Beitzah 25a — the Talmud in English

However, if the gift was brought to him from a place

outside the Shabbat boundary—

it is forbidden

to use it, in accordance with the rule concerning anything that a non-Jew did for a Jew through an action that the Jew himself is forbidden to perform on Shabbat: it is forbidden for the Jew to benefit from it, by rabbinic enactment.

And

a gift

brought

by a non-Jew from outside the Shabbat boundary

for this Jew—

another Jew is permitted

to use it, even though the non-Jew did this for the benefit of a Jew. Since the prohibition of the Shabbat boundaries is not a prohibition against performing labor but rather a rabbinic enactment, the Sages were not stringent enough to forbid its use except to the person for whom the non-Jew did it, but not to another person.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: One who blocks a channel of water on the eve of a Festival

with fish in it], in order to prevent fish from entering the channel on the Festival, is considered, by blocking the channel, to have designated the fish found in it before the Festival.

And

therefore, when

he rose early the next day and found fish in it,

which had been there on the eve of the Festival, when he blocked the channel,

the fish are permitted

because he had designated them.

Rav Ḥisda said: From the words of our master [Rav]

we can

learn: A

young animal of a

wild animal

that is fit for consumption, such as a young deer],

that has nested,

meaning that it found a place that serves it as a “nest,” where it can raise its young,

in an orchard,

which is a place where the young of a wild animal are protected,

does not require designation,

since it is easy to catch the young animal growing in the orchard, and it is therefore considered “designated,” like the fish in the channel.

The Gemara will explain later what the comparison is to the designation created by blocking the channel.

Rav Naḥman said: Rav Ḥisda has thrust his head,

meaning, our

colleague

has entered

into a major controversy,

as there will be major disputes against him over the comparison between designating the young of a wild animal that nested in an orchard and designating the fish by blocking the channel.

Some say

that it was not Rav Ḥisda who entered into the controversy, but rather Rabba bar Rav Huna:

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: From the words of our master

Rav

we can learn: The young of a

wild animal

that nested in an orchard—

does not require designation.

And concerning this

Rav Naḥman said: Rabba

Рабба

bar

Rav Huna

has thrust his head,

our colleague,

into a major controversy.

The Gemara now explains what the major controversies were into which, according to Rav Naḥman, Rav Ḥisda or Rabba bar Rav Huna had “thrust” themselves.

A. There is a distinction between Rav’s ruling concerning one who blocks a channel of water and the case of a wild animal that nested in an orchard:

There,

in that case,

where the wild animal nested,

the owner of the orchard did not perform

any

action

to designate the young animal in the orchard.

But

here,

in the case of one who blocks a channel of water,

he did perform an action

of designation, as he designates these fish by separating them from the fish that were not designated, through blocking the channel and preventing the latter from entering it.

B. The ruling itself concerning a wild animal that nested in an orchard is difficult:

And

why

does the young animal

in the orchard

not require designation?

But it was taught in a beraita: A wild animal that nested in an orchard—

requires designation.

That is, one must designate its young before the Festival if one wishes to slaughter it on the Festival.

And

one who designates

a sparrow

must tie its wings,

so that he will have a sign identifying it as the designated bird,

so that it will not be confused with its mate,

which resembles it and was not designated.

And

this

ruling

concerning a wild animal that nested in an orchard was

a testimony given

about

from the teachings of Shemaya and Avtalyon.

And we conclude: Indeed, this beraita provides

a conclusive refutation

of the view of those who permit the young of a wild animal that nested in an orchard without designation.

The Gemara now raises a difficulty in the opposite direction:

Does the young animal

of a wild animal that nested in an orchard

really require designation!?

But it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree concerning

doves

that one designated

before the Festival

inside the nest, and found

doves on the Festival

in front of the nest—

that they are forbidden.

When are these words stated,

that designation is necessary?

With regard to doves

of the wild variety, which wander about seeking food in the streets and find shelter in a

dovecote, and doves that nest on roofs,

which are also wild doves that find shelter in the upper parts of buildings,

and birds

of the wild variety

that nested in earthen vessels,

inside pitchers placed

in

the walls surrounding the

citadel [the large building, or palace].

But birds raised in a house, such as

geese and chickens, and Persian doves,

domestic doves,

and a wild animal that nested in an orchard—

are permitted, and do not require designation!

And a sparrow—

one must tie its wings, so that it will not be confused with its mate,

which resembles it.

And those that are tied and those whose wings are clipped—

in pits, houses, shrubs, and caves—

are permitted.

And

those found

in trees—

are forbidden, lest one climb up and detach them.

And those that are tied or whose wings are clipped anywhere—

are forbidden because of robbery!

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult.

This case refers to it,

where it does not require designation because it is protected and he has it in mind.

That case refers—

to its mate,

because it requires designation, since it is not protected.

And we challenge this: Is

its mate satisfied merely

with designation

alone

for it?

But its mate requires

an effective trapping

as well!

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Both this and that

are speaking

about it itself.

This case—

concerns a garden adjacent to the city,

since he has it in mind,

and that case—

concerns a garden that is not adjacent

to the city, since he does not have it in mind.

Mishna:

An animal in danger of dying—

one may not slaughter it unless there is enough time remaining in the day to eat an olive-sized portion of it roasted.

Rabbi Akiva says: Even if

there is enough time remaining in the day to eat an

olive-sized portion

of

raw

meat

from the place where it was slaughtered,

the place of slaughter, from which meat can be cut immediately, without needing to remove the hide.

And if

he slaughtered it in the field—

he may not bring it on a carrying pole or on a double-shouldered carrying pole,

that is, by having two people carry it, since carrying it in this manner is disrespectful to the Festival.

But he may bring it in his hands, limb by limb.

Gemara:

Rami bar Abba said:

We find that the Torah requires

the flaying and cutting up of the burnt offering—

and the same law applies to butchers.

From here the Torah taught proper conduct: A person should not eat meat before flaying and cutting it up.

And we consider this matter:

What is Rami bar Abba teaching us

through this statement?

If you say that he is excluding the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: While an animal is alive—

it is presumed to be forbidden,

and if there is uncertainty concerning its slaughter, it retains the presumption of prohibition

until it becomes known to you how it was slaughtered.

That is, that it was slaughtered properly.

But from the moment it

has been slaughtered—

it has the presumption of being permitted

and

remains so,

and one need not fear that it was rendered non-kosher,

until it becomes known to you how it was rendered non-kosher.

If a doubt arises—for example, a perforation is found in the lung or in the intestines, and it is uncertain whether the perforation occurred before slaughter, making the animal non-kosher, or after slaughter, in which case it is kosher—the animal is maintained in its presumption of fitness from the time of slaughter.

But Rami bar Ḥama came to dispute this and say that, because of the uncertainty, the animal should be considered forbidden until one cuts it up and examines its internal organs to determine whether they are free of a condition that would make it non-kosher.

But did we not learn in our Mishna

in our Mishna

in accordance with Rav Huna’s ruling!

And if so, the halakha is in accordance with him!?

As we learned: Rabbi Akiva says: Even an olive-sized portion of raw meat from the place where it was slaughtered.

What, is it not

that one cuts it

from the actual place where it was slaughtered,

without flaying and cutting it up?

And we reject this:

No,

not from the place where it was slaughtered, but

from the place

where

the animal

grinds its food.

That is, from the stomach, where the food is cut up.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: One takes it from

the actual place where it was slaughtered!