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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 7, 2021 | 讗壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

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

  • 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 7 – First day of Rosh Hashana, September 7

This is the daf for the first day of Rosh Hashana. For Monday’s daf, click here

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ellen Werlin and Rachel Geballe in honor of the yartzeit of Jim Dinerstein who was a life long learner who taught his daughters to pursue learning and a sense you can always try a new challenge, two ways of many that he inspires them as they learn the daf.

The Gemara brings three more options to explain the sentence: An egg is completed when it exits. A creature who mates during the day will give birth during the day 鈥 this statement refers to chickens. What is the halakhic relevance of this sentence? The Gemara discusses the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel over the requisite amounts for chametz/seor. Where in the Torah did they derive their opinions? And what exactly is the subject of the controversy? What is their point of contention regarding the covering of the blood on Yom Tov?

讚驻讞讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讘讬注讬 讚砖讞讜讟讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讚专

of a live chicken, who has? He sought to purchase eggs of this kind. They gave him eggs of a slaughtered chicken. He came before Rabbi Ami, claiming he had been cheated. Rabbi Ami said to the sellers: This is a mistaken transaction, and it is rescinded; the sale is void.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讚驻讞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚爪专讬讘谉 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬转讘讛 诇讬讛 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that the transaction is void, as he specified exactly what he wanted. The Gemara answers: The ruling is necessary, lest you say that this individual wants them for food rather than for chicks, and that which he said, that he is looking for eggs of a live chicken, he said only because they are hard-shelled, mature eggs. What is the practical difference, i.e., what is this man claiming from the seller according to this rejected interpretation? He is merely demanding to refund him the difference in value between the two types of eggs. Rabbi Ami therefore teaches us that the sale involved a fundamental error, as the eggs of a slaughtered chicken are unfit for incubation. The transaction is therefore void.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讬注讬 讚讚讻专讗 诇诪讗谉 讘讬注讬 讚讚讻专讗 诇诪讗谉 讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讘讬注讬 讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讚专

The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain person said to vendors: Does anyone have eggs of a chicken that has had relations with a rooster? Does anyone have eggs of a rooster? They gave him eggs that a hen had absorbed from the ground, i.e., which had not been fertilized by a rooster. He came before Rabbi Ami claiming that he had been cheated. Rabbi Ami said to them: This is a mistaken transaction, and it is rescinded.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讚讚讻专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诪讬谞谉 讟驻讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case. The Gemara explains: The ruling is necessary, lest you say that this person wants the eggs for food, and that which he said, that he wants eggs of a rooster, he said only because they are fatter. What is the practical difference; i.e., what is this man claiming from the seller according to this rejected interpretation? He is merely demanding that they should refund him the difference in value between the two types. Rav Ami therefore teaches us that this is not the case; rather, the sale is void.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 专讜讘讛 谞讙诪专讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬爪讛 砖讬爪讗讛 专讜讘讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讞讝专讛 诪讜转专转 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara suggests another explanation of Rav鈥檚 statement. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the claim: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence? It means that it is fully formed with the emergence of most of it, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan. As Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is taught in a baraita that in the case of an egg, most of which emerged from the chicken on a Festival eve, and the egg returned inside the mother and was finally laid on the Festival itself, it is permitted to eat this egg on the Festival. Since most of the egg had emerged before the Festival began, it is considered to have been laid the day before.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 讻讜诇讛 谞讙诪专讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 讻讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 专讜讘讛 诇讗 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

And some say the following explanation: What is the meaning of the expression: Fully formed upon its emergence? It means that it is fully formed upon the emergence of all of it. The Gemara infers: Upon the emergence of all of it, yes, it is fully formed at this stage; however, if only most of it came out the day before, no, it is not considered fully formed. And this reading serves to exclude the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan. In any case, Rav鈥檚 statement can correspond to this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讙讜驻讗 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 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪注讜专讜转 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗住讜专讜转

搂 Apropos the halakhic status of eggs found inside a slaughtered chicken, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: In the case of one who slaughters a chicken and finds inside it fully formed eggs, it is permitted to eat these eggs with milk. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: If the eggs were still attached by sinews, it is prohibited to eat them with milk, as they are considered meat.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 诪谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 诪谉 讛砖诇诇 砖诇 讘讬爪讬诐 诪谉 讛注爪诪讜转 讜诪谉 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜诪谉 讛讘砖专 砖谞转诇砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha that the Sages taught in a baraita: One who eats one of the following parts of the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird: From a cluster of eggs that are still attached to it by sinews, or from its bones, or from the sinews, or from meat that has been detached from a live animal, is ritually pure because none of these are considered part of the meat of the bird, and therefore they do not impart the ritual impurity of an animal carcass.

诪谉 讛讗砖讻讜诇 砖诇 讘讬爪讬诐 诪谉 讛拽讜专拽讘谉 讜讘谞讬 诪注讬讬谉 讗讜 砖讛诪讞讛 讗转 讛讞诇讘 讜讙诪注讜 讟诪讗

However, if one ate from the ovary of its eggs, which contains very small eggs that do not possess any of the regular characteristics of eggs, or if he took a piece of the craw or the intestines, or if he melted the fat of a dead bird and swallowed it, he is ritually impure from the impurity imparted by the unslaughtered carcass of a bird.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诪谉 讛砖诇诇 砖诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪注讜专讜转 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗住讜专讜转

Who is the tanna who taught that if one ate from a cluster of eggs he is pure, which indicates that eggs still attached by sinews to the chicken are not considered part of the meat of the bird? Rav Yosef said: This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov. For if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, didn鈥檛 he say: If the eggs were attached by sinews it is prohibited to eat them with milk, indicating that he considers these eggs meat of the chicken.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗住讜专讗 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov stated that these eggs are part of the chicken only there, with regard to the prohibition against eating the eggs with milk; however, perhaps with regard to ritual impurity he did not say that these eggs are considered part of the chicken.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 讗驻讜砖讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讜砖讬 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪驻砖讬谞谉

And if you say that with regard to ritual impurity let us also issue a decree and be stringent in a case of uncertainty and therefore rule that these attached eggs should be considered part of the chicken, this would serve to proliferate impurity, and we do not proliferate impurity that is by rabbinic law. One does not declare an item ritually impure by rabbinic law merely because uncertainty has arisen with regard to its status.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 诪谉 讛讗砖讻讜诇 砖诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪注讜专讜转 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗住讜专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讗砖讻讜诇 诪讛谞讱 讚转诇讬讗 讘讗砖讻讜诇 讚诇诪讗 讗砖讻讜诇 讙讜驻讬讛

And some say a different version of this discussion, according to which the question is: Who is the tanna who taught that if one eats from the ovary of its eggs he is ritually impure? Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who said: If the eggs were attached by sinews, they are prohibited. Abaye said to him: From where do you know that the term ovary means: From these eggs that are hanging from the ovary; perhaps it is referring to the ovary itself, the part of the flesh of the bird where the eggs develop?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗砖讻讜诇 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讜专拽讘谉 讜讘谞讬 诪注讬讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘砖专 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉

And if you say: If it is referring to the ovary itself, what is the purpose of stating this? It is obvious that the ovary itself is meat. One can answer as follows: Just as it is in the case of the craw and the intestines, that even though they are meat according to all opinions, since there are people who do not eat them, it was necessary to teach us that they have the status of meat; here, too, with regard to an ovary, since there are people who do not eat it, it was necessary to teach us that it may not be eaten with milk. Therefore, this argument does not prove that this version of the discussion is incorrect.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬讜诐 谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讜诇讚 讘诇讬诇讛 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讜诇讚 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬讜诐 谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讝讜 转专谞讙讜诇转 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讜诇讚 讘诇讬诇讛 讝讜 注讟诇祝 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讚诐 讜讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: Any species whose intercourse occurs only in the hours of the day is born only by day; any species whose intercourse occurs only at night is born only by night; any species whose intercourse occurs either by day or by night is born either by day or by night. The Gemara elaborates: Any species whose intercourse occurs by day is born by day, this is referring to a chicken. Any species whose intercourse occurs by night is born by night, this is a bat. Any species whose intercourse occurs either by day or by night, this means a human being and all that are similar to him.

讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬讜诐 谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讝讜 转专谞讙讜诇转 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讚拽 讘拽谞讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讛 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专转

The Master said: Any species whose intercourse occurs by day is born by day, this is a chicken. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference of this statement? The Gemara answers: The halakhic difference is with regard to that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana said, as Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana said: If one examined a chicken鈥檚 nest on a Festival eve and did not find an egg in it, and the following day, on the Festival, he rose early and found an egg in it, the egg is permitted, as it can be assumed it was not laid that night.

讜讛诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬诪专 诇讗 讘讚拽 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚拽 讬驻讛 讗讬诪专 讬爪转讛 专讜讘讛 讜讞讝专讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 he examine the nest before the Festival and fail to find an egg there? If so, the egg must have been laid on the Festival. The Gemara answers: Say that he did not examine very carefully. And even if he did examine carefully, you can say that most of the egg emerged on the eve of the Festival and returned inside its mother, and this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. This baraita shows that the halakha does not take into account the possibility that a chicken could lay an egg at night.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讘讚拽 讘拽谞讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇转 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讛 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 讛转诐 讘讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul say that Rav said: If one examined a chicken鈥檚 nest on a Festival eve and did not find an egg in it, and the following day he rose early and found an egg in it, it is prohibited? This indicates that a chicken might indeed lay an egg at night. The Gemara answers: There it is referring to an egg that the chicken absorbed from the earth, i.e., one that was not formed by male fertilization. An egg that is not produced by intercourse can be laid at night as well.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讚专讘 诪专讬 谞诪讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讗专注讗 住驻谞讗 讘讚讗讬讻讗 讝讻专 讘讛讚讛 讘讚讗讬讻讗 讝讻专 谞诪讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讗专注讗 住驻谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讙诪讬专讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讻专 诇讗 住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗

The Gemara challenges this: If so, in Rav Mari鈥檚 case too, you can say that the chicken absorbed from the earth and laid the egg during the night of the Festival. How, then, could Rav Mari permit the egg? The Gemara answers: There it is referring to a case where there is a male with it. The Gemara asks: Even where there is a male with it, one can also say that it absorbed from the earth rather than from the male. The Gemara answers that Ravina said: It is learned as a tradition that anywhere that a male is present, a chicken does not absorb from the earth.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讙诪讚讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讛讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: Until where exactly is it considered to have a male with it; How near must a rooster be for this principle to come into effect? Rav Gamda said in the name of Rav: The male must be any place

讚砖诪注讛 拽诇讬讛 讘讬诪诪讗

where the hen can hear its voice by day, when sounds cannot be heard as easily as at night. If the chicken is close enough to hear the rooster鈥檚 call by day, the rooster is considered close enough to the chicken that the latter will produce eggs only through fertilization by the male.

注讘讚 专讘 诪专讬 注讜讘讚讗 注讚 砖转讬谉 讘转讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Mari took action in accordance with this opinion, when he found an egg on a Festival morning after he had looked in the nest the day before and failed to find an egg there. He examined up to a distance of sixty houses from the chicken, and although he did not find a rooster within this area, he assumed there was one further away and permitted the egg.

讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 谞讛专讗 诇讗 注讘专讗 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讘专讗 注讘专讗 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬爪专讗 诇讗 注讘专讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜注讘专讗 讗诪讬爪专讗

The Gemara comments: And if there is a river between the rooster and the chicken, the chicken does not cross the river; but if there is a bridge, it crosses the river. And if there is only a rope bridge suspended across the river, the chicken will not cross on the rope. The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, an incident occurred in which a chicken crossed over on a rope bridge. However, one may not rely on this possibility.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讚拽 讻讬 诇讗 讘讚拽 谞诪讬

The Gemara further asks: In what manner did you establish this halakha of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul, who prohibits eating an egg discovered in a nest on a Festival morning after the previous day鈥檚 examination revealed nothing? You said that it is referring to a case in which the chicken absorbed from the earth. If so, why discuss specifically a situation in which one examined the nest the evening before? The same halakha should apply even when one did not examine the nest beforehand.

讻讬 诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬诪讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 讛讜讗讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 讘讚拽 谞诪讬 讗讬诪讗 讬爪转讛 专讜讘讛 讜讞讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: In a case where he did not examine the nest, one could say that the egg was laid yesterday, and there is no reason to prohibit its use. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul therefore specified that he checked the day before and is certain that the egg was not laid prior to the Festival. The Gemara challenges this: If so, when he examined the nest as well, say: Perhaps this is a case in which most of the egg emerged and returned, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers: The case discussed by Rabbi Yo岣nan, where most of the egg emerged from the chicken and returned, is uncommon, and therefore it is assumed not to have occurred.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 转讜诪讗 砖讞讬拽讗 住讻谞转讗 诇讙诇讜讬讗

Apropos one statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul in the name of Rav, the Gemara cites another ruling that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rav said: This crushed garlic poses the danger of exposure. If mashed garlic is not properly covered, there is concern that a snake might have tasted from it and thereby injected its venom into the food. This garlic is consequently prohibited as a health risk.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讗讜专 讘讻讝讬转

搂 The mishna states that Beit Shammai say: The measure that determines liability for leaven is an olive-bulk. However, the measure for leavened bread is greater, a large date-bulk. According to Beit Hillel, the measure in both cases is an olive-bulk.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诪抓 讜诇讗 讘注讬 砖讗讜专 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讞诪抓 砖讗讬谉 讞诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讘讻讝讬转 砖讗讜专 砖讞诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讗讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讬注讜专讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇讗 讻砖讬注讜专讜 砖诇 讝讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai? The Gemara explains: If it is so that the measures are equal, let the Merciful One write only the prohibition of leavened bread, and it would not be necessary to write leaven, and I would say an a fortiori inference: If the measure that determines liability for leavened bread, whose leavening is not as extensive, is an olive-bulk, then leaven, whose leavening is extensive, all the more so should the measure that determines liability be an olive-bulk. If so, why do I need the explicit reference to leaven that the Merciful One wrote in the verse: 鈥淪even days there shall be no leaven found in your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:19)? It must be to tell you that the measure of this, leavened bread, is not equal to the measure of that, leaven. Rather, the measure that determines liability for leaven is smaller.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讗讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讗讘诇 讞诪抓 讚讗讬谉 讞诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: And Beit Hillel maintain that both the mention of both leaven and leavened bread are necessary. As if the Merciful One had written only leaven, I would have said its measure that determines liability is an olive-bulk because its leavening is extensive. However, with regard to leavened bread, whose leavening is not extensive, say no, that is not the measure. Therefore, it is necessary to mention leavened bread as well.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诪抓 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 砖讗讜专 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only leavened bread, I would have said that the measure that determines liability for leavened bread is an olive-bulk, because it is fit for consumption on its own; however, leaven, which is not fit for consumption on its own but only when used as a leavening agent for dough, say no, its measure is not like that of leavened bread. Therefore, it is necessary to mention both cases.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 驻转讞 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖讗讜专 讜住讬讬诐 讘讞诪抓 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讝讛讜 砖讗讜专 讝讛讜 讞诪抓

The Gemara asks: And Beit Shammai, don鈥檛 they hold in accordance with Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 opinion? As Rabbi Zeira said, the verse states: 鈥淪even days there shall be no leaven found in your houses, for whoever eats that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the assembly of Israel鈥 (Exodus 12:19). The verse begins with leaven and ends with leavened bread to say to you that leaven is equivalent to leavened bread. How, then, can Beit Shammai maintain that the two are prohibited by different measures?

诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇注谞讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讘讬注讜专 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讘讬注讜专 诪讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara answers: Indeed, with regard to the measure that determines liability for eating, everyone agrees that the same measure applies to leavened bread and leaven. When they disagree it is with regard to the removal of leavened bread from one鈥檚 house. Beit Shammai hold that we do not derive the halakha of removal from that of eating. Rather, with regard to the obligation of removal, different measures apply to leavened bread and leaven. And Beit Hillel hold that we derive the halakha of removal from the measure that determines liability for eating.

讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇注谞讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara comments: This idea was also stated explicitly by amora鈥檌m. Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel was stated with regard to the removal of leavened bread; however, with regard to the measure that determines liability for eating, everyone agrees that the measure for both this and that is an olive-bulk.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 (砖讗讜专) 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 (讞诪抓) 讝讛讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讘讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讗讜专 讘讻讝讬转 讜讞诪抓 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讝讬转

That opinion is also taught in a baraita. The verse states: 鈥淎nd no leavened bread shall be seen with you, and no leaven shall be found in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7). This obligation to remove leavened bread is subject to a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: The measure that determines liability for removal of leaven is an olive-bulk, and the measure for leavened bread is a large date-bulk, and Beit Hillel say: The measure for both this and that is an olive-bulk. This baraita indicates that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to the obligation to remove leavened bread, not liability for eating it.

讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬讜讟 讜讻讜壮

搂 The mishna states that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also dispute whether or not one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird on a Festival, without having prepared earth the day before with which to cover the blood after the slaughter, may dig out earth on the Festival itself to cover the blood.

讛砖讜讞讟 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讬砖讞讜讟

The Gemara analyzes the wording of the mishna: One who slaughters an animal; this indicates that after the fact, yes, one may dig out dirt, but ab initio, no, even Beit Shammai agree that one may not slaughter an undomesticated animal or a bird if there is no prepared dirt. Otherwise, the mishna would have said: One may slaughter an undomesticated animal or a bird on a Festival. Say the latter clause of the mishna: And Beit Hillel say that one may not slaughter it. This proves by inference that the first tanna, Beit Shammai, holds that one may slaughter it even ab initio.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讬讻住讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as Beit Hillel said and meant the following: One may not slaughter an animal and cover the blood. They are emphasizing that one may not cover the blood even if he slaughtered an animal, whereas Beit Shammai maintain that if one slaughtered he may cover the blood ab initio.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讚讬注讘讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges this explanation: Say the latter clause of the mishna: And Beit Hillel concede that if he already slaughtered, then he may dig with a shovel and cover the blood, which indicates that Beit Hillel were not emphasizing the covering of the blood. This proves by inference that the first clause of the mishna is not referring to one鈥檚 action after the fact, but to the halakha ab initio.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 砖讘讗 诇讬诪诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 砖讞讜讟 讞驻讜专 讜讻住讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诇讜 注驻专 诪讜讻谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

Rabba said that this is what the mishna is saying. The phrase: One who slaughters an animal, is not a broad directive on how to act, but rather it means: If there is one who slaughters animals who comes to consult a Sage on how to proceed, what should the Sage say to him? Beit Shammai say that the Sage says to him: Slaughter it ab initio, dig, and cover the blood. And Beit Hillel say: He may slaughter the animal only if he had earth that was prepared while it was still day.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 砖讘讗 诇讛诪诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 诇讱 讞驻讜专 砖讞讜讟 讜讻住讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诇讜 注驻专 诪讜讻谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

Rav Yosef provided a slightly different explanation of the mishna and said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to one who slaughters animals who comes to consult, what does the Sage say to him? Beit Shammai say that he says to him: Go dig, slaughter the animal, and cover the blood. And Beit Hillel say: He may slaughter the animal, only if he had earth that was prepared while it was still day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讬诪讗 诪专 讜专讘讛 讘讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬转讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讜注驻专 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖驻讱 讗转 讚诪讜 讜讻住讛讜 讘注驻专 注驻专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘注驻专 诪诇诪讚 砖讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讜注驻专 诇诪注诇讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let us say that the Master, i.e., Rav Yosef, and Rabba dispute the following statement that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or bird is obligated to perform the mitzva of covering the blood, and therefore he must place earth beneath the blood and earth above it,as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall pour out its blood and cover it in earth鈥 (Leviticus 17:13). It is not stated: Cover it with earth, but 鈥渋n earth,鈥 indicating that the blood must be concealed inside the earth. The verse thereby teaches that one who slaughters an animal must place earth beneath and earth above the blood.

讚诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗

Abaye is suggesting that the Master is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, and therefore he requires one to dig first and only afterward slaughter the animal and have the blood flow onto that earth and then cover it with additional earth, and that Rabba is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诇讚讬讚讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讛 讗讬转 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬谞谉 专讘讛 住讘专 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 诪诪诇讬讱 讜诇讗 砖讞讬讟 讜诇讚讬讚讬 (讗讚专讘讛) 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讗诪谞讜注讬 诪砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: This is not so; rather, both according to me and according to Rabba we are of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, and here we disagree with regard to this matter: Rabba holds that if there is prepared earth beneath, yes, in that case one may slaughter an animal, but if there is no earth prepared beneath, no, he may not slaughter it at all. Why not? Rabba says: We are concerned that perhaps one will reconsider and not slaughter it at all, and he will have dug a hole on a Festival unnecessarily. And according to my opinion, on the contrary: This situation, in which he is permitted to dig first, is preferable, since if you do not permit him to dig in all cases for the purpose of slaughter, he will be unable to eat meat and will refrain from rejoicing on the Festival.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 诇讜 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜讛讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讻转讬砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘

搂 That mishna states: And Beit Hillel concede that if one transgressed and slaughtered an animal, then he digs with a shovel and covers the blood. Rabbi Zerika said that Rav Yehuda said: And that is the halakha specifically when one has a shovel already embedded in the ground while it was still day, before the onset of the Festival. The Gemara asks: But what purpose does an embedded shovel serve; doesn鈥檛 he still perform the act of crushing, as one must crush the lumps of earth to make the soil fit for covering? Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said:

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: 7-14 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue the discussion of finding an egg on a Festival and if you are allowed to...

Beitzah 7 – First day of Rosh Hashana, September 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 7 – First day of Rosh Hashana, September 7

讚驻讞讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讘讬注讬 讚砖讞讜讟讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讚专

of a live chicken, who has? He sought to purchase eggs of this kind. They gave him eggs of a slaughtered chicken. He came before Rabbi Ami, claiming he had been cheated. Rabbi Ami said to the sellers: This is a mistaken transaction, and it is rescinded; the sale is void.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讚驻讞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚爪专讬讘谉 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬转讘讛 诇讬讛 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that the transaction is void, as he specified exactly what he wanted. The Gemara answers: The ruling is necessary, lest you say that this individual wants them for food rather than for chicks, and that which he said, that he is looking for eggs of a live chicken, he said only because they are hard-shelled, mature eggs. What is the practical difference, i.e., what is this man claiming from the seller according to this rejected interpretation? He is merely demanding to refund him the difference in value between the two types of eggs. Rabbi Ami therefore teaches us that the sale involved a fundamental error, as the eggs of a slaughtered chicken are unfit for incubation. The transaction is therefore void.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讬注讬 讚讚讻专讗 诇诪讗谉 讘讬注讬 讚讚讻专讗 诇诪讗谉 讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讘讬注讬 讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讚专

The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain person said to vendors: Does anyone have eggs of a chicken that has had relations with a rooster? Does anyone have eggs of a rooster? They gave him eggs that a hen had absorbed from the ground, i.e., which had not been fertilized by a rooster. He came before Rabbi Ami claiming that he had been cheated. Rabbi Ami said to them: This is a mistaken transaction, and it is rescinded.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讚讚讻专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诪讬谞谉 讟驻讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case. The Gemara explains: The ruling is necessary, lest you say that this person wants the eggs for food, and that which he said, that he wants eggs of a rooster, he said only because they are fatter. What is the practical difference; i.e., what is this man claiming from the seller according to this rejected interpretation? He is merely demanding that they should refund him the difference in value between the two types. Rav Ami therefore teaches us that this is not the case; rather, the sale is void.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 专讜讘讛 谞讙诪专讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬爪讛 砖讬爪讗讛 专讜讘讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讞讝专讛 诪讜转专转 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara suggests another explanation of Rav鈥檚 statement. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the claim: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence? It means that it is fully formed with the emergence of most of it, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan. As Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is taught in a baraita that in the case of an egg, most of which emerged from the chicken on a Festival eve, and the egg returned inside the mother and was finally laid on the Festival itself, it is permitted to eat this egg on the Festival. Since most of the egg had emerged before the Festival began, it is considered to have been laid the day before.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 注诐 讬爪讬讗转讛 谞讙诪专讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 讻讜诇讛 谞讙诪专讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 讻讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 专讜讘讛 诇讗 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

And some say the following explanation: What is the meaning of the expression: Fully formed upon its emergence? It means that it is fully formed upon the emergence of all of it. The Gemara infers: Upon the emergence of all of it, yes, it is fully formed at this stage; however, if only most of it came out the day before, no, it is not considered fully formed. And this reading serves to exclude the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan. In any case, Rav鈥檚 statement can correspond to this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讙讜驻讗 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 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪注讜专讜转 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗住讜专讜转

搂 Apropos the halakhic status of eggs found inside a slaughtered chicken, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: In the case of one who slaughters a chicken and finds inside it fully formed eggs, it is permitted to eat these eggs with milk. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: If the eggs were still attached by sinews, it is prohibited to eat them with milk, as they are considered meat.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 诪谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 诪谉 讛砖诇诇 砖诇 讘讬爪讬诐 诪谉 讛注爪诪讜转 讜诪谉 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜诪谉 讛讘砖专 砖谞转诇砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha that the Sages taught in a baraita: One who eats one of the following parts of the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird: From a cluster of eggs that are still attached to it by sinews, or from its bones, or from the sinews, or from meat that has been detached from a live animal, is ritually pure because none of these are considered part of the meat of the bird, and therefore they do not impart the ritual impurity of an animal carcass.

诪谉 讛讗砖讻讜诇 砖诇 讘讬爪讬诐 诪谉 讛拽讜专拽讘谉 讜讘谞讬 诪注讬讬谉 讗讜 砖讛诪讞讛 讗转 讛讞诇讘 讜讙诪注讜 讟诪讗

However, if one ate from the ovary of its eggs, which contains very small eggs that do not possess any of the regular characteristics of eggs, or if he took a piece of the craw or the intestines, or if he melted the fat of a dead bird and swallowed it, he is ritually impure from the impurity imparted by the unslaughtered carcass of a bird.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诪谉 讛砖诇诇 砖诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪注讜专讜转 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗住讜专讜转

Who is the tanna who taught that if one ate from a cluster of eggs he is pure, which indicates that eggs still attached by sinews to the chicken are not considered part of the meat of the bird? Rav Yosef said: This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov. For if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, didn鈥檛 he say: If the eggs were attached by sinews it is prohibited to eat them with milk, indicating that he considers these eggs meat of the chicken.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗住讜专讗 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov stated that these eggs are part of the chicken only there, with regard to the prohibition against eating the eggs with milk; however, perhaps with regard to ritual impurity he did not say that these eggs are considered part of the chicken.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 讗驻讜砖讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讜砖讬 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪驻砖讬谞谉

And if you say that with regard to ritual impurity let us also issue a decree and be stringent in a case of uncertainty and therefore rule that these attached eggs should be considered part of the chicken, this would serve to proliferate impurity, and we do not proliferate impurity that is by rabbinic law. One does not declare an item ritually impure by rabbinic law merely because uncertainty has arisen with regard to its status.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 诪谉 讛讗砖讻讜诇 砖诇 讘讬爪讬诐 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪注讜专讜转 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗住讜专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讗砖讻讜诇 诪讛谞讱 讚转诇讬讗 讘讗砖讻讜诇 讚诇诪讗 讗砖讻讜诇 讙讜驻讬讛

And some say a different version of this discussion, according to which the question is: Who is the tanna who taught that if one eats from the ovary of its eggs he is ritually impure? Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who said: If the eggs were attached by sinews, they are prohibited. Abaye said to him: From where do you know that the term ovary means: From these eggs that are hanging from the ovary; perhaps it is referring to the ovary itself, the part of the flesh of the bird where the eggs develop?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗砖讻讜诇 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讜专拽讘谉 讜讘谞讬 诪注讬讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘砖专 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉

And if you say: If it is referring to the ovary itself, what is the purpose of stating this? It is obvious that the ovary itself is meat. One can answer as follows: Just as it is in the case of the craw and the intestines, that even though they are meat according to all opinions, since there are people who do not eat them, it was necessary to teach us that they have the status of meat; here, too, with regard to an ovary, since there are people who do not eat it, it was necessary to teach us that it may not be eaten with milk. Therefore, this argument does not prove that this version of the discussion is incorrect.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬讜诐 谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讜诇讚 讘诇讬诇讛 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讜诇讚 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬讜诐 谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讝讜 转专谞讙讜诇转 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讜诇讚 讘诇讬诇讛 讝讜 注讟诇祝 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讚诐 讜讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: Any species whose intercourse occurs only in the hours of the day is born only by day; any species whose intercourse occurs only at night is born only by night; any species whose intercourse occurs either by day or by night is born either by day or by night. The Gemara elaborates: Any species whose intercourse occurs by day is born by day, this is referring to a chicken. Any species whose intercourse occurs by night is born by night, this is a bat. Any species whose intercourse occurs either by day or by night, this means a human being and all that are similar to him.

讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讬讜诐 谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讝讜 转专谞讙讜诇转 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讚拽 讘拽谞讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讛 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专转

The Master said: Any species whose intercourse occurs by day is born by day, this is a chicken. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference of this statement? The Gemara answers: The halakhic difference is with regard to that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana said, as Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana said: If one examined a chicken鈥檚 nest on a Festival eve and did not find an egg in it, and the following day, on the Festival, he rose early and found an egg in it, the egg is permitted, as it can be assumed it was not laid that night.

讜讛诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬诪专 诇讗 讘讚拽 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚拽 讬驻讛 讗讬诪专 讬爪转讛 专讜讘讛 讜讞讝专讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 he examine the nest before the Festival and fail to find an egg there? If so, the egg must have been laid on the Festival. The Gemara answers: Say that he did not examine very carefully. And even if he did examine carefully, you can say that most of the egg emerged on the eve of the Festival and returned inside its mother, and this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. This baraita shows that the halakha does not take into account the possibility that a chicken could lay an egg at night.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讘讚拽 讘拽谞讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇转 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讛 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 讛转诐 讘讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul say that Rav said: If one examined a chicken鈥檚 nest on a Festival eve and did not find an egg in it, and the following day he rose early and found an egg in it, it is prohibited? This indicates that a chicken might indeed lay an egg at night. The Gemara answers: There it is referring to an egg that the chicken absorbed from the earth, i.e., one that was not formed by male fertilization. An egg that is not produced by intercourse can be laid at night as well.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讚专讘 诪专讬 谞诪讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讗专注讗 住驻谞讗 讘讚讗讬讻讗 讝讻专 讘讛讚讛 讘讚讗讬讻讗 讝讻专 谞诪讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讗专注讗 住驻谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讙诪讬专讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讻专 诇讗 住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗

The Gemara challenges this: If so, in Rav Mari鈥檚 case too, you can say that the chicken absorbed from the earth and laid the egg during the night of the Festival. How, then, could Rav Mari permit the egg? The Gemara answers: There it is referring to a case where there is a male with it. The Gemara asks: Even where there is a male with it, one can also say that it absorbed from the earth rather than from the male. The Gemara answers that Ravina said: It is learned as a tradition that anywhere that a male is present, a chicken does not absorb from the earth.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讙诪讚讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讛讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: Until where exactly is it considered to have a male with it; How near must a rooster be for this principle to come into effect? Rav Gamda said in the name of Rav: The male must be any place

讚砖诪注讛 拽诇讬讛 讘讬诪诪讗

where the hen can hear its voice by day, when sounds cannot be heard as easily as at night. If the chicken is close enough to hear the rooster鈥檚 call by day, the rooster is considered close enough to the chicken that the latter will produce eggs only through fertilization by the male.

注讘讚 专讘 诪专讬 注讜讘讚讗 注讚 砖转讬谉 讘转讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Mari took action in accordance with this opinion, when he found an egg on a Festival morning after he had looked in the nest the day before and failed to find an egg there. He examined up to a distance of sixty houses from the chicken, and although he did not find a rooster within this area, he assumed there was one further away and permitted the egg.

讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 谞讛专讗 诇讗 注讘专讗 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讘专讗 注讘专讗 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬爪专讗 诇讗 注讘专讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜注讘专讗 讗诪讬爪专讗

The Gemara comments: And if there is a river between the rooster and the chicken, the chicken does not cross the river; but if there is a bridge, it crosses the river. And if there is only a rope bridge suspended across the river, the chicken will not cross on the rope. The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, an incident occurred in which a chicken crossed over on a rope bridge. However, one may not rely on this possibility.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讚拽 讻讬 诇讗 讘讚拽 谞诪讬

The Gemara further asks: In what manner did you establish this halakha of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul, who prohibits eating an egg discovered in a nest on a Festival morning after the previous day鈥檚 examination revealed nothing? You said that it is referring to a case in which the chicken absorbed from the earth. If so, why discuss specifically a situation in which one examined the nest the evening before? The same halakha should apply even when one did not examine the nest beforehand.

讻讬 诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬诪讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 讛讜讗讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 讘讚拽 谞诪讬 讗讬诪讗 讬爪转讛 专讜讘讛 讜讞讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: In a case where he did not examine the nest, one could say that the egg was laid yesterday, and there is no reason to prohibit its use. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul therefore specified that he checked the day before and is certain that the egg was not laid prior to the Festival. The Gemara challenges this: If so, when he examined the nest as well, say: Perhaps this is a case in which most of the egg emerged and returned, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers: The case discussed by Rabbi Yo岣nan, where most of the egg emerged from the chicken and returned, is uncommon, and therefore it is assumed not to have occurred.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 转讜诪讗 砖讞讬拽讗 住讻谞转讗 诇讙诇讜讬讗

Apropos one statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul in the name of Rav, the Gemara cites another ruling that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rav said: This crushed garlic poses the danger of exposure. If mashed garlic is not properly covered, there is concern that a snake might have tasted from it and thereby injected its venom into the food. This garlic is consequently prohibited as a health risk.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讗讜专 讘讻讝讬转

搂 The mishna states that Beit Shammai say: The measure that determines liability for leaven is an olive-bulk. However, the measure for leavened bread is greater, a large date-bulk. According to Beit Hillel, the measure in both cases is an olive-bulk.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诪抓 讜诇讗 讘注讬 砖讗讜专 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讞诪抓 砖讗讬谉 讞诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讘讻讝讬转 砖讗讜专 砖讞诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讗讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讬注讜专讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇讗 讻砖讬注讜专讜 砖诇 讝讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai? The Gemara explains: If it is so that the measures are equal, let the Merciful One write only the prohibition of leavened bread, and it would not be necessary to write leaven, and I would say an a fortiori inference: If the measure that determines liability for leavened bread, whose leavening is not as extensive, is an olive-bulk, then leaven, whose leavening is extensive, all the more so should the measure that determines liability be an olive-bulk. If so, why do I need the explicit reference to leaven that the Merciful One wrote in the verse: 鈥淪even days there shall be no leaven found in your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:19)? It must be to tell you that the measure of this, leavened bread, is not equal to the measure of that, leaven. Rather, the measure that determines liability for leaven is smaller.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讗讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讗讘诇 讞诪抓 讚讗讬谉 讞诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: And Beit Hillel maintain that both the mention of both leaven and leavened bread are necessary. As if the Merciful One had written only leaven, I would have said its measure that determines liability is an olive-bulk because its leavening is extensive. However, with regard to leavened bread, whose leavening is not extensive, say no, that is not the measure. Therefore, it is necessary to mention leavened bread as well.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诪抓 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 砖讗讜专 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only leavened bread, I would have said that the measure that determines liability for leavened bread is an olive-bulk, because it is fit for consumption on its own; however, leaven, which is not fit for consumption on its own but only when used as a leavening agent for dough, say no, its measure is not like that of leavened bread. Therefore, it is necessary to mention both cases.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 驻转讞 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖讗讜专 讜住讬讬诐 讘讞诪抓 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讝讛讜 砖讗讜专 讝讛讜 讞诪抓

The Gemara asks: And Beit Shammai, don鈥檛 they hold in accordance with Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 opinion? As Rabbi Zeira said, the verse states: 鈥淪even days there shall be no leaven found in your houses, for whoever eats that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the assembly of Israel鈥 (Exodus 12:19). The verse begins with leaven and ends with leavened bread to say to you that leaven is equivalent to leavened bread. How, then, can Beit Shammai maintain that the two are prohibited by different measures?

诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇注谞讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讘讬注讜专 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讘讬注讜专 诪讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara answers: Indeed, with regard to the measure that determines liability for eating, everyone agrees that the same measure applies to leavened bread and leaven. When they disagree it is with regard to the removal of leavened bread from one鈥檚 house. Beit Shammai hold that we do not derive the halakha of removal from that of eating. Rather, with regard to the obligation of removal, different measures apply to leavened bread and leaven. And Beit Hillel hold that we derive the halakha of removal from the measure that determines liability for eating.

讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇注谞讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara comments: This idea was also stated explicitly by amora鈥檌m. Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel was stated with regard to the removal of leavened bread; however, with regard to the measure that determines liability for eating, everyone agrees that the measure for both this and that is an olive-bulk.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 (砖讗讜专) 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 (讞诪抓) 讝讛讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讘讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讗讜专 讘讻讝讬转 讜讞诪抓 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讝讬转

That opinion is also taught in a baraita. The verse states: 鈥淎nd no leavened bread shall be seen with you, and no leaven shall be found in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7). This obligation to remove leavened bread is subject to a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: The measure that determines liability for removal of leaven is an olive-bulk, and the measure for leavened bread is a large date-bulk, and Beit Hillel say: The measure for both this and that is an olive-bulk. This baraita indicates that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to the obligation to remove leavened bread, not liability for eating it.

讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬讜讟 讜讻讜壮

搂 The mishna states that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also dispute whether or not one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird on a Festival, without having prepared earth the day before with which to cover the blood after the slaughter, may dig out earth on the Festival itself to cover the blood.

讛砖讜讞讟 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讬砖讞讜讟

The Gemara analyzes the wording of the mishna: One who slaughters an animal; this indicates that after the fact, yes, one may dig out dirt, but ab initio, no, even Beit Shammai agree that one may not slaughter an undomesticated animal or a bird if there is no prepared dirt. Otherwise, the mishna would have said: One may slaughter an undomesticated animal or a bird on a Festival. Say the latter clause of the mishna: And Beit Hillel say that one may not slaughter it. This proves by inference that the first tanna, Beit Shammai, holds that one may slaughter it even ab initio.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讬讻住讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as Beit Hillel said and meant the following: One may not slaughter an animal and cover the blood. They are emphasizing that one may not cover the blood even if he slaughtered an animal, whereas Beit Shammai maintain that if one slaughtered he may cover the blood ab initio.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讚讬注讘讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges this explanation: Say the latter clause of the mishna: And Beit Hillel concede that if he already slaughtered, then he may dig with a shovel and cover the blood, which indicates that Beit Hillel were not emphasizing the covering of the blood. This proves by inference that the first clause of the mishna is not referring to one鈥檚 action after the fact, but to the halakha ab initio.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 砖讘讗 诇讬诪诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 砖讞讜讟 讞驻讜专 讜讻住讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诇讜 注驻专 诪讜讻谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

Rabba said that this is what the mishna is saying. The phrase: One who slaughters an animal, is not a broad directive on how to act, but rather it means: If there is one who slaughters animals who comes to consult a Sage on how to proceed, what should the Sage say to him? Beit Shammai say that the Sage says to him: Slaughter it ab initio, dig, and cover the blood. And Beit Hillel say: He may slaughter the animal only if he had earth that was prepared while it was still day.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 砖讘讗 诇讛诪诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 诇讱 讞驻讜专 砖讞讜讟 讜讻住讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诇讜 注驻专 诪讜讻谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

Rav Yosef provided a slightly different explanation of the mishna and said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to one who slaughters animals who comes to consult, what does the Sage say to him? Beit Shammai say that he says to him: Go dig, slaughter the animal, and cover the blood. And Beit Hillel say: He may slaughter the animal, only if he had earth that was prepared while it was still day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讬诪讗 诪专 讜专讘讛 讘讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬转讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讜注驻专 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖驻讱 讗转 讚诪讜 讜讻住讛讜 讘注驻专 注驻专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘注驻专 诪诇诪讚 砖讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讜注驻专 诇诪注诇讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let us say that the Master, i.e., Rav Yosef, and Rabba dispute the following statement that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or bird is obligated to perform the mitzva of covering the blood, and therefore he must place earth beneath the blood and earth above it,as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall pour out its blood and cover it in earth鈥 (Leviticus 17:13). It is not stated: Cover it with earth, but 鈥渋n earth,鈥 indicating that the blood must be concealed inside the earth. The verse thereby teaches that one who slaughters an animal must place earth beneath and earth above the blood.

讚诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗

Abaye is suggesting that the Master is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, and therefore he requires one to dig first and only afterward slaughter the animal and have the blood flow onto that earth and then cover it with additional earth, and that Rabba is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诇讚讬讚讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讛 讗讬转 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬谞谉 专讘讛 住讘专 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 诪诪诇讬讱 讜诇讗 砖讞讬讟 讜诇讚讬讚讬 (讗讚专讘讛) 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讗诪谞讜注讬 诪砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: This is not so; rather, both according to me and according to Rabba we are of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, and here we disagree with regard to this matter: Rabba holds that if there is prepared earth beneath, yes, in that case one may slaughter an animal, but if there is no earth prepared beneath, no, he may not slaughter it at all. Why not? Rabba says: We are concerned that perhaps one will reconsider and not slaughter it at all, and he will have dug a hole on a Festival unnecessarily. And according to my opinion, on the contrary: This situation, in which he is permitted to dig first, is preferable, since if you do not permit him to dig in all cases for the purpose of slaughter, he will be unable to eat meat and will refrain from rejoicing on the Festival.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 诇讜 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜讛讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讻转讬砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘

搂 That mishna states: And Beit Hillel concede that if one transgressed and slaughtered an animal, then he digs with a shovel and covers the blood. Rabbi Zerika said that Rav Yehuda said: And that is the halakha specifically when one has a shovel already embedded in the ground while it was still day, before the onset of the Festival. The Gemara asks: But what purpose does an embedded shovel serve; doesn鈥檛 he still perform the act of crushing, as one must crush the lumps of earth to make the soil fit for covering? Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said:

Scroll To Top