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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 24, 2021 | 讬状讞 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 24

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Ahava Liebtag in memory of her grandmother, Hilda Morgenstern, a鈥檋, on her yahrzeit, who often remarked at how much women鈥檚 learning had grown in her own lifetime. “I know she鈥檇 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 鈥 our Mishna or possibly on one of two other braitot. Rav and Levi disagree regarding what Rabban Gamliel permitted in a case of doubt 鈥 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鈥檚 boundaries that are permitted to him/her on Shabbat (techum Shabbat). In the item is forbidden, when after Yom Tov can it be eaten?

 

讛诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 讗住讜专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 诪讜转专

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.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘讬讘专讬谉 砖诇 讞讬讛 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讗讬谉 爪讚讬谉 诪讛诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 拽砖讬讗 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 拽砖讬讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘谞谉

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.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛爪讚 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讜爪讘讬 诇讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇讘讬转 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 诇讘讬讘专讬谉 诇讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讜爪讘讬 诇讙谞讛 讜诇讞爪专 讜诇讘讬讘专讬谉

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.

讗诇讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转 拽砖讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 诪拽讜专讛 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛

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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 讘讬转 讚讻讘讬讘专 诪拽讜专讛 讚诪讬 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 诪专讜转 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 砖讚专讛 讘讘讬转 讻讘砖讚讛

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.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚专讛讬讟 讗讘转专讛 讜诪讟讬 诇讛 讘讞讚 砖讞讬讗 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜拽爪讬 注讜拽爪讬 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇讬 讟讜诇讗 讚讻转诇讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬

搂 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讗 讙诪讜专 讝诪讜专转讗 转讛讗

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讗讜诪专 讛讘讗 诪爪讜讚讛 讜谞爪讜讚谞讜

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘讗 诪爪讜讚讛 讜谞爪讜讚谞讜 讜转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜讬讜谞讬 讛专讚讬住讗讜转 驻讟讜专

Abaye said to him: But aren鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘 讜讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘

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.

讜讛专讬 讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 讚讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘 讜转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 讜爪驻专讬诐 砖拽谞谞讜 讘讟驻讬讞讬谉 讘讘讬专讜转 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara challenges this argument: But don鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘 讜诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讜讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘 讜讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱

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.

专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讛谞讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 诇讻诇讜讘谉 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜讚讜转 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜讚讙讬诐 砖注砖讗谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 诪讛谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬讜讚注 砖谞爪讜讚讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诪注砖讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讘讬讗 讚讙讬诐 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 诇拽讘诇 讛讬诪谞讜

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.

讙诪壮 诪注砖讛 诇住转讜专 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 住驻拽 诪讜讻谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪转讬专 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘讙讜讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讘讬讗 讚讙讬诐 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 诇拽讘诇 讛讬诪谞讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 住驻拽 诪讜讻谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪转讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜住专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讚转谞讬讗

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:

砖讜讞讟讬谉 诪谉 讛谞讙专讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛专砖转讜转 讜诪谉 讛诪讻诪讜专讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讜讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 讛讗 住驻讬拽讗 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 讛讗 住驻讬拽讗 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉

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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讛讗 住驻讬拽讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞爪讜讚讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. All these versions of Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讛诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇诪讗讬 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬诪谞注 讗讚诐 注爪诪讜 诪讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讚讗谞讗 讜诇讜讬 讛讜讬谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讻讬 讗诪专讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讘爪驻专讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讗谞讗 讚讛讜讗讬 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讛讚专讬 讘讬 诇讜讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛

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鈥檚 second opinion. Levi, who was not in the study hall in the morning, did not retract his statement.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 讚讜专讜谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讙讬诐 讛诪驻讜诇诪讬谉 讜驻讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽讘诇 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 诪讬 砖专讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛

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.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 驻讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 诪讬 砖专讜 讘讟诇讟讜诇 讗诇讗 讘讻讜讜专讬 讚讗讚讬诪讬 讜驻讬专讬 讚讻讘讬砖讬 讘讬专拽讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 砖讛谉 讻注讬谉 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 讚讜专讜谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诐 讬砖 诪讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗住讜专 讜诇注专讘 谞诪讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬注砖讜

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.

讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 诪讜转专

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

讛诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 讗住讜专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 诪讜转专

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.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘讬讘专讬谉 砖诇 讞讬讛 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讗讬谉 爪讚讬谉 诪讛诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 拽砖讬讗 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 拽砖讬讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘谞谉

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.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛爪讚 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讜爪讘讬 诇讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇讘讬转 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 诇讘讬讘专讬谉 诇讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讜爪讘讬 诇讙谞讛 讜诇讞爪专 讜诇讘讬讘专讬谉

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.

讗诇讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转 拽砖讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 诪拽讜专讛 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛

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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 讘讬转 讚讻讘讬讘专 诪拽讜专讛 讚诪讬 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 诪专讜转 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 砖讚专讛 讘讘讬转 讻讘砖讚讛

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.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚专讛讬讟 讗讘转专讛 讜诪讟讬 诇讛 讘讞讚 砖讞讬讗 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜拽爪讬 注讜拽爪讬 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇讬 讟讜诇讗 讚讻转诇讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬

搂 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讗 讙诪讜专 讝诪讜专转讗 转讛讗

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讗讜诪专 讛讘讗 诪爪讜讚讛 讜谞爪讜讚谞讜

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘讗 诪爪讜讚讛 讜谞爪讜讚谞讜 讜转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜讬讜谞讬 讛专讚讬住讗讜转 驻讟讜专

Abaye said to him: But aren鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘 讜讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘

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.

讜讛专讬 讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 讚讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘 讜转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 讜爪驻专讬诐 砖拽谞谞讜 讘讟驻讬讞讬谉 讘讘讬专讜转 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara challenges this argument: But don鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘 讜诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讜讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讻诇讜讘谉 诇注专讘 讜讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱

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.

专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讛谞讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 诇讻诇讜讘谉 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜讚讜转 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜讚讙讬诐 砖注砖讗谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 诪讛谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬讜讚注 砖谞爪讜讚讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诪注砖讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讘讬讗 讚讙讬诐 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 诇拽讘诇 讛讬诪谞讜

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.

讙诪壮 诪注砖讛 诇住转讜专 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 住驻拽 诪讜讻谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪转讬专 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘讙讜讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讘讬讗 讚讙讬诐 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 诇拽讘诇 讛讬诪谞讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 住驻拽 诪讜讻谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪转讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜住专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讚转谞讬讗

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:

砖讜讞讟讬谉 诪谉 讛谞讙专讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛专砖转讜转 讜诪谉 讛诪讻诪讜专讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讜讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 讛讗 住驻讬拽讗 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 讛讗 住驻讬拽讗 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉

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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞爪讜讚讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讛讗 住驻讬拽讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞爪讜讚讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. All these versions of Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讛诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇诪讗讬 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬诪谞注 讗讚诐 注爪诪讜 诪讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讚讗谞讗 讜诇讜讬 讛讜讬谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讻讬 讗诪专讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讘爪驻专讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讗谞讗 讚讛讜讗讬 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讛讚专讬 讘讬 诇讜讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛

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鈥檚 second opinion. Levi, who was not in the study hall in the morning, did not retract his statement.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 讚讜专讜谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讙讬诐 讛诪驻讜诇诪讬谉 讜驻讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽讘诇 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 诪讬 砖专讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛

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.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 驻讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 诪讬 砖专讜 讘讟诇讟讜诇 讗诇讗 讘讻讜讜专讬 讚讗讚讬诪讬 讜驻讬专讬 讚讻讘讬砖讬 讘讬专拽讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 砖讛谉 讻注讬谉 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 讚讜专讜谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诐 讬砖 诪讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗住讜专 讜诇注专讘 谞诪讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬注砖讜

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.

讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 诪讜转专

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