Beitzah 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

And some teach this in reference to that which was taught:

One may slaughter from

the animals in

the enclosures

[a type of enclosure]

on a Festival, but not from the nets or traps.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one came and found them breached on the eve of the Festival—

it is evident that they were trapped on the eve of the Festival, and they are permitted.

If one came and found them breached on the Festival—

it is evident that they were trapped on the Festival, and they are prohibited.

And we raised a difficulty:

This itself is difficult:

You said: If one came and found them breached on the eve of the Festival—

it is evident that they were trapped on the eve of the Festival.

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

they are prohibited.

Now consider the latter clause: If one came and found them breached on the Festival—

it is evident that they were trapped on the Festival.

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

perhaps they were trapped on the eve of the Festival and are permitted!

This is what it means: If one came and found them breached on the eve of the Festival—

it is evident that they were trapped on the eve of the Festival, and they are permitted.

If it is uncertain—

it is treated as though they were trapped on the Festival, and they are prohibited.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: 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 this:

Permitted—

for what purpose,

for which matter?

Rav said: They are permitted to be accepted.

And Levi said: They are permitted to be eaten.

Rav said: A person should never refrain from going to the beit-midrash, even for a single hour.

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

In the evening he said: They are permitted to be eaten,

and in the morning he said: They are permitted to be accepted.

I, who had been in the beit-midrash—

retracted my position.

Levi, who had not been in the beit-midrash—

did not retract his position.

The Gemara raises an objection: If a gentile brought a gift to a Jew, even moist fish

that contain moisture,

and fruit that appears to be from that very day—

they are permitted.

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

that works well,

but according to the one who says that they are permitted to be eaten—

is fruit that appears to be from that very day permitted to be eaten?

And according to your reasoning, fruit that appears to be from that very day—

is it permitted to be moved?

Rather, we are dealing with reddish fish

of this type,

called adimi,

which have redness beneath their jaws, and this is evidence that their freshness has not waned,

and we are dealing with fruit preserved in vinegar,

which clearly indicates that it was prepared on the eve of the Festival.

And why are they called "of that day"—

because they resemble those of that day.

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is: If a gentile brought a gift to a Jew on a Festival, and there is some of that species attached to the ground—

it is prohibited,

because of muktze, and even according to Rabbi Shimon, for muktze that is attached to the ground is absolute muktze [and Rashi wrote that since he did not pick it himself on the previous day, he thereby revealed that he set it aside entirely].

And on the following evening

of the eve of the second Festival night,

they are likewise prohibited

until

"enough time has passed for it to be done."

But if there is none of that species attached to the ground within the techum—

it is permitted.