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


by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Beitzah 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 Yisroel.


(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.
(b) (R. Shimon) If a Mum was not evident before YomTov the animal is not Muchan, and should not be permitted by an expert.
(a) Question: What is their Machlokes?
(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 animal).
(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).

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 Mesaken).
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).
(b) (R. Nachman) My father taught that it may only be ruled upon if the expert happens to see the animal (b'di'eved).
(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!?
2. Answer: Because the Beraisa cited by Abaye is unreliable, given its source.
(e) (R. Nachman b. Yitzhok) Our Mishnah further supports the Beraisa as brought by R. Oshia.
1. R. Shimon made reference to its Mum not being recognizable.
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 b'di'eved).
(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)!?
2. Answer: The question looks at a case where it was Muchan, lost its status and then regained it during Shabbos.
(b) Answer: It is Muktzeh from that part of Shabbos onward.
(c) Question: But the Beraisa teaches that it is not Muktzeh!?
1. An animal born with a Mum is Muchan.
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).
(d) Answer: The expert saw it as it was born, so that it never had the prohibited status of a Bechor Tam.
(e) Alternate rendition of the above three steps:
1. Answer: It is not Muktzeh for the 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.
(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.
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)?
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 not Muktzeh!?
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!?
(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.
(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)!?
Next daf


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