ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 4
(a) Rav Ashi reestablishes the Beraisa (which forbids the egg that is a
Safek, on Yom-Tov) by a Safek Yom-Tov, Safek Chol (rather than by a Safek
Tereifah). The reason that the egg is not permitted is - because it is a
'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin', which does not become Batel.
(b) Rav Ashi holds that - a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' extends beyond the
Din of Bitul to that of Safek (i.e. that even a Safek de'Rabbanan remains
Asur, seeing as it will become permitted anyway).
(a) Acheirim quoting Rebbi Eliezer says that if an egg is laid on Yom-Tov,
both the mother and the egg are permitted. Now if he is speaking about a
chicken that was designated for eating, and he is coming to rule like Beis
Shamai, it would suffice to tell us that the egg is permitted (because it is
obvious that the mother is). If, on the other hand, he is referring to a
chicken that is designated for egg-laying, then they should both be
forbidden (seeing as Rebbi Eliezer - later on Daf 34a - holds of Muktzah)?
(b) When Rebbi Zeira replies that the egg is permitted via its mother - he
means that Rebbi Eliezer is speaking when he bought the chicken without
specifying what he intended doing with it. If he *goes on to Shecht it* that
day, then it will transpire retroactively that he bought it to eat, and the
new-laid egg will be permitted, too; whereas if he does *not*, then he will
have bought it for egg-laying, and the egg will be forbidden.
(c) Rav Mari explains simply that Acheirim's statement is exaggerated -
meaning that he is really coming to tell us that the *egg* is permitted
(like Beis Shamai). Only he adds (quite unnecessarily) that the mother is
(d) The Beraisa adds ('it and its mother), the chick and its shell' - a
clear indication that the Tana is exaggerating (as if to say 'lock, stock
(a) If Yom-Tov follows Shabbos or vice-versa, Rav forbids an egg on the
second day, if it was laid on the first. Rebbi Yochanan permits it.
(b) We refute the suggestion that Rav's reason is because he holds that
Shabbos and Yom-Tov have the same Kedushah - on the grounds that he
explicitly rules in Eruvin like the four elders who quote Rebbi Eliezer as
saying that Shabbos and Yom-Tov have the Din of two Kedushos (and when
Shabbos follows Yom-Tov or vice-versa, one may make an Eiruv on one of them
in the east and on the following day in the west).
(c) The basis of their Machlokes therefore, is that - Rav holds of Hachanah
de'Rabah (that an egg that is prepared on Shabbos for Yom-Tov or vice-versa,
is Asur min ha'Torah), and Rebbi Yochanan does not (as indeed we already saw
above, at the foot of 3a., where Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Yitzchak,
and not like Rabah).
(d) This is also a Machlokes Tana'im - the Tana Kama in a Beraisa says
'Noldah be'Shabbos, Te'achel be'Yom-Tov; Noldah be'Yom-Tov, Te'achel
be'Shabbos'. When Rebbi Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer that it is
still a Machlokes - he means between Beis Shamai, who permit it, and Beis
Hillel, who forbid it.
(a) When Rav Ada bar Ahavah's host asked his illustrious guest whether he
was permitted to roast eggs that were laid on Yom-Tov, to eat them the
following day which was Shabbos - he wanted to know whether, despite the
fact that the eggs were forbidden on that day, he was at least permitted to
prepare them for the next day (Shabbos) or whether they were Muktzah.
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah replied that - even Rebbi Yochanan, who permitted the
eggs on the following day that was Shabbos, only permitted to eat them raw,
but not to prepare them on the Yom-Tov, since they were Muktzah.
(c) And he proved this from a Beraisa (which we already quoted above on 3b.)
which clearly declares them Muktzah.
(a) Rav Papa's host (or possibly another man) asked Rav Papa whether he
would be allowed to eat eggs on Yom-Tov that had been laid on the previous
day which was Shabbos. Rav Papa declined to answer immediately, telling him
to return on the following day - because he followed the custom of Rav, who
would not Darshen on Yom-Tov, because his Derashos incorporated ruling on
Hilchos Yom-Tov, and it is forbidden to issue rulings after having drunk
wine, as the Torah writes in Shemini "Yayin ve'Sheichar Al Teisht ...
u'Lehoros es B'nei Yisrael".
(b) Rav Papa was subsequently pleased that he did not reply immediately -
when he realized that he would have issued an incorrect ruling, had he ruled
then. Based on the principle that whenever Rav argues with Rebbi Yochanan,
we follow the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan he would have *permitted* the egg.
(c) In fact, based on Rava's statement that this is one of the three
occasions that the Halachah is like Rav, he *forbade* it (like Rav).
Rebbi Yochanan forbids on Yom-Tov, wood that fell from a tree the previous
day that was Shabbos - because it was unusable when it fell down, unlike the
egg, which was fit to be eaten raw the moment it was laid.
(a) If wood fell from a date-palm into an oven on Yom-Tov, Rav Masna
permits adding a lot of prepared wood and lighting a fire. The problem with
this is - that it ought to be Muktzah?
(b) We resolve this on the grounds that the majority of wood that he is
stoking, is not Muktzah. But how does that help, considering that he
deliberately added the wood of Heter, and we have learned in a Mishnah in
Terumos that, not only is it forbidden to cause something to be become
Batel, but that, if one did, the Bitul is invalid?
(c) We resolve this by confining the above Halachah to something that is
Asur d'Oraysa, such as Terumah, but when it comes to an Isur de'Rabbanan,
such as Muktzah, one is even permitted to render it Batel Lechatchilah.
(d) True, Rav Ashi maintains that anything that will be permitted later
anyway, does not become Batel (even by an Isur de'Rabbanan) - but that is
only when the Isur is 'Be'en' (in evidence), but not when it is mixed with
(a) The second case in which Rava rules like Rav is the question of an egg
that was laid on the first day Yom-Tov becoming permitted on the second day,
which Rav permits - because the two days have two Kedushos.
(b) Rav Asi's reason for forbidding it is indeed because the two days have
*one* Kedushah. Nevertheless, he used to recite Havdalah between one and the
other - because he was not certain whether they were considered two Kedushos
or one, so he went Lechumra regarding the egg, and Lechumra regarding
Havdalah (see Maharam Shif - who discusses the question of a Berachah
(c) Rebbi Zeira proves that (le'Chumra at least) the two days of Yom-Tov
must have a Din of one long day, like Rav Asi (i.e. that the two days are a
proper Takanah, and not just a Minhag) - because nowadays we know exactly
when Rosh Chodesh is, yet we keep two days.
(a) The Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah describes how Chazal instituted the sending
of messengers to replace the original system of informing everybody that it
was Rosh Chodesh by lighting the torches on the mountain-tops - on account
of the Kutim, who rejected the entire concept of Kidush ha'Chodesh in this
manner, and who tried to upset the Beis-Din's decision by lighting torches
on the night of the thirtieth, even if Beis-Din had not yet announced Rosh
(b) Now it was only due to the new system of messengers, that people of the
Golah could not always find out on time when Yom-Tov would be, and who
therefore had to keep two days because of a Safek. And it appears (since
the Tana does not mention anything about two days Yom-Tov, only about the
Sheluchim) that the moment the institution would come to an end, they would
stop keeping two days . By the same token, wherever the messengers reached,
there is no reason to contend that they kept two days. Clearly then, argues
Abaye, the two days was not a Takanah, only a Minhag that sprang out of
necessity, but not a Takanah.
(c) According to Rav, the B'nei Chutz la'Aretz keep two days Yom-Tov
nowadays, in spite of the fact that they know exactly which day is Rosh
Chodesh - because they issued a ruling in Eretz Yisrael, that the B'nei
Golah should continue to keep two days Yom-Tov (not because it was a firm
Takanah, but) because of the fear that new decrees might arise, that will
cause a reinstatement of the previous situation, whereby the people do not
know when is Rosh Chodesh,. Nevertheless, they will continue to keep only
one day Yom-Tov, because that is what they did the previous year. Only this
year, they may be celebration the wrong day Pesach, and come to eat Chametz
(a) The third case in which Rava rules like Rav, is the question of an egg
that was laid on the first day Rosh Hashanah becoming permitted on the
second day, which Rav (and Shmuel) forbids. In his opinion, Rosh Hashanah is
more stringent than other Yamim-Tovim in this regard - because long before
the Kutim forced two days to be kept in Chutz la'Aretz), there were
occasions when they were keeping two days Rosh Hashanah in Eretz Yisrael
(when the witnesses came late - as we shall soon see), and then it was not a
question of a Safek, but a proper Takanah.
(b) By the Tamid shel Shachar on the thirtieth of Elul - the Levi'im would
sing the ordinary week-day Shir for that respective day, because, seeing as
the witnesses did not usually arrive so early in the day, Chazal instituted
that as the official Shir, to avoid complications.
(c) It once happened that the witnesses came after the Tamid shel Beis
ha'Arbayim - as a result of which, the Levi'im, assuming that they would
not arrive anymore that day, sang the ordinary week-day Shir (instead of the
Shir for Rosh Hashanah, which that day now became retroactively); and if the
wrong Shir is sung, the Korban becomes invalidated.
(d) After the Takanah, if the witnesses came only after the Tamid shel Bein
ha'Arbayim had been brought, they would no longer accept them. Consequently,
they would treat the remainder of that day Kodesh (as they had had to begin
it - just in case the witnesses *would* come early). However, they would
only declare the next day Rosh Hashanah.