אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא דְּדָמְיָא לַהּ — חָשֵׁיב לַהּ. וְלִיחְשֹׁב נָמֵי כּוֹתֵשׁ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁכֵּן עָנִי אוֹכֵל פִּתּוֹ בְּלֹא כְּתִישָׁה. רָבָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת, וְאִי חָשֵׁיב כּוֹתֵשׁ הָוְיָא לֵיהּ אַרְבָּעִים. וְלַיפֵּיק חֲדָא מֵהָנָךְ וּלְעַיֵּיל כּוֹתֵשׁ! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְאַבָּיֵי.
even though there is a different labor that is similar to it, the mishna enumerated it. Every labor that was performed in the Tabernacle is significant. The Gemara asks: And let him enumerate the labor of pounding as well, as wheat was pounded to remove its outer kernel in the Tabernacle. Abaye said: The labor of pounding is not one of the essential stages in the baking of bread, as paupers eat their bread without pounding the wheat to remove the bran. Therefore, since the tanna enumerated threshing, there was no need to include pounding among the labors enumerated in the breadmaking process. Rava said a different explanation: Who is the tanna of this mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The primary categories of labor are forty-less-one, a number derived from a textual allusion. Therefore, the list cannot be expanded. And had the tanna enumerated pounding, there would be forty labors rather than thirty-nine. The Gemara asks: And let him take out one of these, selecting or winnowing, and insert pounding, thereby leaving the number intact. Rather, the reason that the tanna did not include pounding is clear, according to the explanation of Abaye.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו מִינֵי אוֹכָלִין — בּוֹרֵר וְאוֹכֵל, בּוֹרֵר וּמַנִּיחַ. וְלֹא יִבְרוֹר, וְאִם בֵּירַר — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר עוּלָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בּוֹרֵר וְאוֹכֵל לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם, וּבוֹרֵר וּמַנִּיחַ לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם. וּלְמָחָר לֹא יִבְרוֹר, וְאִם בֵּירַר — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: וְכִי מוּתָּר לֶאֱפוֹת לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם? וְכִי מוּתָּר לְבַשֵּׁל לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם?
The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the laws of selecting: If there were several types of food before him, and he wants to remove one or more from the mixture, one selects and eats, selects and puts aside. And one may not select, and if one did select, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? The end of this baraita contradicts the beginning. Ulla said: It is saying as follows: One selects and eats if he is doing so for the purpose of that day, Shabbat. And he selects and puts aside food for the purpose of that day. And one may not select for the purpose of the next day. And if one did select for the next day, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Ḥisda strongly objects to this explanation: And is it permitted to bake for that day, and is it permitted to cook for that day? No other labor prohibited on Shabbat may be performed for the purpose of Shabbat, and the same should hold true for selecting.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בּוֹרֵר וְאוֹכֵל פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁיעוּר, בּוֹרֵר וּמַנִּיחַ פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁיעוּר. וּכְשִׁיעוּר לֹא יִבְרוֹר, וְאִם בֵּירַר — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וְכִי מוּתָּר לֶאֱפוֹת פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁיעוּר? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בּוֹרֵר וְאוֹכֵל בַּיָּד, בּוֹרֵר וּמַנִּיחַ בַּיָּד. בְּקָנוֹן וּבְתַמְחוּי לֹא יִבְרוֹר, וְאִם בֵּירַר — פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר, וּבְנָפָה וּבִכְבָרָה לֹא יִבְרוֹר, וְאִם בֵּירַר — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
Rather, Rav Ḥisda said it is to be understood as follows: One selects and eats less than the measure of a dried fig-bulk, which is the smallest amount for which one is liable by Torah law. One selects and puts aside less than that measure. And one may not select the measure of a dried fig-bulk, and if one did select that measure, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation: And is it permitted to bake less than the measure for liability ab initio? Although performing a prohibited labor on a minute measure does not engender liability, it is prohibited. Therefore, the baraita cannot be interpreted as saying that one may ab initio select an amount that is less than the measure for liability. Rather, Rav Yosef said: One selects and eats by hand, selects and put aside by hand. However, with a basket [kanon] or with a plate, both of which are large, flat vessels used for sorting sizeable quantities, one may not select ab initio. And if he did select, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering if he did so unwittingly. If he did so intentionally he is exempt from stoning. However, it is prohibited. And one may not select with a sieve or with a sifter. And if he did select with those utensils, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: מִידֵּי קָנוֹן וְתַמְחוּי קָתָנֵי? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: בּוֹרֵר וְאוֹכֵל אוֹכֶל מִתּוֹךְ הַפְּסוֹלֶת, בּוֹרֵר וּמַנִּיחַ אוֹכֶל מִתּוֹךְ הַפְּסוֹלֶת. פְּסוֹלֶת מִתּוֹךְ אוֹכֶל לֹא יִבְרוֹר, וְאִם בֵּירַר — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. מַתְקִיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִידֵּי אוֹכֶל מִתּוֹךְ פְּסוֹלֶת קָתָנֵי? אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בּוֹרֵר וְאוֹכֵל לְאַלְתַּר, וּבוֹרֵר וּמַנִּיחַ לְאַלְתַּר, וּלְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם — לֹא יִבְרוֹר, וְאִם בֵּירַר — נַעֲשָׂה כְּבוֹרֵר לָאוֹצָר וְחַיָּיב חַטָּאת. אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: שַׁפִּיר אָמַר נַחְמָנִי.
Rav Hamnuna strongly objects to this: Does the mishna teach anything about a basket or a plate? Rav Yosef’s explanation is based on the addition of details that do not appear in the baraita either. Rather, Rav Hamnuna said: One selects and eats if he is removing food from the waste, and similarly, selects and puts aside if he is removing food from the waste. However, one may not select waste from food, and if he did select in that manner, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The typical method of selecting is the removal of waste from the food. An individual who alters the procedure is not liable. Abaye strongly objects to this: Does the mishna teach anything about food from waste? That detail is not mentioned in the baraita either. Rather, Abaye said: One selects and eats if he is removing food for immediate use, and similarly one selects and puts aside for immediate use. However, one may not select for use later that same day. And if he did select, he is considered like one who selects for storage, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering. This explanation requires no emendation of the mishna. It is merely an interpretation of the phrase: One selects and eats, as referring to selecting for immediate use. The Gemara relates that the Sages stated Abaye’s explanation of the baraita before Rava. He said to them: Naḥmani, Abaye, spoke well.
הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי מִינֵי אוֹכָלִין, וּבֵירַר וְאָכַל, וּבֵירַר וְהִנִּיחַ. רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי: פָּטוּר, רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי מַתְנֵי: חַיָּיב. רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי פָּטוּר, וְהָא תָּנֵי חַיָּיב! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּקָנוֹן וְתַמְחוּי, הָא בְּנָפָה וּכְבָרָה.
Until this point, the Gemara discussed selecting food from waste. The Gemara proceeds to discuss a different case. If there were two types of foods before him, and he selected and ate one type, and selected and put aside one type, Rav Ashi taught: He is exempt. Rav Yirmeya from Difti taught: He is liable. Rav Ashi taught: He is exempt. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that in that case he is liable? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, where Rav Ashi said that he is exempt, is referring to a case where he selects by means of a basket or a plate, as that method of selecting is not considered expert work; and that, where the baraita said he is liable, is in a case where he selects by means of a sieve or a sifter, as that method of selecting is considered expert work.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: שַׁבְּתָא דְּרַב בִּיבִי הֲוַאי, וְאִיקְּלַעוּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, שְׁדָא קַמַּיְיהוּ כַּלְכַּלָּה דְפֵירֵי. וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר אוֹכֶל מִתּוֹךְ פְּסוֹלֶת אָסוּר, אִי מִשּׁוּם עַיִן יָפָה הוּא דְּמִכַּוֵּין.
The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: It was the Shabbat of Rav Beivai to serve food to the students, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi happened to come to his house. He placed before them a basket of fruits without removing the leaves and the stems. And I do not know whether he did so because he holds that it is prohibited to select food from waste when it is not for immediate consumption, or whether he did so because he intended to show generosity to his guests by creating the impression that the basket was full. A fruit-filled basket conveys to the guests that there is plenty and that they may take as much as they wish. Therefore, there is no clear proof from this incident.
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: הַבּוֹרֵר תּוּרְמוֹסִים מִתּוֹךְ פְּסוֹלֶת שֶׁלָּהֶן — חַיָּיב. לֵימָא קָסָבַר חִזְקִיָּה אוֹכֶל מִתּוֹךְ פְּסוֹלֶת אָסוּר? שָׁאנֵי תּוּרְמוֹסָא
Ḥizkiya said: One who selects lupines from their waste after boiling them is liable for performing the prohibited labor of selecting. The Gemara asks: Let us say, based on this statement, that Ḥizkiya holds that even selecting food from waste is prohibited. The Gemara rejects this proof: Lupines are different,