Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

October 28, 2021 | כ״ב במרחשון תשפ״ב | TODAY'S DAF: Rosh Hashanah 19

Today's Daf Yomi

September 24, 2021 | י״ח בתשרי תשפ״ב

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

Beitzah 24

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ahava Liebtag in memory of her grandmother, Hilda Morgenstern, a’h, on her yahrzeit, who often remarked at how much women’s learning had grown in her own lifetime. “I know she’d be thrilled about the Hadran community.” And for her grandfather, Arthur Morgenstern, who shares her yahrzeit, “who cheered on his children and grandchildren to tackle any challenge. I miss you both.”

There is a contradiction between our Mishna which permits trapping an undomesticated animal and birds from an enclosure on Yom Tov and a braita which does not permit it. The Gemara brings resolutions for each (the birds and the undomesticated animals). One solution is to distinguish between a small/large enclosure. What is the definition of each? Rav ashi brings three possible explanations. According to Rashbag, you are not liable for trapping on Yom Tov if the animal is already considered trapped. How is this defined? Is it possible to take an animal, chicken or fish from a trap or net that was set up before Yom Tov? Does one need to know it was trapped before? What if one is unsure? Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis disagree. Shmuel rules to be stringent like the rabbis, but it is not clear on what source Shmuel said this – our Mishna or possibly on one of two other braitot. Rav and Levi disagree regarding what Rabban Gamliel permitted in a case of doubt – to be allowed to carry it or also allowed to eat it. Rav claims that Levi disagreed with him and he left the beit midrash early one day and did not hear when Rebbe retracted his statement. Another difficulty is raised on Levi but it is resolved. If a gentile brought a gift to a Jew, how can one determine whether it was picked on Yom Tov and would be forbidden? One also has to check if it was brought from outside one’s boundaries that are permitted to him/her on Shabbat (techum Shabbat). In the item is forbidden, when after Yom Tov can it be eaten?

 

המחוסר צידה אסור ושאינו מחוסר צידה מותר

inside such an enclosure whose trapping is inadequate, meaning that the enclosure is large and contains hiding places so that it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend the animal, it is prohibited for one to catch it; and with regard to any animal whose trapping is not inadequate, as it is possible to seize it immediately without having to engage in further pursuit, it is permitted for one to catch it.

גמ׳ ורמינהו ביברין של חיה ושל עופות אין צדין מהם ביום טוב ואין נותנין לפניהם מזונות קשיא חיה אחיה קשיא עופות אעופות

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from what is stated in the Tosefta: From enclosures of animals and of birds, one may not trap animals or birds on a Festival, nor may one place food before them. This is difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta. This is similarly difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta.

בשלמא חיה אחיה לא קשיא הא רבי יהודה הא רבנן

The Gemara resolves the first contradiction: Granted, with regard to the contradiction between the ruling concerning an animal in the mishna and the ruling concerning an animal in the Tosefta, it is not difficult, because this, the baraita that prohibits trapping and feeding animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that an animal trapped in an enclosure whose trapping is inadequate, i.e., it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend the animal, is not considered trapped, and therefore one may not trap it from the enclosure on a Festival. Whereas that, the mishna that permits trapping and feeding the animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that an animal in an enclosure is considered trapped, and therefore removing it from there is not considered an act of hunting.

דתנן רבי יהודה אומר הצד צפור למגדל וצבי לבית חייב לבית הוא דמחייב אבל לביברין לא וחכמים אומרים צפור למגדל וצבי לגנה ולחצר ולביברין

As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who drives and traps a bird into a closet or a deer into a house is liable. The Gemara infers from this: It is only if he traps the animal into a house that he is liable, but if he traps it into an enclosure, he is not liable. And the Rabbis say: One is liable for trapping a bird into a closet, and for trapping a deer into a garden, or into a courtyard, or into an enclosure. This demonstrates that according to the Rabbis, an animal found inside an enclosure is regarded as already captured, whereas Rabbi Yehuda disagrees. From this it follows that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis similarly disagree about catching an animal inside an enclosure and removing it from there on a Festival.

אלא עופות אעופות קשיא וכי תימא הא נמי לא קשיא הא בביבר מקורה הא בביבר שאינו מקורה

However, concerning the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta, it is difficult, as all agree that they may not be caught, even in one’s house. And if you say that this contradiction is also not difficult, because this, the mishna that permits trapping, is referring to a roofed enclosure, in which a bird is considered captured, and therefore there is no prohibition against apprehending it on a Festival, and that, the baraita that prohibits trapping, is referring to an unroofed enclosure, in which a bird is not considered trapped and apprehending it is prohibited, that does not resolve the contradiction.

והא בית דכביבר מקורה דמי ובין לרבי יהודה ובין לרבנן צפור למגדל אין לבית לא

The Gemara explains why the proposed resolution must be rejected: As with regard to a house, which is like a roofed enclosure, there is no dispute. And according to both Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, a bird trapped into a closet, yes, it is considered trapped, while a bird into a house, no, it is not considered trapped.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא הכא בצפור דרור עסקינן שאינה מקבלת מרות דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל למה נקרא שמה צפור דרור שדרה בבית כבשדה

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Here, in the mishna, according to which a bird in a house is not considered trapped, we are dealing with a free bird, a sparrow, which does not accept authority. That bird is not intimidated and evades capture even in a house. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is it called a free [dror] bird? Because it dwells [dara] in a house as it does in a field, flittering from place to place. For this reason, it is not considered captured when it is inside a house. Therefore, the distinction between a roofed and an unroofed enclosure resolves the apparent contradiction between the mishna and the Tosefta.

השתא דאתית להכי חיה אחיה נמי לא קשיא הא בביבר קטן הא בביבר גדול

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this understanding, that the difference between the rulings in the two sources is predicated on different circumstances and not on a tannaitic dispute, the apparent contradiction between the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta is also not difficult. This, the ruling in the mishna that permits apprehending the animal, is referring to a small enclosure, in which the animal cannot evade its pursuers and requires no further trapping. That, the ruling in the Tosefta that prohibits apprehending the animal, is referring to a large enclosure, from which the animal cannot escape, but it can still avoid being caught.

היכי דמי ביבר קטן היכי דמי ביבר גדול אמר רב אשי כל היכא דרהיט אבתרה ומטי לה בחד שחיא ביבר קטן ואידך ביבר גדול אי נמי כל היכא דאיכא עוקצי עוקצי ביבר גדול ואידך ביבר קטן אי נמי כל היכא דנפלי טולא דכתלי אהדדי ביבר קטן ואידך ביבר גדול

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a small enclosure, and what are the circumstances of a large enclosure? Rav Ashi said: Any enclosure where one can run after an animal and reach it in one stoop is a small enclosure. And any other is a large enclosure. Or perhaps, any enclosure that has a series of corners in which the animal could hide and evade capture is a large enclosure, and any other is a small enclosure. Or perhaps, any enclosure where the shadows from the different walls fall upon each other, because the walls are close together, is a small enclosure. And any other, a larger area where the walls are further apart, is a large enclosure.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא כל הביברין שוין וכו׳ אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי שמעון בן גמליאל אמר ליה אביי הלכה מכלל דפליגי

§ It was taught in the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical. If the animal is inadequately trapped in the enclosure, it is prohibited for one to catch it; whereas if it is adequately trapped, he is permitted to do so. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If one rules that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, does that mean by inference that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

אמר ליה ומאי נפקא לך מינה אמר ליה גמרא גמור זמורתא תהא

Rav Yosef said to him: And what difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Why then does it matter whether or not the issue was in dispute? Abaye said to him, invoking a folk expression with regard to one who learns without reaching understanding: Is it simply learn the lesson; let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? Rather, it is necessary to examine the issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.

זה הכלל כל המחוסר צידה וכו׳ היכי דמי מחוסר צידה אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל שאומר הבא מצודה ונצודנו

It was further taught in the mishna: This is the principle: Any animal inside such an enclosure whose trapping is inadequate may not be caught and removed from there on a Festival, whereas any animal whose trapping is not inadequate may be apprehended and removed from there. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an animal whose trapping is inadequate? Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Any animal with regard to which one would say: Bring a trap so that we may catch it, as the animal cannot be apprehended without the aid of a trap.

אמר ליה אביי והא אווזין ותרנגולין שאומרים הבא מצודה ונצודנו ותניא הצד אווזין ותרנגולין ויוני הרדיסאות פטור

Abaye said to him: But aren’t geese and chickens that are loose in a courtyard creatures with regard to which one would say: Bring a trap so that we may catch it, as they freely roam about and evade capture? And nevertheless, it is taught in a baraita: One who traps geese, chickens, or domestic doves is exempt, as they are considered already trapped.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר שמואל הללו באין לכלובן לערב והללו אין באין לכלובן לערב

Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: There is a difference between the two cases: These, the geese and chickens, enter their coop in the evening and use it as their fixed dwelling place and are therefore considered trapped, while these animals in the enclosure do not enter their coop in the evening and therefore flee from those trying to seize them.

והרי יוני שובך ויוני עלייה דבאין לכלובן לערב ותניא הצד יוני שובך ויוני עלייה וצפרים שקננו בטפיחין בבירות חייב

The Gemara challenges this argument: But don’t doves of a dovecote and doves of a loft enter their coop in the evening, and yet it is taught in a baraita: One who traps doves of a dovecote, doves of a loft, or birds that are nesting in pitchers in buildings is liable for their capture, although they enter their coop in the evening?

אלא אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר שמואל הללו באין לכלובן לערב ומזונותן עליך והללו באין לכלובן לערב ואין מזונותן עליך

Rather, Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: A distinction can be made as follows: These, the geese and chickens, enter their coop in the evening, and providing them with their feed is your responsibility. They are therefore accustomed to their owners and considered as trapped. Whereas these, the doves of a dovecote and the other birds mentioned in the baraita, admittedly enter their coop in the evening, but feeding them is not your responsibility.

רב מרי אמר הני עבידי לרבויי והני לא עבידי לרבויי כולהו נמי עבידי לרבויי לכלובן קאמרינן דעבידי לרבויי

Rav Mari said an alternative distinction: These, the doves of a dovecote, are likely to flee from people, and therefore require trapping, while these, the geese, chickens, and domestic doves, are not likely to flee from them. The Gemara asks: All of them are also likely to flee when being pursued, even chickens. The Gemara answers: We meant to say that they are likely to flee to their coop. In other words, even when they reach their coop they do not remain still but continue in their attempts to escape, and are therefore not considered trapped.

מתני׳ מצודות חיה ועוף ודגים שעשאן מערב יום טוב לא יטול מהן ביום טוב אלא אם כן יודע שנצודו מערב יום טוב ומעשה בגוי אחד שהביא דגים לרבן גמליאל ואמר מותרין הן אלא שאין רצוני לקבל הימנו

MISHNA: If traps for animals, birds, and fish were set on the eve of a Festival, one may not take anything from them on the Festival, unless he knows that the animals found in the traps had already been caught on the eve of the Festival. And an incident is related where a certain gentile brought fish to Rabban Gamliel, and the latter said: The fish are permitted, but I do not wish to accept them from him, as I despise him.

גמ׳ מעשה לסתור חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני ספק מוכן אסור ורבן גמליאל מתיר ומעשה נמי בגוי אחד שהביא דגים לרבן גמליאל ואמר מותרין הן אלא שאין רצוני לקבל הימנו

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a question about the story involving Rabban Gamliel. Was an incident cited above to contradict a previously stated halakha? The mishna first teaches that one may not eat an animal caught on a Festival, and then relates an incident in which Rabban Gamliel ruled that this is permitted. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete; it is missing an important element, and it teaches the following: Even in a case where it is uncertain whether or not the animal was prepared before the Festival, as it is unclear whether it was caught today or on the previous day, it is prohibited; and Rabban Gamliel permits it. And an incident is also related where a certain gentile brought fish to Rabban Gamliel, and the latter said: The fish are permitted, but I do not wish to accept them from him.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבן גמליאל ואיכא דמתני לה אהא דתניא ספק מוכן רבן גמליאל מתיר ורבי יהושע אוסר אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהושע ואיכא דמתני לה אהא דתניא

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Some teach this halakhic ruling with regard to this baraita, as it is taught: With regard to something about which an uncertainty exists whether or not it was prepared before the Festival, Rabban Gamliel permits it, and Rabbi Yehoshua prohibits it. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. And others teach it in reference to this baraita, as it is taught:

שוחטין מן הנגרין ביום טוב אבל לא מן הרשתות ומן המכמורות רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בא ומצאן מקולקלין מערב יום טוב בידוע שמערב יום טוב נצודו ומותרין בא ומצאן מקולקלין ביום טוב בידוע שביום טוב נצודו ואסורין

One may slaughter animals from pens containing pools of drinking water on a Festival, but not from those found caught in nets or in traps, as they may have been caught on the Festival itself. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If he came and found the nets and traps out of order on the eve of the Festival, which indicates that an animal had been caught in them, then it is known that the animals were caught on the eve of the Festival, and they are therefore permitted. However, if he checked the nets and traps shortly before the onset of the Festival and found them intact, and he later came and found them out of order on the Festival, it is known that the animals were caught on the Festival, and they are therefore prohibited.

הא גופה קשיא אמרת בא ומצאן מקולקלין מערב יום טוב בידוע שמערב יום טוב נצודו טעמא דבא ומצאן מקולקלין הא ספיקא אסורין אימא סיפא בא ומצאן מקולקלין ביום טוב בידוע שביום טוב נצודו טעמא דבא ומצאן מקולקלין הא ספיקא מערב יום טוב נצודו ומותרין

The Gemara poses a question: The baraita itself is difficult because it contains an internal contradiction between its clauses: You first said that if he came and found them out of order on the eve of the Festival, it is known that they were caught on the eve of the Festival. The reason is that he came and found them out of order, but if there is uncertainty, the animals are prohibited. But say now the latter clause of that same baraita: If he came and found them out of order on the Festival, it is known that they were caught on the Festival. The reason is that he came and found them out of order, but in a case of uncertainty, the assumption is that they were caught on the eve of the Festival and are permitted.

הכי קאמר בא ומצאן מקולקלין מערב יום טוב בידוע שמערב יום טוב נצודו ומותרין הא ספיקא נעשה כמי שנצודו ביום טוב ואסורין

The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita is saying: If he came and found them out of order on the eve of the Festival, it is known that they were caught on the eve of the Festival, and they are permitted. But in a case of uncertainty, it is considered as if they were caught on the Festival, and they are prohibited.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. All these versions of Shmuel’s ruling are basically in agreement: In a case of uncertainty as to whether or not an item was prepared before the Festival, it is prohibited.

ואמר מותרין הם מותרין למאי רב אמר מותרין לקבל ולוי אמר מותרין באכילה

§ It was stated in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel said that the fish brought to him on the Festival by the gentile are permitted. The Gemara asks: Permitted for what purpose? Rav said: They are permitted to be received and moved, but they may not be eaten. Levi said: They are even permitted to be eaten.

אמר רב לעולם אל ימנע אדם עצמו מבית המדרש אפילו שעה אחת דאנא ולוי הוינן קמיה דרבי כי אמרה להא שמעתא באורתא אמר מותרין באכילה בצפרא אמר מותרין לקבל אנא דהואי בי מדרשא הדרי בי לוי דלא הוה בי מדרשא לא הדר ביה

Rav said: A person should never prevent himself from attending the study hall for even one moment, and the proof is from this issue; as Levi and I were before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when he stated this halakha. In the evening he said: They are permitted to be eaten, but the following morning he said: They are permitted only to be received. I, who was in the study hall in the morning as well, retracted what I said, and taught the matter in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s second opinion. Levi, who was not in the study hall in the morning, did not retract his statement.

מיתיבי גוי שהביא דורון לישראל אפילו דגים המפולמין ופירות בני יומן מותרין בשלמא למאן דאמר מותרין לקבל שפיר אלא למאן דאמר מותרין באכילה פירות בני יומן מי שרו באכילה

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: If a gentile brought a gift [doron] to a Jew on a Festival, even moist [mefulamin] fish or produce from that same day, they are permitted. Granted, according to the one who said they are permitted to be received, it is well; the halakha is understandable. However, according to the one who said they are permitted to be eaten, is produce from that same day permitted to be eaten? If it was picked from the tree on that day, it is subject to the prohibition of muktze.

ולטעמיך פירות בני יומן מי שרו בטלטול אלא בכוורי דאדימי ופירי דכבישי בירקא עסקינן ואמאי קרי להו בני יומן שהן כעין בני יומן

The Gemara responds with a counter-question: And according to your reasoning, is produce picked on that same day permitted to be moved? Why, then, is it obvious to you that the produce is permitted to be received? Rather, it must be explained that we are dealing with fish whose gills are still red and with produce that is preserved in greens, not with produce that was actually picked on that day. Why, then, is it called produce of that same day? Because it is fresh and similar to produce picked on that same day. Such produce is permitted not only to be moved, but even to be eaten.

אמר רב פפא הלכתא גוי שהביא דורון לישראל ביום טוב אם יש מאותו המין במחובר אסור ולערב נמי אסורין בכדי שיעשו

Rav Pappa said that the halakha in this regard is as follows: In the case of a gentile who brought a gift to a Jew on a Festival, if there is of that species still attached to a tree or the ground, it is prohibited to be eaten, as it may be assumed that the gentile picked it that same day. And in the evening as well, after the conclusion of the Festival, it is prohibited for the period of time needed for its preparation, i.e., the period of time necessary to detach it from the tree or the ground, as one may not derive benefit from a prohibited labor that was performed on a Festival on behalf of a Jew.

ואם אין מאותו המין במחובר תוך התחום מותר

And if none of that species is still attached to the ground, then if the gift was brought from within the limit, i.e., the distance one may travel on a Festival, it is permitted, as no prohibited labor has been performed.

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah: 24-30 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn all of the third chapter of Masechet Beitza. We will learn what is...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Trapping on Yom Tov – Gefet #8

In honor of Sukkot and upcoming Simchat Torah, it is very exciting to be studying sugiyot which deal with the...

Beitzah 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 24

המחוסר צידה אסור ושאינו מחוסר צידה מותר

inside such an enclosure whose trapping is inadequate, meaning that the enclosure is large and contains hiding places so that it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend the animal, it is prohibited for one to catch it; and with regard to any animal whose trapping is not inadequate, as it is possible to seize it immediately without having to engage in further pursuit, it is permitted for one to catch it.

גמ׳ ורמינהו ביברין של חיה ושל עופות אין צדין מהם ביום טוב ואין נותנין לפניהם מזונות קשיא חיה אחיה קשיא עופות אעופות

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from what is stated in the Tosefta: From enclosures of animals and of birds, one may not trap animals or birds on a Festival, nor may one place food before them. This is difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta. This is similarly difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta.

בשלמא חיה אחיה לא קשיא הא רבי יהודה הא רבנן

The Gemara resolves the first contradiction: Granted, with regard to the contradiction between the ruling concerning an animal in the mishna and the ruling concerning an animal in the Tosefta, it is not difficult, because this, the baraita that prohibits trapping and feeding animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that an animal trapped in an enclosure whose trapping is inadequate, i.e., it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend the animal, is not considered trapped, and therefore one may not trap it from the enclosure on a Festival. Whereas that, the mishna that permits trapping and feeding the animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that an animal in an enclosure is considered trapped, and therefore removing it from there is not considered an act of hunting.

דתנן רבי יהודה אומר הצד צפור למגדל וצבי לבית חייב לבית הוא דמחייב אבל לביברין לא וחכמים אומרים צפור למגדל וצבי לגנה ולחצר ולביברין

As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who drives and traps a bird into a closet or a deer into a house is liable. The Gemara infers from this: It is only if he traps the animal into a house that he is liable, but if he traps it into an enclosure, he is not liable. And the Rabbis say: One is liable for trapping a bird into a closet, and for trapping a deer into a garden, or into a courtyard, or into an enclosure. This demonstrates that according to the Rabbis, an animal found inside an enclosure is regarded as already captured, whereas Rabbi Yehuda disagrees. From this it follows that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis similarly disagree about catching an animal inside an enclosure and removing it from there on a Festival.

אלא עופות אעופות קשיא וכי תימא הא נמי לא קשיא הא בביבר מקורה הא בביבר שאינו מקורה

However, concerning the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta, it is difficult, as all agree that they may not be caught, even in one’s house. And if you say that this contradiction is also not difficult, because this, the mishna that permits trapping, is referring to a roofed enclosure, in which a bird is considered captured, and therefore there is no prohibition against apprehending it on a Festival, and that, the baraita that prohibits trapping, is referring to an unroofed enclosure, in which a bird is not considered trapped and apprehending it is prohibited, that does not resolve the contradiction.

והא בית דכביבר מקורה דמי ובין לרבי יהודה ובין לרבנן צפור למגדל אין לבית לא

The Gemara explains why the proposed resolution must be rejected: As with regard to a house, which is like a roofed enclosure, there is no dispute. And according to both Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, a bird trapped into a closet, yes, it is considered trapped, while a bird into a house, no, it is not considered trapped.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא הכא בצפור דרור עסקינן שאינה מקבלת מרות דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל למה נקרא שמה צפור דרור שדרה בבית כבשדה

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Here, in the mishna, according to which a bird in a house is not considered trapped, we are dealing with a free bird, a sparrow, which does not accept authority. That bird is not intimidated and evades capture even in a house. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is it called a free [dror] bird? Because it dwells [dara] in a house as it does in a field, flittering from place to place. For this reason, it is not considered captured when it is inside a house. Therefore, the distinction between a roofed and an unroofed enclosure resolves the apparent contradiction between the mishna and the Tosefta.

השתא דאתית להכי חיה אחיה נמי לא קשיא הא בביבר קטן הא בביבר גדול

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this understanding, that the difference between the rulings in the two sources is predicated on different circumstances and not on a tannaitic dispute, the apparent contradiction between the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta is also not difficult. This, the ruling in the mishna that permits apprehending the animal, is referring to a small enclosure, in which the animal cannot evade its pursuers and requires no further trapping. That, the ruling in the Tosefta that prohibits apprehending the animal, is referring to a large enclosure, from which the animal cannot escape, but it can still avoid being caught.

היכי דמי ביבר קטן היכי דמי ביבר גדול אמר רב אשי כל היכא דרהיט אבתרה ומטי לה בחד שחיא ביבר קטן ואידך ביבר גדול אי נמי כל היכא דאיכא עוקצי עוקצי ביבר גדול ואידך ביבר קטן אי נמי כל היכא דנפלי טולא דכתלי אהדדי ביבר קטן ואידך ביבר גדול

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a small enclosure, and what are the circumstances of a large enclosure? Rav Ashi said: Any enclosure where one can run after an animal and reach it in one stoop is a small enclosure. And any other is a large enclosure. Or perhaps, any enclosure that has a series of corners in which the animal could hide and evade capture is a large enclosure, and any other is a small enclosure. Or perhaps, any enclosure where the shadows from the different walls fall upon each other, because the walls are close together, is a small enclosure. And any other, a larger area where the walls are further apart, is a large enclosure.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא כל הביברין שוין וכו׳ אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי שמעון בן גמליאל אמר ליה אביי הלכה מכלל דפליגי

§ It was taught in the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical. If the animal is inadequately trapped in the enclosure, it is prohibited for one to catch it; whereas if it is adequately trapped, he is permitted to do so. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If one rules that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, does that mean by inference that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

אמר ליה ומאי נפקא לך מינה אמר ליה גמרא גמור זמורתא תהא

Rav Yosef said to him: And what difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Why then does it matter whether or not the issue was in dispute? Abaye said to him, invoking a folk expression with regard to one who learns without reaching understanding: Is it simply learn the lesson; let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? Rather, it is necessary to examine the issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.

זה הכלל כל המחוסר צידה וכו׳ היכי דמי מחוסר צידה אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל שאומר הבא מצודה ונצודנו

It was further taught in the mishna: This is the principle: Any animal inside such an enclosure whose trapping is inadequate may not be caught and removed from there on a Festival, whereas any animal whose trapping is not inadequate may be apprehended and removed from there. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an animal whose trapping is inadequate? Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Any animal with regard to which one would say: Bring a trap so that we may catch it, as the animal cannot be apprehended without the aid of a trap.

אמר ליה אביי והא אווזין ותרנגולין שאומרים הבא מצודה ונצודנו ותניא הצד אווזין ותרנגולין ויוני הרדיסאות פטור

Abaye said to him: But aren’t geese and chickens that are loose in a courtyard creatures with regard to which one would say: Bring a trap so that we may catch it, as they freely roam about and evade capture? And nevertheless, it is taught in a baraita: One who traps geese, chickens, or domestic doves is exempt, as they are considered already trapped.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר שמואל הללו באין לכלובן לערב והללו אין באין לכלובן לערב

Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: There is a difference between the two cases: These, the geese and chickens, enter their coop in the evening and use it as their fixed dwelling place and are therefore considered trapped, while these animals in the enclosure do not enter their coop in the evening and therefore flee from those trying to seize them.

והרי יוני שובך ויוני עלייה דבאין לכלובן לערב ותניא הצד יוני שובך ויוני עלייה וצפרים שקננו בטפיחין בבירות חייב

The Gemara challenges this argument: But don’t doves of a dovecote and doves of a loft enter their coop in the evening, and yet it is taught in a baraita: One who traps doves of a dovecote, doves of a loft, or birds that are nesting in pitchers in buildings is liable for their capture, although they enter their coop in the evening?

אלא אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר שמואל הללו באין לכלובן לערב ומזונותן עליך והללו באין לכלובן לערב ואין מזונותן עליך

Rather, Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: A distinction can be made as follows: These, the geese and chickens, enter their coop in the evening, and providing them with their feed is your responsibility. They are therefore accustomed to their owners and considered as trapped. Whereas these, the doves of a dovecote and the other birds mentioned in the baraita, admittedly enter their coop in the evening, but feeding them is not your responsibility.

רב מרי אמר הני עבידי לרבויי והני לא עבידי לרבויי כולהו נמי עבידי לרבויי לכלובן קאמרינן דעבידי לרבויי

Rav Mari said an alternative distinction: These, the doves of a dovecote, are likely to flee from people, and therefore require trapping, while these, the geese, chickens, and domestic doves, are not likely to flee from them. The Gemara asks: All of them are also likely to flee when being pursued, even chickens. The Gemara answers: We meant to say that they are likely to flee to their coop. In other words, even when they reach their coop they do not remain still but continue in their attempts to escape, and are therefore not considered trapped.

מתני׳ מצודות חיה ועוף ודגים שעשאן מערב יום טוב לא יטול מהן ביום טוב אלא אם כן יודע שנצודו מערב יום טוב ומעשה בגוי אחד שהביא דגים לרבן גמליאל ואמר מותרין הן אלא שאין רצוני לקבל הימנו

MISHNA: If traps for animals, birds, and fish were set on the eve of a Festival, one may not take anything from them on the Festival, unless he knows that the animals found in the traps had already been caught on the eve of the Festival. And an incident is related where a certain gentile brought fish to Rabban Gamliel, and the latter said: The fish are permitted, but I do not wish to accept them from him, as I despise him.

גמ׳ מעשה לסתור חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני ספק מוכן אסור ורבן גמליאל מתיר ומעשה נמי בגוי אחד שהביא דגים לרבן גמליאל ואמר מותרין הן אלא שאין רצוני לקבל הימנו

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a question about the story involving Rabban Gamliel. Was an incident cited above to contradict a previously stated halakha? The mishna first teaches that one may not eat an animal caught on a Festival, and then relates an incident in which Rabban Gamliel ruled that this is permitted. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete; it is missing an important element, and it teaches the following: Even in a case where it is uncertain whether or not the animal was prepared before the Festival, as it is unclear whether it was caught today or on the previous day, it is prohibited; and Rabban Gamliel permits it. And an incident is also related where a certain gentile brought fish to Rabban Gamliel, and the latter said: The fish are permitted, but I do not wish to accept them from him.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבן גמליאל ואיכא דמתני לה אהא דתניא ספק מוכן רבן גמליאל מתיר ורבי יהושע אוסר אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהושע ואיכא דמתני לה אהא דתניא

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Some teach this halakhic ruling with regard to this baraita, as it is taught: With regard to something about which an uncertainty exists whether or not it was prepared before the Festival, Rabban Gamliel permits it, and Rabbi Yehoshua prohibits it. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. And others teach it in reference to this baraita, as it is taught:

שוחטין מן הנגרין ביום טוב אבל לא מן הרשתות ומן המכמורות רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בא ומצאן מקולקלין מערב יום טוב בידוע שמערב יום טוב נצודו ומותרין בא ומצאן מקולקלין ביום טוב בידוע שביום טוב נצודו ואסורין

One may slaughter animals from pens containing pools of drinking water on a Festival, but not from those found caught in nets or in traps, as they may have been caught on the Festival itself. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If he came and found the nets and traps out of order on the eve of the Festival, which indicates that an animal had been caught in them, then it is known that the animals were caught on the eve of the Festival, and they are therefore permitted. However, if he checked the nets and traps shortly before the onset of the Festival and found them intact, and he later came and found them out of order on the Festival, it is known that the animals were caught on the Festival, and they are therefore prohibited.

הא גופה קשיא אמרת בא ומצאן מקולקלין מערב יום טוב בידוע שמערב יום טוב נצודו טעמא דבא ומצאן מקולקלין הא ספיקא אסורין אימא סיפא בא ומצאן מקולקלין ביום טוב בידוע שביום טוב נצודו טעמא דבא ומצאן מקולקלין הא ספיקא מערב יום טוב נצודו ומותרין

The Gemara poses a question: The baraita itself is difficult because it contains an internal contradiction between its clauses: You first said that if he came and found them out of order on the eve of the Festival, it is known that they were caught on the eve of the Festival. The reason is that he came and found them out of order, but if there is uncertainty, the animals are prohibited. But say now the latter clause of that same baraita: If he came and found them out of order on the Festival, it is known that they were caught on the Festival. The reason is that he came and found them out of order, but in a case of uncertainty, the assumption is that they were caught on the eve of the Festival and are permitted.

הכי קאמר בא ומצאן מקולקלין מערב יום טוב בידוע שמערב יום טוב נצודו ומותרין הא ספיקא נעשה כמי שנצודו ביום טוב ואסורין

The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita is saying: If he came and found them out of order on the eve of the Festival, it is known that they were caught on the eve of the Festival, and they are permitted. But in a case of uncertainty, it is considered as if they were caught on the Festival, and they are prohibited.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. All these versions of Shmuel’s ruling are basically in agreement: In a case of uncertainty as to whether or not an item was prepared before the Festival, it is prohibited.

ואמר מותרין הם מותרין למאי רב אמר מותרין לקבל ולוי אמר מותרין באכילה

§ It was stated in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel said that the fish brought to him on the Festival by the gentile are permitted. The Gemara asks: Permitted for what purpose? Rav said: They are permitted to be received and moved, but they may not be eaten. Levi said: They are even permitted to be eaten.

אמר רב לעולם אל ימנע אדם עצמו מבית המדרש אפילו שעה אחת דאנא ולוי הוינן קמיה דרבי כי אמרה להא שמעתא באורתא אמר מותרין באכילה בצפרא אמר מותרין לקבל אנא דהואי בי מדרשא הדרי בי לוי דלא הוה בי מדרשא לא הדר ביה

Rav said: A person should never prevent himself from attending the study hall for even one moment, and the proof is from this issue; as Levi and I were before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when he stated this halakha. In the evening he said: They are permitted to be eaten, but the following morning he said: They are permitted only to be received. I, who was in the study hall in the morning as well, retracted what I said, and taught the matter in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s second opinion. Levi, who was not in the study hall in the morning, did not retract his statement.

מיתיבי גוי שהביא דורון לישראל אפילו דגים המפולמין ופירות בני יומן מותרין בשלמא למאן דאמר מותרין לקבל שפיר אלא למאן דאמר מותרין באכילה פירות בני יומן מי שרו באכילה

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: If a gentile brought a gift [doron] to a Jew on a Festival, even moist [mefulamin] fish or produce from that same day, they are permitted. Granted, according to the one who said they are permitted to be received, it is well; the halakha is understandable. However, according to the one who said they are permitted to be eaten, is produce from that same day permitted to be eaten? If it was picked from the tree on that day, it is subject to the prohibition of muktze.

ולטעמיך פירות בני יומן מי שרו בטלטול אלא בכוורי דאדימי ופירי דכבישי בירקא עסקינן ואמאי קרי להו בני יומן שהן כעין בני יומן

The Gemara responds with a counter-question: And according to your reasoning, is produce picked on that same day permitted to be moved? Why, then, is it obvious to you that the produce is permitted to be received? Rather, it must be explained that we are dealing with fish whose gills are still red and with produce that is preserved in greens, not with produce that was actually picked on that day. Why, then, is it called produce of that same day? Because it is fresh and similar to produce picked on that same day. Such produce is permitted not only to be moved, but even to be eaten.

אמר רב פפא הלכתא גוי שהביא דורון לישראל ביום טוב אם יש מאותו המין במחובר אסור ולערב נמי אסורין בכדי שיעשו

Rav Pappa said that the halakha in this regard is as follows: In the case of a gentile who brought a gift to a Jew on a Festival, if there is of that species still attached to a tree or the ground, it is prohibited to be eaten, as it may be assumed that the gentile picked it that same day. And in the evening as well, after the conclusion of the Festival, it is prohibited for the period of time needed for its preparation, i.e., the period of time necessary to detach it from the tree or the ground, as one may not derive benefit from a prohibited labor that was performed on a Festival on behalf of a Jew.

ואם אין מאותו המין במחובר תוך התחום מותר

And if none of that species is still attached to the ground, then if the gift was brought from within the limit, i.e., the distance one may travel on a Festival, it is permitted, as no prohibited labor has been performed.

Scroll To Top