(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Beitzah 24



(a) Our Mishnah considers wild animals and birds in an enclosure, trapped. Initially we resolve this with the Beraisa, which forbids catching a wild animal from inside an enclosure - by establishing our Mishnah like the Rabbanan (who *do* consider wild animals inside an enclosure trapped); whereas the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah (who does *not*).

(b) We infer from Rebbi Yehudah, who says in another Beraisa, that one is Chayav for trapping a deer *in a room* - that it would not be considered trapped in an *enclosure*.

(c) Both Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan agree that one is Chayav for trapping a bird in a cupboard. The Rabbanan say there that a deer is considered trapped inside a room, a garden, a yard or an enclosure.

(d) A bird is not considered trapped inside a room - because it can fly out through the windows (in former times, when windows were not covered with glass).

(a) We are still left however, with the discrepancy - between our Mishnah, which considers birds trapped in an enclosure, and the Beraisos, which do not.

(b) We cannot resolve this discrepancy by establishing our Mishnah by a *covered* enclosure and the Beraisos, by an *open* one - because the second Beraisa does not consider birds trapped even in a room (which is no different than a covered enclosure, in this regard.

(c) We resolve the discrepancy - by establishing our Mishnah by *tame* birds, and the Beraisos by *wild* ones.

(d) 'Tzipor D'ror', which refers to a wild species of bird (as opposed to a tame one) - is a derivative of 'la'Dur' (to dwell) literally means that it dwells wherever it likes (i.e. it will not be confined to any one place).

(a) The previous distinction by birds, prompts us to answer the original discrepancy (with regard to wild animals) by making a similar distinction between two kinds of enclosures - our Mishnah speaks about a small enclosure, the Beraisa, a large one.

(b) This answer is preferable to the initial one that we gave (in 1a.) - because it avoids getting involved in a Machlokes Tana'im; now both the Beraisa and the Mishnah go according to the Rabbanan.

(c) Rav Ashi interprets a small enclosure as one that is small enough to enable one to catch the wild animal in one leap, one which has no alcoves or one where, in the early morning the shade cast by the sun in the east reaches the wall in the west.

(a) Abaye objected to Rav Yosef (quoting Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel)'s ruling like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - because Raban Shimon ben Gamliel does not come to dispute the Tana Kama, but to explain what an enclosure is according to him. So why is it necessary to issue a ruling like an opinion which is unanimous?

(b) When Rav Yosef asked him what difference it makes whether the Chachamim argued with Raban Shimon or not - he retorted that learning Torah is not a song, but a serious business (in which case, one should not make statements that are redundant).

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel gives a fourth interpretation of a small enclosure - He says that if one needs to fetch a net to catch the animal, then it is a large enclosure, if not, it is a small one.

(a) Ducks and chickens require a net to catch them, yet they are considered caught. They and pigeons both return to their nests each evening - the difference between them (regarding the Din of trapping) is that whereas the owner is obligated to feed the former (which therefore know him and acknowledge that he is their master, like animals), he is not obligated to feed the latter.

(b) When, in an alternative answer, Rav Mari explains that pigeons tend to fly away - he means that, even when they are in their nest, they tend to fly from one floor to another whenever he approaches them.

(c) The Beraisa incorporates - pigeons in a dove-cot and pigeons that live in the attic, as well as baby birds that are born in special jars pre-set in the wall, in the category that is not considered caught.

(d) Herodian pigeons are listed together with chickens and ducks as being trapped (Some say that this refers to the place of their origin, others, that they the homing pigeons from the aviaries of King Herod).

(a) One may take a trapped animal etc. from the net where it is caught - provided one knows that they were caught before Yom-Tov.

(b) Raban Gamliel declined to take the fish that a Nochri brought him on Yom-Tov - because he disliked the Nochri (and did not feel inclined to be indebted to him).

(c) Our Mishnah appears to cite a story which contradicts the Halachah that precedes it, so we amend the Mishnah - by adding to the Reisha 've'Safek Muchan, Asur, ve'Raban Gamliel Matir'. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says that the Halachah is not like Raban Gamliel.

(d) Others quote the ruling of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - with regard to a Beraisa, where Raban Gamliel specifically permits Safek Muchan, and Rebbi Yehoshua forbids it, on which he says 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehoshua'.




(a) The Tana Kama of yet another Beraisa permits Shechting animals from 'Nigarim' on Yom-Tov, but forbids taking them from nets and traps in which they have been caught. Nigarim - are enclosures (synonymous with Bibrin), so-called because they used to dig irrigation-ditches (Nigrei Mayim) in them.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Elazar permits taking animals from nets that were disturbed *before* Yom-Tov (implying that in the case of a *Safek*, it would be *forbidden*); but prohibits taking them from those that were only disturbed *on* Yom-Tov (implying that in the case of a Safek, it would be *permitted*) - a contradiction in implications?

(c) So we turn what the Tana says from *two* statements into *one* - Raban Shimon ben Elazar permits taking animals from nets that were disturbed *before* Yom-Tov (because one is then *sure* that they were already caught *before* Yom-Tov); but if one is *not*, then it is as if they were caught *on* Yom-Tov, and are forbidden.

(d) In this case, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

(a) Raban Gamliel maintains that the fruit brought to him by the Nochri (Safek Muchan) was permitted. Levi explains this to mean 'permitted to *eat*' - Rav says that it is only permitted to *receive* it (but not to eat).

(b) Levi heard this ruling from Rebbi.

(c) Rav, after pointing out that Rebbi had indeed ruled 'Mutarin ba'Achilah', in the evening; in the morning however, he retracted and said 'Mutarin Lekabeil' - commented how important it is for a person not to miss a day in the Beis Hamedrash, for we see what happened to Levi, who heard Rebbi's initial ruling, but missed his final ruling on the matter.

(a) The Beraisa permits 'Dagim Mefulamin' or freshly-picked fruit that is brought by a Nochri on Yom-Tov. 'Dagim Mefulamin' - are fish that are still fresh.

(b) We try and prove from the concession of freshly-picked fruit - that the 'Mutarin' of Raban Gamliel must mean 'Mutarin Lekabeil', because, if it meant 'Mutarin ba'Achilah', how could the Tana possibly permit eating freshly-picked fruit on Yom-Tov?

(c) In fact, we retort, it is no better to establish the Beraisa by Tiltul - because even Raban Gamliel only permitted Tiltul by *Safek* Muchan, but not by what is definitely *not* Muchan?

(d) We finally establish ...

1. ... Dagim Mefulamin - by fish that are not moist, but that are still red under the gills.
2. ... freshly-picked fruit - by fruit that was immediately pickled with vegetables, so that they should continue to look fresh. Both are permitted to eat (in spite of the fact that the fish look as if they were caught and the fruit as if it was picked - today) - because the one was definitely caught and the other picked - yesterday.
(a) If a Nochri brings fruit on Yom-Tov and there is some of that kind still attached to the trees in that area, it will remain forbidden the whole of that day - and become permitted 'bi'Chedei she'Ye'asu' (until the time it takes to achieve the same result - be'Heter) after the termination of the *first* day of Yom-Tov.

(b) Rashi disagrees with Rabeinu Yitzchak ha'Levi - who maintained that it remains forbidden until 'bi'Chedei she'Ye'asu' of the termination of the *second* day.

(c) If there is none of that kind of fruit attached to the tree, then, if the Nochri brought it ...

  1. ... from *inside* the Techum - it is permitted.
  2. ... from *outside* the Techum - it is forbidden.
(d) Chazal permitted fruit that a Nochri brought from outside the Techum for another Jew, because it was not initially brought for him - because they did not want to be any stricter than that by the Isur of Techumin, which is purely mi'de'Rabbanan.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,