Beitzah 21

הורצה על מנת להקטיר אימורין לערב אם זרק דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא בשלמא לרבא ניחא אלא לרבה בר רב הונא קשיא קשיא ואיבעית אימא שאני שבות שבת משבות יום טוב:

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.

בעא מניה רב אויא סבא מרב הונא בהמה חציה של גוי וחציה של ישראל מהו לשחטה ביום טוב אמר ליה מותר אמר ליה וכי מה בין זה לנדרים ונדבות אמר ליה עורבא פרח

§ 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.

כי נפק אמר ליה רבה בריה לאו היינו רב אויא סבא דמשתבח ליה מר בגויה דגברא רבה הוא אמר ליה ומה אעביד ליה אני היום סמכוני באשישות רפדוני בתפוחים ובעא מינאי מלתא דבעיא טעמא

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: “Let me lean against the stout trunks; let me couch among the apple trees” (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.

וטעמא מאי בהמה חציה של גוי וחציה של ישראל מותר לשחטה ביום טוב דאי אפשר לכזית בשר בלא שחיטה אבל נדרים ונדבות אסור לשחטן ביום טוב דכהנים כי קא זכו משלחן גבוה קא זכו:

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.

אמר רב חסדא בהמה חציה של גוי וחציה של ישראל מותר לשחטה ביום טוב דאי אפשר לכזית בשר בלא שחיטה עיסה חציה של גוי וחציה של ישראל אסור לאפותה ביום טוב דהא אפשר ליה למפלגה בלישה

In continuation of the previous discussion, Rav Ḥisda 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.

מתיב רב חנא בר חנילאי עיסת כלבים בזמן שהרועין אוכלין ממנה חייבת בחלה ומערבין בה ומשתתפין בה ומברכין עליה ומזמנין עליה ונאפת ביום טוב ואדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח

Rav Ḥana bar Ḥanilai 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 ḥalla 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.

ואמאי והא אפשר ליה למפלגה בלישה שאני עיסת כלבים הואיל ואפשר לפייסן בנבלה

With regard to the allowance to bake this dough, the Gemara asks: And why may it be baked on a Festival? Isn’t 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.

ומי אית ליה לרב חסדא הואיל והא אתמר האופה מיום טוב לחול רב חסדא אמר לוקה רבה אמר אינו לוקה

The Gemara challenges this explanation: Does Rav Ḥisda 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’t it stated that the amora’im disagreed about the halakha governing one who intentionally bakes on a Festival day for a weekday? Rav Ḥisda said: He is flogged for desecrating the Festival. Rabba said: He is not flogged.

רב חסדא אמר לוקה לא אמרינן הואיל ומקלעי ליה אורחים חזי ליה השתא נמי חזי ליה רבה אמר אינו לוקה אמרינן הואיל

The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav Ḥisda 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 Ḥisda himself does not accept the principle of since, how can it be used to resolve a difficulty raised against him?

אלא לא תימא הואיל ואפשר אלא כגון דאית ליה נבלה דודאי אפשר לפייסן בנבלה:

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.

בעו מניה מרב הונא הני בני באגא דרמו עלייהו קמחא דבני חילא מהו לאפותה ביום טוב אמר (ליה) חזינא אי יהבי ליה רפתא לינוקא ולא קפדי כל חדא וחדא חזיא לינוקא ושרי ואי לאו אסור

§ 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’ 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.

והתניא מעשה בשמעון התימני שלא בא אמש לבית המדרש בשחרית מצאו [ רבי] יהודה בן בבא אמר לו מפני מה לא באת אמש לבית המדרש אמר לו בלשת באה לעירנו ובקשה לחטוף את כל העיר ושחטנו להם עגל והאכלנום ופטרנום לשלום

The Gemara challenges Rav Huna’s lenient ruling: But isn’t 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.

אמר לו תמה אני אם לא יצא שכרכם בהפסדכם שהרי אמרה תורה לכם ולא לגוים ואמאי הא חזי למיכל מיניה

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: “Only that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you” (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’t 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.

אמר רב יוסף עגל טרפה הואי והא חזי לכלבים

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’t 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?

תנאי היא דתניא אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם ממשמע שנאמר לכל נפש שומע אני אפילו נפש בהמה במשמע כענין שנאמר ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה תלמוד לומר לכם

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’im. As it is taught in a baraita: It is written: “Only that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you.” By inference, from that which is stated: “Every soul,” I might derive that even the soul of an animal is included, similar to that which is stated: “And he that kills the soul of an animal shall pay it” (Leviticus 24:18), indicating that the life force of an animal is also called a soul. Therefore, the verse states and emphasizes: “For you,”

לכם ולא לכלבים דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר אפילו נפש בהמה במשמע אם כן מה תלמוד לומר לכם לכם ולא לגוים

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

ומה ראית לרבות את הכלבים ולהוציא את הגוים מרבה אני את הכלבים שמזונותן עליך ומוציא אני את הגוים שאין מזונותן עליך:

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.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף ולרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר לכם ולא לכלבים הני סופלי לחיותא היכי שדינן להו ביום טוב

With regard to this baraita, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said that the verse indicates: “For you,” 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.

אמר ליה הואיל וחזו להסקה תינח ביבישתא ברטיבתא מאי איכא למימר אמר ליה חזו להיסק גדול

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.

תינח ביום טוב בשבת מאי איכא למימר מטלטלינן להו אגב ריפתא כדשמואל דאמר שמואל עושה אדם כל צרכו בפת

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.

ופליגא דרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מזמנין את הגוי בשבת ואין מזמנין את הגוי ביום טוב גזרה שמא ירבה בשבילו

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’s 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.

רב אחא בר יעקב אמר אפילו בשבת נמי לא משום שיורי כוסות אי הכי דידן נמי דידן חזו לתרנגולין דידהו נמי חזו לתרנגולין דידהו איסורי הנאה נינהו

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov 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.

ולטלטלינהו אגב כסא מי לא אמר רבא מטלטלין כנונא אגב קטמיה אף על גב דאיכא עליה שברי עצים

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’t 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.

התם לאו איסורי הנאה נינהו הכא איסורי הנאה נינהו:

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’s cup is an item from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit, and therefore the prohibition is more stringent.

אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא ולהוי כגרף של רעי אמר ליה וכי עושין גרף של רעי לכתחלה:

Rav Aḥa 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.

אדבריה רבא למר שמואל ודרש מזמנין את הגוי בשבת ואין מזמנין את הגוי ביום טוב גזרה שמא ירבה בשבילו: מרימר ומר זוטרא כי הוה מקלע להו גוי ביום טוב אמרו ליה אי ניחא לך במאי דטריחא לן מוטב ואי לא טרחא יתירא אדעתא דידך לא טרחינן:

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.

מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים לא יחם אדם חמין לרגליו אלא אם כן ראויין לשתיה ובית הלל מתירין עושה אדם מדורה ומתחמם כנגדה:

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.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו האי מדורה מאן קתני לה דברי הכל היא ושני להו לבית שמאי בין הנאת כל גופו להנאת אבר אחד או דלמא בית הלל קתני לה אבל בית שמאי לא שני להו

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’s entire body and benefit affecting a single limb, so that they agree that kindling a fire to heat one’s entire body is similar to kindling a fire for food and is therefore permitted, while heating water to wash one’s 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.

תא שמע בית שמאי אומרים לא יעשה אדם מדורה ויתחמם כנגדה ובית הלל מתירין:

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.

מתני׳ שלשה דברים רבן גמליאל מחמיר כדברי בית שמאי אין טומנין את החמין לכתחלה ביום טוב ואין זוקפין את המנורה ביום טוב ואין אופין פתין גריצין אלא רקיקין אמר רבן גמליאל מימיהן של בית אבא לא היו אופין פתין גריצין אלא רקיקין אמרו לו מה נעשה לבית אביך שהיו מחמירין על עצמן ומקילין לכל ישראל להיות אופין פתין גריצין וחררין:

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’s 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’s 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.

גמ׳ היכי דמי אי דאנח עירובי תבשילין מאי טעמא דבית שמאי ואי דלא אנח עירובי תבשילין מאי טעמא דבית הלל אמר רב הונא לעולם אימא לך שלא הניח עירובי תבשילין וכדי חייו שרו ליה רבנן

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s 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.

ורב הונא לטעמיה דאמר רב הונא מי שלא הניח עירובי תבשילין אופין לו פת אחת ומבשלין לו קדרה אחת

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,