(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 28

BEITZAH 26, 27, 28, 29 - dedicated by Yitzchak Gross of Brooklyn, NY, l'Iluy Nishmas his father, Menashe Yehudah ben Matisyahu, and his mother, Dina bas Yisroel.


QUESTION: Seven servings of fish were placed on the table in the house of Rebbi, and five of them ended up in the possession of Rebbi Chiya, while only two found themselves in the hands of Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi. RASHI explains that Rebbi Chiya took five to his house without asking for explicit permission. Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi was not upset that Rebbi Chiya took most of the fish, because he and Rebbi Chiya were friends.

TOSFOS in Bava Metzia (22a DH Mar Zutra, cited by the SHACH, Choshen Mishpat 358:1) writes that one is not allowed to take something from someone else without explicit permission, even when he knows that the other person will not mind. (It is considered like "Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as," which is not considered Yi'ush.) If so, why was Rebbi Chiya permitted to take the five fish without permission? (TAL TORAH)


(a) The TAL TORAH suggests that this Gemara supports the view of the SHACH (ibid.) who argues with the Tosfos and the other Rishonim who rule as he does, and says that this case is not similar to "Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as." The Shach says that if one knows that another person does not mind, then one may take his belongings without asking for permission.

(b) RASHI implies only that Rebbi did not specifically give the fish to Rebbi Chiya. However, Rebbi might have left the fish in a place where he normally left things for any of the Talmidim to take. As such, Rebbi Chiya had permission to take it from Rebbi even though Rebbi did not specifically give it to *him*, because he was one of the Talmidim.


OPINIONS: The Gemara says that one may not bring a knife (used for slaughtering) to a Chacham to have it inspected on Yom Tov, but a Chacham may inspect his own knife. What is wrong with showing a knife to a Chacham on Yom Tov?
(a) RASHI says that bringing the knife to the Chacham has the appearance of a weekday activity ("Uvda d'Chol"), because it looks like one intends to slaughter a lot of animals for public sale. This is why it is permitted for a Chacham to inspect his own knife, because then the inspection is not being done in a public manner.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Yom Tov 4:9) writes that the prohibition is because one might sharpen the knife if the Chacham tells him that it is not perfectly sharp. A Chacham may inspect his own knife, though, since he is a Chacham and just as he knows how to inspect a knife, he also knows that it is not permitted to sharpen a knife on Yom Tov.

(c) The RIF writes in the name of the BEHAG that the reason is because we are afraid that he will take the knife outside of his permitted Techum in order to bring it to the Chacham. For that reason, a Chacham may inspect his own knife, because he is not taking it anywhere.

The BA'AL HA'ME'OR asks that the reason of the RIF makes sense only according to the opinion which says that the Isur of Techumim is mid'Oraisa. However, if the Isur of Techumim is mid'Rabanan, the Isur of taking the knife to a Chacham would be a Gezeirah l'Gezeirah, and therefore it should be permitted!

The RAMBAN (in Milchamos) answers that here, the Rabanan took exception to the normal rule and enacted a Gezeirah l'Gezeirah, because it is extremely common for a person to go out of his Techum to show the knife to a Chacham, since he does so during the weekdays (because it is not permitted to slaughter an animal without first having one's knife inspected by a Chacham).

(d) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR (quoted by the RAN) says that one may not show a knife to a Chacham on Yom Tov because it falls into the category of passing judgment ("Dan Es ha'Din") on Yom Tov which is Asur, like showing a Mum on a Bechor to an expert on Yom Tov. The RAMBAN asks why, then, is it Mutar for a Chacham to inspect his own knife? After all, he is still passing judgment!

The RAN answers that when the Chacham looks at his own knife, he is merely clarifying whether or not it has a blemish, and he is not passing judgment. However, when someone else brings a knife to the Chacham for inspection, he does so because of the Takanah that one may not slaughter without first showing the knife to a Chacham, which was enacted in order to preserve the honor of the Chacham (see Rashi in Chulin 9a). The Chacham then must issue a Halachic ruling about the knife. The Takanah d'Rabanan to bring the knife to a Chacham is what permits using it to slaughter the animal, and thus the Chacham's ruling is considered passing judgment. But when a Chacham inspects his own knife, he is not issuing any Halachic ruling, but is merely clarifying whether there is a blemish or not ("Giluy Milsa").

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a person may not ask his butcher to give him a Dinar's worth of meat, but rather the butcher must first slaughter the animal, and then the portions are divided. The Gemara explains that the portions are divided by each person saying that he wants "one portion" or "half a portion" of meat, as opposed to saying that he wants "one Dinar's worth" or "half a Dinar's worth" of meat.

The Mishnah earlier (27b) states that one is not allowed to set a price for the animal on Yom Tov, but rather it is first slaughtered and then divided up, which the Gemara explains to mean that they bring another animal that is approximately the same size as the one being slaughtered, and then they slaughter their animal and divide it into portions. After Yom Tov, they price the portions based on the value of the identical animal.

Since the Mishnah there (27b) already states that one must divide the animal by size of portion and not by price of portion, what is the Mishnah here teaching? It seems to be saying the same thing as the Mishnah earlier and is not necessary --what is our Mishnah adding?

ANSWER: The MELECHES SHLOMO answers that the previous Mishnah is discussing a case of an entire animal that is being divided. In such a case, it must be divided into a half, third, quarter, etc., and cannot be divided by price. Our Mishnah is discussing a case where one wants only a single piece of meat. In such a case, one should not describe it as a Dinar's worth of meat, but rather as a "portion" of meat.

We might have thought that in this case, it is permitted to buy a portion of meat by describing it by its price, while dividing an entire animal based on price is Asur, because in the latter case, the animal does not yet have a set price, and establishing the price on Yom Tov is Asur. Here, though, the portions have already been cut up and the prices have already been set. When one says that he wants a Dinar's worth of meat, he is not setting the price, but rather he is just describing the piece of meat in terms of its cost. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches that one should not mention the price at all, even when only using it as a description for the meat, since one should not mention money at all on Yom Tov. (This contrasts with the explanation of the TIFERES YISRAEL who permits mentioning money.)

Next daf


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