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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 8, 2021 | 讘壮 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 8 – Second Day of Rosh Hashana, September 8

This is the daf for the second day of Rosh Hashana. For the first day of Rosh Hashana, click here

For Monday’s daf, click here.

The gemara deals with issues relating to covering the blood and laws of muktze of earth and ashes.

 

讘注驻专 转讬讞讜讞

Here it is referring to loose earth that does not require further crushing.

讜讛讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讙讜诪讗 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇注驻专讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges this: But even in the case of loose earth, one makes a hole by the very act of removing the earth or the shovel from that place. The Gemara answers: This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba, as Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat, but he needs only its earth and has no interest in forming a pit, is exempt for that act. Since he has no interest in the hole, he is considered to have performed a destructive act, and the halakha is that one who commits a destructive act is not liable for the performance of prohibited labor on Shabbat and Festivals.

砖讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna states: That the ashes of a stove are prepared. The Gemara express puzzlement at this statement: The ashes of a stove, who mentioned anything about it? Why does the mishna suddenly speak about the ashes of a stove when it had not previously discussed or even mentioned them? Rabba said: This is what the tanna said: And the ashes of a stove are prepared. In other words, everyone agrees that in addition to prepared earth, the ashes of a stove are also considered prepared, and one may cover the blood with them. It is not necessary to prepare these ashes especially for this purpose the day before.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讜住拽 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 讛讜住拽 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇爪诇讜转 讘讜 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They only taught that the ashes of a stove are considered prepared if the stove was ignited on the Festival eve, so that the ashes had already formed at the start of the Festival. However, if it was ignited on the Festival itself, the ashes are prohibited. And if the ashes are still hot and fit to roast an egg in them, they are not considered muktze, and therefore it is permitted to use them for covering as well.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讜住拽 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 讛讜住拽 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇爪诇讜转 讘讜 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: When they said that the ashes of a stove are prepared, they said so only when it was ignited on the Festival eve; however, if it was ignited on the Festival, they are prohibited. And if the ashes are still hot and fit to roast an egg in them, they are permitted.

讛讻谞讬住 注驻专 诇讙谞转讜 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 诪讜转专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻谞讬住 讗讚诐 诪诇讗 拽讜驻转讜 注驻专 讜注讜砖讛 讘讛 讻诇 爪专讻讜

The Gemara further states: If before the Festival one brought earth into his garden or his ruin to use for various needs, it is permitted to cover blood with it. And Rav Yehuda likewise said: A person may bring in a basketful of earth the day before the Festival and use both the basket and the earth it contains for all his needs on the Festival.

讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 专讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

With regard to this case, Mar Zutra added and taught in public in the name of Mar Zutra the Great that the application of this halakha is limited: And that is the case only if one designated a corner for this earth, thereby demonstrating that he intends to use it for all his requirements, rather than merely bringing earth in to scatter over the floor of the house. In that case, the dirt is nullified. It is considered part of the floor, which means that it is once again classified as muktze.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讜讬 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 砖讞讟讜 讗讬谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讚诪讜 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讻住讬讬讛 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara raises an objection against this from a mishna (Bikkurim 4:9): In the case of a koy, a kosher animal with characteristics of both domesticated and non-domesticated animals, one may not slaughter it on a Festival, as it is uncertain whether or not its blood requires covering. And if one did slaughter it, he may not cover its blood. And if it is so, that one may use his basket of earth as he wishes, as claimed by Rav Yehuda, even if a koy is definitely a domesticated animal, let him cover it, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 诇讻住讬讬讛 讘讗驻专 讻讬专讛 讗讜 讘讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara expresses surprise at this objection: And according to your reasoning, one could equally suggest: Let him cover the blood of the koy with ashes of a stove or with earth dug up with an embedded shovel. Rather, this mishna must be referring to a situation where one does not have prepared earth to use for covering the blood; here too, one can say that he does not have a basket of earth ready for all his needs.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 住驻拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讜讚讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If so, if the mishna is referring to a situation where one does not have prepared earth, why discuss specifically the case of a koy, where there is uncertainty whether there is a mitzva to cover its blood? Even in the case of an undomesticated animal, whose blood must certainly be covered, slaughter should also not be permitted, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that one may not slaughter if he does not have prepared earth.

诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 诇砖讞讜讟 讗讘诇 住驻拽 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讞讜讟 讜诇讗 诇讻住讬讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that this baraita is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state the halakha with regard to definite undomesticated animals and birds, that it is not permitted to slaughter them; however, with regard to an uncertainty, one might say: Due to the joy of the Festival let one slaughter it and not cover its blood, as there is uncertainty whether there is a mitzva to cover its blood, and therefore it is overridden by the mitzva to rejoice on a Festival. The baraita therefore teaches us that one should not slaughter it ab initio if he does not have something prepared with which to cover the blood.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 砖讞讟讜 讗讬谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讚诪讜 诪讻诇诇 (讚专讬砖讗) 讘讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara challenges this: From the fact that the latter clause teaches: And if he slaughtered it one may not cover its blood, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are dealing with a situation where he does have something with which to cover the blood. If he does not have anything he can use, why is it necessary to state that one may not cover it? And consequently, if he does in fact have material with which to cover the blood, why may he not do so, either with his basket of earth, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, or with the ashes of a stove?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 诇讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻谉 诇住驻拽

Rather, Rabba said that the ashes of a stove, which the mishna stated are prepared, are prepared only for covering the blood in a case of a definite obligation, but they are not considered prepared for a case of uncertainty. Although his intention was to use these ashes to cover the blood of any animal he slaughters, whether in a definite or an uncertain case, they are nevertheless not considered prepared for an uncertain case.

诇住驻拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讙讜诪讗 讜讚讗讬 谞诪讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讙讜诪讗 讗诇讗 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗

The Gemara inquires: In a case of uncertainty, what is the reason that the ashes are not considered prepared? If the reason is that one makes a hole in the mound of ashes when he removes part of it for covering, in a definite case he also makes a hole. If it is prohibited to make a hole, that prohibition applies in all cases. Rather, one must say, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba, that the making of this hole is not considered prohibited labor, as he is merely performing a destructive act. If so, here too, in a case of uncertainty, there should be no cause for concern, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba.

讗诇讗 住驻拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇诪讗 注讘讬讚 讻转讬砖讛 讜讚讗讬 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 诪砖讜诐 讻转讬砖讛 讜讚讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讻转讬砖讛 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts from the previous suggestion and offers an alternative: With regard to a case of uncertainty, what is the reason that it is prohibited? The reason is that perhaps one will forget and perform crushing with this earth, to ready it for covering. However, the same problem arises as before: If so, we should also decree against covering the blood in a definite case, because he might crush the earth. The Gemara answers: This presents no difficulty, as when one fulfills the mitzva of covering the blood in a definite case, even if he performs crushing, the positive mitzva of covering the blood comes and overrides the prohibition concerning the desecration of a Festival.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讬诇讛 讘爪专注转 讗讬 谞诪讬 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转

The Gemara challenges this: Say that we said the following principle: A positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition in a case such as the circumcision of a child who has leprosy. Cutting off a leprous blemish is a violation of a prohibition. However, if a baby鈥檚 foreskin is leprous, it is permitted to cut it off by circumcision. Alternatively, the principle applies to a case of a linen cloak on which woolen ritual fringes are placed, despite the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, i.e., a mixture of wool and linen.

讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪注拽专 诇讗讜 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇注砖讛 讛讻讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪注拽专 诇讗讜 诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 注砖讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讚讘讛讚讬 讚讻转讬砖 拽讗 诪讻住讬

The Gemara explains the difference between those halakhot and the issue at hand. In those cases, at the time that one uproots the prohibition, he fulfills the positive mitzva with the same act. However, here, in the case of covering blood, two separate actions are involved, as at the time that one uproots the prohibition, when he crushes the earth, he does not fulfill the positive mitzva of covering the blood. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is possible to say that when one crushes the earth, he covers the blood with it; he fulfills the positive mitzva by means of the same action through which he uproots the prohibition.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛

The Gemara challenges this explanation from a different perspective: Ultimately, a Festival is a mitzva that includes both the positive mitzva of rest and also the prohibition against performing prohibited labor, and there is a principle that a positive mitzva by itself does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva together.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻专 讻讬专讛 讚注转讜 诇讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 讚注转讜 诇住驻拽

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation, in favor of the following. Rava said: One鈥檚 initial intention is to use the ashes of a stove for a mitzva that is definite, and he does not have this intention for cases of uncertainty. One may not use an article on a Festival for a purpose which he did not have in mind beforehand.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻谞讬住 注驻专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛 诪讜转专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讚诐 爪驻讜专 讚诐 爪驻讜专 讗住讜专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛

The Gemara comments: And Rava follows his regular line of reasoning in this regard, as Rava said: If one brought in earth in order to cover a baby鈥檚 excrement with it on a Festival, it is likewise permitted to cover with it the blood of a slaughtered bird. Since he prepared this earth for a case of uncertainty, as it is possible that the baby will not soil the house, he certainly intended to use it for covering the blood of a bird prepared before the Festival for slaughter. If, however, one prepared the earth at the outset to cover the blood of a bird, it is prohibited to cover excrement with it, as he did not know in advance that he would require the earth for this purpose. He had only definite uses in mind, not possible ones such as covering excrement.

谞讛专讘诇讗讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻谞讬住 注驻专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讚诐 爪驻讜专 诪讜转专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛

The Sages of Neharbela said: Even if one brought in earth to cover the blood of a bird with it, it is permitted to cover excrement with it, as it cannot be said that he did not intend this usage.

讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻爪讜讗讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讻爪讜讗讛

They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣ma and Rabbi Zeira disagree with regard to this issue, and some say it was disputed by Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, commonly mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud as Rava, without the patronymic, and Rabbi Zeira. The Gemara elaborates: One of them said that a koy is similar to excrement in this regard. Just as one may cover the blood of a bird with earth brought in for the purpose of covering excrement, he may likewise use it for covering the blood of a koy, as both the case of excrement and the case of the koy are cases of uncertainty. And the other one said: A koy is not similar to excrement. Since the covering of excrement is common, it is regarded as a definite purpose in comparison to a koy, which is by definition an uncertain case. It is therefore prohibited to cover the blood of a koy with earth prepared for the sake of covering excrement.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻爪讜讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻谞讬住 注驻专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛 诪讜转专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讚诐 爪驻讜专 讚诐 爪驻讜专 讗住讜专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara comments: Conclude that Rava is the one who said that a koy is similar to excrement, as Rava said: If one brought in earth to cover excrement with it, it is permitted to cover the blood of a bird with it; if he did bring in earth to cover the blood of a bird, it is prohibited to cover excrement with it. One intends to use the earth for the definite rather than the uncertain purpose, and likewise in the case of a koy. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude that this is the correct version of the opinions in the dispute.

专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪讻住讬谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛转专转 讞诇讘讜

Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said a different reason: In the case of a koy, this is the reasoning for the halakha that one may not cover its blood: It is not because this action would constitute prohibited labor; rather, it is a rabbinic decree due to the permission of its prohibited fat. If one were to cover its blood, people might think that a koy is definitely an undomesticated animal, and it is well known that the fats of an undomesticated animal may be eaten, whereas those of a domesticated animal are prohibited.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 讘讞讜诇 讗诪专讬 诇谞拽专 讞爪专讜 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱

The Gemara challenges this: If so, even on a weekday as well, the blood of a koy should not be covered, due to this concern. The Gemara answers: On a weekday, people will say that he needs to clean his courtyard, and that he is covering the blood merely to keep his courtyard presentable, rather than to fulfill the mitzva of covering blood.

砖讞讟 讘讗砖驻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讗 诇讬诪诇讱 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: And if he slaughtered a koy in a dunghill, a place used for the disposal of refuse, what is there to say? It will be evident that he is not concerned about its cleanliness, and that he is attempting to perform the mitzva of covering blood. Alternatively, if he comes to consult a Sage concerning whether or not he should cover the blood of a koy on a weekday, what is there to say? If the owner of the koy is instructed to cover the blood, would he not come to the erroneous conclusion that its fats are permitted?

讗诇讗 讘讞讜诇 [讗讬 谞诪讬] 诪住驻拽讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讝讬诇 讟专讞 讜讻住讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬 诪住驻拽讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讝讬诇 讟专讞 讜讻住讬

Rather, the Gemara answers: On a weekday, even if the matter is uncertain, the Sages nevertheless say to him: Go and take the trouble and cover it, as it involves the possible fulfillment of a mitzva. On a Festival, however, if there is uncertainty, would the Sages say to him: Go and take the trouble and cover it? If one was told to cover the blood on a Festival, this would indicate that a koy is definitely an undomesticated animal.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 讻讜讬 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜谞转注专讘讜 讚诪谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专 诇讻住讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rabbi Zeira teaches the following baraita: Not only did the Sages say that the blood of a koy should not be covered on a Festival, but even if one slaughtered a domesticated animal, whose blood need not be covered, and also slaughtered an undomesticated animal or a fowl, whose blood must be covered, and their bloods became mingled together, it is prohibited to cover the mixture of blood on a Festival.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讗住讬谞讬讗讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讻住讜转讜 讘讚拽讬专讛 讗讞转 讗讘诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讻住讜转讜 讘讚拽讬专讛 讗讞转 诪讜转专

Rabbi Yosei bar Yasinia said: They taught this halakha only in a case where one cannot cover the entire mixture by one thrust of a shovel. However, if he can cover it with one thrust, it is permitted. Since the entire amount of blood can be covered with a single action, it does not matter if one unnecessarily covers the blood of a domesticated animal while performing the mitzva of covering the blood of a fowl or an undomesticated animal.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讙讝专 讚拽讬专讛 讗讞转 讗讟讜 砖转讬 讚拽讬专讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is the case; since he covers all the blood in a single action, clearly he performs a mitzva. The Gemara answers: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that we should decree and prohibit even one thrust, due to the possibility that he might perform two thrusts. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei bar Yasinia teaches us that this concern is not taken into account.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讞讟 爪驻讜专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rabba said: If one slaughtered a bird on the eve of a Festival, one may not cover its blood on the Festival itself.

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 8 – Second Day of Rosh Hashana, September 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 8 – Second Day of Rosh Hashana, September 8

讘注驻专 转讬讞讜讞

Here it is referring to loose earth that does not require further crushing.

讜讛讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讙讜诪讗 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇注驻专讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges this: But even in the case of loose earth, one makes a hole by the very act of removing the earth or the shovel from that place. The Gemara answers: This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba, as Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat, but he needs only its earth and has no interest in forming a pit, is exempt for that act. Since he has no interest in the hole, he is considered to have performed a destructive act, and the halakha is that one who commits a destructive act is not liable for the performance of prohibited labor on Shabbat and Festivals.

砖讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna states: That the ashes of a stove are prepared. The Gemara express puzzlement at this statement: The ashes of a stove, who mentioned anything about it? Why does the mishna suddenly speak about the ashes of a stove when it had not previously discussed or even mentioned them? Rabba said: This is what the tanna said: And the ashes of a stove are prepared. In other words, everyone agrees that in addition to prepared earth, the ashes of a stove are also considered prepared, and one may cover the blood with them. It is not necessary to prepare these ashes especially for this purpose the day before.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讜住拽 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 讛讜住拽 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇爪诇讜转 讘讜 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They only taught that the ashes of a stove are considered prepared if the stove was ignited on the Festival eve, so that the ashes had already formed at the start of the Festival. However, if it was ignited on the Festival itself, the ashes are prohibited. And if the ashes are still hot and fit to roast an egg in them, they are not considered muktze, and therefore it is permitted to use them for covering as well.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讜住拽 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 讛讜住拽 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇爪诇讜转 讘讜 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: When they said that the ashes of a stove are prepared, they said so only when it was ignited on the Festival eve; however, if it was ignited on the Festival, they are prohibited. And if the ashes are still hot and fit to roast an egg in them, they are permitted.

讛讻谞讬住 注驻专 诇讙谞转讜 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 诪讜转专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻谞讬住 讗讚诐 诪诇讗 拽讜驻转讜 注驻专 讜注讜砖讛 讘讛 讻诇 爪专讻讜

The Gemara further states: If before the Festival one brought earth into his garden or his ruin to use for various needs, it is permitted to cover blood with it. And Rav Yehuda likewise said: A person may bring in a basketful of earth the day before the Festival and use both the basket and the earth it contains for all his needs on the Festival.

讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 专讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

With regard to this case, Mar Zutra added and taught in public in the name of Mar Zutra the Great that the application of this halakha is limited: And that is the case only if one designated a corner for this earth, thereby demonstrating that he intends to use it for all his requirements, rather than merely bringing earth in to scatter over the floor of the house. In that case, the dirt is nullified. It is considered part of the floor, which means that it is once again classified as muktze.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讜讬 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 砖讞讟讜 讗讬谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讚诪讜 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讻住讬讬讛 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara raises an objection against this from a mishna (Bikkurim 4:9): In the case of a koy, a kosher animal with characteristics of both domesticated and non-domesticated animals, one may not slaughter it on a Festival, as it is uncertain whether or not its blood requires covering. And if one did slaughter it, he may not cover its blood. And if it is so, that one may use his basket of earth as he wishes, as claimed by Rav Yehuda, even if a koy is definitely a domesticated animal, let him cover it, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 诇讻住讬讬讛 讘讗驻专 讻讬专讛 讗讜 讘讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara expresses surprise at this objection: And according to your reasoning, one could equally suggest: Let him cover the blood of the koy with ashes of a stove or with earth dug up with an embedded shovel. Rather, this mishna must be referring to a situation where one does not have prepared earth to use for covering the blood; here too, one can say that he does not have a basket of earth ready for all his needs.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 住驻拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讜讚讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If so, if the mishna is referring to a situation where one does not have prepared earth, why discuss specifically the case of a koy, where there is uncertainty whether there is a mitzva to cover its blood? Even in the case of an undomesticated animal, whose blood must certainly be covered, slaughter should also not be permitted, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that one may not slaughter if he does not have prepared earth.

诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 诇砖讞讜讟 讗讘诇 住驻拽 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讞讜讟 讜诇讗 诇讻住讬讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that this baraita is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state the halakha with regard to definite undomesticated animals and birds, that it is not permitted to slaughter them; however, with regard to an uncertainty, one might say: Due to the joy of the Festival let one slaughter it and not cover its blood, as there is uncertainty whether there is a mitzva to cover its blood, and therefore it is overridden by the mitzva to rejoice on a Festival. The baraita therefore teaches us that one should not slaughter it ab initio if he does not have something prepared with which to cover the blood.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 砖讞讟讜 讗讬谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讚诪讜 诪讻诇诇 (讚专讬砖讗) 讘讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara challenges this: From the fact that the latter clause teaches: And if he slaughtered it one may not cover its blood, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are dealing with a situation where he does have something with which to cover the blood. If he does not have anything he can use, why is it necessary to state that one may not cover it? And consequently, if he does in fact have material with which to cover the blood, why may he not do so, either with his basket of earth, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, or with the ashes of a stove?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗驻专 讻讬专讛 诪讜讻谉 诇讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻谉 诇住驻拽

Rather, Rabba said that the ashes of a stove, which the mishna stated are prepared, are prepared only for covering the blood in a case of a definite obligation, but they are not considered prepared for a case of uncertainty. Although his intention was to use these ashes to cover the blood of any animal he slaughters, whether in a definite or an uncertain case, they are nevertheless not considered prepared for an uncertain case.

诇住驻拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讙讜诪讗 讜讚讗讬 谞诪讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讙讜诪讗 讗诇讗 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗

The Gemara inquires: In a case of uncertainty, what is the reason that the ashes are not considered prepared? If the reason is that one makes a hole in the mound of ashes when he removes part of it for covering, in a definite case he also makes a hole. If it is prohibited to make a hole, that prohibition applies in all cases. Rather, one must say, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba, that the making of this hole is not considered prohibited labor, as he is merely performing a destructive act. If so, here too, in a case of uncertainty, there should be no cause for concern, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba.

讗诇讗 住驻拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇诪讗 注讘讬讚 讻转讬砖讛 讜讚讗讬 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 诪砖讜诐 讻转讬砖讛 讜讚讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讻转讬砖讛 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts from the previous suggestion and offers an alternative: With regard to a case of uncertainty, what is the reason that it is prohibited? The reason is that perhaps one will forget and perform crushing with this earth, to ready it for covering. However, the same problem arises as before: If so, we should also decree against covering the blood in a definite case, because he might crush the earth. The Gemara answers: This presents no difficulty, as when one fulfills the mitzva of covering the blood in a definite case, even if he performs crushing, the positive mitzva of covering the blood comes and overrides the prohibition concerning the desecration of a Festival.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讬诇讛 讘爪专注转 讗讬 谞诪讬 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转

The Gemara challenges this: Say that we said the following principle: A positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition in a case such as the circumcision of a child who has leprosy. Cutting off a leprous blemish is a violation of a prohibition. However, if a baby鈥檚 foreskin is leprous, it is permitted to cut it off by circumcision. Alternatively, the principle applies to a case of a linen cloak on which woolen ritual fringes are placed, despite the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, i.e., a mixture of wool and linen.

讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪注拽专 诇讗讜 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇注砖讛 讛讻讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪注拽专 诇讗讜 诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 注砖讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讚讘讛讚讬 讚讻转讬砖 拽讗 诪讻住讬

The Gemara explains the difference between those halakhot and the issue at hand. In those cases, at the time that one uproots the prohibition, he fulfills the positive mitzva with the same act. However, here, in the case of covering blood, two separate actions are involved, as at the time that one uproots the prohibition, when he crushes the earth, he does not fulfill the positive mitzva of covering the blood. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is possible to say that when one crushes the earth, he covers the blood with it; he fulfills the positive mitzva by means of the same action through which he uproots the prohibition.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛

The Gemara challenges this explanation from a different perspective: Ultimately, a Festival is a mitzva that includes both the positive mitzva of rest and also the prohibition against performing prohibited labor, and there is a principle that a positive mitzva by itself does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva together.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻专 讻讬专讛 讚注转讜 诇讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 讚注转讜 诇住驻拽

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation, in favor of the following. Rava said: One鈥檚 initial intention is to use the ashes of a stove for a mitzva that is definite, and he does not have this intention for cases of uncertainty. One may not use an article on a Festival for a purpose which he did not have in mind beforehand.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻谞讬住 注驻专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛 诪讜转专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讚诐 爪驻讜专 讚诐 爪驻讜专 讗住讜专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛

The Gemara comments: And Rava follows his regular line of reasoning in this regard, as Rava said: If one brought in earth in order to cover a baby鈥檚 excrement with it on a Festival, it is likewise permitted to cover with it the blood of a slaughtered bird. Since he prepared this earth for a case of uncertainty, as it is possible that the baby will not soil the house, he certainly intended to use it for covering the blood of a bird prepared before the Festival for slaughter. If, however, one prepared the earth at the outset to cover the blood of a bird, it is prohibited to cover excrement with it, as he did not know in advance that he would require the earth for this purpose. He had only definite uses in mind, not possible ones such as covering excrement.

谞讛专讘诇讗讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻谞讬住 注驻专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讚诐 爪驻讜专 诪讜转专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛

The Sages of Neharbela said: Even if one brought in earth to cover the blood of a bird with it, it is permitted to cover excrement with it, as it cannot be said that he did not intend this usage.

讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻爪讜讗讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讻爪讜讗讛

They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣ma and Rabbi Zeira disagree with regard to this issue, and some say it was disputed by Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, commonly mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud as Rava, without the patronymic, and Rabbi Zeira. The Gemara elaborates: One of them said that a koy is similar to excrement in this regard. Just as one may cover the blood of a bird with earth brought in for the purpose of covering excrement, he may likewise use it for covering the blood of a koy, as both the case of excrement and the case of the koy are cases of uncertainty. And the other one said: A koy is not similar to excrement. Since the covering of excrement is common, it is regarded as a definite purpose in comparison to a koy, which is by definition an uncertain case. It is therefore prohibited to cover the blood of a koy with earth prepared for the sake of covering excrement.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻爪讜讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻谞讬住 注驻专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛 诪讜转专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讚诐 爪驻讜专 讚诐 爪驻讜专 讗住讜专 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 爪讜讗讛 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara comments: Conclude that Rava is the one who said that a koy is similar to excrement, as Rava said: If one brought in earth to cover excrement with it, it is permitted to cover the blood of a bird with it; if he did bring in earth to cover the blood of a bird, it is prohibited to cover excrement with it. One intends to use the earth for the definite rather than the uncertain purpose, and likewise in the case of a koy. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude that this is the correct version of the opinions in the dispute.

专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪讻住讬谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛转专转 讞诇讘讜

Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said a different reason: In the case of a koy, this is the reasoning for the halakha that one may not cover its blood: It is not because this action would constitute prohibited labor; rather, it is a rabbinic decree due to the permission of its prohibited fat. If one were to cover its blood, people might think that a koy is definitely an undomesticated animal, and it is well known that the fats of an undomesticated animal may be eaten, whereas those of a domesticated animal are prohibited.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 讘讞讜诇 讗诪专讬 诇谞拽专 讞爪专讜 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱

The Gemara challenges this: If so, even on a weekday as well, the blood of a koy should not be covered, due to this concern. The Gemara answers: On a weekday, people will say that he needs to clean his courtyard, and that he is covering the blood merely to keep his courtyard presentable, rather than to fulfill the mitzva of covering blood.

砖讞讟 讘讗砖驻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讗 诇讬诪诇讱 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: And if he slaughtered a koy in a dunghill, a place used for the disposal of refuse, what is there to say? It will be evident that he is not concerned about its cleanliness, and that he is attempting to perform the mitzva of covering blood. Alternatively, if he comes to consult a Sage concerning whether or not he should cover the blood of a koy on a weekday, what is there to say? If the owner of the koy is instructed to cover the blood, would he not come to the erroneous conclusion that its fats are permitted?

讗诇讗 讘讞讜诇 [讗讬 谞诪讬] 诪住驻拽讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讝讬诇 讟专讞 讜讻住讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬 诪住驻拽讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讝讬诇 讟专讞 讜讻住讬

Rather, the Gemara answers: On a weekday, even if the matter is uncertain, the Sages nevertheless say to him: Go and take the trouble and cover it, as it involves the possible fulfillment of a mitzva. On a Festival, however, if there is uncertainty, would the Sages say to him: Go and take the trouble and cover it? If one was told to cover the blood on a Festival, this would indicate that a koy is definitely an undomesticated animal.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 讻讜讬 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜谞转注专讘讜 讚诪谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专 诇讻住讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rabbi Zeira teaches the following baraita: Not only did the Sages say that the blood of a koy should not be covered on a Festival, but even if one slaughtered a domesticated animal, whose blood need not be covered, and also slaughtered an undomesticated animal or a fowl, whose blood must be covered, and their bloods became mingled together, it is prohibited to cover the mixture of blood on a Festival.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讗住讬谞讬讗讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讻住讜转讜 讘讚拽讬专讛 讗讞转 讗讘诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讻住讜转讜 讘讚拽讬专讛 讗讞转 诪讜转专

Rabbi Yosei bar Yasinia said: They taught this halakha only in a case where one cannot cover the entire mixture by one thrust of a shovel. However, if he can cover it with one thrust, it is permitted. Since the entire amount of blood can be covered with a single action, it does not matter if one unnecessarily covers the blood of a domesticated animal while performing the mitzva of covering the blood of a fowl or an undomesticated animal.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讙讝专 讚拽讬专讛 讗讞转 讗讟讜 砖转讬 讚拽讬专讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is the case; since he covers all the blood in a single action, clearly he performs a mitzva. The Gemara answers: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that we should decree and prohibit even one thrust, due to the possibility that he might perform two thrusts. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei bar Yasinia teaches us that this concern is not taken into account.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讞讟 爪驻讜专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rabba said: If one slaughtered a bird on the eve of a Festival, one may not cover its blood on the Festival itself.

Scroll To Top