Moed Katan 12a — the Talmud in English

Shmuel said: Those who accept work on contract:

a gentile who accepts work to perform it under a contract, if he accepts it

within the תחום it is forbidden

to give it to him, for if he performs it on Shabbat, people will know and suspect him, and say: “On Shabbat he gave him his work to perform.” But if the gentile performs his work

outside the תחום, it is permitted

to give it to him, since they will not see him performing the Jew’s work on Shabbat.

Rav Pappa said: Even outside the תחום, we said

that it is permitted to give work to a gentile under a contract

only when there is no town

another town

that is near there,

within the תחום of the place of the work.

But

if

there is a town that is near there—

it is forbidden

to give a gentile work under a contract, because it will become known to the public that the gentile is performing work for him, and they will say: “On Shabbat he gave it to him to perform.”

Rav Mesharsheya said: And when there is no town that is near there as well, we said

that it is permitted to give a gentile work under a contract

only

when they perform his work

on Shabbatot and festivals,

for then we are not so concerned that they will suspect him, since

people are not commonly going there at that time,

for they do not go outside the תחום [Rosh Chodesh].

But on the intermediate days of the festival, when people commonly go and come there,

there is concern that they will see the gentile performing the Jew’s work, and suspect him that he hired him or gave him the work to perform on the intermediate days of the festival. Therefore,

it is forbidden

to leave it to a gentile to perform his work under a contract on the intermediate days of the festival, even outside the תחום .

Mar Zutra son of Rav Nahman—they built for him

gentiles, on the intermediate days of the festival,

a mansion,

a beautiful house, and the builders were gentiles who

“accepted the work under a contract,”

contractors, and they built it

outside the תחום

on the intermediate days of the festival.

Rav Safra and Rav Huna bar Hinnana happened to come

to his place of residence,

but they did not go up to him,

to that mansion, because it had been built in a prohibited manner.

And some say: he

Mar Zutra himself

also did not enter into it

this mansion.

And we raise an objection: Why did they not enter the mansion?

But Shmuel said: Those who accept work on contract—

within the תחום it is forbidden, outside the תחום it is permitted.

And the mansion was, after all, built outside the תחום! And we answer:

An important person is different,

for he distances himself even from a permitted matter if it resembles a transgression. The construction of the mansion on the festival, although it was permitted, resembles a prohibition.

And some say,

the reason they practiced stringency concerning entering the mansion was that Mar Zutra [and Rabbi Chaim explained: Mar Zutra

provided assistance

in its construction

by

giving

straw

straw

together with them

the builders. And since he assisted, it was forbidden, for it was permitted only when they built under a contract, since the work was theirs .

Rav Hama permitted the table arrangers

of

the house of the Exilarch to perform their work on the intermediate days of the festival,

and to repair a table that had broken.

He said

Rav Hama: The reason for the permission is,

since they do not take wages,

they do not profit from this work, but only receive their meals, which they eat in the house of the Exilarch,

for it is merely a benefit that they receive,

they have only a benefit of enjoyment, and it is like a gift,

and we have no concern with it—there is no prohibition, and it is permitted for the needs of the festival [Mishna Berura] .

with prohibiting it, and it is permitted for the needs of the Festival [Mishna Berura].

The Sages taught: One may accept

gentiles

for contracted work

from a Jew

on the festival,

and the Jew gives it to him on the condition

that he perform it after the festival .

But on the festival it is forbidden

for the gentile to perform it for him even under a contract .

The general rule is: Every

work

that

the Jew

performs

on the festival with permission, its law is that he may also

tell a gentile, and the gentile performs it

for the Jew on the festival.

And every

work

that he does not perform

the Jew on the festival, he also

may not tell a gentile, and he performs it .

It was taught in another beraita: One may accept

the gentiles from a Jew

contracted work on the festival

on condition

that he perform it after the festival, provided that he does not measure and does not weigh

the wool or fabric that the Jew gives the gentile to make into a garment,

and that he does not count,

for example, if he gives him several garments to launder , so that it will not be

like the manner in which he acts on a weekday.

The Sages taught: One may not seize an animal and

have it

mate

it

with another animal on the intermediate days of the festival,

since it is work, and there is neither a need of the festival nor a lost matter .

Similarly, it is prohibited because of work:

one may not mate

a

animal that is

a firstborn,

as it is written: “You shall not work with the firstborn of your ox,”

nor animals disqualified as sacred offerings,

sacrifices in which a defect occurred and which were redeemed from their sanctity, even though they are non-sacred and permitted to be eaten .

Since it is written concerning animals disqualified as sacred offerings after they were redeemed, “You shall slaughter and eat flesh,” Scripture teaches that they were designated only for eating, and are forbidden for shearing and work.

It was taught in another beraita: One may not mate an animal on the intermediate days of the festival.

Rabbi Judah says: A she-donkey that demanded

that she had entered her mating period and demanded that a male be mated with her,

one may mate a male with her, so that she will not cool down.

For if they do not mate a male with her when she desires one, she will cool down from the heat of her desire, and afterward it will again be difficult to pair them, and this is a lost matter.

And all the other animals,

although they prohibited performing work and mating them,

one brings them into mating pens,

into one enclosure containing males and females, and they mate on their own.

The Sages taught: One may not enclose animals,

it is forbidden to bring animals into a field so that they will fertilize it with their dung,

neither on Shabbatot, nor on festivals, nor on the intermediate days of the festival.

For “fertilizing” is a derivative of the work of sowing or plowing, since through it one improves the soil in order to sow it. Although he does not fertilize it with his hands, it is forbidden, since it appears as though he himself is fertilizing it .

And if non-Jews came

with the animals

of their own accord

to the field,

it is permitted,

and he need not prevent them, and even if they came on Shabbat, provided that he does not give the non-Jew wages.

And they do not assist them

They do not help the animal enter the field, or the non-Jew leading them to transfer them from one place to another in the field, so that the entire field will be fertilized.

And they do not hand over

the owners of the field

to them

to the non-Jews leading them,

a watchman

another non-Jew

to stir up their flock,

to awaken them and make them stand so that they will pass from their place of rest to another place, so that the field will be fertilized.

If

the non-Jew leading them

was a hired worker,

whom they hired to fertilize the field throughout

a Shabbat

a week, or

a new hired worker,

or

a hired worker for a year,

or

a hired worker for a week,

seven years—

they assist them,

and they hand over to them a watchman to stir up their flock,

because it is contract work, since they did not hire him to fertilize day by day, and the matter is considered as though the field belongs to the non-Jew for fertilizing.

Rabbi says: On Shabbat

it is permitted to assist only

as a favor,

without payment and without receiving wages.

On a Festival

it is permitted even

for

up to

food.

And

on

the intermediate days of

the Festival

it is permitted even

for wages.

Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi.

Mishna:

And

just as they permitted in the case of one whose olives had been turned over,

so

they permitted

one whose wine was inside the pit

before the winepress, and from there he must transfer it to the winepress so that it will not become vinegar,

and mourning befell him, or compulsion, or the workers deceived him,

so that he may

draw

from the pit to the winepress,

and finish

his work, and pour the wine into the barrel,

and seal

it with a complete stopper

in his usual manner, the words of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees and

says:

He does not seal it, but only

makes for it

for the wine

“limmudim,”

covering it with boards

so that it will not become vinegar.

For even work involving a loss is performed with a change.

Gemara:

And it is necessary,

to inform us in the two Mishnayot, that of oil and that of wine, of their dispute, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei.

For if it had informed us

of the view of Rabbi Yosei only in

the first one,

that concerning olives he permitted making them into oil and sealing the barrel, we might have said that specifically

in that matter Rabbi Yosei said

it is permitted,

because of the oil,

for oil is a valuable commodity, and

its

amount

of loss is great

if he does not seal the barrel of oil.

But wine,

wine,

whose loss is not great,—

say that he concedes to him

Rabbi Yosei

to Rabbi Yehuda

that he should only make limmudim for it, and should not seal the barrel.

And

on the other hand,

if it had informed us

only the Mishna

the latter,

concerning the permission for work with wine, we might have said that only

in that matter Rabbi Yehuda said

that he makes limmudim for it and it is prohibited to seal the barrel, since the loss is not great.

But in this

first one, concerning olives, to make them into oil,

say that Rabbi Yehuda concedes

Rabbi Yehuda

to Rabbi Yosei

that it is also permitted to seal the barrel because of the great loss.

Therefore

it is necessary

to inform us of their dispute in both Mishnayot, both concerning wine and concerning oil.

Rav Yitzhak bar Abba said: Who

indeed is the

tan­ na

who says that

a change during the Festival

must be made even

in

work involving

a loss, which has been permitted? He must be the tan­ na who holds

which has been permitted? It must be the tanna who holds

not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei. For Rabbi Yosei’s reason for sealing in his usual manner, without a change, is that they permitted work involving a loss completely.

For the reason Rabbi Yosei sealed it in the usual manner, without a change, is that they permitted work involving a loss entirely.

Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei!

They asked

the students of the academy

of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: What is the law regarding sealing

and sealing

a barrel of beer

of beer

on the intermediate days of the Festival?

He said to them: Sinai [

that is Rav Yosef, who was expert in Torah, and it was fluent in his mouth as given at Sinai]

said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who seals in his usual manner!

But we still need to ask:

Say that Rabbi Yosei said

that he seals in his usual manner

with wine,

with wine, but

with beer—

did

Rabbi Yosei say that it is permitted to seal it, and what is the proof from the permission concerning wine to beer!?

And we explain:

Wine—for what reason

did they permit sealing it? Was it not

because its loss is great,

for there is a great loss in it? If so,

beer also

for the same reason is permitted to seal it, for

there is a loss in it.

And we find that beer whose barrel was not sealed is spoiled, as in that which

Abaye said: Mother told me:

A barrel of beer containing only

six seahs

six seahs of beer

and smooth,

but whose covering is smooth, meaning that it is sealed well, is better

than

a barrel containing

eight

seahs

and not smooth!

Since if the barrel is not sealed by means of a smooth coating, the quality of the beer is diminished.

Rav Hama bar Gurya said in the name of Rav: The laws

of the intermediate days of

the Festival

are

like the laws of the Cutheans.

Just as concerning the Cutheans the rule was stated: wherever they have established [that they were established to conduct themselves according to the law]—they have established; wherever they have not established— they have not established!

That is, there are laws that the Cutheans observe and fulfill, and there are laws that they refrain from fulfilling. When we see them conducting themselves according to a certain law, this is not proof that they also fulfill another law, even though it resembles the law that they fulfill, and both laws belong to the same category.

And so too is the rule concerning the laws of the Festival.

And we explain:

For what law?

What practical difference is there for us in this rule?

Rav Daniel bar Ketina said: To say that they are

laws that are

“uprooted,”

from which no additional similar laws are derived, but each one exists only for its own case, like a barren woman who does not give birth,

and they are not learned one from another.

Just as concerning the Cutheans we do not say, “Just as they maintain this practice, so they maintain another practice”; so too concerning the laws of the intermediate days of the Festival, we do not say, “Just as this work was permitted, so this work was permitted.”

And an example of a dispute concerning the laws of the Festival, whose cause is that the reason for the permission differs from one work to another, is this,

as Shmuel said: One may pitch

during the Festival

a small vessel,

pitching with tar a small vessel, such as a jug,

but one may not pitch

it,

a barrel,

which is larger.

But

Rav Dimi of Nehardea said,

the opposite:

One may pitch a barrel, but one may not pitch a small vessel.

And the reason for their dispute is:

One master,

Rav Dimi, who said that one may pitch a barrel,

is concerned for loss,

which applies only to a large barrel, for if he does not pitch it, its wine will leak out and a great deal will be lost. Whereas in a small vessel there is only a little wine, and they did not permit pitching it in order to prevent a minor loss.

And the other master,

Shmuel, who permitted pitching only a small vessel and not a barrel, bases his reasoning on the fact that he

is concerned for exertion

on the Festival, and therefore he did not permit pitching a barrel.

And it emerges from this dispute that although logically there is no distinction between them, for work involving a loss was permitted during the Festival, nevertheless they disputed this on the basis of different rationales, and it is impossible to derive one law from another in the laws of the Festival.

Abaye said: We have established

as the halakha:

The laws of the Festival

are

like the laws of Shabbat.