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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Introduction to Beitzah

Beitzah 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.
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- Tov.
(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 strict.

(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.
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.
(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.

(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 Muktzah.

(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 not Nolad.

(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 see.

(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 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah').

Next daf


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