Talmud for Shabbat 24:2

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there³⁸Mishnah Šabbat 24:4., “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared³⁹He does not permit dog food if it was not available before the start of the Sabbath, how can he permit human food which was not available on the the eve of the holiday?.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah⁴⁰In Mishnah Bekhorot4:3, R. Jehudah permits to slaughter a damaged firstling without prior certification by an expert. He must hold that by biblical standards it is only the fact of the blemish that counts, not its certification by an expert. In addition, any kosher animal is potential food at all times.. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday⁴¹An animal suffering from a life-threatening defect is prohibited as food. While there is a long list of such defects, these disqualify as food only if they are found, but one does not have to examine every slaughtered animal for all of these defects except for the lung for which it is obligatory to check for tubercular lesions which would make the animal unfit for human consumption. Since slaughter is permitted on the holiday, inspection for ṭerefah automatically is not only permitted but in fact required to legitimize the slaughter., similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay⁴²Demay is produce of which it is not known whether tithes were taken, cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday⁴³Rebbi Huna’s argument is disproved since it would imply that demay can be removed on the holiday. But it is stated in Mishnah Šabbat2:7 that demay may be tithed only during twilight on Sabbath (and holiday) eve, therefore not on the holiday itself.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared⁴⁴This statement clearly follows the opinion of R. Simeon in the Mishnah.. But was it not stated, a [firstling]⁴⁵Corrector’s addition, based on Rav Ḥisda’s remark in the following sentence, but the scribe’s original text seems preferable. An animal which is known to have a ṭerefah defect is not potential food. As part of the mother’s body, the calf is not potential food. But if a healthy calf is born on the holiday, it is food at least for R. Jehudah. calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it⁴⁶If the corrector’s addition is deleted, then R. Ḥisda explains R. Jehudah’s opinion in the Mishnah since the latter also will agree that rabbinically the expert may not inspect firstlings on the holiday.. There came a case⁴⁷Of a firstling falling into a cistern. before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah⁴⁸Terumot3:1, Babli Eruvin46b.. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared⁴⁹In this baraita, the opinion of R. Simeon is quoted as that of “the Sages”, implying that it is practice to be followed. All the rules of precedence are subject to exceptions.. He⁵⁰R. Immi. changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: 7. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one feed them⁸¹In the interpretation of S. Liebermann, the three questions of R. Shammai refer to the three statements of R. Yose ben R. Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna. This first question is about caring for a wild animal legally caught on the Sabbath.? It comes following what we have stated there⁸²Mishnah Šabbat 24:3.: “one does not provide water to bees and to pigeons in a dovecot,” for one cannot provide for something which is not prepared⁸³Anything which is not potential food on the Sabbath.. And here it is the same.

There⁹¹Mishnah Šabbat 24:5., we have stated: “One dissolves vows on the Sabbath.” It was stated⁹²In the Babli, 77a, this is the result of a discussion of late Amoraïm.: Both vows that intrude on the Sabbath and vows that do not intrude on the Sabbath. “And one asks about vows that intrude on the Sabbath⁹¹Mishnah Šabbat 24:5.,” therefore not if there is no need for the Sabbath. The Elder can dissolve the next day⁹³But the husband who was informed on the Sabbath must dissolve on the Sabbath or lose his right to dissolution.. Then for Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon who say that the dissolution of vows is from time to time, he should not dissolve even vows that intrude on the Sabbath⁹⁴This argument is also made in the Babli, 77a.! Explain it according to everybody, if she made the vow at the start of Friday night.