Beitzah 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

And when

they finished cooking in their pots—

they became fit for use.

This proves that although they were muktze during part of the Yom Tov, while they were boiling, they do not remain forbidden for the entire Yom Tov, because there is no muktze for only half of Shabbat or half of Yom Tov.

Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning,

that you proved from the time when the beans were boiling that there is no muktze for half of Shabbat—

it should be difficult for you

from all

ordinary pots!

For, ordinarily, ordinary pots,

when they are removed from the fire at the time of

bein hashmashot,

at that time

they are boiling,

and their contents are not fit to eat,

and

nevertheless

that evening,

on the night of Shabbat,

we eat from them!

And we do not say that because they were boiling, the food in them is muktze, since in that case it would remain forbidden even once it cooled, as once it was set aside as muktze during bein hashmashot, it would be set aside as muktze for the entire day.

Rather,

necessarily, something whose

completion

depends

on human action,

such as beans and pots,

is not a question for us

as to whether it is muktze at all, because a person does not set it aside as muktze at all.

And

when it is a question for us

whether there is muktze for half of Shabbat, it is only with regard to something whose

completion is in the hands of Heaven,

such as dried figs, whose drying depends on the rising of the sun and the quality of the fruit; while they are unfit to eat, a person completely sets them aside in his mind.

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a had a firstborn animal,

a firstborn in his house, and there were kohanim in his household who ate at his table, and he would feed them the meat of a firstborn animal with a permanent blemish.

He sent it

he sent the firstborn animal on Yom Tov

before Rabbi Ami

so that he would examine its blemishes.

Rabbi Ami thought

Rabbi Ami

that he should not examine it,

because one may not examine the blemishes on Yom Tov, in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Zerika said to him—and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya:

In the dispute between

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon—

the halakha

is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

He then sent it again

he sent it again

before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa.

He too thought

that the halakha was in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

that it should not be examined.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him—and some say it was Rabbi Zerika:

In the dispute between

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon—

the halakha

is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Abba said

to Rabbi Zerika:

Why did you not permit

you do not allow

the Sages

who ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

to act in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

and refrain from examining the blemishes?

Rabbi Zerika said to him

Rabbi Zerika said to Rabbi Abba:

And you, what evidence do you have?

From whom did you hear that in this matter one does not follow the rule that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, but rules that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon and not Rabbi Yehuda?

Rabbi Abba said to him

Rabbi Abba:

This is what Rabbi Zeira said:

In this matter, the

halakha was established in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

One of the students said

among the students:

May I merit to ascend there,

may it be God’s will that I merit to ascend there, to the Land of Israel,

and complete my study of this discussion

and learn this sugya

from the mouth of its master,

from the author of the teaching, Rabbi Zeira.

When he ascended there,

when that student went up to the Land of Israel,

he found

he found

Rabbi Zeira.

He said to him:

Did

the Master say

that, with regard to examining blemishes on Yom Tov,

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

He said to him: No,

I did not say that this was established as the halakha. Rather,

I—

I reasoned

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon in this matter,

I said;

that is what I said.

From the fact that it is taught in our Mishna

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone whose blemish was not discernible before the day,

is not considered prepared.

And it teaches this ruling

this ruling

in a beraita in the wording, “the Sages”.

Infer from it

from the wording of the beraita cited by Rav Oshaya, which presents Rabbi Shimon’s view—that one may not examine blemishes on Yom Tov, whether the blemish arose on the eve of Yom Tov or on Yom Tov itself—in the wording, “the Sages say,” that

it is reasonable

that the halakha is

in accordance with him.

The Gemara asks:

What was the conclusion?

How was the halakha in practice actually decided regarding examining blemishes on Yom Tov?

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear

that the halakha in this matter is not simple to determine,

as it depends on great authorities,

as though it were suspended from large, thick ropes that are difficult to sever. This is a metaphor indicating that great Sages expressed their views on the matter, and it is difficult to overturn their words.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi

said in the name of the holy community of Jerusalem:

Rabbi Shimon and his colleagues said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir

in the laws of firstborn animals! The relevance of this to our matter will be explained below.

The Gemara assumes that the Rabbi Shimon mentioned here is Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, and that “his colleagues” are those whom Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya referred to [on 26a] with the words, “They said,” without mentioning their names.

At first glance, this is difficult: Is it possible that the members of the “holy community of Jerusalem” testified concerning Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues that they

said

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir in the laws of firstborn animals, and that this is therefore how one must rule?!

But they,

the members of the holy community of Jerusalem, in whose name Rabbi reports this,

were much older than he

they were older than Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues—

by a great deal,

by much.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya lived in the time of Rabbi and his sons [see Rashi]. But the members of the holy community of Jerusalem were necessarily older than Rabbi, since Rabbi testifies to a halakhic tradition that passed from them to him. It is not possible that older people would testify in the name of those younger than themselves concerning a matter transmitted as a tradition about how to rule.

Rather,

Rav Yosef explains: The Sages of the holy community of Jerusalem did not say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir in the laws of firstborn animals.

Rather, they merely defined the position of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues [who were indeed younger than them], that their words

were stated in accordance with the approach of Rabbi Meir.

And their intention was with regard to that

which we learned: One who slaughters a firstborn animal

before a Sage examined its blemishes,

and

only

afterward showed its blemish

to the Sage—

Rabbi Yehuda permits

eating it on the basis of the Sage’s examination after slaughter.

And Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without the authorization of an expert—

it is forbidden

to eat it.

Apparently, Rabbi Meir holds that examining

the blemishes of a

firstborn animal—

is not like examining a tereifa

it is.

One may not be lenient with regard to examining a firstborn animal, since its examination is not as readily performed as the examination of a tereifa.

Therefore, the Sages accorded significance to examining the blemishes of a firstborn animal and ordained that the

examination

of the blemishes of the

firstborn animal

only be

during its lifetime,

and that it be forbidden to slaughter it before the examination.

Whereas with regard to

examining a tereifa,

they were lenient and allowed it to be examined even

after slaughter.

And from this,

you can also derive the following with regard to our matter:

Examining a tereifa

is permitted

even on Yom Tov

because the examination is considered clarification rather than an act of rectification.

Whereas

examining a firstborn animal

must specifically take place

on the eve of Yom Tov.

Because, owing to the significance of examining the blemishes of a firstborn animal, it is considered an act of rectification: the Sages ordained that only the examination permits its slaughter, and if it is slaughtered before the examination, it is forbidden to eat it. Therefore, it is forbidden to perform the “rectification” of the examination that permits the blemishes on Yom Tov.

If so, we find that according to Rabbi Meir’s view, one may not examine blemishes on Yom Tov.

Abaye said to him: Is it so that

is it

there,

in the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda,

with regard to examining blemishes

on Yom Tov

that they disagree?

Is it not

with regard to a fine,

whether one fines the person who violated the Sages’ ordinance not to slaughter a firstborn animal before its examination,

that they disagree.

But if someone else slaughtered it, thinking that it had already been examined and permitted, he was not fined. This has no bearing on examining blemishes on Yom Tov.

The proof is from that

which Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to

examining the blemish called

“dokin sheba’ayin”—

everyone agrees,

and even Rabbi Yehuda agrees

that it is forbidden

to eat it if it was slaughtered before this blemish was examined,

because the blemishes

of the dokin sheba’ayin change after slaughter: a blemish that appeared during the animal’s lifetime not to be permanent now appears to be a permanent blemish, and there is concern that it is not permanent.

They disagree

when one did not examine

blemishes on the body.

Rabbi Meir holds: We issue a decree concerning blemishes on the body

to prohibit eating it if it was not examined during the animal’s lifetime,

due to the blemishes of the eye.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not issue such a decree.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The Mishna

in tractate Bekhorot

also indicates

that the dispute concerns a fine.

For it teaches: Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without the authorization of an expert—

it is forbidden.

Infer from this: It is a fine that he imposes

Rabbi Meir imposes, so that the person will not become accustomed to doing this again.

For from the fact that he did not say, “Rabbi Meir prohibits it because it was not slaughtered with the authorization of an expert”—which would have implied that it is prohibited because an examination after slaughter is ineffective—it is evident that Rabbi Meir’s intention is to say that this is a fine imposed because the person violated the Sages’ directive not to slaughter it before examination. This is unrelated to examining blemishes on Yom Tov.

And we conclude:

Infer from this.

Ami Vardina examined the firstborn animals

he examined the blemishes of the firstborn animals

belonging to the house of the Nasi.

On Yom Tov—

he would not examine them.

They came and told him

and complained

to Rabbi Ami

that he did not examine the blemishes of a firstborn animal on Yom Tov.

He said to them: He is acting properly by not examining them.

We challenge this:

Is that so? But Rabbi Ami himself examined

the blemishes of a firstborn animal on Yom Tov!

And we answer:

When Rabbi Ami examined them, he

had examined them since the previous day

to determine whether the blemish was permanent or passing.