Today's Daf Yomi
September 26, 2021 | 讻壮 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.
Beitzah 26
This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Dina Becker for a refuah shleima for Reuven Ephraim ben Shoshana (Ron Becker).
Today’s daf is sponsored by Elana Kermaier in honor of her dear father Moshe Fox鈥檚 fourth yahrzeit – lilui nishmat Moshe Yehuda ben HaRav Binyaimin v’Chaya Tzipora. My father would be equally surprised and proud that I am learning the Daf. And by Ira and Natanya Slomowitz in memory of Ira鈥檚 father, Rabbi Shlomo Slomowitz, HaRav Shlomo ben HaRav Dov Tzvi v’Masha on his yahrzeit.聽
A bechor, firstborn, of an animal is given to the kohen and must be sacrificed. However, if it is blemished from before Yom Tov with a permanent blemish, the kohen can slaughter it and eat it. Only an expert can determine if it has a blemish that disqualifies it from being sacrificed. If a bechor falls into a pit on Yom Tov can an expert go down into the pit to check if the animal was blemished to then permit the owner to take it out and slaughter it? Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia explains according to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion that there are three different cases. Rabba bar Rav Huna explains that in one case it is forbidden entirely, in another, one cannot send an expert but if one did and it was blemished, they are permitted to slaughter it, and in the third, they can check it ab initio. They raise a difficulty against his explanation from a braita that they taught in Israel and reject his explanation. Hillel asked Rava if there is muktze for half a Shabbat, meaning if something usable when Shabbat came in and then became not usable and then usable again, would it be considered muktze for the rest of Shabbat, even though it is usable again? The Gemara brings several sources to try to determine the answer to the question but in the end, is unsuccessful.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (讚祝 讬讜诪讬 诇谞砖讬诐 - 注讘专讬转): Play in new window | Download
讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜诐 讬注诇讛 讜讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉
If it has a permanent blemish, owing to which it may be slaughtered and eaten, he may raise it from the cistern and slaughter it; but if it does not have a blemish, or if its blemish is temporary, he may not slaughter it. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if it has a blemish, it is prohibited to slaughter it, as any firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible while it is still day, i.e., on the day before the Festival, is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival.
讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讘专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 拽诪驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇驻诇讙讜 讘专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讚注诇诪讗
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree? If we say that they disagree about whether or not one may examine blemishes on a Festival, such that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one may examine blemishes on a Festival, and Rabbi Shimon holds that one may not examine blemishes on a Festival, if so, let them disagree with regard to examining blemishes in general on a Festival and not only with respect to the particular case of a firstborn that fell into a cistern.
讘讻讜专 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诇注专讬诐 讜诇住拽讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the disagreement with regard to the case of a firstborn that fell into a cistern, as it could enter your mind to say that because of the matter of the suffering of living creatures, one should employ an artifice to circumvent the halakha and raise the animal from the cistern. This would be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who states elsewhere (37a) with regard to a different case that one may employ an artifice in order to rescue an animal that fell into a cistern on a Festival. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree even in the case of a firstborn that fell into a cistern.
讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 诇讗 讬注诇讛 讜讬砖讞讜讟 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚注讘专 讜讗住拽讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇砖讞讟讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
The Gemara asks: If so, if the mishna mentions the case of a firstborn that fell into a cistern in order to teach that an artifice may not be employed to raise the animal from the cistern, the phrase: He may not slaughter it, is inaccurate. Rather, it should have stated: He may not raise the animal and slaughter it. The Gemara answers: No, this teaching is necessary in a case where he transgressed the prohibition and already raised it, as it could enter your mind to say that he may now slaughter it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even then he may not do so.
诇砖讞讟讬讛 讛讗 转诐 讛讜讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讜讛讗 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讜讗
The Gemara expresses wonder at this answer: How could one think that he may now slaughter it? Isn鈥檛 the animal unblemished? How could one imagine that it is permitted to slaughter a firstborn that is unblemished? The Gemara answers: This teaching is necessary only in a case where it developed a blemish after it fell. The Gemara challenges this argument: But how could one think that he may now slaughter the animal? Doesn鈥檛 it fall into the category of muktze, as it was not fit to be eaten on the eve of the Festival, since at that time it was still unblemished? In that case, it should remain in the category of muktze for the duration of the Festival.
讗诇讗 讚谞驻诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛砖转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讚讚注转讬讛 注诇讜讬讛 讜谞砖讞讟讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
Rather, the mishna is speaking of a case where the animal developed a temporary blemish, one that might eventually heal, on the eve of the Festival, and now, after falling, it has a permanent blemish. Lest you say that his mind was set on the animal as food already before the Festival due to the temporary blemish and therefore he should now be allowed to slaughter it, the mishna teaches us that since it was not fit to be eaten before the Festival, it is not considered prepared for use on the Festival. Rather, it falls into the category of muktze and may not be slaughtered.
转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讻讜专 转诐 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 讬专讚 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讬专讗讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜诐 讬注诇讛 讜讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讬爪讚 谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讘拽专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐
The Sages taught the following baraita: With regard to an unblemished firstborn that fell into a cistern on a Festival, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: An expert in these matters goes down into the cistern and examines the animal. If it now has a permanent blemish as a result of the fall, he may raise it from the cistern and slaughter it; but if not, then even if he proceeds to raise it, he may not slaughter it, even if afterwards it develops a blemish. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said to him: The Sages of earlier generations already said that one may not examine blemishes on a Festival. How so? If a blemish came into being on the eve of a Festival, one may not examine it on the Festival itself to see whether it is in fact of the type that permits the animal to be slaughtered. And if the blemish came into being
讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉
on the Festival itself, Rabbi Shimon says: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival; therefore, even if it was examined by an expert, it may not be slaughtered. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared for use on the Festival.
讚专砖 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 诪讘拽专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讘讗 转谞讬 讗诐 注讘专 讜讘拽专讜 诪讘讜拽专 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诪讘拽专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讻转讞诇讛
Rabba bar Rav Huna taught the halakha as follows: If a firstborn was born with its blemish, experts may examine it on a Festival ab initio, and if the blemish is found to be permanent, the animal may then be slaughtered. Rav Na岣an said to him: Father would teach on this matter that if he transgressed and examined it, it is considered examined after the fact, and you say that one may examine it even ab initio?
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 转诇转讗 讘讘讬 谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讘拽专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬
Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna from the fact that the baraita is taught in three parts, which suggests that each part contains a novel halakha. The first section states: If a firstborn developed a blemish on the eve of a Festival one may not examine it on the Festival itself, from which one can learn that it is only ab initio that one may not examine it; but after the fact, it seems well, and the examination is valid.
谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬
The second section of the baraita states: If it developed a blemish on the Festival itself, Rabbi Shimon says: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. In other words, even after the fact, no, if the animal was examined by an expert, it may not be slaughtered and eaten. And then in the third section it teaches: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared for use on the Festival. The fact that the baraita taught this halakha as an independent clause indicates that even ab initio as well, the animal may be examined.
讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讘讬谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉
The Gemara raises an objection: But isn鈥檛 it so that when Rav Oshaya came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he came and brought the following baraita in his hand: Whether the animal developed a blemish on the eve of the Festival or it developed a blemish on the Festival itself, the Rabbis say: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared for use on the Festival, so that even after the fact, if the animal was examined, it may not be slaughtered and eaten. According to this, the allowance granted in the case of a firstborn that was born with its blemish can be only after the fact, as argued by Rav Na岣an, and not ab initio, as maintained by Rabba bar Rav Huna. Why, then, does Abaye accept the opinion of the latter and not that of the former?
讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱 讛讛讬讗 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讜讻诪讬 讛讬讗 讚诪砖讘砖 讜转谞讬
The Gemara asks: But if so, that baraita cited earlier, which presents these halakhot differently, is difficult. The Gemara answers: This does not pose a problem, as that baraita was taught by Adda bar Ukhmei, who would often confuse the opinions in the text and teach an inaccurate version of the dispute; therefore, his version is unreliable.
讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讻诇诇 驻砖讬讟讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专
Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The mishna is also precise in its wording according to the opinion that no blemish may be examined ab initio. As the mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the animal has a blemish, it is prohibited to slaughter it, since any firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible on the eve of the Festival while it is still day is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. What is the meaning of the phrase: Whose blemish is not perceptible? If we say that its blemish is not perceptible at all, it is obvious. Need it be said that an animal whose blemish was not perceptible at all prior to the Festival is not considered prepared for use on the Festival?
讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗转讞讝讬 诇讞讻诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诐 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讗诐 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
Rather, one must say that the animal had a perceptible blemish, but it was not shown to a Sage on the eve of the Festival to determine whether it is a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish. In any event, the mishna teaches: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival, which indicates that it is not considered prepared even after the fact. It follows that the allowance granted in the case of a firstborn that was born with its blemish is also only after the fact, but the blemish may not be examined ab initio. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is so.
讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讛诇诇 诪专讘讗 讬砖 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讘转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讘转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讞讝讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讞讝讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讞讝讬 诇讗 讗讞讝讬
搂 Hillel raised a dilemma before Rava: Is there a prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat or is there no prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If an item was fit for eating or for some other purpose at twilight between Friday and Shabbat, it would then be fit for the entire Shabbat. And if it was not fit at twilight, it is not fit for the entire day, as anything considered muktze at twilight remains so throughout Shabbat. How, then, could there be a case of an item that is considered muktze for half of Shabbat?
诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讞讝讬 讜讛讚专 讗讚讞讬 讜讛讚专 讗讞讝讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖 诪讜拽爪讛
The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise this dilemma in a case where the item had once been fit for use, and then became disqualified on Shabbat itself for some reason, and then once again became fit. It is about such a case that Hillel asked: What is the halakha? Rava said to Hillel: There is a prohibition ofmuktze for half of Shabbat, that is to say, once an item becomes disqualified for use on Shabbat, it retains that status for the rest of the day.
讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讘讻讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 讗讙讘 讗诪讬讛 讗转讬诇讬讚 诇讬讛 讗讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讗讞讝讬讬讛 诇讞讻诐 讗砖转专讬 诇讬讛
Hillel raised an objection from the previously cited baraita that taught: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared before the Festival for use on the Festival. But why should this be? Let us say as follows: This firstborn was fit at the outset to be eaten on account of its mother, as had its mother been slaughtered before giving birth to the firstborn, it would have been permitted to eat them both. This being the case, when the firstborn was born, it became disqualified, since once a firstborn is born, it may not be eaten until it acquires a permanent blemish. And later, when he showed it to a Sage, it once again became permitted to him. This shows that although the animal had the status of muktze for part of the day of the Festival, it did not retain that status for the entire day.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 住驻专讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讬转讘讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讛转诐
Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Safra who said: Here, the baraita is referring to a case where judges were sitting there, observing the firstborn as it was being born, and they immediately saw that it was blemished. Therefore, the animal never lost its permitted status even for a moment.
讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讘转 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讛讗 讘讻讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 讗讙讘 讗诪讬讛 讗转讬诇讬讚 诇讬讛 讗讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讗讞讝讬讬讛 诇讞讻诐 讗砖转专讬 诇讬讛
Some say that Rava said the opposite to Hillel: There is no prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat, that is to say, even if an item becomes disqualified for use on Shabbat, once it becomes fit again, it is no longer prohibited. The Gemara responds: Let us say that the previously cited baraita supports Rava: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared before the Festival for use on the Festival. But wasn鈥檛 this firstborn fit to be eaten at the outset on account of its mother; and then when it was born it became disqualified; and then later, when he showed it to a Sage, it once again became permitted to him? This indicates that for half of Shabbat there is no prohibition of muktze.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 住驻专讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讬转讘讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讛转诐
Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Safra who said: This proof is inconclusive, as the baraita may be referring to a case where judges were sitting there when the firstborn was born, and they immediately saw that it was blemished; therefore the animal never acquired the status of muktze at all.
转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘注谞讘讬诐 讜讛讜转讬专 讜讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 爪诪讜拽讬谉 讘转讗谞讬诐 讜讛讜转讬专 讜讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讙专讜讙专讜转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讛谉 注讚 砖讬讝诪讬谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘讗驻专住拽讬谉 讜讘讞讘讜砖讬谉 讜讘砖讗专 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 驻讬专讜转
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a different baraita: If one was eating grapes and left some over and took them up to the roof to dry in order to make them into raisins, or if he was eating figs and left some over and took them up to the roof in order to make them into dried figs, he may not eat from them on Shabbat unless he designates them as food to be eaten while it is still day. Otherwise, they are prohibited as muktze. And you would find the same with regard to peaches, and quinces, and all other types of fruit that one left out to dry. It is prohibited to eat any of them on Shabbat due to the prohibition of muktze.
讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讞讝讜 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讛讝诪谞讛 讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 讻讬 讗讝诪讬谉 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬
The Gemara proceeds to clarify this baraita: What are the circumstances? If they are fit to be eaten, as they have already dried, why does he require prior designation? Since he placed them there in order to eat them after they dried, they should be considered food that has been designated to be eaten. And if they are not fit to be eaten, as they are yet not dry, even if he designates them the day before, what of it? Of what use is such designation, seeing that the fruit is still unfit to be eaten?
讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 讞讝讜 讗讬 诇讗 讞讝讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讜拽爪讛 砖讬讘砖 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讻讬专讬谉 讘讜 诪讜转专
And if you say the baraita is referring to a case where he could not ascend to the roof to examine them, and therefore he did not know whether they were fit or unfit, so that his designation was conditional, there is a difficulty. As didn鈥檛 Rav Kahana say: If fruit had been set aside for drying, and it dried and became fit for eating before Shabbat, but the owner did not know about it before Shabbat but only on Shabbat, the fruit is permitted, since he removed it from his mind only for as long as it would be unfit for eating.
讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讞讝讜 讜讗讚讞讜 讜讛讚专 讗讞讝讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讛讝诪谞讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬砖 诪讜拽爪讛 讻讬 讗讝诪讬谉 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬
Rather, is the baraita not referring to a case where the fruits were fit, and then became disqualified, and then once again became fit, and therefore they have the status of muktze? And if you say that there is no prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat, why do they require prior designation? The Gemara refutes this argument: Rather, what then do you say, that there is in fact a prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat? In that case, if he designates them the day before, what of it? How does his designation permit that which is prohibited as muktze?
诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讞讝讜 讜诇讗 讗讞讝讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讚讗讻诇讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讗讝诪讬谉 讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 讗讝诪讬谉 诇讗 讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛
The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is necessary for a case where the fruits were fit but not completely fit, meaning that there are people who eat them in that state and there are other people who do not eat them. Therefore, if he designated them as food to be eaten, he has revealed his intention that he is included among those who do eat them; if he did not designate them as food, he has not revealed his intention. Therefore, no proof can be adduced from here.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 诪驻讜诇讬谉 讜注讚砖讬诐 讚讛讗 驻讜诇讬谉 讜注讚砖讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讞讝讜 诇讻讜住 砖讚讬谞讛讜 讘拽讚专讛 讗讚讞讜 诇讛讜
Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear a resolution to the problem raised above from the halakha governing beans and lentils cooked on a Festival. As beans and lentils at the outset, at twilight, when they are still raw and uncooked, are fit to be chewed as they are and are therefore not in the category of muktze; then, when he casts them into the pot to cook them, they become disqualified because while they are being cooked they are fit neither to be chewed raw nor to be eaten cooked.
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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Beitzah 26
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜诐 讬注诇讛 讜讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉
If it has a permanent blemish, owing to which it may be slaughtered and eaten, he may raise it from the cistern and slaughter it; but if it does not have a blemish, or if its blemish is temporary, he may not slaughter it. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if it has a blemish, it is prohibited to slaughter it, as any firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible while it is still day, i.e., on the day before the Festival, is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival.
讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讘专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 拽诪驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇驻诇讙讜 讘专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讚注诇诪讗
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree? If we say that they disagree about whether or not one may examine blemishes on a Festival, such that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one may examine blemishes on a Festival, and Rabbi Shimon holds that one may not examine blemishes on a Festival, if so, let them disagree with regard to examining blemishes in general on a Festival and not only with respect to the particular case of a firstborn that fell into a cistern.
讘讻讜专 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诇注专讬诐 讜诇住拽讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the disagreement with regard to the case of a firstborn that fell into a cistern, as it could enter your mind to say that because of the matter of the suffering of living creatures, one should employ an artifice to circumvent the halakha and raise the animal from the cistern. This would be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who states elsewhere (37a) with regard to a different case that one may employ an artifice in order to rescue an animal that fell into a cistern on a Festival. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree even in the case of a firstborn that fell into a cistern.
讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 诇讗 讬注诇讛 讜讬砖讞讜讟 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚注讘专 讜讗住拽讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇砖讞讟讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
The Gemara asks: If so, if the mishna mentions the case of a firstborn that fell into a cistern in order to teach that an artifice may not be employed to raise the animal from the cistern, the phrase: He may not slaughter it, is inaccurate. Rather, it should have stated: He may not raise the animal and slaughter it. The Gemara answers: No, this teaching is necessary in a case where he transgressed the prohibition and already raised it, as it could enter your mind to say that he may now slaughter it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even then he may not do so.
诇砖讞讟讬讛 讛讗 转诐 讛讜讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讜讛讗 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讜讗
The Gemara expresses wonder at this answer: How could one think that he may now slaughter it? Isn鈥檛 the animal unblemished? How could one imagine that it is permitted to slaughter a firstborn that is unblemished? The Gemara answers: This teaching is necessary only in a case where it developed a blemish after it fell. The Gemara challenges this argument: But how could one think that he may now slaughter the animal? Doesn鈥檛 it fall into the category of muktze, as it was not fit to be eaten on the eve of the Festival, since at that time it was still unblemished? In that case, it should remain in the category of muktze for the duration of the Festival.
讗诇讗 讚谞驻诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛砖转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讚讚注转讬讛 注诇讜讬讛 讜谞砖讞讟讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
Rather, the mishna is speaking of a case where the animal developed a temporary blemish, one that might eventually heal, on the eve of the Festival, and now, after falling, it has a permanent blemish. Lest you say that his mind was set on the animal as food already before the Festival due to the temporary blemish and therefore he should now be allowed to slaughter it, the mishna teaches us that since it was not fit to be eaten before the Festival, it is not considered prepared for use on the Festival. Rather, it falls into the category of muktze and may not be slaughtered.
转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讻讜专 转诐 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 讬专讚 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讬专讗讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪讜诐 讬注诇讛 讜讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讬爪讚 谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讘拽专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐
The Sages taught the following baraita: With regard to an unblemished firstborn that fell into a cistern on a Festival, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: An expert in these matters goes down into the cistern and examines the animal. If it now has a permanent blemish as a result of the fall, he may raise it from the cistern and slaughter it; but if not, then even if he proceeds to raise it, he may not slaughter it, even if afterwards it develops a blemish. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said to him: The Sages of earlier generations already said that one may not examine blemishes on a Festival. How so? If a blemish came into being on the eve of a Festival, one may not examine it on the Festival itself to see whether it is in fact of the type that permits the animal to be slaughtered. And if the blemish came into being
讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉
on the Festival itself, Rabbi Shimon says: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival; therefore, even if it was examined by an expert, it may not be slaughtered. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared for use on the Festival.
讚专砖 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 诪讘拽专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讘讗 转谞讬 讗诐 注讘专 讜讘拽专讜 诪讘讜拽专 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诪讘拽专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讻转讞诇讛
Rabba bar Rav Huna taught the halakha as follows: If a firstborn was born with its blemish, experts may examine it on a Festival ab initio, and if the blemish is found to be permanent, the animal may then be slaughtered. Rav Na岣an said to him: Father would teach on this matter that if he transgressed and examined it, it is considered examined after the fact, and you say that one may examine it even ab initio?
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 转诇转讗 讘讘讬 谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讘拽专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬
Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna from the fact that the baraita is taught in three parts, which suggests that each part contains a novel halakha. The first section states: If a firstborn developed a blemish on the eve of a Festival one may not examine it on the Festival itself, from which one can learn that it is only ab initio that one may not examine it; but after the fact, it seems well, and the examination is valid.
谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬
The second section of the baraita states: If it developed a blemish on the Festival itself, Rabbi Shimon says: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. In other words, even after the fact, no, if the animal was examined by an expert, it may not be slaughtered and eaten. And then in the third section it teaches: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared for use on the Festival. The fact that the baraita taught this halakha as an independent clause indicates that even ab initio as well, the animal may be examined.
讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讘讬谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉
The Gemara raises an objection: But isn鈥檛 it so that when Rav Oshaya came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he came and brought the following baraita in his hand: Whether the animal developed a blemish on the eve of the Festival or it developed a blemish on the Festival itself, the Rabbis say: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared for use on the Festival, so that even after the fact, if the animal was examined, it may not be slaughtered and eaten. According to this, the allowance granted in the case of a firstborn that was born with its blemish can be only after the fact, as argued by Rav Na岣an, and not ab initio, as maintained by Rabba bar Rav Huna. Why, then, does Abaye accept the opinion of the latter and not that of the former?
讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱 讛讛讬讗 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讜讻诪讬 讛讬讗 讚诪砖讘砖 讜转谞讬
The Gemara asks: But if so, that baraita cited earlier, which presents these halakhot differently, is difficult. The Gemara answers: This does not pose a problem, as that baraita was taught by Adda bar Ukhmei, who would often confuse the opinions in the text and teach an inaccurate version of the dispute; therefore, his version is unreliable.
讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讻诇诇 驻砖讬讟讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专
Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The mishna is also precise in its wording according to the opinion that no blemish may be examined ab initio. As the mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the animal has a blemish, it is prohibited to slaughter it, since any firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible on the eve of the Festival while it is still day is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. What is the meaning of the phrase: Whose blemish is not perceptible? If we say that its blemish is not perceptible at all, it is obvious. Need it be said that an animal whose blemish was not perceptible at all prior to the Festival is not considered prepared for use on the Festival?
讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗转讞讝讬 诇讞讻诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诐 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讗诐 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
Rather, one must say that the animal had a perceptible blemish, but it was not shown to a Sage on the eve of the Festival to determine whether it is a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish. In any event, the mishna teaches: It is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival, which indicates that it is not considered prepared even after the fact. It follows that the allowance granted in the case of a firstborn that was born with its blemish is also only after the fact, but the blemish may not be examined ab initio. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is so.
讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讛诇诇 诪专讘讗 讬砖 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讘转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讘转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讞讝讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讞讝讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讞讝讬 诇讗 讗讞讝讬
搂 Hillel raised a dilemma before Rava: Is there a prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat or is there no prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If an item was fit for eating or for some other purpose at twilight between Friday and Shabbat, it would then be fit for the entire Shabbat. And if it was not fit at twilight, it is not fit for the entire day, as anything considered muktze at twilight remains so throughout Shabbat. How, then, could there be a case of an item that is considered muktze for half of Shabbat?
诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讞讝讬 讜讛讚专 讗讚讞讬 讜讛讚专 讗讞讝讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖 诪讜拽爪讛
The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise this dilemma in a case where the item had once been fit for use, and then became disqualified on Shabbat itself for some reason, and then once again became fit. It is about such a case that Hillel asked: What is the halakha? Rava said to Hillel: There is a prohibition ofmuktze for half of Shabbat, that is to say, once an item becomes disqualified for use on Shabbat, it retains that status for the rest of the day.
讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讘讻讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 讗讙讘 讗诪讬讛 讗转讬诇讬讚 诇讬讛 讗讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讗讞讝讬讬讛 诇讞讻诐 讗砖转专讬 诇讬讛
Hillel raised an objection from the previously cited baraita that taught: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared before the Festival for use on the Festival. But why should this be? Let us say as follows: This firstborn was fit at the outset to be eaten on account of its mother, as had its mother been slaughtered before giving birth to the firstborn, it would have been permitted to eat them both. This being the case, when the firstborn was born, it became disqualified, since once a firstborn is born, it may not be eaten until it acquires a permanent blemish. And later, when he showed it to a Sage, it once again became permitted to him. This shows that although the animal had the status of muktze for part of the day of the Festival, it did not retain that status for the entire day.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 住驻专讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讬转讘讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讛转诐
Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Safra who said: Here, the baraita is referring to a case where judges were sitting there, observing the firstborn as it was being born, and they immediately saw that it was blemished. Therefore, the animal never lost its permitted status even for a moment.
讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讘转 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讛讗 讘讻讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 讗讙讘 讗诪讬讛 讗转讬诇讬讚 诇讬讛 讗讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讗讞讝讬讬讛 诇讞讻诐 讗砖转专讬 诇讬讛
Some say that Rava said the opposite to Hillel: There is no prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat, that is to say, even if an item becomes disqualified for use on Shabbat, once it becomes fit again, it is no longer prohibited. The Gemara responds: Let us say that the previously cited baraita supports Rava: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if the animal was born with its blemish, it is considered to be among the animals prepared before the Festival for use on the Festival. But wasn鈥檛 this firstborn fit to be eaten at the outset on account of its mother; and then when it was born it became disqualified; and then later, when he showed it to a Sage, it once again became permitted to him? This indicates that for half of Shabbat there is no prohibition of muktze.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 住驻专讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讬转讘讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讛转诐
Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Safra who said: This proof is inconclusive, as the baraita may be referring to a case where judges were sitting there when the firstborn was born, and they immediately saw that it was blemished; therefore the animal never acquired the status of muktze at all.
转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘注谞讘讬诐 讜讛讜转讬专 讜讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 爪诪讜拽讬谉 讘转讗谞讬诐 讜讛讜转讬专 讜讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讙专讜讙专讜转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讛谉 注讚 砖讬讝诪讬谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘讗驻专住拽讬谉 讜讘讞讘讜砖讬谉 讜讘砖讗专 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 驻讬专讜转
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a different baraita: If one was eating grapes and left some over and took them up to the roof to dry in order to make them into raisins, or if he was eating figs and left some over and took them up to the roof in order to make them into dried figs, he may not eat from them on Shabbat unless he designates them as food to be eaten while it is still day. Otherwise, they are prohibited as muktze. And you would find the same with regard to peaches, and quinces, and all other types of fruit that one left out to dry. It is prohibited to eat any of them on Shabbat due to the prohibition of muktze.
讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讞讝讜 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讛讝诪谞讛 讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 讻讬 讗讝诪讬谉 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬
The Gemara proceeds to clarify this baraita: What are the circumstances? If they are fit to be eaten, as they have already dried, why does he require prior designation? Since he placed them there in order to eat them after they dried, they should be considered food that has been designated to be eaten. And if they are not fit to be eaten, as they are yet not dry, even if he designates them the day before, what of it? Of what use is such designation, seeing that the fruit is still unfit to be eaten?
讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 讞讝讜 讗讬 诇讗 讞讝讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讜拽爪讛 砖讬讘砖 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讻讬专讬谉 讘讜 诪讜转专
And if you say the baraita is referring to a case where he could not ascend to the roof to examine them, and therefore he did not know whether they were fit or unfit, so that his designation was conditional, there is a difficulty. As didn鈥檛 Rav Kahana say: If fruit had been set aside for drying, and it dried and became fit for eating before Shabbat, but the owner did not know about it before Shabbat but only on Shabbat, the fruit is permitted, since he removed it from his mind only for as long as it would be unfit for eating.
讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讞讝讜 讜讗讚讞讜 讜讛讚专 讗讞讝讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讛讝诪谞讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬砖 诪讜拽爪讛 讻讬 讗讝诪讬谉 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬
Rather, is the baraita not referring to a case where the fruits were fit, and then became disqualified, and then once again became fit, and therefore they have the status of muktze? And if you say that there is no prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat, why do they require prior designation? The Gemara refutes this argument: Rather, what then do you say, that there is in fact a prohibition of muktze for half of Shabbat? In that case, if he designates them the day before, what of it? How does his designation permit that which is prohibited as muktze?
诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讞讝讜 讜诇讗 讗讞讝讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讚讗讻诇讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讗讝诪讬谉 讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 讗讝诪讬谉 诇讗 讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛
The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is necessary for a case where the fruits were fit but not completely fit, meaning that there are people who eat them in that state and there are other people who do not eat them. Therefore, if he designated them as food to be eaten, he has revealed his intention that he is included among those who do eat them; if he did not designate them as food, he has not revealed his intention. Therefore, no proof can be adduced from here.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 诪驻讜诇讬谉 讜注讚砖讬诐 讚讛讗 驻讜诇讬谉 讜注讚砖讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讞讝讜 诇讻讜住 砖讚讬谞讛讜 讘拽讚专讛 讗讚讞讜 诇讛讜
Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear a resolution to the problem raised above from the halakha governing beans and lentils cooked on a Festival. As beans and lentils at the outset, at twilight, when they are still raw and uncooked, are fit to be chewed as they are and are therefore not in the category of muktze; then, when he casts them into the pot to cook them, they become disqualified because while they are being cooked they are fit neither to be chewed raw nor to be eaten cooked.
