Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 2, 2021 | 讻状讛 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 2

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored anonymously for the yahrzeit of Elazar ben Shimon, R. Elazar son of R. Shimon bar Yochai and Saadia ben Joseph, Rav Saadia Gaon.

There are three debates quoted in the first mishna between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel where Beit Shamai is more lenient. The topics are: an egg that was laid on Yom Tov 鈥 can it be eaten, what measurement of a leavening agent and chametz is one liable for if one ate it on Pesach, and can one slaughter an animal on Yom Tov if one does not have earth prepared to use for covering it? What type of hen is referred to in the mishna? Is it an egg from a hen that was designated for eating or for laying eggs? And if so, what is the point of contention between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel? The gemara will bring four answers. Rav Nachman says that this is a hen that is designated for laying eggs and Beit Shamai does not hold by laws of muktza/nolad. The gemara raises two questions against his position. One is resolved, the other is not. Raba said that the debate regarding the law of preparation 鈥 does things need to be prepared before Shabbat/Yom Tov and the problematic case is when Yom Tov falls after Shabbat. However, they instituted that even on a regular Yom Tov, not following Shabbat, they would forbid it so that people wouldn鈥檛 get confused and think it was permitted also when Yom Tov followed Shabbat. 聽Rabbi Yosef gives a third answer – says that this is a decree because of fruits that fall from a tree on Shabbat 鈥 if we permit the egg, people will think the fruits are permitted as well. The fourth answer will be on page 3a.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讗讻诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讗讜专 讘讻讝讬转 讜讞诪抓 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讝讬转

MISHNA: With regard to an egg that was laid on a Festival (Eduyyot 4:1), Beit Shammai say: It may be eaten even on that day, and Beit Hillel say: It may not be eaten, as the Gemara will explain at length. Apropos this exceptional case, in which Beit Shammai are lenient and Beit Hillel are strict, the mishna cites additional halakhot of the Festivals in which this unusual phenomenon occurs (Yoma 79b). Beit Shammai say: Leaven, i.e., dough that has leavened to such an extent that it is no longer used as food but as a leavening agent for other dough, is prohibited on Passover in the measure of an olive-bulk. However, the measure for edible leavened bread is greater, that of a large date-bulk. And Beit Hillel say: For both this and that, the measure is that of an olive-bulk.

讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诇讜 注驻专 诪讜讻谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 砖讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗

Furthermore, with regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird on a Festival (Eduyyot 4:2), in which case there is a mitzva from the Torah to cover the blood after slaughtering (Leviticus 17:13), Beit Shammai say: He digs earth with a shovel and covers the blood with that earth ab initio. And Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter ab initio, unless he had earth prepared for that purpose while it was still day. But even Beit Hillel concede that if one already slaughtered the animal or the bird, then he should dig with a shovel and cover the blood. Additionally, they agree that the ashes of a stove are considered prepared for the use of covering blood, as will be explained by the Gemara.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗驻专转 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: With what case are we dealing in this mishna? If we say that the mishna is referring to a chicken that is designated for eating, i.e., one planned to slaughter and eat a chicken that laid an egg, what is the reason that Beit Hillel prohibit eating the egg? It is food that has been separated [de鈥檌frat]. The entire chicken is considered food, as it is designated for eating, and this egg is simply a part that became detached. Just as one may partake of the chicken itself on a Festival, its egg should likewise be fit for consumption.

讗诇讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐

Rather, the mishna must be referring to the case of a chicken designated for laying eggs. Since the owner of this chicken decided not to eat it on the Festival, it is classified as set-aside [muktze], and muktze items may not even be moved, let alone eaten. Since the chicken itself is muktze, its egg is muktze as well.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 诪讜拽爪讛

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason of Beit Shammai for permitting one to eat the egg? After all, it is muktze. The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps Beit Shammai do not hold that there is a prohibition of muktze? There are different opinions with regard to the scope of the prohibition of muktze. It is possible that Beit Shammai, like other tanna鈥檌m, maintain that there is no prohibition of this type of muktze. Perhaps this is the subject of their dispute with Beit Hillel.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 讗驻诇讜 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讘诪讜拽爪讛 讘谞讜诇讚 讗住专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

Before stating its proposed solutions for this difficulty, the Gemara notes: It enters our mind to say that even one who permits moving an item that was set aside by its owners on a Festival or Shabbat prohibits the owners from doing so with an object that came into being [nolad] on a Festival. One may not move an object that came into being on a Festival or Shabbat, since the owner never entertained the notion that he would be able to use it. This egg is certainly an object that came into being on the Festival. What, then, is the reason of Beit Shammai?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇诐 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讜讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讜讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Na岣an said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a chicken designated for laying eggs. However, our previous assumption was mistaken, as the Sage who holds that there is a prohibition of muktze in general also holds that there is a prohibition of objects that came into being, while one who does not hold that there is a prohibition of muktze likewise does not hold that there is a prohibition of objects that came into being (Shabbat 45b). Consequently, the dispute can be summed up as follows: Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that there is no prohibition of muktze; and Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who rules that there is a prohibition of muktze.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 诪注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 注爪诪讜转 讜拽诇讬驻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪住诇拽 讗转 讛讟讘诇讗 讻讜诇讛 讜诪谞注专讛

The Gemara is puzzled by this explanation: And did Rav Na岣an actually say that Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shabbat 143a) that Beit Shammai say: One may remove bones and shells left from the meal from the table, despite the fact that they are inedible and are muktze. And Beit Hillel say: It is prohibited to do so; rather, one may remove the entire board [tavla] that is the table surface, which is a vessel that may be carried, and shake it all at once. By moving the table, which is not muktze, one is able to shake off the bones and shells, but he may not move the items themselves.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

And Rav Na岣an said: That version of the mishna is not in accordance with the halakha; rather, the opinions should be reversed, as we have nothing other than the following version of this dispute: Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the prohibition of muktze applies, while Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the halakha of muktze does not apply. Why, then, does Rav Na岣an explain that the ruling of Beit Hillel in the case of the egg in the mishna is based on the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there actually is a prohibition of muktze?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙讘讬 砖讘转 讚住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讗转 讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐

The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an could have said to you in reply: With regard to Shabbat, this is a case where the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna, which is generally accepted as the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 156b): One may cut pumpkins before an animal to facilitate their consumption, and likewise one may cut up an animal carcass before dogs, even if the animal died on Shabbat, to enable them to consume it. Although that carcass is classified as muktze, it may be moved on Shabbat.

诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇

The Gemara concludes: That unattributed mishna in tractate Shabbat is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. For this reason, Rav Na岣an establishes that the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai should be understood to mean that Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whom the halakha apparently follows, as there is a principle that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion. However,

讙讘讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

with regard to a Festival, the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (Shabbat 156b), as we learned in a mishna in this tractate: One may not chop wood on a Festival from beams prepared for use in construction work, nor may one chop kindling wood from a beam that broke on a Festival. As the beams were not prepared for this use when the Festival began, they are classified as muktze; this demonstrates that an unattributed mishna prohibits muktze on a Festival. Consequently, Rav Na岣an establishes the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits muktze. He does so by asserting that the mishna is referring to the case of a chicken designated for laying eggs, which is muktze. This concludes the Gemara鈥檚 explanation of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 rendering of the tannaitic dispute.

诪讻讚讬 诪讗谉 住转诪讬讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘砖讘转 讚住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: Now since, i.e., consider the following: Who is the one who wrote and edited the Mishna, and arranged the unattributed mishnayot? It was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Since the same Sage formulated the statements in both tractates, the question arises: What is different with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, that he stated the unattributed opinion and ruled for us in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and what is different with regard to the halakhot of a Festival, that he stated the unattributed opinion and ruled for us in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

讗诪专讬 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讛 住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诪讬拽诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讬讛 住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞诪讬专

They answer and say: In the case of Shabbat, which is stringent with regard to its punishments (see 35b), and therefore people will not come to treat it with contempt, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught us the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who rules leniently. Conversely, with regard to a Festival, which is lenient, as certain labors may be performed on a Festival, and therefore people will be more likely to come to treat it with contempt, he stated the unattributed opinion for us in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who rules stringently.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪驻诇讙讬 讘讘讬爪讛 诇驻诇讙讜 讘转专谞讙讜诇转

The Gemara asks: In what manner did you ultimately establish the mishna? It was established as referring to a chicken designated for laying eggs, and the prohibition is due to muktze. If so, rather than disputing with regard to an egg laid on a Festival, let them dispute with regard to the chicken itself. Instead of considering the secondary detail of an egg, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel could discuss whether or not the chicken itself may be slaughtered on a Festival.

诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讘谞讜诇讚 砖专讬

The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also disagree with regard to the chicken, but the dispute was phrased in this manner to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai. The formulation of the mishna emphasizes the extent of Beit Shammai鈥檚 lenient opinion, that even in the case of an egg, which is not a regular muktze item but an item that came into being, an especially stringent type of muktze, Beit Shammai nevertheless permit it. By stating the dispute with regard to an egg, the mishna stresses Beit Shammai鈥檚 lenient opinion.

讜诇驻诇讜讙讬 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚讘诪讜拽爪讛 讗住专讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讞 讚讛转讬专讗 注讚讬祝 讜谞驻诇讜讙 讘转专讜讬讬讛讜

The Gemara raises an objection: And let them disagree with regard to a chicken, rather than an egg, to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel, who prohibit its use even in the more lenient case of muktze. And if you say it is better to present the dispute as in the mishna, so as to clarify the more lenient opinion, as the strength of leniency is preferable (Berakhot 60a), there is another option: And let them disagree with regard to both of these cases.

转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讘讬爪转讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讗讻诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇

The mishna could have said: With regard to a chicken designated for laying eggs, it and its eggs, Beit Shammai say: It may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say: It may not be eaten. In this manner, the mishna could have referred to all aspects of the dispute, without the need for any lengthy addition. Consequently, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 explanation of the mishna is inadequate.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞讛

Rather, Rabba said: Actually, the above explanation should be rejected. We are dealing with a chicken designated for food and we are dealing with an egg that was laid on a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, i.e., on a Sunday. And the relevant issue is not the halakhot of muktze; rather, one may not eat the egg due to the prohibition against preparation from Shabbat to a Festival.

讜拽住讘专 专讘讛 讻诇 讘讬爪讛 讚诪转讬诇讚讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 讙诪专讛 诇讛

And in this regard, Rabba holds that any egg laid now was already fully developed yesterday, and merely emerged from the chicken today. Consequently, an egg laid on a Festival that occurred on a Sunday may not be eaten, as it was prepared on Shabbat, despite the fact that it was prepared naturally, by Heaven, rather than by man.

讜专讘讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讛讻讬谞讜 讗转 讗砖专 讬讘讬讗讜 讞讜诇 诪讻讬谉 诇砖讘转 讜讞讜诇 诪讻讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讻讬谉 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 砖讘转 诪讻讬谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara comments: And Rabba, who prohibits one to derive benefit even from something that was not prepared by man, conforms to his standard line of reasoning. As Rabba said: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the manna: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in鈥 (Exodus 16:5)? According to Rabba, it can be inferred from this verse that on an ordinary weekday, 鈥渢he sixth day,鈥 one may prepare what is needed for Shabbat, and similarly, on an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for a Festival. However, on a Festival one may not prepare for Shabbat, and likewise on Shabbat one may not prepare for a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘注诇诪讗 转砖转专讬 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 砖讘转 讚注诇诪讗 转砖转专讬 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讗讞专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Abaye said to Rabba: However, if that is so, and the concern is only due to preparation, let an egg laid on a regular Festival, one that does not occur on a Sunday, be permitted. Rabba responded: That egg is not prohibited by Torah law, but by rabbinic decree, due to the case of a Festival that occurs after Shabbat. Abaye asked: On a regular Shabbat, one that does not occur after a Festival, let it be permitted to eat an egg that was laid on that day, provided that one does not cook it. Rabba similarly answered: It is a decree due to a Shabbat that occurs after a Festival.

讜诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗讻诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 讛谞讱 讚诪转讬诇讚谉 讘讬讜诪讬讛谉

Abaye further asked: And do we issue a decree of this kind? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (see 6b): In the case of one who slaughters a chicken on a Festival and finds inside it fully developed eggs with their shells, it is permitted to eat them on the Festival. And if it is so, that that the aforementioned decree is in effect, let him issue a decree and prohibit these eggs found inside the chicken, due to those that are laid on that day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讛讬讗 讜诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

Rabba said to him: This is not difficult, as the case of fully developed eggs found inside their mother is an uncommon matter, and in a case of an uncommon matter the Sages did not issue a decree as a preventive measure (Eiruvin 63b). The Sages issued their decrees only for usual situations, in which people might err, but they did not apply them to rare cases. This concludes the Gemara鈥檚 discussion of Rabba鈥檚 explanation.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 驻专讜转 讛谞讜砖专讬谉

The Gemara proceeds to explain other interpretations of the mishna. Rav Yosef said: An egg laid by a chicken designated for food is prohibited for a different reason: It is a decree due to fruits that fall from a tree (Eiruvin 39b). Fruits that fall from a tree on Shabbat or a Festival may not be eaten, and the same applies to eggs that emerge from a chicken.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻专讜转 讛谞讜砖专讬谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: With regard to fruits that fall, what in fact is the reason that the Sages prohibited them?

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah 2-6 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This Masechet will be dealing with laws pertaining to the Festivals. In particular, we will be learning about permissible food...
talking talmud_square

Beitzah 2: A Tractate about an Egg, Kinda, Sorta

An introduction to this tractate, which is called, "Egg," but is really, fundamentally, about yom tov, the holidays. It therefore...
farm to table flashback shulie mishkin

Farm to Table

Masechet Betzah has a strange name. Are we going to learn about all the different ways to prepare eggs? It...

Beitzah 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 2

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讗讻诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讗讜专 讘讻讝讬转 讜讞诪抓 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讝讬转

MISHNA: With regard to an egg that was laid on a Festival (Eduyyot 4:1), Beit Shammai say: It may be eaten even on that day, and Beit Hillel say: It may not be eaten, as the Gemara will explain at length. Apropos this exceptional case, in which Beit Shammai are lenient and Beit Hillel are strict, the mishna cites additional halakhot of the Festivals in which this unusual phenomenon occurs (Yoma 79b). Beit Shammai say: Leaven, i.e., dough that has leavened to such an extent that it is no longer used as food but as a leavening agent for other dough, is prohibited on Passover in the measure of an olive-bulk. However, the measure for edible leavened bread is greater, that of a large date-bulk. And Beit Hillel say: For both this and that, the measure is that of an olive-bulk.

讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诇讜 注驻专 诪讜讻谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 砖讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗

Furthermore, with regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird on a Festival (Eduyyot 4:2), in which case there is a mitzva from the Torah to cover the blood after slaughtering (Leviticus 17:13), Beit Shammai say: He digs earth with a shovel and covers the blood with that earth ab initio. And Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter ab initio, unless he had earth prepared for that purpose while it was still day. But even Beit Hillel concede that if one already slaughtered the animal or the bird, then he should dig with a shovel and cover the blood. Additionally, they agree that the ashes of a stove are considered prepared for the use of covering blood, as will be explained by the Gemara.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗驻专转 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: With what case are we dealing in this mishna? If we say that the mishna is referring to a chicken that is designated for eating, i.e., one planned to slaughter and eat a chicken that laid an egg, what is the reason that Beit Hillel prohibit eating the egg? It is food that has been separated [de鈥檌frat]. The entire chicken is considered food, as it is designated for eating, and this egg is simply a part that became detached. Just as one may partake of the chicken itself on a Festival, its egg should likewise be fit for consumption.

讗诇讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐

Rather, the mishna must be referring to the case of a chicken designated for laying eggs. Since the owner of this chicken decided not to eat it on the Festival, it is classified as set-aside [muktze], and muktze items may not even be moved, let alone eaten. Since the chicken itself is muktze, its egg is muktze as well.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 诪讜拽爪讛

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason of Beit Shammai for permitting one to eat the egg? After all, it is muktze. The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps Beit Shammai do not hold that there is a prohibition of muktze? There are different opinions with regard to the scope of the prohibition of muktze. It is possible that Beit Shammai, like other tanna鈥檌m, maintain that there is no prohibition of this type of muktze. Perhaps this is the subject of their dispute with Beit Hillel.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 讗驻诇讜 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讘诪讜拽爪讛 讘谞讜诇讚 讗住专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

Before stating its proposed solutions for this difficulty, the Gemara notes: It enters our mind to say that even one who permits moving an item that was set aside by its owners on a Festival or Shabbat prohibits the owners from doing so with an object that came into being [nolad] on a Festival. One may not move an object that came into being on a Festival or Shabbat, since the owner never entertained the notion that he would be able to use it. This egg is certainly an object that came into being on the Festival. What, then, is the reason of Beit Shammai?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇诐 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讜讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讜讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Na岣an said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a chicken designated for laying eggs. However, our previous assumption was mistaken, as the Sage who holds that there is a prohibition of muktze in general also holds that there is a prohibition of objects that came into being, while one who does not hold that there is a prohibition of muktze likewise does not hold that there is a prohibition of objects that came into being (Shabbat 45b). Consequently, the dispute can be summed up as follows: Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that there is no prohibition of muktze; and Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who rules that there is a prohibition of muktze.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 诪注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 注爪诪讜转 讜拽诇讬驻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪住诇拽 讗转 讛讟讘诇讗 讻讜诇讛 讜诪谞注专讛

The Gemara is puzzled by this explanation: And did Rav Na岣an actually say that Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shabbat 143a) that Beit Shammai say: One may remove bones and shells left from the meal from the table, despite the fact that they are inedible and are muktze. And Beit Hillel say: It is prohibited to do so; rather, one may remove the entire board [tavla] that is the table surface, which is a vessel that may be carried, and shake it all at once. By moving the table, which is not muktze, one is able to shake off the bones and shells, but he may not move the items themselves.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

And Rav Na岣an said: That version of the mishna is not in accordance with the halakha; rather, the opinions should be reversed, as we have nothing other than the following version of this dispute: Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the prohibition of muktze applies, while Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the halakha of muktze does not apply. Why, then, does Rav Na岣an explain that the ruling of Beit Hillel in the case of the egg in the mishna is based on the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there actually is a prohibition of muktze?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙讘讬 砖讘转 讚住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讗转 讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐

The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an could have said to you in reply: With regard to Shabbat, this is a case where the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna, which is generally accepted as the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 156b): One may cut pumpkins before an animal to facilitate their consumption, and likewise one may cut up an animal carcass before dogs, even if the animal died on Shabbat, to enable them to consume it. Although that carcass is classified as muktze, it may be moved on Shabbat.

诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇

The Gemara concludes: That unattributed mishna in tractate Shabbat is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. For this reason, Rav Na岣an establishes that the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai should be understood to mean that Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whom the halakha apparently follows, as there is a principle that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion. However,

讙讘讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

with regard to a Festival, the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (Shabbat 156b), as we learned in a mishna in this tractate: One may not chop wood on a Festival from beams prepared for use in construction work, nor may one chop kindling wood from a beam that broke on a Festival. As the beams were not prepared for this use when the Festival began, they are classified as muktze; this demonstrates that an unattributed mishna prohibits muktze on a Festival. Consequently, Rav Na岣an establishes the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits muktze. He does so by asserting that the mishna is referring to the case of a chicken designated for laying eggs, which is muktze. This concludes the Gemara鈥檚 explanation of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 rendering of the tannaitic dispute.

诪讻讚讬 诪讗谉 住转诪讬讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘砖讘转 讚住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: Now since, i.e., consider the following: Who is the one who wrote and edited the Mishna, and arranged the unattributed mishnayot? It was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Since the same Sage formulated the statements in both tractates, the question arises: What is different with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, that he stated the unattributed opinion and ruled for us in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and what is different with regard to the halakhot of a Festival, that he stated the unattributed opinion and ruled for us in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

讗诪专讬 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讛 住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诪讬拽诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讬讛 住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞诪讬专

They answer and say: In the case of Shabbat, which is stringent with regard to its punishments (see 35b), and therefore people will not come to treat it with contempt, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught us the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who rules leniently. Conversely, with regard to a Festival, which is lenient, as certain labors may be performed on a Festival, and therefore people will be more likely to come to treat it with contempt, he stated the unattributed opinion for us in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who rules stringently.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪驻诇讙讬 讘讘讬爪讛 诇驻诇讙讜 讘转专谞讙讜诇转

The Gemara asks: In what manner did you ultimately establish the mishna? It was established as referring to a chicken designated for laying eggs, and the prohibition is due to muktze. If so, rather than disputing with regard to an egg laid on a Festival, let them dispute with regard to the chicken itself. Instead of considering the secondary detail of an egg, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel could discuss whether or not the chicken itself may be slaughtered on a Festival.

诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讘谞讜诇讚 砖专讬

The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also disagree with regard to the chicken, but the dispute was phrased in this manner to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai. The formulation of the mishna emphasizes the extent of Beit Shammai鈥檚 lenient opinion, that even in the case of an egg, which is not a regular muktze item but an item that came into being, an especially stringent type of muktze, Beit Shammai nevertheless permit it. By stating the dispute with regard to an egg, the mishna stresses Beit Shammai鈥檚 lenient opinion.

讜诇驻诇讜讙讬 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚讘诪讜拽爪讛 讗住专讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讞 讚讛转讬专讗 注讚讬祝 讜谞驻诇讜讙 讘转专讜讬讬讛讜

The Gemara raises an objection: And let them disagree with regard to a chicken, rather than an egg, to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel, who prohibit its use even in the more lenient case of muktze. And if you say it is better to present the dispute as in the mishna, so as to clarify the more lenient opinion, as the strength of leniency is preferable (Berakhot 60a), there is another option: And let them disagree with regard to both of these cases.

转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讘讬爪转讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讗讻诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇

The mishna could have said: With regard to a chicken designated for laying eggs, it and its eggs, Beit Shammai say: It may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say: It may not be eaten. In this manner, the mishna could have referred to all aspects of the dispute, without the need for any lengthy addition. Consequently, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 explanation of the mishna is inadequate.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞讛

Rather, Rabba said: Actually, the above explanation should be rejected. We are dealing with a chicken designated for food and we are dealing with an egg that was laid on a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, i.e., on a Sunday. And the relevant issue is not the halakhot of muktze; rather, one may not eat the egg due to the prohibition against preparation from Shabbat to a Festival.

讜拽住讘专 专讘讛 讻诇 讘讬爪讛 讚诪转讬诇讚讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 讙诪专讛 诇讛

And in this regard, Rabba holds that any egg laid now was already fully developed yesterday, and merely emerged from the chicken today. Consequently, an egg laid on a Festival that occurred on a Sunday may not be eaten, as it was prepared on Shabbat, despite the fact that it was prepared naturally, by Heaven, rather than by man.

讜专讘讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讛讻讬谞讜 讗转 讗砖专 讬讘讬讗讜 讞讜诇 诪讻讬谉 诇砖讘转 讜讞讜诇 诪讻讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讻讬谉 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 砖讘转 诪讻讬谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara comments: And Rabba, who prohibits one to derive benefit even from something that was not prepared by man, conforms to his standard line of reasoning. As Rabba said: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the manna: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in鈥 (Exodus 16:5)? According to Rabba, it can be inferred from this verse that on an ordinary weekday, 鈥渢he sixth day,鈥 one may prepare what is needed for Shabbat, and similarly, on an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for a Festival. However, on a Festival one may not prepare for Shabbat, and likewise on Shabbat one may not prepare for a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘注诇诪讗 转砖转专讬 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 砖讘转 讚注诇诪讗 转砖转专讬 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讗讞专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Abaye said to Rabba: However, if that is so, and the concern is only due to preparation, let an egg laid on a regular Festival, one that does not occur on a Sunday, be permitted. Rabba responded: That egg is not prohibited by Torah law, but by rabbinic decree, due to the case of a Festival that occurs after Shabbat. Abaye asked: On a regular Shabbat, one that does not occur after a Festival, let it be permitted to eat an egg that was laid on that day, provided that one does not cook it. Rabba similarly answered: It is a decree due to a Shabbat that occurs after a Festival.

讜诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗讻诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 讛谞讱 讚诪转讬诇讚谉 讘讬讜诪讬讛谉

Abaye further asked: And do we issue a decree of this kind? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (see 6b): In the case of one who slaughters a chicken on a Festival and finds inside it fully developed eggs with their shells, it is permitted to eat them on the Festival. And if it is so, that that the aforementioned decree is in effect, let him issue a decree and prohibit these eggs found inside the chicken, due to those that are laid on that day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讛讬讗 讜诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

Rabba said to him: This is not difficult, as the case of fully developed eggs found inside their mother is an uncommon matter, and in a case of an uncommon matter the Sages did not issue a decree as a preventive measure (Eiruvin 63b). The Sages issued their decrees only for usual situations, in which people might err, but they did not apply them to rare cases. This concludes the Gemara鈥檚 discussion of Rabba鈥檚 explanation.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 驻专讜转 讛谞讜砖专讬谉

The Gemara proceeds to explain other interpretations of the mishna. Rav Yosef said: An egg laid by a chicken designated for food is prohibited for a different reason: It is a decree due to fruits that fall from a tree (Eiruvin 39b). Fruits that fall from a tree on Shabbat or a Festival may not be eaten, and the same applies to eggs that emerge from a chicken.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻专讜转 讛谞讜砖专讬谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: With regard to fruits that fall, what in fact is the reason that the Sages prohibited them?

Scroll To Top