More Discussions for this daf
1. Chatzuva used by Yehoshua 2. SLAUGHTERING A DYING ANIMAL ON YOM TOV 3. Tereifah
4. Rav Chisda 5. Rav Chisda 6. Bechor she'Nafal l'Bor
7. רשד"ה בכור
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BEITZAH 25

Jonathan Bailey asks:

On Daf 25a, Rav Chisdah infers from the case of permitting someone to take fish from an amat hamayim on Yom Tov if he had barricaded it before Yom Tov - a ma'aseh (as opposed to the normal verbal approach) that establishes zimun that one may also 'trap' a chayah on YT if it had nested in a pardes before YT. Seemingly, the nesting and vlad variables of the case make it not trapping (because not going anywhere b/c it's a vlad) and zimun (because it's nested and 'present' in the guy's mind). Rav Nachman challenges such an inference and says that zimun works, without verbalization when there's a ma'aseh (like by the fish), but with the chayah, there's no ma'aseh!!

The gemara then seemingly goes off on a tangent and reconciles two seemingly contradictory sources - which state that a chayah does/doesn't need zimun - by saying that zimun is not required when it's samuch le'ir, as opposed to when it's not, where you would need 'extra' designation.

And that's the end of the gemara. Seemingly, we're to assume that Rav Nachman's challenge on Rav Chisdah is resolved? So we're to assume that Rav Chisdah was also talking about a case where the orchard was samuch le'ir? But, that's tough to accept because he learned davka by an inference from the fish case which had nothing to do with proximity to habitation...and as Tosfot put it, an Amora has to be explicit - so the fact that he didn't mention samuch, means he didn't mean it!

So, how, in the end, is Rav Chisdah not wrong (i.e. the gemra doesn't seem to feel the need to answer Rav Nachman's challenge OR make Rav Chisdah right?

Hope I was clear enough...and it's a good question.

thanks again for your time.

Jonathan Bailey, Jerusalem, Israel

The Kollel replies:

Yes, this is a very good question. In fact, it is asked by the Pnei Yehoshua.

1. The Pnei Yehoshua also points out another surprising thing in the Sugya: immediately after the Gemara cites the opinion of Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna that the Chayah in the Pardes does not require Zimun, the Gemara questions this opinion from an explicit Beraisa that quotes testimony from Shemayah and Avtalyon that it does need Zimun. The Gemara states that this is a Tiyuvta, a refutation, of Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna, implying that their opinion is totally rejected. However, the Gemara proceeds to make the distinction between close to town and not close to town. According to this distinction, it should be possible to justify the previously discarded opinion of Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna!

(We see that the Pnei Yehoshua learns that Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna have been rejected, but initially he does not understand why, since there seems to be a clear way of reconciling them.)

2. The Pnei Yehoshua proceeds to explain the Sugya by asserting that there is a dispute between Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna on the one hand and Rav Nachman on the other hand, with regard to the question of whether the fish in the Amas ha'Mayim require Zimun. Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna maintain that they do not require Zimun. They learned this from Rav, because otherwise he would be contradicted by the Mishnah earlier (10a) which states that, even according to Beis Hillel, one who wants to slaughter birds on Yom Tov must say on Erev Yom Tov, "This one and this one I will take." According to this, how can Rav say here that if one barricades the Amas ha'Mayim before Yom Tov, he may take the fish on Yom Tov? He did not say which fish he would take the next day! To answer this question, one must say that there is a difference between fish and birds: birds require Zimun, while fish do not. Accordingly, the reason why it helps to barricade the Amat ha'Mayim is not because of Zimun but rather because the barricade ensures that the fish are considered captured because they cannot escape. From here Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna learned that the Chayah in the Pardes is also considered captured since it cannot escape, and therefore it is not Muktzeh.

3. However, Rav Nachman disagrees with the above approach. He learns that the barricading of the Amas ha'Mayim works according to Rav because it is Zimun, as Rashi writes that this Ma'aseh is a significant action of Zimun. Rav Nachman maintains that while one requires Zimun, it is not necessary to say for the fish, "This one and this one I will take," but instead it suffices to say, "I will take from here tomorrow." This is because the Gemara stated (beginning of 10b) that the reason why one must say this for birds before Yom Tov is that one is required to check the birds before Yom Tov, because otherwise one might discover on Yom Tov that the birds one thought were fat are in fact thin or vice versa, and one will come to move Muktzeh on Yom Tov for no purpose. In the case of fish, however, this concern does not apply, because all types of fish are fit for use. Therefore, since it suffices to say, "I will take from here tomorrow," for fish, it certainly suffices to do the significant Ma'aseh of barricading the Amas ha'Mayim in order to be considered Zimun.

4. Since we said that Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna maintain that one does not require Zimun for the Chayah in the Pardes, it follows that when we found the Beraisa in which Shemayah and Avtalyon testify that one does need Zimun, this means that Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna are totally refuted. Even though we later found a Beraisa that makes a distinction between close to town and not close, it still is apparent that it depends on whether one had his mind on the Chayah in the Pardes or not. This suggests that the crucial point is Zimun and not whether the Chayah is considered trapped or not. This fits well with Rav Nachman, but cannot be reconciled with Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna. So these two remained refuted.

5. To summarize, according to the Pnei Yehoshua, Rav Chisda is refuted because he maintains that Rav's Heter of barricading the Amas ha'Mayim was to make the fish trapped, and therefore the Chayah in the Pardes is also trapped. This is disproved by the Beraisa that says that the Chayah in the Pardes requires Zimun, which is a proof for Rav Nachman that Rav's Heter was because of Zimun. Consequently, the distinction at the end of the Gemara between close to town and not close is meaningful only according to Rav Nachman.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom