משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין פּוֹרְשִׂין מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּצּוֹדוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין: MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not set traps for wild animals, or birds, or fish unless they may be caught when it is still daylight, but the House of Hillel permit it.
הלכה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין פּוֹרְסִין מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים כול׳. מִי מוֹדִיעַ. אִם נִתְקַלְקְלָה הַמְּצוּדָה דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁנִּיצּוֹדוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וְאִם לֹא נִתְקַלְקְלָה הַמְּצוּדָה דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁלֹּא נִיצּוֹדוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וַאֲפִילוּ נִתְקַלְקְלָה הַמְּצוּדָה חָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִיצּוֹדוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּפוֹרֵשׂ בַּחוֹרְשִׁין. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דִּתְנָן דָּגִים. וְדָגִים לֹא בְמָקוֹם שֶׁהֵן מְצוּיִין. וָכָא בְמָקוֹם שֶׁחַיָּה וָעוֹף מְצוּיִין. HALAKHAH: 369Quote from Mishnah 10. The entire piece is copied from Beitzah 3:2:2-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Beitzah.3.2.2-5">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 day370Beitzah 3:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Beitzah.3.2.1">Mishnah 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 Exodus.16.5">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 (Exodus.13.16">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 Exodus.16.5">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 Beitzah.24b">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 Shabbat 17b:7:2" href="/Tosafot_on_Shabbat.17b.7.2">Tosaphot 17b s.v. אלא)..
רִבִּי חִייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַתְקִין לְהַל. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. מוּתָּרִין לְמָחָר. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה וְרִבִּי עוּזִּיאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חוֹנִייָה דְּבָרַת חַווְרָן. מוּתָּרִין מַמָּשׁ. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. סְפֵיקוֹ הִתִּירוֹ. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה וְרִבִּי יוֹנָתָן תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. סְפֵק הָכֵן אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. סְפֵק הָכֵן מוּתָּר. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi instituted that it should not happen372In the editio princeps and all later editions, the word לְהַל in the Leiden ms. (לְהָל in G) is read as להל׳, abbreviation of להלכה “as practice”. The evidence of G excludes this interpretation. The word is otherwise unknown in the rabbinic, Hebrew or Aramaic, vocabulary. It seems to be the same as Arabic لهلة which in Wehr’s Dictionary is described as “used in wishes contrary to what one expects to happen” or in Brelot “(discours) très faible”. R. Ḥiyya reluctantly formulated Rebbi’s ruling (or. R. Zeˋira Rav’s). The expression is not in Beṣah, but there seems to be no reason to delete it from the text.. They wanted to say, they are permitted the next day373This now refers to the fish brought by a Gentile to Rabban Gamliel. Did he want to say that they can be handled by Jews on the holiday but not eaten on that day or are they as if prepared by a Jew beforehand (Beitzah.24a">Babli Beṣah 24a)?. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden374As explained earlier, the disagreement is whether the requirement of prior preparation is biblical or rabbinic.. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.
רִבִּי חִייָה רוֹבָא וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרִבִּי. חַד אָמַר הַגּוֹי צָרִיךְ הָכֵן. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. אֵין הַגּוֹי צָרִיךְ הָכֵן. וְלָא יָדְעִינָן מָאן אָמַר דָּא וּמָאן אָמַר דָּא. מִן מַה דְרַב מְעַנֵי מֵיתֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִייָה רוֹבָא וְהוּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ. הָן הֲוִיתָא. וְהוּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ. שְׁייָֽרְתָה הֲווָת עָֽבְדָא וָהֲוִינָא אֲכִיל מִינָּהּ תְּאֵינִין. הֲוֵי הוּא דּוּ אֲמַר. אֵין הַגּוֹי צָרִיךְ הָכֵן. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said a Gentile needs preparation, the other said, a Gentile does not need preparation374As explained earlier, the disagreement is whether the requirement of prior preparation is biblical or rabbinic.. We did not know who said this and who said that. From that Rav refrained from coming before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who asked him, where have you been? He told him: a caravan passed by and I ate figs from them375The Gentile caravan arriving on the holiday. this implies that he said, a Gentile does not need preparation.
חַד תַּלְמִיד מִן סִימַאי אֲזַל לְאנטויריס וְאַייְתוֹן לֵיהּ דַּרְמַסקִינָא וַאֲכַל. חַד תַּלְמִיד מִן דּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אֲזַל לְתַמָּן וְאַייְתֵי לֵיהּ דַּרְמַסקִינָא וְלָא אֲכַל. וַאֲתַא וָמַר קוֹמֵי רַבֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. דּוּ נְהִיג כְּשִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי סִימַאי. דְּרִבִּי סִימַאי אֲמַר. אֵין הַגּוֹי צָרִיךְ הָכֵן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דַּמְדַּמְנִיּוֹת שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת. רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. שֵׁצִים שֶׁבְּכֵפִים הֲרֵי אֵילּוֹ מוּתָּרִין. A student of [Rebbi]376Reading of G and י. Simai went to Antipatris377This is generally accepted as explanation of the otherwise unexplained and diverse names reported for the place.; they brought him Morocco-plums378According to H. L. Fleischer, New Greek δαμάσκηνος “Damascus plum”; δαμάσκηνα “Damascus plum tree”. and he ate. A student of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi went there; they brought him Morocco-plums and he did not eat. He came and told it to his teacher who said to him, this one follows the argument of Rebbi Simai, as Rebbi Simai said, a Gentile does not need preparation. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The red grapes in a vineyard are forbidden. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The hard dates on palm leaves are permitted379Grapes which still are hard at harvest time and left to ripen in late autumn do not fall down by themselves; one must assume that they were plucked from the vine on the day they were brought; one may not accept them from a Gentile who brings them on a holiday. But dates in a similar case will fall down, one may assume that they were collected from the ground and may be accepted..