Beitzah 24aביצה כ״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Beitzah 24a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
24aכ״ד א

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 ר' 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 ר' 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 ר' 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.

רשב"ג 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 בנכרי 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 בנכרי 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 כר"ג ואיכא דמתני לה אהא דתניא ספק מוכן ר"ג מתיר ורבי יהושע אוסר אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' 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: