חצי שיעור – 05

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.

Granted, there is not chiyuv chatas, however there is still an issur, as we established that chatzi shiur is an issur mideoraisa.

§ Apropos the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, the Gemara deals with the matter itself: What is the law with regard to a half-measure? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited by Torah law. Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah law. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yoḥanan said it is prohibited by Torah law because it is fit to combine with another half-measure. If one continues to eat more, he will eat a whole measure, which is punishable by Torah law. Therefore, even when he eats the first half-measure he is eating forbidden food. Reish Lakish said it is permitted by Torah law. His reason is as follows: With regard to all forbidden foods, the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Eat,” for example in the verse: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17). Eating is defined as consuming a minimum of an olive-bulk, and there is no prohibition if one eats less than an olive-bulk.

(3) Whenever the expression, "one who performs this is not liable" is used, the intent is that he is not liable for karet, for [execution by] stoning, or for bringing a [sin] offering. It is, however, forbidden to perform this act on the Sabbath.
In such an instance, the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin and was instituted as a safeguard against [the performance of] labor. A person who performs such an act is given "stripes for defiance."

(9) A person is not liable if he merely: removed the article and did not place it down [and another person took it from his hand and placed it down], placed it down [after taking it from the hand of the person who removed it], but did not remove it [himself], or transferred less than an amount [that is useful].

(23) A person who transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance] is not liable. Similarly, a person who performs half the measure of any of the other [forbidden] labors is not liable.

In Maseches Shabbos we learned: One who takes out food on Shabbos is chayav if it's the size of a dried fig, because on Shabbos the Torah assured meleches machsheves, and something is not chashuv enough to be an issur hotza'ah if it's less than a dried fig.

(4) If someone writes a letter, whether in holy scriptures, whether in profane scriptures, or weave threads, be it on sacred clothing, be it on profane one’s clothes, if it is on the Sabbath he is obligated to make a sin offering; if it happens on the holiday, he gets the forty lashes. These are words of R. Eliezer. But the Sages said: Whether it be on the Sabbath, whether it be on the holiday - he is guilty only for violating a derabanan.

Still, we accept the explanation that, even according to the one who says that usually there is yedi'ah lechatzi shiur, he'd admit in this case, because we only say this, that he did an issur behe'alam echad, in a case like where you write one letter or you ate half a kezayis of cheilev, because, even though you are not chayav a chatas, there is still an issur. However, hotza'ah, which the ikur is not the melacha, nor the maaseh, rather the chiyuv is the hanacha, and even though they said that one who lights two amos by accident and two amos on purpose is patur, still, the lighting is more like the maaseh than hotza'ah, and so we have accepted this, and so the chachmei hadoros have written, although their words are not so clear.

And we also learn out from a king and kalah that they can wash on Yom Kippur when they have clay in their hair, they can anoint themselves normally...because there is no issur mideoraisa except by rechitzas kol gufo and sichas kol gufo, and therefore, miderabanan they weren't gozer in these cases.

One who threads two threads - You have to explain why the Mishnah specifies over here, by oreg, by potzei'ah, by tofer, and by kosev the shiur for the melacha more than the rest.

Writing and erasing - Later on the Gemara will explain what it was used for in the mishkan, which is that they would write on the boards of the mishkan to mark which one was the other's pair, and they would write one letter on each. Eraising would be done when, once in a while, they would make a mistake.

(9) A person who writes two letters is liable.

(10) A person who writes the same letter twice and thus produces a word [that has meaning] - e.g., דד תת גג רר שש סס חח - is liable.
One is liable for writing in any language and with any characters, or even for making two marks.

(1) A person who writes the same letter And it seems from the Rambam that there is no chiyuv except when they are intended for one name, for example, "gag" (roof) or "dod" (friend). However, if he just wrote "aa" of the word "aazrecha," or something similar that it's not a word itself, he is not chayav, and it also seems this way from the gemara.

(4) The mishna lists the measures in which various substances are significant and generally stored. One who carries out straw in a measure equivalent to a cow’s mouthful is liable. The measure that determines liability for etza is equivalent to a camel’s mouthful. Because it is a coarser food, he must carry out a greater amount in order to be liable. The measure that determines liability for ears of grain is equivalent to a lamb’s mouthful. The measure that determines liability for grass is equivalent to a goat’s mouthful, which is smaller than that of a lamb. The measure that determines liability for garlic leaves and onion leaves, if they are moist and fit for human consumption, is equivalent to a dried fig-bulk. A dried fig-bulk is the standard measure for human food. If the garlic leaves and onion leaves are dry, the measure for liability is equivalent to a goat’s mouthful. And none of these substances join together with one another to constitute a measure for liability because they are not equal in their measures. One who carries out a measure of foods fit for human consumption equivalent to a dried fig-bulk into a domain where carrying is prohibited on Shabbat is liable. And all those foods join together with one another to constitute that amount because they are equal in their measures. This amount is calculated without their shells, and their seeds, and their stems, and their bran, the husk that comes off of the wheat kernel when pounded, and their coarse bran that remains in the flour. Rabbi Yehuda says: None of the shells are calculated, except for the shells of lentils, which join together with the lentils to comprise the measure for liability because they are cooked and eaten with them.

(16) A person who sifts [an amount of flour the size of] a dried fig is liable.
A person who kneads [dough the size of] a dried fig is liable. Mixing earth [for use as cement] is a derivative of kneading. What is the minimum amount for which one is liable? The amount necessary to make a crucible for a goldsmith. The activity of mixing cement cannot be performed with ash, coarse sand, bran, or the like.
A person who places sesame seeds, flax seeds, or the like in water is liable for kneading, because they become attached to each other.

(1) A person who transfers an article from a private domain into the public domain, or from the public domain into the private domain is not liable, unless he transfers an amount that will be beneficial [to accomplish a purpose].

And one who carries from one domain to another. Q: But why do you get an onesh, insn't it considered like maavir 4 amos bershus harabim, which is a halacha leMoshe miSinai?

A: Maavir is a tolda of hotza'ah, because the 4 amos around a person become his reshus, and if someone steps out of that 4 amos circle around him it's motzi merashus lerashus.

With regard to diverse kinds, whose prohibition is a permanent prohibition, as it never expires, and whose prohibition is a prohibition against deriving benefit, since one may not benefit in any manner from diverse kinds of the vine, and there is no dissolution for its prohibition, is it not logical that it should apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael? And the same is true of orla with regard to two of those points. Orla is not a permanent prohibition, as it applies only for the first three years that a tree produces fruit, but one may not derive benefit from it, and produce from the first three years never becomes permitted...We learned in a mishna there (Orla 3:9): The new crop is forbidden by Torah law everywhere; orla is forbidden outside of Eretz Yisrael according to a halakha, as the Gemara will immediately explain; and diverse kinds are forbidden outside the land by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: What is this halakha, mentioned with regard to orla? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is the local halakha, i.e., this was the practice of Jews in places where they settled. Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

(15) It appears to me that the laws of neta reva'i do not apply in the Diaspora. Instead, one may eat the produce of the fourth year without redeeming it at all...Some of the Geonim ruled that kerem reva'i alone must be redeemed in the Diaspora before it is permitted to be eaten. There is no basis for this [ruling].

(15) It appears to me that any priest who is fit to serve who enters the area of the altar or [proceeds] beyond there while intoxicated due to wine, drunk due to other alcoholic beverages, with long hair, or with torn garments as one tears because of a person's death, he is liable for lashes, even if he did not perform service.

From the mizbei'ach and beyond. I say that he only gets malkus when close to the mizbei'ach, but beyond the mizbei'ach they are only derabanan, and he doesn't get malkus nor missah.

We did not learn this following matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher, until Ezekiel came and taught it to us: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me” (Ezekiel 44:9), until Ezekiel came and taught it, who said it? Rather, this halakha is learned as a tradition (halacha leMoshe miSinai) and therefore was observed for generations, and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse.

Don't come - That's an azhara midivrei kabala (halacha lemoshe misinai), so he doesn't get malkus.

(8) An uncircumcised person is like a foreigner [as Ezekiel 44:9] states: "Any foreigner with an uncircumcised heart and uncircumcised flesh." Therefore if an uncircumcised [priest] serves, he disqualifies his service and is liable for lashes like a non-priest who serves.

Priah was not given to Avraham Avinu -

Q: If the mitzvah of priah was only given in the days of the Yehoshua, how do we learn it out from him, don't we learn it out from the passuk "these are the mitzvos," which we learn from there that a navi can't make new halachos?

A: It's really a halacha lemoshe misinai, and Yehoshua made an amachtah on the passuk.