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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 23, 2021 | 讬状讝 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 23

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Batsheva Esther bat Yosef Shalom, Rebbetzin Batsheva Kanievsky.

The Gemara discusses different opinions and different laws related to burning aromatic spices in other to produce scents on Yom Tob. Rabbi Gaviha permitted ketura. Ameimar wants to understand what ketura is and Rav Ashi answers him that it is smoking fruits and is permitted as it is similar to putting meat on coals. The rabbis forbade eating a goat mekulas (roasted in the way the Pesach sacrifice was roasted) on Passover night because it will cause people to think that after the destruction of the Temple, people can eat sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem. The Mishnah lists three things that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria permitted, even though the Sages did not. He permitted for a cow to go out on Shabbat with a decorative strap between its horns and did not forbid it because of the requirement for animals to rest as well. He permitted one to comb an animal on Yom Tov with a fine comb to remove ticks and lice. And to grind pepper in its mill. Rabbi Yehuda forbade combing an animal with a fine comb and the rabbis forbade it even with a thick wooden comb. What is the basis for the dispute between the three? The Mishnah explains the laws of impurity to the three parts of the mill – and why each part is susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah speaks of laws related to a child鈥檚 wagon in matters of impurity, of carrying it on 聽Shabbat, and also in the matter of dragging it on the ground on Shabbat. The third chapter begins with a discussion of trapping on Yom Tov – 聽when it is permitted/not permitted to trap fish/birds/animals on Yom Tov.

注诇 讙讘讬 讞专住 诪讜转专

However, placing them on a scalding fragment of earthenware is permitted, as there is no concern of extinguishing or kindling.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 注诇 讙讘讬 讞专住 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讜诇讬讚 专讬讞讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗住讞讜驻讬 讻住讗 讗砖讬专讗讬 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽诪讜诇讬讚 专讬讞讗

And Rabba said: Placing the spices on a hot piece of earthenware is also prohibited, because it produces a new scent in the earthenware, and one may not create new things on a Festival. The Gemara notes that similarly, Rabba and Rav Yosef both said the following: It is prohibited to overturn a cup containing perfume onto silk garments on a Festival. What is the reason for this prohibition? It is because it produces a new scent in the garment.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讜诇诇讜 讜诪专讬讞 讘讜 讜拽讜讟诪讜 讜诪专讬讞 讘讜 讛转诐 专讬讞讗 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讗 讜讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讜住讬祝 专讬讞讗 讛讻讗 讗讜诇讜讚讬 讛讜讗 讚拽诪讜诇讬讚 专讬讞讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇转 谞诪讬 诪讜转专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专讗 讗讙讜诪专讬

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the case discussed in the following baraita: One may press a piece of aromatic wood between his fingers and smell it, and one may also snip off a piece of it in order to release its fragrance and smell it? In those cases too he produces a scent. The Gemara answers: There, the scent exists in any case, and he merely adds to the fragrance, as his pressing or snipping causes the smell to be stronger. Here, on the other hand, where he overturns a cup of perfume on clothing, he produces a new scent. Rava, however, said: It is even permitted to sprinkle the aromatic spices on the coals themselves, just as it is permitted to place meat on coals for roasting.

讚专砖 专讘 讙讘讬讛讗 诪讘讬 讻转讬诇 讗驻转讞讗 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 拽讟讜专讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 拽讟讜专讗 讗讬 拽讟讜专讗 讘讬讚讬 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇注砖谉 讗住讜专 讚讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇注砖谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专讗 讗讙讜诪专讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Geviha from Bei Katil once taught at the entrance to the house of the Exilarch that ketura is permitted on a Festival; but he did not add any further clarification. Ameimar said to him: What is the meaning of ketura? If it means tying [ketura] ornamental knots by hand, this is the act of a craftsman and is therefore certainly prohibited on a Festival. And if it is referring to burning incense [ketoret], this too is prohibited, as he extinguishes some of the coals when he sprinkles the aromatic powder on them. Rav Ashi said to him: Actually, it is referring to burning incense, which is permitted, just as it is permitted to place meat on coals for roasting.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 拽讟讜专讗 讗讬 拽讟讜专讗 讘讬讚讬 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讗讬 诇注砖谉 讗住讜专 讚拽讗 诪讜诇讬讚 专讬讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 谞讛诇讬讛 讜诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专讬转讛 谞讛诇讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇注砖谉 讜诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专讗 讗讙讜诪专讬

Some say a slightly different version of this story, in which Ameimar said to Rav Geviha: What is the meaning of ketura? If it means tying ornamental knots by hand, this is the act of a craftsman, which is prohibited. If it is referring to burning incense, this too is prohibited, as he produces a new scent. Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha to Rav Geviha, and I said it in the name of a great man, Rava, that actually it is referring to burning incense, which is permitted, just as it is permitted to place meat on coals for roasting.

讜注讜砖讬谉 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 讛谞讛讬讙 讗转 讘谞讬 专讜诪讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞讬诐 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗诇诪诇讗 转讜讚讜住 讗转讛 讙讜讝专谞讜 注诇讬讱 谞讚讜讬 砖讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓

搂 It is taught in the mishna that one of Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 three leniencies was that one may prepare a whole [mekulas] kid goat, meaning a goat roasted whole, with its entrails over its head, on the night of Passover. It is taught in a baraita in this regard that Rabbi Yosei says: Theodosius [Todos] of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat whole kids on the night of Passover, in commemoration of the practice followed in the Temple. The Sages sent a message to him: Were you not Theodosius, an important person, we would have decreed ostracism upon you, as you are feeding the Jewish people consecrated food, which may be eaten only in and around the Temple itself, outside the Temple.

拽讚砖讬诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻注讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara expresses surprise: Can it enter your mind that the Sages really meant that Theodosius was feeding the Jewish people consecrated food outside the Temple? These goats are certainly not consecrated animals. Rather, say that he was feeding the Jewish people something similar to consecrated food, which people might mistake for a Paschal offering.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐 驻专转讜 讬讜爪讗讛 讘专爪讜注讛 砖讘讬谉 拽专谞讬讛

MISHNA: There are three things that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya permits and the Rabbis prohibit: His cow would go out on Shabbat with a decorative strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar holds that such a strap is considered an ornament for the cow rather than a burden, whereas the Sages view it as a burden.

讜诪拽专讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜砖讜讞拽讬谉 讗转 讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 讘专讞讬诐 砖诇讛谉

And one may comb [mekardin] an animal with a fine comb on a Festival in order to remove ticks and dirt from its hair; the Rabbis prohibit this due to a concern that he might thereby come to wound or bruise the animal. And one may grind pepper needed on the Festival even in its own mill, although this appears similar to a weekday labor.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽专讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪驻谞讬 砖注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛 讗讘诇 诪拽专爪驻讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪拽专讚讬谉 讗祝 诇讗 诪拽专爪驻讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not comb an animal to remove ticks and dirt from its hair on a Festival because this certainly creates a wound, but one may brush it with a wooden comb, as its blunt teeth do not wound the animal. But the Rabbis say: One may not comb, nor may one even brush.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讞讚讗 驻专讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 转诇讬住专 讗诇驻讬 注讙诇讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪注讚专讬讛 讻诇 砖转讗 讜砖转讗 转谞讗 诇讗 砖诇讜 讛讬转讛 讗诇讗 砖诇 砖讻谞转讜 讛讬转讛 讜诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 诪讬讞讛 讘讛 谞拽专讗转 注诇 砖诪讜

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya鈥檚 cow would go out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns, the Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya had only one cow? But didn鈥檛 Rav say, and some say that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would tithe from his herds thirteen thousand calves each and every year, which means that he had ten times that number of calves alone. Why, then, does the mishna speak of his cow? The Gemara answers that it is taught in the Tosefta: This cow was not his; rather, it was his neighbor鈥檚. And because he did not protest her conduct and tell her that it is prohibited to do so, the cow was called by his name to his discredit, as if it were his.

讜诪拽专讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 拽专讜讚 讜讗讬讝讛讜 拽专爪讜祝 拽专讜讚 拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 拽专爪讜祝 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that one may comb an animal on a Festival. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is considered combing and what is brushing? Combing is performed with a small-toothed comb and makes a wound; brushing is done with a large-toothed comb and does not make a wound.

讜砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽讜转 讘讚讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 诪讬讛讜 拽专讜讚 拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 拽专爪讜祝 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 拽专爪讜祝 讗讟讜 拽专讜讚

And there are three disputes with regard to this matter. Rabbi Yehuda holds that an unintentional act, a permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues on Shabbat, is prohibited, as in his opinion it is prohibited to perform an action that involves a prohibited labor on Shabbat even if one has a permitted action in mind and does not intend to perform the labor in question. Therefore, one may not comb an animal in a manner that will cause a wound, even unintentionally. However, he differentiates between the cases: Although he prohibits combing with a small-toothed comb that makes a wound, he permits brushing with a large-toothed comb that does not make a wound, and we do not issue a decree and prohibit brushing due to combing, as there is no concern that people will err and come to permit even combing in the prohibited manner.

讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 谞诪讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讜讙讝专讬谞谉 拽专爪讜祝 讗讟讜 拽专讜讚 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讜讘讬谉 拽专讜讚 讜讘讬谉 拽专爪讜祝 砖专讬

And the Rabbis also hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the fundamental issue that an unintentional act is prohibited. However, they maintain that we issue a decree and prohibit brushing due to combing. On the other hand, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the dissenting opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that an unintentional act is permitted. Therefore, both combing and brushing are permitted, as even if the combing or brushing bruises the animal, there is no transgression of a prohibition, as there was certainly no intention to cause the animal a wound.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讜注讜讚 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讜

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said, and some say that Rav Na岣an said this teaching himself: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that an unintentional act is permitted on Shabbat, as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya agrees with him. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master say the opposite, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as the Rabbis agree with him. Rav Na岣an said to him: Fundamentally I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; I am merely adding another reason for doing so, which is that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya agrees with him.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讞讬诐 砖诇 驻诇驻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诇砖讛 讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 拽讘讜诇 讜诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 诪转讻转 讜诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 讻讘专讛

MISHNA: The aforementioned pepper mill is a composite vessel, and each of its parts must be considered independently with respect to ritual impurity. It is susceptible to ritual impurity because of each of the three vessels of which it is comprised: It is susceptible to impurity because it is a wooden receptacle, it is susceptible to impurity because it is a metal vessel, and it is susceptible to impurity because it is a sieve.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 转讞转讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 拽讘讜诇 讗诪爪注讬转 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 讻讘专讛 注诇讬讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 诪转讻转

GEMARA: A Sage taught: The lower section of the mill is susceptible to impurity because it is viewed as a receptacle, since the ground pepper descends into it. The middle section is susceptible to impurity because it is a sieve, as it serves to filter the pepper. Finally, the upper part, in which the pepper is actually ground, is susceptible to impurity because it is a metal vessel. Although it is not a receptacle, it is nevertheless susceptible to impurity, since it is made of metal.

诪转谞讬壮 注讙诇讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 讟诪讗讛 诪讚专住 讜谞讟诇转 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讙专专转 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬诐

MISHNA: A child鈥檚 wagon, with which he plays and upon which he also sits, is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading. It is considered a fixed seat of the child, so that if the child is a zav and he sits on the wagon, it contracts the ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a zav. And this wagon may be handled on Shabbat, as it is considered a vessel. And it may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat only upon cloth, a stone pavement, or the like, as otherwise it would create a furrow when dragged, and one would be liable due to the prohibited labor of plowing.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讙专专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注讙诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讜讘砖转

Rabbi Yehuda says: For this reason, no vessels may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat except for a wagon, which is permitted because its wheels do not make a furrow in the ground but merely press the earth down. Since no earth is moved from its place, this is not considered digging or plowing on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 注讙诇讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 讟诪讗讛 诪讚专住 讚讛讗 住诪讬讱 注诇讜讬讛 讜谞讟诇转 讘砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讛

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that a child鈥檚 wagon is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading. Why? It is because he leans on it. The mishna also teaches that this wagon may be handled on Shabbat. Why? It is because it has the status of a vessel, and one may handle a vessel on Shabbat.

讜讗讬谞讛 谞讙专专转 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讞专讬抓 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专

The mishna further teaches that a child鈥檚 wagon may be dragged on Shabbat only upon cloth. The Gemara infers: Upon cloth, yes, it is permitted; but directly on the ground, no, it is not permitted. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because he creates a furrow in the ground when he drags the wagon across it. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: An unintentional act, i.e., a permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues on Shabbat, is prohibited, even though the person performing it does not have the prohibited labor in mind.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 (讚转谞谉) 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓

As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didn鈥檛 he say: An unintentional act is permitted, since there was no intention to perform the prohibited action? As we learned explicitly in a mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, a chair, or a bench on the ground, provided that he does not intend to make a furrow. Even if one forms a furrow unwittingly, he need one need not be concerned, as this was not his intention.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻诇 谞讙专专讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注讙诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讜讘砖转 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讜讘砖转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讞专讬抓 诇讗 注讘讚讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: No vessels may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat except for a wagon, because it merely presses the earth down. This is not prohibited as plowing because it does not create a furrow. This indicates that a wagon may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat because, yes, it presses the earth down, but it does not make a furrow. Since it has already been established that the first section of the mishna is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and there it appears that a wagon dragged along the ground makes a furrow, Rabbi Yehuda seems to contradict himself.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara answers: It must be explained that this is a dispute between two tanna鈥檌m who hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda but differ with regard to the content of that opinion. The first tanna holds that even a wagon makes a furrow, whereas the other tanna maintains in the name of Rabbi Yehuda that a wagon does not make a furrow.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 爪讚讬谉 讚讙讬诐 诪谉 讛讘讬讘专讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转

MISHNA: One may not trap fish from their ponds on a Festival even with the intention of eating them, as this falls into the category of hunting, a type of labor that is not permitted on a Festival. Nor may one place food before them, as it is not his duty to feed them; rather, they maintain themselves by eating smaller fish or different types of algae that grow in the water.

讗讘诇 爪讚讬谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 诪谉 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转

However, one may trap an animal or a bird from their enclosures [beivarim], as they are viewed as already captured, and therefore the action is not considered an act of hunting. And one may also place food before them as one does for other household animals.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical with respect to the halakhot of hunting. This is the principle: With regard to any animal

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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Trapping on Yom Tov – Gefet 8

In honor of Sukkot and upcoming Simchat Torah, it is very exciting to be studying sugiyot which deal with the...

Beitzah 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 23

注诇 讙讘讬 讞专住 诪讜转专

However, placing them on a scalding fragment of earthenware is permitted, as there is no concern of extinguishing or kindling.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 注诇 讙讘讬 讞专住 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讜诇讬讚 专讬讞讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗住讞讜驻讬 讻住讗 讗砖讬专讗讬 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽诪讜诇讬讚 专讬讞讗

And Rabba said: Placing the spices on a hot piece of earthenware is also prohibited, because it produces a new scent in the earthenware, and one may not create new things on a Festival. The Gemara notes that similarly, Rabba and Rav Yosef both said the following: It is prohibited to overturn a cup containing perfume onto silk garments on a Festival. What is the reason for this prohibition? It is because it produces a new scent in the garment.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讜诇诇讜 讜诪专讬讞 讘讜 讜拽讜讟诪讜 讜诪专讬讞 讘讜 讛转诐 专讬讞讗 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讗 讜讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讜住讬祝 专讬讞讗 讛讻讗 讗讜诇讜讚讬 讛讜讗 讚拽诪讜诇讬讚 专讬讞讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇转 谞诪讬 诪讜转专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专讗 讗讙讜诪专讬

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the case discussed in the following baraita: One may press a piece of aromatic wood between his fingers and smell it, and one may also snip off a piece of it in order to release its fragrance and smell it? In those cases too he produces a scent. The Gemara answers: There, the scent exists in any case, and he merely adds to the fragrance, as his pressing or snipping causes the smell to be stronger. Here, on the other hand, where he overturns a cup of perfume on clothing, he produces a new scent. Rava, however, said: It is even permitted to sprinkle the aromatic spices on the coals themselves, just as it is permitted to place meat on coals for roasting.

讚专砖 专讘 讙讘讬讛讗 诪讘讬 讻转讬诇 讗驻转讞讗 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 拽讟讜专讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 拽讟讜专讗 讗讬 拽讟讜专讗 讘讬讚讬 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇注砖谉 讗住讜专 讚讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇注砖谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专讗 讗讙讜诪专讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Geviha from Bei Katil once taught at the entrance to the house of the Exilarch that ketura is permitted on a Festival; but he did not add any further clarification. Ameimar said to him: What is the meaning of ketura? If it means tying [ketura] ornamental knots by hand, this is the act of a craftsman and is therefore certainly prohibited on a Festival. And if it is referring to burning incense [ketoret], this too is prohibited, as he extinguishes some of the coals when he sprinkles the aromatic powder on them. Rav Ashi said to him: Actually, it is referring to burning incense, which is permitted, just as it is permitted to place meat on coals for roasting.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 拽讟讜专讗 讗讬 拽讟讜专讗 讘讬讚讬 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讗讬 诇注砖谉 讗住讜专 讚拽讗 诪讜诇讬讚 专讬讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 谞讛诇讬讛 讜诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专讬转讛 谞讛诇讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇注砖谉 讜诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专讗 讗讙讜诪专讬

Some say a slightly different version of this story, in which Ameimar said to Rav Geviha: What is the meaning of ketura? If it means tying ornamental knots by hand, this is the act of a craftsman, which is prohibited. If it is referring to burning incense, this too is prohibited, as he produces a new scent. Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha to Rav Geviha, and I said it in the name of a great man, Rava, that actually it is referring to burning incense, which is permitted, just as it is permitted to place meat on coals for roasting.

讜注讜砖讬谉 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 讛谞讛讬讙 讗转 讘谞讬 专讜诪讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞讬诐 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗诇诪诇讗 转讜讚讜住 讗转讛 讙讜讝专谞讜 注诇讬讱 谞讚讜讬 砖讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓

搂 It is taught in the mishna that one of Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 three leniencies was that one may prepare a whole [mekulas] kid goat, meaning a goat roasted whole, with its entrails over its head, on the night of Passover. It is taught in a baraita in this regard that Rabbi Yosei says: Theodosius [Todos] of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat whole kids on the night of Passover, in commemoration of the practice followed in the Temple. The Sages sent a message to him: Were you not Theodosius, an important person, we would have decreed ostracism upon you, as you are feeding the Jewish people consecrated food, which may be eaten only in and around the Temple itself, outside the Temple.

拽讚砖讬诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻注讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara expresses surprise: Can it enter your mind that the Sages really meant that Theodosius was feeding the Jewish people consecrated food outside the Temple? These goats are certainly not consecrated animals. Rather, say that he was feeding the Jewish people something similar to consecrated food, which people might mistake for a Paschal offering.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐 驻专转讜 讬讜爪讗讛 讘专爪讜注讛 砖讘讬谉 拽专谞讬讛

MISHNA: There are three things that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya permits and the Rabbis prohibit: His cow would go out on Shabbat with a decorative strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar holds that such a strap is considered an ornament for the cow rather than a burden, whereas the Sages view it as a burden.

讜诪拽专讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜砖讜讞拽讬谉 讗转 讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 讘专讞讬诐 砖诇讛谉

And one may comb [mekardin] an animal with a fine comb on a Festival in order to remove ticks and dirt from its hair; the Rabbis prohibit this due to a concern that he might thereby come to wound or bruise the animal. And one may grind pepper needed on the Festival even in its own mill, although this appears similar to a weekday labor.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽专讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪驻谞讬 砖注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛 讗讘诇 诪拽专爪驻讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪拽专讚讬谉 讗祝 诇讗 诪拽专爪驻讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not comb an animal to remove ticks and dirt from its hair on a Festival because this certainly creates a wound, but one may brush it with a wooden comb, as its blunt teeth do not wound the animal. But the Rabbis say: One may not comb, nor may one even brush.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讞讚讗 驻专讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 转诇讬住专 讗诇驻讬 注讙诇讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪注讚专讬讛 讻诇 砖转讗 讜砖转讗 转谞讗 诇讗 砖诇讜 讛讬转讛 讗诇讗 砖诇 砖讻谞转讜 讛讬转讛 讜诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 诪讬讞讛 讘讛 谞拽专讗转 注诇 砖诪讜

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya鈥檚 cow would go out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns, the Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya had only one cow? But didn鈥檛 Rav say, and some say that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would tithe from his herds thirteen thousand calves each and every year, which means that he had ten times that number of calves alone. Why, then, does the mishna speak of his cow? The Gemara answers that it is taught in the Tosefta: This cow was not his; rather, it was his neighbor鈥檚. And because he did not protest her conduct and tell her that it is prohibited to do so, the cow was called by his name to his discredit, as if it were his.

讜诪拽专讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 拽专讜讚 讜讗讬讝讛讜 拽专爪讜祝 拽专讜讚 拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 拽专爪讜祝 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that one may comb an animal on a Festival. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is considered combing and what is brushing? Combing is performed with a small-toothed comb and makes a wound; brushing is done with a large-toothed comb and does not make a wound.

讜砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽讜转 讘讚讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 诪讬讛讜 拽专讜讚 拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 拽专爪讜祝 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 拽专爪讜祝 讗讟讜 拽专讜讚

And there are three disputes with regard to this matter. Rabbi Yehuda holds that an unintentional act, a permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues on Shabbat, is prohibited, as in his opinion it is prohibited to perform an action that involves a prohibited labor on Shabbat even if one has a permitted action in mind and does not intend to perform the labor in question. Therefore, one may not comb an animal in a manner that will cause a wound, even unintentionally. However, he differentiates between the cases: Although he prohibits combing with a small-toothed comb that makes a wound, he permits brushing with a large-toothed comb that does not make a wound, and we do not issue a decree and prohibit brushing due to combing, as there is no concern that people will err and come to permit even combing in the prohibited manner.

讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 谞诪讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讜讙讝专讬谞谉 拽专爪讜祝 讗讟讜 拽专讜讚 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讜讘讬谉 拽专讜讚 讜讘讬谉 拽专爪讜祝 砖专讬

And the Rabbis also hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the fundamental issue that an unintentional act is prohibited. However, they maintain that we issue a decree and prohibit brushing due to combing. On the other hand, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the dissenting opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that an unintentional act is permitted. Therefore, both combing and brushing are permitted, as even if the combing or brushing bruises the animal, there is no transgression of a prohibition, as there was certainly no intention to cause the animal a wound.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讜注讜讚 砖讛专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讜

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said, and some say that Rav Na岣an said this teaching himself: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that an unintentional act is permitted on Shabbat, as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya agrees with him. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master say the opposite, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as the Rabbis agree with him. Rav Na岣an said to him: Fundamentally I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; I am merely adding another reason for doing so, which is that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya agrees with him.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讞讬诐 砖诇 驻诇驻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诇砖讛 讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 拽讘讜诇 讜诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 诪转讻转 讜诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 讻讘专讛

MISHNA: The aforementioned pepper mill is a composite vessel, and each of its parts must be considered independently with respect to ritual impurity. It is susceptible to ritual impurity because of each of the three vessels of which it is comprised: It is susceptible to impurity because it is a wooden receptacle, it is susceptible to impurity because it is a metal vessel, and it is susceptible to impurity because it is a sieve.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 转讞转讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 拽讘讜诇 讗诪爪注讬转 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 讻讘专讛 注诇讬讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬 诪转讻转

GEMARA: A Sage taught: The lower section of the mill is susceptible to impurity because it is viewed as a receptacle, since the ground pepper descends into it. The middle section is susceptible to impurity because it is a sieve, as it serves to filter the pepper. Finally, the upper part, in which the pepper is actually ground, is susceptible to impurity because it is a metal vessel. Although it is not a receptacle, it is nevertheless susceptible to impurity, since it is made of metal.

诪转谞讬壮 注讙诇讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 讟诪讗讛 诪讚专住 讜谞讟诇转 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讙专专转 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬诐

MISHNA: A child鈥檚 wagon, with which he plays and upon which he also sits, is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading. It is considered a fixed seat of the child, so that if the child is a zav and he sits on the wagon, it contracts the ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a zav. And this wagon may be handled on Shabbat, as it is considered a vessel. And it may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat only upon cloth, a stone pavement, or the like, as otherwise it would create a furrow when dragged, and one would be liable due to the prohibited labor of plowing.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讙专专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注讙诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讜讘砖转

Rabbi Yehuda says: For this reason, no vessels may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat except for a wagon, which is permitted because its wheels do not make a furrow in the ground but merely press the earth down. Since no earth is moved from its place, this is not considered digging or plowing on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 注讙诇讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 讟诪讗讛 诪讚专住 讚讛讗 住诪讬讱 注诇讜讬讛 讜谞讟诇转 讘砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讛

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that a child鈥檚 wagon is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading. Why? It is because he leans on it. The mishna also teaches that this wagon may be handled on Shabbat. Why? It is because it has the status of a vessel, and one may handle a vessel on Shabbat.

讜讗讬谞讛 谞讙专专转 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讞专讬抓 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专

The mishna further teaches that a child鈥檚 wagon may be dragged on Shabbat only upon cloth. The Gemara infers: Upon cloth, yes, it is permitted; but directly on the ground, no, it is not permitted. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because he creates a furrow in the ground when he drags the wagon across it. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: An unintentional act, i.e., a permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues on Shabbat, is prohibited, even though the person performing it does not have the prohibited labor in mind.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 (讚转谞谉) 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓

As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didn鈥檛 he say: An unintentional act is permitted, since there was no intention to perform the prohibited action? As we learned explicitly in a mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, a chair, or a bench on the ground, provided that he does not intend to make a furrow. Even if one forms a furrow unwittingly, he need one need not be concerned, as this was not his intention.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻诇 谞讙专专讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注讙诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讜讘砖转 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讜讘砖转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讞专讬抓 诇讗 注讘讚讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: No vessels may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat except for a wagon, because it merely presses the earth down. This is not prohibited as plowing because it does not create a furrow. This indicates that a wagon may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat because, yes, it presses the earth down, but it does not make a furrow. Since it has already been established that the first section of the mishna is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and there it appears that a wagon dragged along the ground makes a furrow, Rabbi Yehuda seems to contradict himself.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara answers: It must be explained that this is a dispute between two tanna鈥檌m who hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda but differ with regard to the content of that opinion. The first tanna holds that even a wagon makes a furrow, whereas the other tanna maintains in the name of Rabbi Yehuda that a wagon does not make a furrow.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 爪讚讬谉 讚讙讬诐 诪谉 讛讘讬讘专讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转

MISHNA: One may not trap fish from their ponds on a Festival even with the intention of eating them, as this falls into the category of hunting, a type of labor that is not permitted on a Festival. Nor may one place food before them, as it is not his duty to feed them; rather, they maintain themselves by eating smaller fish or different types of algae that grow in the water.

讗讘诇 爪讚讬谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 诪谉 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转

However, one may trap an animal or a bird from their enclosures [beivarim], as they are viewed as already captured, and therefore the action is not considered an act of hunting. And one may also place food before them as one does for other household animals.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical with respect to the halakhot of hunting. This is the principle: With regard to any animal

Scroll To Top