Moed Katan

‘One who had [craftily] clipped the ear of his first-born beast’, and whose son is penalized after him,1 [I can reply that] that is because that is [an offence against] a Scriptural prohibition. Or should you cite [the case of], ‘One who sold his [non-Jewish] slave to a non-Jew’, and whose son was penalized after him, [I can say that] that is because he debarred him daily from the [performance of] religious duties.2 Here, what do we say? That the Rabbis’ intention was to penalize the man personally and he is no more, or, maybe that it was only to impose a pecuniary penalty [on his estate] and that is to be had? — R. Zera replied, You learned it [in the Mishnah]: ‘A field that has been cleared of thorns3 during the seventh year may be sowed in the post-sabbatical year; if it had been well improved4 or manured5 by hurdling cattle6 on it, it may not be sowed in the post-sabbatical year’,7 and [on this Point] R. Jose b. Hanina said: ‘We have it on tradition that if one had well improved his field and died, his son may Sow it’. This shows that our Rabbis did [intend to] penalize him,8 but his son the Rabbis did not [intend to] penalize; here too, then, it is the man himself that they would penalize, but his son the Rabbis would not have penalized. Said Abaye, We have it on tradition that if a man has defiled his fellow's clean [produce]9 and dies they do not penalize his son after him [to pay for the damage caused]. What is the reason? ‘Imperceptible damage10 is not in the category of [legal] damage’;11 the man himself the Rabbis would have penalized, but his son the Rabbis would not have penalized. MISHNAH. HOUSES, [STONES],12 SLAVES AND CATTLE MAY NOT BE BROUGHT SAVE FOR THE NEEDS OF THE FESTIVAL, OR THE NEED OF A VEND OR WHO HAS NOT [ENOUGH] TO EAT. GEMARA. Raba asked of R. Nahman: What about [affording] ‘earning-jobs’13 in aid of one who has not [enough] to eat? — He replied: We learned: OR THE NEED OF A VENDOR WHO HAS NOT [ENOUGH] TO EAT. What is this [relative] clause, ‘Who has not enough to eat’ intended to cover?14 Is it not to include such [casual] ‘earning-jobs’? — Not [necessarily]; it is an explanatory clause.15 Thereupon Abaye pointed out to him an objection: ‘One should not write credit-bills during the festival [week]; but if [the creditor] does not trust [the person] or he [the clerk] has not [enough] to eat, one may [then] write’.16 What is the clause, ‘Or he has not [enough] to eat’ intended to cover here? Is it not to include [casual] ‘earning-jobs’?13 — [Yes], you may infer that. R. Shesheth raised an objection: ‘And the Sages say, Three craftsmen [may] do work until midday on the day preceding the [Feast of] Passover,17 [namely], tailors, hairdressers and fullers; tailors, for the same reason that a private person may do [some] sewing in his usual way during the festival [week]; hairdressers and fullers, for the same reason that persons returning home from abroad,18 or coming out of prison may crop their hair and wash their clothes during the festival [week]’.19 Now, if you presume that ‘earning-jobs’ are allowed20 where one has not [enough] to eat, then also all [other] work should have been allowed here,21 because ‘earning-jobs’ are permitted20 where one has not [enough] to eat! R. Papa demurred to this [argument]: Then accordingly, building [work should] be allowed,22 just as ‘a wall which is bulging outward into the public domain, may be pulled down and rebuilt in the usual way,23 because it is a [public] danger’!24 Rabina also demurred to this [argument]: Accordingly then, a scrivener25 should be allowed [to work]22 just as one may ‘write marriage deeds,26 bills of divorcement27 and receipts’!28 Said R. Ashi:29 [How] can you argue thus from regulations governing the festival [week] to those governing the fourteenth of Nisan? Those governing the festival [week] are based on [the avoidance of] exertion and where loss is threatened the Rabbis have allowed [exertion]; whereas the regulations governing the fourteenth of Nisan are based on the exigencies of the Festival; anything which is required for the Festival our Rabbis have permitted and anything that is not required for the Festival our Rabbis have not permitted. MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT REMOVE [EFFECTS] FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE,30 BUT ONE MAY REMOVE THEM TO HIS COURT. WARES31 MAY NOT BE BROUGHT HOME FROM THE HOUSE OF THE CRAFTSMAN. IF ONE IS ANXIOUS ABOUT THE THINGS,32 HE MAY REMOVE THEM TO ANOTHER COURT.33 GEMARA. [BUT ONE MAY REMOVE THEM TO HIS COURT]. But you said at first that one's effects may not be removed at all? — Said Abaye, The latter part comes to [tell] us that [to another] house in that [same] court he may [remove his effects].34 AND WARES MAY NOT BE BROUGHT HOME FROM THE HOUSE OF THE CRAFTSMAN. Said R. Papa: Raba [once] gave us a test: We learned, ‘WARES MAY NOT BE BROUGHT HOME FROM THE HOUSE OF THE CRAFTSMAN’ and this he contrasted [with the following]: ‘Wares may be conveyed [to]35 and brought home from the house of the craftsman, even though they be not needed for the festival’!36 And we replied to him: The latter [Baraitha] refers to the fourteenth of Nisan, while here it refers to the festival week. Or, if you like, I might suggest that both [passages] refer to the festival week, [but that the ruling] here [obtains] where he trusts him37 [and] the latter [ruling obtains] where he does not trust him.38 (Num. XVIII, 15-18). It may not be used for work or be shorn, unless it be born blemished or becomes accidentally permanently maimed, when it is no longer fit for sacrifice (Deut. XV, 19-22; cf. Lev. XXII, I8ff). If the owner cunningly contrives to get it injured either to avoid the trouble and expense of keeping it or to have the flesh, he is penalized to have it buried and is mulcted to half its value for the loss he caused to a priest. V. Shul. ‘Ar. Yor. De'ah. 309-310. female) ritually received into the household, enjoyed the privileges of resting on the Sabbaths (Ex. XX, 10) and Feasts (Deut. XII, 12, 18) and to partake of holy meats (ibid. XVI, 11) even in the priest's household (Lev. XXII, 11) and to perform such Jewish religious observances as they chose. (Cf. Ber. 20a and Suk. 20b). By selling him to a non-Jew he debarred the slave from the religious observances he learned to love and enjoy, and for this heartless act the offending master was penalized by the loss of his monetary gain. soil, forbidden Scripturally. on M. Sheb. IV, 2. forbidden in Scripture (Lev. XXV, 1-5); and though some included even such ‘secondary processes’ under the Scriptural prohibition (cf. supra 3a), the Rabbis did not press the penalty against the dead man's son. a dead reptile on the heap of washed corn or among the gathered olives or grapes (cf. Lev. XI, 29-34). Priests’ due of these could not be eaten, but might only be burnt as fuel. Pious lay-people would not buy such produce. provisions for the Festival. Mishnah — to have any unnecessary job done in the festival week. V, 1, 5ff. craftsmen who may be in need of money for food. But, as there is no mention of such a contingency there, it shows that even in such a case, unnecessary odd ‘earning-jobs’ may not be given in the festival week. to him. V. Han., Asheri and Ritba. larger, unportable objects, while ihthcn refers to smaller, portable things. The concluding words of this discussion, however, do not take note of this possibility.