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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 21, 2021 | 讟状讜 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

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 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.

Beitzah 21 – First Day of Sukkot, September 21

This is the daf for the first day of Sukkot. For Monday’s daf, click here.

This month鈥檚 learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v’Aytan Yehoshua.

Is it possible to slaughter an animal on Yom Tov if it is jointly owned by a Jew and a gentile? How is it different from vow and gift offerings? Is it different preparing a dough owned jointly by a Jew and a gentile? Can one invite a gentile for a meal on the holiday? Should there be a concern that he will cook more food because the gentile is coming? Is that an issue?聽 If so, is the law more lenient on Shabbat where there is no such concern? There is a dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel is whether it is possible to light a fire for heating or water for washing. Rabban Gamliel was stringent like Beit Shamai in聽 three matters. What were they?

讛讜专爪讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇注专讘 讗诐 讝专拽 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 砖讘讜转 砖讘转 诪砖讘讜转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

the offering is accepted on condition that he burn the sacrificial parts that are brought upon the altar in the evening and not during the day. The wording of the baraita indicates that if the meat may not be eaten on that day, then only if he already sprinkled the blood, i.e., after the fact, yes, it is permitted; however, he may not sprinkle it ab initio. Granted, according to the opinion of Rava it works out well, but according to the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, it is difficult. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult. And if you wish, say instead: A rabbinic decree concerning Shabbat is different from a rabbinic decree concerning a Festival, as the Sages were more stringent with regard to Shabbat than with regard to Festivals.

讘注讗 诪谞讬讛 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛讜 诇砖讞讟讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜专讘讗 驻专讞

Rav Avya the Elder raised the following dilemma before Rav Huna: If an animal is owned in partnership, half of it belonging to a gentile and half of it to a Jew, what is the halakha with regard to slaughtering it on a Festival? Rav Huna said to him: It is permitted. Rav Avya said to him: And what is the difference between this case and that of vow-offerings and gift-offerings? Vow-offerings and gift-offerings are similar to jointly owned animals, as part of the animal is sacrificed upon the altar while the other part is eaten by the owner and the priest. Why, then, is it not similarly permitted to slaughter them on a Festival? Seeking to distract Rav Avya so that he need not answer his question, Rav Huna said to him: Look, a raven flies in the sky.

讻讬 谞驻拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 讚诪砖转讘讞 诇讬讛 诪专 讘讙讜讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讛讬讜诐 住诪讻讜谞讬 讘讗砖讬砖讜转 专驻讚讜谞讬 讘转驻讜讞讬诐 讜讘注讗 诪讬谞讗讬 诪诇转讗 讚讘注讬讗 讟注诪讗

When Rav Avya left, Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said to his father: Was this not Rav Avya the Elder, whom Master would recommend to us, saying that he is a great man? If so, why did you treat him in that manner and evade his question? Rav Huna said to him: What should I have done for him? Today I am in a state best described by the verse: 鈥淟et me lean against the stout trunks; let me couch among the apple trees鈥 (Song of Songs 2:5), meaning I am worn out and exhausted from all the communal responsibility that has fallen upon me, and he asked me about something that requires reasoning and careful examination, and therefore I could not provide an immediate answer.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专 诇砖讞讟讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗住讜专 诇砖讞讟谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讻讬 拽讗 讝讻讜 诪砖诇讞谉 讙讘讜讛 拽讗 讝讻讜

The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the reason? The Gemara explains the difference between a jointly owned animal and a vow-offering or gift-offering: A jointly owned animal, half of which belongs to a gentile and half to a Jew, may be slaughtered on a Festival, as it is impossible to obtain an olive-bulk of meat without slaughtering. If a Jew wishes to eat even a small portion of meat, he has no alternative but to slaughter an entire animal, even though he will not use all of it. Therefore, it does not matter if part of the animal belongs to a gentile. However, it is prohibited to slaughter vow-offerings and gift-offerings on a Festival, because in this case there is no real joint ownership of the animal, as the priests, when they receive their portions of the meat of the offering, and similarly, when Israelites partake of the offering, they receive their portions from the table of the Most High. In other words, the entire offering belongs to God, and those who partake of it are considered guests at His table; and as stated above, one may not slaughter an animal on a Festival for the sake of God.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讛诪讛 讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专 诇砖讞讟讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛 注讬住讛 讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 诇讗驻讜转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诇诪驻诇讙讛 讘诇讬砖讛

In continuation of the previous discussion, Rav 岣sda said: A jointly owned animal, half of which belongs to a gentile and half to a Jew, may be slaughtered on a Festival because it is impossible to obtain an olive-bulk of meat without slaughtering. However, with regard to dough, half of which belongs to a gentile and half to a Jew, it is prohibited to bake it on a Festival, as it is possible for him to divide it in half during the kneading and bake only the part that belongs to the Jew.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 注讬住转 讻诇讘讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛专讜注讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 讜诪注专讘讬谉 讘讛 讜诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讛 讜诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜谞讗驻转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞

Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai raised an objection from the following mishna: Dough for bread that is meant for dogs, when it is of such quality that even shepherds eat of it, is considered like regular bread. Accordingly, one is obligated to separate 岣lla from such dough, and one may use it to establish an eiruv, i.e., a joining of courtyards and a joining of Shabbat boundaries, and to establish a merging of alleyways, and one recites a blessing before and after eating it, and one invites those with whom he ate to recite Grace after Meals after eating it, and it may be baked on a Festival, like all foods fit for human consumption, and a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover with it if it has not leavened.

讜讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诇诪驻诇讙讛 讘诇讬砖讛 砖讗谞讬 注讬住转 讻诇讘讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗驻砖专 诇驻讬讬住谉 讘谞讘诇讛

With regard to the allowance to bake this dough, the Gemara asks: And why may it be baked on a Festival? Isn鈥檛 it possible to divide it during the kneading, so that he bakes only the portion to be eaten by people and leaves aside the part given to dogs? The Gemara answers: Dough for bread meant for dogs is different, since it is possible to appease them with a carcass. It is possible that one of his animals will die, and he will feed the carcass to the dogs, in which case all of the dough will be eaten by people.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗 讗转诪专 讛讗讜驻讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讜诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

The Gemara challenges this explanation: Does Rav 岣sda accept the principle of since, i.e., that since it is possible that the situation may change, the halakha is not determined based on the current circumstances? But wasn鈥檛 it stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the halakha governing one who intentionally bakes on a Festival day for a weekday? Rav 岣sda said: He is flogged for desecrating the Festival. Rabba said: He is not flogged.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪拽诇注讬 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讬诐 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇

The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav 岣sda said that he is flogged because he holds that we do not say that since, if guests happen to visit him, whatever he bakes will be fit for him on the Festival itself, now too, although guests have not yet arrived, it is considered fit for him. According to that logic, baking would not be considered a full-fledged transgression, and one cannot be forewarned about it and does not receive lashes. Rabba, however, said: He is not flogged, as he holds that we do say the principle of: Since. As Rav 岣sda himself does not accept the principle of since, how can it be used to resolve a difficulty raised against him?

讗诇讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗驻砖专 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讘诇讛 讚讜讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇驻讬讬住谉 讘谞讘诇讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer: Do not say that dough for dogs is different, since it is possible that one of his animals will die and he will appease the dogs with the carcass. Rather, the reference here is to a case where he has a carcass ready, so that it is certainly possible to appease them with the carcass. Consequently, when the shepherds bake the dough, it is highly likely that they will consume it all themselves.

讘注讜 诪谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讗讙讗 讚专诪讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽诪讞讗 讚讘谞讬 讞讬诇讗 诪讛讜 诇讗驻讜转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 专驻转讗 诇讬谞讜拽讗 讜诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬谞讜拽讗 讜砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讜专

They raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: With regard to the Jewish residents of a village [baga] upon whom the authorities imposed the obligation to supply flour and bread to the gentile military troops serving in the area, what is the halakha with regard to baking it on a Festival? Rav Huna said to them: We examine the matter: If those villagers can give bread from the soldiers鈥 quota to a child and the soldiers are not particular about it, then each and every one of the loaves is fit for a Jewish child, and therefore it is permitted to bake them. But if the soldiers do not allow anyone else to partake of their bread, it is prohibited to bake the loaves for them on a Festival.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 砖诇讗 讘讗 讗诪砖 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讘砖讞专讬转 诪爪讗讜 [ 专讘讬] 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讘讗转 讗诪砖 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗诪专 诇讜 讘诇砖转 讘讗讛 诇注讬专谞讜 讜讘拽砖讛 诇讞讟讜祝 讗转 讻诇 讛注讬专 讜砖讞讟谞讜 诇讛诐 注讙诇 讜讛讗讻诇谞讜诐 讜驻讟专谞讜诐 诇砖诇讜诐

The Gemara challenges Rav Huna鈥檚 lenient ruling: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Shimon the Timnite, who did not come on the night of the Festival to the study hall. In the morning, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava found him and said to him: Why did you not come last night to the study hall? He said to him: A military unit on a search mission [balleshet] came to our city and wanted to pillage the entire city. We slaughtered a calf in order to placate them, and we fed them with it and had them depart in peace.

讗诪专 诇讜 转诪讛 讗谞讬 讗诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 砖讻专讻诐 讘讛驻住讚讻诐 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Yehuda ben Bava said to him: I wonder if your gain, that which you saved by preventing the soldiers from taking your possessions, was not outweighed by your loss, the punishment for your desecration of the Festival. As the Torah states: 鈥淥nly that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you鈥 (Exodus 12:16), which indicates that food may be prepared for you, but not for gentiles. The Gemara asks: But why did Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava say this? Wasn鈥檛 some portion of the calf fit to be eaten by them? The conclusion seems to be that even if a Jew may eat from an animal, it may not be slaughtered on a Festival for the sake of a gentile.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讙诇 讟专驻讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讻诇讘讬诐

Rav Yosef said: In that case it was a calf with a condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which may not be eaten by Jews. The Gemara challenges: But wasn鈥檛 it still fit to be eaten by dogs, and it could be argued that it was slaughtered for the sake of dogs belonging to Jews?

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讱 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 诇讻诇 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 诇讘讚讜 讬注砖讛 诇讻诐 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讻诇 谞驻砖 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讘诪砖诪注 讻注谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐

The Gemara answers: The question of whether or not one may perform prohibited labor on a Festival for the sake of dogs is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: It is written: 鈥淥nly that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you.鈥 By inference, from that which is stated: 鈥淓very soul,鈥 I might derive that even the soul of an animal is included, similar to that which is stated: 鈥淎nd he that kills the soul of an animal shall pay it鈥 (Leviticus 24:18), indicating that the life force of an animal is also called a soul. Therefore, the verse states and emphasizes: 鈥淔or you,鈥

诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讘诪砖诪注 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐

indicating for you, but not for dogs; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: When the verse states 鈥渆very soul,鈥 it comes to teach that even the soul of an animal is included. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渇or you鈥? It means for you, but not for gentiles.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻诇讘讬诐 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讻诇讘讬诐 砖诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include dogs among those on whose behalf one is permitted to perform a labor on a Festival, and to exclude gentiles? The Gemara explains: I include dogs because the responsibility for their sustenance is incumbent upon you, as one is obligated to feed the animals in his possession; and I exclude gentiles because the responsibility for their sustenance is not incumbent upon you.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讛谞讬 住讜驻诇讬 诇讞讬讜转讗 讛讬讻讬 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

With regard to this baraita, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said that the verse indicates: 鈥淔or you,鈥 but not for dogs, how are we permitted to cast date stones to animals on a Festival? Since date stones are not fit for human consumption, they should be considered muktze, and therefore it should be prohibited to handle them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讜 诇讛住拽讛 转讬谞讞 讘讬讘讬砖转讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讜 诇讛讬住拽 讙讚讜诇

Rav Yosef said to him: Since they are fit for fuel, they may be handled, and therefore they may also be given to animals. Abaye objected: This works out well in the case of dry date stones; but in the case of moist ones, which are not suited for fuel, what is there to say? He said to him: They are fit for a large fire, which dries them out, after which they burn well.

转讬谞讞 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讙讘 专讬驻转讗 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讘驻转

Abaye raised another objection: This works out well in the case of a Festival, when it is permitted to fuel a fire, but in the case of Shabbat, what is there to say? Why should one be permitted to handle date stones on Shabbat? Rav Yosef answered: We carry them along with bread. We place the date stones upon a loaf of bread and move them together with it. This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A person may perform all his needs with bread; as long as the bread remains edible, he need not be concerned that he is treating the bread contemptuously.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘砖讘讬诇讜

The Gemara comments: And the ruling of Rav Huna that one is permitted to bake for gentiles on a Festival if they allow a Jew to eat of the bread differs from the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One may invite a gentile for a meal on Shabbat, as he will certainly not cook for him on Shabbat, and it is permitted to give a gentile food that was prepared the day before. But one may not invite a gentile for a meal on a Festival; this is prohibited as a preventive measure lest he come to cook more for the gentile鈥檚 sake. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that one may not prepare more for a gentile, even if the meal is primarily meant for Jews.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讬讜专讬 讻讜住讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬 讚讬讚谉 讞讝讜 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讚讬讚讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讝讜 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讚讬讚讛讜 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Even on Shabbat as well, one may not invite a gentile for a meal due to the wine remnants in the cups. Once a gentile has drunk wine from a cup, whatever remains in the cup may not be used and is therefore considered muktze. Therefore, a Jew may not host a gentile on Shabbat lest he come to handle the muktze wine remnants on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, our cups should also be prohibited, as they too contain wine remnants that have no use whatsoever and should therefore be considered muktze. The Gemara answers: The remnants in our cups are fit for chickens. The Gemara objects: If so, the remnants in their cups are also fit for chickens. The Gemara rejects this argument: The remnants in their cups are items from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit whatsoever; consequently, they may not be handled at all.

讜诇讟诇讟诇讬谞讛讜 讗讙讘 讻住讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讻谞讜谞讗 讗讙讘 拽讟诪讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讛 砖讘专讬 注爪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And let him move what remains of the wine on account of the cup, which is a vessel that may be handled, as the wine remnants should be considered nullified in relation to the cup. Didn鈥檛 Rava say: One may move a coal pan [kannuna] on account of the ashes that can be used to cover filth, even though there are broken pieces of wood on it that have no use? This indicates that one may move something that is muktze along with something else that one is permitted to handle.

讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara rejects this argument: There is a difference between the two cases. There, the broken sticks are not items from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit but are merely muktze, whereas here, what remains of the wine in the gentile鈥檚 cup is an item from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit, and therefore the prohibition is more stringent.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讛讜讬 讻讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 注讜砖讬谉 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 诇讻转讞诇讛

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: But let it be like a chamber pot for feces, which may be removed from a room because it is repulsive. One should likewise be permitted to discard the remnants of these cups, since it is unseemly to leave them on the table. Ravina said to him: If the cups contain such remnants, they may be removed, but may one make a chamber pot for feces ab initio? The Sages ruled that one may not invite a gentile for a meal on Shabbat so as to avoid such complications.

讗讚讘专讬讛 专讘讗 诇诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讚专砖 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘砖讘讬诇讜 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪拽诇注 诇讛讜 讙讜讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讱 讘诪讗讬 讚讟专讬讞讗 诇谉 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 讟专讞讗 讬转讬专讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讱 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉

In summary of this halakha, the Gemara states that Rava authorized the Sage Mar Shmuel, from the house of the Exilarch, to deliver a public lecture, and the latter taught: One may invite a gentile for a meal on Shabbat, but one may not invite a gentile for a meal on a Festival as a preventive measure, lest he come to cook more for his sake. It is related about Mareimar and Mar Zutra that when a gentile would happen to come to their house on a Festival, they would say to him: If you are satisfied with the food that we have prepared for ourselves, good; and if not, we will not go to any extra trouble on your account.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诐 讗讚诐 讞诪讬谉 诇专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 诪讚讜专讛 讜诪转讞诪诐 讻谞讙讚讛

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A person may not heat water on a Festival in order to wash his feet unless it is also fit for drinking, as they hold that kindling a fire on a Festival is permitted only for the sake of preparing food, but not for washing. But Beit Hillel permit one to kindle a fire on a Festival even for washing. A person may kindle a large fire and warm himself at it.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 诪讚讜专讛 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讜砖谞讬 诇讛讜 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬谉 讛谞讗转 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 诇讛谞讗转 讗讘专 讗讞讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讛讜

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: This halakha with regard to a fire, who taught it? Is it a statement accepted by all, including Beit Shammai, and Beit Shammai differentiate between benefit affecting one鈥檚 entire body and benefit affecting a single limb, so that they agree that kindling a fire to heat one鈥檚 entire body is similar to kindling a fire for food and is therefore permitted, while heating water to wash one鈥檚 feet remains prohibited? Or perhaps Beit Hillel taught it, but Beit Shammai do not differentiate between the two cases, and they permit kindling a fire on a Festival only for the purpose of preparing food.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 诪讚讜专讛 讜讬转讞诪诐 讻谞讙讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

Come and hear a proof from an explicit baraita: Beit Shammai say: A person may not make a fire and warm himself at it, but Beit Hillel permit it. It is clear from here that the latter clause of the mishna was taught only in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讞诪讬专 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讞诪讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 讝讜拽驻讬谉 讗转 讛诪谞讜专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转讬谉 讙专讬爪讬谉 讗诇讗 专拽讬拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讬诪讬讛谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讗 诇讗 讛讬讜 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转讬谉 讙专讬爪讬谉 讗诇讗 专拽讬拽讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 谞注砖讛 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 砖讛讬讜 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 注诇 注爪诪谉 讜诪拽讬诇讬谉 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转讬谉 讙专讬爪讬谉 讜讞专专讬谉

MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel was stringent about three things in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai: One may not insulate hot food on a Festival for Shabbat ab initio, but rather one ought to do so on the eve of the Festival; and one may not set up a metal candelabrum that fell on a Festival; and one may not bake thick loaves on a Festival but only thin ones, due to the great effort entailed in preparing the former. Rabban Gamliel said: From the days of my father鈥檚 household they would never bake thick loaves on a Festival, but only thin ones. The Sages said to him: What shall we do for your father鈥檚 household, who were stringent with themselves but lenient with all of the Jewish people, to allow them to bake thick loaves and cakes baked on coals.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗谞讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗谞讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that Rabban Gamliel would not permit the insulation of hot water on a Festival ab initio, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where he prepared a joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], what is the reason that Beit Shammai prohibit it? And if it speaks of a case where he did not set aside an eiruv tavshilin, what is the reason for the lenient ruling of Beit Hillel? Rav Huna said: Actually, I will say to you that the mishna is referring to a case where one did not prepare an eiruv tavshilin, but Beit Hillel hold that the Sages nevertheless permitted him to prepare what he needs for his basic sustenance.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 诇讜 驻转 讗讞转 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜 拽讚专讛 讗讞转

The Gemara comments: And Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Huna said: With regard to one who did not prepare an eiruv tavshilin on the eve of a Festival, others may bake one loaf of bread for him, and cook one pot of food for him,

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: 15-23 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we begin the second chapter of Masechet Beitza we will be learning about Eiruv Tavshilin which allows one to...
r gamliel

One Nation Under God

Up until now most of the mishnayot of Masechet Betzah have been stated by the two oldest schools of the...

Beitzah 21 – First Day of Sukkot, September 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 21 – First Day of Sukkot, September 21

讛讜专爪讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇注专讘 讗诐 讝专拽 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 砖讘讜转 砖讘转 诪砖讘讜转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

the offering is accepted on condition that he burn the sacrificial parts that are brought upon the altar in the evening and not during the day. The wording of the baraita indicates that if the meat may not be eaten on that day, then only if he already sprinkled the blood, i.e., after the fact, yes, it is permitted; however, he may not sprinkle it ab initio. Granted, according to the opinion of Rava it works out well, but according to the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, it is difficult. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult. And if you wish, say instead: A rabbinic decree concerning Shabbat is different from a rabbinic decree concerning a Festival, as the Sages were more stringent with regard to Shabbat than with regard to Festivals.

讘注讗 诪谞讬讛 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛讜 诇砖讞讟讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜专讘讗 驻专讞

Rav Avya the Elder raised the following dilemma before Rav Huna: If an animal is owned in partnership, half of it belonging to a gentile and half of it to a Jew, what is the halakha with regard to slaughtering it on a Festival? Rav Huna said to him: It is permitted. Rav Avya said to him: And what is the difference between this case and that of vow-offerings and gift-offerings? Vow-offerings and gift-offerings are similar to jointly owned animals, as part of the animal is sacrificed upon the altar while the other part is eaten by the owner and the priest. Why, then, is it not similarly permitted to slaughter them on a Festival? Seeking to distract Rav Avya so that he need not answer his question, Rav Huna said to him: Look, a raven flies in the sky.

讻讬 谞驻拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 讚诪砖转讘讞 诇讬讛 诪专 讘讙讜讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讛讬讜诐 住诪讻讜谞讬 讘讗砖讬砖讜转 专驻讚讜谞讬 讘转驻讜讞讬诐 讜讘注讗 诪讬谞讗讬 诪诇转讗 讚讘注讬讗 讟注诪讗

When Rav Avya left, Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said to his father: Was this not Rav Avya the Elder, whom Master would recommend to us, saying that he is a great man? If so, why did you treat him in that manner and evade his question? Rav Huna said to him: What should I have done for him? Today I am in a state best described by the verse: 鈥淟et me lean against the stout trunks; let me couch among the apple trees鈥 (Song of Songs 2:5), meaning I am worn out and exhausted from all the communal responsibility that has fallen upon me, and he asked me about something that requires reasoning and careful examination, and therefore I could not provide an immediate answer.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专 诇砖讞讟讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗住讜专 诇砖讞讟谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讻讬 拽讗 讝讻讜 诪砖诇讞谉 讙讘讜讛 拽讗 讝讻讜

The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the reason? The Gemara explains the difference between a jointly owned animal and a vow-offering or gift-offering: A jointly owned animal, half of which belongs to a gentile and half to a Jew, may be slaughtered on a Festival, as it is impossible to obtain an olive-bulk of meat without slaughtering. If a Jew wishes to eat even a small portion of meat, he has no alternative but to slaughter an entire animal, even though he will not use all of it. Therefore, it does not matter if part of the animal belongs to a gentile. However, it is prohibited to slaughter vow-offerings and gift-offerings on a Festival, because in this case there is no real joint ownership of the animal, as the priests, when they receive their portions of the meat of the offering, and similarly, when Israelites partake of the offering, they receive their portions from the table of the Most High. In other words, the entire offering belongs to God, and those who partake of it are considered guests at His table; and as stated above, one may not slaughter an animal on a Festival for the sake of God.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讛诪讛 讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专 诇砖讞讟讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛 注讬住讛 讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 诇讗驻讜转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诇诪驻诇讙讛 讘诇讬砖讛

In continuation of the previous discussion, Rav 岣sda said: A jointly owned animal, half of which belongs to a gentile and half to a Jew, may be slaughtered on a Festival because it is impossible to obtain an olive-bulk of meat without slaughtering. However, with regard to dough, half of which belongs to a gentile and half to a Jew, it is prohibited to bake it on a Festival, as it is possible for him to divide it in half during the kneading and bake only the part that belongs to the Jew.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 注讬住转 讻诇讘讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛专讜注讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 讜诪注专讘讬谉 讘讛 讜诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讛 讜诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜谞讗驻转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞

Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai raised an objection from the following mishna: Dough for bread that is meant for dogs, when it is of such quality that even shepherds eat of it, is considered like regular bread. Accordingly, one is obligated to separate 岣lla from such dough, and one may use it to establish an eiruv, i.e., a joining of courtyards and a joining of Shabbat boundaries, and to establish a merging of alleyways, and one recites a blessing before and after eating it, and one invites those with whom he ate to recite Grace after Meals after eating it, and it may be baked on a Festival, like all foods fit for human consumption, and a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover with it if it has not leavened.

讜讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诇诪驻诇讙讛 讘诇讬砖讛 砖讗谞讬 注讬住转 讻诇讘讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗驻砖专 诇驻讬讬住谉 讘谞讘诇讛

With regard to the allowance to bake this dough, the Gemara asks: And why may it be baked on a Festival? Isn鈥檛 it possible to divide it during the kneading, so that he bakes only the portion to be eaten by people and leaves aside the part given to dogs? The Gemara answers: Dough for bread meant for dogs is different, since it is possible to appease them with a carcass. It is possible that one of his animals will die, and he will feed the carcass to the dogs, in which case all of the dough will be eaten by people.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗 讗转诪专 讛讗讜驻讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讜诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

The Gemara challenges this explanation: Does Rav 岣sda accept the principle of since, i.e., that since it is possible that the situation may change, the halakha is not determined based on the current circumstances? But wasn鈥檛 it stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the halakha governing one who intentionally bakes on a Festival day for a weekday? Rav 岣sda said: He is flogged for desecrating the Festival. Rabba said: He is not flogged.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪拽诇注讬 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讬诐 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇

The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav 岣sda said that he is flogged because he holds that we do not say that since, if guests happen to visit him, whatever he bakes will be fit for him on the Festival itself, now too, although guests have not yet arrived, it is considered fit for him. According to that logic, baking would not be considered a full-fledged transgression, and one cannot be forewarned about it and does not receive lashes. Rabba, however, said: He is not flogged, as he holds that we do say the principle of: Since. As Rav 岣sda himself does not accept the principle of since, how can it be used to resolve a difficulty raised against him?

讗诇讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗驻砖专 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讘诇讛 讚讜讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇驻讬讬住谉 讘谞讘诇讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer: Do not say that dough for dogs is different, since it is possible that one of his animals will die and he will appease the dogs with the carcass. Rather, the reference here is to a case where he has a carcass ready, so that it is certainly possible to appease them with the carcass. Consequently, when the shepherds bake the dough, it is highly likely that they will consume it all themselves.

讘注讜 诪谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讗讙讗 讚专诪讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽诪讞讗 讚讘谞讬 讞讬诇讗 诪讛讜 诇讗驻讜转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 专驻转讗 诇讬谞讜拽讗 讜诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬谞讜拽讗 讜砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讜专

They raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: With regard to the Jewish residents of a village [baga] upon whom the authorities imposed the obligation to supply flour and bread to the gentile military troops serving in the area, what is the halakha with regard to baking it on a Festival? Rav Huna said to them: We examine the matter: If those villagers can give bread from the soldiers鈥 quota to a child and the soldiers are not particular about it, then each and every one of the loaves is fit for a Jewish child, and therefore it is permitted to bake them. But if the soldiers do not allow anyone else to partake of their bread, it is prohibited to bake the loaves for them on a Festival.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 砖诇讗 讘讗 讗诪砖 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讘砖讞专讬转 诪爪讗讜 [ 专讘讬] 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讘讗转 讗诪砖 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗诪专 诇讜 讘诇砖转 讘讗讛 诇注讬专谞讜 讜讘拽砖讛 诇讞讟讜祝 讗转 讻诇 讛注讬专 讜砖讞讟谞讜 诇讛诐 注讙诇 讜讛讗讻诇谞讜诐 讜驻讟专谞讜诐 诇砖诇讜诐

The Gemara challenges Rav Huna鈥檚 lenient ruling: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Shimon the Timnite, who did not come on the night of the Festival to the study hall. In the morning, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava found him and said to him: Why did you not come last night to the study hall? He said to him: A military unit on a search mission [balleshet] came to our city and wanted to pillage the entire city. We slaughtered a calf in order to placate them, and we fed them with it and had them depart in peace.

讗诪专 诇讜 转诪讛 讗谞讬 讗诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 砖讻专讻诐 讘讛驻住讚讻诐 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Yehuda ben Bava said to him: I wonder if your gain, that which you saved by preventing the soldiers from taking your possessions, was not outweighed by your loss, the punishment for your desecration of the Festival. As the Torah states: 鈥淥nly that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you鈥 (Exodus 12:16), which indicates that food may be prepared for you, but not for gentiles. The Gemara asks: But why did Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava say this? Wasn鈥檛 some portion of the calf fit to be eaten by them? The conclusion seems to be that even if a Jew may eat from an animal, it may not be slaughtered on a Festival for the sake of a gentile.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讙诇 讟专驻讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讻诇讘讬诐

Rav Yosef said: In that case it was a calf with a condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which may not be eaten by Jews. The Gemara challenges: But wasn鈥檛 it still fit to be eaten by dogs, and it could be argued that it was slaughtered for the sake of dogs belonging to Jews?

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讱 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 诇讻诇 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 诇讘讚讜 讬注砖讛 诇讻诐 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讻诇 谞驻砖 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讘诪砖诪注 讻注谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐

The Gemara answers: The question of whether or not one may perform prohibited labor on a Festival for the sake of dogs is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: It is written: 鈥淥nly that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you.鈥 By inference, from that which is stated: 鈥淓very soul,鈥 I might derive that even the soul of an animal is included, similar to that which is stated: 鈥淎nd he that kills the soul of an animal shall pay it鈥 (Leviticus 24:18), indicating that the life force of an animal is also called a soul. Therefore, the verse states and emphasizes: 鈥淔or you,鈥

诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讘诪砖诪注 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐

indicating for you, but not for dogs; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: When the verse states 鈥渆very soul,鈥 it comes to teach that even the soul of an animal is included. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渇or you鈥? It means for you, but not for gentiles.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻诇讘讬诐 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讻诇讘讬诐 砖诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include dogs among those on whose behalf one is permitted to perform a labor on a Festival, and to exclude gentiles? The Gemara explains: I include dogs because the responsibility for their sustenance is incumbent upon you, as one is obligated to feed the animals in his possession; and I exclude gentiles because the responsibility for their sustenance is not incumbent upon you.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讛谞讬 住讜驻诇讬 诇讞讬讜转讗 讛讬讻讬 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

With regard to this baraita, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said that the verse indicates: 鈥淔or you,鈥 but not for dogs, how are we permitted to cast date stones to animals on a Festival? Since date stones are not fit for human consumption, they should be considered muktze, and therefore it should be prohibited to handle them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讜 诇讛住拽讛 转讬谞讞 讘讬讘讬砖转讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讜 诇讛讬住拽 讙讚讜诇

Rav Yosef said to him: Since they are fit for fuel, they may be handled, and therefore they may also be given to animals. Abaye objected: This works out well in the case of dry date stones; but in the case of moist ones, which are not suited for fuel, what is there to say? He said to him: They are fit for a large fire, which dries them out, after which they burn well.

转讬谞讞 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讙讘 专讬驻转讗 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讘驻转

Abaye raised another objection: This works out well in the case of a Festival, when it is permitted to fuel a fire, but in the case of Shabbat, what is there to say? Why should one be permitted to handle date stones on Shabbat? Rav Yosef answered: We carry them along with bread. We place the date stones upon a loaf of bread and move them together with it. This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A person may perform all his needs with bread; as long as the bread remains edible, he need not be concerned that he is treating the bread contemptuously.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘砖讘讬诇讜

The Gemara comments: And the ruling of Rav Huna that one is permitted to bake for gentiles on a Festival if they allow a Jew to eat of the bread differs from the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One may invite a gentile for a meal on Shabbat, as he will certainly not cook for him on Shabbat, and it is permitted to give a gentile food that was prepared the day before. But one may not invite a gentile for a meal on a Festival; this is prohibited as a preventive measure lest he come to cook more for the gentile鈥檚 sake. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that one may not prepare more for a gentile, even if the meal is primarily meant for Jews.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讬讜专讬 讻讜住讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬 讚讬讚谉 讞讝讜 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讚讬讚讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讝讜 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讚讬讚讛讜 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Even on Shabbat as well, one may not invite a gentile for a meal due to the wine remnants in the cups. Once a gentile has drunk wine from a cup, whatever remains in the cup may not be used and is therefore considered muktze. Therefore, a Jew may not host a gentile on Shabbat lest he come to handle the muktze wine remnants on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, our cups should also be prohibited, as they too contain wine remnants that have no use whatsoever and should therefore be considered muktze. The Gemara answers: The remnants in our cups are fit for chickens. The Gemara objects: If so, the remnants in their cups are also fit for chickens. The Gemara rejects this argument: The remnants in their cups are items from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit whatsoever; consequently, they may not be handled at all.

讜诇讟诇讟诇讬谞讛讜 讗讙讘 讻住讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讻谞讜谞讗 讗讙讘 拽讟诪讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讛 砖讘专讬 注爪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And let him move what remains of the wine on account of the cup, which is a vessel that may be handled, as the wine remnants should be considered nullified in relation to the cup. Didn鈥檛 Rava say: One may move a coal pan [kannuna] on account of the ashes that can be used to cover filth, even though there are broken pieces of wood on it that have no use? This indicates that one may move something that is muktze along with something else that one is permitted to handle.

讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara rejects this argument: There is a difference between the two cases. There, the broken sticks are not items from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit but are merely muktze, whereas here, what remains of the wine in the gentile鈥檚 cup is an item from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit, and therefore the prohibition is more stringent.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讛讜讬 讻讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 注讜砖讬谉 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 诇讻转讞诇讛

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: But let it be like a chamber pot for feces, which may be removed from a room because it is repulsive. One should likewise be permitted to discard the remnants of these cups, since it is unseemly to leave them on the table. Ravina said to him: If the cups contain such remnants, they may be removed, but may one make a chamber pot for feces ab initio? The Sages ruled that one may not invite a gentile for a meal on Shabbat so as to avoid such complications.

讗讚讘专讬讛 专讘讗 诇诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讚专砖 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘砖讘讬诇讜 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪拽诇注 诇讛讜 讙讜讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讱 讘诪讗讬 讚讟专讬讞讗 诇谉 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 讟专讞讗 讬转讬专讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讱 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉

In summary of this halakha, the Gemara states that Rava authorized the Sage Mar Shmuel, from the house of the Exilarch, to deliver a public lecture, and the latter taught: One may invite a gentile for a meal on Shabbat, but one may not invite a gentile for a meal on a Festival as a preventive measure, lest he come to cook more for his sake. It is related about Mareimar and Mar Zutra that when a gentile would happen to come to their house on a Festival, they would say to him: If you are satisfied with the food that we have prepared for ourselves, good; and if not, we will not go to any extra trouble on your account.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诐 讗讚诐 讞诪讬谉 诇专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 诪讚讜专讛 讜诪转讞诪诐 讻谞讙讚讛

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A person may not heat water on a Festival in order to wash his feet unless it is also fit for drinking, as they hold that kindling a fire on a Festival is permitted only for the sake of preparing food, but not for washing. But Beit Hillel permit one to kindle a fire on a Festival even for washing. A person may kindle a large fire and warm himself at it.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 诪讚讜专讛 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讜砖谞讬 诇讛讜 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬谉 讛谞讗转 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 诇讛谞讗转 讗讘专 讗讞讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讛讜

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: This halakha with regard to a fire, who taught it? Is it a statement accepted by all, including Beit Shammai, and Beit Shammai differentiate between benefit affecting one鈥檚 entire body and benefit affecting a single limb, so that they agree that kindling a fire to heat one鈥檚 entire body is similar to kindling a fire for food and is therefore permitted, while heating water to wash one鈥檚 feet remains prohibited? Or perhaps Beit Hillel taught it, but Beit Shammai do not differentiate between the two cases, and they permit kindling a fire on a Festival only for the purpose of preparing food.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 诪讚讜专讛 讜讬转讞诪诐 讻谞讙讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

Come and hear a proof from an explicit baraita: Beit Shammai say: A person may not make a fire and warm himself at it, but Beit Hillel permit it. It is clear from here that the latter clause of the mishna was taught only in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讞诪讬专 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讞诪讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 讝讜拽驻讬谉 讗转 讛诪谞讜专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转讬谉 讙专讬爪讬谉 讗诇讗 专拽讬拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讬诪讬讛谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讗 诇讗 讛讬讜 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转讬谉 讙专讬爪讬谉 讗诇讗 专拽讬拽讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 谞注砖讛 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 砖讛讬讜 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 注诇 注爪诪谉 讜诪拽讬诇讬谉 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转讬谉 讙专讬爪讬谉 讜讞专专讬谉

MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel was stringent about three things in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai: One may not insulate hot food on a Festival for Shabbat ab initio, but rather one ought to do so on the eve of the Festival; and one may not set up a metal candelabrum that fell on a Festival; and one may not bake thick loaves on a Festival but only thin ones, due to the great effort entailed in preparing the former. Rabban Gamliel said: From the days of my father鈥檚 household they would never bake thick loaves on a Festival, but only thin ones. The Sages said to him: What shall we do for your father鈥檚 household, who were stringent with themselves but lenient with all of the Jewish people, to allow them to bake thick loaves and cakes baked on coals.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗谞讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗谞讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that Rabban Gamliel would not permit the insulation of hot water on a Festival ab initio, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where he prepared a joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], what is the reason that Beit Shammai prohibit it? And if it speaks of a case where he did not set aside an eiruv tavshilin, what is the reason for the lenient ruling of Beit Hillel? Rav Huna said: Actually, I will say to you that the mishna is referring to a case where one did not prepare an eiruv tavshilin, but Beit Hillel hold that the Sages nevertheless permitted him to prepare what he needs for his basic sustenance.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 诇讜 驻转 讗讞转 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜 拽讚专讛 讗讞转

The Gemara comments: And Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Huna said: With regard to one who did not prepare an eiruv tavshilin on the eve of a Festival, others may bake one loaf of bread for him, and cook one pot of food for him,

Scroll To Top