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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 27, 2021 | 讻状讗 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 27

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jason, Erica, and Raquel in honor of the birthday of our mom, Patty Belkin. “Mom – you love, support, and inspire us every day. Mazel tov on your birthday!” And by Lisa Denker in honor of Steven Denker on his 70th Birthday 鈥淗appy 70th! All my love, Zis.” And by Hannah Katzman “in memory of her brother, Sholom Pinchas ben Ben-Zion and Taibe Gittel Wachholder. And by Gitta Neufeld “in loving memory of my special mother-in-law, Alice Neufeld, Aidel bat Nathan a”h, who treated me like Naomi treated Ruth. She was so proud of her family and their dedication to the ideals of Torah with Derech Eretz. At a time when many chose to send their children to the NYC public schools, she and my father-in-law sacrificed joyfully to ensure that their two sons received a quality Yeshiva education, laying the foundations for four generations of Shomrei Torah u’Mitzvot across the globe. Ma, I miss you every day (especially when I set the table) and am certain that you celebrate my learning.”

The Gemara starts by telling a story to demonstrate that one can examine firstborn animals for blemishes on Yom Tov. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had a firstborn that he brought to Rabbi Ami on Yom Tov but Rabbi Ami refused to examine it. He then proceed to Rabbi Yitzchak Nafha who also refused. The insistence on refusing to examine the firstborns leads to a discussion about Rabbi Zeira who apparently once said that that we hold like Rabbi Shimon who forbids. The Gemara then notes that 鈥渟omeone 鈥 (anonymously) once came to Rabbi Zeira to find out if he really ruled this way and that he told him that he didn鈥檛 say explicitly that the halakha was like Rabbi Shimon but rather, it appeared to him that this was the case. Ultimately who is right? The Gemara tries to derive this from a statement of Rabbi Meir who didn鈥檛 permit eating a firstborn who was examined for blemishes after it was already slaughtered. But Abaye says that really Rabbi Meir had no issue with examining on Yom Tov, rather it was forbidden as a penalty for those who did it. There was a concern that mistakes would be made in some types of blemishes (in the eyelids) that change after death and for this reason, all examinations were prohibited (a decree). In order to determine whether one can examine for blemishes on Yom Tov, the story is told about how Ami Vardena wouldn鈥檛 check in the house of the Nasi and Rabbi Ami approved of this. This is questioned as Rabbi Ami himself would examine blemishes on Yom Tov! However, it was explained that Rabbi Ami would look at blemishes before Yom Tov and issue his ruling on Yom Tov after having quizzed the animal鈥檚 owners about the facts of the case (to ensure the kohen hadn’t inflicted the blemish himself). In fact, even causing a blemish indirectly (for example by placing dough behind the ears of a calf so a dog will bite it) is prohibited. The next Mishnah prohibits an animal that died on Yom Tov from being moved. This seems to only match Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in Masechet Shabbat in which there is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon on feeding carcasses to dogs. However, it is possible that Rabbi Shimon agrees that in the case of a healthy animal where there was no indication the animal was going to die, the animal would be considered mukzeh. Alternatively, our Mishnah might be speaking about sanctified property only. In what way can meat be sold on Yom Tov and in what way is it not permitted?

讙诪专 讘砖讜诇讬讬讛讜 讞讝讜 诇讛讜

And then when their cooking is finished, they once again become fit for eating. This demonstrates that even food that had temporarily been set aside because it had become inedible does not remain prohibited for the entire day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 转拽砖讬 诇讱 拽讚专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讚讛讗 住转诐 拽讚专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 专讜转讞讜转 讛谉 讜诇讗讜专转讗 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning that foods are temporarily considered muktze while being cooked, cooked dishes in general present a difficulty for you on Shabbat as well. As ordinary cooked dishes in general are still bubbling at twilight and not yet edible, and yet we partake of them later in the evening. This demonstrates that although the food was considered muktze at the critical moment of twilight, it is not prohibited for the duration of Shabbat.

讗诇讗 讙诪专讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 诇讗 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇谉 讙诪专讜 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

Rather, it must be that we have no dilemma with regard to a food whose completion, which brings it to its finished and edible form, is entirely in the hands of a person, e.g., beans and lentils. Such foods are certainly not considered as muktze for all of Shabbat simply because they had become temporarily unfit for eating. Where we have a dilemma is with regard to an item whose completion is in the hands of Heaven, such as figs and grapes, which dry by the heat of the sun. This dilemma remains unresolved.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讘讜讻专讗 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 住讘专 讚诇讗 诇诪讞讝讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 住讘专 讚诇讗 诇诪讞讝讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the issue of permitting firstborn animals. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had a firstborn animal that acquired a blemish on a Festival, and he wished to serve it to priests staying at his house. He sent it to be presented before Rabbi Ami for examination, and Rabbi Ami thought that he should not examine it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Zerika said to him, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya: The principle is that in cases of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who in this case permits examination of the firstborn. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia then sent the firstborn to be presented before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, who likewise thought that he should not examine it. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him, and some say it was Rabbi Zerika: The principle is that in cases where Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 砖讘拽转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 诇诪注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗转 诪讛 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya: What is the reason that you did not allow the Sages to act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? He said to him: And you, what do you have? Do you have a tradition that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Abba said to him that Rabbi Zeira said as follows: The halakha in this case is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚讛讜讗 讗讝讻讬 讜讗住拽 诇讛转诐 讜讗讙诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚诪专讛 讻讬 住诇讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讗诪专讬

The Gemara relates that a certain unidentified person in Babylonia said: May it be His will that I merit to go up there to Eretz Yisrael, and that I learn this teaching from the mouth of its Master; I will ask Rabbi Zeira himself for his opinion on this matter. When he went up there to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Zeira and said to him: Did the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Zeira said to him: No, that is not what I said; rather, I said: It stands to reason that this is so. It is reasonable to rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon on this issue, although I do not have a definitive tradition to this effect.

诪讚拽转谞讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 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 讜拽转谞讬 诇讛 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪住转讘专讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rabbi Zeira explains: Why do I think so? From the fact that it teaches in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Any firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible while it is still day is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. And a baraita taught the same ruling in the name of the Sages, indicating that this is the majority opinion. One should therefore learn from this that it stands to reason that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讚转诇讬讗 讘讗砖诇讬 专讘专讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 拽讛诇讗 拽讚讬砖讗 讚讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讞讘专讬讜 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: In the final analysis, what conclusion was reached about this matter? Whose opinion does the halakha follow? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear, as this matter hangs on great trees, meaning it is the subject of a dispute among the early Sages. As Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of the holy community in Jerusalem: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专讜 讜讛讗 讗讬谞讛讜 拽砖讬砖讬 诪谞讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜讛

The Gemara wonders at the wording of this report: How could the holy community in Jerusalem have reported that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Aren鈥檛 they much older than he? Why, then, would they have reported a halakha in his name? The Gemara answers: Rather, the holy community in Jerusalem said the following: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues, who said that one may not examine blemishes on a Festival, spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛专讗讛 讗转 诪讜诪讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛 讗住讜专 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讗讬讬转 讘讻讜专 诇讗讜 讻专讗讬讬转 讟专驻讛 专讗讬讬转 讘讻讜专 诪讞讬讬诐 专讗讬讬转 讟专驻讛 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛

To which teaching of Rabbi Meir is the Gemara referring? It is as we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 28a): If one slaughtered a firstborn before it was shown to a Sage and deemed permitted, and afterward he showed its blemish to a Sage, who confirmed that it was indeed a permanent blemish that permitted the animal to be slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda permits it, as it had been established that the animal was blemished. And Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without the permission of an expert, it is prohibited. Apparently Rabbi Meir holds that the examination of a firstborn is not as simple a process as the examination of a tereifa, since it involves more than a mere examination of the body of the animal. The examination of a firstborn must be conducted when the animal is alive, whereas the examination of a tereifa may be performed even after slaughtering.

讜诪讬谞讛 专讗讬讬转 讟专驻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗讬讬转 讘讻讜专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

And from this Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues inferred that the examination of a tereifa, which consists merely of clarifying the facts of the animal鈥檚 physical state, may be done even on a Festival. On the other hand, the more stringent examination of a firstborn, which can be likened to the rendering of a judgment, a process with principles of its own, must be performed on the eve of the Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讛转诐 讘专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽谞住讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖转谞讬谉

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that there, in that mishna, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree about whether or not one may examine blemishes on a Festival? That was not their dispute; rather, they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not there is a penalty for one who acted improperly. As Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If the blemish was in the eyelids, e.g., if a fissure developed there that disqualifies the animal, everyone, including Rabbi Meir, agrees that the animal is prohibited, because such a blemish changes its appearance after the slaughter. It is possible that after slaughter what was a temporary blemish will then look like a permanent one, and the animal will incorrectly be permitted retroactively.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 讗讟讜 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

When they disagree is in a case of blemishes in the body, e.g., if an ear had been cut off or a foreleg broken, which are prominent blemishes whose appearance does not change after death. Rabbi Meir holds that we issue a decree that blemishes in the body are prohibited due to blemishes in the eye, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that we do not issue such a decree.

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 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The wording of the mishna in tractate Bekhorot is also precise according to this explanation, as it teaches that Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without the permission of an expert who confirmed that this is a permanent blemish, it is prohibited. Learn from this that this is a penalty that Rabbi Meir imposes and nothing else. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.

讗诪讬 讜专讚讬谞讗讛 讞讝讬 讘讜讻专讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 讗转讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讙讜驻讬讛 讞讝讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻讬 讞讝讬 诪讗转诪讜诇 讛讜讛 讞讝讬

搂 The Gemara relates that Ami of Vardina was the examiner of firstborns in the household of the Nasi. On Festivals he would not examine firstborn blemishes. They came and told Rabbi Ami about this. He said to them: He does well not to examine them. The Gemara raises an objection: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Ami himself examine firstborns for blemishes on a Festival? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Ami would examine the blemishes of firstborns, it was on the day before the Festival that he would examine them, to see whether the blemishes were permanent or temporary.

讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讬讜诇讬 拽讗 诪砖讬讬诇 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 讘讜讻专讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗驻谞讬讗 讚诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘讗 讜拽讗 讞讬讬祝 专讬砖讬讛 讚诇讬 注讬谞讬讛 讜讞讝讬讬讛 诇诪讜诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专

And on the Festival itself he would ask only how the incident occurred, meaning that he would investigate the cause of the blemish, as in that case where a certain man who was a priest brought a firstborn before Rava, close to nightfall on a Festival eve. Rava was sitting and washing the hair on his head. He raised his eyes and saw the firstborn鈥檚 blemish. He then said to the owner of the firstborn: Go now, and come back tomorrow.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 砖讚讬讬谉 砖注专讬 讘讛讱 讙讬住讗 讚讛讜爪讗 讜讛讜讛 讗讬讛讜 讘讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讘讛讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讻诇 注讬讬诇 专讬砖讬讛 讜驻专讟讬讛 讛讜爪讗 诇砖驻讜转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转 讙专诪转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗

When he came back on the following day, Rava said to him: How did the incident that caused the blemish occur? The owner said to Rava: Barley grains were scattered on one side of a fence of thorns, while the firstborn was standing on the other side. When it wanted to eat, it stuck its head through the fence and a thorn cut its lip. Rava said to the owner: Perhaps you caused the blemish by deliberately placing the barley on the other side of the fence? He said to him: No.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讙专诪讗 讗住讜专 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪谞讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙专讜诐 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讘爪拽 讗讜 讚讘诇讛 讜讬谞讬讞 诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讝谉 讻讚讬 砖讬讘讗 讛讻诇讘 讜讬讟诇谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 诪讜诐 讗诪专 诪讜诐 讜讗诪专 讻诇 诪讜诐

The Gemara comments: And from where do you say that causing a blemish to an offering is prohibited? As it is taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to offerings: 鈥淭here must not be any blemish in it鈥 (Leviticus 22:21). I have only an explicit prohibition that it may not have a blemish; from where is it derived that one may not cause a blemish to it by means of something else, e.g., that he does not bring dough or a dried fig and place it on its ear so that a dog will come and take it, thereby biting off part of the animal鈥檚 ear and leaving it blemished? Therefore the verse states 鈥渁ny blemish.鈥 It says 鈥渂lemish鈥 and it says 鈥渁ny blemish鈥; the word 鈥渁ny鈥 comes to teach that one may not cause a blemish.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 砖诪转讛 诇讗 讬讝讬讝谞讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛 讜诪注砖讛 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 注诇讬讛 讜注诇 讛讞诇讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讜谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜砖讗诇 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讬讝讬讝诐 诪诪拽讜诪诐

MISHNA: With regard to an animal that died, one may not move it from its place on a Festival. And such an incident once occurred and they asked Rabbi Tarfon about it. And on that same occasion they also asked him about 岣lla that had been separated from dough and then became ritually impure on a Festival. Such 岣lla is not fit to be eaten by anyone, nor may it be used in any other manner, e.g., as animal feed or as fuel for a fire, on that day. Rabbi Tarfon entered the study hall and inquired about these matters, and the Sages said to him: One may not move them from their place.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 (讚转谞谉) 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讞转讻讬谉 讗转 讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讘诇讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗住讜专讛

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that we learned the unattributed mishna not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 156b) that Rabbi Shimon says: One may cut up gourds for an animal on Shabbat so that it can eat them more easily, and similarly, one may cut up an unslaughtered animal carcass for dogs. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was not an animal carcass already on the eve of Shabbat, but rather it died on Shabbat itself, it is prohibited. Since Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between an animal that died on Shabbat and one that died before Shabbat, it would appear that Rabbi Shimon holds that one may move an animal carcass and feed it to dogs even if it died on Shabbat. Accordingly, the mishna that prohibits moving an animal that died on a Festival seems to conflict with Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讗住讜专讬谉

The Gemara rejects this argument: The mishna can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon nevertheless concedes in the case of animals that were entirely healthy at twilight but died on the Festival that they are prohibited. Since they were healthy at twilight, the owner had no intention at that point in time of feeding them to dogs, and they are therefore prohibited as muktze. The baraita, on the other hand, is referring to an animal that had been sick on the previous day; since the owner knew that it was close to death, he had in mind to feed it to his dogs after it died.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讗住讜专讬谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖诪讜转专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar bar Ameimar in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of animals that died on the Festival without having been mortally sick the day before that they are prohibited on the Festival due to muktze; according to this opinion, it is well. However, according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon was in disagreement even in the case of animals that died suddenly, and he holds that they are permitted, what is there to say? The unattributed mishna appears to contradict this opinion.

转专讙讜诪讛 讝注讬专讬 讘讘讛诪转 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讬讛 讜注诇 讛讞诇讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 诪讛 讞诇讛 讚拽讚讬砖讗 讗祝 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讚讬砖讗

The Gemara answers: Ze鈥檌ri explained it as follows: The mishna is referring to a sacred animal that died; since it is sacred property, one may not derive benefit from it, and therefore one may not give it to dogs. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this interpretation, as it teaches: They asked Rabbi Tarfon about it and about 岣lla that became ritually impure, from which it may be inferred: Just as 岣lla is sacred, so too, the animal mentioned here is one that was sacred, rather than a non-sacred animal.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚拽讚讬砖讗 讛讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 砖专讬讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖诪讜转专讬谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讗住讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: Rather, according to this explanation, the reason that the animal may not be moved is that the animal was sacred; but if it was a non-sacred animal that died, it would be permitted to move it. If so, this works out well according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon was in disagreement even in the case of animals that died, and he holds that they are permitted; according to this opinion, it is well, as one can say that the mishna, which indicates that one may move an animal that died on a Festival, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, according to the opinion of Mar bar Ameimar in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of animals that died that they are prohibited, what is there to say? The mishna is in accordance with neither Rabbi Shimon nor Rabbi Yehuda.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪住讜讻谞转 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the animal was in danger of dying the day before, and the owner had in mind to feed it to his dogs after it died, and all agree with regard to the ruling. Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, an allowance is granted to move the animal if it was a non-sacred animal and it had been in danger prior to the Festival; and if the animal was sacred, even he agrees that it is prohibited, as it may not be fed to dogs.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜诪讞诇拽讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐

MISHNA: One may not register to have a portion of an animal on a Festival ab initio, since it is prohibited to divide up an animal into portions for different people, as this is similar to conducting business, a weekday activity, on a Festival. But one may register for the animal on the eve of the Festival, and then those who registered for the animal may slaughter and divide it between them on the Festival itself in accordance with the agreement reached the day before. The next day, each pays the slaughterer according to his portion of the animal.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 讚诪讬诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 讜诪注诪讬讚谉 讝讜 讗爪诇 讝讜 讜讗讜诪专 讝讜 讻讝讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: One may not register? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One may not fix a sum of money and set a particular price for each portion of an animal on a Festival ab initio. The Gemara asks: What should one do on a Festival to divide up the animal without fixing a price? Rav said: He should bring two animals and stand them one next to the other and say: Is this one equal in value to the other one? If the purchasers confirm that this is the case, then after the Festival they assess the value of the animal that is identical to the animal that had been slaughtered on the Festival, and in that way they establish the amount that each person must pay.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘专讜 讛专讬谞讬 注诪讱 讘住诇注 讛专讬谞讬 注诪讱 讘砖转讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬谞讬 注诪讱 诇诪讞爪讛 讜诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注

This is also taught in a baraita that states: A person may not say to another on a Festival: I am hereby in partnership with you in this animal that you are about to slaughter for the value of a sela, or: I am hereby in partnership with you for two sela. However, he may say to him: I am hereby in partnership with you for half the animal, or for a third or a quarter, without stipulating the value of that share, and after the Festival they may determine how much each share is worth.

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

Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Business on Shabbat and Yom Tov? – Gefet 10

Why is There a Prohibition to Do Business on Shabbat and Yom Tov? Is it possible to perform this operation...
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...
alon shvut women

Blemished Berchor on Yom Tov

Beitza daf 27 Teacher: Susan Suna Topics on the daf: -first born animal with blemish issues of when blemish found...

Beitzah 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 27

讙诪专 讘砖讜诇讬讬讛讜 讞讝讜 诇讛讜

And then when their cooking is finished, they once again become fit for eating. This demonstrates that even food that had temporarily been set aside because it had become inedible does not remain prohibited for the entire day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 转拽砖讬 诇讱 拽讚专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讚讛讗 住转诐 拽讚专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 专讜转讞讜转 讛谉 讜诇讗讜专转讗 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning that foods are temporarily considered muktze while being cooked, cooked dishes in general present a difficulty for you on Shabbat as well. As ordinary cooked dishes in general are still bubbling at twilight and not yet edible, and yet we partake of them later in the evening. This demonstrates that although the food was considered muktze at the critical moment of twilight, it is not prohibited for the duration of Shabbat.

讗诇讗 讙诪专讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 诇讗 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇谉 讙诪专讜 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

Rather, it must be that we have no dilemma with regard to a food whose completion, which brings it to its finished and edible form, is entirely in the hands of a person, e.g., beans and lentils. Such foods are certainly not considered as muktze for all of Shabbat simply because they had become temporarily unfit for eating. Where we have a dilemma is with regard to an item whose completion is in the hands of Heaven, such as figs and grapes, which dry by the heat of the sun. This dilemma remains unresolved.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讘讜讻专讗 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 住讘专 讚诇讗 诇诪讞讝讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 住讘专 讚诇讗 诇诪讞讝讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the issue of permitting firstborn animals. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had a firstborn animal that acquired a blemish on a Festival, and he wished to serve it to priests staying at his house. He sent it to be presented before Rabbi Ami for examination, and Rabbi Ami thought that he should not examine it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Zerika said to him, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya: The principle is that in cases of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who in this case permits examination of the firstborn. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia then sent the firstborn to be presented before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, who likewise thought that he should not examine it. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him, and some say it was Rabbi Zerika: The principle is that in cases where Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 砖讘拽转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 诇诪注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗转 诪讛 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya: What is the reason that you did not allow the Sages to act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? He said to him: And you, what do you have? Do you have a tradition that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Abba said to him that Rabbi Zeira said as follows: The halakha in this case is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚讛讜讗 讗讝讻讬 讜讗住拽 诇讛转诐 讜讗讙诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚诪专讛 讻讬 住诇讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讗诪专讬

The Gemara relates that a certain unidentified person in Babylonia said: May it be His will that I merit to go up there to Eretz Yisrael, and that I learn this teaching from the mouth of its Master; I will ask Rabbi Zeira himself for his opinion on this matter. When he went up there to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Zeira and said to him: Did the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Zeira said to him: No, that is not what I said; rather, I said: It stands to reason that this is so. It is reasonable to rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon on this issue, although I do not have a definitive tradition to this effect.

诪讚拽转谞讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 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 讜拽转谞讬 诇讛 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪住转讘专讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rabbi Zeira explains: Why do I think so? From the fact that it teaches in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Any firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible while it is still day is not considered to be among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. And a baraita taught the same ruling in the name of the Sages, indicating that this is the majority opinion. One should therefore learn from this that it stands to reason that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讚转诇讬讗 讘讗砖诇讬 专讘专讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 拽讛诇讗 拽讚讬砖讗 讚讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讞讘专讬讜 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: In the final analysis, what conclusion was reached about this matter? Whose opinion does the halakha follow? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear, as this matter hangs on great trees, meaning it is the subject of a dispute among the early Sages. As Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of the holy community in Jerusalem: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专讜 讜讛讗 讗讬谞讛讜 拽砖讬砖讬 诪谞讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜讛

The Gemara wonders at the wording of this report: How could the holy community in Jerusalem have reported that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Aren鈥檛 they much older than he? Why, then, would they have reported a halakha in his name? The Gemara answers: Rather, the holy community in Jerusalem said the following: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues, who said that one may not examine blemishes on a Festival, spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛专讗讛 讗转 诪讜诪讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛 讗住讜专 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讗讬讬转 讘讻讜专 诇讗讜 讻专讗讬讬转 讟专驻讛 专讗讬讬转 讘讻讜专 诪讞讬讬诐 专讗讬讬转 讟专驻讛 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛

To which teaching of Rabbi Meir is the Gemara referring? It is as we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 28a): If one slaughtered a firstborn before it was shown to a Sage and deemed permitted, and afterward he showed its blemish to a Sage, who confirmed that it was indeed a permanent blemish that permitted the animal to be slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda permits it, as it had been established that the animal was blemished. And Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without the permission of an expert, it is prohibited. Apparently Rabbi Meir holds that the examination of a firstborn is not as simple a process as the examination of a tereifa, since it involves more than a mere examination of the body of the animal. The examination of a firstborn must be conducted when the animal is alive, whereas the examination of a tereifa may be performed even after slaughtering.

讜诪讬谞讛 专讗讬讬转 讟专驻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗讬讬转 讘讻讜专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

And from this Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues inferred that the examination of a tereifa, which consists merely of clarifying the facts of the animal鈥檚 physical state, may be done even on a Festival. On the other hand, the more stringent examination of a firstborn, which can be likened to the rendering of a judgment, a process with principles of its own, must be performed on the eve of the Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讛转诐 讘专讜讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽谞住讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖转谞讬谉

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that there, in that mishna, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree about whether or not one may examine blemishes on a Festival? That was not their dispute; rather, they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not there is a penalty for one who acted improperly. As Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If the blemish was in the eyelids, e.g., if a fissure developed there that disqualifies the animal, everyone, including Rabbi Meir, agrees that the animal is prohibited, because such a blemish changes its appearance after the slaughter. It is possible that after slaughter what was a temporary blemish will then look like a permanent one, and the animal will incorrectly be permitted retroactively.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙讜祝 讗讟讜 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

When they disagree is in a case of blemishes in the body, e.g., if an ear had been cut off or a foreleg broken, which are prominent blemishes whose appearance does not change after death. Rabbi Meir holds that we issue a decree that blemishes in the body are prohibited due to blemishes in the eye, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that we do not issue such a decree.

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 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The wording of the mishna in tractate Bekhorot is also precise according to this explanation, as it teaches that Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without the permission of an expert who confirmed that this is a permanent blemish, it is prohibited. Learn from this that this is a penalty that Rabbi Meir imposes and nothing else. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.

讗诪讬 讜专讚讬谞讗讛 讞讝讬 讘讜讻专讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 讗转讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讙讜驻讬讛 讞讝讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻讬 讞讝讬 诪讗转诪讜诇 讛讜讛 讞讝讬

搂 The Gemara relates that Ami of Vardina was the examiner of firstborns in the household of the Nasi. On Festivals he would not examine firstborn blemishes. They came and told Rabbi Ami about this. He said to them: He does well not to examine them. The Gemara raises an objection: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Ami himself examine firstborns for blemishes on a Festival? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Ami would examine the blemishes of firstborns, it was on the day before the Festival that he would examine them, to see whether the blemishes were permanent or temporary.

讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讬讜诇讬 拽讗 诪砖讬讬诇 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 讘讜讻专讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗驻谞讬讗 讚诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘讗 讜拽讗 讞讬讬祝 专讬砖讬讛 讚诇讬 注讬谞讬讛 讜讞讝讬讬讛 诇诪讜诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专

And on the Festival itself he would ask only how the incident occurred, meaning that he would investigate the cause of the blemish, as in that case where a certain man who was a priest brought a firstborn before Rava, close to nightfall on a Festival eve. Rava was sitting and washing the hair on his head. He raised his eyes and saw the firstborn鈥檚 blemish. He then said to the owner of the firstborn: Go now, and come back tomorrow.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 砖讚讬讬谉 砖注专讬 讘讛讱 讙讬住讗 讚讛讜爪讗 讜讛讜讛 讗讬讛讜 讘讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讘讛讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讻诇 注讬讬诇 专讬砖讬讛 讜驻专讟讬讛 讛讜爪讗 诇砖驻讜转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转 讙专诪转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗

When he came back on the following day, Rava said to him: How did the incident that caused the blemish occur? The owner said to Rava: Barley grains were scattered on one side of a fence of thorns, while the firstborn was standing on the other side. When it wanted to eat, it stuck its head through the fence and a thorn cut its lip. Rava said to the owner: Perhaps you caused the blemish by deliberately placing the barley on the other side of the fence? He said to him: No.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讙专诪讗 讗住讜专 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪谞讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙专讜诐 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讘爪拽 讗讜 讚讘诇讛 讜讬谞讬讞 诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讝谉 讻讚讬 砖讬讘讗 讛讻诇讘 讜讬讟诇谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 诪讜诐 讗诪专 诪讜诐 讜讗诪专 讻诇 诪讜诐

The Gemara comments: And from where do you say that causing a blemish to an offering is prohibited? As it is taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to offerings: 鈥淭here must not be any blemish in it鈥 (Leviticus 22:21). I have only an explicit prohibition that it may not have a blemish; from where is it derived that one may not cause a blemish to it by means of something else, e.g., that he does not bring dough or a dried fig and place it on its ear so that a dog will come and take it, thereby biting off part of the animal鈥檚 ear and leaving it blemished? Therefore the verse states 鈥渁ny blemish.鈥 It says 鈥渂lemish鈥 and it says 鈥渁ny blemish鈥; the word 鈥渁ny鈥 comes to teach that one may not cause a blemish.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 砖诪转讛 诇讗 讬讝讬讝谞讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛 讜诪注砖讛 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 注诇讬讛 讜注诇 讛讞诇讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讜谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜砖讗诇 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讬讝讬讝诐 诪诪拽讜诪诐

MISHNA: With regard to an animal that died, one may not move it from its place on a Festival. And such an incident once occurred and they asked Rabbi Tarfon about it. And on that same occasion they also asked him about 岣lla that had been separated from dough and then became ritually impure on a Festival. Such 岣lla is not fit to be eaten by anyone, nor may it be used in any other manner, e.g., as animal feed or as fuel for a fire, on that day. Rabbi Tarfon entered the study hall and inquired about these matters, and the Sages said to him: One may not move them from their place.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 (讚转谞谉) 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讞转讻讬谉 讗转 讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讘诇讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗住讜专讛

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that we learned the unattributed mishna not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 156b) that Rabbi Shimon says: One may cut up gourds for an animal on Shabbat so that it can eat them more easily, and similarly, one may cut up an unslaughtered animal carcass for dogs. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was not an animal carcass already on the eve of Shabbat, but rather it died on Shabbat itself, it is prohibited. Since Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between an animal that died on Shabbat and one that died before Shabbat, it would appear that Rabbi Shimon holds that one may move an animal carcass and feed it to dogs even if it died on Shabbat. Accordingly, the mishna that prohibits moving an animal that died on a Festival seems to conflict with Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讗住讜专讬谉

The Gemara rejects this argument: The mishna can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon nevertheless concedes in the case of animals that were entirely healthy at twilight but died on the Festival that they are prohibited. Since they were healthy at twilight, the owner had no intention at that point in time of feeding them to dogs, and they are therefore prohibited as muktze. The baraita, on the other hand, is referring to an animal that had been sick on the previous day; since the owner knew that it was close to death, he had in mind to feed it to his dogs after it died.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讗住讜专讬谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖诪讜转专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar bar Ameimar in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of animals that died on the Festival without having been mortally sick the day before that they are prohibited on the Festival due to muktze; according to this opinion, it is well. However, according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon was in disagreement even in the case of animals that died suddenly, and he holds that they are permitted, what is there to say? The unattributed mishna appears to contradict this opinion.

转专讙讜诪讛 讝注讬专讬 讘讘讛诪转 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讬讛 讜注诇 讛讞诇讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 诪讛 讞诇讛 讚拽讚讬砖讗 讗祝 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讚讬砖讗

The Gemara answers: Ze鈥檌ri explained it as follows: The mishna is referring to a sacred animal that died; since it is sacred property, one may not derive benefit from it, and therefore one may not give it to dogs. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this interpretation, as it teaches: They asked Rabbi Tarfon about it and about 岣lla that became ritually impure, from which it may be inferred: Just as 岣lla is sacred, so too, the animal mentioned here is one that was sacred, rather than a non-sacred animal.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚拽讚讬砖讗 讛讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 砖专讬讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖诪讜转专讬谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讗住讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: Rather, according to this explanation, the reason that the animal may not be moved is that the animal was sacred; but if it was a non-sacred animal that died, it would be permitted to move it. If so, this works out well according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon was in disagreement even in the case of animals that died, and he holds that they are permitted; according to this opinion, it is well, as one can say that the mishna, which indicates that one may move an animal that died on a Festival, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, according to the opinion of Mar bar Ameimar in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of animals that died that they are prohibited, what is there to say? The mishna is in accordance with neither Rabbi Shimon nor Rabbi Yehuda.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪住讜讻谞转 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the animal was in danger of dying the day before, and the owner had in mind to feed it to his dogs after it died, and all agree with regard to the ruling. Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, an allowance is granted to move the animal if it was a non-sacred animal and it had been in danger prior to the Festival; and if the animal was sacred, even he agrees that it is prohibited, as it may not be fed to dogs.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜诪讞诇拽讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐

MISHNA: One may not register to have a portion of an animal on a Festival ab initio, since it is prohibited to divide up an animal into portions for different people, as this is similar to conducting business, a weekday activity, on a Festival. But one may register for the animal on the eve of the Festival, and then those who registered for the animal may slaughter and divide it between them on the Festival itself in accordance with the agreement reached the day before. The next day, each pays the slaughterer according to his portion of the animal.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 讚诪讬诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 讜诪注诪讬讚谉 讝讜 讗爪诇 讝讜 讜讗讜诪专 讝讜 讻讝讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: One may not register? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One may not fix a sum of money and set a particular price for each portion of an animal on a Festival ab initio. The Gemara asks: What should one do on a Festival to divide up the animal without fixing a price? Rav said: He should bring two animals and stand them one next to the other and say: Is this one equal in value to the other one? If the purchasers confirm that this is the case, then after the Festival they assess the value of the animal that is identical to the animal that had been slaughtered on the Festival, and in that way they establish the amount that each person must pay.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘专讜 讛专讬谞讬 注诪讱 讘住诇注 讛专讬谞讬 注诪讱 讘砖转讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬谞讬 注诪讱 诇诪讞爪讛 讜诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注

This is also taught in a baraita that states: A person may not say to another on a Festival: I am hereby in partnership with you in this animal that you are about to slaughter for the value of a sela, or: I am hereby in partnership with you for two sela. However, he may say to him: I am hereby in partnership with you for half the animal, or for a third or a quarter, without stipulating the value of that share, and after the Festival they may determine how much each share is worth.

Scroll To Top