Beitzah 27b — the Talmud in English

And on the festival day he would ask, “How did the incident occur?”

For sometimes the priest did not have time on the eve of the festival except to see the blemish then. And on the festival day, when his time was free, he would ask and examine the priest whether this blemish had come about on its own, or perhaps the priest himself had made it, in which case they penalize him.

As in the case of a certain man,

who was a priest,

who brought a firstborn animal before Rava in the evening

on the eve

of the approaching

close to the beginning of

the festival day.

Rava was sitting and washing

and rubbing

his head.

He raised his eyes

Rava raised his eyes

and saw its blemish

of the firstborn animal.

He said to him

Rava:

Go now

go now,

and come

and come again

tomorrow.

When he came the next day, he said

Rava asked him:

How did the incident occur?

He said to him: There were barley grains scattered

barley was scattered

on this side of the thorn fence,

on one side of a thorn fence,

and it

the firstborn animal

was on the other side,

on the other side of the wooden fence.

When

at the time

it wanted to eat

the barley beyond the thorn fence, —

it inserted its head

beyond the fence,

and tore

and ripped

the thorn

the thorn

against its lips

against the lip of the firstborn animal. And that is a blemish that disqualifies it.

He said to him

Rava:

Perhaps you caused it

to extend its head toward the thorn fence, since you deliberately placed the barley beyond the thorn fence, so that a blemish would befall it and you would not have to toil in raising it!?

He said to him: No

I caused it.

And the Gemara explains:

And from where do you say that causing is forbidden

in inflicting a blemish on a firstborn animal?

For it was taught:

[Leviticus 22]

“There shall be no blemish in it.”

I have only that there shall not be a blemish in it.

From where is it derived that one may not cause it

a blemish

through another thing,

for example:

that he should not bring dough or a dried fig and place it on its ear, so that the dog will come and take it —

the verse states

[Leviticus 22]

“every blemish.”

It said “a blemish,” and it said “every blemish.”

And the word “every” comes to include causing.

[Mishna:]

An animal that died

on the festival day is set aside, and therefore

one may not move it from its place.

And it happened that they asked Rabbi Tarfon about it,

whether an animal that died on the festival day is set aside.

And

they likewise asked

about the dough-offering that became impure

on the festival day, whether it is set aside or not.

And he entered

Rabbi Tarfon

the beit-midrash and asked

the Sages what is the law of the carcass and what is the law of the impure dough-offering.

And they said to him: One may not move them from their place.

[Gemara:]

And we raise it:

Shall we say that we learned anonymously

in our Mishna

not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: One cuts

on Shabbat

the pumpkins before the animal,

and there is no issue of exertion in this.

And

one likewise cuts on Shabbat

the carcass

that became a carcass even on Shabbat

before the dogs,

so that they can eat it easily.

Rabbi Judah says: If it was not a carcass from the eve of Shabbat —

it is forbidden

because of being set aside.

But our Mishna, which is an anonymous Mishna, holds in accordance with Rabbi Judah, that it is set aside, and not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And we answer:

Even if you say

our Mishna

is Rabbi Shimon

it is.

For

Rabbi Shimon admits

that he does not hold of being set aside

with regard to living creatures

that were healthy during twilight

that died

on the festival day,

that they are forbidden

because of being set aside.

And the Gemara says:

That works according to Mar, son of Amemar, in the name of Rava, who said: Rabbi Shimon did admit with regard to living creatures

that were healthy

that died

on Shabbat or the festival day

that they are forbidden

because of being set aside.

And what Rabbi Shimon permitted to cut—an animal that became a carcass on Shabbat or the festival day—is only an animal that was dangerously ill, and he had it in mind during twilight that it would die and he would give it to the dogs —

it works

it can properly be said that our Mishna is Rabbi Shimon, and it is speaking of a healthy animal, and therefore even according to Rabbi Shimon it is set aside.

But according to Mar, his son, of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said: Rabbi Shimon differed even with regard to living creatures that died, that

they too

are permitted —

what is there

to say?

How can our Mishna be established even according to Rabbi Shimon?

And we answer:

Zeiri established it

established it

with regard to

a consecrated animal,

which is not fit for dogs when it becomes a carcass, and therefore one may not move it from its place. But an unconsecrated animal that died is permitted to be fed to dogs even if it was healthy during its life, because according to Rabbi Shimon there is no law of being set aside with regard to something fit for use, unless the person deliberately set it aside.

This is also precise, as it teaches,

later in the Mishna, that Rabbi Tarfon asked

about it and about the dough-offering that became impure.

And we have to compare them:

Just as the dough-offering —

which is consecrated, so too the animal —

which is consecrated.

And the Gemara now infers in the opposite direction.

Rather, the reason

that the carcass is set aside is

because it is consecrated.

Then

a carcass

of unconsecrated property —

is permitted.

That works according to Mar, his son, of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon differed even with regard to living creatures that died, which are permitted —

it works

an unconsecrated carcass is permitted.

But according to Mar, son of Amemar, in the name of Rava, who said: Rabbi Shimon did admit with regard to living creatures

that were healthy

that died, that they are forbidden —

what is there to say?

For it is neither according to Rabbi Judah nor according to Rabbi Shimon, since he too admits to Rabbi Judah regarding a healthy animal that it is forbidden.

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing —

with a

animal

that was dangerously ill, and it is the statement of all.

All agree in this case.

[Mishna:]

This Mishna deals with purchase and sale on the festival day, even when no money is given for the purchase.

a.

One may not count

several people together

for an animal initially

to purchase it together

on the festival day

and set its price. For this involves the prohibition of purchase and sale on the festival day.

b.

But they may count

they

for it from the eve of the festival day, and one slaughters

it—the butcher on the festival day without setting a price—and gives it to them. And the next day he sets the price of its value for them.

And

they

divide

its meat

among themselves,

without setting a price for each one.

[Gemara:]

And we raise it:

What

what is the meaning in the Mishna of

“One may not count”?

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: One may not initially set a price for an animal

to purchase it

on the festival day

because of purchase and sale.

And we raise it: If the seller does not set its price —

how does he act

the next day to receive its value?

Rav said: He brings

to them on the festival day

two animals, and places them one beside the other, and says: “This is like that.”

And they eat one of them, and the next day they assess the other animal, which is equal to it in value.

It was taught likewise

in accordance with Samuel:

A person may not say to his fellow

on the festival day

“I am

counted

with you

for the animal

for a sela,”

or

“I am

counted

with you

for the animal

for two

sela.” For it is forbidden to set a price on the festival day.

But he may say to him: “I am

counted

with you

for this animal

for half, a third, or a quarter

of its meat. For in this there is no setting of a price.