## Beitzah Daf 25a

###### Beitzah 25a:1
[Beitzah 25a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:1)

חוּץ לַתְּחוּם — אָסוּר. וְהַבָּא בִּשְׁבִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל זֶה — מוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If, however, the gift was brought from **outside the limit, it is prohibited. And** an item **that came** from outside the limit **for one Jew is permitted to another Jew.** No prohibition applies to the second recipient, as the gentile’s intention was not fulfilled. Since the *halakha* of limits is a rabbinic prohibition, the Sages decreed that the object is prohibited only to the one on behalf of whom it was brought, but not to others.


###### Beitzah 25a:2
[Beitzah 25a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:2)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הַסּוֹכֵר אַמַּת הַמַּיִם מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, וּלְמָחָר הִשְׁכִּים וּמָצָא בָּהּ דָּגִים — מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues its discussion about trapping animals on a Festival. **Rabba bar Rav Huna said** that **Rav said:** If **one dammed a water channel** that was used to irrigate a field **on the eve of a Festival, and the following day he arose and found fish in it, they are permitted.** These fish presumably arrived with the water before the Festival and were unable to escape, as the channel had been obstructed. Therefore, the fish are considered as having been prepared before the Festival.


###### Beitzah 25a:3
[Beitzah 25a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:3)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, מִדִּבְרֵי רַבֵּינוּ נִלְמוֹד: חַיָּה שֶׁקִּנְּנָה בְּפַרְדֵּס — אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה זִמּוּן. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: נְפַל חַבְרִין, בְּרַבְרְבָתָא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, מִדִּבְרֵי רַבֵּינוּ נִלְמוֹד: חַיָּה שֶׁקִּנְּנָה בְּפַרְדֵּס — אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה זִמּוּן. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: נְפַל בַּר חַבְרִין בְּרַבְרְבָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said: From** this **statement of our teacher,** Rav, **we learn** that **an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard** near one’s house **does not require** special **designation** but is considered prepared. **Rav Naḥman said** in response to this conclusion: **Our colleague,** Rav Ḥisda, **has fallen upon a great** matter, i.e., an issue that is not at all straightforward but is the subject of various disagreements. **Some say** a slightly different version of this statement, that **Rabba bar Rav Huna said: From** this **statement of our teacher,** Rav, **we learn** that **an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard does not require** special **designation,** and with regard to this statement, **Rav Naḥman said** that Rabba, **son of our colleague,** Rav Huna, **has fallen upon a great** matter. Rav Huna was a contemporary of Rav Naḥman’s, and they were both students of Rav; consequently, Rav Naḥman referred to Rav Huna as his colleague and called Rabba the son of his colleague.


###### Beitzah 25a:4
[Beitzah 25a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:4)

הָתָם לָא קָא עָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה, הָכָא קָא עָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman explains the difference between the cases: **There,** in the case where the undomesticated animal nested in an orchard, the person **performed no action** at all, as the animal came of its own accord, whereas **here,** in the case where he dammed the water channel, **he performed an action** when he blocked the water from leaving the channel.


###### Beitzah 25a:5
[Beitzah 25a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:5)

וְלָא בָּעֲיָא זִמּוּן? וְהָתַנְיָא: חַיָּה שֶׁקִּנְּנָה בְּפַרְדֵּס — צְרִיכָה לְזַמֵּן, וְצִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר — צָרִיךְ לִקְשׁוֹר בִּכְנָפֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְחַלֵּף בְּאִמָּהּ. וְזוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁהֵעִידוּ מִפִּי שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman concludes his challenge: **And does** the animal **not require** further **designation? Isn’t it taught** explicitly in a *baraita*: **An undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard requires designation. And** as for **a free bird, one is required to tie its wings so that it will not be mistaken for its mother,** i.e., so that he not take a different bird, such as its mother, in its place. **And this** is **a testimony that was reported in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon.** The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is **a conclusive refutation** of the Sages who drew an inference from Rav’s statement.


###### Beitzah 25a:6
[Beitzah 25a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:6)

וּמִי בָּעֲיָא זִמּוּן? וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל שֶׁהִזְמִינָן בְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּן וּמָצָא לִפְנֵי הַקֵּן — שֶׁאֲסוּרִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּיוֹנֵי שׁוֹבָךְ וְיוֹנֵי עֲלִיָּה, וְצִפֳּרִים שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בִּטְפִיחִין וּבְבִירָה. אֲבָל אֲווֹזִים וְתַרְנְגוֹלִים וְיוֹנֵי הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת וְחַיָּה שֶׁקִּנְּנָה בְּפַרְדֵּס — מוּתָּרִין, וְאֵין צְרִיכִין זִמּוּן. וְצִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר צְרִיכָה לְקַשֵּׁר בִּכְנָפֶיהָ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְחַלֵּף בְּאִמָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Does** an undomesticated animal in an orchard really **require designation? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concede** with regard to doves and the like **that one had designated** on the eve of a Festival when they were **inside the nest, and** on the Festival itself **he found** them **in front of the nest, that** they **are prohibited,** as these doves might not be the same ones that he had designated but rather others that came from somewhere else? **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is **with regard to doves of a dovecote, doves of a loft, and birds nesting in pitchers or in a building. However, geese, chicken, domestic doves, and an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard are permitted** in all cases, **and they do not require designation** in advance. In the case of **a free bird, one is required to tie its wings so that it is not mistaken for its mother.**


###### Beitzah 25a:7
[Beitzah 25a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:7)

וְהַמְקוּשָּׁרִים וְהַמְנוּעֲנָעִין, בְּבוֹרוֹת וּבְבָתִּים וּבְשִׁיחִין וּבִמְעָרוֹת — מוּתָּרִין, וּבְאִילָנוֹת — אֲסוּרִין, שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה וְיִתְלוֹשׁ. וְהַמְקוּשָּׁרִין וְהַמְנוּעֲנָעִין — בְּכׇל מָקוֹם אֲסוּרִין, מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **those** birds **whose** wings **were tied** as a sign, **and** similarly, **those that were shaken** in advance in order to designate them for the Festival, if they were **in cisterns, in houses, in trenches, or in caves, they are permitted** on the Festival. However, if they were **in trees, they are prohibited, lest one climb up** the tree **and detach** something from it, which is prohibited. **And those** birds **whose** wings **were tied** by another, **and** similarly, **those that were shaken** by another **are prohibited in all places,** even not on a Festival, **due to** the prohibition against **stealing.** Tying or shaking is considered an act of acquisition, and therefore others may not take them. In any case, this *baraita* clearly states that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard does not require designation.


###### Beitzah 25a:8
[Beitzah 25a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:8)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בַּהּ, הָא בְּאִמַּהּ. אִמַּהּ בְּזִמּוּן סַגִּי לַהּ? צֵידָה מְעַלְּיוּתָא בָּעֲיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said:** This is **not difficult. This** *baraita*, which teaches that an animal nesting in an orchard is permitted even without designation, is referring **to it,** a young animal that cannot escape; whereas **that** *baraita*, which states that designation is required, is referring **to its mother,** which is larger and can escape. The Gemara asks: But is mere **designation sufficient for its mother?** Doesn’t **it require complete capture,** as it is an undomesticated animal?


###### Beitzah 25a:9
[Beitzah 25a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּדִידַהּ. הָא בְּגִנָּה הַסְּמוּכָה לָעִיר, הָא בְּגִנָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ סְמוּכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** that **both this** *baraita* **and that** one are referring **to it,** a young animal that is unable to escape, and the difference between them is as follows: **This** *baraita*, which does not require designation, is referring **to a garden** situated **near the city,** so that one knows precisely where the animal is located and he can take it at any time. **That** *baraita*, which requires designation, is referring **to a garden that is not** located **nearby.**


###### Beitzah 25a:10
[Beitzah 25a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** בְּהֵמָה מְסוּכֶּנֶת — לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ שְׁהוּת בַּיּוֹם לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת צָלִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ כְּזַיִת חַי מִבֵּית טְבִיחָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **an animal** is **in danger** of dying, in which case its meat would be prohibited as the animal had not been properly slaughtered, and one wishes to slaughter it in the hope that it will be found fit for eating and he will be spared a loss, **he may not slaughter** it on a Festival **unless there is** still **time in the day** for him **to eat an olive-bulk of roasted meat from** the animal, so that it is possible to say that he slaughtered the animal for the sake of the Festival. **Rabbi Akiva says:** There need not be enough time for him to roast it; rather, it is sufficient **even** if there is only time to eat **an olive-bulk of raw** meat **from the place where** the animal **is slaughtered,** i.e., from its neck, without going to the trouble of removing its hide and roasting it.


###### Beitzah 25a:11
[Beitzah 25a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:11)

שְׁחָטָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה — לֹא יְבִיאֶנָּה בְּמוֹט וּבְמוֹטָה, אֲבָל מֵבִיא בְּיָדוֹ אֵבָרִים אֵבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one slaughtered** an animal on a Festival **in the field, he may not bring it** to his house **on a pole or on a set of poles** carried by two people, as this appears similar to a weekday activity. **Rather,** he must alter his usual weekday manner of performing this action **and bring** it in **by hand, limb by limb.**


###### Beitzah 25a:12
[Beitzah 25a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא: הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ בְּעוֹלָה, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְקַצָּבִים. מִכָּאן לִמְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ: שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל אָדָם בָּשָׂר קוֹדֶם הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rami bar Abba said:** The mitzva of **flaying and cutting** the animal into pieces is mentioned in the Torah with regard **to the burnt-offering, and the same is true for butchers.** That is to say, we learn from the *halakhot* of the burnt offering that a butcher should first remove the hide and cut the animal into pieces. **From here the Torah taught** proper **etiquette, that a person should not eat meat before flaying and cutting** the animal into pieces.


###### Beitzah 25a:13
[Beitzah 25a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:13)

(לְאַפּוֹקֵי) מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? אִילֵּימָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ — בְּחֶזְקַת אִיסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** new *halakha* **is** Rami bar Abba **teaching us? If we say** that he wishes **to exclude** the opinion **of Rav Huna,** there is a difficulty, **as Rav Huna said: An animal, while alive, retains its presumptive status of** being subject to the **prohibition** against eating a limb from a living creature, and it retains that status after slaughter **until it becomes known to you how it was slaughtered.** As long as it has not yet been clarified that the animal was slaughtered properly, it is presumed to be prohibited.


###### Beitzah 25a:14
[Beitzah 25a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:14)

נִשְׁחֲטָה — בְּחֶזְקַת הֶיתֵּר עוֹמֶדֶת, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִטְרְפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, once the animal has been **slaughtered** properly, **it retains its presumptive status of being permitted until it becomes known to you how it became a *tereifa*,** an animal suffering from a wound or illness that would cause it to die within twelve months, which is prohibited to be eaten even after ritual slaughter. There is no need to conduct a special examination of the animal to determine if it had a defect or illness, as it is presumed to be permitted. Even if a defect is found, this does not necessarily render the animal a *tereifa*, as one can say that it appeared only after the animal was slaughtered.


###### Beitzah 25a:15
[Beitzah 25a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:15)

וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן מַתְנִיתִין כִּדְרַב הוּנָא! דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ כְּזַיִת חַי מִבֵּית טְבִיחָתָהּ. מַאי לָאו, מִבֵּית טְבִיחָתָהּ מַמָּשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One might have understood from Rami bar Abba’s statement that he disagrees with Rav Huna and requires that the animal be examined. However, this is difficult, as **didn’t we learn** in **the mishna in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna? As we learned** in the mishna that **Rabbi Akiva says:** It is sufficient **even** if there is only time to eat **an olive-bulk of raw** meat **from the place where** the animal **is slaughtered. What, is it not** referring to meat **from the actual place where** the animal **is slaughtered,** from which it follows that one need not remove the hide or examine the animal?


###### Beitzah 25a:16
[Beitzah 25a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:16)

לָא: מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁטּוֹבַחַת אֲכִילָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **No,** the mishna can be understood as follows: **From the place where** the animal **slaughters its food,** i.e., from its intestines, where digestion takes place. The hide must still be removed and the animal must be examined before it can be eaten.


###### Beitzah 25a:17
[Beitzah 25a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/25a:17)

וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מְקוֹם טְבִיחָתָהּ מַמָּשׁ. אֶלָּא, רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: From the actual place where** the animal **is slaughtered? Rather,** the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and says that **Rami bar Abba**