Beitzah 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, said: I was standing before Rava, and he was

passing a knife over the mouth of a basket.

I saw him passing the knife over the mouth of the basket.

And I said to him,

and asked him: Is it

to sharpen it that you are doing this, Master, or to remove its grease?

And he said to me: To remove its grease.

And I discerned his intention,

I realized that in truth

he was doing it to sharpen it.

Rather,

he reasoned: The halakha

is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who permits the implements required for food preparation,

but this is not taught as a practical ruling.

This is so that people should not treat lightly even implements required for food preparation that could have been prepared on the preceding day; Rabbi Yehuda permitted only implements required for food preparation that could not have been prepared on the preceding day.

And Abaye said: I was standing before my Master

Rabba,

and he was passing a knife along the edge of a millstone,

along the edge of the millstone.

And I said to him,

and asked him: Is it

to sharpen it that you need it, Master, or to remove its grease?

And he said to me: To remove its grease.

And I discerned his intention, that he was doing it to sharpen it,

and he reasoned: The halakha applies, but this is not taught as a practical ruling.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the ruling with regard to showing a knife to a Sage on a Festival?

Every slaughterer is required to show his knife to a Sage before slaughtering. They questioned whether he must show the knife to a Sage even on a Festival, since perhaps, if he shows it to the Sage, the matter will become public, and the activity will appear like a weekday activity, as though he were deliberately slaughtering in order to sell the meat in the butcher’s shop?

Rav Mari, son of Rav Bizna, permits it,

but the Rabbis prohibit it.

And Rav Yosef said: A Torah scholar may inspect it for himself, but may lend it to others.

And Rav Yosef said: In the case of a knife that had ceased

to cut sharply but had not become nicked,

it is permitted to sharpen it on a Festival.

And this statement

that it is permitted to sharpen it

applies

in a case

where it has ceased

to cut

only when pressed, when cutting something that is hard and difficult; but if it has ceased cutting altogether, it is prohibited to sharpen it. This is because such sharpening involves considerable effort.

Rav Ḥisda taught, and some say Rav Yosef taught: Whether it is a knife

that became nicked, or a spit that became bent,

meaning that the tip of the spit broke and it can no longer be inserted into meat,

or whether it is scraping an oven or a stove on a Festival

to remove plaster that fell inside it and whose presence was not known before the Festival—

we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis

regarding the law of implements required for food preparation.

As it is taught in a baraita: The only difference between a Festival and Shabbat is

the labor of

food preparation alone.

Rabbi Yehuda permits even implements required for food preparation.

What is the reason of the first tanna?

The verse states [Exodus 12:16] “However, that which may be eaten by every person

[Exodus 12:16] “But whatever is eaten by every person

that alone may be prepared for you.”

“That alone”—

but not its implements.

And Rabbi Yehuda: The verse states, “for you”—

“for you”—

for all your needs.

And the first tanna—does it not say “for you”?

He can say to you: That “for you”

comes to exclude: for you

but not for gentiles.

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda,

also—does it not say “that alone”?

He can say to you: “That alone” is written, and “for you” is written.

And it is not difficult:

Here—

with regard to implements that could have been prepared on the preceding day,

“that alone” was stated to exclude them.

Here—

with regard to implements that could not have been prepared on the preceding day,

“for you” was stated to include them.

Shmuel said: In the case of a spit that became flattened,

meaning that it was crushed and bent but not broken, and can still be used,

it is prohibited to repair it on a Festival,

even according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And we challenge this:

Isn’t it obvious!

It can still be used, and labor on a Festival that is unnecessary is prohibited !!

And we answer:

No, it is necessary

to teach this, because even a minor repair is prohibited,

for although he can straighten it with his hand,

without needing to repair it with a hammer, he is nevertheless prohibited to do so.

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A spit with which one roasted meat—

it is prohibited to move it on a Festival,

because it is repulsive, and it is muktzeh due to repulsiveness.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav Malkiyo said: He removes it

from the spit immediately by moving it indirectly, but not by ordinary moving,

and places it in a corner.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav Huna said: And this

that it may be moved applies when

there is an olive-bulk of meat on it. [

See the expanded discussion in Bi’ur Halakha 518, which explains the matter and the textual version.]

Ravina said: Even when there is no meat on it, it is permitted to move it,

so that the members of his household should not be injured by it.

Just as is the case

with the law

concerning a thorn,

that it is permitted to carry a thorn

in the public domain

for less than four cubits, so that it should not cause injury.

Since a halakha was mentioned here in the name of Rav Malkiyo, and there is also an amora named Rav Malkiya,

Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Ika, said

the following list, so that we should not confuse the names in each halakha stated in their names:

The halakhot concerning

a spit, a maidservant, and cavities—

Rav Malkiyo

stated them.

A forelock, burnt ashes, and cheese—

Rav Malkiya

stated them.

Rav Pappa

came to dispute the attribution of the halakha concerning maidservants to Rav Malkiyo, and therefore

said

a mnemonic in place of Rav Ḥinnana’s list:

Halakhot relating to matters mentioned in the

Mishna and the baraita,

in Mishnayot and baraitot—

Rav Malkiya

stated them.

Statements of tradition,

independent teachings that do not relate to what is stated in a Mishna or a baraita—

Rav Malkiyo

stated them.

And your mnemonic is: Mishna—

malketa.

The word Mishna is feminine, as is the name Rav Malkiya. [And the Mishna, which consists of the words of the tannaim, has authority like a queen; Rashi, Avoda Zara 29a.]

What difference is there between them?

There is a difference between them

with regard to the statement of tradition concerning

a maidservant,

which relates to the words of the Mishna; therefore, according to Rav Pappa, it was not stated by Rav Malkiyo, but by Rav Malkiya.

Mishna:

A person may not say to a butcher, “Weigh meat for me worth a dinar,”

because it is prohibited to mention the fixing of a price.

However,

rather,

the slaughterer,

the butcher,

slaughters the animal and divides it among them.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a question:

How should he act,

if a person does not want to take meat except for one or two dinars’ worth?

It explains: He should say that he wants a piece or half a piece from among the standard cuts that the butchers would cut [as was their practice, to divide the entire animal into equal cuts of meat], and each such cut had a distinct name in each place.

The Gemara cites the names of the cuts in several places, and how one should request them from the butcher on a Festival:

For example

in Sura they would say

the name of the standard cut:

tarta, and half

or a half

tarta.