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
Yes, it is a very good question, and 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 or of Rabah bar Rav Huna that the Chayah in the Pardes requires no Zimun, the Gemara questions them from an explicit Beraisa in which Shemayah and Avtalyon testify that it does need Zimun. The Gemara states that this is a Tiyuvta on Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna, implying that these two opinions are totally refuted. 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 refuted opinion of Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna! (It is clear that the Pnei Yehoshua was unsure why the view of Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna was rejected when there seemed to have been a clear way to reconcile it.)
2. The Pnei Yehoshua proceeds to explain the Sugya by asserting that there is a dispute between two opinions -- that of Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna, and that of Rav Nachman -- with regard to 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 Din from Rav, because otherwise he would be contradicted by the Mishnah above (10a) which states that even according to Beis Hillel if one wants to slaughter birds on Yom Tov, he must designate them on Erev Yom Tov and say, "This one and this one I will take." According to this ruling, why does Rav say here that if one closes up the Amas ha'Mayim before Yom Tov, he may take the fish on Yom Tov? Why is he permitted to take the fish if he did not say which fish he would take?
To answer this question, one must say that there is a difference between fish and birds: birds require Zimun while fish do not. Accordingly, damming the Amas ha'Mayim helps not because of Zimun but rather because the barricade ensures that the fish are considered captured since they cannot escape. From here, Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna derived that the Chayah in the Pardes is also considered captured since it cannot escape, and therefore it is not Muktzah.
3. Rav Nachman disagrees with the above approach. He learns that the damming of the Amas ha'Mayim works according to Rav because it is Zimun, as Rashi writes that this act is a significant act of Zimun. Rav Nachman maintains that while Zimun is required, it is not necessary to declare about the fish before Yom Tov, "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 (beginning of 10b) states that the reason why one must express his intent for birds before Yom Tov is that one is required to check the birds before Yom Tov so that he not discover on Yom Tov that the birds that he thought were fat are in fact thin (or vice versa) and then he will have moved Muktzah on Yom Tov for no purpose. This concern does not apply to fish, because all types of fish are fit for use. Since it is sufficient to say for fish, "I will take from here tomorrow," it certainly is sufficient to do the significant act of damming the Amas ha'Mayim in order to be considered Zimun.
4. Since we established that Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna maintain that Zimun is not required for the Chayah in the Pardes, it follows that when Shemayah and Avtalyon in the Beraisa say that Zimun is necessary, 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 to town, it still is apparent that it depends on whether one's mind was on the Chayah in the Pardes or not. This suggests that the crucial point is Zimun and not on whether or not the Chayah is considered as trapped. This fits well with Rav Nachman, but it cannot be reconciled with Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna. Hence, their opinion remains refuted.
5. To summarize, according to the Pnei Yehoshua, Rav Chisda is refuted because he learned that Rav's Heter of damming the Amas ha'Mayim was to make the fish trapped, and therefore the Chayah in the Pardes is also trapped. This was disproved by the Beraisa that teaches that the Chayah in the Pardes requires Zimun, which is a proof for Rav Nachman that Rav's Heter was because of Zimun, and therefore 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