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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 10, 2021 | 讚壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 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.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month.

A month of shiurim are sponsored 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.

Beitzah 40 – Siyum Masechet Beitzah

If one wants to give guests food to take home, the food will be limited by the techum of the host, unless he/she had someone acquire it on erev Yom Tov on behalf of the others. The Gemara brings a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding one who gives fruits to another to watch – according to whose techum can they be moved? The owner or the one watching? Do their opinions fit in with their opinions in a case of property damages? Or are the cases not comparable? The Gemara raises several questions on Rav’s opinion from the cases in our Mishna. A case is brought of a piece of meat hung for a guest on a door. Rav Huna ruled that it depended on whether it was placed there by the guest or the innkeeper. The Gemara questions both aspects of his ruling based on laws regarding techumim and the Gemara concludes that the issue had nothing to do with techumim but rather whether one can assume the meat placed there was the same meat as was taken by the guest or does one need to be concerned that it may have been switched by non-kosher meat? One can water and slaughter domestic animals on Yom Tov but not desert animals. Why did they water the animals? Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi and the rabbis disagree about which animals fall into which category. One can infer from here that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds by laws of muktze. But didn’t he answer a question about Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that dates that won’t ripen on a tree and are put in a basket to ripen are not muktze because there are no laws of muktze other than figs and grapes that are set aside to dry? The Gemara offers three answers.

Here is the text for the Siyum Masechet ceremony (Beitzah).

Watch the full Siyum here:

诪讬 砖讝诪谉 讗爪诇讜 讗讜专讞讬诐 诇讗 讬讜诇讬讻讜 讘讬讚诐 诪谞讜转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讝讻讛 诇讛诐 诪谞讜转讬讛诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

With regard to one who invited guests to visit him from a town beyond his Shabbat limit, and they joined the Shabbat boundaries to enable them to reach his house, they may not carry in their hands back to their town any portions they received from him as gifts. These portions are as the feet of the host, since they belonged to him on the eve of the Festival. This is true unless he transferred ownership of their portions to them on the eve of the Festival, in which case the gifts may be carried wherever the recipients may walk.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 专讘 讗诪专 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 诇讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专

GEMARA: It is stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to one who deposits produce with another for safekeeping: In whose possession is the produce with regard to determining its place of rest over the Festival? Rav said: They are as the feet of the one with whom they were deposited. And Shmuel said: They are as the feet of the object鈥檚 owner. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav and Shmuel follow their usual line of reasoning, as we learned in a mishna: If one brought in his produce or his ox to another鈥檚 courtyard with his permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for any damage caused to them. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The homeowner is never liable for damages, unless the homeowner explicitly accepts upon himself the responsibility to watch them.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬

And Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, who disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If so, let us say that Rav spoke here in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, with the following reasoning: Just as when one gives permission to store something in his yard, that object is under his jurisdiction concerning monetary responsibility, so too, it is in his jurisdiction concerning the establishment of the Shabbat limit. And Shmuel spoke here in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: When a homeowner gives permission to store something in his yard, the object is not in his jurisdiction, whether with regard to monetary responsibility or with regard to the Shabbat limit.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讘住转诪讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Gemara rejects the comparison: Rav could have said to you: I said my statement in this case even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. For Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated his halakha only there, that an object brought into a courtyard is not considered in the possession of the homeowner with regard to monetary responsibility, because in the ordinary situation one who allows someone to bring items into his courtyard does not accept upon himself the responsibility of watching them. But here, the homeowner has accepted upon himself the responsibility of watching the produce, and consequently it is as his feet.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讚谞讬拽讜诐 转讜专讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讘注诇 讞爪专 讚讗讬 诪讝讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讚诇讬拽讜诐 驻讬专讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讞讘专讬讛

And similarly, Shmuel could have said: I said my statement here even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as the Rabbis stated their opinion only there, maintaining that the objects are considered in the jurisdiction of the homeowner, because it is a person鈥檚, i.e., the owner鈥檚, preference that his ox or other object be established in the jurisdiction of the owner of the courtyard, so that if his ox does damage to the homeowner鈥檚 property the owner will not be liable. But here, is it a person鈥檚 preference for his produce to be in another鈥檚 jurisdiction with regard to the establishment of its Shabbat limit? It is certainly inconvenient for him to have his produce out of his Shabbat limit. Consequently, the two disputes between Rav and Shmuel are not necessarily connected.

转谞谉 讜讗诐 注专讘 讛讜讗 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讻诪讜讛讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讻讬 注专讘 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

The Gemara asks concerning Rav鈥檚 opinion: We learned in the mishna: However, if the owner placed an eiruv, the legal status of his produce is like his status. And if you say that deposited produce is as the feet of the one with whom they were deposited, even if the owner of the produce placed an eiruv, what of it? The produce is under the jurisdiction of the people in the other town with whom it was deposited. It should be as their feet, not as the feet of the owner. Rav Huna said that the Sages of the school of Rav said in reply to this question: The mishna is dealing with a case where the keeper designated a corner of his house for the owner, thereby revealing his intention that the produce not be considered in his own jurisdiction but rather in that of the owner. Consequently, it remains as the feet of the owner.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讝诪谉 讗爪诇讜 讗讜专讞讬诐 诇讗 讬讜诇讬讻讜 讘讬讚诐 诪谞讜转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讝讻讛 诇讛诐 诪谞讜转讬讛诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讻讬 讝讻讛 诇讛诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讝讻讛 诇讛诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讻诪讬 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讚诪讬

The Gemara raises another challenge to Rav鈥檚 opinion: Come and hear a different proof from the mishna: With regard to one who invited guests to visit him, they may not carry in their hands any portions they may have received back to their town, unless he transferred ownership of their portions to them on the eve of the Festival. And if you say that the halakha is that deposited items are as the feet of the one with whom they were deposited, even if he transferred ownership to them by means of another person taking possession on their behalf, what of it? The portions are in any event deposited in the house of the host, and they should be as his feet. The Gemara answers: Here too, since he transferred ownership to them by means of another person, it is considered as a case of one who designated a corner for him, so that the gifts are considered in the jurisdiction of the guests and may be carried wherever they may walk.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讝讻讛 砖讗谞讬

And if you wish, say instead that the entire case of transferring ownership is different because the host鈥檚 specific intention is to transfer possession of the portions entirely to his guests. This means that the guests have certainly established the place of rest of these portions in their own jurisdiction and that the portions are as their feet.

专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 转诇讗 讘砖专讗 讘注讘专讗 讚讚砖讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转 转诇讬转 讝讬诇 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讱 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇

The Gemara relates: Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai once hung meat on the bar of the door of his host鈥檚 house, located outside his own town. He subsequently wondered if he was permitted to take the meat home with him, since he had made an eiruv enabling him to walk from his home to his host鈥檚 home. He came before Rav Huna to ask his opinion. Rav Huna said to him: If you yourself hung the meat, go take it, but if your hosts hung it for you, you may not take it.

讜讗讬 讗讬讛讜 转诇讗 诪讬 砖拽讬诇 讜讛讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诇诪讬讚 讚专讘 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 砖讗谞讬 注讘专讗 讚讚砖讗 讚讻诪讬 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讚诪讬

The Gemara questions this: And if he himself hung the meat, may he indeed take it? But wasn鈥檛 Rav Huna a student of Rav, and Rav said that when an object is deposited in one鈥檚 house it is as the feet of the one with whom it was deposited, which in this case is the host. The Gemara responds: Here it is different, as Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai hung the meat on the bar of the host鈥檚 door, and this case is considered similar to a case of one who designated a corner for him. Since he was given a particular spot for the meat, it is considered his in all respects.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛诇诇 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜专 砖诇 驻讟诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara raises a further objection with regard to this incident: Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: And if they hung the meat for him, may he indeed not take it? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: An ox of a fattener, who fattens oxen in order to sell them for meat, is as the feet of all people, i.e., it is as the feet of whoever buys it on the Festival. This shows that meat that is likely to be sold is not as the feet of its owner, but rather it follows the buyer, as the intention before the Festival is that it be for whoever happens to purchase it. Here too, the intention from the outset was that Rav 岣na would take it over the course of the Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讛转谞谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛讻诇讬诐 讻专讙诇讬 讛讘注诇讬诐

Furthermore, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And if the hosts hung the meat for him, may he indeed not take it? But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, that in a town that has only one shepherd, an animal that will be given to that shepherd over the course of the Festival is as the feet of the shepherd, since it is certain that the animal will be transferred to him. Here too, since the meat was put aside for Rav 岣na, he should be permitted to take it with him. There is a further difficulty: Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: And if they hung the meat for him, may he indeed not take it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: The status of animals and vessels is as the feet of their owner? The same should apply to meat that was hung for him; it should be as his feet.

讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讟专讬讚 讘砖诪注转讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转 转诇讬转 讗讬转 诇讱 住讬诪谞讗 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讜诇讗 诪住讞转 讚注转讱 诪谞讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讱 诪住讞转 讚注转讱 讜诇讗 转砖拽讜诇

Because of all these questions, the Gemara reinterprets the case of Rav 岣na. Rather, the problem with the meat concerns a completely different matter, as the issue under consideration is not the establishment of its place of rest but the prohibition against eating meat that has been left unobserved, due to the concern that it might have been exchanged for prohibited meat. Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai is different from the average person, as he is a great man and occupied with his studies, and this is what Rav Huna said to him: If you yourself hung it, in which case you noticed some recognizable mark on the meat and your attention was not diverted from it, the meat is not forbidden for having been left unobserved, and therefore you may go and take it. However, if the hosts hung it for you, you thereby diverted your attention from it, and they too did not pay careful attention to it after hanging it on your behalf. In that case, it is considered meat that has been left unobserved, and you may therefore not take it.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛讘讬讬转讜转 讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讬讬转讜转 讛诇谞讜转 讘注讬专 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讛诇谞讜转 讘讗驻专

MISHNA: On a Festival one may not water and slaughter desert animals, which graze mainly outside the town, as they are considered muktze. However, one may water and slaughter domestic animals. The mishna elaborates: These are considered domestic animals: Those that sleep in the city at night. Desert animals are those that sleep in the pasture and come into town only rarely.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇砖拽讬 讗讬谞砖 讘讛诪转讜 讜讛讚专 诇砖讞讜讟 诪砖讜诐 住专讻讗 讚诪砖讻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: The mishna is coming to teach which animals are muktze and consequently may not be slaughtered and eaten on the Festival. Why, then, do I need the mishna to say: One may water and slaughter? What does watering have to do with the topic at hand? The Gemara explains: The tanna of the mishna teaches us a practical matter incidentally: That a person should first water his animal and only afterward slaughter it, due to the adhesion of the skin to the meat when this is not done. If one first waters the animal, it is easier to skin it after slaughtering it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讬讬转讜转 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讘驻住讞 讜专讜注讜转 讘讗驻专 讜谞讻谞住讜转 讘专讘讬注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讬讬转讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜注讜转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讘讗讜转 讜诇谞讜转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讘讬讬转讜转 讛谉 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜注讜转 讘讗驻专 讜讗讬谉 谞讻谞住讜转 诇讬砖讜讘 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: Which are desert animals, and which are domestic ones? Desert animals include all those that go out to pasture at Passover time and graze in the pasture day and night and enter the town again only at the first rainfall, at the start of the rainy season. And these are domestic animals: All that go out in the morning and graze outside the town鈥檚 boundary but come and sleep within the boundary at night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Both these and those are considered domestic animals and may be slaughtered on the Festival. Rather, these are desert animals that may not be slaughtered on the Festival: All those that go out and graze in the pasture and do not enter the settled area, neither in the summer nor in the rainy season.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 诪专讘讬 驻爪注讬诇讬 转诪专讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara asks concerning Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in general accept the concept of muktze? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, inquire of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Unripe dates that are placed in a basket to ripen until they are edible, what is the halakha according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i? Are they considered muktze or not? He said to him in response: There is no recognition of the halakha of muktze according to Rabbi Shimon,

讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪诪讜拽讬谉 讘诇讘讚

except for the case of dried figs and raisins in the midst of the drying process alone. These are fruits that are fit to be eaten fresh and were deliberately removed from use to allow them to undergo a drying process, during which time they are inedible; they have therefore been actively removed from one鈥檚 mind for the interim. Unripe dates, however, are unfit to be eaten fresh and become fit for eating only when they are ripe. Therefore, if one places unripe dates in a basket to ripen, they are never completely removed from his mind, not having been changed from an edible state to an inedible state, and are permitted. If so, desert animals, which are similarly never completely removed from one鈥檚 mind, should also not be considered muktze. Why, then, does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi indicate that they have the status of muktze?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪诪讜拽讬谉 讚诪讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests several resolutions: If you wish, say that these desert animals are also considered similar to dried figs and raisins, as by sending them outside the town the owner has actively removed them from use. And if you wish, say instead that the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son that Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha of muktze except for the case of dried figs and raisins does not prove anything about his own opinion; he stated this only in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜注讜转 讘驻住讞 讜谞讻谞住讜转 讘专讘讬注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讘讬讬转讜转 讛谉 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讛谉

And if you wish, say a different answer: He himself, like Rabbi Shimon, did not accept the concept of muktze, and when he spoke in the baraita he was speaking, for the sake of argument, in accordance with the words of the Rabbis who had spoken before him, saying to them, in effect: According to my opinion, there is no halakha of muktze at all, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and all animals may be slaughtered on the Festival. But even according to your approach, that there is a halakha of muktze, agree with me, in any event, that with regard to a case where they go out and graze on Passover and enter again at the first rainfall, they are considered domestic animals and should be permitted. But the Rabbis said to him: No, even those are desert animals.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讜住诇讬拽讗 诪住讻转 讘讬爪讛

 

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 shiurim are dedicated by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month.

  • 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: 36-40+Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we finish Masechet Beitzah, we learn various Rabbinic prohibitions that apply to the Festivals. We will also learn how...
siyum b

Siyum Masechet Beitzah by Hadran

Welcome to Hadran's Siyum Masechet Beitzah   Featuring: The Last Daf with Rabbanit Michelle Farber 鈥淲hen in Doubt鈥: Doubt in...
alon shvut women

Siyum Masechet Beitza

How wonderful to complete the聽 Tractate of Beitz and start Masechet Rosh Hashana and enjoy a special Shiur from Rav...

Beitzah 40 – Siyum Masechet Beitzah

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 40 – Siyum Masechet Beitzah

诪讬 砖讝诪谉 讗爪诇讜 讗讜专讞讬诐 诇讗 讬讜诇讬讻讜 讘讬讚诐 诪谞讜转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讝讻讛 诇讛诐 诪谞讜转讬讛诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

With regard to one who invited guests to visit him from a town beyond his Shabbat limit, and they joined the Shabbat boundaries to enable them to reach his house, they may not carry in their hands back to their town any portions they received from him as gifts. These portions are as the feet of the host, since they belonged to him on the eve of the Festival. This is true unless he transferred ownership of their portions to them on the eve of the Festival, in which case the gifts may be carried wherever the recipients may walk.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 专讘 讗诪专 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 诇讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专

GEMARA: It is stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to one who deposits produce with another for safekeeping: In whose possession is the produce with regard to determining its place of rest over the Festival? Rav said: They are as the feet of the one with whom they were deposited. And Shmuel said: They are as the feet of the object鈥檚 owner. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav and Shmuel follow their usual line of reasoning, as we learned in a mishna: If one brought in his produce or his ox to another鈥檚 courtyard with his permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for any damage caused to them. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The homeowner is never liable for damages, unless the homeowner explicitly accepts upon himself the responsibility to watch them.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬

And Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, who disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If so, let us say that Rav spoke here in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, with the following reasoning: Just as when one gives permission to store something in his yard, that object is under his jurisdiction concerning monetary responsibility, so too, it is in his jurisdiction concerning the establishment of the Shabbat limit. And Shmuel spoke here in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: When a homeowner gives permission to store something in his yard, the object is not in his jurisdiction, whether with regard to monetary responsibility or with regard to the Shabbat limit.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讘住转诪讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗

The Gemara rejects the comparison: Rav could have said to you: I said my statement in this case even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. For Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated his halakha only there, that an object brought into a courtyard is not considered in the possession of the homeowner with regard to monetary responsibility, because in the ordinary situation one who allows someone to bring items into his courtyard does not accept upon himself the responsibility of watching them. But here, the homeowner has accepted upon himself the responsibility of watching the produce, and consequently it is as his feet.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讚谞讬拽讜诐 转讜专讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讘注诇 讞爪专 讚讗讬 诪讝讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讚诇讬拽讜诐 驻讬专讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讞讘专讬讛

And similarly, Shmuel could have said: I said my statement here even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as the Rabbis stated their opinion only there, maintaining that the objects are considered in the jurisdiction of the homeowner, because it is a person鈥檚, i.e., the owner鈥檚, preference that his ox or other object be established in the jurisdiction of the owner of the courtyard, so that if his ox does damage to the homeowner鈥檚 property the owner will not be liable. But here, is it a person鈥檚 preference for his produce to be in another鈥檚 jurisdiction with regard to the establishment of its Shabbat limit? It is certainly inconvenient for him to have his produce out of his Shabbat limit. Consequently, the two disputes between Rav and Shmuel are not necessarily connected.

转谞谉 讜讗诐 注专讘 讛讜讗 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讻诪讜讛讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讻讬 注专讘 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

The Gemara asks concerning Rav鈥檚 opinion: We learned in the mishna: However, if the owner placed an eiruv, the legal status of his produce is like his status. And if you say that deposited produce is as the feet of the one with whom they were deposited, even if the owner of the produce placed an eiruv, what of it? The produce is under the jurisdiction of the people in the other town with whom it was deposited. It should be as their feet, not as the feet of the owner. Rav Huna said that the Sages of the school of Rav said in reply to this question: The mishna is dealing with a case where the keeper designated a corner of his house for the owner, thereby revealing his intention that the produce not be considered in his own jurisdiction but rather in that of the owner. Consequently, it remains as the feet of the owner.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讝诪谉 讗爪诇讜 讗讜专讞讬诐 诇讗 讬讜诇讬讻讜 讘讬讚诐 诪谞讜转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讝讻讛 诇讛诐 诪谞讜转讬讛诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讻讬 讝讻讛 诇讛诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讝讻讛 诇讛诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讻诪讬 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讚诪讬

The Gemara raises another challenge to Rav鈥檚 opinion: Come and hear a different proof from the mishna: With regard to one who invited guests to visit him, they may not carry in their hands any portions they may have received back to their town, unless he transferred ownership of their portions to them on the eve of the Festival. And if you say that the halakha is that deposited items are as the feet of the one with whom they were deposited, even if he transferred ownership to them by means of another person taking possession on their behalf, what of it? The portions are in any event deposited in the house of the host, and they should be as his feet. The Gemara answers: Here too, since he transferred ownership to them by means of another person, it is considered as a case of one who designated a corner for him, so that the gifts are considered in the jurisdiction of the guests and may be carried wherever they may walk.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讝讻讛 砖讗谞讬

And if you wish, say instead that the entire case of transferring ownership is different because the host鈥檚 specific intention is to transfer possession of the portions entirely to his guests. This means that the guests have certainly established the place of rest of these portions in their own jurisdiction and that the portions are as their feet.

专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 转诇讗 讘砖专讗 讘注讘专讗 讚讚砖讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转 转诇讬转 讝讬诇 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讱 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇

The Gemara relates: Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai once hung meat on the bar of the door of his host鈥檚 house, located outside his own town. He subsequently wondered if he was permitted to take the meat home with him, since he had made an eiruv enabling him to walk from his home to his host鈥檚 home. He came before Rav Huna to ask his opinion. Rav Huna said to him: If you yourself hung the meat, go take it, but if your hosts hung it for you, you may not take it.

讜讗讬 讗讬讛讜 转诇讗 诪讬 砖拽讬诇 讜讛讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诇诪讬讚 讚专讘 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 砖讗谞讬 注讘专讗 讚讚砖讗 讚讻诪讬 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讚诪讬

The Gemara questions this: And if he himself hung the meat, may he indeed take it? But wasn鈥檛 Rav Huna a student of Rav, and Rav said that when an object is deposited in one鈥檚 house it is as the feet of the one with whom it was deposited, which in this case is the host. The Gemara responds: Here it is different, as Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai hung the meat on the bar of the host鈥檚 door, and this case is considered similar to a case of one who designated a corner for him. Since he was given a particular spot for the meat, it is considered his in all respects.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛诇诇 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜专 砖诇 驻讟诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara raises a further objection with regard to this incident: Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: And if they hung the meat for him, may he indeed not take it? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: An ox of a fattener, who fattens oxen in order to sell them for meat, is as the feet of all people, i.e., it is as the feet of whoever buys it on the Festival. This shows that meat that is likely to be sold is not as the feet of its owner, but rather it follows the buyer, as the intention before the Festival is that it be for whoever happens to purchase it. Here too, the intention from the outset was that Rav 岣na would take it over the course of the Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讛转谞谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛讻诇讬诐 讻专讙诇讬 讛讘注诇讬诐

Furthermore, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And if the hosts hung the meat for him, may he indeed not take it? But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, that in a town that has only one shepherd, an animal that will be given to that shepherd over the course of the Festival is as the feet of the shepherd, since it is certain that the animal will be transferred to him. Here too, since the meat was put aside for Rav 岣na, he should be permitted to take it with him. There is a further difficulty: Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: And if they hung the meat for him, may he indeed not take it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: The status of animals and vessels is as the feet of their owner? The same should apply to meat that was hung for him; it should be as his feet.

讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讟专讬讚 讘砖诪注转讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转 转诇讬转 讗讬转 诇讱 住讬诪谞讗 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讜诇讗 诪住讞转 讚注转讱 诪谞讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇讜 诇讱 诪住讞转 讚注转讱 讜诇讗 转砖拽讜诇

Because of all these questions, the Gemara reinterprets the case of Rav 岣na. Rather, the problem with the meat concerns a completely different matter, as the issue under consideration is not the establishment of its place of rest but the prohibition against eating meat that has been left unobserved, due to the concern that it might have been exchanged for prohibited meat. Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai is different from the average person, as he is a great man and occupied with his studies, and this is what Rav Huna said to him: If you yourself hung it, in which case you noticed some recognizable mark on the meat and your attention was not diverted from it, the meat is not forbidden for having been left unobserved, and therefore you may go and take it. However, if the hosts hung it for you, you thereby diverted your attention from it, and they too did not pay careful attention to it after hanging it on your behalf. In that case, it is considered meat that has been left unobserved, and you may therefore not take it.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛讘讬讬转讜转 讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讬讬转讜转 讛诇谞讜转 讘注讬专 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讛诇谞讜转 讘讗驻专

MISHNA: On a Festival one may not water and slaughter desert animals, which graze mainly outside the town, as they are considered muktze. However, one may water and slaughter domestic animals. The mishna elaborates: These are considered domestic animals: Those that sleep in the city at night. Desert animals are those that sleep in the pasture and come into town only rarely.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇砖拽讬 讗讬谞砖 讘讛诪转讜 讜讛讚专 诇砖讞讜讟 诪砖讜诐 住专讻讗 讚诪砖讻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: The mishna is coming to teach which animals are muktze and consequently may not be slaughtered and eaten on the Festival. Why, then, do I need the mishna to say: One may water and slaughter? What does watering have to do with the topic at hand? The Gemara explains: The tanna of the mishna teaches us a practical matter incidentally: That a person should first water his animal and only afterward slaughter it, due to the adhesion of the skin to the meat when this is not done. If one first waters the animal, it is easier to skin it after slaughtering it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讬讬转讜转 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讘驻住讞 讜专讜注讜转 讘讗驻专 讜谞讻谞住讜转 讘专讘讬注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讬讬转讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜注讜转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讘讗讜转 讜诇谞讜转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讘讬讬转讜转 讛谉 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜注讜转 讘讗驻专 讜讗讬谉 谞讻谞住讜转 诇讬砖讜讘 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: Which are desert animals, and which are domestic ones? Desert animals include all those that go out to pasture at Passover time and graze in the pasture day and night and enter the town again only at the first rainfall, at the start of the rainy season. And these are domestic animals: All that go out in the morning and graze outside the town鈥檚 boundary but come and sleep within the boundary at night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Both these and those are considered domestic animals and may be slaughtered on the Festival. Rather, these are desert animals that may not be slaughtered on the Festival: All those that go out and graze in the pasture and do not enter the settled area, neither in the summer nor in the rainy season.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 诪专讘讬 驻爪注讬诇讬 转诪专讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara asks concerning Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in general accept the concept of muktze? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, inquire of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Unripe dates that are placed in a basket to ripen until they are edible, what is the halakha according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i? Are they considered muktze or not? He said to him in response: There is no recognition of the halakha of muktze according to Rabbi Shimon,

讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪诪讜拽讬谉 讘诇讘讚

except for the case of dried figs and raisins in the midst of the drying process alone. These are fruits that are fit to be eaten fresh and were deliberately removed from use to allow them to undergo a drying process, during which time they are inedible; they have therefore been actively removed from one鈥檚 mind for the interim. Unripe dates, however, are unfit to be eaten fresh and become fit for eating only when they are ripe. Therefore, if one places unripe dates in a basket to ripen, they are never completely removed from his mind, not having been changed from an edible state to an inedible state, and are permitted. If so, desert animals, which are similarly never completely removed from one鈥檚 mind, should also not be considered muktze. Why, then, does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi indicate that they have the status of muktze?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪诪讜拽讬谉 讚诪讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests several resolutions: If you wish, say that these desert animals are also considered similar to dried figs and raisins, as by sending them outside the town the owner has actively removed them from use. And if you wish, say instead that the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son that Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha of muktze except for the case of dried figs and raisins does not prove anything about his own opinion; he stated this only in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜注讜转 讘驻住讞 讜谞讻谞住讜转 讘专讘讬注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讘讬讬转讜转 讛谉 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讛谉

And if you wish, say a different answer: He himself, like Rabbi Shimon, did not accept the concept of muktze, and when he spoke in the baraita he was speaking, for the sake of argument, in accordance with the words of the Rabbis who had spoken before him, saying to them, in effect: According to my opinion, there is no halakha of muktze at all, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and all animals may be slaughtered on the Festival. But even according to your approach, that there is a halakha of muktze, agree with me, in any event, that with regard to a case where they go out and graze on Passover and enter again at the first rainfall, they are considered domestic animals and should be permitted. But the Rabbis said to him: No, even those are desert animals.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讜住诇讬拽讗 诪住讻转 讘讬爪讛

 

Scroll To Top