Moed Katan 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

Shmuel said: With regard to contractors:

when a gentile accepts work to perform it as a contractor, if he accepts it

within the Shabbat limit, it is forbidden

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

outside the Shabbat limit, it is permitted

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

Rav Pappa said: Even outside the Shabbat limit, we said

that it is permitted to give work to a gentile as a contractor

only when there is no town

another town

that is close by there,

within the Shabbat limit of the place where the work is being performed.

But

if

there is a town close by there—

it is forbidden

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

Rav Mesharsheya said: Even when there is no town close by there, as well, we said

that it is permitted to give work to a gentile as a contractor

only

when they perform his work

on Shabbatot and Festivals,

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

people are not commonly found going there,

as they do not leave the Shabbat limit [Rabbi Hillel].

But on the intermediate days of the Festival, when people are commonly found going and coming there,

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

it is forbidden

to allow a gentile to perform his work as a contractor on the intermediate days of the Festival, even outside the Shabbat limit .

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, had gentiles build for him

a fine house on the intermediate days of the Festival,

a mansion,

a beautiful house, and the builders were gentiles who were

“contractors,”

contractors, and they built it

outside the Shabbat limit

on the intermediate days of the Festival.

Rav Safra and Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana happened to come

to the place where he lived,

but they did not go up to it,

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

And some say: He

Mar Zutra himself

also did not enter it

this mansion.

And we raise a difficulty: Why did they not enter the mansion?

But didn’t Shmuel say: With regard to contractors—

within the Shabbat limit it is forbidden; outside the Shabbat limit it is permitted?

And the mansion was built outside the Shabbat limit! And we answer:

A prominent person is different,

as he distances himself even from a permitted matter if it resembles a transgression. The building of the mansion during the Festival, although it had been permitted, resembles a prohibited act.

And some say,

the reason they refrained from entering the mansion was that Mar Zutra [and Rabbi Hillel explained: Mar Zutra’s servant]

provided assistance

in building it

by

giving

straw

straw

to them

the builders. Since he assisted, it was forbidden, because it was permitted only when they built it as contractors, since the work was theirs .

Rav Hama permitted the table arrangers

those who arranged the tables

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

and to repair a broken table.

He said

Rav Hama: The reason for the permission is

since they do not take wages,

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

for he merely provides them with sustenance,

they receive only a benefit, which is akin to a gift,

and we have no concern

to prohibit it, and it is permitted for the needs of the Festival [Mishna Berura] .

The Sages taught: One may accept

gentiles

as contractors

from a Jew

during the Festival,

and the Jew gives him the work on the condition

that he perform it after the Festival .

But during the Festival it is forbidden

for the gentile to perform it for him even as a contractor .

The general rule is: Any

work

that

the Jew

performs

during the Festival with permission is subject to the rule that he may also

tell a gentile, and the gentile performs it

for the Jew during the Festival.

And any

work

that he does not perform

the Jew during the Festival, he also

may not tell a gentile, and have him perform it .

It was taught in another beraita: One may accept

from Jews

the gentiles as contractors during the Festival

on condition

that they perform it after the Festival, provided that he neither measure nor weigh

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

and that he not count,

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

as he does on a weekday.

The Sages taught: One may not hold an animal and

make it

mate

with another animal

on the intermediate days of the Festival,

since this is work, and it is neither needed for the Festival nor a matter involving financial loss .

Similarly,

it is prohibited because of labor:

one may not make

an animal that is

a firstborn

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

nor may one make disqualified consecrated animals mate,

sacrificial animals that developed a blemish and were redeemed from their sanctity, even though they are now non-sacred and permitted to be eaten .

Since with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, after they have been redeemed, the verse says, “You shall slaughter and eat meat,” the verse teaches that they are intended only for eating and are forbidden for shearing and labor.

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

Rabbi Yehuda says: A she-donkey that solicited

that came into heat and demanded that a male be brought to her,

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

For if they do not mate her when she desires a male, she will cool off from the heat of her desire, and afterward, following the Festival, it will be difficult to mate them; this is therefore a matter involving financial loss.

But all other animals,

although the Sages prohibited performing work and mating them,

may be brought into enclosures

into a pen containing males and females, where they mate on their own.

The Sages taught: One may not pen animals,

as 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 labor of sowing or plowing, since it improves the soil for sowing. Although he does not fertilize it directly, it is forbidden, because it appears as though he himself is fertilizing it .

And if they came

gentiles with their animals

of their own accord

into the field,

it is permitted,

and he need not prevent them, even if they came on Shabbat, provided that he does not give the gentile payment.

And one may not assist them

One may not help the animal enter the field, nor help the gentile leading them to move them from one place to another in the field, so that the entire field will be fertilized.

And one may not give

the owners of the field

to them

to the gentiles leading them,

a guard

another gentile

to rouse their flock,

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

If

the gentile leading them

was a hired worker,

whom they had hired to fertilize the field during

a week, or

a

newly hired worker, or

a

year-long hired worker, or

a

seven-year hired worker,

seven years—

one may assist them,

and one may give them a guard to rouse their flock,

because this is contract work, since they did not hire him to fertilize it day by day; it is therefore considered as though the field belonged to the gentile for purposes of fertilization.

Rabbi says: On Shabbat

it is permitted to assist only

as a favor,

without charge and without receiving payment.

On Yom Tov

it is permitted even

for

up to

food.

And

on

the intermediate days of

the Festival

it is permitted even

for payment.

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

Mishna:

And

just as they permitted one whose olives had been turned over,

so

they permitted

one whose wine was in the vat

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

and mourning, an unavoidable circumstance, or workers who deceived him befell him,

so that he may

draw

the wine from the vat into the winepress,

and complete

his work, pouring the wine into a barrel,

and seal

it with a complete seal,

in his usual manner; these are the words of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees and

says:

He may not seal it, but only

make for it

for the wine

“coverings,”

covering it with boards

so that it will not turn into vinegar.

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

Gemara:

It is necessary

to teach us the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei in both Mishnayot, the one concerning oil and the one concerning wine.

For had it taught us

the view of Rabbi Yosei only in

the first one,

where, with regard to olives, it permitted making them into oil and sealing the barrel, I might have said that it is specifically

in that case that Rabbi Yosei said

it is permitted,

because of the oil—

oil is a valuable commodity, and

its

loss is

great

if he does not seal the barrel of oil.

But wine,

which is wine,

whose loss is not great—

I would say that he agrees with him

Rabbi Yosei

with Rabbi Yehuda,

that he should merely make coverings for it and not seal the barrel.

And

conversely,

if it had taught us

only the

later

Mishna, concerning the permission to perform work with wine, I might have said that only

in that case did Rabbi Yehuda say

that he makes coverings for it but is prohibited from sealing the barrel, since the loss is not great.

But in this case,

the first case, concerning olives being made into oil,

I would say that

Rabbi Yehuda

agrees with Rabbi Yosei

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

Therefore,

it is necessary

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

Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba said: Who

is

the tanna

who says that

a change during the moed

must be made even

in

work involving

a loss,

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

not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

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!

The members of the academy asked

the question

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

[This refers to Rav Yosef, who was thoroughly versed in Torah, which was as fluent in his mouth as when it was given at Sinai.]

said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who sealed it in the usual manner!

But the question still remains for us:

Say that Rabbi Yosei said

that he seals it in the usual manner

with wine,

with wine; but

with beer—

did

Rabbi Yosei say that it is permitted to seal it? And what proof is there from the permission with regard to wine that the same applies to beer?

We explain:

Wine—for what reason

was it permitted to seal it? Was it not

because its potential loss is great,

since it entails a substantial loss? If so,

beer also

may be sealed for the same reason, for

there is loss in it.

And we find that beer whose barrel was not sealed becomes spoiled, as in the case of

Abaye said: My mother told me:

A barrel of beer containing only

six seah-measures

of beer

and smooth

but whose coating is smooth—that is, whose seal is firmly applied—is better

than

a barrel containing

eight

seahs

without being smooth!

For if the barrel is not sealed with a smooth coating, the quality of the beer deteriorates.

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

of the intermediate days of

the Festival

are

like the laws of the Kutim.

Just as with regard to the Kutim the rule is stated: wherever they have established themselves [where they have been established as following the law]—they are presumed to have established themselves; wherever they have not established themselves—they are not presumed to have established themselves!

That is, there are laws that the Kutim observe and fulfill, and laws that they refrain from fulfilling. When we see them conducting themselves in accordance with a particular law, this is not proof that they also observe another law, even if it resembles the law they observe and both laws belong to the same category.

And the same rule applies to the laws of the moed.

We explain:

For what halakhic purpose?

What practical difference does this rule make for us?

Rav Daniel bar Ketina said: To say that they are

laws that are

isolated,

from which no additional, similar laws can be derived; each one applies only to its own case, like a barren woman who does not give birth,

and one may not derive one from another.

Just as we do not say with regard to the Kutim, “Since they adhere to this practice, they likewise adhere to another practice,” so too, with regard to the laws of the intermediate days of the Festival, we do not say, “Since this labor was permitted, that labor was also permitted.”

An example of a dispute concerning the laws of the intermediate days of the Festival, whose cause is that the reason for the permission differs from one type of labor to another, is the following:

Shmuel said: One may seal with pitch

during the moed

a small jar,

applying pitch to a small vessel, such as a jug,

but one may not seal with pitch

it,

a barrel,

which is larger.

But

Rav Dimi of Nehardea said,

the opposite:

One may seal a barrel with pitch, but one may not seal a small jar with pitch.

The reason for their dispute is as follows:

One master,

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

is concerned about loss,

which applies only to a large barrel: if it is not sealed with pitch, its wine will leak out and a great deal will be lost. A small jar, by contrast, contains only a small amount of wine, and they did not permit sealing it with pitch merely to prevent a minor loss.

And the other master,

Shmuel, who permitted sealing only a small jar and not a barrel, held that

he is concerned about exertion

on the moed, and therefore did not permit sealing a barrel with pitch.

We see from this dispute that although logically there is no distinction between the two cases, since work involving a loss was permitted during the moed, they nevertheless disputed the matter on the basis of different rationales, and one halakha cannot be derived from another in the laws of the intermediate days of the Festival.

Abaye said: We have established

as the halakha:

The laws of the moed

are

like the laws of Shabbat.