בְּיוֹם טוֹב, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ שֶׁזֶּה מִן הַמּוּכָן.

on the Festival itself, Rabbi Shimon says: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival; therefore, even if it was examined by an expert, it may not be slaughtered. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared for use on the Festival.

דָּרַשׁ רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: נוֹלַד הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ – מְבַקְּרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב לְכַתְּחִלָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אַבָּא תָּנֵי: אִם עָבַר וּבִקְּרוֹ – מְבוּקָּר, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מְבַקְּרִין אוֹתוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה?

Rabba bar Rav Huna taught the halakha as follows: If a firstborn was born with its blemish, experts may examine it on a Festival ab initio , and if the blemish is found to be permanent, the animal may then be slaughtered. Rav Naḥman said to him: Father would teach on this matter that if he transgressed and examined it, it is considered examined after the fact, and you say that one may examine it even ab initio ?

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי תְּלָתָא בָּבֵי: “נוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב – אֵין מְבַקְּרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב״. לְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא דְּלָא, הָא דִּיעֲבַד – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna from the fact that the baraita is taught in three parts, which suggests that each part contains a novel halakha . The first section states: If a firstborn developed a blemish on the eve of a Festival one may not examine it on the Festival itself, from which one can learn that it is only ab initio that one may not examine it; but after the fact, it seems well, and the examination is valid.

“נוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּיוֹם טוֹב, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן״ – דַּאֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נַמִי לָא. וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: “וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ שֶׁזֶּה מִן הַמּוּכָן״ – דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נַמִי.

The second section of the baraita states: If it developed a blemish on the Festival itself, Rabbi Shimon says: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. In other words, even after the fact, no, if the animal was examined by an expert, it may not be slaughtered and eaten. And then in the third section it teaches: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared for use on the Festival. The fact that the baraita taught this halakha as an independent clause indicates that even ab initio as well, the animal may be examined.

וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב אוֹשַׁעֲיָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: בֵּין שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, וּבֵין שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּיוֹם טוֹב, חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן!

The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t it so that when Rav Oshaya came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he came and brought the following baraita in his hand: Whether the animal developed a blemish on the eve of the Festival or it developed a blemish on the Festival itself, the Rabbis say: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared for use on the Festival, so that even after the fact, if the animal was examined, it may not be slaughtered and eaten. According to this, the allowance granted in the case of a firstborn that was born with its blemish can be only after the fact, as argued by Rav Naḥman, and not ab initio , as maintained by Rabba bar Rav Huna. Why, then, does Abaye accept the opinion of the latter and not that of the former?

וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הַךְ! הַהִיא אַדָּא בַּר אוּכְמֵי הִיא, דִּמְשַׁבֵּשׁ וְתָנֵי.

The Gemara asks: But if so, that baraita cited earlier, which presents these halakhot differently, is difficult. The Gemara answers: This does not pose a problem, as that baraita was taught by Adda bar Ukhmei, who would often confuse the opinions in the text and teach an inaccurate version of the dispute; therefore, his version is unreliable.

אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַתְנִיתִין נַמִי דַּיְיקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כָּל שֶׁאֵין מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב – אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן. מַאי “אֵין מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר״? אִילֵימָא שֶׁאֵין מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר כְּלָל – פְּשִׁיטָא, צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The mishna is also precise in its wording according to the opinion that no blemish may be examined ab initio . As the mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the animal has a blemish, it is prohibited to slaughter it, since any firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible on the eve of the Festival while it is still day is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. What is the meaning of the phrase: Whose blemish is not perceptible? If we say that its blemish is not perceptible at all, it is obvious. Need it be said that an animal whose blemish was not perceptible at all prior to the Festival is not considered prepared for use on the Festival?

אֶלָּא – דְּלָא אִתַּחֲזִי לְחָכָם מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב אִם מוּם קָבוּעַ אִם מוּם עוֹבֵר. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת “אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן״, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

Rather, one must say that the animal had a perceptible blemish, but it was not shown to a Sage on the eve of the Festival to determine whether it is a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish. In any event, the mishna teaches: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival, which indicates that it is not considered prepared even after the fact. It follows that the allowance granted in the case of a firstborn that was born with its blemish is also only after the fact, but the blemish may not be examined ab initio . The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is so.

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ הִלֵּל מֵרָבָא: יֵשׁ מוּקְצֶה לַחֲצִי שַׁבָּת אוֹ אֵין מוּקְצֶה לַחֲצִי שַׁבָּת? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי, אִי דְּאִחֲזִי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת – אִחֲזִי; אִי דְּלָא אִחֲזִי – לָא אִחֲזִי.

§ Hillel raised a dilemma before Rava: Is there a prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat or is there no prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If an item was fit for eating or for some other purpose at twilight between Friday and Shabbat, it would then be fit for the entire Shabbat. And if it was not fit at twilight, it is not fit for the entire day, as anything considered muktze at twilight remains so throughout Shabbat. How, then, could there be a case of an item that is considered muktze for half of Shabbat?

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִחֲזִי וַהֲדַר אִדְחִי, וַהֲדַר אִחֲזִי, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יֵשׁ מוּקְצֶה.

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise this dilemma in a case where the item had once been fit for use, and then became disqualified on Shabbat itself for some reason, and then once again became fit. It is about such a case that Hillel asked: What is the halakha ? Rava said to Hillel: There is a prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat, that is to say, once an item becomes disqualified for use on Shabbat, it retains that status for the rest of the day.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ שֶׁזֶּה מִן הַמּוּכָן. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: הַאי בְּכוֹר מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה חֲזִי אַגַּב אִמֵּיהּ, אִתְיְלִיד לֵיהּ – אִדְחִי לֵיהּ, אַחְזְיֵיהּ לְחָכָם – אִשְׁתְּרִי לֵיהּ.

Hillel raised an objection from the previously cited baraita that taught: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared before the Festival for use on the Festival. But why should this be? Let us say as follows: This firstborn was fit at the outset to be eaten on account of its mother, as had its mother been slaughtered before giving birth to the firstborn, it would have been permitted to eat them both. This being the case, when the firstborn was born, it became disqualified, since once a firstborn is born, it may not be eaten until it acquires a permanent blemish. And later, when he showed it to a Sage, it once again became permitted to him. This shows that although the animal had the status of muktze for part of the day of the Festival, it did not retain that status for the entire day.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי וְאִיתֵימָא רַב סָפְרָא: כְּגוֹן דְּיָתְבִי דַּיָּינֵי הָתָם.

Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Safra who said: Here, the baraita is referring to a case where judges were sitting there, observing the firstborn as it was being born, and they immediately saw that it was blemished. Therefore, the animal never lost its permitted status even for a moment.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין מוּקְצֶה לַחֲצִי שַׁבָּת. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ שֶׁזֶּה מִן הַמּוּכָן. וְהָא בְּכוֹר מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה חֲזִי אַגַּב אִמֵּיהּ, אִתְיְלִיד לֵיהּ – אִדְחִי לֵיהּ, אַחְזְיֵיהּ לְחָכָם – אִשְׁתְּרִי לֵיהּ.

Some say that Rava said the opposite to Hillel: There is no prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat, that is to say, even if an item becomes disqualified for use on Shabbat, once it becomes fit again, it is no longer prohibited. The Gemara responds: Let us say that the previously cited baraita supports Rava: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared before the Festival for use on the Festival. But wasn’t this firstborn fit to be eaten at the outset on account of its mother; and then when it was born it became disqualified; and then later, when he showed it to a Sage, it once again became permitted to him? This indicates that for half of Shabbat there is no prohibition of muktze .

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי וְאִיתֵימָא רַב סָפְרָא: כְּגוֹן דְּיָתְבִי דַּיָּינֵי הָתָם.

Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Safra who said: This proof is inconclusive, as the baraita may be referring to a case where judges were sitting there when the firstborn was born, and they immediately saw that it was blemished; therefore the animal never acquired the status of muktze at all.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה אוֹכֵל בַּעֲנָבִים וְהוֹתִיר, וְהֶעֱלָן לַגַּג לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן צִמּוּקִין, בִּתְאֵנִים וְהוֹתִיר וְהֶעֱלָן לַגַּג לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן גְּרוֹגָרוֹת – לֹא יֹאכַל מֵהֶן עַד שֶׁיַּזְמִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וְכֵן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא בַּאֲפַרְסְקִין, וּבַחֲבוּשִׁין, וּבִשְׁאָר כָּל מִינֵי פֵירוֹת.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a different baraita : If one was eating grapes and left some over and took them up to the roof to dry in order to make them into raisins, or if he was eating figs and left some over and took them up to the roof in order to make them into dried figs, he may not eat from them on Shabbat unless he designates them as food to be eaten while it is still day. Otherwise, they are prohibited as muktze . And you would find the same with regard to peaches, and quinces, and all other types of fruit that one left out to dry. It is prohibited to eat any of them on Shabbat due to the prohibition of muktze .

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּחֲזוּ – לָמָּה לֵיהּ הַזְמָנָה? אִי דְּלָא חֲזוּ – כִּי אַזְמִין לְהוּ מַאי הָוֵי?

The Gemara proceeds to clarify this baraita : What are the circumstances? If they are fit to be eaten, as they have already dried, why does he require prior designation? Since he placed them there in order to eat them after they dried, they should be considered food that has been designated to be eaten. And if they are not fit to be eaten, as they are yet not dry, even if he designates them the day before, what of it? Of what use is such designation, seeing that the fruit is still unfit to be eaten?

וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלָא יָדַע אִי חֲזוּ אִי לָא חֲזוּ, וְהָאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מוּקְצֶה שֶׁיָּבַשׁ, וְאֵין הַבְּעָלִים מַכִּירִין בּוֹ – מוּתָּר.

And if you say the baraita is referring to a case where he could not ascend to the roof to examine them, and therefore he did not know whether they were fit or unfit, so that his designation was conditional, there is a difficulty. As didn’t Rav Kahana say: If fruit had been set aside for drying, and it dried and became fit for eating before Shabbat, but the owner did not know about it before Shabbat but only on Shabbat, the fruit is permitted, since he removed it from his mind only for as long as it would be unfit for eating.

אֶלָּא לָאו דַּחֲזוּ וְאִדְחוּ וַהֲדַר אִחֲזוּ, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין מוּקְצֶה – לָמָּה לְהוּ הַזְמָנָה? אֶלָּא מַאי – יֵשׁ מוּקְצֶה? כִּי אַזְמִין לְהוּ מַאי הָוֵי?

Rather, is the baraita not referring to a case where the fruits were fit, and then became disqualified, and then once again became fit, and therefore they have the status of muktze ? And if you say that there is no prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat, why do they require prior designation? The Gemara refutes this argument: Rather, what then do you say, that there is in fact a prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat? In that case, if he designates them the day before, what of it? How does his designation permit that which is prohibited as muktze ?

לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאִחֲזוּ וְלָא אִחֲזוּ, דְּאִיכָּא אֱינָשֵׁי דְּאָכְלִי וְאִיכָּא אֱינָשֵׁי דְּלָא אָכְלִי. אַזְמִין – גַּלֵּי דַּעֲתֵיהּ, לָא אַזְמִין – לָא גַּלֵּי דַּעֲתֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is necessary for a case where the fruits were fit but not completely fit, meaning that there are people who eat them in that state and there are other people who do not eat them. Therefore, if he designated them as food to be eaten, he has revealed his intention that he is included among those who do eat them; if he did not designate them as food, he has not revealed his intention. Therefore, no proof can be adduced from here.

אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: תָּא שְׁמַע מִפּוֹלִין וַעֲדָשִׁים דְּהָא פּוֹלִין וַעֲדָשִׁים מֵעִיקָּרָא חֲזוּ לָכוֹס, שְׁדִינְהוּ בַּקְּדֵרָה – אִדְחוּ לְהוּ,

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear a resolution to the problem raised above from the halakha governing beans and lentils cooked on a Festival. As beans and lentils at the outset, at twilight, when they are still raw and uncooked, are fit to be chewed as they are and are therefore not in the category of muktze ; then, when he casts them into the pot to cook them, they become disqualified because while they are being cooked they are fit neither to be chewed raw nor to be eaten cooked.