משנה: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמֵּתָה לֹא יְזִיזֶנָּה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ אֶת רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן עָלֶיהָ וְעַל הַחַלָּה שֶׁנִּטְמָאָה. וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְשָׁאַל. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא יְזִיזֵם מִמְּקוֹמָן: MISHNAH: An animal which dies60And no longer is food; it became muqṣeh and may not be moved on the holiday. one may not move from its place. It happened that Rebbi Tarphon was asked about this and about ḥallah which became impure61Which may not be eaten anymore but cannot be burned on the holiday (Note 74); therefore it is muqṣeh.. He entered the study hall62He must have been young, that he needed the instruction from elders. Therefore this decision has to be dated to Temple times. and asked. They told him that one may not move them from their place.
הלכה: שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. טָעוּ חֲמִשָּׂה זִקֵינִים שֶׁהוֹרוּ לָרִבִּי טַרִפוֹן בְּלוֹד. אָמַר רַב מַתָּנָה. בִּבְכוֹר הֲוָה עוֹבִדָא. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. מַתְנִיתָה אָֽמְרָה כֵן. עָלֶיהָ וְעַל הַחַלָּה שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת. מַה זוֹ קוֹדֶשׁ אַף זוֹ קוֹדֶשׁ. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי לֵוִי. מָהוּ לִרְאוֹת אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה בְבַיִת אָפֵל. אָמַר. לְאַפֵּק לְבָר. רִבִּי אִמִּי בָעֵי. שְׁמַעְנָן. אֵין רוֹאִין אֶת הַנְּגָעִים בְּבַיִת אָפֵל. שְׁמַעְנָן. אֵין רוֹאִין אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה בְבַיִת אָפֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לָא מִטַּעַם הַזֶּה. אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא תִימָּצֵא טְרֵיפָה וִיהֵא אָסוּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ. אַתְייָא דְּרַב מַתָּנָה כִשְׁמוּאֵל. וּדְלֵוִי כְרַב. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוּדָֹה. HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred63Since in Mishnah Šabbat24:4 the anonymous majority (following R. Simeon) permits to use the carcass of an animal which died on the Sabbath as dog food, while R. Jehudah permits that only for animals having died before the Sabbath, it is established that on the Sabbath practice follows R. Simeon who in most cases denies that the rules of muqḥeh apply. He holds in this statement that therefore on the holiday also one has to follow R. Simeon and treat the animal carcass as permitted dog food.. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling64He holds that the Elders ruled correctly but that the case says nothing about the disagreement between RR. Jehudah and Simeon since a firstling, as sanctum, may not be used as dog food but must be buried (after the holiday). Babli 27b. Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy65Impure ḥallah cannot be used for any profane purpose; in this it is equal to a dead firstling. Babli 27b., so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house66Whether the injuries make the animal unfit for human consumption.? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house67Mishnah Nega`im2:3. This rule is biblical since it is required that the Cohen see the diseased skin with his unaided eyes (Lev. 12:12).. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved68Levi’s rule has no biblical root; it is not comparable to the inspection of skin disease. It is a practical advice to remove the animal from the house before it is declared unfit for human consumption and therefore muqṣeh for R. Jehudah.. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav69Since R. Mattanah restricts the Mishnah to the case of a firstling, he holds that for profane animals one follows R. Simeon; which is Samuel’s position. But Levi who recommends that one take precautions that the animal not become disqualified as food must follow R. Jehudah.. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah70Either Samuel changed his opinion, or one should read “Rav” instead of “Samuel”. In the Babli a statement of Rav Ḥisda, 28a..