ביישוב לא עבידנא מפני שינוי המחלוקת במדבר מאי אמר ליה הכי אמר רב אמי ביישוב אסור במדבר מותר
we do not perform labor in the settled area due to the need to avoid deviation that causes dispute, as it is the custom in the Diaspora to refrain from performance of labor on those days. However, in the desert outside the Jewish community, what is the halakha? He said to him that this is what Rav Ami said: In a settled area it is prohibited; in the desert it is permitted.
רב נתן בר אסיא אזל מבי רב לפומבדיתא ביום טוב שני של עצרת שמתיה רב יוסף אמר ליה אביי ולנגדיה מר נגידי אמר ליה עדיפא עבדי ליה דבמערבא מימנו אנגידא דבר בי רב ולא מימנו אשמתא
Tangentially, it is reported that Rav Natan bar Asya relied upon his knowledge of the calendar and traveled from Rav’s study hall to Pumbedita on the second day of the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, and thereby desecrated the second day of the Festival by traveling beyond the town limits. Rav Yosef excommunicated him as punishment for this act. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master flog Rav Natan bar Asya for this grave sin. Rav Yosef said to him: I punished him more severely, as in Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar, but do not vote to punish him with excommunication, in deference to the Torah. Apparently, excommunication is a more severe punishment than lashes.
איכא דאמרי נגדיה רב יוסף אמר ליה אביי נשמתיה מר דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו מנדין על שני ימים טובים של גליות אמר ליה הני מילי איניש דעלמא הכא צורבא מדרבנן הוא דטבא ליה עבדי דבמערבא מימנו אנגדתא דבר בי רב ולא מימנו אשמתא:
Some say: Rav Yosef ordered the court officer to flog him. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master excommunicate him, as it is Rav and Shmuel who both say that one excommunicates for desecration of the second day of the Festival in the Diaspora. Rav Yosef said to him: That applies to an ordinary person. Here, he is a Torah scholar. I did what was best for him, as in Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar but do not vote to punish him with excommunication. Rav Yosef did not wish to sentence him to so severe a punishment.
כיוצא בו המוליך פירות שביעית וכו׳: ולית ליה לרבי יהודה הא דתנן נותנין עליו חומרי המקום שיצא משם וחומרי המקום שהלך לשם
We learned in the mishna: Similarly, one who transports Sabbatical Year produce from a place where a crop has ceased in the fields to a place where it has not yet ceased, or from a place where it has not yet ceased to a place where it has already ceased, is obligated to remove the produce from his possession, in accordance with the stringencies of both locations. Rabbi Yehuda says that one need not remove the produce, as he can say to a local resident: You too go out and bring this produce from a place where it remains in the field. Therefore, he may partake of the produce that he brought with him. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda not in agreement with that which we learned in the mishna: The Sages impose upon him the stringencies of both the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went?
אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי מילתא אחריתי קאמר רבי יהודה והכי קאמר או ממקום שלא כלו למקום שלא כלו ושמע שכלו במקומו חייב לבער רבי יהודה אומר צא והבא לך אף אתה מהיכא דאייתינהו והא לא כלו להו
Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Rabbi Yehuda is stating a different matter, and this is what the mishna is saying: Or if one went from a place where a crop has not ceased in the fields to a place where it has also not ceased in the fields, and he heard that it now ceased in the fields in his original location, he is then required to remove the fruits from his possession. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not remove it and can say to the people of his location of origin: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from a place where they remain in the field, as they have not ceased in the fields here, and I may continue eating this produce.
למימרא דרבי יהודה לקולא קאמר והאמר רבי אלעזר לא אמר רבי יהודה אלא לחומרא אלא איפוך אינו חייב לבער רבי יהודה אומר צא והבא לך אף אתה מהיכא דאייתינהו והא כלו להו
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is stating his opinion as a leniency in his dispute with the Rabbis? Didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion as a stringency? Rather, reverse the statements in the mishna: If one travels from a place where a crop has not ceased in the fields to another place where it has not ceased in the fields, and hears that it has ceased in the fields in his original location, he is not required to remove that produce from his house. Rabbi Yehuda says: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from the place where I brought them, and the crop has ceased in the fields there, and therefore he is required to remove the produce from his house.
אביי אמר לעולם כדקתני והכי קאמר או ממקום שלא כלו למקום שכלו והחזירן למקומן ועדיין לא כלו אינו חייב לבער רבי יהודה אומר צא והבא לך אף אתה מהיכא דאייתינהו והא כלו להו
Abaye said: Actually, maintain the dispute in the mishna as it is taught, and this is what the mishna is saying: Or, if he brought it from place where it has not ceased in the fields to a place where it has ceased in the fields, and he returned the fruits to their original place where they have still not ceased from the fields, he is not required to remove the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from the place where I brought them, and hasn’t the crop ceased from the fields there? When he brought the produce back, he took it from a location where the fruit had ceased to be available, and he is required to remove it.
מתקיף לה רב אשי לרבי יהודה אטו אגבא דחמרא קלטינהו אלא אמר רב אשי בפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתנן הכובש שלשה כבשין בחבית אחת רבי אלעזר אומר אוכלין על הראשון
Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: Is that to say that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, did the back of the donkey absorb these fruits? In other words, should this fruit be prohibited just because he transported the fruits on a donkey’s back through a place where it no longer exists in the field, even though it was neither grown there nor is he eating it there? Rather, Rav Ashi said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is parallel to the dispute of these tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who preserves three types of vegetable preserves in one barrel during the Sabbatical Year, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat all three vegetables based on the status of the first. One may eat all three only until the date that the first of those vegetables ceases in the field. Thereafter, he is required to remove all the vegetables because they form a mixture of the prohibited and the permitted.
רבי יהושע אומר אף על האחרון רבן גמליאל אומר כל שכלה מינו מן השדה יבער מינו מן החבית והלכה כדבריו
Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may even continue eating all of them based on the status of the final type of those vegetables, until it is no longer present in the field. Rabban Gamliel says: Any of the vegetables whose type has ceased from the field, he will remove its type from the barrel and it may not be eaten; and the halakha is in accordance with his statement. The parallels between the dispute in this mishna and the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda are: The unattributed opinion in the mishna is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua opinion: As long as there is an element of leniency, it is all permitted. Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: As long as there is an element of stringency, it is all prohibited (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).
רבינא אמר בפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתנן אוכלין בתמרין עד שיכלה האחרון שבצוער רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר
Ravina said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is parallel to the dispute of these tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna: One may eat dates in all of Judea until the last palm tree, which produces the latest dates, in Tzoar, has ceased producing dates. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: