Moed Katan 12b — the Talmud in English

And the comparison is as follows: that

there are those for which one is exempt, but

it is forbidden

, and there are those which are permitted from the outset.

And this is similar to the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Dimi: one who says, “One may not coat [barrels],” means from the outset, and this is “one is exempt, but it is forbidden,” for even if he coats them, he is not liable for anything on account of it. And the one who says, “One may coat [them],” permits it from the outset.

Rav Huna—their reaping a harvest for him—

they reaped the harvest of his field for him

on the Festival

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

His son raised an objection

[his son]

Rabba bar Rav Huna, to Rav Huna:

How is it permitted to reap on the Festival? But we learned in a beraita in the Tosefta:

One may grind flour on the Festival for the needs of the Festival.

But for what is not needed for the Festival, it is forbidden

to grind .

Something that would be lost on the Festival—

it is permitted to do it on the Festival.

Something that would not be lost on the Festival—

it is forbidden

to do it on the Festival.

In what case are these matters stated,

that something that would be lost on the Festival is permitted to be done on the Festival?

With

wheat that is already

detached from the ground.

But

something that is

attached to the ground, even if all of it would 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 that he reaped

by

means of

cattle!

And it is explained in the beraita that even where the grain will deteriorate, it is forbidden to reap, even in the case of something that would be lost. And this is difficult for Rav Huna, who permitted reaping.

And Rav Huna answered the question of Rabba, his son:

He said to him:

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

is according to an individual tanna, and we do not hold like him,

but it is permitted even to reap in the case of something that would be lost .

And the proof that the prohibition against reaping in the case of something that would be lost is the view of an individual tanna is:

From this

as it was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: A general principle: Something detached from the ground, even

only

part of it would be lost, it is permitted

to perform work on all of it so that the part of it should not be lost .

And

if

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

it is forbidden!

And it is demonstrated that it is only according to Rabbi Yosei, who is an individual, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that it is forbidden to reap when all of it would be lost. Therefore Rav Huna was not concerned about his prohibition, because in the Mishna at the beginning of the tractate it is explicit that even when something is attached to the ground, it is permitted to perform work involving something that would be lost, for we learned there: One waters the soil of a beit ha-shelahin.

And we raise an objection:

And if

this beraita is to be established only according to

Rabbi Yosei,

who forbade work involving something attached to the ground even in the case of something that would be lost—

he should also thresh

the grain

by

means of

cattle!

For granted, if the beraita is not the view of an individual, it is possible to explain that this tanna held like Rabbi Yehuda, to permit only with a change, in the case of something that would be lost.

But if this tanna holds only like Rabbi Yosei, why should he not thresh the wheat that is not attached even with cattle? Does Rabbi Yosei require a change with something detached? For

Rav Yitzhak bar Abba said: Who is the tanna

who says that one must perform

a change on the Festival

even

with

work involving

something that would be lost?

It necessarily follows that his view is

not like Rabbi Yosei!

For from Rabbi Yosei’s words in the Mishna it is evident that with something detached, work involving something that would be lost is permitted, and one need not make a change. If so, why should he not thresh with cattle!?

And we answer:

He can say to you:

The tanna of the beraita:

So too,

according to Rabbi Yosei there is no need to make a change, and according to his view it indeed should have been permitted to thresh with cattle.

And the reason the tanna forbade threshing with cattle is not because of a change, for refraining from threshing with cattle does not constitute a change,

since

it is

not every day is it specifically

necessarily

with cattle that they thresh,

for there are people who thresh even without cattle. Therefore

now,

on Chol haMoed,

too, it is not a change

if they thresh without cattle.

Therefore it is demonstrated that the tanna did not forbid threshing with cattle because of the need for a change.

Rather, the prohibition is because the cattle make a great deal of work-noise when they thresh, and the Sages forbade the publicizing of work—“the matter makes noise”—on the Festival [even when it is intrinsically permitted].

And in fact, the beraita is the view of an individual, and is according to Rabbi Yosei, and only he held that it is forbidden to work with something attached that would be lost .

The Sages taught: One may grind on the Festival for the needs of the Festival.

And

to grind

when it is not for the needs of the Festival is forbidden.

And if he ground

on Chol haMoed for the needs of the Festival

and some remained

after the Festival,

it is permitted

to eat it after the Festival .

And likewise,

one may chop wood on the Festival for the needs of the Festival,

but for what is not needed for the Festival, it is forbidden.

And if he chopped

on the Festival for the needs of the Festival

and some remained

wood after the Festival,

it is permitted

to use the wood after the Festival.

And likewise,

one may brew beer

to make it

on the Festival

from dates or barley, even with considerable exertion,

for the needs of the Festival.

But for what is not needed for the Festival, it is forbidden.

And if he brewed it and some remained, it is permitted

to drink it after the Festival.

And all these things that remained are permitted after the Festival

provided that he does not employ a subterfuge

to make much on the Festival and say that he is making it for the needs of the Festival, while his intention is for after the Festival, which is forbidden.

And we raise an objection:

And he contrasts it

with a beraita in which we learned the opposite:

As it was taught:

One may brew beer on the Festival for the needs of the Festival, but for what is not needed for the Festival it is forbidden, whether date beer or barley beer.

And even though he has

beer

that is old

from before the Festival,

he employs a subterfuge

and says that he wants to drink new beer, and he brews beer on the Festival,

and drinks from the new

and says that he is brewing it for the needs of the Festival .

But it is difficult: did we not say in the earlier beraita that it is forbidden to employ a subterfuge even merely in order to increase?

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim, and these beraitot disagree in the dispute concerning the law of subterfuge, which is explained in a third beraita:

and these tannaitic sources disagree in the dispute concerning the law of using a subterfuge, which is explained in a third tannaitic source:

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

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may employ a subterfuge .

For Rav, they harvested a harvest

Rav—their reaping a harvest for him

they reaped a harvest for him

on Chol haMoed.

Shmuel heard and was angry,

he was upset that they had reaped Rav’s field for him on the Festival.

And we raise an objection: According to what we said above, that it is only according to Rabbi Yosei that it is forbidden to perform work involving something attached,

let us say

that

Shmuel,

who was angry at Rav—

held the view of an individual [tanna]!?

And we answer:

No.

It was

a wheat harvest,

for

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

there would have been no loss,

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 challenge: If this was not a matter involving loss, the opposite is difficult: If so,

why did Rav act in this way!?

It was not a matter involving loss! And we answer:

He did not have

“what to eat”

food to eat

was the case,

and this reason permits work during the intermediate days.

And

as for the fact that

Shmuel

was angered, it was because

they did not finish explaining it before him:

they did not clarify to him the fact that Rav had nothing to eat, and he thought that they had harvested for him something involving no loss, without permission.

Alternatively,

Shmuel knew that Rav had nothing to eat, and he was angered that they harvested for Rav, rather than buying him food in the marketplace, because

a distinguished person is different,

for he may not make use of permissions as other people do.

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia went out

into a jointly enclosed courtyard on Shabbat

with a metal ring

a metal ring with a coral seal.

And

likewise,

my wife

drank

water heated by an Aramaean cook

water that had been heated by a gentile cook, and he did not concern himself with the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

Rav Ami heard

about the actions of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, and

was angered

at him!

Rav Yosef said: Why was he angered

Rav Ami?

If because of

the first matter that he heard, that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia went out with

a metal ring

on Shabbat into a jointly enclosed courtyard—

it was taught

in tractate Shabbat that it is permitted to go out with it into a jointly enclosed courtyard:

For it was taught:

the bracelets,

rings and bracelets worn on the hand,

the earrings,

worn in the nose,

and the rings—

they are all like utensils that may be carried in a courtyard,

the jointly enclosed one.

But into the public domain a woman may not go out with them, because we are concerned that the woman will remove them from herself and show them to her companion, and thus carry them four cubits in the public domain.

But in a courtyard they permitted carrying them, by the law of an utensil that may be carried in a jointly enclosed courtyard, and not as a permission granted on account of clothing.

And if so, from this perspective there is no basis for Rav Ami’s anger.

And

if

Rav Ami was angered

because

he heard about Rabbi Yehuda Nesia

that he drank water heated by an Aramaean cook—

this too is permitted!

For

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak said in the name of Rav: Every

thing

that is eaten as it is alive,

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

there is no

prohibition

because of food cooked by gentiles.

But water is also drunk without heating, so why was Rav Ami angered that he drank water heated by a gentile?

And we explain: Although there is a permission,

a distinguished person is different,

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

Rav Hananel said in the name of Rav: A person may cut down a palm tree during the intermediate days, even though he needs only its sawdust,

which falls at the time of cutting. For if he does not cut it down entirely, he will not be able to take the sawdust he needs.

Abaye cursed him [a language of cursing]!

For although it is permitted to do it if he is not employing artifice, it is unattractive to perform such great work for so slight a need.

Rav Ashi had a forest

forest

in

the area of the city

Shilnaya.

He went to cut it down during the intermediate days.

Rav Shila of Shilnaya said to Rav Ashi: What is your opinion,

that it is permitted to cut down a forest during the intermediate days?

If because of

what Rav Hananel said in the name of Rav: A person may cut down a palm tree during the intermediate days, even though he needs only its sawdust—

Abaye cursed him,

and held that it is forbidden!

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rav Shila:

I have not heard

Abaye’s words.

That is to say, I do not hold

what he prohibited!

The ax slipped,

the ax slipped from Rav Ashi’s hand.

It wanted,

“wanted,” the ax

to cut through his thigh,

because he had transgressed Abaye’s words.

He left it,

Rav Ashi left the forest and did not cut it down during the intermediate days,

and afterward he came

and returned after the intermediate days to cut it down.

Rav Yehuda permitted uprooting flax,

he permitted picking flax plants during the intermediate days,

and cutting hops,

to cut hops,

and uprooting sesame.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted

regarding uprooting

flax,

it is permitted because

it is fit

it is suitable

for covering,

to cover food for the needs of the intermediate days.

And likewise, cutting

hops

is permitted, because

it is fit

it is suitable

for

making from it

beer

for the intermediate days.

But sesame—

what is it fit for!?

After all, it is not fit for eating until it dries out some time after it is picked, and this will be only after the intermediate days; so how is it permitted to uproot it during the intermediate days when it is not needed for the intermediate days?

And we answer:

It is fit

the sesame plants are suitable

for

use in

the seeds,

the kernels

that are in them,

which are in them and from which oil is made.

Rabbi Yannai had an orchard whose time had arrived

to ripen

during the intermediate days.

He picked it,

during the intermediate days.

The following year,

everyone learned from his actions, and

delayed

and postponed

everyone their orchards to

pick them during

the intermediate days,

despite the fact that the time for picking had arrived before the intermediate days.

Rabbi Yannai declared his orchard ownerless

in

that year,

because through him a stumbling block had come to the public: they had postponed picking 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 up

a person may raise

his flax from the soaking vat,

in which it is soaked in water to clean it,

so that it not be lost,

since leaving the flax in the soaking water for a long time spoils it.

Provided that he does not arrange his work

to postpone it and perform it

during the intermediate days ,

when other work is forbidden and he is more available than on the other days of the year. This applies to a person who is able to exert himself in these tasks before the intermediate days or afterward.

And all of them, if they arranged their work

[so that they could perform it on the days of the year], and left it to perform it

during the intermediate days,

even though now it is a matter involving loss, they must allow it to become spoiled and

be lost,

and they may not benefit from it.

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

Gemara:

A tanney

the one who brings in his produce, as we learned in the Mishna, is subject to the condition:

Provided that he brings it in discreetly into his house,

so that his work will not be a breach in the stringency of the prohibition of work during the intermediate days [according to the Nimukei Yosef].

Rav Yosef had beams,

wooden beams,

he brought them in

to a guarded place

during the day

during the intermediate days.

Abaye said to him,

How did you do this?

But it was taught: Provided that he brings them in discreetly into his house!

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said:

The discreet manner of these

is

during the day.

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

since at night they require additional men

to bring them in,

and

also

they require

for them

fire-bearers

to light torches, and therefore

the matter is publicized

at night more than bringing them in during the day; and there is no possibility of not bringing them in because of concern of loss, and it is permitted in a matter involving loss.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he draws his flax from the soaking pool.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeira: If he deliberately arranged his work

to do it

on the intermediate days of the festival, and he died

the one who deliberately arranged his work to do it on the intermediate days

would his sons be penalized after him

so that they would be forbidden to do that work, even with regard to something that is destined to be lost if they do not do it, for their father would have been forbidden, and his sons would be forbidden to derive benefit from it.