Daf Yomi Beitza 14b: Ha Lan Ha Lehu. Is This Really So?

Rava has an interesting resolution of two contradictory baryata. On Beitza daf 14 -- citing from my translation of the Rif, so certain features, such as Abaye's resolution of the two baryata, is not offered.

{Beitza 14a}
Mishna:
Bet Shammai say: Spices may be crushed {on Yom Tov} with a wooden pestle, and salt in a{n earthenware} flask or a wooden mixing spoon.
And Bet Hillel say: Spices may be crushed in their normal way, with a stone pestle, and salt with a wooden pestle.

Gemara:
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: Anything that is crushed may be crushed in its normal way, and even salt.

Rav said to Rav Acha Bardela {our gemara: Rav Acha Bardela said to his son}: When you crush, lean {the pestle on its side} and crush.

And this of Rav, the post-Talmudic Sages established it as regarding salt, but spices do not require leaning.

And this understanding is supported by this that it states that Rav Sheshet heard the sound of a {stone} pestle and said "this is not coming from my house." And we ask, perhaps he {whoever was using the pestle} leaned it? And we answer that he heard that its sound was clear {which would not be the case by a leaned pestle}. And perhaps it was spices being crushed? Spices make a loud sound when being crushed.

And from the fact that we ask "perhaps he leaned it" and answer that he {Rav Sheshet} heard that the sound was clear, and we return and ask "and perhaps it was spices," we deduce that spices do not require leaning. And thus, automatically, we derive that this that Rav said to Rav Acha Bardela to "lean and crush" he said in respect to salt, but spices do not require leaning.

And so is the halacha ruled in Halachot Pesukot {by Yehudai Gaon} and Halachot Gedolot {another, anonymous, Geonic work, written by the Behag = Baal Halachot Gedolot - possibly Shimon Kayyara}.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: We do not make tisni {wheat kernel grits, on Yom Tov} and we do not crush in a mortar.

And we answer {this apparent contradiction between the reisha and seifa -- that is, if we do not make tisni, we might be able to make other things with a mortar}: This is what it means to say: We do not make tisni because we do not crush in a mortar.

{Beitza 14b}
And this brayta we establish as being for residents of Eretz Yisrael {since they had servants who would disregard and use a large mortar}, but for us, we may crush with a small mortar, for they learnt {in another brayta}: We may not crush with a large mortar but we may crush with a small mortar. And we establish {this brayta} as being for the residents of Bavel.

Rav Papi visited the house of Mar Shmuel. They brought him some daysa {also wheat grits, just like tisni, but not crushed so finely. tisni is broken into four pieces each, and this into less bits} and he did not eat it.
And perhaps it was made with a small mortar?
He saw that it was fine{ly crushed, meaning that a large mortar was used}.
And perhaps it was made the previous day?
He saw that it was streaked {white, and thus had been just made}.
And if you wish I will say that the house of Mar Shmuel is different because there is the lack of care by the servants {who may have used a large mortar -- the same as in Eretz Yisrael}.

To clarify, the Mishna speaks about using various types of pestles, and does not mention use of a mortar {the bowl with which the pestle is typically used} at all. This could be because of course a pestle is used with a mortar, or it could be because one should not use a mortar.

One brayta stated that one may not use a mortar. Another stated that one could not use a large mortar but one could use a small mortar. Abaye suggests that the baryata are in sync. When the first brayta stated one cannot use a mortar, it meant specifically a large mortar. Rava, meanwhile, suggests that there is a distinction between the law for us and for them, them being the residents of Eretz Yisrael. Presumably, the items mentioned in the Mishna which one crushes with a pestle -- salt and spices -- do not require use of a mortar, or else one uses a small mortar with them. However, to make tisni, wheat is crushed using a mortar -- we can interpret this as a large mortar, as per Abaye, or just any mortar, as per Rava, who understands that this is for the residents of Eretz Yisrael.

Now, it would seem that according to the version for the lehu - for the residents of Eretz Yisrael, no manner of crushing of wheat with a mortar is permitted -- not with a large mortar nor with a small mortar.

It seems to me that this statement of Rava that in Eretz Yisrael, tisni is not permitted, and mortars in general are not permitted, is empirically testable. That is, why not look at the Talmud Yerushalmi, and see if they mention a prohibition on making tisni, or on using mortars.

The Yerushalmi on this Mishna reads as follows {Yerushalmi Beitza 7b-8a}:

ידוך מאתמול חברייא בשם רבי יוחנן שטעמן מר ר' זעירה בשם ר' יוחנן שטעמן פג שמואל שחק על סיטרא דמדוכתא רב אמר כל הנידוכין נידוכין כדרכן רב חונה ר' ירמיה ר' אימי בשם רבי יוחנן השום והשלחליים והחרדל נידוכין כדרכן רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוחנן העושה אלונתין בשבת חייב משום
מרקיה הא ביום טוב מותר רבי חזקיה בשם רבי ירמיה העושה אלונתין ביום טוב אסור משם מרקה יצחק דיהבא שאל לרבי יוחנן מהו מישחוק קונדיטון ביומא טבא א"ל שרי וייב לי ואנא שתיא רבי אבהו בשם ר' יהושע בן לוי שרי ר' זעירא בעא קומי רבי אבהו מאן דעביד טבאות לא שחיק ליה מאיתמל א"ל אין מחלפה שיטתיה דרבי אבהו הכא הוא אמר שרי והכא הוא אמר אסור אלא בגין דרבי אבהו ידע דר' זעירה מחמר ואינון מחמרים בגין כן הוא עבד דכוותהון אית דבעי מימר הכין א"ל מאן דבעי דייא טב לא שחק ליה מן דאיתמל ר' זעירה שאל לקלה דרומה עבדיה דרבי יודן נשייא שחק הוא מרק קונדיטון ביומא טבא א"ל אין וכל מיני סיקריקין ר' יצחק ר' לעזר בשם רבי אימי אבוי דרבי אבודמא דציפורי מה פליגין ליתן לצלי הא לקדירה מותר ר' נחום א"ר שמואל בר אבא בעי הדא אטריתא ליבש אסור לקדירה מותר על יד על יד צריכה:

No mention is made of any wheat grit food, and no mention is made of using mortars. (I am assuming מדוכתא as mentioned by Shmuel, which one leans and crushes, is in this case a pestle, as it is parallel to the statement involving Rav Acha Bardela in our gemara Bavli.) Only pestles and foodstuffs involving crushed spices are mentioned.

Does this prove or disprove Rava? On the one hand, shouldn't this brayta have been cited if it was for the benei Eretz Yisrael? {One can perhaps escape this by noting that the halacha may have changed in Eretz Yisrael from Tanaaitic to Amoraic times.} On the other hand, the lack of mention of tisni or daysa, or use of mortars at all, implies that they never thought to permit this. One can say lo` ra`inu `aino ra`aya, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in this case, it works out quite nicely with Rava's statement. So I would lean towards stating that this validates Rava.

Now, the gemara also relates an incident in which Rav Papi did not eat the daysa served to him in the house of Mar Shmuel. This was prepared using a mortar as well as a pestle, since it was a wheat dish. The gemara clarifies that Rav Papi was able to tell that it was made that day with a large mortar, since the grits were streaked and finely crushed. Alternatively, in the house of Mar Shmuel there were servants who prepared it, who are mezalzelim and would perhaps use a large mortar. {Equal to the reasoning for the residents of Eretz Yisrael, according the Rashi's explanation of the distinction of ha lan ha lehu.}

I would suggest an alternative -- perhaps Rav Papi held by this chumra of the residents of Eretz Yisrael, and thus did not eat -- or else he held in accordance with the one brayta about tisni. In a moment, I will make a similar point for an action by Rav Sheshet, so this would be consistent.

There is something else interesting in the Yerushalmi. Namely, there is the question how come he did not crush it from before Yom Tov? This is dismissed, and nearly all Amoraim mentioned do not consider crushing spices on Yom Tov problematic. Rabbi Yochanan even tells one questioner who asks about prepare spiced wine, "prepare it and give me some to drink!" One possible exception is Rabbi Zera, who depending on which lashon either holds it is problematic because it could have been prepared yesterday, or does not hold this.

Assuming that Rabbi Zera's chumra is authentic, then perhaps we can also understand Rav Sheshet. The Bavli, again, stated:

Rav Sheshet heard the sound of a {stone} pestle and said "this is not coming from my house." And we ask, perhaps he {whoever was using the pestle} leaned it? And we answer that he heard that its sound was clear {which would not be the case by a leaned pestle}. And perhaps it was spices being crushed? Spices make a loud sound when being crushed.

Why, by the way, is it specifically heard the sound? Because Rav Sheshet was blind.

Now, the story does not make it clear that it really was a stone pestle. And the answers of the gemara were not in the initial story, but are suggestions to make this fit in with other halachot we know to be true.

However, let us say for a moment that Rav Sheshet adopted the chumra of Rav Zera, since this could have been crushed from the previous day. If so, it makes sense that he does make a declaration "this person is being mechalel Yom Tov," but rather states categorically that it is not coming from his house -- because his shitta is that one should not crush with a pestle at all on Yom Tov. (This by itself might also account for Rav Papi's actions, by the way.)

As with everything on parshablog, these are my musings, and are not intended to be relied upon halacha lemaaseh.