43 deleted 5 characters in body
source | link

There is a rabbinic duty, regarding a situation in which the owner doesn't want to take the fruits at home, and someone buy an amount of fruits.In this situation, since the work is finished, and something replaces the home taking, there is a rabbinic duty. This is the opinion of Tosfot 88a, but Rashi explains that for the buyer duty, we don't need the true end of the work, but the Gemara at the begining of the suggia was thinking that there are min Hatora twotwo ends of work, one for the owner and one for the buyer. But in conclusion there is only the goren of the owner who take his fruits at home. There is no fundamental difference between Rashi and Tosfot regarding the explanation of the duty of the buyer.

To make a real meal can rabbinically replace the home meal. If the work is finished and the owner eats two fruits, or eats a cookencooked meal, there is a rabbinic duty.

The duty occurs after gmar melacha, which can be accumulation of two fruits, followed by house, selling, fire, salt, teruma, Shabbat. The concept of two fruits is not one of the six, it is the prerequisite. The 5 items of the lists out of home are rabbinic equivalents of home. They say, the fruits are ready without commingcoming to home.

And as says the Rambam in the first statement, this is part of Halacha 3.2 in standard editions, if there is a gmar melacha without one of the six steps enumerated, the owner can eat howas many as he wants together. Formal eating is a formal decision that the fruits will not go home, they definitely doesn'tdon't go home. If the eating is not formallyformal enough, we still see them as if they wait to go home (מחזיר את המותר see Betsa 34b). So, the Rambam is not contradictory, the list of 6 causes of duty is exhaustive and the kushia of the Mishna Rishona is solved because the formality of the eating regards the question if there is a goren that will not go home, not the quantity of eating. After the occurrence of Achilat keve, you cannot eat even one fruit because this is Achilat Keva, as eating one fruit at home.

The Chazon Ish zerayim, hilchot Maasrot, siman 4, paragraph 11 explains that the Mishna 4.5 is in the field and that there is a concept of formal eating, he called "מכאן אני אוכל" (paraphrasing the last mishna in the fourth chapter of Betsa, and the fruits arare still not destinateddestined to go home) independent from gemar melacha (the main harvesting). He discusses the case of salting without Gmar Melacha. Indeed, the Gemara Betsa 35a countcounts only Teruma, Shabbat, Chatser and Mekach for duties that needs the prerequisite Gmar Melacha. We have not s SaltingSalting and KookingCooking are not included. But it's clear that according to most rishonim (following how they understand Rashi Betsa 13b) there is such a notion of formal eating without gmar Melacha. See also Betsa 35 and Rashi there. But practically, there is no case in which you cannot see the formal eating without an equivalent of goren, moreover, a goren that entails chyuv without home because the eating will be out of the house. Rambam needs Gmar Melacha for salt, apparently against the Chazon Ish understanding of the Bavli. Therefore, I want to assume that Rambam needs always Gmar melacha, even for formal eating. And he is close to the explanation of TYT in Rashi quoted below (following my pshat in TYT).

There is a rabbinic duty, regarding a situation in which the owner doesn't want to take the fruits at home, and someone buy an amount of fruits.In this situation, since the work is finished, and something replaces the home taking, there is a rabbinic duty. This is the opinion of Tosfot 88a, but Rashi explains that for the buyer duty, we don't need the true end of the work, but the Gemara at the begining of the suggia was thinking that there are min Hatora two ends of work, one for the owner and one for the buyer. But in conclusion there is only the goren of the owner who take his fruits at home. There is no fundamental difference between Rashi and Tosfot regarding the explanation of the duty of the buyer.

To make a real meal can rabbinically replace the home meal. If the work is finished and the owner eats two fruits, or eats a cooken meal, there is a rabbinic duty.

The duty occurs after gmar melacha, which can be accumulation of two fruits, followed by house, selling, fire, salt, teruma, Shabbat. The concept of two fruits is not one of the six, it is the prerequisite. The 5 items of the lists out of home are rabbinic equivalents of home. They say, the fruits are ready without comming to home.

And as says the Rambam in the first statement, this is part of Halacha 3.2 in standard editions, if there is a gmar melacha without one of the six steps enumerated, the owner can eat how many as he wants together. Formal eating is a formal decision that the fruits will not go home, they definitely doesn't go home. If the eating is not formally enough, we still see them as if they wait to go home (מחזיר את המותר see Betsa 34b). So, the Rambam is not contradictory, the list of 6 causes of duty is exhaustive and the kushia of the Mishna Rishona is solved because the formality of the eating regards the question if there is a goren that will not go home, not the quantity of eating. After the occurrence of Achilat keve, you cannot eat even one fruit because this is Achilat Keva, as eating one fruit at home.

The Chazon Ish zerayim, hilchot Maasrot, siman 4, paragraph 11 explains that the Mishna 4.5 is in the field and that there is a concept of formal eating, he called "מכאן אני אוכל" (paraphrasing the last mishna in the fourth chapter of Betsa, and the fruits ar still not destinated to go home) independent from gemar melacha (the main harvesting). He discusses the case of salting without Gmar Melacha. Indeed, the Gemara Betsa 35a count only Teruma, Shabbat, Chatser and Mekach for duties that needs the prerequisite Gmar Melacha. We have not s Salting and Kooking. But it's clear that according to most rishonim (following how they understand Rashi Betsa 13b) there is such a notion of formal eating without gmar Melacha. See also Betsa 35 and Rashi there. But practically, there is no case in which you cannot see the formal eating without an equivalent of goren, moreover, a goren that entails chyuv without home because the eating will be out of the house. Rambam needs Gmar Melacha for salt, apparently against the Chazon Ish understanding of the Bavli. Therefore, I want to assume that Rambam needs always Gmar melacha, even for formal eating. And he is close to the explanation of TYT in Rashi quoted below (following my pshat in TYT).

There is a rabbinic duty, regarding a situation in which the owner doesn't want to take the fruits at home, and someone buy an amount of fruits.In this situation, since the work is finished, and something replaces the home taking, there is a rabbinic duty. This is the opinion of Tosfot 88a, but Rashi explains that for the buyer duty, we don't need the true end of the work, but the Gemara at the begining of the suggia was thinking that there are min Hatora two ends of work, one for the owner and one for the buyer. But in conclusion there is only the goren of the owner who take his fruits at home. There is no fundamental difference between Rashi and Tosfot regarding the explanation of the duty of the buyer.

To make a real meal can rabbinically replace the home meal. If the work is finished and the owner eats two fruits, or eats a cooked meal, there is a rabbinic duty.

The duty occurs after gmar melacha, which can be accumulation of two fruits, followed by house, selling, fire, salt, teruma, Shabbat. The concept of two fruits is not one of the six, it is the prerequisite. The 5 items of the lists out of home are rabbinic equivalents of home. They say, the fruits are ready without coming to home.

And as says the Rambam in the first statement, this is part of Halacha 3.2 in standard editions, if there is a gmar melacha without one of the six steps enumerated, the owner can eat as many as he wants together. Formal eating is a formal decision that the fruits will not go home, they definitely don't go home. If the eating is not formal enough, we still see them as if they wait to go home (מחזיר את המותר see Betsa 34b). So, the Rambam is not contradictory, the list of 6 causes of duty is exhaustive and the kushia of the Mishna Rishona is solved because the formality of the eating regards the question if there is a goren that will not go home, not the quantity of eating. After the occurrence of Achilat keve, you cannot eat even one fruit because this is Achilat Keva, as eating one fruit at home.

The Chazon Ish zerayim, hilchot Maasrot, siman 4, paragraph 11 explains that the Mishna 4.5 is in the field and that there is a concept of formal eating, he called "מכאן אני אוכל" (paraphrasing the last mishna in the fourth chapter of Betsa, and the fruits are still not destined to go home) independent from gemar melacha (the main harvesting). He discusses the case of salting without Gmar Melacha. Indeed, the Gemara Betsa 35a counts only Teruma, Shabbat, Chatser and Mekach for duties that needs the prerequisite Gmar Melacha. Salting and Cooking are not included. But it's clear that according to most rishonim (following how they understand Rashi Betsa 13b) there is such a notion of formal eating without gmar Melacha. See also Betsa 35 and Rashi there. But practically, there is no case in which you cannot see the formal eating without an equivalent of goren, moreover, a goren that entails chyuv without home because the eating will be out of the house. Rambam needs Gmar Melacha for salt, apparently against the Chazon Ish understanding of the Bavli. Therefore, I want to assume that Rambam needs always Gmar melacha, even for formal eating. And he is close to the explanation of TYT in Rashi quoted below (following my pshat in TYT).

42 added 531 characters in body
source | link

The Chazon Ish zerayim, hilchot Maasrot, siman 4, paragraph 11 explains that the Mishna 4.5 is in the field and that there is a concept of formal eating, he called "מכאן אני אוכל" (paraphrasing the last mishna in the fourth chapter of Betsa, and the fruits ar still not destinated to go home) independent from gemar melacha (the main harvesting). He discusses the case of salting without Gmar Melacha. Indeed, the Gemara Betsa 35a count only Teruma, Shabbat, Chatser and Mekach for duties that needs the prerequisite Gmar Melacha. We have not s Salting and Kooking. But it's clear that according to most rishonim (following how they understand Rashi Betsa 13b) there is such a notion of formal eating without gmar Melacha. See also Betsa 35 and Rashi there. But practically, there is no case in which you cannot see the formal eating without an equivalent of goren, moreover, a goren that entails chyuv without home because the eating will be out of the house. SoRambam needs Gmar Melacha for salt, apparently against the Chazon Ish understanding of the Bavli. Therefore, I want to assume that Rambam needs always Gmar melacha, even for formal eating. And he is close to the explanation of TYT in conclusionRashi quoted below (following my pshat in TYT).

So, in conclusion, the Yerushalmi, quoted in Rambam 3.3, doesn't need to include formal eating in the enumeration, because it is an equivalent of selling or salting for fruits they are not ready to eat without salt. This is perhaps the meaning of Chazon Ish 11.17.

The Chazon Ish zerayim, hilchot Maasrot, siman 4, paragraph 11 explains that the Mishna 4.5 is in the field and that there is a concept of formal eating, he called "מכאן אני אוכל" (paraphrasing the last mishna in the fourth chapter of Betsa, and the fruits ar still not destinated to go home) independent from gemar melacha (the main harvesting). But it's clear that according to most rishonim (following how they understand Rashi Betsa 13b) there is such a notion of formal eating without gmar Melacha. See also Betsa 35 and Rashi there. But practically, there is no case in which you cannot see the formal eating without an equivalent of goren, moreover, a goren that entails chyuv without home because the eating will be out of the house. So, in conclusion, the Yerushalmi, quoted in Rambam 3.3, doesn't need to include formal eating in the enumeration, because it is an equivalent of selling or salting for fruits they are not ready to eat without salt.

The Chazon Ish zerayim, hilchot Maasrot, siman 4, paragraph 11 explains that the Mishna 4.5 is in the field and that there is a concept of formal eating, he called "מכאן אני אוכל" (paraphrasing the last mishna in the fourth chapter of Betsa, and the fruits ar still not destinated to go home) independent from gemar melacha (the main harvesting). He discusses the case of salting without Gmar Melacha. Indeed, the Gemara Betsa 35a count only Teruma, Shabbat, Chatser and Mekach for duties that needs the prerequisite Gmar Melacha. We have not s Salting and Kooking. But it's clear that according to most rishonim (following how they understand Rashi Betsa 13b) there is such a notion of formal eating without gmar Melacha. See also Betsa 35 and Rashi there. But practically, there is no case in which you cannot see the formal eating without an equivalent of goren, moreover, a goren that entails chyuv without home because the eating will be out of the house. Rambam needs Gmar Melacha for salt, apparently against the Chazon Ish understanding of the Bavli. Therefore, I want to assume that Rambam needs always Gmar melacha, even for formal eating. And he is close to the explanation of TYT in Rashi quoted below (following my pshat in TYT).

So, in conclusion, the Yerushalmi, quoted in Rambam 3.3, doesn't need to include formal eating in the enumeration, because it is an equivalent of selling or salting for fruits they are not ready to eat without salt. This is perhaps the meaning of Chazon Ish 11.17.

41 added 1279 characters in body
source | link

Here is an element of answer. My understanding is based on Gemara BM 88a-89b, Betsa 13 and Tosfot d.h Baal Habayit. There are additional Shitot34-35.

For saltsalting (ספיתה) without any duty because of selling, we need also two fruits for gmar melacha. Whe need two fruits to have a concurrencean opposition against the greet goren, and then, there is Gmar Melacha, and we needit is called a kviut of"kviut" before eating bywith salt. This regards the owner. When there is a selling, we have a gmar Melacha and the selling is a rabbinic equivalent of entering at home. If we have two fruits, without selling and without saltsalting, there is no prohibition to eat, even many fruits, it is still an achilat arayi despite the quantity (BM 89b).

The duty occurs after gmar melacha, which can be accumulation of two fruits, followed by house, selling, fire, salt, teruma, Shabbat. The concept of two fruits is not one of the six, it is the prerequisite. The 5 items of the lists out of home are rabbinic equivalents of home. They say, the fruits are ready without comming to home.

And as says the Rambam in the first statement, this is part of Halacha 3.2 in standard editions, if there is a gmar melacha without one of the six steps enumerated, the owner can eat how many as he wants together. So Formal eating is a formal decision that the fruits will not go home, they definitely doesn't go home. If the eating is not formally enough, we still see them as if they wait to go home (מחזיר את המותר see Betsa 34b). So, the Rambam is not contradictory, the list of 6 causes of duty is exhaustive and the kushia of the Mishna Rishona is solved because the formality of the eating regards the question if there is a goren that will not go home, not the quantity of eating. After the occurrence of Achilat keve, you cannot eat even one fruit because this is Achilat Keva, as eating one fruit at home.

But theThe Chazon Ish zerayim, hilchot Maasrot, siman 4, paragraph 11 explains that the Mishna 4.5 is in the field and that there is a concept of formal eating, he called "מכאן אני אוכל" (paraphrasing the last mishna in the fourth chapter of Betsa, and the fruits ar still not destinated to go home) independent from gemar melacha, so the kashia on Rambam remains strong (the main harvesting). It'sBut it's clear that according to most rishonim (following how they understand Rashi Betsa 13b) there is such a notion of formal eating without gmar Melacha. See also Betsa 35 and Rashi there. But practically, there is no case in which you cannot see the formal eating without an equivalent of goren, moreover, a goren that entails chyuv without home because the eating will be out of the house. So, in conclusion, the Yerushalmi, quoted in Rambam 3.3, doesn't need to include itformal eating in the enumeration, because it is an equivalent of selling or salting for fruits they are not ready to eat without salt.

Here is an element of answer. My understanding is based on Gemara BM 88a and Tosfot d.h Baal Habayit. There are additional Shitot.

For salt (ספיתה) without any duty because of selling, we need also two fruits for gmar melacha. Whe need two fruits to have a concurrence against the greet goren, and then there is Gmar Melacha, and we need a kviut of eating by salt. This regards the owner. When there is a selling, we have a gmar Melacha and the selling is a rabbinic equivalent of entering at home. If we have two fruits, without selling and without salt, there is no prohibition, it is still an achilat arayi (BM 89b)

The duty occurs after gmar melacha, which can be accumulation of two fruits, followed by house, selling, fire, salt, teruma, Shabbat. The concept of two fruits is not one of the six, it is the prerequisite.

And as says the Rambam in the first statement, this is part of Halacha 3.2 in standard editions, if there is a gmar melacha without one of the six steps enumerated, the owner can eat how many as he wants together. So, the Rambam is not contradictory, the list of 6 causes of duty is exhaustive and the kushia of the Mishna Rishona is solved.

But the Chazon Ish zerayim, hilchot Maasrot, siman 4, paragraph 11 explains that the Mishna 4.5 is in the field and that there is a concept of formal eating, he called "מכאן אני אוכל" (paraphrasing the last mishna in the fourth chapter of Betsa) independent from gemar melacha, so the kashia on Rambam remains strong. It's clear that according to most rishonim (following how they understand Rashi Betsa 13b) there is such a notion. See Betsa 35. But practically, there is no case in which you cannot see the formal eating without an equivalent of goren, moreover, a goren that entails chyuv without home because the eating will be out of the house. So, in conclusion, the Yerushalmi, quoted in Rambam 3.3, doesn't need to include it in the enumeration, because it is an equivalent of selling or salting for fruits they are not ready to eat without salt.

Here is an element of answer. My understanding is based on Gemara BM 88a-89b, Betsa 13 and 34-35.

For salting (ספיתה) without any duty because of selling, we need also two fruits for gmar melacha. Whe need two fruits to have an opposition against the greet goren, and then, there is Gmar Melacha, and it is called a "kviut" before eating with salt. This regards the owner. When there is a selling, we have a gmar Melacha and the selling is a rabbinic equivalent of entering at home. If we have two fruits, without selling and without salting, there is no prohibition to eat, even many fruits, it is still an achilat arayi despite the quantity (BM 89b).

The duty occurs after gmar melacha, which can be accumulation of two fruits, followed by house, selling, fire, salt, teruma, Shabbat. The concept of two fruits is not one of the six, it is the prerequisite. The 5 items of the lists out of home are rabbinic equivalents of home. They say, the fruits are ready without comming to home.

And as says the Rambam in the first statement, this is part of Halacha 3.2 in standard editions, if there is a gmar melacha without one of the six steps enumerated, the owner can eat how many as he wants together. Formal eating is a formal decision that the fruits will not go home, they definitely doesn't go home. If the eating is not formally enough, we still see them as if they wait to go home (מחזיר את המותר see Betsa 34b). So, the Rambam is not contradictory, the list of 6 causes of duty is exhaustive and the kushia of the Mishna Rishona is solved because the formality of the eating regards the question if there is a goren that will not go home, not the quantity of eating. After the occurrence of Achilat keve, you cannot eat even one fruit because this is Achilat Keva, as eating one fruit at home.

The Chazon Ish zerayim, hilchot Maasrot, siman 4, paragraph 11 explains that the Mishna 4.5 is in the field and that there is a concept of formal eating, he called "מכאן אני אוכל" (paraphrasing the last mishna in the fourth chapter of Betsa, and the fruits ar still not destinated to go home) independent from gemar melacha (the main harvesting). But it's clear that according to most rishonim (following how they understand Rashi Betsa 13b) there is such a notion of formal eating without gmar Melacha. See also Betsa 35 and Rashi there. But practically, there is no case in which you cannot see the formal eating without an equivalent of goren, moreover, a goren that entails chyuv without home because the eating will be out of the house. So, in conclusion, the Yerushalmi, quoted in Rambam 3.3, doesn't need to include formal eating in the enumeration, because it is an equivalent of selling or salting for fruits they are not ready to eat without salt.

40 added 1279 characters in body
source | link
39 deleted 1 character in body
source | link
38 added 667 characters in body
source | link
37 added 667 characters in body
source | link
36 added 667 characters in body
source | link
35 added 667 characters in body
source | link
34 added 241 characters in body
source | link
33 edited body
source | link
32 added 80 characters in body
source | link
31 added 186 characters in body
source | link
30 edited body
source | link
29 added 170 characters in body
source | link
28 added 114 characters in body
source | link
27 added 86 characters in body
source | link
26 added 163 characters in body
source | link
25 added 258 characters in body
source | link
24 added 4069 characters in body
source | link
23 added 133 characters in body
source | link
22 added 268 characters in body
source | link
21 added 192 characters in body
source | link
20 added 634 characters in body
source | link
19 added 63 characters in body
source | link