ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 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
(a) We are still left however, with the discrepancy - between our Mishnah,
which considers birds trapped in an enclosure, and the Beraisos, which do
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(c) If there is none of that kind of fruit attached to the tree, then, if
the Nochri brought it ...
(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
- ... from *inside* the Techum - it is permitted.
- ... from *outside* the Techum - it is forbidden.