חוץ לתחום אסור והבא בשביל ישראל זה מותר לישראל אחר
If, however, the gift was brought from outside the limit, it is prohibited. And an item that came from outside the limit for one Jew is permitted to another Jew. No prohibition applies to the second recipient, as the gentile’s intention was not fulfilled. Since the halakha of limits is a rabbinic prohibition, the Sages decreed that the object is prohibited only to the one on behalf of whom it was brought, but not to others.
אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב הסוכר אמת המים מערב יום טוב ולמחר השכים ומצא בה דגים מותרין
§ The Gemara continues its discussion about trapping animals on a Festival. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: If one dammed a water channel that was used to irrigate a field on the eve of a Festival, and the following day he arose and found fish in it, they are permitted. These fish presumably arrived with the water before the Festival and were unable to escape, as the channel had been obstructed. Therefore, the fish are considered as having been prepared before the Festival.
אמר רב חסדא מדברי רבינו נלמוד חיה שקננה בפרדס אינה צריכה זמון אמר רב נחמן נפל חברין ברברבתא איכא דאמרי אמר רבה בר רב הונא מדברי רבינו נלמוד חיה שקננה בפרדס אינה צריכה זמון אמר רב נחמן נפל בר חברין ברברבתא
Rav Ḥisda said: From this statement of our teacher, Rav, we learn that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard near one’s house does not require special designation but is considered prepared. Rav Naḥman said in response to this conclusion: Our colleague, Rav Ḥisda, has fallen upon a great matter, i.e., an issue that is not at all straightforward but is the subject of various disagreements. Some say a slightly different version of this statement, that Rabba bar Rav Huna said: From this statement of our teacher, Rav, we learn that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard does not require special designation, and with regard to this statement, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba, son of our colleague, Rav Huna, has fallen upon a great matter. Rav Huna was a contemporary of Rav Naḥman’s, and they were both students of Rav; consequently, Rav Naḥman referred to Rav Huna as his colleague and called Rabba the son of his colleague.
התם לא קא עביד מעשה הכא קא עביד מעשה
Rav Naḥman explains the difference between the cases: There, in the case where the undomesticated animal nested in an orchard, the person performed no action at all, as the animal came of its own accord, whereas here, in the case where he dammed the water channel, he performed an action when he blocked the water from leaving the channel.
ולא בעיא זמון והתניא חיה שקננה בפרדס צריכה לזמן וצפור דרור צריך לקשור בכנפיה כדי שלא תתחלף באמה וזו עדות שהעידו מפי שמעיה ואבטליון תיובתא
Rav Naḥman concludes his challenge: And does the animal not require further designation? Isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: An undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard requires designation. And as for a free bird, one is required to tie its wings so that it will not be mistaken for its mother, i.e., so that he not take a different bird, such as its mother, in its place. And this is a testimony that was reported in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of the Sages who drew an inference from Rav’s statement.
ומי בעיא זמון והתניא אמר ר"ש בן אלעזר מודים בית שמאי ובית הלל על שהזמינן בתוך הקן ומצא לפני הקן שאסורין במה דברים אמורים ביוני שובך ויוני עליה וצפרים שקננו בטפיחין ובבירה אבל אווזים ותרנגולים ויוני הרדסיאות וחיה שקננה בפרדס מותרין ואין צריכין זמון וצפור דרור צריכה לקשר בכנפיה כדי שלא תתחלף באמה
The Gemara asks: Does an undomesticated animal in an orchard really require designation? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concede with regard to doves and the like that one had designated on the eve of a Festival when they were inside the nest, and on the Festival itself he found them in front of the nest, that they are prohibited, as these doves might not be the same ones that he had designated but rather others that came from somewhere else? In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to doves of a dovecote, doves of a loft, and birds nesting in pitchers or in a building. However, geese, chicken, domestic doves, and an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard are permitted in all cases, and they do not require designation in advance. In the case of a free bird, one is required to tie its wings so that it is not mistaken for its mother.
והמקושרים והמנוענעין בבורות ובבתים ובשיחין ובמערות מותרין ובאילנות אסורין שמא יעלה ויתלוש והמקושרין והמנוענעין בכל מקום אסורין משום גזל
And with regard to those birds whose wings were tied as a sign, and similarly, those that were shaken in advance in order to designate them for the Festival, if they were in cisterns, in houses, in trenches, or in caves, they are permitted on the Festival. However, if they were in trees, they are prohibited, lest one climb up the tree and detach something from it, which is prohibited. And those birds whose wings were tied by another, and similarly, those that were shaken by another are prohibited in all places, even not on a Festival, due to the prohibition against stealing. Tying or shaking is considered an act of acquisition, and therefore others may not take them. In any case, this baraita clearly states that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard does not require designation.
אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא הא בה הא באמה אמה בזמון סגי לה צידה מעליותא בעיא
Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that an animal nesting in an orchard is permitted even without designation, is referring to it, a young animal that cannot escape; whereas that baraita, which states that designation is required, is referring to its mother, which is larger and can escape. The Gemara asks: But is mere designation sufficient for its mother? Doesn’t it require complete capture, as it is an undomesticated animal?
אלא אמר ר"נ בר יצחק אידי ואידי בדידה הא בגנה הסמוכה לעיר הא בגנה שאינה סמוכה:
Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that both this baraita and that one are referring to it, a young animal that is unable to escape, and the difference between them is as follows: This baraita, which does not require designation, is referring to a garden situated near the city, so that one knows precisely where the animal is located and he can take it at any time. That baraita, which requires designation, is referring to a garden that is not located nearby.
מתני׳ בהמה מסוכנת לא ישחוט אלא אם כן יש שהות ביום לאכול ממנה כזית צלי ר"ע אומר אפילו כזית חי מבית טביחתה
MISHNA: If an animal is in danger of dying, in which case its meat would be prohibited as the animal had not been properly slaughtered, and one wishes to slaughter it in the hope that it will be found fit for eating and he will be spared a loss, he may not slaughter it on a Festival unless there is still time in the day for him to eat an olive-bulk of roasted meat from the animal, so that it is possible to say that he slaughtered the animal for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Akiva says: There need not be enough time for him to roast it; rather, it is sufficient even if there is only time to eat an olive-bulk of raw meat from the place where the animal is slaughtered, i.e., from its neck, without going to the trouble of removing its hide and roasting it.
שחטה בשדה לא יביאנה במוט ובמוטה אבל מביא בידו אברים אברים:
If one slaughtered an animal on a Festival in the field, he may not bring it to his house on a pole or on a set of poles carried by two people, as this appears similar to a weekday activity. Rather, he must alter his usual weekday manner of performing this action and bring it in by hand, limb by limb.
גמ׳ אמר רמי בר אבא הפשט ונתוח בעולה והוא הדין לקצבים מכאן למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר קודם הפשט ונתוח
GEMARA: Rami bar Abba said: The mitzva of flaying and cutting the animal into pieces is mentioned in the Torah with regard to the burnt-offering, and the same is true for butchers. That is to say, we learn from the halakhot of the burnt offering that a butcher should first remove the hide and cut the animal into pieces. From here the Torah taught proper etiquette, that a person should not eat meat before flaying and cutting the animal into pieces.
(לאפוקי) מאי קמ"ל אילימא לאפוקי מדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא בהמה בחייה בחזקת איסור עומדת עד שיודע לך במה נשחטה
The Gemara asks: What new halakha is Rami bar Abba teaching us? If we say that he wishes to exclude the opinion of Rav Huna, there is a difficulty, as Rav Huna said: An animal, while alive, retains its presumptive status of being subject to the prohibition against eating a limb from a living creature, and it retains that status after slaughter until it becomes known to you how it was slaughtered. As long as it has not yet been clarified that the animal was slaughtered properly, it is presumed to be prohibited.
נשחטה בחזקת היתר עומדת עד שיודע לך במה נטרפה
However, once the animal has been slaughtered properly, it retains its presumptive status of being permitted until it becomes known to you how it became a tereifa, an animal suffering from a wound or illness that would cause it to die within twelve months, which is prohibited to be eaten even after ritual slaughter. There is no need to conduct a special examination of the animal to determine if it had a defect or illness, as it is presumed to be permitted. Even if a defect is found, this does not necessarily render the animal a tereifa, as one can say that it appeared only after the animal was slaughtered.
והאנן תנן מתניתין כדרב הונא דתנן ר"ע אומר אפילו כזית חי מבית טביחתה מאי לאו מבית טביחתה ממש
One might have understood from Rami bar Abba’s statement that he disagrees with Rav Huna and requires that the animal be examined. However, this is difficult, as didn’t we learn in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna? As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: It is sufficient even if there is only time to eat an olive-bulk of raw meat from the place where the animal is slaughtered. What, is it not referring to meat from the actual place where the animal is slaughtered, from which it follows that one need not remove the hide or examine the animal?
לא ממקום שטובחת אכילתה
The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the mishna can be understood as follows: From the place where the animal slaughters its food, i.e., from its intestines, where digestion takes place. The hide must still be removed and the animal must be examined before it can be eaten.
והא תני רבי חייא מקום טביחתה ממש אלא רמי בר אבא
But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: From the actual place where the animal is slaughtered? Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and says that Rami bar Abba