POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafBeitzah 26
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
1) MISHNAH: CHECKING THE BLEMISH OF A BECHOR
(a) (R. Yehudah) An expert may descend to the pit to check
the Mum of a Bechor and, only if its Mum is permanent,
the animal may be raised up and slaughtered.
2) THE NATURE OF THIS MACHLOKES
(b) (R. Shimon) If a Mum was not evident before YomTov the
animal is not Muchan, and should not be permitted by an
(a) Question: What is their Machlokes?
3) ANOTHER BERAISA REGARDING BECHOR ON YOMTOV
(b) Answer: Whether (R. Yehudah) or not (R. Shimon) one may
check Mumin on Yomtov.
(c) Question: Then why does the Mishnah introduce the fact
that the Bechor had fallen into a pit?
(d) Answer: We might have permitted a Ha'aramah (akin to
that used by R. Yehoshua for raising up an animal and
its young) given the Tza'ar of the animal.
(e) Question: Then the Mishnah should have taught that the
animal may not be *raised up* and slaughtered (not
simply that it may not be slaughtered, as we have it)!?
(f) Answer: We need this wording to prohibit slaughtering
the animal in the case where the person (without
permission) has already raised it from the pit.
(g) Question: Who would have thought to permit slaughtering
an unblemished Bechor!?
(h) Answer: We are speaking (and prohibiting slaughtering)
in the case where the Bechor, after being raised up,
developed a Mum.
(i) Question: But such an animal would be Muktzeh!?
(j) Answer: Rather, it had a passing Mum from before YomTov
and contracted a permanent Mum on YomTov (which we
might have permitted since he has some Da'as on this
(a) (Rebbi) An expert may descend and permit the animal to
be raised and slaughtered.
(b) If the owner raised the animal without permission it
may not be slaughtered on YomTov (even with a Mum).
(c) (R. Shimon b. Menasia) We must be stringent (and not
permit the expert to check the animal) given the
disputes of the early Tanaim:
1. One may not check Mumin on YomTov (that is, the
expert should not go to see a Mum which was
present from before YomTov, but he may permit the
animal if he should pass it and see its Mum).
4) THE AMORAIM DISCUSS THE BECHOR
2. (R. Shimon) If the Mum appears on YomTov, then no
steps to permit it may be taken, since it is not
Muchan (and such a ruling would constitute
3. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon (who argue regarding
Muktzeh) would agree that if the animal was born
with its Mum (the experts were present at its
birth) that it is Muchan.
(a) (Rabah b.R. Huna) A Bechor born with its Mum may be
purposely checked on YomTov (l'chatchilah).
5) MUKTZEH FOR A PART OF SHABBOS
(b) (R. Nachman) My father taught that it may only be ruled
upon if the expert happens to see the animal
(c) (Abaye) The manner in which the teaching of R. Shimon
b. Menasia was divided into three parts (in the Beraisa
above) indicates, like Rabah b.R. Huna, that the
permission is even l'chatchilah (since if it were only
b'di'Eved, part three [it was born with its Mum] could
have been taught together with the first part [a Mum
was present from before YomTov]).
(d) Question: But R. Oshia came with a rendition of that
Beraisa which does not separate between the first and
second parts [it prohibits, even b'di'eved, whether the
Mum preceded YomTov or was developed on YomTov] and the
third part only permits b'di'eved!?
1. Question: Why should you rely moreso on the
Beraisa brought by R. Oshia than the one which
Abaye cited in support of Rabah b.R. Huna!?
(e) (R. Nachman b. Yitzhok) Our Mishnah further supports
the Beraisa as brought by R. Oshia.
2. Answer: Because the Beraisa cited by Abaye is
unreliable, given its source.
1. R. Shimon made reference to its Mum not being
2. This could not mean that it was entirely
unrecognizable, since that would be obvious.
3. It must mean that it was present before YomTov but
not yet shown to an expert.
4. Still, R. Shimon asserts (to R. Yehudah) that it
is not Muchan (hence he must prohibit even
(a) Question: May something be Muktzeh for part of Shabbos?
1. Question: The deciding time is Bein Hashemashos,
and there should be no question about a part of
Shabbos, either it was available during that time
(and not Muktzeh for Shabbos) or it was not)!?
(b) Answer: It is Muktzeh from that part of Shabbos onward.
2. Answer: The question looks at a case where it was
Muchan, lost its status and then regained it
(c) Question: But the Beraisa teaches that it is not
1. An animal born with a Mum is Muchan.
(d) Answer: The expert saw it as it was born, so that it
never had the prohibited status of a Bechor Tam.
2. It should be viewed having gone through a period
of unavailability (after its birth but prior to
having been ruled upon by the expert).
(e) Alternate rendition of the above three steps:
1. Answer: It is not Muktzeh for the part of Shabbos.
(f) Question: The Beraisa which prohibits one from eating
the fruits which he placed on his roof to dry, unless
there was Hazmanah, proves that there is no Muktzeh for
a part of Shabbos.
2. Question: Is the Beraisa a support for this?
3. Answer: Not necessarily, since the expert was
there at the time of birth.
1. Question: If they were edible with the entrance of
Shabbos, why does he require Hazmanah (and if it
were inedible then, how would Hazmanah help)?
(g) Answer: That Beraisa (has no bearing on Muktzeh
l'Chatzi Shabbos and it) requires Hazmanah to declare
their readiness since the raisins were edible for some
and not for others.
2. Answer: He did not know whether they were edible.
3. Question: But we were taught that such fruit, if
they were dry, even if the owner was unaware, is
4. Answer: It must speak where they were dry, became
moist (and inedible) and re-dried (and only with
prior Hazmanah would they be Mutar).
5. Question: If there were no Muktzeh for a part of
Shabbos, of what need would there be for Hazmanah?
6. Answer: That question is not made any easier if
you hold that there *is* Muktzeh for a part of
Shabbos, since Hazmanah should be meaningless!?
(h) Question (R. Zeira): We may demonstrate that there is
no Muktzeh for a part of Shabbos from the case of
lentils (which become inedible at the start of the
cooking process, even though they could be eaten prior
to, and after, the cooking on YomTov).
(i) Answer (Abaye): That reasoning should hold true for
every cooked pot since it is too hot to be eaten when
Shabbos begins (and the deciding factor must be that
which becomes unusable beyond the person's control)!?