ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Introduction to BeitzahBeitzah 2
BEITZAH 2 and 3 - have been dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens,
N.Y., in loving memory of her late husband, Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu
Grunberger. Mr Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming manner
and is sorely missed by all who knew him. Yahrzeit: 10 Sivan.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah quotes three rulings in the name of Beis Shamai:
they forbid an egg that was laid on Yom-Tov to be eaten, give the Shiur of
*yeast* on Pesach as a k'Zayis but that of *Chametz* as a Koseves (a large
date), and permit Shechting a bird and then digging earth with a spade
(others translate 'Deker' as a peg or a spear) in order to fulfill the
Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam. Beis Hillel say that ...
1. ... an egg that was laid on Yom-Tov - may not be eaten.
(b) The Tana puts specifically these three Halachos together - because they
are all Halachos of Yom-Tov, where Beis Shamai is lenient and Beis Hillel
2. ... the Shiur of Chametz on Pesach - is a k'Zayis.
3. ... Shechting a bird and digging earth with a peg on Yom-Tov - is
forbidden (it is only permitted if one has earth prepared from before Yom-
(c) Beis Hillel agree that, if one *did* Shecht without the spade being
prepared before Yom-Tov - one should do as Beis Shamai say.
(a) We think at this stage, that the chicken that laid the egg in our
Mishnah cannot have been one that was designated to eat - because, if it
was, why would Beis Hillel forbid it, seeing as it 'Uchla de'Efras' (food
that comes from food), which everybody agrees, is permitted?
(b) On the other hand, if we are speaking about a chicken that was
designated for egg-laying - the egg should be Muktzah no less than the
chicken from which it came, so why do Beis Shamai permit it?
(c) We reject the contention that Beis Shamai holds like Rebbi Shimon - who
says that the oil that remains in a Shabbos-lamp after it has gone out, is
permitted (because he does not hold of the principle that, whatever one
rejects when Shabbos comes in, remains Muktzah the whole of Shabbos).
(d) We reject this suggestion - on the grounds that even Rebbi Shimon, who
is lenient by Muktzah, will agree by Nolad (something that was not yet in
the world when Shabbos or Yom-Tov came in).
(a) Rav Nachman overrules the above objection - according to him, those who
permit Muktzah, permit Nolad. Consequently, Beis Shamai holds like Rebb
Shimon, whereas Beis Hillel hold like Rebbi Yehudah (who is the disputant of
Rebbi Shimon - i.e. he is the one who holds of Muktzah).
(b) In a Mishnah in Shabbos, Beis Shamai permit removing bones and nut-
shells from the table. Beis Hillel say that one must take out the whoe
table, and shake it off outside.
(c) Rav Nachman switches the opinions of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.
(d) This statement of Rav Nachman (which portrays *Beis Shamai* as the more
*stringent* of the two) - appears to contradict what he said with regard to
the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in our Mishnah (which
portrayed them as being the more *lenient*)!
(a) In another Mishnah in Shabbos, the Tana permits cutting up gourds for
the animals on Shabbos, and a carcass for the dogs. We may have thought that
1. ... cutting up gourds for the animals on Shabbos is forbidden - because
of excessive bother.
(b) In another Mishnah, the Tana forbids chopping up beams that have been
designated for building purposes, nor from a beam that broke on Yom-Tov -
because, although it is *now fit* to be used as fire-wood, it was *unfit*
when Shabbos came in.
2. ... cutting up a carcass for the dogs should be forbidden - because it
speaks when the animal died on Shabbos, and was consequently unfit to feed
the dogs when Shabbos came in. In fact, this Tana holds like Rebbi Shimon,
who does not hold of (this kind of) Muktzah.
(c) These two Mishnahs help resolve the contradiction between Rav Nachman's
two statements - because we now see that Rebbi was lenient in the first
Mishnah (regarding Shabbos), and strict in the second Mishnah (regarding
Yom-Tov). This explains why following in Rebbi's footsteps, in our Mishnah,
which speaks about *Yom-Tov*, Rav Nachman establishes *Beis Hillel like
Rebbi Yehudah*, whereas in the Mishnah in *Shabbos*, he established *them
like Rebbi Shimon*.
(d) Rebbi is more stringent by Yom-Tov than by Shabbos - because, seeing as
the Torah is more lenient by Yom-Tov than by Shabbos, he was afraid, that if
he was lenient too (with regard to Muktzah), people would begin to treat
Yom-Tov with contempt.
(a) The author of a S'tam Mishnah is an individual. However, whenever Rebbi
accepted a certain individual ruling, he would present his statement in the
form of a S'tam Mishnah, in order to give it the authority of a majority
ruling (as if it had been learned by a majority opinion).
(b) According to our Sugya, it is clear that Nolad is more stringent than
(c) Seeing as we are concerned with a chicken that was designated for laying
eggs, which is Muktzah, we ask why it is that Rebbi presented the Machlokes
by an *egg* that was laid on Yom-Tov, rather by the chicken itself. We query
the original answer (that he did so in order to teach us that Beis Shamai
permit, not only Muktzah, but even Nolad as well) - because in that case,
why does he not present it by the *chicken*, to teach us that Beis Hillel
are strict even by the chicken, which is only Asur because of Muktzah, and
(d) So we answer that Rebbi preferred to teach us the Chidush according to
Beis Shamai, because of the principle 'Ko'ach de'Heteira Adif'. The logic
behind this principle is - because anybody can declare something to be Asur,
le'Chumra', even if he is not sure; whereas one has to be perfectly certain
before he rules that something is permitted.
(a) We retract from the entire explanation of Rav Nachman (that Beis Shamai
holds like Rebbi Shimon and Beis Hillel like Rebbi Yehudah - on Yom-Tov)
because in that case, why did Rebbi not incorporate both the chicken and the
egg in the Mishnah, to tell us both.
(b) Rabah establishes our Mishnah by a chicken that was designated to eat
(which explains why they do not argue over the chicken). Nevertheless, Beis
Hillel then forbid the egg - because it is Muktzah d'Oraysa, as we shall now
(c) Rabah learns this from the Pasuk in Beshalach "ve'Hayah ba'Yom
ha'Shishi, ve'Heichinu es Asher Yavi'u" - which teaches us that Shabbos food
must be verbally prepared on (a regular) Friday, and similarly, Yom-Tov food
must be prepared on an ordinary week-day. Neither may be prepared on a
Shabbos or a Yom-Tov.
(d) An egg ...
1. ... that is laid on a Yom-Tov that did not fall on Sunday or that was
laid on an ordinary Shabbos, is forbidden - because Chazal decreed there
because of Yom-Tov that followed Shabbos.
2. ... that is laid on Sunday is permitted - because a weekday meal is not
sufficiently important to warrant preparation in advance.
(a) The Beraisa permits complete eggs that one finds inside a chicken that
one Shechted on Yom-Tov. We might have thought that they are forbidden, and
it is not a case of a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah' - because we would have
established the Beraisa by Yom-Tov which fell after Shabbos, in which case,
it would it would be a case of only *one* decree, and not *two*.
(b) Chazal did *not* in fact, extend the decree to this case - because it is
unusual to find complete eggs inside a Shechted chicken, and Chazal tended
not to issue decrees in unusual cases.
(a) Rav Yosef too, establishes our Mishnah by a chicken that was
*designated to eat*, and Beis Hillel's reason for forbidding the egg is
because of 'Peiros ha'Noshrin' - which means due to its similarity to fruit
that fell from a tree, which Chazal forbade (in case one comes to climb the
tree and pick the fruit).
(b) To forbid an egg that was laid on Yom-Tov because of fruit that fell
from a tree, is not a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah' - because this is a case where
Chazal incorporated both cases in the same decree (and not as an
afterthought, to reinforce the original decree - which would make it a