(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 8

BEITZAH 6-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael


QUESTIONS: The Mishnah (2a) states that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue whether one may slaughter an animal on Yom Tov l'Chatchilah when one intends to cover the blood with dirt (to perform the Mitzvah of "Kisuy ha'Dam"). Beis Shamai permits slaughtering the animal l'Chatchilah, and Beis Hillel prohibits it. However, both agree that b'Di'eved, if one already slaughtered the animal, it is permitted to use the dirt to cover the blood.

The Gemara (7b and 9b) explains that it is permitted to slaughter the animal and cover its blood with dirt -- l'Chatchilah according to Beis Shamai, and b'Di'eved according to Beis Hillel -- *only* when a shovel was placed into the dirt ("Deker Na'utz") before Yom Tov.

What Isur is there which the shovel removes? Why is it necessary to have the shovel inserted in the dirt from before Yom Tov, such that without the shovel the dirt may not be used for Kisuy ha'Dam on Yom Tov (l'Chatchilah according to Beis Shamai, and b'Di'eved according to Beis Hillel).

Second, why does Beis Hillel permit using the dirt for Kisuy ha'Dam only b'Di'eved and not l'Chatchilah, even when the shovel was inserted into the dirt before Yom Tov? What Isur remains even after the condition of "Deker Na'utz" is fulfilled?


(a) RASHI (9b, DH Aval Heicha) explains that without the shovel in the ground from before Yom Tov, there is a "Tzad Remez Chafirah" (a slight semblance of the act of digging). This means that although there is no Chafirah mid'Oraisa, it still looks like Chafirah. "Deker Na'utz" takes away the appearance of digging.

Rashi explains that according to Beis Hillel -- who holds that there is an Isur l'Chatchilah even *with* the "Deker Na'utz" -- it is Asur to dig l'Chatchilah because of a Gezeirah that perhaps next time, one will use dirt that is not soft and one will crush it, transgressing the Melachah of Ketishah (crushing) on Yom Tov. Therefore, l'Chatchilah one should not do Kisuy according to Beis Hillel (the Gemara suggests a similar Gezeirah on 8b).

(b) TOSFOS (DH v'Eino) suggests that the reason why "Deker Na'utz" is necessary is in order to remove the Isur of Muktzah. Dirt is Muktzah, for it is not inherently prepared for any use on Yom Tov, and "Deker Na'utz" shows that one has prepared the dirt before Yom Tov.

The reason Beis Hillel prohibits slaughtering an animal l'Chatchilah even though the dirt is no longer Muktzah is because picking up the dirt from the ground is still an act of a Melachah which is Mekalkel (digging a pit), which is Asur l'Chatchilah. Beis Shamai, though, permits this act of Mekalkel, because it is being done for the sake of Simchas Yom Tov. (Simchas Yom Tov, however, does not override the problem of Muktzah as well because Simchas Yom Tov cannot permit two Isurim d'Rabanan, and therefore it is still necessary to have "Deker Na'utz according to Beis Shamai -MAHARSHA).

(The Gemara on 9b seems to contradict this, because it says that when there is a "Deker Na'utz," the Heter of Shechitah and Kisuy does *not* derive from Simchas Yom Tov! See Insights to 9b, where we explain that Tosfos, too, might agree that according to the Sugya on 9b there is *different* reason why Beis Hillel prohibits slaughtering the animal l'Chatchilah; either the reason given by Rashi, above (a), or the reason given by the Re'ah, below (c).)

(c) The RE'AH and the RASHBA explain, like Tosfos, that "Deker Na'utz" is necessary to remove the Isur of Muktzah. They differ with Tosfos in their reason for why Beis Hillel does not permit using the dirt l'Chatchilah even with "Deker Na'utz." They say that even with "Deker Na'utz," the dirt is not *completely* prepared for use on Yom Tov, but only "somewhat" prepared, and it is not prepared enough to be permitted l'Chatchilah, because it is still "somewhat" Muktzah.


QUESTION: The Gemara says that one may not cover the blood of an animal which is a Safek Chayah (such as a "Koy") on Yom Tov, while one may cover the blood of an animal which is a Vadai Chayah (such as a deer). What is the difference, asks the Gemara, between a Safek and a Vadai Chayah? Whatever factor prohibits covering the blood of a Safek should also prohibit covering the blood of a Vadai! The Gemara suggests that covering the blood of a Safek is prohibited because of Ketishah (crushing the dirt). Ketishah does not override Yom Tov for the sake of a Safek. Only for the sake of a Vadai does Ketishah override Yom Tov, because of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh."

RASHI's explanation here is difficult to understand. The simple meaning of the Gemara is that Ketishah is permitted in the case of a Vadai Chayah because of the principle of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" -- the certain fulfillment of the Mitzvas Aseh of Kisuy ha'Dam overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of doing Melachah on Yom Tov. However, Rashi writes that the blood may not be covered in the case of a Safek Chayah for fear that one will crush the clods of earth, performing Ketishah. In the case of a Vadai Chayah, although there should also be a Gezeirah d'Rabanan prohibiting Kisuy ha'Dam lest one do Ketishah, nevertheless since even if one does Ketishah there will be no Isur d'Oraisa -- because the Aseh of Kisuy ha'Dam is Docheh the Lo Ta'aseh of Melachah -- therefore the Rabanan did not prohibit doing Kisuy lest one do Ketishah (for it is a Gezeirah l'Gezeirah).

Why does Rashi give such a strange explanation? He should have simply said that Ketishah is Mutar even *l'Chatchilah* in the case of a Vadai Chayah, because "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh!" Why does he assume that there would be an Isur d'Rabanan of Ketishah even by a Vadai Chayah?

ANSWER: Perhaps Rashi is addressing the question of the PNEI YEHOSHUA. The Pnei Yehoshua points out that the Gemara at this stage is explaining the opinion of Rav Yehudah, who allows the use of dirt that one brought in a sack into his home or courtyard before Yom Tov. Rav Yehudah says that such dirt is considered Muchan for use on Yom Tov (such as for the purpose of Kisuy ha'Dam). The Gemara asks why, then, is it prohibited to cover the blood of a Safek Chayah? It cannot be because dirt is Muktzah, since according to Rav Yehudah, people normally have in their houses dirt that was prepared for use before Yom Tov, since pre-prepared sackfuls of dirt or common. The Gemara suggests, as an answer for Rav Yehudah, that it is not permitted to do Kisuy ha'Dam for a Safek Chayah, because one might do Ketishah while handling the dirt. However, one may do Kisuy ha'Dam for a Vadai Chayah, because the Mitzvas Aseh of Kisuy ha'Dam overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of doing Melachah (Ketishah) on Yom Tov.

How can the Gemara suggest that *Rav Yehudah* holds that Ketishah is permitted because of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh?" Rav Yehudah himself (7b) was the one who said that in order to permit doing Kisuy ha'Dam on Yom Tov, one must have a shovel inserted into the dirt from before Yom Tov ("Deker Na'utz"), and the dirt must be soft ("Afar Tichu'ach"). Rashi (7b, DH v'Ha Ka Avid) explained that Rav Yehudah holds that "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" does not apply here with regard to covering the blood with dirt on Yom Tov (either because the Aseh is not being done at the same time as the Lo Ta'aseh, or because Yom Tov is both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh, as our Gemara concludes), and that is why he requires that the dirt already be soft and a shovel must have been inserted into it from before Yom Tov.

If Rav Yehudah does not hold that "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" applies, then how can the Gemara here explain his opinion by suggesting that the difference between a Safek and a Vadai Chayah is that for a Vadai, we say "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh?" We have already learned (7b) that Rav Yehudah does not hold of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" in this case!

This is the problem which Rashi is addressing. Rashi answers that the Gemara means that mid'Oraisa, "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" would apply, permitting Ketishah mid'Oraisa. However, it would still be prohibited mid'Rabanan to do Ketishah; in this case, the Rabanan decreed that an Aseh is *not* Docheh a Lo Ta'aseh (because the Kisuy could be done the following night, after Yom Tov, as the ROSH mentions). Nevertheless, one is allowed to cover the blood of a Vadai Chayah even l'Chatchilah, when it is *not* necessary to do Ketishah, because the Rabanan did not make a Gezeirah prohibiting Kisuy ha'Dam lest one come to do the Melachah of Ketishah in another instance, when using hard dirt, since even if one does so one would only be transgressing an Isur mid'Rabanan. In a case of a Safek Chayah, though, the Rabanan did make a Gezeirah lest one come to the Melachah of Ketishah. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: Rava concludes that "Efer Kirah" (the ashes in an oven) may be used only for covering the blood of a Vadai Chayah and not for a Safek Chayah. The reason for the difference is because before Yom Tov, the person designated the dirt only for use for a Vadai Chayah; for a Safek Chayah, though, the dirt remains Muktzah.

What is the logic behind Rava's answer? We find that any item which is not Muktzah on Shabbos may be used for any purpose, and not only for the specific purpose for which it was designated! (It is only Rebbi Nechemyah (Shabbos 123a) who rules differently, but the Halachah does not follow his opinion.) Why, in this case, is the item allowed to be used only for one particular purpose (Kisuy ha'Dam of a Vadai Chayah) and not for others (Kisuy ha'Dam of a Safek Chayah)? If it is not Muktzah with regard to using it for one thing (a Vadai), then it is also not Muktzah with regard to using it for any other thing (a Safek)!

The only case similar to this is the case of logs of wood on Yom Tov (33a). The wood may be used for a fire, but it may not be used for other purposes (such as to support a door), according to some Tana'im. Why do these items - - wood on Yom Tov, and Efer Kirah on Yom Tov -- differ from all other cases of Muktzah? (CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM)

ANSWER: The difference is that all other objects are Kelim -- utensils. Wood and dirt cannot be called Kelim, even if they are designated to be used for firewood or covering blood. A *Kli* that is designated for a certain use is not included in the Gezeirah of Muktzah and therefore it may be used for any purpose on Shabbos. In contrast, something that is not a Kli may not be used for any purpose, but only for the purpose for which it was designated -- that is, with items that are not Kelim, the Rabanan agree to Rebbi Nechemyah's logic. In order to use an object which is not a Kli, one must prepare not only the object, but also its use. Perhaps the reason for this is that a Kli does not need to be prepared for all possible uses, because a person knows that it has many uses; by default he always has in mind to use it in any possible manner. (This is similar to the logic proposed on Daf 6b that "if an item is fit for animal food, a person does not remove from his mind the possibility of giving it to a person to eat, should that possibility arise.) A person does not have in mind, though, to use for other purposes an object which is not a Kli.

Next daf


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