חצר לאפוקי מדרבי יעקב דתנן המעביר תאנים בחצרו לקצות בניו ובני ביתו אוכלין מהן עראי ופטורים מן המעשר ותני עלה רבי יעקב מחייב ור' יוסי בר' יהודה פוטר
In addition, it was necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to teach the law that a courtyard does not establish fruit for tithes unless its work is completed, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov. As we learned in a mishna: One who was transporting figs in his courtyard to make them into dried figs, his children and the members of his household may eat from them in a casual manner, and they are exempt from tithes. And a baraita is taught in that regard: Rabbi Ya’akov obligates him, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, exempts him.
תרומה לאפוקי מדרבי אליעזר דתנן פירות שתרמן עד שלא נגמרה מלאכתן ר"א אוסר לאכול מהן עראי וחכמים מתירין
With regard to the law that the separation of teruma does not establish fruit as fixed for tithes, this comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna: Fruits from which teruma had been separated before their work was completed, Rabbi Eliezer prohibits eating from them in a casual manner, and the Rabbis permit it.
מקח (כדתנן) הלוקח תאנים מעם הארץ במקום שרוב בני אדם דורסין אוכל מהן עראי ומעשרן דמאי
With regard to the statement that a transaction does not fix fruit for tithes, this is as we learned in a baraita: In the case of one who acquires figs from an am ha’aretz in a place where most people press and dry their figs in order to make them into cakes, the work of the figs is not completed before this stage, and he may therefore partake of them in a casual manner. And when their work is completed, he need only tithe them as doubtfully tithed produce, in accordance with the law with regard to all produce bought from an uneducated person.
שמע מינה תלת ש"מ מקח אינה קובעת אלא בדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו וש"מ רוב עמי הארץ מעשרין הן וש"מ מעשרין דמאי מעמי הארץ אפי' בדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו
The Gemara comments: One can learn from this baraita three halakhot: Learn from here that a transaction establishes produce as fixed only with regard to an item whose work is completed, but if its work has not been completed, even selling it does not obligate it in tithes. And learn from here that most people who are in the category of am ha’aretz separate tithes, and therefore one need only separate tithes as doubtfully tithed produce, rather than definitively untithed produce. And one can learn from here another law: One may tithe doubtfully tithed produce purchased from an am ha’aretz, even with regard to something whose work is not completed.
ולאפוקי מהא דתנן המחליף פירות עם חבירו זה לאכול וזה לאכול זה לקצות וזה לקצות זה לאכול וזה לקצות חייב רבי יהודה אומר לאכול חייב לקצות פטור:
Rabbi Yoḥanan rules in accordance with this opinion to exclude that which we learned in a mishna: One who exchanges fruits with his friend, which is considered a commercial transaction, if their intention was for this one to eat and that one to eat, or for this one to make them into dried fruit and for that one to make them into dried fruit, they are both obligated in tithes. Rabbi Yehuda, however, says: The one who took the fruits in order to eat is obligated, as for him their labor is completed, but the one who intended to make them into dried fruit is exempt and may partake of the fruit in a casual manner, as for him their work has not yet been completed. Rabbi Yoḥanan rules in opposition to the first tanna. He maintains that the transaction itself does not make the fruit liable to tithes unless its work has been completed.
הדרן עלך המביא
מתני׳ משילין פירות דרך ארובה ביו"ט אבל לא בשבת ומכסים פירות בכלים מפני הדלף וכן כדי יין וכדי שמן ונותנין כלי תחת הדלף בשבת:
MISHNA: One may lower produce, which had been laid out on a roof to dry, into the house through a skylight on a Festival, in order to prevent it from becoming ruined in the rain. Although it is a strenuous activity, it is permitted do to so on a Festival in order to prevent a financial loss; however, one may not do so on Shabbat. And one may cover produce inside a building with cloths to prevent damage due to a leak in the ceiling over it, and similarly one may cover jugs of wine and jugs of oil for the same reason. And one may place a vessel beneath a leak in order to catch the water on Shabbat, to prevent it from dirtying the house.
גמ׳ אתמר רב יהודה ורב נתן חד תני משילין וחד תני משחילין
GEMARA: The Gemara discusses the first word of the mishna from a linguistic standpoint. It was said: Rav Yehuda and Rav Natan recited differing versions of the mishna’s opening word, which is in all versions a verb meaning to lower. One of them taught mashilin, as in the text of this mishna, and the other one taught mashḥilin.
אמר מר זוטרא מאן דתני משילין לא משתבש ומאן דתני משחילין לא משתבש מאן דתני משילין לא משתבש דכתיב (דברים כח, מ) כי ישל זיתך ומאן דתני משחילין לא משתבש דתנן השחול והכסול שחול שנשמטה ירכו כסול שאחד מירכותיו גבוהה מחברתה
Mar Zutra said: The one who teaches mashilin is not mistaken, and the one who teaches mashḥilin is not mistaken, as support can be found for both versions. He elaborates: The one who teaches mashilin is not mistaken, as it is written: “For your olives will fall [yishal]” (Deuteronomy 28:40). Mashilin would therefore mean: To cause to fall. And he who teaches mashḥilin is not mistaken, as we learned the following cases in a mishna that lists blemishes that invalidate an animal for sacrifice: The shaḥul and the kasul. The mishna explains these terms: Shaḥul is referring to an animal whose thigh is dislocated, i.e., it has slipped out of place; kasul is referring to an animal one of whose thighs is higher than the other. This shows that the root sh-ḥ-l- is referring to something that has slipped down from its place.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאן דתני משירין לא משתבש ומאן דתני משחירין לא משתבש ומאן דתני מנשירין לא משתבש
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that there are other possible variations of this word as well. One who teaches mashirin is not mistaken, and one who teaches mashḥirin is not mistaken, and one who teaches manshirin is not mistaken.
מאן דתני משירין לא משתבש דתנן רבי ישמעאל אומר נזיר לא יחוף ראשו באדמה מפני שמשיר את השער ומאן דתני משחירין לא משתבש דתנן השחור והזוג של ספרים אע"פ שנחלקו טמאין
He elaborates: One who teaches mashirin is not mistaken, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yishmael says: A nazirite may not wash the hair of his head with clay as a kind of shampoo, because it causes hair to fall off [mashir], and a nazirite is prohibited to remove the hairs of his head. This shows that mashir indicates causing something to fall. And one who teaches mashḥirin is also not mistaken, as we learned in a mishna: The sheḥor, a type of razor, and a barber’s scissors, even if their blades are detached, are subject to ritual impurity. The fact that a razor is called sheḥor implies that the root sh-ḥ-r indicates causing to fall down.
ומאן דתני מנשירין לא משתבש דתנן מי שנשרו כליו במים מהלך בהם ואינו חושש אי נמי מהא דתנן איזהו לקט הנושר בשעת קצירה:
And one who teaches manshirin is not mistaken either, as we learned in a mishna: One whose clothes fell down [nashru] into water on Shabbat may continue to walk in them while they dry of their own accord, and he need not be concerned that people might suspect him of having washed them on Shabbat. Alternatively, another support can be found from that which we learned in the following mishna: What is gleaning [leket], which must be left for the poor as commanded in Leviticus 19:9? That which falls [nosher] during reaping. These sources show that the root n-sh-r means: To fall down, and manshirin would consequently mean: To cause to fall down.
תנן משילין פירות דרך ארובה ביו"ט עד כמה א"ר זירא א"ר אסי ואמרי לה אמר רבי אסי א"ר יוחנן כאותה ששנינו מפנין ארבע וחמש קופות של תבן ושל תבואה מפני האורחים ומפני בטול בית המדרש
§ The Gemara discusses the halakha in the mishna: We learned that one may lower produce through a skylight on a Festival. The Gemara asks: Up to how much produce may be lowered in this manner? At what point is it considered to be too strenuous an activity to be performed on the Festival? Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Asi said, and some say that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is like that which we learned in a mishna with regard to a different case: One may clear out four or five sacks of hay or grain from a room on Shabbat due to visitors, to clear a place for them to sit, or due to suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., to make room there for more people, who would not be able to study Torah otherwise. Here too, only four or five sacks’ worth of produce may be lowered from the roof.
ודלמא שאני התם דאיכא בטול בית המדרש אבל הכא דליכא בטול בית המדרש לא א"נ התם היינו טעמא דארבע וחמש קופות שרי משום שבת דחמירא ולא אתי לזלזולי ביה אבל יו"ט דקיל ואתי לזלזולי ביה כלל כלל לא
The Gemara raises an objection to the comparison of the two cases. But perhaps there it is different, since there is the matter of preventing suspension of study in the study hall or of providing hospitality to guests, i.e., moving those items is permitted in order to facilitate a mitzva. But here, where there is no suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., no facilitation of any mitzva, they did not permit one to move such a large amount. Alternatively: There, this is the reasoning that four or five sacks are permitted: Because Shabbat is severe in people’s eyes and they will not come to belittle it; but on a Festival, which is regarded more lightly and which people might come to belittle, one may not move the items at all.
אי נמי לאידך גיסא התם היינו טעמא דליכא הפסד ממון אבל הכא דאיכא הפסד ממון אפילו טובא נמי
Alternatively, a claim can be made from the other perspective: There, this is the reasoning that it is permitted to carry only four or five sacks: Because there is no monetary loss involved. But here, where there is monetary loss if the produce is not moved, one may carry even a larger amount than four or five sacks.