בעי מיניה הלל מרבא: יש מוקצה לחצי שבת או אין מוקצה לחצי שבת? היכי דמי? אי דאחזי בין השמשות, אחזי. אי דלא אחזי, לא אחזי. לא. צריכא, דאחזי והדר אדחי, והדר אחזי. מאי? אמר ליה: יש מוקצה. איתיביה: ושוין, שאם נולד ומומו עמו, שזה מן המוכן. ואמאי? נימא: האי בכור, מעיקרא הוה חזי אגב אמיה. אתיליד ליה, אדחי ליה. אחזייה לחכם, אשתרי ליה. אמר אביי ואיתימא רב ספרא: כגון דיתבי דייני התם. איכא דאמרי, אמר ליה: אין מוקצה לחצי שבת. לימא מסייע ליה: ושוין שאם נולד ומומו עמו, שזה מן המוכן. והא בכור, מעיקרא הוה חזי אגב אמיה, אתיליד ליה, אדחי ליה. אחזייה לחכם, אשתרי ליה. אמר אביי ואיתימא רב ספרא: כגון דיתבי דייני התם. תא שמע: היה אוכל בענבים והותיר, והעלן לגג לעשות מהן צמוקין, בתאנים והותיר והעלן לגג לעשות מהן גרוגרות, לא יאכל מהן עד שיזמין מבעוד יום. וכן אתה מוצא באפרסקין, ובחבושין, ובשאר כל מיני פירות. היכי דמי? אי דחזו, למה ליה הזמנה? אי דלא חזו, כי אזמין להו מאי הוי? וכי תימא דלא ידע אי אי חזו לא חזו, והאמר רב כהנא: מוקצה שיבש, ואין הבעלים מכירין בו, מותר. אלא לאו דחזו ואדחו והדר אחזו, ואי אמרת: אין מוקצה, למה להו הזמנה? אלא מאי, יש מוקצה? כי אזמין להו מאי הוי? לא צריכא דאחזו ולא אחזו, דאיכא אינשי דאכלי ואיכא אינשי דלא אכלי. אזמין, גלי דעתי. לא אזמין, לא גלי דעתיה. אמר רבי זירא: תא שמע מפולין ועדשים, דהא פולין ועדשים מעיקרא חזו לכוס, שדינהו בקדרה - אדחו להו.
Hillel asked Rava: Is [the law of] muqtseh [established by] half a Shabbat or is muqtseh not [established by] half a Shabbat? In what case [was this asked]? If the [item] was fit for use at twilight it was fit for use [and never muqtseh]. And if it was not fit for use [at twilight] it was not fit for use [and certainly muqtseh]. No. [The question of Hillel] is necessary, where [the item] was fit and subsequently became unfit and again became fit for use. [Rava] answered: It is muqtseh. He challenged [Rava from this baraita:] And they agree that if [a firstborn] was born with a blemish, that it is considered to be prepared. But why? Let us say that this firstborn was originally fit for use through its mother. When it was born it became unfit; when he showed it to a sage it became permitted. Abbayye, and others say it was Rav Safra, answered: [This baraita] refers to a case in which the judges were sitting there [when the animal was born]. Others say [that Rava rules differently]: He said: muqtseh is not [established by] half a Shabbat. Let us say that [this baraita] supports [Rava]: And they are in agreement that if [a firstborn] was born with its blemish, that it is considered to be prepared. But the firstborn was originally fit for use through its mother; when it was born, it became unfit; when he showed it to a sage it became permitted. Abbayye, and others say it was Rav Safra, stated: [The baraita] refers to a case in which the judges were sitting there [when the animal was born]. Come learn: If someone was eating grapes and left [some] over and s/he took them up to the roof to make raisins of them, or [if s/he was eating] figs and left [some] over and s/he took them up to the roof to make dried figs out of them, s/he may not eat them unless s/he designates them while it is still daytime. And so you find [the same ruling] regarding peaches, quince and all other types of fruits. What [case is the baraita discussing]? If [the dried fruits] were fit for use [when Shabbat began], why does s/he need a designation? If they were not fit for use when s/he designated them, what is [accomplished]? And perhaps you will say that [this baraita refers to a case in which the person] did not know whether they were fit or not fit? But Rav Kahana said: If a muqtseh [fruit] dried out sufficiently but the owners were unaware of this, it is permitted. Rather, is [the baraita] not [referring to a case] where [the fruits] were fit for use and subsequently became unfit and then again became fit for use? Now if you say that muqtseh is not [established by a portion of the Shabbat], why do they [require designation]? What then, is muqtseh? If s/he designates them, what [is accomplished]? No [the baraita] is needed where [the fruits] are marginally fit so that some people would eat [them] while some people would not eat [them]. If s/he designates [them], s/he reveals her/his intention [to eat them, thereby removing their muqtseh status]. If s/he does not designate [them], s/he does not reveal his/her intention. Rabbi Zeira said: Come learn [the answer to Hillel’s question] from the beans and the lentils, for beans and lentils are, at first, suitable to be eaten raw; [then when s/he] throws them into a pot [and cooks them], they become unfit for use for [as long as they are boiling].
@General observations
The above-cited gemara discusses fundamental laws of muqtseh.[1] The central question here is whether something that was fit for use and became muqtseh on a festival day or Shabbat can be fit for use again. To illuminate this question the gemara offers two examples:
- The classic example for such a case is the drying of figs and grapes. Once they begin to dry, they are considered inedible (muqtseh) until they dry completely. If the figs had already dried out before Shabbat began, and then it rained, they are considered inedible. However, if, in the end, the sun came out and dried the same figs, they became edible again. Is it permitted to eat the figs and the grapes, even if they were muqtseh for a short time?
- Another example is the firstborn and its mother. If a beast pregnant for the first time was slaughtered, the unborn fetus could be eaten along with the mother (see the commentary on Mishnah 1. mBetsah 1:1 and Bavli 1/1. bBetsah 2a7a). Once the animal gives birth, the laws and restrictions of a firstborn animal apply to the baby-animal and it may not be eaten (Deut 15:19). The firstborn must be offered to the Temple if it has no blemish. But then, an expert examines the firstborn and sanctions its consumption, because it has a blemish. Could it be eaten on a festival day, although for a short time its consumption was prohibited on that specific day?
The rabbis decided that consumption would then be permitted, by referring to an accepted practice of cooking beans and lentils. These may be eaten despite their change of status during the festival day from being edible into becoming inedible when in the process of being cooked, into becoming edible again when the cooking is done.
[1] For the term muqtseh see the Introduction to this volume.
@Feminist observations
The rabbis present a surprising piece of evidence when trying to answer the question, whether something that turned out to be muqtseh on a festival day is permitted for use again at a later stage. This evidence is introduced with the formula: “Come and learn,” which is usually followed by a quotation from a baraita. In the above discussion a baraita does not follow, and instead an accepted practice of cooking lentils and beans is described. This practice, however, determines the outcome of the halakhic debate.
The above discussion is not about the question who cooked the lentils and beans. It is obvious, though, that the example of the lentils is taken from watching women prepare them, because the Talmud records explicitly only women cooking lentils (see, for instance, bNed 66b, bKet 75a, bYev 63a, 118b, bShab 67b, bYom 83b).[1]
The above-cited text is a good example of the underlying principle we have observed throughout Tractate Betsah: The outcome of a halakhic discussion is clearly based on women’s actions. The rabbis “translated” these actions into official halakhah without always overtly acknowledging their reliance upon accepted female practices in their conclusions.
[1] In bHul 119b, no woman is explicitly mentioned when the gemara speaks about preparing lentils, but rather “people” (בני אדם) Yet, one has to assume that this passage also refers to women.