10b
{Beitza 21a}
אמר רב חסדא בהמה חציה של נכרי וחציה של ישראל מותר לשחוטה ביו"ט
מ"ט א"א לכזית בשר בלא שחיטה
אבל עיסה חציה של נכרי וחציה של ישראל אסור לאפותה ביו"ט
מ"ט דהא איפשר למיפלגה בלישה
Rav Chisda said: A domesticated animal, half belonging to a gentile and half belonging to a Jew, it is permitted to slaughter it on Yom Tov.
What is the reason? Since it is impossible to otherwise obtain an olive's measure of meat without slaughter.
But dough, half of which belongs to a gentile and half of which belongs to a Jew, it is forbidden to bake it on Yom Tov.
What is the reason? Since it is possible to divide it during kneading.
בעו מיניה מרב הני בני באגא דרמו עלייהו קמחא דבני חילא מהו למיפינהו ביו"טWhat is the reason? Since it is impossible to otherwise obtain an olive's measure of meat without slaughter.
But dough, half of which belongs to a gentile and half of which belongs to a Jew, it is forbidden to bake it on Yom Tov.
What is the reason? Since it is possible to divide it during kneading.
אמר להו חזינן אי כי קא יהבי ריפתא לינוקא
לא קפדי נכרים עליה כל ריפתא וריפתא חזיא לישראל ושרי
ואי קפדי אסור
They inquired of Rav {our gemara: Rav Huna. Note similarity between Huna and Hanei}: These villagers upon whom the government has imposed the {baking of} flour of {gentile} soldiers, may they bake on Yom Tov?
{Alternatively: it was the villagers that asked him.}
He said to them: We shall see, if they {=the villagers} give a loaf to a child --
if the gentiles do not object to it, then each and every loaf is fit for an Israelite {our gemara: a child} and it is permitted.
and if they object, then it is forbidden.
{Alternatively: it was the villagers that asked him.}
He said to them: We shall see, if they {=the villagers} give a loaf to a child --
if the gentiles do not object to it, then each and every loaf is fit for an Israelite {our gemara: a child} and it is permitted.
and if they object, then it is forbidden.
וליתא להא דרב אלא בין כך ובין כך אסור דאמר ריב"ל מזמנין את הכותי בשבת ואין מזמנין אותו ביו"ט גזרה שמא ירבה בשבילו
ואמרי' אדבריה רבא למר שמואל ודרש מזמנין את הכותי בשבת ואין מזמנין את הכותי ביו"ט גזרה שמא ירבה בשבילו
מרימר ומר זוטרא כי הוה מיקלע להו כותי ביו"ט אמרי ליה אי ניחא לך במאי דטריח לן מוטב ואי לא טירחא יתירא אדעתא דידך לא טרחינן
And we do not hold by this of Rav, but rather, regardless it is forbidden. For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: We may invite a Cuthean for Shabbat but we may not invite a Cuthean for Yom Tov {during which we do melacha for ochel nefesh} as a decree lest we increase on his behalf {and thus violate Yom Tov}.
And we say that Rava directed {/led} Mar Shmuel and expounded: We may invite a Cuthean on Shabbat {where there is no concern one will increase in melacha since all melacha, including for ochel nefesh, is forbidden} but we do not invite a Cuthean on Yom Tov as a decree lest we increase on his behalf.
Mereimar and Mar Zutra, when a Cuthean visited them on Yom Tov, they would tell him: If it is acceptable to you that which we have exert ourselves {in preparing food}, all is good, but if not, {know that} additional effort on your account we shall not exert ourselves.
And we say that Rava directed {/led} Mar Shmuel and expounded: We may invite a Cuthean on Shabbat {where there is no concern one will increase in melacha since all melacha, including for ochel nefesh, is forbidden} but we do not invite a Cuthean on Yom Tov as a decree lest we increase on his behalf.
Mereimar and Mar Zutra, when a Cuthean visited them on Yom Tov, they would tell him: If it is acceptable to you that which we have exert ourselves {in preparing food}, all is good, but if not, {know that} additional effort on your account we shall not exert ourselves.
איתמר האופה מיו"ט לחול
רב חסדא אמר לוקה
רבה אמר אינו לוקה
רב חסדא אמר לוקה לא אמרינן הואיל ואי מקלעי ליה אורחים חזי להו השתא נמי חזי להו
ורבה אמר אינו לוקה אמרינן הואיל
והלכתא כרבה וכבר ביררנוהו בפרק אלו עוברין בפסחים
It was stated {by Amoraim}: If one bakes from Yom Tov for the weekday:
Rav Chisda said: He is lashed.
Rabba said: He is not lashed.
Rav Chisda said he is lashed -- we do not say that since if guests visited him, it {=the bread} would have been fit for them -- so too now {that guests have not visited} it is fit for them {so it is not so much preparing for weekday}.
And Rabba said he is not lashed -- we do say "since..."
And the halacha is like Rabba, and we have already elucidated this in perek elu ovrin in Pesachim.
Rav Chisda said: He is lashed.
Rabba said: He is not lashed.
Rav Chisda said he is lashed -- we do not say that since if guests visited him, it {=the bread} would have been fit for them -- so too now {that guests have not visited} it is fit for them {so it is not so much preparing for weekday}.
And Rabba said he is not lashed -- we do say "since..."
And the halacha is like Rabba, and we have already elucidated this in perek elu ovrin in Pesachim.
תניא אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש שומע אני אפילו נפש בהמה במשמע כענין שנאמר ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה ת"ל לכם לכם ולא לכותים לכם ולא לכלבים דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי
ר"ע אומר אפילו נפש בהמה במשמע
א"כ מה ת"ל לכם לכם ולא לכותים
ומה ראית לרבות את הכלבים ולהוציא את הכותים
מרבה אני את הכלבים שמזונותן עליך ומוציא אני את הכותים שאין מזונותן עליך
והלכתא כרבי יוסי הגלילי דסתם לן תנא כוותיה דתנן
עיסת הכלבים בזמן שהרועים אוכלין ממנה חייבת בחלה ונאפת ביו"ט וכו'
וקי"ל סתם מתני' ומחלוקת דברייתא הלכה כסתם מתני
They learnt {in a brayta}:
{Shemot 12:16}:
nefesh - of an animal is implied, just as is written {Vayikra 24:18}:
Therefore it teaches לכם - "to you" -- to you and not to Cutheans, to you and not to dogs. These are the words of Rabbi Yossi haGelili.
Rabbi Akiva says: Even the "soul" of an animal is implied. If so, what is taught by lachem -- to you and not to Cutheans.
And what did you see to include the dogs and exclude the Cutheans? (I include the dogs whose provisions are upon you {since they are your pets} and I exclude Cutheans whose provisions are not upon you.
And the halacha is like Rabbi Yossi haGelili, for the Tanna said plainly {with no dispute} like him. For we learned {in a Mishna}: The dough of the dogs, when the shepherds eat from it, is obligated in challah and may be cooked on Yom Tov, etc.
And we have established that a stam Mishna vs. a dispute in a brayta, the halacha is like the stam Mishna.
{Shemot 12:16}:
nefesh - of an animal is implied, just as is written {Vayikra 24:18}:
יח וּמַכֵּה נֶפֶשׁ-בְּהֵמָה, יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה--נֶפֶשׁ, תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ. | 18 And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life. |
Rabbi Akiva says: Even the "soul" of an animal is implied. If so, what is taught by lachem -- to you and not to Cutheans.
And what did you see to include the dogs and exclude the Cutheans? (I include the dogs whose provisions are upon you {since they are your pets} and I exclude Cutheans whose provisions are not upon you.
And the halacha is like Rabbi Yossi haGelili, for the Tanna said plainly {with no dispute} like him. For we learned {in a Mishna}: The dough of the dogs, when the shepherds eat from it, is obligated in challah and may be cooked on Yom Tov, etc.
And we have established that a stam Mishna vs. a dispute in a brayta, the halacha is like the stam Mishna.
No comments:
Post a Comment