Beitzah 27a — the Talmud in English

And when

they finished cooking at their edges

they became fit for them.

And it is demonstrated that even though they were muktze during part of the day, at the time of boiling, they are not forbidden for the entire festival day, because there is no muktze for half of Shabbat or for half of the festival day.

Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning,

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

you will have difficulty

with all

ordinary pots!

For ordinary pots, as a rule,

when they are removed from the fire at the time of

twilight

, then

they are boiling,

and they are not fit for eating,

and

nevertheless

at night

, on Shabbat night,

we eat from them!

And we do not say that, because they were boiling, the cooked foods in them are muktze, for then they would also be forbidden when they cooled, since once they were set aside at twilight, they were set aside for the entire day.

Rather,

necessarily, something whose

completion

depends

on human hands,

such as beans and such as pots,

is not in question for us

as being muktze at all, since a person does not set it aside at all.

And

when it is in 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 on the quality of the fruit; while they are not fit for eating, a person sets them aside entirely in his mind.

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'a had a certain firstborn animal,

a firstborn in his house, and he had kohanim in his house who were dependent on his table, and he would feed them the meat of a blemished firstborn animal.

He sent it

he sent the firstborn animal on the festival day

before Rabbi Ami

so that he would examine its blemishes.

He thought

Rabbi Ami

that he should not inspect it,

that he should not see the blemishes on the festival day, and this was like the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

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

But regarding the dispute between

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon

the halakha

is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Afterward, he sent it

he again sent it

before Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa.

He thought

that he too held like Rabbi Shimon,

that he should not inspect it.

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

But regarding the dispute between

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon

the halakha

is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Abba said to

Rabbi Zerika:

For what reason did you not leave them

you do not allow

the Rabbis

who ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

to perform the deed in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

and to refrain from seeing the blemishes?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zerika to Rabbi Abba:

And you, what do you have in your hands?

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

He said to him,

Rabbi Abba:

This is what Rabbi Zeira said:

In this law, the

halakha was established in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

A certain person said

from among the students:

May I merit and ascend there,

may it be the will [of Heaven] that I merit to ascend there, to the Land of Israel,

and complete the teaching

and learn this discussion

from the mouth of its master,

from the mouth of the master of the teaching, Rabbi Zeira.

When he ascended there,

when that student ascended to the Land of Israel,

he found

he found

Rabbi Zeira.

He said to him:

Did

the Master say

that in the law of seeing blemishes on the festival day

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

He said to him: No.

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

I—

it seemed

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon in this law—

I said

that; this is what I said.

From the fact that it is taught in the Mishna

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: Any [animal] whose blemish was not recognizable from the previous day—

this is not prepared.

And it is taught concerning it

concerning this law

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

Infer from it

from the wording of the beraita brought by Rav Oshaya, which stated the view of Rabbi Shimon—that blemishes are not seen on the festival day, whether the animal was born on the eve of the festival or was born on the festival day—in the wording “the Sages say,” that it

seems

that the

halakha is in accordance with him.

And the Gemara asks:

What was established concerning it?

How was the practical halakha in fact decided regarding seeing blemishes on the festival day?

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear

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

for it depends on great ropes,

as though it depends on large and thick ropes that are difficult to sever. It is a metaphor for this: great Sages expressed their opinions concerning the matter, and it is difficult to overturn their words.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul, who said in the name of Rabbi

on behalf of the holy congregation in Jerusalem:

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

in the laws of firstborn animals! And below it will be explained how this relates to our matter.

The Gemara assumed that the Rabbi Shimon mentioned here was Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya. And “his colleagues” are those about whom Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said [on page 26a] in the wording “they said,” without mentioning their names.

And apparently there is reason to wonder about this: Is it possible that the members of the “holy congregation in 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 therefore that is how one must rule?!

But they themselves,

the members of the holy congregation in Jerusalem, in whose name Rabbi says this,

were older than him

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

by much,

by a great deal.

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

Rather,

Rav Yosef explains: The Sages of the holy congregation in 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 view of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues [who indeed were younger than them], that their words

were said according to the method of Rabbi Meir.

And their intention is to that

which we learned: One who slaughters the firstborn animal

before a Sage saw its blemishes,

and

only

afterward showed its blemish

to the Sage—

Rabbi Yehuda permits

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

And Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered not according to [the ruling of] an expert—

it is forbidden

to eat it.

Apparently, Rabbi Meir holds that seeing

the blemishes of a

firstborn animal

is not like seeing a condition rendering an animal tereifa

.

For one may not be lenient concerning seeing a firstborn animal, since its examination is not as easy as the examination of a tereifa.

And therefore the Sages considered the examination of the blemishes of a firstborn animal important, and enacted that the

seeing

of the blemishes of the

firstborn animal

be only

while it is alive,

and it is forbidden to slaughter it before the examination.

Whereas with

seeing a tereifa

they were lenient, allowing it to be examined even

after slaughter.

And from it,

from here you also learn regarding our matter:

Seeing a tereifa

is permitted

even on the festival day

because the seeing is not considered a correction, but rather a clarification.

Whereas

seeing a firstborn animal

must be specifically

from the eve of the festival.

For because of the importance of examining the blemishes of a firstborn animal, it is considered a correction, since the Sages enacted that only the examination permits its slaughter; and if the slaughter takes place before the examination, it is forbidden to eat it. Therefore it is forbidden to perform on the festival day the “correction” of the examination that permits the blemishes.

And if so, we have found that according to Rabbi Meir blemishes are not seen on the festival day.

Abaye said to him: Is that so?

Does

there

in the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda

concerning seeing blemishes

on the festival day

they disagree?

Is it not

concerning a fine

whether they fine one who violated the enactment of the Sages not to slaughter the firstborn animal before examination

that they disagree?

But if another person slaughters it, because he thought that it had already been examined and permitted, they did not fine him. And this has no connection to seeing blemishes on the festival day.

And the proof is from that

which Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Concerning

the examination of a blemish called

“膜 over the eye”—

everyone agrees

and even Rabbi Yehuda concedes

that it is forbidden

to eat it if it was slaughtered before examination of this blemish,

because they change

the blemishes of the膜 over the eye after slaughter: a blemish that appeared non-permanent while the animal was alive now appears to be a permanent blemish, and there is concern that it is not permanent.

When do they disagree?

When he did not examine

the bodily blemishes.

Rabbi Meir holds: We decree concerning bodily blemishes

to forbid eating it if he did not examine it while it was alive,

due to eye blemishes.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not decree.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The Mishna

in tractate Bekhorot

also precisely indicates

that the dispute concerns a fine.

For it teaches: Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered not according to [the ruling of] an expert—

it is forbidden.

Infer from it: It is a fine that he imposes,

Rabbi Meir, so that he will not become accustomed to do this another time.

For from the fact that he did not say, “Rabbi Meir forbids it since it was not slaughtered according to [the ruling of] an expert,” which would have meant that it became forbidden because an examination after slaughter is ineffective, it is demonstrated that Rabbi Meir’s intention is that it is a fine that they imposed because he violated the words of the Sages, who said not to slaughter it before seeing it. And this is unrelated to seeing blemishes on the festival day.

And we conclude:

Infer from it.

Ami of Vardina saw the firstborn animals

he saw the blemishes of the firstborn animals

that belonged to the house of the Nasi.

On the festival day—

he would not see them.

They came and said to him

and complained

to Rabbi Ami

about the fact that he did not see the blemishes of a firstborn animal on the festival day.

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

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Rabbi Ami himself saw

the blemishes of a firstborn animal on the festival day!

And we answer:

Rabbi Ami, when he saw them,

he had seen them from the previous day,

whether it was a permanent blemish or a passing blemish.