה נמשכת עד ניסן, וחמשה עשר בשבט הוא תחום אמצעי שבין שתי התקופות. ומאחר שעברה חציה של תקופת טבת, כבר תשש כוחה, ואין כוח הקרירות חזק כל כך, והחנטה הולכת ומתגברת.

ר' זעירה רבי אילא רבי לעזר בשם רבי הושעיה חד אמר כבר יצאו רוב גשמי שנה כולה וכבר רובה של תקופה מבחוץ וחרונה אמר עד כאן הן חיין ממי השנה שעברה מיכן והילך הן חיין ממי השנה הבאה

שביבי אורות לט"ו בשבט - הרב הנזיר

עומק הדברים כך; יש שתי השקפות עולם, או יותר נכון יש השקפת עולם ויש חיות עולם. הא' הכל ניתן בראיה... בעיון, תיאוריא זו - שיטת ב"ה, שרדפו שלום במעשה, ובעיון הקרוב לעין הדור. משא"כ ב"ש החזיקו במקוריות המוחלטה, שאינה יודעת פשרות וויתורים ואמצעים. החיות הוא עיקר בעולם. ולכן ר"ה - עד כאן חיין ממי השנה שעברה, מכאן ואילך חיין ממי השנה הבאה.

החיות הוא עיקר בעולם. ולכן ר"ה - עד כאן חיין ממי השנה שעברה, מכאן ואילך חיין ממי השנה הבאה. וכן בתורה; אור תורה וחיי תורה דברי א-להים חיים. אמנם שניהם כאחד, וכל מי שיש בו אור תורה - אור תורה מחייהו...

צריך לחיות בהם. זה ניתן לתחושה פנימית, לחיוּת אישית, נפשית, רוחנית ונשמתית חי יחידה. האור הוא הנושא ותוכם החיוּת. החיים ממקור א-להים חיים. חֵי עולמים.

דתניא נתן לה באתננה חיטין ועשאן סולת זיתים ועשאן שמן ענבים ועשאן יין תני חדא אסור ותני חדא מותר ואמר רב יוסף תני גוריון דמאספורק ב"ש אוסרין ובית הלל מתירין מאי טעמא דבית שמאי דכתיב גם לרבות שינוייהם ובית הלל הם ולא שינוייהם ובית שמאי ההוא הם ולא ולדותיהם הוא דאתא ובית הלל תרתי שמעית מינה הם ולא שינויהם הם ולא ולדותיהם

And the Rabbis say: It is written concerning a bailee who falsely claims innocence with regard to a deposit entrusted to him: “He shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it” (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that with regard to monetary restitution that is paid precisely according to the principal, one adds one-fifth, but for monetary restitution that is not paid precisely according to the principal, as is the case here, where the bailee pays double the principal value, one does not add one-fifth. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Neither the additional one-fifth nor the guilt-offering is paid in a case where there is double payment. This concludes the baraita. Rabbi Ḥanina explains: In any event, the baraita teaches: His payment of the additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the stolen item was initially worth four dinars and ultimately, at the time of trial, was still worth four dinars, how could he say: His payment of the additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment? This statement is inaccurate in this case, as the double payment, i.e., the penalty included in the double payment, is four dinars, and the additional one-fifth is one dinar. When the Torah states “fifth” it means one-fifth of the total payment of the one-fifth and the principal together, i.e., one-quarter of the principal. For the additional one-fifth to be covered by the double payment, the two must be exactly equal, which is not the case here. Rather, is it not referring to a situation where initially it was worth four dinars and at the end it was worth one dinar, as the penalty component of the double payment is one dinar and the additional one-fifth is also one dinar? Apparently, the principal, as well as the additional one-fifth, is paid according to the value as of the time when he stole, whereas the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment is according to the value at the time of standing trial, as claimed by Rav. The Gemara refutes this analysis. Rava said: Actually, the baraita could be referring to a case in which initially it was worth four dinars and now, at the time of trial, it is also worth four dinars. And as for what is difficult with this case, namely that the double payment is four dinars and the additional one-fifth is one dinar, this problem can be resolved as follows: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the bailee took an oath that the deposit was stolen from him, and he again took the same oath, and so on four times, and after each oath he admitted afterward that he had lied. And the Torah said: “And shall add its fifth part [ḥamishitav] to it” (Leviticus 5:24). Rava continues: The term ḥamishitav is in the plural, which indicates that the Torah included the possibility of many payments of an additional one-fifth for a single principal. In other words, each time the bailee takes a false oath he becomes obligated to pay an additional one-fifth, despite the fact that each oath concerns the same item. Since he did so four times, and the one-fifth is actually one-quarter of the principal, the total amount of payments of the additional one-fifth is equal to the principal, which is the same as the penalty component of the double payment. § The Master said in the baraita: And the Sages say: “He shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it” (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that for monetary restitution that is paid precisely according to the principal, one adds one-fifth. But for monetary restitution that is not paid precisely according to the principal, one does not add one-fifth. The Gemara infers: He does not add one-fifth, but he is obligated to bring a guilt-offering. The Gemara asks: What is different about the additional one-fifth in that case, that he does not have to pay it? As it is written: “He shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it.” This indicates that the additional one-fifth is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal amount. If so, with regard to the guilt offering as well, he should not have to pay, i.e., bring it, as it is written: “He shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it…and his guilt-offering [ve’et ashamo] he shall bring to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:24–25). The verse links the guilt-offering to the payment of the precise amount of the principal, just like it does the additional one-fifth. The Gemara answers: The Sages would say to you in response: The superfluous word et in the phrase “and his guilt offering [ve’et ashamo]” divides the verse. Therefore, only the additional one-fifth payment, but not the guilt-offering, is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who maintains that this bailee is exempt from a guilt-offering as well, how would he respond to the Sages’ argument concerning “et”? He would point out that the term in question is actually ve’et,” consisting of the word et preceded by the letter vav, meaning “and.” The conjunction joins the clauses of the verse. Therefore, both the additional one-fifth payment and the guilt-offering are linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal. And the Rabbis would respond to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s claim and say to you: If the Torah had intended that the two issues should be joined together, let the Merciful One write neither the vav nor “et.” And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai could have said to you in response to this argument: It is not possible for the verse to have not written “et,” as this term is necessary to separate between property belonging to the Most High, i.e., the guilt-offering, and non-sacred property, i.e., that of a Jew. Therefore, as the verse had to use “et” to indicate this difference, the vav comes and joins the clauses of the verse. § The Gemara discusses other cases in which an object undergoes a change after it has been stolen. Rabbi Ile’a says: If one stole a lamb and it subsequently became a ram, or if he stole a calf and it subsequently became a bull, the stolen item has undergone a change while in the thief’s possession, and he has therefore acquired it as his own property. Consequently, his obligation of restitution consists of monetary payment rather than giving back the stolen item itself. If he subsequently slaughtered or sold the animal, it is in effect his own animal that he slaughters, or it is his own animal that he sells, and he is not obligated in the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rabbi Ḥanina raised an objection to Rabbi Ile’a from a baraita: If one stole a lamb and it subsequently became a ram, of if he stole a calf and it subsequently became a bull, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the animal’s value as of the time when he stole it. And if it enters your mind that in a case of this kind the thief has acquired the animal as his own property by virtue of the physical change the animal underwent when it matured, why does he pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? After all, it is his own animal that he slaughters, or it is his own animal that he sells. Rabbi Ile’a said to him: Rather, what would you conclude from the baraita? That this physical change in the stolen animal does not serve to acquire it for the thief and render it his property? If so, why should he pay according to the animal’s value as of the time when he stole it? Let him pay according to the animal’s value now, i.e., at the time of the slaughter or sale. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: This is the reason that he does not pay in accordance with the animal’s value now: It is because the thief can say to the animal’s owner: Did I steal a bull from you, or: Did I steal a ram from you? No; I stole only a calf or a lamb, and therefore I will pay you the value of the animal when I stole it. Rabbi Ile’a said to Rabbi Ḥanina: May the Merciful One save us from this opinion of yours! Rabbi Ḥanina said back to him: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion! Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But even if an animal’s natural growth is not considered a physical change, let the thief acquire it through its change in name, i.e., its change of classification, as the animal was originally called a calf or a lamb and now it is considered a bull or ram. Rava says: There is in fact no change in name here, as even a day-old bull is called a bull, and even a day-old ram is called a ram. A day-old bull is called a bull, as it is written: “When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is born” (Leviticus 22:27). A day-old ram is called a ram, as can be derived from Jacob’s statement to Laban, as it is written: “And the rams of your flock I have not eaten” (Genesis 31:38). Now, did Jacob mean that he did not eat any of Laban’s rams, but younger lambs he did eat? This is certainly not the meaning of this verse, as this would mean he was a thief. Rather, must one not conclude from this verse that a day-old ram is called a ram? In any case, the baraita cited earlier by Rabbi Ḥanina is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Ile’a, as it states that the thief must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment despite the fact that the slaughter or sale of the animal took place after it matured from a calf to a bull or from a lamb to a ram. To resolve the difficulty, Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: An item, even if it has undergone a physical change, remains in its place, i.e., a stolen item remains in the possession of its owner, and a thief does not acquire it even if it undergoes a change. As it is taught in a baraita: If one gave wheat to a prostitute for her payment, i.e., the hire of her services, and she made the wheat into flour; or if he gave her olives and she made them into oil; or if he gave her grapes and she made them into wine, it is taught in one baraita that it is prohibited to bring these products as an offering in the Temple, in accordance with the verse: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot…into the house of the Lord your God for any vow” (Deuteronomy 23:19). And it is taught in one baraita that these products are permitted, as the physical change renders them into new items. And Rav Yosef says that Guryon of Asporak teaches in a baraita: Beit Shammai prohibit these products and Beit Hillel permit them. If so, these two baraitot reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The Gemara clarifies the source of these two opinions. What is the reason of Beit Shammai for prohibiting these products? As it is written: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). The apparently superfluous word “even” serves to include their changed status. And Beit Hillel, who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, maintain that the term “these” in the phrase “both of these” teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, but not to their changed form. And Beit Shammai would reply: That term,

(ח) דָּגִים מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טֻמְאָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מִשֶּׁיִּצֹּדוּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מִשֶּׁיָּמוּתוּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אִם יְכוֹלִין לִחְיוֹת. יִחוּר שֶׁל תְּאֵנָה שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח וּמְעֹרֶה בַקְּלִפָּה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אִם יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת. תְּבוּאָה שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרָה וּמְעֹרָה אֲפִלּוּ בְשֹׁרֶשׁ קָטָן, טְהוֹרָה:

(8) Beginning when do fish become susceptible to being rendered impure? Beit Shammai say: once they have been captured; and Beit Hillel say: once they have died. Rabbi Akiva says: if they could still live [they are not susceptible]. Regarding a branch of a fig tree which was broken off but is still attached by its bark, Rabbi Yehuda considers it to be pure; but the Sages say: if it could still live [and produce fruit, the figs on the branch are not susceptible to being rendered impure, as they are still connected to the earth]. Grain which was uprooted but is still attached [to the soil], even by a small root, is pure [i.e. is insusceptible to being rendered impure].

הקדמת הרב הנזיר לאורות הקודש

הקודש, זהו היסוד הראשון... מהות הקודש העצמי בלתי נגדרת, כי הוא עומק העמקים, ראשית כל, ולא ניתן להתפרש... כשנשאל הרב בראשית עריכת מאמר הקודש, מה גדר הקודש, והתשובה הייתה, המתגלה מתוך התורה,
שהוא הרצון העליון. והרגשתי, שרבנו לא נתן כל גדר לקודש, לעומק מהותו, קודש הקדשים, כי אם הקודש המתגלה בקדושה... וכן בראש מערכת הקודש, דבר הזהר: "קדש מלה בגרמיה הוא"... אלא מתגלה בקדושת החכמה, הרצון העליון, בתורה, ובעולם.
החיות האלהית העולמית, היסוד השני בש יטה. לעומת הקודש הכללי, הצפוי באור שמח, בהסתכלות שכלית, החיות היא פנימית, בלתי נראית וצפויה, אלא שפע עליון, הנתון לתחושה פנימית. וכשמתגבר השפע נקשב, כגילוי אותיות רוחניות, בנשמת האדם... אלה עמקי השיטה הא -להית, קודש וחיות, אור ושפע, המ תגלים בראיה ושמיעה, בנשמת האדם, הדבק האור החיים, בחי העולמים.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria. Learn More.OKאנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.קראו עוד בנושאלחצו כאן לאישור