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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 3, 2021 | 讻状讜 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讗

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.

  • 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 3

This month’s learning is 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 maternal grandmother, Regina Post z”l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY during the post-Shoah stage of her life. Babi Gina’s yahrzeit was on the 24 Elul. It is very fitting that Rivkah’s first day out of biddud after her flight from the States & her first day of work was on her great-grandmother’s 22nd yahrzeit. It is also so special that 24 Elul 5781 coincided with the Daf Yomi Siyum of Masechet Sukkah!聽 In Rabbi Malik’s words, “Sukkot is the holiday that most reminds me of my grandmother, a true Eshet Chayil and my spiritual mentor, who used to serve her yummy fricassee, chicken soup, roast chicken, potato kugel, & broccoli kugel by placing the dishes in a bucket that was lowered by a pulley from the 2nd floor to the green faux malachite Sukkah in her backyard on East 8th Street and Avenue J in Midwood/Flatbush. My Babi Gina would be so proud of her great-granddaughter for making aliyah & the daily spiritual practice of Daf Yomi learning to which I have committed myself since January 2020. She would be especially proud that I am studying with a master teacher, the fabulous Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber, who also attended the Yeshivah of Flatbush.聽 I look forward to completing the next 3 masechtot while spending time with Rivkah in Jerusalem over the next 3 months!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dana Melzer in honor of her grandfather, Rev Ely Meltzer. “My grandfather was a devoted lifelong Talmud scholar and teacher.” And by Deborah Dickson in honor of Ruby Levant’s Bar Mitzvah this Shabbat. “Wishing a huge Mazal Tov to Audrey and Geri who are listening to the daf, and to the Levant family!”

The gemara raises some questions on the third explanation of the mishna 鈥 that the issue with an egg laid on Yom Tov is because it is similar to fruits that have fallen off a tree. Rabbi Yitzchak says that the egg is forbidden so that people don鈥檛 think that one is permitted to drink liquids that drip out of a fruit. The gemara raises questions with this answer as well. After all four explanations are brought, they explain what issue each of them had with the other answers. They conclude that Rabbi Yochanan held by the opinions of Rabbi Yitzchak based on the way he resolved a contradiction between two mishnayot. There are two other possible resolutions to that contradiction. A braita is introduced that says that in a doubtful situation regarding an egg, the egg is forbidden. This is brought as a question against Rav Yosef and Rabbi Yitzchak鈥檚 explanations of the mishna as the prohibition is rabbinic and as such, in a situation of doubt one should be lenient! The first answer given is that the case is not relating to an egg that is laid but an egg that there is a doubt whether it came from a chicken that was a treifa. A question is raised against this from the continuation of the braita regarding laws of nullification. This is eventually resolved as well.

讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讜讬转诇讜砖 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝专讛 诇讙讝专讛 讻讜诇讛 讞讚讗 讙讝专讛 讛讬讗

It is a decree lest one climb the tree and pick the fruit, as this would constitute the prohibited labor of harvesting. If so, the prohibition against eating fruit is itself due to a decree. And will we arise and issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree? Rav Yosef responded: That is not so; rather, when the Sages issued the initial decree, they enacted the prohibitions against both fruit that fall and a laid egg, as all the prohibitions are components of one decree. In other words, the similar cases of the fruit and the egg were both included in the original decree.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讝讘讜

Rabbi Yitz岣k said a different reason: An egg that was laid on a Festival is prohibited as a decree due to liquids that seeped from the fruit (Eiruvin 39b), which is prohibited on that day. The legal status of an egg that was laid on a Festival is like that of liquids that seeped from a fruit on a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讝讘讜 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬住讞讜讟 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝专讛 诇讙讝专讛 讻讜诇讛 讞讚讗 讙讝专讛 讛讬讗

Abaye said to him: With regard to liquid that seeped from fruit, what is the reason that the Sages prohibited it? It is a decree lest one purposely squeeze the fruit, and thereby perform the prohibited labor of threshing. However, the prohibition against consuming this juice is itself a rabbinic decree. And will we arise and issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree? Rabbi Yitz岣k replied: All the prohibitions are components of one decree. When the Sages prohibited this juice, they banned the eating of an egg laid on a Festival for the same reason, as the actions are similar.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬 拽讜砖讬讬谉 讻专讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讛讻谞讛 诇讬转 诇讛讜

As various explanations have been offered for this mishna, the Gemara seeks to clarify why each Sage was dissatisfied with the other explanations and suggested an alternative. The Gemara says: All of them, Rabba, Rav Yosef, and Rabbi Yitz岣k, did not state their explanations in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, as stated in our previously stated objection to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 explanation. The other Sages also did not state their explanations in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as they do not accept that there is a Torah prohibition of using items whose preparation was from Shabbat to a Festival or from a Festival to Shabbat.

讗诇讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇讗 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇讗

However, the following question arises: Since Rav Yosef provides an explanation that is similar to that of Rabbi Yitz岣k, what is the reason that he did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k? The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: An egg is food, and fruit is food, i.e., an egg is comparable to fruits that fall. This observation would serve to exclude juice, which is not food but drink. Consequently, an egg is not comparable to juice and would not be included in the same decree.

讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讘诇讜注讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讘诇讜注讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 驻讬专讜转 讚诪讙诇讜 讜拽讬讬诪讜

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And with regard to Rabbi Yitz岣k, what is the reason that he did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the case of an egg is more similar to juices that seep from fruit. How so? An egg is enclosed inside a chicken before it is laid, and likewise juice is enclosed inside the fruit. This observation serves to exclude fruits that fall from a tree, which are standing exposed on the tree. Therefore, the comparison between fruits that fall and an egg is weaker than the comparison between liquid that seeped from fruit and an egg.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讝讘讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪砖谞讬

搂 The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds that the prohibition against eating an egg laid on a Festival is a decree due to liquid that seeped from fruit. What proof can be cited for this? It is proven as Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and a different statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and he resolved the apparent contradiction in a manner that indicates his own opinion.

转谞谉 讗讬谉 住讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专

The Gemara elaborates on the previous statement. We learned in a mishna (Shabbat 143b): One may not squeeze fruits to extract liquids from them on Shabbat, and if the liquids seeped out on their own, it is prohibited to use them on Shabbat, lest he come to squeeze fruits intentionally. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the fruit is designated for eating, e.g., apples, the liquid that seeps from them is permitted. Since there is no concern that one might squeeze the fruit, there is no reason to prohibit its liquid. And if the fruit was originally designated for liquids, such as grapes for wine, there are grounds for concern that one might squeeze them, and therefore the liquid that seeps from them is prohibited.

讗诇诪讗 讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗驻专转 讛讜讗

From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda said that liquid from fruit intended for eating is permitted, one can infer that, apparently, all food that comes out of another food is classified as food that was separated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Food that was separated is not considered a new food, but part of the food that previously existed.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讛 讗讚诐 注诇 讻诇讻诇讛 砖诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉

And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this from a different source: And Rabbi Yehuda said further, concerning untithed fruit, which may not be rendered fit to be eaten on a Festival by separating teruma and tithes from it (Eiruvin 39a): A person may stipulate a condition with regard to a basket of untithed fruit on the first day of a Festival, and say: If today is the true Festival day, the second Festival day is actually a weekday. Therefore, this fruit is permitted, once I separate tithes from it, as on any other weekday. And vice versa: If today is, in fact, a weekday, and tomorrow is the Festival, I hereby separate its tithes today.

讜讗讜讻诇讛 讘砖谞讬 讜讻谉 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 转讗讻诇 讘砖谞讬

Likewise, on the following day, he should again stipulate: If today is a weekday and yesterday was holy, I hereby separate tithes from the fruit now; if today is holy and yesterday was a weekday, separating the tithes yesterday was sufficient. And he may then eat the produce on the second Festival day, as in either case no prohibition is involved. And similarly, an egg laid on the first Festival day may be eaten on the second day, regardless of which day is the actual Festival.

讘砖谞讬 讗讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 讜诪砖谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement indicates that on the second day, yes, it is permitted to partake of the egg; but if the egg was laid on the first day, no, one may not eat it. If so, Rabbi Yehuda apparently contradicts himself, as he said previously that liquid from food prepared for eating has the same status as the food itself, and that its emergence is considered to be nothing more than the separation of two foods from each other. And Rabbi Yo岣nan resolves the difficulty: The attribution of the opinions with regard to the second day of the Festival is reversed (Berakhot 17b), so that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion corresponds with his ruling above.

讜诪讚拽讗 诪专诪讬 诇讛讜 讗讛讚讚讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗

The significance of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement for the issue at hand is as follows: Since Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a contradiction between the cases of an egg and liquid that oozed, one may conclude from this that it is the same reason in both cases, i.e., an egg is prohibited on a Festival due to the rabbinic decree against liquid that oozed from fruit.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜

With regard to the contradiction presented by Rabbi Yo岣nan, which led him to suggest that the opinions should be reversed, Ravina said that this is not the only possible resolution: Actually, do not reverse the opinions. Rather, in the case of the two Festival days, one could claim that Rabbi Yehuda spoke to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, rather than presenting his own opinion.

诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 砖专讬讗 讚讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗驻专转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讘砖谞讬 砖专讬讗 讚砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

If so, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement should be understood as follows: In my opinion, even on the first Festival day, the egg is also permitted, as it is food that was separated. However, according to your opinion, which is that you prohibit liquid that comes from food, at least agree with me that it is permitted on the second day, as they are two sanctities. The first and second days of Rosh HaShana are not one unit, but two separate entities. Therefore, it is possible that the first day is sacred, while the second is a weekday. Consequently, an item prohibited on the first day might be permitted on the second. And the Rabbis said to him: No, the two days are one sanctity, i.e., they are viewed as a single continuous unit. The uncertainty applies equally to both of them.

专讘讬谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛

Ravina, son of Rav Ulla, said: There is an alternative resolution to the contradiction raised by Rabbi Yo岣nan. Here, in the case of the egg laid on a Festival, Rabbi Yehuda prohibited eating the egg since it is not from a chicken designated for food, whose legal status is that of food. Rather, the case refers to a chicken designated for laying eggs, and Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he holds that there is a prohibition of muktze. Since the egg is produced by something muktze, it is certainly muktze itself, which means that the halakha of food that was separated is inapplicable to this case.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讞讚 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗 诇讻住讜转 讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讜诇讗 诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛

搂 The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita, which clarifies the issue differently: Both an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a Festival are considered to be muktze, and therefore in both cases, one may not move the egg, neither for the sake of food nor for any other purpose: Not to cover a vessel with it, nor to support the legs of a bed with it.

讗讘诇 讻讜驻讛 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转砖讘专 讜住驻讬拽讗 讗住讜专讛 讜讗诐 谞转注专讘讛 讘讗诇祝 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转

However, if one wishes, he may cover the egg with a vessel, without handling the egg itself, so that it does not break from being accidentally trodden upon. Although it is prohibited to move the egg itself, it is nevertheless permitted to move a vessel for its sake. And even if there is uncertainty with regard to whether this egg was laid on a Festival, it is prohibited to move it. And, furthermore, if it became intermingled with a thousand permitted eggs, they are all prohibited.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞讛 讛讜讬 住驻讬拽讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻诇 住驻讬拽讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabba, who said that an egg is prohibited due to the lack of preparation, this case involves an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by Torah law; and in any case of an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by Torah law, the ruling is stringent. Therefore, the egg is prohibited even if there is uncertainty whether it was laid on a Festival.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专讛 住驻讬拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 住驻讬拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗

However, according to the opinions of Rav Yosef and Rabbi Yitz岣k, who say that an egg is prohibited due to a decree, this case involves an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by rabbinic law, and in any case of an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by rabbinic law, the ruling is lenient.

(讗诪专 诇讬讛) 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇住驻拽 讟专驻讛

The Gemara answers: In the latter clause of the baraita, we have arrived at a different case. The case does not involve the prohibition of an egg laid on a Festival; the case involves an egg laid by a chicken with regard to which there is uncertainty whether it is an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is prohibited by Torah law. The uncertainty with regard to the legal status of the chicken is relevant to the egg.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞转注专讘讛 讘讗诇祝 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 住驻拽 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 住驻拽 讞讜诇 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this response: If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: If it became intermingled with a thousand other eggs, they are all prohibited. Granted, if you say that there is uncertainty whether the egg was laid on a Festival and uncertainty whether it was laid on a weekday, then it is an object whose prohibition is temporary, as the egg will be permitted on the following day, and the principle is: Any object whose prohibition is temporary is not nullified, even by a thousand permitted items. Since its prohibition will lapse on its own, there is no need to make use of the option of nullification.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 住驻拽 讟专驻讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讛讬讗 讜转讘讟诇 讘专讜讘讗

However, if you say that the egg referred to in the baraita is an uncertain tereifa, it is an object whose prohibition is not temporary, as there is no way to permit the prohibition of tereifa, and it should therefore be nullified by a simple majority.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬爪讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

The Gemara adds: And if you say that an egg is significant and is not nullified, as nullification applies only to items that have no intrinsic significance, while a significant object cannot be nullified, that works out well according to the one who said that we learned: Any item whose manner is also to be counted, i.e., that is sometimes sold by unit, rather than by weight or volume, is considered significant. An egg falls into that category, as it is sometimes sold by unit.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

However, according to the one who said that we learned: That item whose manner is exclusively to be counted, i.e., that is always sold by unit, is considered significant, what can be said? Although eggs are often sold by unit, they are also often sold by weight or volume.

讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞讘讬诇讬 转诇转谉 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讬讚诇拽讜 谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讞专讜转 讜讗讞专讜转 讘讗讞专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讬讚诇拽讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注诇讜 讘讗讞转 讜诪讗转讬诐

The Gemara cites the mishna where the dispute cited above appears. As we learned (Orla 3:6鈥7): With regard to one who had bundles of clover, a type of legume, that were diverse kinds of food crops that grew in a vineyard, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, those bundles must be burned. If the bundles were intermingled with others, and those others were intermingled with others, they must all be burned. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They may be nullified by one part in two hundred similar parts. When the prohibited portion is less than one-half of one percent of the permitted portion, the prohibition is nullified.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇诪谞讜转 诪拽讚砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讗诇讗 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 砖讘注讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讙讜讝讬 驻专讱 讜专诪讜谞讬 讘讗讚谉 讜讞讘讬讜转 住转讜诪讜转 讜讞诇驻讬 转专讚讬谉 讜拽诇讞讬 讻专讜讘 讜讚诇注转 讬讜谞讬转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir says that they must all be burned, as Rabbi Meir would say: That whose manner is exclusively to be counted, is considered significant and cannot be nullified. Therefore, it renders the entire mixture forbidden, and it must be burned. And the Rabbis say: Only six items are sufficiently significant to render the entire mixture forbidden. Rabbi Akiva says: There are seven. And they are: High-quality nuts from Perekh, and pomegranates from Badan, and sealed barrels of wine, and branches of spinach, and cabbage stalks, and Greek pumpkin. Rabbi Akiva adds: Even loaves of a homeowner.

讛专讗讜讬 诇注专诇讛 注专诇讛 讛专讗讜讬 诇讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讜讗转诪专 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

Different prohibitions apply to these seven items. That which is fit to be forbidden due to orla, fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree is planted, is forbidden due to orla. That which is fit to be forbidden due to diverse kinds of food crops that grew in a vineyard is forbidden due to diverse kinds in a vineyard (Avoda Zara 74a). And it was stated about the wording of this mishna that there is an amoraic dispute. Rabbi Yo岣nan said that we learned: Only that whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, and it is therefore prohibited by Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that we learned: Any item whose manner is also to be counted, is significant and cannot be nullified.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Returning to the matter of the egg, the Gemara reprises its question: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, but according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what can be said? Since an egg is not sold exclusively by unit, it is not significant. Therefore, the egg of a tereifa should be nullified by a simple majority.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚诇讬讟专讗 拽爪讬注讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Pappa said: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, this tanna, who said that an egg cannot be nullified, is the tanna of the halakha concerning a litra of dried figs, who, based on his statement, said: Any item that is counted, even if it is prohibited by rabbinic law, cannot be nullified, and all the more so items prohibited by Torah law, e.g., the egg of a tereifa.

讚转谞谉 诇讬讟专讗 拽爪讬注讜转 砖讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 注讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 注讙讜诇 讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 讞讘讬转 讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 讻讜专转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 讻讜专转 讚专住讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a litra of dried figs, whose stems were removed, and were dried and pressed in different vessels and shaped into circles, the obligation to tithe fruits is by rabbinic law. If one forgot to tithe the figs, and later remembered that he placed the figs into a barrel, and during the process of producing a circle he pressed the figs onto the mouth of one of the circular vessels in which the circles are formed, and does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it; or, if he recalls that he pressed it on the mouth of a barrel, but does not know in which barrel he pressed it, or if he recalls that he pressed it on the mouth of a straw receptacle, but does not know in which receptacle he pressed it, Rabbi Meir says that in all these cases there is a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m of the previous generation: Rabbi Eliezer

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 in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Trapping on Yom Tov – Gefet 8

In honor of Sukkot and upcoming Simchat Torah, it is very exciting to be studying sugiyot which deal with the...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah 2-6 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This Masechet will be dealing with laws pertaining to the Festivals. In particular, we will be learning about permissible food...

Beitzah 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 3

讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讜讬转诇讜砖 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝专讛 诇讙讝专讛 讻讜诇讛 讞讚讗 讙讝专讛 讛讬讗

It is a decree lest one climb the tree and pick the fruit, as this would constitute the prohibited labor of harvesting. If so, the prohibition against eating fruit is itself due to a decree. And will we arise and issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree? Rav Yosef responded: That is not so; rather, when the Sages issued the initial decree, they enacted the prohibitions against both fruit that fall and a laid egg, as all the prohibitions are components of one decree. In other words, the similar cases of the fruit and the egg were both included in the original decree.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讝讘讜

Rabbi Yitz岣k said a different reason: An egg that was laid on a Festival is prohibited as a decree due to liquids that seeped from the fruit (Eiruvin 39b), which is prohibited on that day. The legal status of an egg that was laid on a Festival is like that of liquids that seeped from a fruit on a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讝讘讜 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬住讞讜讟 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝专讛 诇讙讝专讛 讻讜诇讛 讞讚讗 讙讝专讛 讛讬讗

Abaye said to him: With regard to liquid that seeped from fruit, what is the reason that the Sages prohibited it? It is a decree lest one purposely squeeze the fruit, and thereby perform the prohibited labor of threshing. However, the prohibition against consuming this juice is itself a rabbinic decree. And will we arise and issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree? Rabbi Yitz岣k replied: All the prohibitions are components of one decree. When the Sages prohibited this juice, they banned the eating of an egg laid on a Festival for the same reason, as the actions are similar.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬 拽讜砖讬讬谉 讻专讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讛讻谞讛 诇讬转 诇讛讜

As various explanations have been offered for this mishna, the Gemara seeks to clarify why each Sage was dissatisfied with the other explanations and suggested an alternative. The Gemara says: All of them, Rabba, Rav Yosef, and Rabbi Yitz岣k, did not state their explanations in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, as stated in our previously stated objection to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 explanation. The other Sages also did not state their explanations in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as they do not accept that there is a Torah prohibition of using items whose preparation was from Shabbat to a Festival or from a Festival to Shabbat.

讗诇讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇讗 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇讗

However, the following question arises: Since Rav Yosef provides an explanation that is similar to that of Rabbi Yitz岣k, what is the reason that he did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k? The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: An egg is food, and fruit is food, i.e., an egg is comparable to fruits that fall. This observation would serve to exclude juice, which is not food but drink. Consequently, an egg is not comparable to juice and would not be included in the same decree.

讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讘诇讜注讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讘诇讜注讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 驻讬专讜转 讚诪讙诇讜 讜拽讬讬诪讜

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And with regard to Rabbi Yitz岣k, what is the reason that he did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the case of an egg is more similar to juices that seep from fruit. How so? An egg is enclosed inside a chicken before it is laid, and likewise juice is enclosed inside the fruit. This observation serves to exclude fruits that fall from a tree, which are standing exposed on the tree. Therefore, the comparison between fruits that fall and an egg is weaker than the comparison between liquid that seeped from fruit and an egg.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讝讘讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪砖谞讬

搂 The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds that the prohibition against eating an egg laid on a Festival is a decree due to liquid that seeped from fruit. What proof can be cited for this? It is proven as Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and a different statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and he resolved the apparent contradiction in a manner that indicates his own opinion.

转谞谉 讗讬谉 住讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专

The Gemara elaborates on the previous statement. We learned in a mishna (Shabbat 143b): One may not squeeze fruits to extract liquids from them on Shabbat, and if the liquids seeped out on their own, it is prohibited to use them on Shabbat, lest he come to squeeze fruits intentionally. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the fruit is designated for eating, e.g., apples, the liquid that seeps from them is permitted. Since there is no concern that one might squeeze the fruit, there is no reason to prohibit its liquid. And if the fruit was originally designated for liquids, such as grapes for wine, there are grounds for concern that one might squeeze them, and therefore the liquid that seeps from them is prohibited.

讗诇诪讗 讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗驻专转 讛讜讗

From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda said that liquid from fruit intended for eating is permitted, one can infer that, apparently, all food that comes out of another food is classified as food that was separated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Food that was separated is not considered a new food, but part of the food that previously existed.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讛 讗讚诐 注诇 讻诇讻诇讛 砖诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉

And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this from a different source: And Rabbi Yehuda said further, concerning untithed fruit, which may not be rendered fit to be eaten on a Festival by separating teruma and tithes from it (Eiruvin 39a): A person may stipulate a condition with regard to a basket of untithed fruit on the first day of a Festival, and say: If today is the true Festival day, the second Festival day is actually a weekday. Therefore, this fruit is permitted, once I separate tithes from it, as on any other weekday. And vice versa: If today is, in fact, a weekday, and tomorrow is the Festival, I hereby separate its tithes today.

讜讗讜讻诇讛 讘砖谞讬 讜讻谉 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 转讗讻诇 讘砖谞讬

Likewise, on the following day, he should again stipulate: If today is a weekday and yesterday was holy, I hereby separate tithes from the fruit now; if today is holy and yesterday was a weekday, separating the tithes yesterday was sufficient. And he may then eat the produce on the second Festival day, as in either case no prohibition is involved. And similarly, an egg laid on the first Festival day may be eaten on the second day, regardless of which day is the actual Festival.

讘砖谞讬 讗讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 讜诪砖谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement indicates that on the second day, yes, it is permitted to partake of the egg; but if the egg was laid on the first day, no, one may not eat it. If so, Rabbi Yehuda apparently contradicts himself, as he said previously that liquid from food prepared for eating has the same status as the food itself, and that its emergence is considered to be nothing more than the separation of two foods from each other. And Rabbi Yo岣nan resolves the difficulty: The attribution of the opinions with regard to the second day of the Festival is reversed (Berakhot 17b), so that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion corresponds with his ruling above.

讜诪讚拽讗 诪专诪讬 诇讛讜 讗讛讚讚讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗

The significance of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement for the issue at hand is as follows: Since Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a contradiction between the cases of an egg and liquid that oozed, one may conclude from this that it is the same reason in both cases, i.e., an egg is prohibited on a Festival due to the rabbinic decree against liquid that oozed from fruit.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜

With regard to the contradiction presented by Rabbi Yo岣nan, which led him to suggest that the opinions should be reversed, Ravina said that this is not the only possible resolution: Actually, do not reverse the opinions. Rather, in the case of the two Festival days, one could claim that Rabbi Yehuda spoke to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, rather than presenting his own opinion.

诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 砖专讬讗 讚讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗驻专转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讘砖谞讬 砖专讬讗 讚砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

If so, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement should be understood as follows: In my opinion, even on the first Festival day, the egg is also permitted, as it is food that was separated. However, according to your opinion, which is that you prohibit liquid that comes from food, at least agree with me that it is permitted on the second day, as they are two sanctities. The first and second days of Rosh HaShana are not one unit, but two separate entities. Therefore, it is possible that the first day is sacred, while the second is a weekday. Consequently, an item prohibited on the first day might be permitted on the second. And the Rabbis said to him: No, the two days are one sanctity, i.e., they are viewed as a single continuous unit. The uncertainty applies equally to both of them.

专讘讬谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛

Ravina, son of Rav Ulla, said: There is an alternative resolution to the contradiction raised by Rabbi Yo岣nan. Here, in the case of the egg laid on a Festival, Rabbi Yehuda prohibited eating the egg since it is not from a chicken designated for food, whose legal status is that of food. Rather, the case refers to a chicken designated for laying eggs, and Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he holds that there is a prohibition of muktze. Since the egg is produced by something muktze, it is certainly muktze itself, which means that the halakha of food that was separated is inapplicable to this case.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讞讚 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗 诇讻住讜转 讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讜诇讗 诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛

搂 The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita, which clarifies the issue differently: Both an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a Festival are considered to be muktze, and therefore in both cases, one may not move the egg, neither for the sake of food nor for any other purpose: Not to cover a vessel with it, nor to support the legs of a bed with it.

讗讘诇 讻讜驻讛 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转砖讘专 讜住驻讬拽讗 讗住讜专讛 讜讗诐 谞转注专讘讛 讘讗诇祝 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转

However, if one wishes, he may cover the egg with a vessel, without handling the egg itself, so that it does not break from being accidentally trodden upon. Although it is prohibited to move the egg itself, it is nevertheless permitted to move a vessel for its sake. And even if there is uncertainty with regard to whether this egg was laid on a Festival, it is prohibited to move it. And, furthermore, if it became intermingled with a thousand permitted eggs, they are all prohibited.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞讛 讛讜讬 住驻讬拽讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻诇 住驻讬拽讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabba, who said that an egg is prohibited due to the lack of preparation, this case involves an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by Torah law; and in any case of an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by Torah law, the ruling is stringent. Therefore, the egg is prohibited even if there is uncertainty whether it was laid on a Festival.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专讛 住驻讬拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 住驻讬拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗

However, according to the opinions of Rav Yosef and Rabbi Yitz岣k, who say that an egg is prohibited due to a decree, this case involves an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by rabbinic law, and in any case of an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by rabbinic law, the ruling is lenient.

(讗诪专 诇讬讛) 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇住驻拽 讟专驻讛

The Gemara answers: In the latter clause of the baraita, we have arrived at a different case. The case does not involve the prohibition of an egg laid on a Festival; the case involves an egg laid by a chicken with regard to which there is uncertainty whether it is an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is prohibited by Torah law. The uncertainty with regard to the legal status of the chicken is relevant to the egg.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞转注专讘讛 讘讗诇祝 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 住驻拽 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 住驻拽 讞讜诇 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this response: If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: If it became intermingled with a thousand other eggs, they are all prohibited. Granted, if you say that there is uncertainty whether the egg was laid on a Festival and uncertainty whether it was laid on a weekday, then it is an object whose prohibition is temporary, as the egg will be permitted on the following day, and the principle is: Any object whose prohibition is temporary is not nullified, even by a thousand permitted items. Since its prohibition will lapse on its own, there is no need to make use of the option of nullification.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 住驻拽 讟专驻讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讛讬讗 讜转讘讟诇 讘专讜讘讗

However, if you say that the egg referred to in the baraita is an uncertain tereifa, it is an object whose prohibition is not temporary, as there is no way to permit the prohibition of tereifa, and it should therefore be nullified by a simple majority.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬爪讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

The Gemara adds: And if you say that an egg is significant and is not nullified, as nullification applies only to items that have no intrinsic significance, while a significant object cannot be nullified, that works out well according to the one who said that we learned: Any item whose manner is also to be counted, i.e., that is sometimes sold by unit, rather than by weight or volume, is considered significant. An egg falls into that category, as it is sometimes sold by unit.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

However, according to the one who said that we learned: That item whose manner is exclusively to be counted, i.e., that is always sold by unit, is considered significant, what can be said? Although eggs are often sold by unit, they are also often sold by weight or volume.

讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞讘讬诇讬 转诇转谉 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讬讚诇拽讜 谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讞专讜转 讜讗讞专讜转 讘讗讞专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讬讚诇拽讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注诇讜 讘讗讞转 讜诪讗转讬诐

The Gemara cites the mishna where the dispute cited above appears. As we learned (Orla 3:6鈥7): With regard to one who had bundles of clover, a type of legume, that were diverse kinds of food crops that grew in a vineyard, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, those bundles must be burned. If the bundles were intermingled with others, and those others were intermingled with others, they must all be burned. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They may be nullified by one part in two hundred similar parts. When the prohibited portion is less than one-half of one percent of the permitted portion, the prohibition is nullified.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇诪谞讜转 诪拽讚砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讗诇讗 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 砖讘注讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讙讜讝讬 驻专讱 讜专诪讜谞讬 讘讗讚谉 讜讞讘讬讜转 住转讜诪讜转 讜讞诇驻讬 转专讚讬谉 讜拽诇讞讬 讻专讜讘 讜讚诇注转 讬讜谞讬转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir says that they must all be burned, as Rabbi Meir would say: That whose manner is exclusively to be counted, is considered significant and cannot be nullified. Therefore, it renders the entire mixture forbidden, and it must be burned. And the Rabbis say: Only six items are sufficiently significant to render the entire mixture forbidden. Rabbi Akiva says: There are seven. And they are: High-quality nuts from Perekh, and pomegranates from Badan, and sealed barrels of wine, and branches of spinach, and cabbage stalks, and Greek pumpkin. Rabbi Akiva adds: Even loaves of a homeowner.

讛专讗讜讬 诇注专诇讛 注专诇讛 讛专讗讜讬 诇讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讜讗转诪专 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

Different prohibitions apply to these seven items. That which is fit to be forbidden due to orla, fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree is planted, is forbidden due to orla. That which is fit to be forbidden due to diverse kinds of food crops that grew in a vineyard is forbidden due to diverse kinds in a vineyard (Avoda Zara 74a). And it was stated about the wording of this mishna that there is an amoraic dispute. Rabbi Yo岣nan said that we learned: Only that whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, and it is therefore prohibited by Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that we learned: Any item whose manner is also to be counted, is significant and cannot be nullified.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Returning to the matter of the egg, the Gemara reprises its question: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, but according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what can be said? Since an egg is not sold exclusively by unit, it is not significant. Therefore, the egg of a tereifa should be nullified by a simple majority.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚诇讬讟专讗 拽爪讬注讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Pappa said: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, this tanna, who said that an egg cannot be nullified, is the tanna of the halakha concerning a litra of dried figs, who, based on his statement, said: Any item that is counted, even if it is prohibited by rabbinic law, cannot be nullified, and all the more so items prohibited by Torah law, e.g., the egg of a tereifa.

讚转谞谉 诇讬讟专讗 拽爪讬注讜转 砖讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 注讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 注讙讜诇 讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 讞讘讬转 讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 讻讜专转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 讻讜专转 讚专住讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a litra of dried figs, whose stems were removed, and were dried and pressed in different vessels and shaped into circles, the obligation to tithe fruits is by rabbinic law. If one forgot to tithe the figs, and later remembered that he placed the figs into a barrel, and during the process of producing a circle he pressed the figs onto the mouth of one of the circular vessels in which the circles are formed, and does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it; or, if he recalls that he pressed it on the mouth of a barrel, but does not know in which barrel he pressed it, or if he recalls that he pressed it on the mouth of a straw receptacle, but does not know in which receptacle he pressed it, Rabbi Meir says that in all these cases there is a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m of the previous generation: Rabbi Eliezer

Scroll To Top