תלמוד על ביצה 3:1

HALAKHAH: 5⁶⁰This paragraph, referring to Mishnah 5, is a copy from Halakhah Beṣah 3:1. The references to the Mishnah Beṣah as “there” are almost correct.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah⁶¹The Mishnah in Beṣah. dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “⁶²Mishnah 5 here, a statement of R. Jehudah. one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable⁷The Mishnaic word is a transcription of the Latin.
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.

HALAKHAH: ³⁶⁹Quote from Mishnah 10. The entire piece is copied from Beṣah 3:2 (י); it is a commentary on the Mishnah there. The Genizah text is reasonably complete here (G). Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does set traps for wild animals, or birds, of fish,” etc. Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was day. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was day. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day³⁷⁰Mishnah Beṣah 3:2 reads: “One may not take from traps set for game, birds, or fish on the eve of a holiday unless one know that it was caught before the onset of the holiday. It happened that a Gentile brought fish to Rabban Gamliel who said they are permitted but I do not want to accept from him.” The question arises how can one know that an animal was trapped unless one go there and take it out before the holiday. Does the first part of the Mishnah have any practical application? The answer is that by observation from afar one may determine what happened.
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)..