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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 6, 2021 | 讻状讟 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 6

How would they bury the dead on Yom Tov 鈥 what is the difference between the first day and the second? On the first day, by gentiles and the second by Jews. There is a discussion about burial on the second day of Rosh Hashanah – is it like Yom Tov in the Diaspora or not? Is it only permitted if the person died before Yom Tov or even on Yom Tov? Because of the fear that the chabarim (hostile gentiles) would see them burying and thinking that work was permitted as well, Ravina forbade burying the dead on the second day of Yom Tov. Is it possible to make an eruv tavshilin on Yom Tov in the Diaspora on condition (if today is Yom Tov鈥)? Is it the same for Rosh Hashanah? There is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel or Rabbi Yochanan regarding the law of a chick born on Yom Tov. According to Rav who forbids, what is the difference between this and a calf born that is allowed to be slaughtered on Yom Tov? There are braitot to strengthen the views of Rav and Shmuel/Rabbi Yochanan. Rav Huna said on behalf of Rav that an egg is completed when it exits. What is meant by that statement? The Gemara brings five possibilities to understand this (part on page 7).

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讬转注住拽讜 讘讜 注诪诪讬诐 诪转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讬转注住拽讜 讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讘讬爪讛

Rava said: If one died on the first day of a Festival, gentiles should attend to his burial. If he died on the second day of a Festival, Jews should attend to his burial. And even with regard to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana,the halakha is that the legal status of the two days is like that of the two days of the Festivals; however, that is not so with regard to an egg that was laid on the first day of Rosh HaShana, as it remains prohibited on the second day.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗祝 讘讘讬爪讛 讚诪讛 讚注转讬讱 讚诇诪讗 诪注讘专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗诇讜诇 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬诪讜转 注讝专讗 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讗诇讜诇 诪注讜讘专

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even with regard to an egg, Rosh HaShana is no different from other Festivals, as an egg laid on the first day is permitted on the second. As what do you think i.e., what is your concern; perhaps witnesses will fail to arrive, and the court will proclaim the month of Elul full, i.e., thirty days long, and begin counting the year only from the following day? In that case, both days are kept as sacred ab initio. Didn鈥檛 Rav 岣nnana bar Kahana say that Rav already said in this regard: From the days of Ezra and onward we have not found that the month of Elul was full, as the Sages employed various methods to ensure that there would be no need to add a thirtieth day. Consequently, Rosh HaShana would always occur on the thirtieth day after the beginning of Elul.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗砖转讛讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗砖转讛讬 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Mar Zutra said: We said that Jews should attend to the dead on the second day of Rosh HaShana only when the burial of the corpse has already been delayed and for some reason the burial was not on the day that he died. In that case, the body might begin to decay, and the dignity of the dead is at stake. However, if the burial has not been delayed, and there is no concern for the dignity of the corpse, its burial may not be attended to on the Festival; rather, we delay it until the Festival has ended.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗砖转讛讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 诇讙讘讬 诪转 讻讞讜诇 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讬讙讝 诇讬讛 讙诇讬诪讗 讜诇诪讬讙讝 诇讬讛 讗住讗

Rav Ashi said: Even though the burial was not delayed, but it is the day that he died, we still do not delay the burial. What is the reason for this? With regard to the dead, the Sages equated the legal status of the second Festival day with that of a weekday. This is true to such an extent that on a Festival it is permitted even to cut material to fashion a cloak for the deceased. And similarly, it is permitted to cut myrtles for the deceased, to be placed on the bier in their honor.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讘专讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Ravina said: And nowadays, when there are 岣barei, this practice must be adjusted. The 岣barei were Persian priests who made false accusations against Jews in Babylonia. They cited the fact that Jews were burying their dead on the second Festival day as proof that the day was not holy, and they forced them to work on that day. Since we are concerned about this possibility, we do not bury the dead on the second day.

专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 (讗住讬) 讘砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讗讜转讬讘讬 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉

The Gemara relates: Ravina sat before Rav Ashi on the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana, which occurred that year on Thursday and Friday. Ravina observed that Rav Ashi was sad. He said to him: Why is the Master sad? He said to him: Because I did not prepare a joining of cooked foods, and therefore I cannot prepare food or light a candle on Rosh HaShana for the upcoming Shabbat. When a Festival immediately precedes Shabbat, a joining of cooked foods is prepared before the Festival with ready-to-eat food. It is kept until Shabbat, symbolically indicating that any food prepared on the Festival for Shabbat is merely a continuation of that initial preparation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讜转讬讘 诪专 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讬讞 讗讚诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜诪转谞讛

Ravina said to him: And let the Master prepare a joining of cooked foods now, on the first day of Rosh HaShana, a Thursday. Didn鈥檛 Rava say: A person may prepare a joining of cooked foods from one Festival day of the Diaspora to another, by stipulating the following condition: If today is a weekday and tomorrow is holy, this shall be my joining of cooked foods, by means of which I may prepare food tomorrow for Shabbat; if today is holy and tomorrow a weekday, it is permitted to prepare food tomorrow as it is on any regular weekday, and a joining of cooked foods in not needed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 讙诇讬讜转 讘砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪讬 讗诪专

Rav Ashi said to him: You can say that Rava stated this halakha with regard to the regular two Festival days of the Diaspora; but did he actually say so with regard to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana? The two days of Rosh HaShana are considered one long day, and they are both equally holy.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讗祝 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专 诇讬 诪专 讚诇讗 住讘专 诇讛讗 讚谞讛专讚注讬

Ravina replied: Didn鈥檛 the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say that even an egg is permitted on the two days of Rosh HaShana, which are treated exactly the same as other Festival days in the Diaspora? The same ruling should apply to a joining of cooked foods. Rav Mordekhai said to Ravina: This does not resolve Rav Ashi鈥檚 difficulty, as the Master, Rav Ashi, explicitly said to me that he does not hold in accordance with this opinion of the Sages of Neharde鈥檃. Rather, he maintains that Rosh HaShana differs from other Festivals, and in this case there is no way to make up for failure to prepare a joining of cooked foods.

讗转诪专 讗驻专讜讞 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 讗诪专 讗住讜专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讜转专 专讘 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讜讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪转讬专 注爪诪讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed the following case: With regard to a chick that hatched on a Festival, Rav said: It is prohibited. And Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yo岣nan, said: It is permitted. The Gemara explains the reasoning for their respective opinions. Rav said: It is prohibited because it is muktze. And Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is permitted, since it itself is rendered permitted through slaughter. The slaughter of the chicken, which renders it fit to be eaten, is made possible by its hatching. Consequently, hatching likewise removes the prohibition of muktze.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: And what is the difference between this case and that of a calf born on a Festival, since you agree that a calf may be slaughtered on that day? He said to them: There is a difference. Since a calf inside its mother is considered prepared on account of its mother, by slaughter, the halakha is as follows: If a cow is slaughtered, the calf inside its womb is also permitted. Therefore, that calf never had the status of muktze, whereas the chick was considered muktze before it hatched.

讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 砖转讬拽 专讘

Rav Kahana and Rav Ashi further challenged Rav: And what is the difference between this case and that of a tereifa? If the mother has a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months, neither it nor the calf inside it may be eaten. Nevertheless, after it is born the calf may be slaughtered on a Festival and it is permitted. Rav was silent and did not offer an answer, as though he did not know how to respond to the question.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖转讬拽 专讘 诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜 诇讻诇讘讬诐

Rabba said, and some say it was Rav Yosef: What is the reason that Rav was silent? Let him say to them: Even a calf born to a tereifa mother is not considered fully muktze, since it is prepared on account of its mother to be fed to dogs. On a Festival, it is permitted to slaughter a tereifa and give it to dogs as food, and therefore the calf is not fully muktze even before it is born. By contrast, a chick in its shell is not intended as food for dogs, and therefore a chick that hatched on a Festival was unfit for use when the Festival began. Consequently, it was considered muktze and it is now nolad, an object that came into being on Shabbat or a Festival, and it is therefore prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬

Abaye said to him:

讛砖转讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讚转谞谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讗转 讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讘诇讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗住讜专讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讛讜讬 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐

Now, we know that food prepared, i.e., fit, for human consumption that became spoiled is not automatically considered prepared for dogs, as we learned in a mishna (see 2a): One may cut pumpkins before an animal to facilitate their consumption, and likewise one may cut up an animal carcass, even of an animal that died on Shabbat, before dogs. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the animal was not already a carcass, i.e., it was not dead and fit for dogs, prior to Shabbat, it is prohibited, because it is not in the category of items considered prepared for use on Shabbat. This shows that although this animal was fit for human consumption while alive, it does not automatically become prepared for dogs once it dies. If so, can food prepared for dogs be considered prepared for humans?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 诇讗 砖讚讬 诇讬讛 诇讻诇讘讬诐 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讛讜讬 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 讚讚注转讬讛 讚讗讬谞讬砖 讗讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛

He said to him: Yes. It is not surprising that something prepared and fit for humans is not considered fit and prepared for dogs, as that which is fit for a person, one does not throw it to dogs, and he has therefore removed that animal from his mind. However, something that is prepared for dogs is also considered fit and prepared for humans, as a person鈥檚 mind is on anything fit to be eaten by him. One does not completely remove from his mind even food meant for dogs, if it is kosher and edible. Consequently, one has in mind the possibility that he might eat the calf of a cow that is a tereifa once it is born, since at that point it will be kosher and edible.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

With regard to the dispute itself, the Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav; and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and some say in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讜转专 讗驻专讜讞 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讝讛 诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜

The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: A calf born on a Festival is permitted; a chick born on a Festival is prohibited. And what is the difference between this case and that one? This one, the calf, is prepared on account of its mother by slaughter; and that one, the chick, is not prepared on account of its mother.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讜转专 讜讗驻专讜讞 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讝讛 诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜 讜讝讛 诪转讬专 注爪诪讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara further explains: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and some say it is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: A calf born on a Festival is permitted, and a chick born on a Festival is likewise permitted. What is the reason? This one, the calf, is prepared on account of its mother; and that one, the chick, is itself rendered permitted through slaughter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗驻专讜讞 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转驻转讞讜 注讬谞讬讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: A chick born on a Festival is prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: Even on a weekday, the chick is prohibited on the day it hatched because its eyes have not yet opened. A small chick of this kind is not yet considered a bird fit for consumption; rather, it is similar to a creeping animal.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讻诇 讛砖专抓 讛砖专抓 注诇 讛讗专抓 诇专讘讜转 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞转驻转讞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught: The verse that states: 鈥淓ven all creeping animals that creep upon the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are a detestable thing鈥 (Leviticus 11:42) comes to include in the list of prohibited creeping animals even chicks that have not yet opened their eyes. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬爪讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 诪讗讬 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 讜诪讜转专转 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讞诇讘 讛讗 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讞诇讘 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗讻诇谉 讘讞诇讘

Rav Huna said that Rav said: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence; i.e., it is not considered an egg until it is laid. The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of the statement: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence? To which issue is Rava referring? If we say he meant an egg is fully formed and called an egg only upon its emergence, and at this stage it is permitted to eat it with milk, this indicates that while an egg is still inside its mother, even if it is fully formed, it is considered meat and it is prohibited to eat it with milk. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters a chicken and finds fully formed eggs inside it, it is permitted to eat them with milk?

讗诇讗 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 讜诪讜转专转 诇讗讜讻诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗讻诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rather, Rav鈥檚 statement should be explained as follows: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence in that it is permitted to eat it on a Festival only if the entire egg emerged on a weekday. The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: This indicates that if an egg is found inside its mother, it is prohibited to eat it on a Festival. But isn鈥檛 it taught: With regard to one who slaughters a chicken and finds fully formed eggs inside it, it is permitted to eat them on a Festival?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讘专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 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 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讗 讘谞讜诇讚讛 讗讘诇 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖专讬讬谉

And if you say: The baraita teaches us that which the mishna did not explicitly teach us, and Rav stated the halakha accordingly; however, this we already learned in the mishna here, as it says in the mishna: With regard to an egg laid on a Festival, Beit Shammai say it may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say it may not be eaten. And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree only with regard to an egg that was already laid, but concerning eggs inside their mothers, all agree that they are permitted.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 谞诪讬 讗住专讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞讜诇讚讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讜诇讚讛 谞诪讬 砖专讜 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗讻诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪谞讬 诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇

And if you say that the mishna should be explained in the opposite manner, as Beit Hillel also prohibit eggs inside their mothers, and the fact that the mishna teaches: Laid, is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai, that they permit even an egg that was laid. However, consider that which is taught in the aforementioned baraita: With regard to one who slaughters a chicken and finds inside it fully formed eggs, it is permitted to eat them on a Festival. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion neither of Beit Shammai nor of Beit Hillel.

讗诇讗 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 讜诪讙讚诇转 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讚诇转 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讬注讬

Rather, Rav certainly did not prohibit an egg that has not yet been laid. Instead, his statement should be explained as follows: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence, and it produces chicks, i.e., an egg laid in the regular manner can be incubated and a chick will hatch from it. By contrast, an egg that remained inside its mother cannot produce chicks. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference of this observation? The Gemara answers: It is relevant for buying and selling. In other words, the difference between the types of eggs has ramifications for terms of commerce. This is like that incident involving a certain individual who would say to the general public: Eggs

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

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...
alon shvut women

Second Day Yom Tov

Beitzah, Daf 6, Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/0n_JxryKDHY  

Beitzah 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 6

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讬转注住拽讜 讘讜 注诪诪讬诐 诪转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讬转注住拽讜 讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讘讬爪讛

Rava said: If one died on the first day of a Festival, gentiles should attend to his burial. If he died on the second day of a Festival, Jews should attend to his burial. And even with regard to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana,the halakha is that the legal status of the two days is like that of the two days of the Festivals; however, that is not so with regard to an egg that was laid on the first day of Rosh HaShana, as it remains prohibited on the second day.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗祝 讘讘讬爪讛 讚诪讛 讚注转讬讱 讚诇诪讗 诪注讘专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗诇讜诇 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬诪讜转 注讝专讗 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讗诇讜诇 诪注讜讘专

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even with regard to an egg, Rosh HaShana is no different from other Festivals, as an egg laid on the first day is permitted on the second. As what do you think i.e., what is your concern; perhaps witnesses will fail to arrive, and the court will proclaim the month of Elul full, i.e., thirty days long, and begin counting the year only from the following day? In that case, both days are kept as sacred ab initio. Didn鈥檛 Rav 岣nnana bar Kahana say that Rav already said in this regard: From the days of Ezra and onward we have not found that the month of Elul was full, as the Sages employed various methods to ensure that there would be no need to add a thirtieth day. Consequently, Rosh HaShana would always occur on the thirtieth day after the beginning of Elul.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗砖转讛讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗砖转讛讬 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Mar Zutra said: We said that Jews should attend to the dead on the second day of Rosh HaShana only when the burial of the corpse has already been delayed and for some reason the burial was not on the day that he died. In that case, the body might begin to decay, and the dignity of the dead is at stake. However, if the burial has not been delayed, and there is no concern for the dignity of the corpse, its burial may not be attended to on the Festival; rather, we delay it until the Festival has ended.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗砖转讛讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 诇讙讘讬 诪转 讻讞讜诇 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讬讙讝 诇讬讛 讙诇讬诪讗 讜诇诪讬讙讝 诇讬讛 讗住讗

Rav Ashi said: Even though the burial was not delayed, but it is the day that he died, we still do not delay the burial. What is the reason for this? With regard to the dead, the Sages equated the legal status of the second Festival day with that of a weekday. This is true to such an extent that on a Festival it is permitted even to cut material to fashion a cloak for the deceased. And similarly, it is permitted to cut myrtles for the deceased, to be placed on the bier in their honor.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讘专讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Ravina said: And nowadays, when there are 岣barei, this practice must be adjusted. The 岣barei were Persian priests who made false accusations against Jews in Babylonia. They cited the fact that Jews were burying their dead on the second Festival day as proof that the day was not holy, and they forced them to work on that day. Since we are concerned about this possibility, we do not bury the dead on the second day.

专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 (讗住讬) 讘砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讗讜转讬讘讬 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉

The Gemara relates: Ravina sat before Rav Ashi on the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana, which occurred that year on Thursday and Friday. Ravina observed that Rav Ashi was sad. He said to him: Why is the Master sad? He said to him: Because I did not prepare a joining of cooked foods, and therefore I cannot prepare food or light a candle on Rosh HaShana for the upcoming Shabbat. When a Festival immediately precedes Shabbat, a joining of cooked foods is prepared before the Festival with ready-to-eat food. It is kept until Shabbat, symbolically indicating that any food prepared on the Festival for Shabbat is merely a continuation of that initial preparation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讜转讬讘 诪专 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讬讞 讗讚诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜诪转谞讛

Ravina said to him: And let the Master prepare a joining of cooked foods now, on the first day of Rosh HaShana, a Thursday. Didn鈥檛 Rava say: A person may prepare a joining of cooked foods from one Festival day of the Diaspora to another, by stipulating the following condition: If today is a weekday and tomorrow is holy, this shall be my joining of cooked foods, by means of which I may prepare food tomorrow for Shabbat; if today is holy and tomorrow a weekday, it is permitted to prepare food tomorrow as it is on any regular weekday, and a joining of cooked foods in not needed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 讙诇讬讜转 讘砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪讬 讗诪专

Rav Ashi said to him: You can say that Rava stated this halakha with regard to the regular two Festival days of the Diaspora; but did he actually say so with regard to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana? The two days of Rosh HaShana are considered one long day, and they are both equally holy.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讗祝 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专 诇讬 诪专 讚诇讗 住讘专 诇讛讗 讚谞讛专讚注讬

Ravina replied: Didn鈥檛 the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say that even an egg is permitted on the two days of Rosh HaShana, which are treated exactly the same as other Festival days in the Diaspora? The same ruling should apply to a joining of cooked foods. Rav Mordekhai said to Ravina: This does not resolve Rav Ashi鈥檚 difficulty, as the Master, Rav Ashi, explicitly said to me that he does not hold in accordance with this opinion of the Sages of Neharde鈥檃. Rather, he maintains that Rosh HaShana differs from other Festivals, and in this case there is no way to make up for failure to prepare a joining of cooked foods.

讗转诪专 讗驻专讜讞 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 讗诪专 讗住讜专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讜转专 专讘 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讜讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪转讬专 注爪诪讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed the following case: With regard to a chick that hatched on a Festival, Rav said: It is prohibited. And Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yo岣nan, said: It is permitted. The Gemara explains the reasoning for their respective opinions. Rav said: It is prohibited because it is muktze. And Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is permitted, since it itself is rendered permitted through slaughter. The slaughter of the chicken, which renders it fit to be eaten, is made possible by its hatching. Consequently, hatching likewise removes the prohibition of muktze.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: And what is the difference between this case and that of a calf born on a Festival, since you agree that a calf may be slaughtered on that day? He said to them: There is a difference. Since a calf inside its mother is considered prepared on account of its mother, by slaughter, the halakha is as follows: If a cow is slaughtered, the calf inside its womb is also permitted. Therefore, that calf never had the status of muktze, whereas the chick was considered muktze before it hatched.

讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 砖转讬拽 专讘

Rav Kahana and Rav Ashi further challenged Rav: And what is the difference between this case and that of a tereifa? If the mother has a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months, neither it nor the calf inside it may be eaten. Nevertheless, after it is born the calf may be slaughtered on a Festival and it is permitted. Rav was silent and did not offer an answer, as though he did not know how to respond to the question.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖转讬拽 专讘 诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜 诇讻诇讘讬诐

Rabba said, and some say it was Rav Yosef: What is the reason that Rav was silent? Let him say to them: Even a calf born to a tereifa mother is not considered fully muktze, since it is prepared on account of its mother to be fed to dogs. On a Festival, it is permitted to slaughter a tereifa and give it to dogs as food, and therefore the calf is not fully muktze even before it is born. By contrast, a chick in its shell is not intended as food for dogs, and therefore a chick that hatched on a Festival was unfit for use when the Festival began. Consequently, it was considered muktze and it is now nolad, an object that came into being on Shabbat or a Festival, and it is therefore prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬

Abaye said to him:

讛砖转讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讚转谞谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讗转 讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讘诇讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗住讜专讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讛讜讬 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐

Now, we know that food prepared, i.e., fit, for human consumption that became spoiled is not automatically considered prepared for dogs, as we learned in a mishna (see 2a): One may cut pumpkins before an animal to facilitate their consumption, and likewise one may cut up an animal carcass, even of an animal that died on Shabbat, before dogs. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the animal was not already a carcass, i.e., it was not dead and fit for dogs, prior to Shabbat, it is prohibited, because it is not in the category of items considered prepared for use on Shabbat. This shows that although this animal was fit for human consumption while alive, it does not automatically become prepared for dogs once it dies. If so, can food prepared for dogs be considered prepared for humans?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 诇讗 砖讚讬 诇讬讛 诇讻诇讘讬诐 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讛讜讬 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 讚讚注转讬讛 讚讗讬谞讬砖 讗讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛

He said to him: Yes. It is not surprising that something prepared and fit for humans is not considered fit and prepared for dogs, as that which is fit for a person, one does not throw it to dogs, and he has therefore removed that animal from his mind. However, something that is prepared for dogs is also considered fit and prepared for humans, as a person鈥檚 mind is on anything fit to be eaten by him. One does not completely remove from his mind even food meant for dogs, if it is kosher and edible. Consequently, one has in mind the possibility that he might eat the calf of a cow that is a tereifa once it is born, since at that point it will be kosher and edible.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

With regard to the dispute itself, the Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav; and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and some say in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讜转专 讗驻专讜讞 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讝讛 诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜

The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: A calf born on a Festival is permitted; a chick born on a Festival is prohibited. And what is the difference between this case and that one? This one, the calf, is prepared on account of its mother by slaughter; and that one, the chick, is not prepared on account of its mother.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讜转专 讜讗驻专讜讞 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讝讛 诪讜讻谉 讗讙讘 讗诪讜 讜讝讛 诪转讬专 注爪诪讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara further explains: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and some say it is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: A calf born on a Festival is permitted, and a chick born on a Festival is likewise permitted. What is the reason? This one, the calf, is prepared on account of its mother; and that one, the chick, is itself rendered permitted through slaughter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗驻专讜讞 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转驻转讞讜 注讬谞讬讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: A chick born on a Festival is prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: Even on a weekday, the chick is prohibited on the day it hatched because its eyes have not yet opened. A small chick of this kind is not yet considered a bird fit for consumption; rather, it is similar to a creeping animal.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讻诇 讛砖专抓 讛砖专抓 注诇 讛讗专抓 诇专讘讜转 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞转驻转讞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught: The verse that states: 鈥淓ven all creeping animals that creep upon the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are a detestable thing鈥 (Leviticus 11:42) comes to include in the list of prohibited creeping animals even chicks that have not yet opened their eyes. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬爪讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 诪讗讬 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 讜诪讜转专转 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讞诇讘 讛讗 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讞诇讘 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗讻诇谉 讘讞诇讘

Rav Huna said that Rav said: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence; i.e., it is not considered an egg until it is laid. The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of the statement: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence? To which issue is Rava referring? If we say he meant an egg is fully formed and called an egg only upon its emergence, and at this stage it is permitted to eat it with milk, this indicates that while an egg is still inside its mother, even if it is fully formed, it is considered meat and it is prohibited to eat it with milk. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters a chicken and finds fully formed eggs inside it, it is permitted to eat them with milk?

讗诇讗 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 讜诪讜转专转 诇讗讜讻诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗讻诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rather, Rav鈥檚 statement should be explained as follows: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence in that it is permitted to eat it on a Festival only if the entire egg emerged on a weekday. The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: This indicates that if an egg is found inside its mother, it is prohibited to eat it on a Festival. But isn鈥檛 it taught: With regard to one who slaughters a chicken and finds fully formed eggs inside it, it is permitted to eat them on a Festival?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讘专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 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 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讗 讘谞讜诇讚讛 讗讘诇 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖专讬讬谉

And if you say: The baraita teaches us that which the mishna did not explicitly teach us, and Rav stated the halakha accordingly; however, this we already learned in the mishna here, as it says in the mishna: With regard to an egg laid on a Festival, Beit Shammai say it may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say it may not be eaten. And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree only with regard to an egg that was already laid, but concerning eggs inside their mothers, all agree that they are permitted.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 谞诪讬 讗住专讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞讜诇讚讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讜诇讚讛 谞诪讬 砖专讜 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讙诪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗讻诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪谞讬 诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇

And if you say that the mishna should be explained in the opposite manner, as Beit Hillel also prohibit eggs inside their mothers, and the fact that the mishna teaches: Laid, is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai, that they permit even an egg that was laid. However, consider that which is taught in the aforementioned baraita: With regard to one who slaughters a chicken and finds inside it fully formed eggs, it is permitted to eat them on a Festival. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion neither of Beit Shammai nor of Beit Hillel.

讗诇讗 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 讜诪讙讚诇转 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讚诇转 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讬注讬

Rather, Rav certainly did not prohibit an egg that has not yet been laid. Instead, his statement should be explained as follows: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence, and it produces chicks, i.e., an egg laid in the regular manner can be incubated and a chick will hatch from it. By contrast, an egg that remained inside its mother cannot produce chicks. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference of this observation? The Gemara answers: It is relevant for buying and selling. In other words, the difference between the types of eggs has ramifications for terms of commerce. This is like that incident involving a certain individual who would say to the general public: Eggs

Scroll To Top