Talmud for Beitzah 3:1
צבייה תהא מותרת שהיא מתרת עצמה בשחיט' חזר ר' זעירה ואמר עגל מאתמול הוא גומר ברם הכא בו ביום נגמרה בו ביום נולדה א"ר בא אתייא כמאן דאמר הבהמה יולדת לחדשים מקוטעין ברם כמאן דאמר בהמה יולדת לחדשים מסויימין הגע עצמך שסיים אימתי עלה עליה זכר גוזל שנולד ביום טוב מותר שהוא מתיר עצמו בשחיטה לא כן תני ביצים שריקימו גוזלים שלא העלו עליהן כנפים אסורין משום שקץ ואין לוקין עליהם משום נבלה ואמר רבי חגי ואפילו שחטן א"ר אבון תיפתר באילין דנפקין וכנפיהון עליהן רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוסי בי רבי חנינה שאיל כל שתשמישו ביום מוליד ביום בלילה מוליד בלילה התיבון הרי התרנגולת הרי אין תשמישה אלא ביום והיא יולדת בין ביום בין בלילה א"ר אבון שנייא היא שכן היא יולדת בלא זכר רבי זעירא בשם גידול עגל שנולד מן הטריפה ביום טוב מותר נעשה כדבר מוכן טמון בדבר שאינו מוכן תמן תנינן ביצת נבילה אם יש בה כיוצא בה נמכרת בשוק מותרת ואם לאו אסורה כדברי ב"ש וב"ה אוסרין מה טעמא דבית שמאי גמורה הייתה עד שלא תתנבל מעתה אפילו אין כיוצא בה נמכרת בשוק תהא מותרת אם אומר את כן נמצאת מתיר שלל של ביצים ובית שמאי
a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east;
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
Animals trapped in a house are effectively caught. Animals held in a large enough vegetable garden or vivarium still have a chance to evade being grabbed.. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there63Mishnah Beṣah 3:1, an anonymous statement.: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there63Mishnah Beṣah 3:1, an anonymous statement., “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium64How can the rabbis forbid catching a deer in a vegetable garden as a Sabbath violation but allow it on a holiday? This contradicts the statement (Mishnah Megillah 1:5) that the only difference between prohibited work on Sabbath and Holiday refers to the preparation of food. It is explained in Beṣah that preparation of meat starts with slaughter; anything preceding this is not exempt from the prohibition of work.? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered65A courtyard covered by a roof is a house. The Babli 106b, Beṣah 24a restricts this answer to vivaria.. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden66Nothing would grow in a vegetable garden devoid of sunlight. The answer cannot be correct.? But here a large one, there a small one67A small garden is one where the deer can be taken without effort, a large one where one has to use tools to catch the deer; Babli 106b, Beṣah 24a. The question now arises how to define “small” and “large” for practical application.. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable68This discussion refers to the last statement in Mishnah Beṣah 3:1. Should one say that for large vivaria, taking animals on a holiday is a biblical violation even though this seems to contradict the formulation of the first part Mishnah Beṣah 3:1.? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”69This is the traditional formulation of the last statement in Mishnah Beṣah 3:1 in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, in contrast to the formulation in Šabbat 13:5. The prohibition is rabbinic since animals in a corral are no longer wild. The next statement translates the criterion into a practical rule. The Babli Beṣah 24a has a different rule.. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
The main subject of Tractate Beṣah is the requirement, based ostensibly on Ex. 16:5, that on the Sabbath and holidays only food prepared beforehand may be consumed. Since cooking on the Sabbath is forbidden, there is no problem regarding Sabbath observation. For the holidays there first is the problem of extending a commandment given for the Sabbath to holidays and second the fact that cooking and other preparation of food is permitted (Ex. 13:16). Therefore the application of the requirement of preparation can refer only to the accessibility of raw materials. If an animal is trapped before the onset of the holiday it is prepared in this sense and may be taken and turned into food on the holiday. Another question then is whether the extension of Ex. 16:5 to holidays is considered biblical (when cases of doubt have to be resolved restrictively) or rabbinic (when cases of doubt have to be resolved leniently).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish”. Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found371The rules prescribed are a legal fiction (in the Babli, Beṣah 24b, ascribed to the last generation of Tannaןm). They can be relied on only in situations where the probability of correctness is significantly larger than 50%. (Quoted by Tosaphot 17b s.v. אלא)..