(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Beitzah 4


OPINIONS: The Gemara states that an egg laid on Yom Tov is a "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin," and therefore if it became mixed with any number of normal, permitted eggs, the entire mixture is Asur. The Gemara concludes that a "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin" is not Batel even if it is only an Isur d'Rabanan that got mixed together with permitted items (such as in our case of an egg laid on Yom Tov). Furthermore, even if the item is a Safek Isur d'Rabanan (such as an egg which is unknown whether it was laid on Yom Tov or on a weekday), it is not permitted if it is a "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin" and the normal principle of "Safek d'Rabanan l'Kula" is not followed.

What is the reason behind the stringency of a "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin?"

(a) RASHI (3b, DH Afilu) explains that the Rabanan decreed that such an item is not Batel because of the following logic: since the item will be permissible if one eats it at a different time (after Yom Tov), one should not eat it on Yom Tov, relying on Bitul or on the principle of "Safek d'Rabanan l'Kula."

Rashi's reasoning might be related to the Machlokes Rishonim concerning one piece of Isur that fell into two pieces of Heter, and then the mixture was cooked. In such a case, does the Isur make the entire mixture forbidden, because once it has been cooked, all of the permitted items certainly absorbed some of the forbidden item, or does the mixture remain Mutar since, when the Isur initially fell in, it became Batel in the majority of Heter? The RASHBA in Chulin (100a) says that the mixture in such a case is Asur. The ROSH in Chulin (7:37) says that once the Isur was Batel, there is no longer any element of Isur in the mixture and the mixture cannot become Asur when cooked.

Rashi might hold like the Rashba, because he says that even though the item which is Asur is mixed with enough items of Heter to be Batel, since the item is a "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin" it is better to wait until it becomes Mutar. It seems that Rashi holds that even when an item of Isur fell into enough items to be Mevatel it, there is still an element of Isur in the mixture.

(b) The RAN (Nedarim 52a) explains that the way Bitul works when an item of Isur becomes mixed with items of Heter is that when opposites combine, their contrast serves to be Mevatel each other (whichever one is the majority is Mevatel the one which is the minority). However, when like items combine, they cannot be Mevatel one another.

Normally, when something that is Asur becomes mixed with Heter, one is Mevatel the other. Even though the two items are the same type of food, they contrast because one is Asur and one is Mutar; they are opposites. However, if something is Asur now and will become Mutar later, it is not Batel because there is not enough opposition; it is as if the item of Isur which will later become Mutar is Mutar right now. This is why the stringency of a "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin" exists only in a case of a mixture of Min b'Mino -- two of the same types of food (such as an egg that is Asur which became mixed with many eggs that are Mutar). In a case of a mixture of Min b'sh'Eino Mino (two different types of foods), even if the Isur will later become Mutar, there is still enough opposition to be Mevatel it, due to the different nature of the objects themselves. In a mixture of Min b'Mino, the only opposition is the fact that one item is Asur and the others are Mutar. (See also Teshuvos ha'Ran #51.)

According to Rashi's reasoning, why does the stringency of "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin" not apply to a mixture of Min b'sh'Eino Mino? Perhaps it is because in a case of Min b'Mino, the taste remains the same, and thus one is actually tasting the taste of Isur. In a case of Min b'sh'Eino Mino, the taste is that of the Heter, and therefore the taste of the Isur is Batel and there is less reason to prohibit eating the mixture in order to eat it at a later time without relying on Bitul. (See SHACH YD 102:5, who cites the Rema's answer to this question, who may mean to say what we have stated.)

The Acharonim (TESHUVOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER 1:189) point out that the Ran's explanation will not suffice to explain why the stringency of "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin" applies to a Safek d'Rabanan. A Safek d'Rabanan is an item which *might* be Asur mid'Rabanan, and does not involve any mixture of items. Since there is no question of Bitul (which applies, of course, only in a case of a mixture), there is no opposition to be Mevatel the Isur. It must be that the Ran also agrees to the logic expressed by Rashi. Why, then, does he add his own explanation for the logic of "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin? Perhaps because he holds that Rashi's logic will only suffice to explain why we are more stringent with a "Davar sh'Yesh Lo Matirin when it comes to Safek d'Rabanan. By Bitul, though, there is no point in waiting for the Isur to become Mutar since the object that is Batel is no longer considered an element of Isur, as we mentioned above.


Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,