Beitzah 24b — the Talmud in English

And there are those who teach it in connection with this, as it was taught: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

They slaughter from

the animals of the

large enclosures

[a type of enclosures]

on Yom Tov, but not from the nets and from the traps.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one came and found them destroyed on the eve of Yom Tov —

it is known that they were trapped on the eve of Yom Tov, and they are permitted.

If one came and found them destroyed on Yom Tov —

it is known that they were trapped on Yom Tov, and they are forbidden.

And we raised a difficulty:

This itself is difficult:

You said: If one came and found them destroyed on the eve of Yom Tov —

it is known that they were trapped on the eve of Yom Tov.

The reason is that he came and found them destroyed; but if it is uncertain —

they are forbidden.

Come to the latter clause: If one came and found them destroyed on Yom Tov —

it is known that they were trapped on Yom Tov.

The reason is that he came and found them destroyed; but if it is uncertain —

they were trapped on the eve of Yom Tov and are permitted!

This is what it is saying: If one came and found them destroyed on the eve of Yom Tov —

it is known that they were trapped on the eve of Yom Tov and are permitted.

But if it is uncertain —

it is treated as though they were trapped on Yom Tov, and they are forbidden.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

We learned in the Mishna: There was an incident involving a gentile who brought fish,

and

Rabban Gamliel

said: They are permitted.

And we considered it:

Permitted —

for what purpose,

for which matter?

Rav said: They are permitted to accept.

And Levi said: They are permitted for eating.

Rav said: A person should never withhold himself from the beit-midrash even for one hour.

For Levi and I were before Rabbi when he stated this teaching.

In the evening he said: They are permitted for eating,

in the morning he said: They are permitted to accept.

I, who was in the beit-midrash —

I retracted my position.

Levi, who was not in the beit-midrash —

did not retract his position.

He raised an objection: A gentile who brought a gift to a Jew, even moist fish

that have moisture in them,

and fruits that are one day old —

are permitted.

Granted, according to the one who says that they are permitted to accept —

it is well,

but according to the one who says that they are permitted for eating —

may fruits that are one day old be permitted for eating?

And according to your reasoning, fruits that are one day old —

may they be permitted to be moved?

Rather, we are dealing with red

fish of this kind

that are reddish,

with redness beneath their jaws, which is evidence that their freshness has not departed,

and we are dealing with fruit pickled in vinegar,

which shows that they were prepared on the eve of Yom Tov.

And why are they called "one-day-old" —

because they are like one-day-old ones.

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is: A gentile who brought a gift to a Jew on Yom Tov, if there is some of that species attached —

it is forbidden,

because of muktzeh, and even according to Rabbi Shimon, for muktzeh of something attached is complete muktzeh [and Rashi wrote that since he did not pick them himself on the previous day, he thereby revealed his mind that he set them aside entirely].

And on the following evening

of the entry of the night of the second Yom Tov,

they are also forbidden

until

"enough time for them to be prepared."

But if there is none of that species attached within the town's Shabbat boundary —

it is permitted.