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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 4, 2021 | 讻状讝 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 4

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

In trying to explain the braita regarding a case of doubt with an egg as relating to a doubt relating to an egg that possibly came from a treifa bird, the Gemara concludes that the braita must have been authored by the tana who appear in the Mishna/Tosefta in Terumot regarding a litra聽of pressed figs that are teruma that get mixed up with others. There is an opinion there that it is not nullified as it is sometimes sold by quantity. That would explain also the reason by the case of the treifa egg would also not be nullified. An entirely different explanation is brought by Rav Ashi to explain the braita – that it is, in fact, referring to an egg that was laid on Yom Tov and the reason why we are strict is that it is something that will be permitted tomorrow and therefore “one may as well just wait.”聽 A braita that holds like Beit Shamai is brought. The Gemara works to understand what case the braita is referring to. When Yom Tov falls adjacent to Shabbat, can we permit an egg born on the first day to be eaten on the second? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree and some cases are brought showing how we rule. Rabbi Yochana rules differently regarding branches that fell from a tree – why does he distinguish between the two cases? What about two days on Yomi Tov in the Diaspora – would an egg be born on one day be permitted on the second? Rav and Rav Asi disagree – what is the root of their debate?

讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讻讗诇讜 讛谉 驻专讜讚讜转 讜讛转讞转讜谞讜转 诪注诇讜转 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转

says: One considers the upper circles of dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs in the entire barrel to nullify the upper litra.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讗讛 驻讜诪讬谉 讬注诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛驻讜诪讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛砖讜诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉

In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred mouths of different barrels or circular vessels there, the prohibited litra of untithed figs on the mouth of one of the vessels is nullified by a ratio of one part of prohibited figs to one hundred parts of similar, permitted figs. And if not, all of the circles of figs at the mouths of the barrels or circular vessels are prohibited, as one of them clearly contains a prohibited litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the prohibited figs certainly did not reach there.This is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 version of the dispute.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讗讛 驻讜诪讬谉 讬注诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛驻讜诪讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛砖讜诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 驻讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬注诇讜

Rabbi Yehuda says a different version of the dispute. Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred mouths of vessels with permitted figs present there, in addition to the prohibited one, it is nullified by the one hundred permitted mouths. And if not, the figs at the mouths are prohibited and those at the bottom are permitted. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred mouths present there, they are not nullified, as this litra cannot be nullified in any manner. Rav Pappa was referring to this opinion when he said that there is a tanna, meaning Rabbi Yehoshua in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 version, who maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, e.g., a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.

讚专住讛 讘注讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 注讙讜诇 讚专住讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬注诇讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讬谞讜 驻诇讜讙转讬讬讛讜

The same mishna further states: If one pressed the litra of figs into a circular vessel but he does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it, everyone agrees that the prohibited fig cakes are nullified. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Everyone agrees? This is the very matter of their dispute, whether or not the litra is nullified.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚专住讛 讘注讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪拽讜诐 注讙讜诇 讚专住讛 讗讬 诇爪驻讜谞讛 讗讬 诇讚专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬注诇讜

Rav Pappa said: This is what the tanna said, i.e., he meant the following: One pressed it onto a circular vessel but does not know onto which place, which side of the circular vessel he pressed it, whether on its north or on its south side. In this case, as the prohibited litra is not located in a specific place and it cannot be distinguished from the others, it certainly cannot be considered an object of significance, and everyone agrees that it is nullified.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 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 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara explained why the egg mentioned in the baraita, an egg laid by a chicken that is a tereifa, cannot be nullified even if it is mingled with a thousand permitted eggs. However, Rav Ashi said: Actually, the baraita can be explained as referring to a case where there is uncertainty whether it is a Festival or a weekday. While it is true that according to most opinions this is a rabbinic prohibition, and the halakha is generally lenient with regard to uncertainties involving rabbinic law, it is an object whose prohibition is temporary. And with regard to any object whose prohibition is temporary, even if it involves a rabbinic prohibition, it cannot be nullified.

转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬爪讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 驻砖讬讟讛 讚讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 砖专讬讗 讗诇讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗讻诇 讗讙讘 讗诪讛

搂 It is taught in a baraita: A岣rim say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: With regard to an egg laid on a Festival, it and its mother may be eaten. The Gemara asks: With what case are we dealing? If we say that this is dealing with a chicken designated for food, it is obvious that it and its mother are permitted. Rather, say that this is dealing with a chicken designated for laying eggs, but in that case it and its mother are both prohibited. Rabbi Zeira said that the baraita should be understood as follows: The egg may be eaten on account of its mother; if the chicken is eaten on the Festival, the egg may also be eaten.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞讛 住转诐 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讘专专讛 讚诇讗讻讬诇讛 注讜诪讚转 诇讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讘专专讛 讚诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 注讜诪讚转

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? In which case is it necessary to apply this ruling? Abaye said: It is referring to a case where one bought this chicken without specifying whether he intended to eat it or use it for its eggs. In that case, if the chicken was slaughtered on a Festival, it has been retroactively clarified that it was intended for food, and the eggs it lays are, therefore, permitted. If it was not slaughtered, it has been retroactively clarified that it was intended for laying eggs, and the eggs it lays are prohibited.

专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讙讜讝诪讗 拽转谞讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬爪讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 讜讗驻专讜讞 讜拽诇讬驻转讜

Rav Mari said that the phrase: It and its mother may be eaten, should not be taken literally. Rather, the tanna is teaching an exaggeration [guzma], for extra emphasis, as it is taught in another baraita: A岣rim say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: An egg may be eaten, it and its mother, and a chick and its shell.

诪讗讬 拽诇讬驻转讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽诇讬驻讛 诪诪砖 拽诇讬驻讛 讘转 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗驻专讜讞 讘拽诇讬驻转讜 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of this addition: Its shell? If we say it is referring to an actual shell, is a shell edible? Rather, the baraita must be referring to the consumption of a chick that is still in its shell. This explanation is problematic, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov only in permitting the eating of a chick immediately after it hatches, when it has already entered the world. However, when it has not yet entered the world, i.e., if the chick is still in its shell, they do not disagree. Even the Rabbis accept that this chick has the status of a creeping animal and may not be eaten.

讗诇讗 讗驻专讜讞 讜拽诇讬驻转讜 讙讜讝诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转讗讻诇 讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 讙讜讝诪讗

Rather, evidently the expression: A chick and its shell, should not be understood literally, as it is an exaggeration. Here, too, the phrase: It and its mother may be eaten, is an exaggeration. It does not mean literally that the chick and its mother may be eaten, but is merely a statement of emphasis that the egg is undoubtedly permitted.

讗转诪专 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讝讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 讘讝讛 谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed the following issue (Eiruvin 38b): If Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, Rav said: An egg laid on this one is prohibited on that one, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said: An egg laid on this one is permitted on that one. The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav holds that when Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, it is considered one continuous sanctity, i.e., a single, indivisible day.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉

But didn鈥檛 Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of four elders, who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: When a Shabbat and a Festival occur consecutively, they are two sanctities rather than one long day; therefore, a joining of Shabbat boundaries need not be placed on a weekday, but may be placed on the first of the holy days to allow going beyond the Shabbat boundary on the second. Evidently, this issue cannot be the basis of their dispute.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讛讻谞讛 讚专讘讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻谞讛 讚专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻谞讛 讚专讘讛

Rather, here they disagree with regard to Rabba鈥檚 preparation, i.e., an item that was prepared on its own from one day to the other, whose use Rabba prohibits. Rav holds that items prepared by means of Rabba鈥檚 preparation are prohibited, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold that items prepared by means of Rabba鈥檚 preparation are prohibited.

讻转谞讗讬 谞讜诇讚讛 讘砖讘转 转讗讻诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转讗讻诇 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讗讻诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara comments: This dispute is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: An egg laid on Shabbat may be eaten on a Festival; if it was laid on a Festival, it may be eaten on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: This opinion is not unanimous; rather, it is still a matter of dispute, as Beit Shammai say it may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say it may not be eaten, just as they disagreed about whether an egg is permitted on the day on which it was laid.

讗讜砖驻讬讝讻谞讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讱 讘讬爪讬诐 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讟讜讜讬谞讛讜 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜谞讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 诇诪讞专

The Gemara relates: Rav Adda bar Ahava鈥檚 host [ushpizikhnei] had these eggs that were laid on a Festival that occurred on a Friday, and the host was unsure whether eggs laid on the Festival were permitted from the Festival for use on Shabbat. He came before his guest, Rav Adda, and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to roasting these eggs now, on the Festival, although eating them today is prohibited due to nolad, and let us eat them tomorrow, as they will be no longer be prohibited due to nolad?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽讗 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诇讙讜诪注讛 诇诪讞专 讗讘诇 讘讬讜诪讬讛 诇讗

Rav Adda said to him: What is your opinion that led you to pose this question? You evidently assume that in the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and therefore an egg laid on one day will be permitted on the following day. However, even Rabbi Yo岣nan permitted one to swallow it only raw, on the next day, when it is no longer prohibited; but on the same day that it was laid, he did not permit one even to move it, and certainly not to roast it.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗讞转 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

And it is taught likewise in a baraita: With regard to both an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a Festival, one may not move it, neither to cover a vessel with it nor to support the legs of a bed with it.

讗讜砖驻讬讝讻谞讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讱 讘讬爪讬诐 诪砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讻诇讬谞讛讜 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讜拽讬 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讜讬讛 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专讜转

The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rav Pappa鈥檚 host, and some say it was a certain man who came before Rav Pappa, had these eggs that were laid on a Shabbat that occurred before a Festival. He came before him and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to eat these eggs tomorrow, on the Festival? Rav Pappa said to him: Go away from me now, and come back tomorrow. He said this because Rav would not place a disseminator before him to explain his lectures, from one Festival day until the end of the other, the second Festival day, due to drunkenness. Since it was customary in those times to drink a great deal of wine during Festival meals, Rav was concerned that his mind would not be sufficiently clear to issue a public ruling.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛

When that man came back on the following day, Rav Pappa said to him:

讗讬讻讜 讛砖转讗 讗砖转诇讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讛谞讬 转诇转 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

Had I issued a ruling for you then, I would have forgotten the correct response, and I would have said to you, based on the accepted principle that in the case of a dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, that the eggs are permitted. However, Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav with regard to these three issues, in connection to the sanctity of Festivals and Shabbat, whether his ruling is lenient, or whether it is stringent. This is one of those three cases in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注爪讬诐 砖谞砖专讜 诪谉 讛讚拽诇 讘砖讘转 讗住讜专 诇讛住讬拽谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诇 转砖讬讘谞讬 讘讬爪讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讬爪讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬讗 诇讙讜诪注讛 讜诇讗 拽讗 砖专讬 诇讛 注讚 诇诪讞专 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 讚讘转 讬讜诪讗 讗住专讜讛 注爪讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讜诪讬讬讛讜 讗讬 砖专讬 诇讛讜 诇诪讞专 讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 讘讬讜诪讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 砖专讜 讜讗转诪讜诇 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讛住拽讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to branches that fell from a palm tree on Shabbat, it is prohibited to kindle them on a Festival that occurs the next day. And do not reply to me by asking why I permit an egg to be eaten on the following day. What is the reason for the distinction between the two cases? In the case of an egg, because on the day of Shabbat itself it is also fit to be swallowed raw and nevertheless it is permitted to be eaten only the following day, one knows that an egg is prohibited on the day it was laid. In contrast, with regard to branches, which are not fit for kindling on the day of Shabbat, as kindling a fire is prohibited, if you permit them to kindle the wood on the Festival that occurs on the following day they will mistakenly come to say that on the day that they fell off the tree they are also permitted. And as for the reason the branches were not kindled yesterday when they fell from the tree, it was due only to Shabbat, as they were not fit for kindling then.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 注爪讬诐 砖谞砖专讜 诪谉 讛讚拽诇 诇转讜讱 讛转谞讜专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪专讘讛 注诇讬讛诐 注爪讬诐 诪讜讻谞讬诐 讜诪住讬拽谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘讗 讚讛讬转专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬 拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讘讛讬转专讗 拽讗 诪讛驻讱

Rav Mattana said: With regard to branches that fell from a palm tree directly into an oven on a Festival, one may add to those branches wood prepared from the previous day, which may be used for kindling, and kindle them all together. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 he turn over and move the prohibited wood in the course of the cooking process? The Gemara answers: Since most of the wood is permitted, when he turns it over, he turns over permitted wood, as the prohibited part is nullified by the majority.

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讘讟诇 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉

The Gemara challenges this: But doesn鈥檛 he thereby nullify a prohibited item ab initio, by adding permitted wood to the pieces of wood that fell into the oven, which are prohibited? And we learned in a mishna (see Terumot 5:9): One may not nullify a prohibited item ab initio. The Gemara answers: That principle applies only to items prohibited by Torah law; but with regard to items prohibited by rabbinic law, as in this case involving the prohibition of muktze, one may nullify the prohibition ab initio.

讜诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 诪拽诇讗 拽诇讬 讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who said: Any object whose prohibition is temporary, even if the prohibition applies by rabbinic law, it cannot be nullified, what is there to say? Doesn鈥檛 Rav Ashi agree that it is permitted to kindle the wood after the Festival? The Gemara answers: That principle applies only where the prohibited item remains intact; here, however, the prohibited item is burned, as the wood is turned over when it has already become charcoal. Therefore, one does not perform any action with prohibited items.

讗转诪专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 讙诇讬讜转 专讘 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 讘讝讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讝讛

It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to the halakha for the two Festival days observed in the Diaspora. Rav said: An egg that was laid on this day is permitted on that one, and Rav Asi said: An egg that was laid on this day is prohibited on that one.

诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 专讘 讗住讬 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 专讘 讗住讬 诪讘讚讬诇 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav Asi holds that the two days are one sanctity. But didn鈥檛 Rav Asi himself recite havdala, the prayer of distinction at the end of a holy day, from one Festival day of the Diaspora to the other? This shows that, in his opinion, the first day is the true Festival, while the second day is considered a weekday. In earlier generations, they observed the second day of the Diaspora because they were unaware when the court sanctified the New Moon to mark the beginning of the month. Today, that determination is accomplished by means of calculations known to all, and the second day is observed as the custom of our fathers, not due to any uncertainty.

专讘 讗住讬 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜注讘讬讚 讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara answers: Rav Asi was uncertain whether the Sages鈥 ordinance that the second day is to be observed as a Festival was a fixed ordinance that applies even when the calculations determining the New Moon are known to all; or whether the ordinance was based strictly on the uncertainty stemming from their lack of awareness. Today, when everyone is aware of the beginning of the month, the second day is a weekday. And therefore he acted stringently here, and prohibited eating an egg on the second day that had been laid on the first day. And he also acted stringently here, and recited havdala between the two days.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讗讬讚谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘拽讘讬注讗 讚讬专讞讗 讜拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 转专讬 讬讜诪讬

Rabbi Zeira said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi that the Sages considered the two days as one and it is not a practice instituted due to uncertainty, as today we know the determination of the first day of the new month based on a fixed calendar and the precise dates of the Festivals are known by all, and nevertheless we observe the two Festival days of the Diaspora.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪砖讬讗讬谉 诪砖讜讗讜转 诪砖拽诇拽诇讜 讛讻讜转讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 砖诇讜讞讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉

Abaye said: On the contrary, It is reasonable to say in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the second day is observed as a Festival due to uncertainty, as we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 22b): Initially, after the court sanctified the new month, they would light torches on the mountain tops, from one peak to another, to signal that the New Moon had been sanctified. After the Samaritans [Kutim] disrupted this method by lighting torches at the wrong times, the Sages instituted that messengers should depart to inform the people of the start of the month. Since the messengers could not reach all Diaspora communities before the beginning of the Festival, the Sages instituted that an additional Festival day should be observed there, due to the resultant uncertainty with regard to which day was the actual Festival day.

讜讗讬诇讜 讘讟诇讜 讻讜转讬诐 注讘讚讬谞谉 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讜讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟讜 砖诇讜讞讬谉 注讘讚讬谞谉 讞讚 讬讜诪讗

Abaye continues his argument: And this indicates that if the Samaritans had desisted from their interference, the Sages would have restored the earlier custom and we would observe only one day. And, similarly, in a place where the messengers arrived from Jerusalem on time, we observe only one Festival day.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讘拽讘讬注讗 讚讬专讞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛讝讛专讜 讘诪谞讛讙 讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讘讬讚讬讻诐 讝诪谞讬谉 讚讙讝专讜 讛诪诇讻讜转 讙讝专讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗拽诇拽讜诇讬

The Gemara asks: And now that we know the determination of the first day of the new month, what is the reason that we observe two Festival days in the Diaspora? Because they sent a warning from there, from Eretz Yisrael: Although now there is a fixed calendar and there is no uncertainty, be careful to observe the custom of your fathers that you received, because at times the monarchy will issue decrees of persecution restricting Torah study and the fixed calendar may be forgotten. And the people will come to have their proper observance of the Festivals be disrupted again. However, the fundamental halakha is that the observance of two Festival days is based on uncertainty.

讗转诪专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讝讛 讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 (讻讜诇讜) 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞砖转讛讜 讛注讚讬诐 诇讘讗

It was further stated that the amora鈥檌m discussed a similar problem, with regard to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana. Rav and Shmuel both said: An egg laid on this day is prohibited on that one, as the two days of Rosh HaShana have a special status. As we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 30b): Initially, the court would accept testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon to establish the first day of the new month. This system would also be used for the first of Tishrei, which is Rosh HaShana, and the court would accept this testimony on the entire thirtieth day of the month of Elul. Once, the witnesses tarried and managed to arrive only when the hour was late,

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah 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 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 4

讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讻讗诇讜 讛谉 驻专讜讚讜转 讜讛转讞转讜谞讜转 诪注诇讜转 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转

says: One considers the upper circles of dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs in the entire barrel to nullify the upper litra.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讗讛 驻讜诪讬谉 讬注诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛驻讜诪讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛砖讜诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉

In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred mouths of different barrels or circular vessels there, the prohibited litra of untithed figs on the mouth of one of the vessels is nullified by a ratio of one part of prohibited figs to one hundred parts of similar, permitted figs. And if not, all of the circles of figs at the mouths of the barrels or circular vessels are prohibited, as one of them clearly contains a prohibited litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the prohibited figs certainly did not reach there.This is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 version of the dispute.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讗讛 驻讜诪讬谉 讬注诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛驻讜诪讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛砖讜诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 驻讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬注诇讜

Rabbi Yehuda says a different version of the dispute. Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred mouths of vessels with permitted figs present there, in addition to the prohibited one, it is nullified by the one hundred permitted mouths. And if not, the figs at the mouths are prohibited and those at the bottom are permitted. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred mouths present there, they are not nullified, as this litra cannot be nullified in any manner. Rav Pappa was referring to this opinion when he said that there is a tanna, meaning Rabbi Yehoshua in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 version, who maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, e.g., a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.

讚专住讛 讘注讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 注讙讜诇 讚专住讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬注诇讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讬谞讜 驻诇讜讙转讬讬讛讜

The same mishna further states: If one pressed the litra of figs into a circular vessel but he does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it, everyone agrees that the prohibited fig cakes are nullified. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Everyone agrees? This is the very matter of their dispute, whether or not the litra is nullified.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚专住讛 讘注讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪拽讜诐 注讙讜诇 讚专住讛 讗讬 诇爪驻讜谞讛 讗讬 诇讚专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬注诇讜

Rav Pappa said: This is what the tanna said, i.e., he meant the following: One pressed it onto a circular vessel but does not know onto which place, which side of the circular vessel he pressed it, whether on its north or on its south side. In this case, as the prohibited litra is not located in a specific place and it cannot be distinguished from the others, it certainly cannot be considered an object of significance, and everyone agrees that it is nullified.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 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 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara explained why the egg mentioned in the baraita, an egg laid by a chicken that is a tereifa, cannot be nullified even if it is mingled with a thousand permitted eggs. However, Rav Ashi said: Actually, the baraita can be explained as referring to a case where there is uncertainty whether it is a Festival or a weekday. While it is true that according to most opinions this is a rabbinic prohibition, and the halakha is generally lenient with regard to uncertainties involving rabbinic law, it is an object whose prohibition is temporary. And with regard to any object whose prohibition is temporary, even if it involves a rabbinic prohibition, it cannot be nullified.

转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬爪讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 驻砖讬讟讛 讚讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 砖专讬讗 讗诇讗 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗讻诇 讗讙讘 讗诪讛

搂 It is taught in a baraita: A岣rim say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: With regard to an egg laid on a Festival, it and its mother may be eaten. The Gemara asks: With what case are we dealing? If we say that this is dealing with a chicken designated for food, it is obvious that it and its mother are permitted. Rather, say that this is dealing with a chicken designated for laying eggs, but in that case it and its mother are both prohibited. Rabbi Zeira said that the baraita should be understood as follows: The egg may be eaten on account of its mother; if the chicken is eaten on the Festival, the egg may also be eaten.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞讛 住转诐 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讘专专讛 讚诇讗讻讬诇讛 注讜诪讚转 诇讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讘专专讛 讚诇讙讚诇 讘讬爪讬诐 注讜诪讚转

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? In which case is it necessary to apply this ruling? Abaye said: It is referring to a case where one bought this chicken without specifying whether he intended to eat it or use it for its eggs. In that case, if the chicken was slaughtered on a Festival, it has been retroactively clarified that it was intended for food, and the eggs it lays are, therefore, permitted. If it was not slaughtered, it has been retroactively clarified that it was intended for laying eggs, and the eggs it lays are prohibited.

专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讙讜讝诪讗 拽转谞讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬爪讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 讜讗驻专讜讞 讜拽诇讬驻转讜

Rav Mari said that the phrase: It and its mother may be eaten, should not be taken literally. Rather, the tanna is teaching an exaggeration [guzma], for extra emphasis, as it is taught in another baraita: A岣rim say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: An egg may be eaten, it and its mother, and a chick and its shell.

诪讗讬 拽诇讬驻转讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽诇讬驻讛 诪诪砖 拽诇讬驻讛 讘转 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗驻专讜讞 讘拽诇讬驻转讜 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of this addition: Its shell? If we say it is referring to an actual shell, is a shell edible? Rather, the baraita must be referring to the consumption of a chick that is still in its shell. This explanation is problematic, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov only in permitting the eating of a chick immediately after it hatches, when it has already entered the world. However, when it has not yet entered the world, i.e., if the chick is still in its shell, they do not disagree. Even the Rabbis accept that this chick has the status of a creeping animal and may not be eaten.

讗诇讗 讗驻专讜讞 讜拽诇讬驻转讜 讙讜讝诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转讗讻诇 讛讬讗 讜讗诪讛 讙讜讝诪讗

Rather, evidently the expression: A chick and its shell, should not be understood literally, as it is an exaggeration. Here, too, the phrase: It and its mother may be eaten, is an exaggeration. It does not mean literally that the chick and its mother may be eaten, but is merely a statement of emphasis that the egg is undoubtedly permitted.

讗转诪专 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讝讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 讘讝讛 谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed the following issue (Eiruvin 38b): If Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, Rav said: An egg laid on this one is prohibited on that one, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said: An egg laid on this one is permitted on that one. The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav holds that when Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, it is considered one continuous sanctity, i.e., a single, indivisible day.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉

But didn鈥檛 Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of four elders, who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: When a Shabbat and a Festival occur consecutively, they are two sanctities rather than one long day; therefore, a joining of Shabbat boundaries need not be placed on a weekday, but may be placed on the first of the holy days to allow going beyond the Shabbat boundary on the second. Evidently, this issue cannot be the basis of their dispute.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讛讻谞讛 讚专讘讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻谞讛 讚专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻谞讛 讚专讘讛

Rather, here they disagree with regard to Rabba鈥檚 preparation, i.e., an item that was prepared on its own from one day to the other, whose use Rabba prohibits. Rav holds that items prepared by means of Rabba鈥檚 preparation are prohibited, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold that items prepared by means of Rabba鈥檚 preparation are prohibited.

讻转谞讗讬 谞讜诇讚讛 讘砖讘转 转讗讻诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转讗讻诇 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讗讻诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara comments: This dispute is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: An egg laid on Shabbat may be eaten on a Festival; if it was laid on a Festival, it may be eaten on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: This opinion is not unanimous; rather, it is still a matter of dispute, as Beit Shammai say it may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say it may not be eaten, just as they disagreed about whether an egg is permitted on the day on which it was laid.

讗讜砖驻讬讝讻谞讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讱 讘讬爪讬诐 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讟讜讜讬谞讛讜 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜谞讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 诇诪讞专

The Gemara relates: Rav Adda bar Ahava鈥檚 host [ushpizikhnei] had these eggs that were laid on a Festival that occurred on a Friday, and the host was unsure whether eggs laid on the Festival were permitted from the Festival for use on Shabbat. He came before his guest, Rav Adda, and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to roasting these eggs now, on the Festival, although eating them today is prohibited due to nolad, and let us eat them tomorrow, as they will be no longer be prohibited due to nolad?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽讗 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诇讙讜诪注讛 诇诪讞专 讗讘诇 讘讬讜诪讬讛 诇讗

Rav Adda said to him: What is your opinion that led you to pose this question? You evidently assume that in the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and therefore an egg laid on one day will be permitted on the following day. However, even Rabbi Yo岣nan permitted one to swallow it only raw, on the next day, when it is no longer prohibited; but on the same day that it was laid, he did not permit one even to move it, and certainly not to roast it.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗讞转 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

And it is taught likewise in a baraita: With regard to both an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a Festival, one may not move it, neither to cover a vessel with it nor to support the legs of a bed with it.

讗讜砖驻讬讝讻谞讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讱 讘讬爪讬诐 诪砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讻诇讬谞讛讜 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讜拽讬 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讜讬讛 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专讜转

The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rav Pappa鈥檚 host, and some say it was a certain man who came before Rav Pappa, had these eggs that were laid on a Shabbat that occurred before a Festival. He came before him and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to eat these eggs tomorrow, on the Festival? Rav Pappa said to him: Go away from me now, and come back tomorrow. He said this because Rav would not place a disseminator before him to explain his lectures, from one Festival day until the end of the other, the second Festival day, due to drunkenness. Since it was customary in those times to drink a great deal of wine during Festival meals, Rav was concerned that his mind would not be sufficiently clear to issue a public ruling.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛

When that man came back on the following day, Rav Pappa said to him:

讗讬讻讜 讛砖转讗 讗砖转诇讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讛谞讬 转诇转 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

Had I issued a ruling for you then, I would have forgotten the correct response, and I would have said to you, based on the accepted principle that in the case of a dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, that the eggs are permitted. However, Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav with regard to these three issues, in connection to the sanctity of Festivals and Shabbat, whether his ruling is lenient, or whether it is stringent. This is one of those three cases in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注爪讬诐 砖谞砖专讜 诪谉 讛讚拽诇 讘砖讘转 讗住讜专 诇讛住讬拽谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诇 转砖讬讘谞讬 讘讬爪讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讬爪讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬讗 诇讙讜诪注讛 讜诇讗 拽讗 砖专讬 诇讛 注讚 诇诪讞专 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 讚讘转 讬讜诪讗 讗住专讜讛 注爪讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讜诪讬讬讛讜 讗讬 砖专讬 诇讛讜 诇诪讞专 讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 讘讬讜诪讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 砖专讜 讜讗转诪讜诇 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讛住拽讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to branches that fell from a palm tree on Shabbat, it is prohibited to kindle them on a Festival that occurs the next day. And do not reply to me by asking why I permit an egg to be eaten on the following day. What is the reason for the distinction between the two cases? In the case of an egg, because on the day of Shabbat itself it is also fit to be swallowed raw and nevertheless it is permitted to be eaten only the following day, one knows that an egg is prohibited on the day it was laid. In contrast, with regard to branches, which are not fit for kindling on the day of Shabbat, as kindling a fire is prohibited, if you permit them to kindle the wood on the Festival that occurs on the following day they will mistakenly come to say that on the day that they fell off the tree they are also permitted. And as for the reason the branches were not kindled yesterday when they fell from the tree, it was due only to Shabbat, as they were not fit for kindling then.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 注爪讬诐 砖谞砖专讜 诪谉 讛讚拽诇 诇转讜讱 讛转谞讜专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪专讘讛 注诇讬讛诐 注爪讬诐 诪讜讻谞讬诐 讜诪住讬拽谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘讗 讚讛讬转专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬 拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讘讛讬转专讗 拽讗 诪讛驻讱

Rav Mattana said: With regard to branches that fell from a palm tree directly into an oven on a Festival, one may add to those branches wood prepared from the previous day, which may be used for kindling, and kindle them all together. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 he turn over and move the prohibited wood in the course of the cooking process? The Gemara answers: Since most of the wood is permitted, when he turns it over, he turns over permitted wood, as the prohibited part is nullified by the majority.

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讘讟诇 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉

The Gemara challenges this: But doesn鈥檛 he thereby nullify a prohibited item ab initio, by adding permitted wood to the pieces of wood that fell into the oven, which are prohibited? And we learned in a mishna (see Terumot 5:9): One may not nullify a prohibited item ab initio. The Gemara answers: That principle applies only to items prohibited by Torah law; but with regard to items prohibited by rabbinic law, as in this case involving the prohibition of muktze, one may nullify the prohibition ab initio.

讜诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 诪拽诇讗 拽诇讬 讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who said: Any object whose prohibition is temporary, even if the prohibition applies by rabbinic law, it cannot be nullified, what is there to say? Doesn鈥檛 Rav Ashi agree that it is permitted to kindle the wood after the Festival? The Gemara answers: That principle applies only where the prohibited item remains intact; here, however, the prohibited item is burned, as the wood is turned over when it has already become charcoal. Therefore, one does not perform any action with prohibited items.

讗转诪专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 讙诇讬讜转 专讘 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 讘讝讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讝讛

It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to the halakha for the two Festival days observed in the Diaspora. Rav said: An egg that was laid on this day is permitted on that one, and Rav Asi said: An egg that was laid on this day is prohibited on that one.

诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 专讘 讗住讬 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 专讘 讗住讬 诪讘讚讬诇 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav Asi holds that the two days are one sanctity. But didn鈥檛 Rav Asi himself recite havdala, the prayer of distinction at the end of a holy day, from one Festival day of the Diaspora to the other? This shows that, in his opinion, the first day is the true Festival, while the second day is considered a weekday. In earlier generations, they observed the second day of the Diaspora because they were unaware when the court sanctified the New Moon to mark the beginning of the month. Today, that determination is accomplished by means of calculations known to all, and the second day is observed as the custom of our fathers, not due to any uncertainty.

专讘 讗住讬 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜注讘讬讚 讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara answers: Rav Asi was uncertain whether the Sages鈥 ordinance that the second day is to be observed as a Festival was a fixed ordinance that applies even when the calculations determining the New Moon are known to all; or whether the ordinance was based strictly on the uncertainty stemming from their lack of awareness. Today, when everyone is aware of the beginning of the month, the second day is a weekday. And therefore he acted stringently here, and prohibited eating an egg on the second day that had been laid on the first day. And he also acted stringently here, and recited havdala between the two days.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讗讬讚谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘拽讘讬注讗 讚讬专讞讗 讜拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 转专讬 讬讜诪讬

Rabbi Zeira said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi that the Sages considered the two days as one and it is not a practice instituted due to uncertainty, as today we know the determination of the first day of the new month based on a fixed calendar and the precise dates of the Festivals are known by all, and nevertheless we observe the two Festival days of the Diaspora.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪砖讬讗讬谉 诪砖讜讗讜转 诪砖拽诇拽诇讜 讛讻讜转讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 砖诇讜讞讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉

Abaye said: On the contrary, It is reasonable to say in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the second day is observed as a Festival due to uncertainty, as we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 22b): Initially, after the court sanctified the new month, they would light torches on the mountain tops, from one peak to another, to signal that the New Moon had been sanctified. After the Samaritans [Kutim] disrupted this method by lighting torches at the wrong times, the Sages instituted that messengers should depart to inform the people of the start of the month. Since the messengers could not reach all Diaspora communities before the beginning of the Festival, the Sages instituted that an additional Festival day should be observed there, due to the resultant uncertainty with regard to which day was the actual Festival day.

讜讗讬诇讜 讘讟诇讜 讻讜转讬诐 注讘讚讬谞谉 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讜讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟讜 砖诇讜讞讬谉 注讘讚讬谞谉 讞讚 讬讜诪讗

Abaye continues his argument: And this indicates that if the Samaritans had desisted from their interference, the Sages would have restored the earlier custom and we would observe only one day. And, similarly, in a place where the messengers arrived from Jerusalem on time, we observe only one Festival day.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讘拽讘讬注讗 讚讬专讞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛讝讛专讜 讘诪谞讛讙 讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讘讬讚讬讻诐 讝诪谞讬谉 讚讙讝专讜 讛诪诇讻讜转 讙讝专讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗拽诇拽讜诇讬

The Gemara asks: And now that we know the determination of the first day of the new month, what is the reason that we observe two Festival days in the Diaspora? Because they sent a warning from there, from Eretz Yisrael: Although now there is a fixed calendar and there is no uncertainty, be careful to observe the custom of your fathers that you received, because at times the monarchy will issue decrees of persecution restricting Torah study and the fixed calendar may be forgotten. And the people will come to have their proper observance of the Festivals be disrupted again. However, the fundamental halakha is that the observance of two Festival days is based on uncertainty.

讗转诪专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讝讛 讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 (讻讜诇讜) 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞砖转讛讜 讛注讚讬诐 诇讘讗

It was further stated that the amora鈥檌m discussed a similar problem, with regard to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana. Rav and Shmuel both said: An egg laid on this day is prohibited on that one, as the two days of Rosh HaShana have a special status. As we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 30b): Initially, the court would accept testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon to establish the first day of the new month. This system would also be used for the first of Tishrei, which is Rosh HaShana, and the court would accept this testimony on the entire thirtieth day of the month of Elul. Once, the witnesses tarried and managed to arrive only when the hour was late,

Scroll To Top