(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

Previous daf

Beitzah 6

BEITZAH 6-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael



(a) One may bury a dead person on the first day only through Nochrim, whereas on the second day, even through Jews.

(b) This distinction applies to Rosh Hashanah as well.

(c) According to Rava, the concession on the second day does not apply to an egg (as we learned earlier). The Neherda'i disagree - because, they argue, there is no real basis for the two days Rosh Hashanah, since it never happened again (after Ezra's time) that Elul had thirty days and a second day needed to be added.

(a) Rav restricts burying a dead person on the second day to where the corpse had been lying for some time and decay is likely to set in. Rav Ashi permits it even if he died only on that day, because, in his opinion, Chazal declared the second day of Yom-Tov like a weekday, with regard to burial.

(b) This concession is not confined to the burial itself - it extends to cutting clothes for him, too, even clothes other than shrouds, which are obviously permitted (since they are included in the concession of burial itself).

(c) They also used to cut a myrtle-twig - which they would place on his coffin to dispel the smell. This too, was permitted on the second day of Yom-Tov.

(d) In Ravina's time, they rescinded the concession, because of the Chavri. The Chavri were a wicked nation who came with the Persians. They would force the Jews to work for them. On Yom-Tov however, the Jews always had the excuse that it was Yom-Tov (and they were not even permitted to work for themselves) - and this excuse would lose its validity if the Chavri saw them burying their dead on Yom-Tov.

(a) Someone who forgot to prepare an Eruv Tavshilin before Yom-Tov - can prepare it on the first day of Yom-Tov (on the assumption that it is not Yom-Tov, and that if it is, his Eruv is not valid); then, on the second day, he does the same thing again.

(b) Nevertheless, on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, Rav Ashi was sad at having forgotten to make an Eiruv - because this concession, he argued, did not apply to Rosh Hashanah (whose two days have the Din of one Kedushah, as we learned earlier).

(c) Ravina quoted him the Neherda'i, who permitted even *an egg* on the second day of Rosh Hashanah - but Rav Mordechai - a disciple of Rav Ashi - informed him that Rav Ashi had specifically told him that he disagreed with the Neherda'i.

(a) According to Rav, a chick that is born on Yom-Tov is forbidden just like an egg. Shmuel, or according to others, Rebbi Yochanan, permits it - because, he maintains, when it is born, it becomes permitted through Shechitah; and since ('Migu') its birth creates this Heter, it also permits the Isur of Muktzah.

(b) The Beraisa permits a calf that is born on Yom-Tov, Rav concedes - because even before it was born, it would have been permitted via the Shechitah of its mother.

(a) One may not eat a calf that one finds inside a Tereifah that one Shechted.

(b) Nevertheless, Rav will also concede that a calf that is born from a Tereifah is permitted - because it is permitted via its mother, who was fit already when Yom-Tov came in, to feed to the dogs.

(c) Not so a chick that was born on Yom-Tov - which remains Nolad, since it was still in its shell when Yom-Tov came in, and was neither fit to feed to the dogs at that stage, nor was it the owner's intention to do so.




(a) In spite of the fact that an animal is intended for man's use, one is not permitted to cut up a healthy animal that died on Shabbos to feed one's dog - because one does not tend to designate what is prepared for one's personal use for one's animals.

(b) Rav nevertheless permits a calf that was born from a Tereifah animal on Shabbos 'since it was fit for dogs via its mother' - because he always has in mind to use for himself whatever he possibly can. Consequently, whatever he designates for his animals, he certainly designates for himself.

7) Until now, we have been speaking about a newly-born chick on Yom-Tov. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "le'Chol ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz" - that a new-born chick is Asur (even during the week) as long as it has not yet opened its eyes.


(a) If one Shechts a chicken and finds inside it eggs whose yellow is complete, but that are still attached to the mother, one may ...
  1. ... eat them with milk.
  2. ... eat them if the mother was Shechted on Yom-Tov.
(b) When Rav Huna, quoting Rav, declares only *an egg that emerges* to be complete, we ask from a Beraisa that permits even *an egg that one finds inside the mother* that was Shechted on Yom-Tov, to be eaten on the same day. But maybe this Beraisa is a Chidush, asks the Gemara - with which no Mishnah agrees (since Rebbi did not include it anywhere)?

(c) We infer from our Mishnah, however, where Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue by an egg that was laid on Yom-Tov - that if it was found inside the mother after it is Shechted, then even Beis Hillel will agree that it is permitted, thereby concurring with the Beraisa.

(d) We cannot explain that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel also argue by eggs that one finds inside the mother, and that the Tana presents the case of eggs that were laid on Yom-Tov, to teach us that even there, Beis Shamai is lenient, and permits the eggs - because then, who will be the author of the above Beraisa? If it is Beis Shamai, why does he present the case of the eggs that were found inside the Shechted mother (seeing as *they* permit even an egg that is laid); and if it is Beis Hillel, we have just said that Beis Hillel *forbid* even an egg that one finds inside the Shechted mother? So we are forced to say that Beis Hillel agrees here that the egg is permitted.

(a) We finally establish Rav Huna Amar Rav - by buying and selling.

(b) The ramifications of this ruling - are a case where someone pays for eggs that are fit to hatch, and he is supplied with eggs that had not completely emerged. Due to Rav Huna Amar Rav's ruling, he will be entitled to return the eggs and to receive his money back.

(a) A certain man let it be known that he wanted 'Bei'i de*'Pachya*' - which are eggs that are laid from a live mother (who *clucks* when giving birth).

(b) When someone sold him complete eggs that were found inside the Shechted mother - Rebbi Ami ruled that it was a false sale, and that he could claim his money back.

(c) Even though the man specifically said 'Bei'i de'Pachya', it is not so obvious that the sale is invalid - because we might have thought that he really wanted the eggs to eat (like most people do), and the only reason that he specified 'Bei'i de'Pachya' - was because they are *completely* ready to eat, and that is what he wanted.

(d) Had the man really meant that, the sale would have been valid - but he would have been entitled to claim the difference in price between the two different kinds of eggs back from the seller.

Next daf


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