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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 25, 2021 | 讬状讟 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 25 – Shabbat Chol Hamoed, September 25

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated to Judith Munk z”l by her children Naomi Samuel, Karen Frohlich and Matti Munk and families on her first yahrzeit 19 Tishrei. Judith was born in Hungary, survived the holocaust with only her mother and moved to England after the war. She was intelligent, kind, and knowledgeable in many different topics. She loved learning Torah and attending thought-provoking shiurim. She would be proud to know that her children learned daf yomi this year. Keeping mitzvot was important to her and she excelled particularly at kivud Aim looking after her mother until she passed away at 98, thereby fulfilling her father z”l”s request to her, from the labour camp, to look after her mother. She is sorely missed, may the learning of this daf be an ilui to her neshama.聽

The discussion about traping on Yom Tov continue. If one dammed a water channel before Yom Tov, one can take fish from there on Yom Tov. Can one derive from her that an animal who enters an orchard and gives birth there, the offspring is considered already trapped there and one can slaughter it on Yom Tov? Can one slaughter an animal on Yom Tov to prevent it from dying and becoming a neveila? Under what circumstances is this permitted? Rami bar Abba taught that a butcher should flay the hide of the animal and cut it up before eating for derech eretz. Was this just an etiquette issue or a halakhic issue? The Gemara concludes it was etiquette so one not look gluttonous. Other sources are brought that mention other related laws. Rami bar Abba also mentioned other things that one should learn regarding proper behavior. From here the Gemara segues to characteristics about the Jewish people and why they were the ones who received the Torah. One cannot carry the meat one has slaughtered on a pole or on poles on Yom Tov. Why not? Can one carry people in chairs? Under what circumstances?聽

讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗住讜专 讜讛讘讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讬砖专讗诇 讝讛 诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专

If, however, the gift was brought from outside the limit, it is prohibited. And an item that came from outside the limit for one Jew is permitted to another Jew. No prohibition applies to the second recipient, as the gentile鈥檚 intention was not fulfilled. Since the halakha of limits is a rabbinic prohibition, the Sages decreed that the object is prohibited only to the one on behalf of whom it was brought, but not to others.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛住讜讻专 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讚讙讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion about trapping animals on a Festival. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: If one dammed a water channel that was used to irrigate a field on the eve of a Festival, and the following day he arose and found fish in it, they are permitted. These fish presumably arrived with the water before the Festival and were unable to escape, as the channel had been obstructed. Therefore, the fish are considered as having been prepared before the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 谞诇诪讜讚 讞讬讛 砖拽谞谞讛 讘驻专讚住 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讝诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞驻诇 讞讘专讬谉 讘专讘专讘转讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 谞诇诪讜讚 讞讬讛 砖拽谞谞讛 讘驻专讚住 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讝诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞驻诇 讘专 讞讘专讬谉 讘专讘专讘转讗

Rav 岣sda said: From this statement of our teacher, Rav, we learn that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard near one鈥檚 house does not require special designation but is considered prepared. Rav Na岣an said in response to this conclusion: Our colleague, Rav 岣sda, has fallen upon a great matter, i.e., an issue that is not at all straightforward but is the subject of various disagreements. Some say a slightly different version of this statement, that Rabba bar Rav Huna said: From this statement of our teacher, Rav, we learn that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard does not require special designation, and with regard to this statement, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba, son of our colleague, Rav Huna, has fallen upon a great matter. Rav Huna was a contemporary of Rav Na岣an鈥檚, and they were both students of Rav; consequently, Rav Na岣an referred to Rav Huna as his colleague and called Rabba the son of his colleague.

讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讛讻讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛

Rav Na岣an explains the difference between the cases: There, in the case where the undomesticated animal nested in an orchard, the person performed no action at all, as the animal came of its own accord, whereas here, in the case where he dammed the water channel, he performed an action when he blocked the water from leaving the channel.

讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讝诪讜谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讛 砖拽谞谞讛 讘驻专讚住 爪专讬讻讛 诇讝诪谉 讜爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖讜专 讘讻谞驻讬讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转讞诇祝 讘讗诪讛 讜讝讜 注讚讜转 砖讛注讬讚讜 诪驻讬 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讘讟诇讬讜谉 转讬讜讘转讗

Rav Na岣an concludes his challenge: And does the animal not require further designation? Isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: An undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard requires designation. And as for a free bird, one is required to tie its wings so that it will not be mistaken for its mother, i.e., so that he not take a different bird, such as its mother, in its place. And this is a testimony that was reported in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of the Sages who drew an inference from Rav鈥檚 statement.

讜诪讬 讘注讬讗 讝诪讜谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖讛讝诪讬谞谉 讘转讜讱 讛拽谉 讜诪爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讛拽谉 砖讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讛 讜爪驻专讬诐 砖拽谞谞讜 讘讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讘讘讬专讛 讗讘诇 讗讜讜讝讬诐 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜讬讜谞讬 讛专讚住讬讗讜转 讜讞讬讛 砖拽谞谞讛 讘驻专讚住 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讝诪讜谉 讜爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 爪专讬讻讛 诇拽砖专 讘讻谞驻讬讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转讞诇祝 讘讗诪讛

The Gemara asks: Does an undomesticated animal in an orchard really require designation? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concede with regard to doves and the like that one had designated on the eve of a Festival when they were inside the nest, and on the Festival itself he found them in front of the nest, that they are prohibited, as these doves might not be the same ones that he had designated but rather others that came from somewhere else? In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to doves of a dovecote, doves of a loft, and birds nesting in pitchers or in a building. However, geese, chicken, domestic doves, and an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard are permitted in all cases, and they do not require designation in advance. In the case of a free bird, one is required to tie its wings so that it is not mistaken for its mother.

讜讛诪拽讜砖专讬诐 讜讛诪谞讜注谞注讬谉 讘讘讜专讜转 讜讘讘转讬诐 讜讘砖讬讞讬谉 讜讘诪注专讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讘讗讬诇谞讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讜讬转诇讜砖 讜讛诪拽讜砖专讬谉 讜讛诪谞讜注谞注讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇

And with regard to those birds whose wings were tied as a sign, and similarly, those that were shaken in advance in order to designate them for the Festival, if they were in cisterns, in houses, in trenches, or in caves, they are permitted on the Festival. However, if they were in trees, they are prohibited, lest one climb up the tree and detach something from it, which is prohibited. And those birds whose wings were tied by another, and similarly, those that were shaken by another are prohibited in all places, even not on a Festival, due to the prohibition against stealing. Tying or shaking is considered an act of acquisition, and therefore others may not take them. In any case, this baraita clearly states that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard does not require designation.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讛 讛讗 讘讗诪讛 讗诪讛 讘讝诪讜谉 住讙讬 诇讛 爪讬讚讛 诪注诇讬讜转讗 讘注讬讗

Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that an animal nesting in an orchard is permitted even without designation, is referring to it, a young animal that cannot escape; whereas that baraita, which states that designation is required, is referring to its mother, which is larger and can escape. The Gemara asks: But is mere designation sufficient for its mother? Doesn鈥檛 it require complete capture, as it is an undomesticated animal?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讛讗 讘讙谞讛 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇注讬专 讛讗 讘讙谞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 住诪讜讻讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that both this baraita and that one are referring to it, a young animal that is unable to escape, and the difference between them is as follows: This baraita, which does not require designation, is referring to a garden situated near the city, so that one knows precisely where the animal is located and he can take it at any time. That baraita, which requires designation, is referring to a garden that is not located nearby.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 诪住讜讻谞转 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇讗讻讜诇 诪诪谞讛 讻讝讬转 爪诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讝讬转 讞讬 诪讘讬转 讟讘讬讞转讛

MISHNA: If an animal is in danger of dying, in which case its meat would be prohibited as the animal had not been properly slaughtered, and one wishes to slaughter it in the hope that it will be found fit for eating and he will be spared a loss, he may not slaughter it on a Festival unless there is still time in the day for him to eat an olive-bulk of roasted meat from the animal, so that it is possible to say that he slaughtered the animal for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Akiva says: There need not be enough time for him to roast it; rather, it is sufficient even if there is only time to eat an olive-bulk of raw meat from the place where the animal is slaughtered, i.e., from its neck, without going to the trouble of removing its hide and roasting it.

砖讞讟讛 讘砖讚讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗谞讛 讘诪讜讟 讜讘诪讜讟讛 讗讘诇 诪讘讬讗 讘讬讚讜 讗讘专讬诐 讗讘专讬诐

If one slaughtered an animal on a Festival in the field, he may not bring it to his house on a pole or on a set of poles carried by two people, as this appears similar to a weekday activity. Rather, he must alter his usual weekday manner of performing this action and bring it in by hand, limb by limb.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讛驻砖讟 讜谞转讜讞 讘注讜诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇拽爪讘讬诐 诪讻讗谉 诇诪讚讛 转讜专讛 讚专讱 讗专抓 砖诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讚诐 讘砖专 拽讜讚诐 讛驻砖讟 讜谞转讜讞

GEMARA: Rami bar Abba said: The mitzva of flaying and cutting the animal into pieces is mentioned in the Torah with regard to the burnt-offering, and the same is true for butchers. That is to say, we learn from the halakhot of the burnt offering that a butcher should first remove the hide and cut the animal into pieces. From here the Torah taught proper etiquette, that a person should not eat meat before flaying and cutting the animal into pieces.

(诇讗驻讜拽讬) 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞砖讞讟讛

The Gemara asks: What new halakha is Rami bar Abba teaching us? If we say that he wishes to exclude the opinion of Rav Huna, there is a difficulty, as Rav Huna said: An animal, while alive, retains its presumptive status of being subject to the prohibition against eating a limb from a living creature, and it retains that status after slaughter until it becomes known to you how it was slaughtered. As long as it has not yet been clarified that the animal was slaughtered properly, it is presumed to be prohibited.

谞砖讞讟讛 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞讟专驻讛

However, once the animal has been slaughtered properly, it retains its presumptive status of being permitted until it becomes known to you how it became a tereifa, an animal suffering from a wound or illness that would cause it to die within twelve months, which is prohibited to be eaten even after ritual slaughter. There is no need to conduct a special examination of the animal to determine if it had a defect or illness, as it is presumed to be permitted. Even if a defect is found, this does not necessarily render the animal a tereifa, as one can say that it appeared only after the animal was slaughtered.

讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讝讬转 讞讬 诪讘讬转 讟讘讬讞转讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讘讬转 讟讘讬讞转讛 诪诪砖

One might have understood from Rami bar Abba鈥檚 statement that he disagrees with Rav Huna and requires that the animal be examined. However, this is difficult, as didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna? As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: It is sufficient even if there is only time to eat an olive-bulk of raw meat from the place where the animal is slaughtered. What, is it not referring to meat from the actual place where the animal is slaughtered, from which it follows that one need not remove the hide or examine the animal?

诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 砖讟讜讘讞转 讗讻讬诇转讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the mishna can be understood as follows: From the place where the animal slaughters its food, i.e., from its intestines, where digestion takes place. The hide must still be removed and the animal must be examined before it can be eaten.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪拽讜诐 讟讘讬讞转讛 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗

But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: From the actual place where the animal is slaughtered? Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and says that Rami bar Abba

讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

merely teaches us proper etiquette, even though no prohibition is involved.

讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讜诐 讜讘爪诇 诪专讗砖讜 讗诇讗 诪注诇讬讜 讜讗诐 讗讻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 专注讘转谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬砖转讛 讗讚诐 讻讜住讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诐 砖转讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专讙专谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜转讛 讻讜住讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专讙专谉 砖谞讬诐 讚专讱 讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 诪讙住讬 讛专讜讞

搂 The Sages teach proper manners unconnected to any prohibition, as it is taught in a baraita: A person should not eat garlic or onions from the side of its head, i.e., its roots, but rather from the side of its leaves. And if he did eat in that manner, he gives the appearance of being a glutton. Similarly, a person should not drink his cup of wine all at once, and if he did drink in this manner, he gives the appearance of being a greedy drinker. The Sages taught in this regard: One who drinks his cup all at once is a greedy drinker; if he does so in two swallows, this is proper etiquette; in three swallows, he is of haughty spirit, as he presents himself as overly delicate and refined.

讜讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讞爪讜讘讗 诪拽讟注 专讙诇讬讛讜谉 讚专砖讬注讬讗

Apropos the previous discussion, the Gemara notes that Rami bar Abba also said: The sea squill, a plant from the lily family whose roots project deep into the ground, will cut off the feet of the wicked in the future on the Day of Judgment. It was customary to plant sea squill on the edges of fields as boundary markers because their roots grow straight down without spreading out. Those who overstepped boundaries and infringed upon their neighbor鈥檚 property should have heeded the markers and desisted.

谞讟讬注讛 诪拽讟注 专讙诇讬讛讜谉 讚拽爪讘讬讗 讜讚讘讜注诇讬 谞讚讜转

Similarly, young trees will cut off the feet of butchers and those who have relations with menstruating women. After a tree is planted, one must wait three years before eating its fruit. This should serve as a lesson for those butchers who hasten to eat of the animal鈥檚 meat before removing its hide, and for those who have relations with their menstruating wives and do not wait for them to achieve ritual purification.

转讜专诪讜住讗 诪拽讟注 专讙诇讬讛讜谉 讚砖谞讗讬讛讜谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讜住讬驻讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇注砖讜转 讛专注 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 讜讬注讘讚讜 讗转 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜讗转 讛注砖转专讜转 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 讗专诐 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 爪讬讚讜谉 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 诪讜讗讘 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 讘谞讬 注诪讜谉 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 驻诇砖转讬诐 讜讬注讝讘讜 讗转 讛壮 讜诇讗 注讘讚讜讛讜

The lupine [turmus], an extremely bitter legume that is edible only after an extensive process, will cut off the feet of the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel continued to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, and served the Baalim and the Ashtaroth, and the gods of Aram and the gods of Zidon and the gods of Moab and the gods of the children of Ammon and the gods of the Philistines, and they forsook the Lord and did not serve Him鈥 (Judges 10:6).

诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注讝讘讜 讗转 讛壮 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖诇讗 注讘讚讜讛讜 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 注讘讚讜讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讜专诪讜住 讛讝讛 砖砖讜诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘拽谞讜讞 住注讜讚讛 诇讗 注砖讗讜谞讬 讘谞讬

By inference from that which is stated: 鈥淎nd they forsook the Lord,鈥 do I not know that they did not serve Him? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state the seemingly unnecessary words 鈥渁nd did not serve Him鈥? Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: My children did not treat Me even like this lupine, which, because it is inedible as it is, must be cooked in water seven times in order to temper its bitter taste and is eventually made so sweet that one eats it as a dessert after a meal. They worshipped all seven types of idolatry listed in the verse, and even after I punished them for each and every one of them, they still refused to repent from their evil ways. Instead, they remained rebellious and did not serve Me.

转谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞转谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 注讝讬谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讬诪讬谞讜 讗砖 讚转 诇诪讜 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讗讜讬讬谉 讛诇诇讜 砖转谞转谉 诇讛诐 讚转 讗砖 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚转讬讛诐 砖诇 讗诇讜 讗砖 砖讗诇诪诇讗 (诇讗) 谞转谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讜诪讛 讜诇砖讜谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬讛诐

The Gemara considers another aspect of the character of the Jewish people. It is taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: For what reason was the Torah given to the Jewish people? It is because they are impudent, and Torah study will weaken and humble them. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught the following with regard to the verse: 鈥淔rom His right hand went a fiery law for them鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:2); The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Based on their nature and character, these people, the Jews, are fit to be given a fiery law, a hard and scorching faith. Some say a different version of this baraita: The ways and nature of these people, the Jews, are like fire, as, were it not for the fact that the Torah was given to the Jewish people, whose study and observance restrains them, no nation or tongue could withstand them.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖诇砖讛 注讝讬谉 讛谉 讬砖专讗诇 讘讗讜诪讜转 讻诇讘 讘讞讬讜转 转专谞讙讜诇 讘注讜驻讜转 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 注讝 讘讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 爪诇祝 讘讗讬诇谞讜转

And this is the same as what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: There are three impudent ones: The Jewish people among the nations; the dog among animals; and the rooster among birds. And some say: Also the goat among small cattle. And some say: Also the caper bush among trees.

砖讞讟讛 讘砖讚讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗谞讛 讘诪讜讟 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讛住讜诪讗 讬讜爪讗 讘诪拽诇讜 讜诇讗 讛专讜注讛 讘转专诪讬诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讻住讗 讗讞讚 讛讗讬砖 讜讗讞讚 讛讗砖讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If one slaughtered an animal on a Festival in the field, he may not bring it to his house on a pole, as this appears similar to a weekday activity. The Sages taught in a baraita: A blind person may not go out on a Festival with his cane, nor a shepherd with his satchel. And one may not go out on a chair borne on poles by other people, neither a man nor a woman. All of these are considered weekday activities, the performance of which would display disrespect for the Festival.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讛讬讛 讘砖讻讜谞转讬谞讜 讜讛讬讛 讬讜爪讗 讘讙诇讜讚拽讬 砖诇讜 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专 讗诐 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi send the following halakha from Eretz Yisrael: There was an old man in our neighborhood who would go out on a Festival in his litter [gelodki], and they came and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the preeminent authority of the time, whether this was permitted. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to them: If many people need the man to come and lecture them on Torah matters, it is permitted to transport him to the study hall in that manner.

讜住诪讻讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 注诇 讚讘专讬 讗讞讬 砖拽讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗谞讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讛讬谞讬 诇砖讬诇讬 讜诪砖讬诇讬 诇讛讬谞讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗谞讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪砖讗 诇讟讜诇讗 讜诪讟讜诇讗 诇砖诪砖讗 讛转诐 讻讚讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 诪讜转专

Similarly, our Sages relied on the statement of A岣 Shakkaya, who said: I once brought Rav Huna on a Festival from the town of Hinei to the town of Shilei and from Shilei back to Hinei on a chair of this kind. And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: I once brought Mar Shmuel on such a seat on a Festival from the sun into the shade and from the shade into the sun. All of these incidents indicate that it is in fact permitted to use such a chair on a Festival. The Gemara answers: These cases pose no difficulty, as there, it is in accordance with the reason that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi stated: If many people need him, it is permitted. However, one who is not needed by the public may not go out in such a chair.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讞诪讗 讘专 讗讚讗 砖诇讬讞 爪讬讜谉 讻讬 住诇拽转 诇讛转诐 讗拽讬祝 讜讝讬诇 讗住讜诇诪讗 讚爪讜专 讜讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讻住讗 诪讛 讗转讜谉 讘讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to 岣ma bar Adda, emissary of the talmudic academies in Zion, who would regularly travel back and forth from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia: When you go up there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a roundabout route, i.e., do not travel by the shortest path; and go to the Ladder of Tyre, and go to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi, who lives in Tyre, and raise this dilemma before him: What do you say with regard to a chair borne on poles; may one go out in such a chair on a Festival?

讗讚讗讝诇 诇讛转诐 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讻讬 住诇讬拽 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻住讗 诪讛 讗转讜谉 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讻转祝 诪讗讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讻转祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讗诇讜谞拽讬

By the time he arrived there, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi had already passed away. However, when he went up to Eretz Yisrael he found Rabbi Zerika and said to him: What do you say with regard to a chair borne on poles; what is your opinion on this topic? He said to him: Rabbi Ami said as follows: It is permitted provided that he is not carried on the shoulders, on the chair. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Provided that he is not carried on the shoulders? Rav Yosef, son of Rabba, said: It means on poles [alunkei] that are used to carry burdens on the shoulders of two people. This mode of transportation is highly conspicuous and has the appearance of a weekday activity, the performance of which displays disrespect for the Festival. Instead, the poles on which the chair is borne should be held in the bearers鈥 hands, so the seat will be closer to the ground and less noticeable.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖专讗 诇讛 诇讬诇转讗 诇诪讬驻拽 讗讗诇讜谞拽讬 砖讗谞讬 讬诇转讗 讚讘注讬转讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an permit his wife Yalta to go out on a Festival on a chair borne on poles that rested on the shoulders of the bearers? The Gemara answers: Yalta is different, as she was afraid of falling and therefore required this special arrangement.

讗诪讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讻转驻讬 诇讛讜 讘砖讘转讗 讚专讙诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讜讞拽讗 讚爪讘讜专讗

The Gemara relates that Ameimar and Mar Zutra would be carried to their places in the study hall on the shoulders of their students for the public lecture delivered on the Shabbat of the Festival. They would be carried in that manner due to their fear of falling. And some say the reason was due to the pushing of the crowd, as these Sages were afraid of being crushed by the large number of people attending the lecture.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讻讜专 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬专讚 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讬专讗讛

MISHNA: A male firstborn of cattle, sheep, or goats belonging to a Jew is sanctified from birth and must be given to a priest to be sacrificed on the altar in the Temple. If a firstborn animal acquired a physical blemish that disqualifies it from being sacrificed as an offering, it still must be given to a priest, but it may be redeemed, slaughtered, and eaten as non-sacred meat. If a firstborn animal fell into a cistern on a Festival, and there is concern that it might die there, Rabbi Yehuda says: An expert in these matters goes down into the cistern and examines the 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 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: 24-30 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn all of the third chapter of Masechet Beitza. We will learn what is...

Beitzah 25 – Shabbat Chol Hamoed, September 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 25 – Shabbat Chol Hamoed, September 25

讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗住讜专 讜讛讘讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讬砖专讗诇 讝讛 诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专

If, however, the gift was brought from outside the limit, it is prohibited. And an item that came from outside the limit for one Jew is permitted to another Jew. No prohibition applies to the second recipient, as the gentile鈥檚 intention was not fulfilled. Since the halakha of limits is a rabbinic prohibition, the Sages decreed that the object is prohibited only to the one on behalf of whom it was brought, but not to others.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛住讜讻专 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讚讙讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion about trapping animals on a Festival. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: If one dammed a water channel that was used to irrigate a field on the eve of a Festival, and the following day he arose and found fish in it, they are permitted. These fish presumably arrived with the water before the Festival and were unable to escape, as the channel had been obstructed. Therefore, the fish are considered as having been prepared before the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 谞诇诪讜讚 讞讬讛 砖拽谞谞讛 讘驻专讚住 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讝诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞驻诇 讞讘专讬谉 讘专讘专讘转讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 谞诇诪讜讚 讞讬讛 砖拽谞谞讛 讘驻专讚住 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讝诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞驻诇 讘专 讞讘专讬谉 讘专讘专讘转讗

Rav 岣sda said: From this statement of our teacher, Rav, we learn that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard near one鈥檚 house does not require special designation but is considered prepared. Rav Na岣an said in response to this conclusion: Our colleague, Rav 岣sda, has fallen upon a great matter, i.e., an issue that is not at all straightforward but is the subject of various disagreements. Some say a slightly different version of this statement, that Rabba bar Rav Huna said: From this statement of our teacher, Rav, we learn that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard does not require special designation, and with regard to this statement, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba, son of our colleague, Rav Huna, has fallen upon a great matter. Rav Huna was a contemporary of Rav Na岣an鈥檚, and they were both students of Rav; consequently, Rav Na岣an referred to Rav Huna as his colleague and called Rabba the son of his colleague.

讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讛讻讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛

Rav Na岣an explains the difference between the cases: There, in the case where the undomesticated animal nested in an orchard, the person performed no action at all, as the animal came of its own accord, whereas here, in the case where he dammed the water channel, he performed an action when he blocked the water from leaving the channel.

讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讝诪讜谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讛 砖拽谞谞讛 讘驻专讚住 爪专讬讻讛 诇讝诪谉 讜爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖讜专 讘讻谞驻讬讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转讞诇祝 讘讗诪讛 讜讝讜 注讚讜转 砖讛注讬讚讜 诪驻讬 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讘讟诇讬讜谉 转讬讜讘转讗

Rav Na岣an concludes his challenge: And does the animal not require further designation? Isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: An undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard requires designation. And as for a free bird, one is required to tie its wings so that it will not be mistaken for its mother, i.e., so that he not take a different bird, such as its mother, in its place. And this is a testimony that was reported in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of the Sages who drew an inference from Rav鈥檚 statement.

讜诪讬 讘注讬讗 讝诪讜谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖讛讝诪讬谞谉 讘转讜讱 讛拽谉 讜诪爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讛拽谉 砖讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讛 讜爪驻专讬诐 砖拽谞谞讜 讘讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讘讘讬专讛 讗讘诇 讗讜讜讝讬诐 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜讬讜谞讬 讛专讚住讬讗讜转 讜讞讬讛 砖拽谞谞讛 讘驻专讚住 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讝诪讜谉 讜爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 爪专讬讻讛 诇拽砖专 讘讻谞驻讬讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转讞诇祝 讘讗诪讛

The Gemara asks: Does an undomesticated animal in an orchard really require designation? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concede with regard to doves and the like that one had designated on the eve of a Festival when they were inside the nest, and on the Festival itself he found them in front of the nest, that they are prohibited, as these doves might not be the same ones that he had designated but rather others that came from somewhere else? In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to doves of a dovecote, doves of a loft, and birds nesting in pitchers or in a building. However, geese, chicken, domestic doves, and an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard are permitted in all cases, and they do not require designation in advance. In the case of a free bird, one is required to tie its wings so that it is not mistaken for its mother.

讜讛诪拽讜砖专讬诐 讜讛诪谞讜注谞注讬谉 讘讘讜专讜转 讜讘讘转讬诐 讜讘砖讬讞讬谉 讜讘诪注专讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讘讗讬诇谞讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讜讬转诇讜砖 讜讛诪拽讜砖专讬谉 讜讛诪谞讜注谞注讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇

And with regard to those birds whose wings were tied as a sign, and similarly, those that were shaken in advance in order to designate them for the Festival, if they were in cisterns, in houses, in trenches, or in caves, they are permitted on the Festival. However, if they were in trees, they are prohibited, lest one climb up the tree and detach something from it, which is prohibited. And those birds whose wings were tied by another, and similarly, those that were shaken by another are prohibited in all places, even not on a Festival, due to the prohibition against stealing. Tying or shaking is considered an act of acquisition, and therefore others may not take them. In any case, this baraita clearly states that an undomesticated animal that nested in an orchard does not require designation.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讛 讛讗 讘讗诪讛 讗诪讛 讘讝诪讜谉 住讙讬 诇讛 爪讬讚讛 诪注诇讬讜转讗 讘注讬讗

Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that an animal nesting in an orchard is permitted even without designation, is referring to it, a young animal that cannot escape; whereas that baraita, which states that designation is required, is referring to its mother, which is larger and can escape. The Gemara asks: But is mere designation sufficient for its mother? Doesn鈥檛 it require complete capture, as it is an undomesticated animal?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讛讗 讘讙谞讛 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇注讬专 讛讗 讘讙谞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 住诪讜讻讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that both this baraita and that one are referring to it, a young animal that is unable to escape, and the difference between them is as follows: This baraita, which does not require designation, is referring to a garden situated near the city, so that one knows precisely where the animal is located and he can take it at any time. That baraita, which requires designation, is referring to a garden that is not located nearby.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 诪住讜讻谞转 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇讗讻讜诇 诪诪谞讛 讻讝讬转 爪诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讝讬转 讞讬 诪讘讬转 讟讘讬讞转讛

MISHNA: If an animal is in danger of dying, in which case its meat would be prohibited as the animal had not been properly slaughtered, and one wishes to slaughter it in the hope that it will be found fit for eating and he will be spared a loss, he may not slaughter it on a Festival unless there is still time in the day for him to eat an olive-bulk of roasted meat from the animal, so that it is possible to say that he slaughtered the animal for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Akiva says: There need not be enough time for him to roast it; rather, it is sufficient even if there is only time to eat an olive-bulk of raw meat from the place where the animal is slaughtered, i.e., from its neck, without going to the trouble of removing its hide and roasting it.

砖讞讟讛 讘砖讚讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗谞讛 讘诪讜讟 讜讘诪讜讟讛 讗讘诇 诪讘讬讗 讘讬讚讜 讗讘专讬诐 讗讘专讬诐

If one slaughtered an animal on a Festival in the field, he may not bring it to his house on a pole or on a set of poles carried by two people, as this appears similar to a weekday activity. Rather, he must alter his usual weekday manner of performing this action and bring it in by hand, limb by limb.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讛驻砖讟 讜谞转讜讞 讘注讜诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇拽爪讘讬诐 诪讻讗谉 诇诪讚讛 转讜专讛 讚专讱 讗专抓 砖诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讚诐 讘砖专 拽讜讚诐 讛驻砖讟 讜谞转讜讞

GEMARA: Rami bar Abba said: The mitzva of flaying and cutting the animal into pieces is mentioned in the Torah with regard to the burnt-offering, and the same is true for butchers. That is to say, we learn from the halakhot of the burnt offering that a butcher should first remove the hide and cut the animal into pieces. From here the Torah taught proper etiquette, that a person should not eat meat before flaying and cutting the animal into pieces.

(诇讗驻讜拽讬) 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞砖讞讟讛

The Gemara asks: What new halakha is Rami bar Abba teaching us? If we say that he wishes to exclude the opinion of Rav Huna, there is a difficulty, as Rav Huna said: An animal, while alive, retains its presumptive status of being subject to the prohibition against eating a limb from a living creature, and it retains that status after slaughter until it becomes known to you how it was slaughtered. As long as it has not yet been clarified that the animal was slaughtered properly, it is presumed to be prohibited.

谞砖讞讟讛 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞讟专驻讛

However, once the animal has been slaughtered properly, it retains its presumptive status of being permitted until it becomes known to you how it became a tereifa, an animal suffering from a wound or illness that would cause it to die within twelve months, which is prohibited to be eaten even after ritual slaughter. There is no need to conduct a special examination of the animal to determine if it had a defect or illness, as it is presumed to be permitted. Even if a defect is found, this does not necessarily render the animal a tereifa, as one can say that it appeared only after the animal was slaughtered.

讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讝讬转 讞讬 诪讘讬转 讟讘讬讞转讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讘讬转 讟讘讬讞转讛 诪诪砖

One might have understood from Rami bar Abba鈥檚 statement that he disagrees with Rav Huna and requires that the animal be examined. However, this is difficult, as didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna? As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: It is sufficient even if there is only time to eat an olive-bulk of raw meat from the place where the animal is slaughtered. What, is it not referring to meat from the actual place where the animal is slaughtered, from which it follows that one need not remove the hide or examine the animal?

诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 砖讟讜讘讞转 讗讻讬诇转讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the mishna can be understood as follows: From the place where the animal slaughters its food, i.e., from its intestines, where digestion takes place. The hide must still be removed and the animal must be examined before it can be eaten.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪拽讜诐 讟讘讬讞转讛 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗

But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: From the actual place where the animal is slaughtered? Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and says that Rami bar Abba

讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

merely teaches us proper etiquette, even though no prohibition is involved.

讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讜诐 讜讘爪诇 诪专讗砖讜 讗诇讗 诪注诇讬讜 讜讗诐 讗讻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 专注讘转谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬砖转讛 讗讚诐 讻讜住讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诐 砖转讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专讙专谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜转讛 讻讜住讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专讙专谉 砖谞讬诐 讚专讱 讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 诪讙住讬 讛专讜讞

搂 The Sages teach proper manners unconnected to any prohibition, as it is taught in a baraita: A person should not eat garlic or onions from the side of its head, i.e., its roots, but rather from the side of its leaves. And if he did eat in that manner, he gives the appearance of being a glutton. Similarly, a person should not drink his cup of wine all at once, and if he did drink in this manner, he gives the appearance of being a greedy drinker. The Sages taught in this regard: One who drinks his cup all at once is a greedy drinker; if he does so in two swallows, this is proper etiquette; in three swallows, he is of haughty spirit, as he presents himself as overly delicate and refined.

讜讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讞爪讜讘讗 诪拽讟注 专讙诇讬讛讜谉 讚专砖讬注讬讗

Apropos the previous discussion, the Gemara notes that Rami bar Abba also said: The sea squill, a plant from the lily family whose roots project deep into the ground, will cut off the feet of the wicked in the future on the Day of Judgment. It was customary to plant sea squill on the edges of fields as boundary markers because their roots grow straight down without spreading out. Those who overstepped boundaries and infringed upon their neighbor鈥檚 property should have heeded the markers and desisted.

谞讟讬注讛 诪拽讟注 专讙诇讬讛讜谉 讚拽爪讘讬讗 讜讚讘讜注诇讬 谞讚讜转

Similarly, young trees will cut off the feet of butchers and those who have relations with menstruating women. After a tree is planted, one must wait three years before eating its fruit. This should serve as a lesson for those butchers who hasten to eat of the animal鈥檚 meat before removing its hide, and for those who have relations with their menstruating wives and do not wait for them to achieve ritual purification.

转讜专诪讜住讗 诪拽讟注 专讙诇讬讛讜谉 讚砖谞讗讬讛讜谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讜住讬驻讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇注砖讜转 讛专注 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 讜讬注讘讚讜 讗转 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜讗转 讛注砖转专讜转 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 讗专诐 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 爪讬讚讜谉 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 诪讜讗讘 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 讘谞讬 注诪讜谉 讜讗转 讗诇讛讬 驻诇砖转讬诐 讜讬注讝讘讜 讗转 讛壮 讜诇讗 注讘讚讜讛讜

The lupine [turmus], an extremely bitter legume that is edible only after an extensive process, will cut off the feet of the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel continued to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, and served the Baalim and the Ashtaroth, and the gods of Aram and the gods of Zidon and the gods of Moab and the gods of the children of Ammon and the gods of the Philistines, and they forsook the Lord and did not serve Him鈥 (Judges 10:6).

诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注讝讘讜 讗转 讛壮 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖诇讗 注讘讚讜讛讜 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 注讘讚讜讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讜专诪讜住 讛讝讛 砖砖讜诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘拽谞讜讞 住注讜讚讛 诇讗 注砖讗讜谞讬 讘谞讬

By inference from that which is stated: 鈥淎nd they forsook the Lord,鈥 do I not know that they did not serve Him? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state the seemingly unnecessary words 鈥渁nd did not serve Him鈥? Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: My children did not treat Me even like this lupine, which, because it is inedible as it is, must be cooked in water seven times in order to temper its bitter taste and is eventually made so sweet that one eats it as a dessert after a meal. They worshipped all seven types of idolatry listed in the verse, and even after I punished them for each and every one of them, they still refused to repent from their evil ways. Instead, they remained rebellious and did not serve Me.

转谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞转谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 注讝讬谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讬诪讬谞讜 讗砖 讚转 诇诪讜 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讗讜讬讬谉 讛诇诇讜 砖转谞转谉 诇讛诐 讚转 讗砖 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚转讬讛诐 砖诇 讗诇讜 讗砖 砖讗诇诪诇讗 (诇讗) 谞转谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讜诪讛 讜诇砖讜谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬讛诐

The Gemara considers another aspect of the character of the Jewish people. It is taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: For what reason was the Torah given to the Jewish people? It is because they are impudent, and Torah study will weaken and humble them. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught the following with regard to the verse: 鈥淔rom His right hand went a fiery law for them鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:2); The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Based on their nature and character, these people, the Jews, are fit to be given a fiery law, a hard and scorching faith. Some say a different version of this baraita: The ways and nature of these people, the Jews, are like fire, as, were it not for the fact that the Torah was given to the Jewish people, whose study and observance restrains them, no nation or tongue could withstand them.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖诇砖讛 注讝讬谉 讛谉 讬砖专讗诇 讘讗讜诪讜转 讻诇讘 讘讞讬讜转 转专谞讙讜诇 讘注讜驻讜转 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 注讝 讘讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 爪诇祝 讘讗讬诇谞讜转

And this is the same as what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: There are three impudent ones: The Jewish people among the nations; the dog among animals; and the rooster among birds. And some say: Also the goat among small cattle. And some say: Also the caper bush among trees.

砖讞讟讛 讘砖讚讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗谞讛 讘诪讜讟 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讛住讜诪讗 讬讜爪讗 讘诪拽诇讜 讜诇讗 讛专讜注讛 讘转专诪讬诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讻住讗 讗讞讚 讛讗讬砖 讜讗讞讚 讛讗砖讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If one slaughtered an animal on a Festival in the field, he may not bring it to his house on a pole, as this appears similar to a weekday activity. The Sages taught in a baraita: A blind person may not go out on a Festival with his cane, nor a shepherd with his satchel. And one may not go out on a chair borne on poles by other people, neither a man nor a woman. All of these are considered weekday activities, the performance of which would display disrespect for the Festival.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讛讬讛 讘砖讻讜谞转讬谞讜 讜讛讬讛 讬讜爪讗 讘讙诇讜讚拽讬 砖诇讜 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专 讗诐 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi send the following halakha from Eretz Yisrael: There was an old man in our neighborhood who would go out on a Festival in his litter [gelodki], and they came and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the preeminent authority of the time, whether this was permitted. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to them: If many people need the man to come and lecture them on Torah matters, it is permitted to transport him to the study hall in that manner.

讜住诪讻讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 注诇 讚讘专讬 讗讞讬 砖拽讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗谞讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讛讬谞讬 诇砖讬诇讬 讜诪砖讬诇讬 诇讛讬谞讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗谞讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪砖讗 诇讟讜诇讗 讜诪讟讜诇讗 诇砖诪砖讗 讛转诐 讻讚讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 诪讜转专

Similarly, our Sages relied on the statement of A岣 Shakkaya, who said: I once brought Rav Huna on a Festival from the town of Hinei to the town of Shilei and from Shilei back to Hinei on a chair of this kind. And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: I once brought Mar Shmuel on such a seat on a Festival from the sun into the shade and from the shade into the sun. All of these incidents indicate that it is in fact permitted to use such a chair on a Festival. The Gemara answers: These cases pose no difficulty, as there, it is in accordance with the reason that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi stated: If many people need him, it is permitted. However, one who is not needed by the public may not go out in such a chair.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讞诪讗 讘专 讗讚讗 砖诇讬讞 爪讬讜谉 讻讬 住诇拽转 诇讛转诐 讗拽讬祝 讜讝讬诇 讗住讜诇诪讗 讚爪讜专 讜讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讻住讗 诪讛 讗转讜谉 讘讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to 岣ma bar Adda, emissary of the talmudic academies in Zion, who would regularly travel back and forth from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia: When you go up there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a roundabout route, i.e., do not travel by the shortest path; and go to the Ladder of Tyre, and go to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi, who lives in Tyre, and raise this dilemma before him: What do you say with regard to a chair borne on poles; may one go out in such a chair on a Festival?

讗讚讗讝诇 诇讛转诐 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讻讬 住诇讬拽 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻住讗 诪讛 讗转讜谉 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讻转祝 诪讗讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讻转祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讗诇讜谞拽讬

By the time he arrived there, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi had already passed away. However, when he went up to Eretz Yisrael he found Rabbi Zerika and said to him: What do you say with regard to a chair borne on poles; what is your opinion on this topic? He said to him: Rabbi Ami said as follows: It is permitted provided that he is not carried on the shoulders, on the chair. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Provided that he is not carried on the shoulders? Rav Yosef, son of Rabba, said: It means on poles [alunkei] that are used to carry burdens on the shoulders of two people. This mode of transportation is highly conspicuous and has the appearance of a weekday activity, the performance of which displays disrespect for the Festival. Instead, the poles on which the chair is borne should be held in the bearers鈥 hands, so the seat will be closer to the ground and less noticeable.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖专讗 诇讛 诇讬诇转讗 诇诪讬驻拽 讗讗诇讜谞拽讬 砖讗谞讬 讬诇转讗 讚讘注讬转讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an permit his wife Yalta to go out on a Festival on a chair borne on poles that rested on the shoulders of the bearers? The Gemara answers: Yalta is different, as she was afraid of falling and therefore required this special arrangement.

讗诪讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讻转驻讬 诇讛讜 讘砖讘转讗 讚专讙诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讜讞拽讗 讚爪讘讜专讗

The Gemara relates that Ameimar and Mar Zutra would be carried to their places in the study hall on the shoulders of their students for the public lecture delivered on the Shabbat of the Festival. They would be carried in that manner due to their fear of falling. And some say the reason was due to the pushing of the crowd, as these Sages were afraid of being crushed by the large number of people attending the lecture.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讻讜专 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬专讚 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讬专讗讛

MISHNA: A male firstborn of cattle, sheep, or goats belonging to a Jew is sanctified from birth and must be given to a priest to be sacrificed on the altar in the Temple. If a firstborn animal acquired a physical blemish that disqualifies it from being sacrificed as an offering, it still must be given to a priest, but it may be redeemed, slaughtered, and eaten as non-sacred meat. If a firstborn animal fell into a cistern on a Festival, and there is concern that it might die there, Rabbi Yehuda says: An expert in these matters goes down into the cistern and examines the animal.

Scroll To Top