Moed Katan 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

And the comparison is as follows:

some of them are exempt, but

forbidden

, while some of them are permitted ab initio.

And this is similar to the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Dimi: the one who says that one may not coat barrels with pitch means that it is not permitted ab initio, and this is the meaning of “exempt, but forbidden,” for even if he does coat them with pitch, he is not liable for anything. And the one who says that one may coat them with pitch permits doing so ab initio.

Rav Huna—they reaped a harvest for him;

they reaped the harvest of his field for him

during the festival,

because the grain had not been fit to reap before the festival, and now it was considered a matter that would be lost, since barley that is not reaped deteriorates.

His son,

Rabba bar Rav Huna,

raised an objection to Rav Huna:

How is it permitted to reap during the festival? For we learned in a beraita in the Tosefta:

One may grind flour during the festival for the needs of the festival.

But to grind for purposes unrelated to the festival is forbidden

to grind.

A matter that would be lost during the festival—

it is permitted to perform it during the festival.

A matter that would not be lost during the festival—

it is forbidden

to perform it during the festival.

When are these words applicable,

that a matter that would be lost during the festival may be performed during the festival?

With

wheat that is already

detached from the ground.

But

a matter that is

attached to the ground—even if it would all be lost

if he did not reap it—

it is forbidden

to reap it.

And

only

if he has nothing to eat—

he may reap

, gather, and thresh

, winnow, select, and grind,

because they permitted even considerable exertion in order to eat.

Provided that he does not thresh

the grain he reaped

with

the aid of

oxen!

And it is explained in the beraita that even where the grain will be ruined, it is forbidden to reap it, even when it is a matter that would be lost. This presents a difficulty for Rav Huna, who permitted reaping.

Rav Huna answered the question of Rabba, his son:

He said to him:

This beraita, which prohibits reaping even something that would be entirely lost,

follows the view of an individual tanna, and we do not hold in accordance with him;

rather, it is permitted even to reap in the case of a matter that would be lost.

And the proof that the prohibition against reaping in the case of a matter that would be lost is the view of an individual tanna is as follows:

From

that which was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: There is a general principle: detached produce, even

only

part of which would be lost, may be worked

in its entirety so that the part of it will not be lost.

And

if

produce attached to the ground, even when it would all be lost—

is forbidden!

This proves that it was only according to Rabbi Yosei, who is an individual, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that it is forbidden to reap when the entire crop would be lost. Therefore, Rav Huna was not concerned about his prohibition, since at the beginning of the tractate the Mishna explicitly states that even work involving produce attached to the ground is permitted in the case of a matter that would be lost, as we learned there: One waters the soil of a beit hashelachin.

And we raise a difficulty:

But if

this beraita must be understood only according to

Rabbi Yosei,

who prohibited work involving produce attached to the ground even in the case of a matter that would be lost—

he should also thresh

the grain

with

the aid of

oxen!

For if the beraita is not the view of an individual, it can be explained that this tanna holds like Rabbi Yehuda, who permits work involving a matter that would be lost only when performed with a modification.

But if this tanna follows only Rabbi Yosei, why would he not thresh the wheat that is no longer attached even with oxen? Rabbi Yosei does not require a modification with regard to detached produce! For

Rav Yitzchak bar Abba said: Who is the tanna

who says that one must perform

a modification during the festival

even

with

regard to the labor of

a matter that would be lost?

It necessarily follows that his view is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei!

For Rabbi Yosei’s words in the Mishna make clear that labor involving detached produce in the case of a matter that would be lost is permitted, and no modification is required. If so, why may he not thresh with oxen!?

And we answer:

The tanna of the beraita can say to you:

According to Rabbi Yosei,

this too

is the case: there is no need to perform a modification, and according to him it indeed should be permitted to thresh with oxen.

The reason the tanna prohibited threshing with oxen is not the requirement of a modification, since refraining from threshing with oxen does not constitute a modification,

because

it is

not the case that every day

people necessarily

thresh with oxen;

there are people who also thresh without oxen. Therefore,

now,

during Chol HaMoed,

it is likewise not a modification

if they thresh without oxen.

Therefore, it is evident that the tanna did not prohibit threshing with oxen because of the need for a modification.

Rather, the prohibition is because the oxen make a great deal of noise from the labor when they thresh, and the Sages prohibited the publicizing of labor—“the matter makes noise”—during the festival [even when the labor itself is permitted].

In fact, the beraita is indeed the view of an individual tanna, and follows Rabbi Yosei; he alone held that it is forbidden to work with attached produce that would be lost.

The Sages taught: One may grind during the festival for the needs of the festival.

And

to grind

for purposes unrelated to the festival is forbidden.

And if he ground

during Chol HaMoed for the needs of the festival

and left over

after the festival,

it is permitted

to eat it after the festival.

And likewise,

one may chop wood during the festival for the needs of the festival,

but to do so for purposes unrelated to the festival is forbidden.

And if he chopped

during the festival for the needs of the festival

and left over

wood after the festival,

it is permitted

to use the wood after the festival.

Likewise,

one may brew beer

to prepare it

during the festival

from dates or barley, even with considerable exertion,

for the needs of the festival.

But to do so for purposes unrelated to the festival is forbidden.

And if he brewed it and left it over, it is permitted

to drink it after the festival.

And all of these products that he left over are permitted after the festival,

provided that he does not employ subterfuge

by doing a large amount of work during the festival and saying that he is doing it for the needs of the festival, while his intention is for after the festival, which is forbidden.

And we raise a difficulty:

And we juxtapose

this with a beraita in which we learned the opposite:

As it was taught:

One may brew beer during the festival for the needs of the festival, but to do so for purposes unrelated to the festival is forbidden—both date beer and barley beer.

And even though he has

beer

from before

the festival,

he employs subterfuge

and says that he wants to drink new beer, and he brews beer during the festival,

and drinks from the new beer,

saying that he brewed it for the needs of the festival.

This is difficult, for we said above in a beraita that it is forbidden to employ subterfuge even merely in order to increase the amount!

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim,

and these beraitot disagree concerning the law of subterfuge, as explained in a third beraita:

As it was taught: One may not employ subterfuge in this matter.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may employ subterfuge .

For Rav, they harvested a harvest

Rav—they reaped a harvest for him

they reaped a harvest

during Chol HaMoed.

Shmuel heard and was angered,

he was upset that they had reaped Rav’s field during the festival.

And we raise a difficulty: According to what we said above, that it is only according to Rabbi Yosei that it is forbidden to perform labor involving produce attached to the ground,

shall we say

that

Shmuel,

who was angered at Rav,

held in accordance with an individual tanna!

And we answer:

No.

It was a wheat harvest,

a wheat harvest,

as

even if they had not harvested it during the intermediate days,

there would have been no loss. Therefore Samuel was angered, since this was not a matter involving loss. But in the case of a barley harvest, Samuel would have permitted it, since he did not hold in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, whose view is that of an individual.

and therefore Shmuel was angered, since this was not a matter involving loss. But regarding the barley harvest, Shmuel would have permitted it, since he did not hold like Rabbi Yosei, who is a lone authority.

And

we raise an objection: If this was not a matter involving loss, the opposite difficulty arises: If so,

why did Rav act in this manner!?

Was this not a matter involving loss? And we answer:

He had no “

food to eat,”

food to eat

and this

reason permits performing labor during the intermediate days.

And

as for the fact that

Samuel was angered,

it was because

they had not completed the explanation before him;

they had not clarified to him that Rav had no food to eat, and he thought that they had harvested for him something that was not subject to loss, without authorization.

Alternatively,

Samuel knew that Rav had no food to eat, but he was angered that they had harvested for Rav rather than purchase food for him in the marketplace, because

a prominent person is different.

He may not make use of leniencies as other people may.

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a went out

to a courtyard with an eiruv on Shabbat

wearing a metal ring with a coral seal,

a metal ring with a coral seal.

And

likewise,

my wife

drank

water heated by a gentile cook,

water heated by a gentile cook, and he did not concern himself with the prohibition against drinking food cooked by gentiles.

Rav Ami heard

about Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a’s actions, and

he was angered

at him!

Rav Yosef said: Why was

Rav Ami

angered? If it was because of

the first matter he heard—that Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a went out with

the metal ring with the coral seal

on Shabbat into a courtyard with an eiruv—

was it not taught

in tractate Shabbat that one may go out with it into a courtyard with an eiruv:

It was taught in a beraita:

bracelets,

rings and bracelets worn on the hand,

nose rings,

worn in the nose,

and rings—

they are like all utensils that may be moved in the courtyard,

the courtyard with an eiruv.

But a woman may not go out with them into the public domain, because we are concerned that she may remove them and show them to her friend, and thereby carry them four cubits in the public domain.

However, in a courtyard they permitted moving them by virtue of their status as utensils that may be moved in a courtyard with an eiruv, and not as a leniency permitting them as garments.

If so, there is no basis for Rav Ami’s anger on this account.

And

if

Rav Ami was angered

because

he heard about Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a

that he drank water heated by a gentile cook—

this too is permitted!

For

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said that Rav said: Everything

that

is eaten as it is raw

and does not require cooking—even if a gentile cooked it—

there is no

prohibition

of food cooked by gentiles.

Water is, after all, drunk without heating as well; why, then, was Rav Ami angered that he drank water heated by a gentile?

And we explain: Although there is a leniency,

a prominent person is different,

and he should not have gone out with the metal ring with the coral seal or drunk water heated by a gentile, since he must be more stringent with himself.

Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: A person may cut down a palm tree during the intermediate days, even though he needs only its sawdust,

which falls during the cutting. For if he does not cut down the entire tree, he will not be able to take the sawdust that he needs.

Abaye pronounced a curse upon it [לשון קללה]!

For although it is permitted when one is not employing subterfuge, it is disgraceful to perform such extensive labor for such a minor need.

Rav Ashi had a forest

a forest

in

the area surrounding the city,

of Shilneya.

He went to cut it down during the intermediate days.

Rav Shila of Shilneya said to Rav Ashi: What is your reasoning

for permitting the cutting down of a forest during the intermediate days?

If it is because

Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: A person may cut down a palm tree during the intermediate days, although he needs only its sawdust—

Abaye pronounced a curse upon it,

and held that it was prohibited!

He said to him,

Rav Ashi to Rav Shila:

I have not heard

Abaye’s statement.

That is, I do not hold

the matter that he prohibited!

The ax slipped,

the ax slipping from Rav Ashi’s hand.

It sought—“

wanted”—the ax

to cut through his thigh,

because he had transgressed Abaye’s words.

He abandoned it,

Rav Ashi leaving the forest without cutting it down during the intermediate days,

and afterward he came back,

returning after the intermediate days to cut it down.

Rav Yehuda permitted uprooting flax plants

he permitted harvesting flax plants during the intermediate days,

and cutting hops,

cutting hops,

and uprooting sesame plants.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted,

uprooting

flax

is permitted, because

it is fit

it is suitable

for covering,

to cover food for the needs of the intermediate days.

And similarly, cutting

hops

is permitted, because

it is fit,

it is suitable

to

make from it

beer

for the intermediate days.

But sesame plants—

what are they fit for!?

They are not fit for eating until they wither some time after they are harvested, and that will occur only after the intermediate days; how, then, is it permitted to uproot them during the intermediate days when it is not for the needs of the intermediate days?

And we answer:

They are fit;

the sesame plants are suitable

for

use in

the seeds

the kernels

that are in them,

which they contain and from which oil is made.

Rabbi Yannai had an orchard whose time had arrived

to ripen

during the intermediate days.

He harvested it

during the intermediate days.

The following year,

everyone learned from his actions, and

they delayed

and left

all their orchards to

harvest them during

the intermediate days,

even though the time for harvesting had arrived before the intermediate days.

Rabbi Yannai declared his orchard ownerless

in

that year,

because through him the public came to stumble, having delayed harvesting their orchards until the intermediate days.

Mishna:

A person may bring in his produce

to a guarded place during the intermediate days

because of thieves. .

And he may draw out

a person may remove

his flax from the soaking pool,

where it is soaked in water to clean it,

so that it will not be lost,

the flax, since leaving flax in the soaking water for an extended period damages it.

Provided that he did not deliberately arrange his labor

to postpone it and perform it

during the intermediate days ,

when other labor is prohibited and he has more free time than during the rest of the year. This applies to a person who could have undertaken these tasks before or after the intermediate days.

And in all these cases, if they deliberately arranged their labor [שיכלו לעשותה בימות השנה] [because they could have performed it during the rest of the year],

and left it to be performed

during the intermediate days,

even if it is now a matter involving loss, they must allow them to spoil and

be lost,

and they may not benefit from them.

And if they performed it during the intermediate days, the court declares it ownerless and removes it from him.

Gemara:

The tanna

specified that the case of one who brings in his produce, which we learned in the Mishna, is subject to the condition:

Provided that he brings it discreetly into his house,

so that his labor will not create a breach in the stringency of the prohibition against labor during the intermediate days [based on the Nimmukei Yosef].

Rav Yosef had beams,

wooden beams,

and he brought them

into a guarded place

during the day

during the intermediate days.

Abaye said to him,

how could you do this?

Was it not taught: Provided that he brings them discreetly into his house!?

Rav Yosef said to him,

Rav Yosef

the discretion applicable to these

is

during the day.

Since bringing them in is more extensive and conspicuous at night than during the day, bringing them in during the day is therefore more discreet,

because at night they require additional people

in order to bring them in,

and

also

require

they need

torches of fire

to kindle torches; therefore,

the matter makes more noise

at night than bringing them in during the day. Since it is impossible not to bring them in because of the concern of loss, it is permitted in a matter involving loss.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he draws his flax from the retting vat.

Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If he deliberately scheduled his work

to be done

during the intermediate days, and he died,

the one who had scheduled his work to be done during the intermediate days—

what is the ruling regarding penalizing his sons after him,

so that they would be prohibited from performing that work, even in a matter liable to be lost if they did not perform it? For their father would have been prohibited from doing it, and his sons would consequently be prohibited from deriving benefit from it.