(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 10

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



(a) Beis Shamai forbid taking an Ali on Yom-Tov. An 'Ali' - is a board meant for chopping wheat.

(b) Beis Shamai forbid it - because they hold that a vessel whose main function is Asur on Shabbos or Yom-Tov, may not be taken, even to use for something that is permitted.

(c) Beis Hillel are more lenient here than they are by Kisuy ha'Dam - because they permit on Shabbos or Yom-Tov, a vessel whose main function is forbidden, as long as one intends to use it for something that is permitted.

(d) Beis Hillel permit spreading out skins on Yom-Tov, that were stripped that day for people to tan as they walk across them. Initially, we ascribe this concession to Simchas Yom-Tov (creating a contradiction with Beis Hillel's strict view by Kisuy ha'Dam). Their real reason however is - because the skins are fit to sit on (and were often used for this purpose).

(a) Beis Shamai forbid the removal of shutters from portable store-fronts. Beis Hillel permit them even to be returned.

(b) Beis Shamai's stringency here is based on the fact that they hold that - the Melachos of building and demolishing apply even to vessels.

(c) Beis Hillel go so far as to permit even *returning* the shutters on Yom- Tov, despite the fact that this is not needed for Yom-Tov, and it will be unnecessary trouble - because if one is not permitted to return the shutters, he will not take them off to begin with, and this will interfere with Simchas Yom-Tov.

(d) The shutters are used as stalls - to display spices for sale for Simchas Yom-Tov, which in turn, is permitted, as long as one does not mention total figures.

(a) Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over how to prepare birds, which are basically Muktzah, in one's dove-cot - Beis Shamai require that one actually picks up before Yom-Tov each bird that one plans to Shecht; whereas according to Beis Hillel, verbal preparation will suffice.

(b) Rav Chanan bar Ami confines their Machlokes to the first batch of chicks - which the owner would leave each year as company for their mother. Each month, the mother would hatch a pair of chicks, one male and one female, except for the months of Teves through to Nisan.

(c) Beis Shamai's reason for being strict in this case is - because even having designated one of these birds for Shechitah, unless he actually takes it in his hand, he is likely to have pity on the mother, change his mind and leave it (thereby having picked it up for no reason - which is Asur).

(d) By subsequent batches of chicks - Beis Shamai will agree that verbal preparation will suffice.

(a) We initially explain that Beis Hillel, who requires that one specifies each and every bird, holds 'Ein Bereirah'. We do not succeed in refuting that answer - because Rabah and Rebbi Oshaya establish the Beraisa which we will discuss shortly, with regard to becoming Tamei from now onwards, and not retroactively.

(b) Rava (who explains the Beraisa differently), maintains that Beis Hillel hold 'Yesh Bereirah'. Nevertheless, they require that one specifies each bird - because otherwise, we are afraid that, since he did not pick each one individually, tomorrow on Yom-Tov, when he comes to take the birds, he will reject the frail-looking birds, and take only the best ones, even those that he did not designate yesterday.

(c) Even though Beis Hillel is concerned that one might later take better birds than the ones he prepared, that is only if he did *not specify* before Yom-Tov those birds that he planned to take on Yom-Tov - if he *did*, he is unlikely to change his mind (even if he finds them more frail-looking than what he originally thought).

(d) Besides the concern that he might find better birds which were not prepared, Beis Hillel is also concerned that - he may find all of them too frail-looking for his liking, and will subsequently desist from taking any at all, thereby contravening Simchas Yom-Tov.

(a) A corpse in the house renders all the doorways (together with any vessels that are lying there) Tamei - and this applies to windows too, and to any apertures that are four by four Tefachim or more.

(b) The vessels are not Tamei anyway because of Ohel ha'Mes - seeing as there is a wall that separates them from the Tum'ah.

(c) Besides Machshavah, if all the doorways are shut and one of them is opened, then that one will render that doorway exclusively Tamei.

(a) If one had in mind *before* the man died, that, when he did, they would carry him out of a specific doorway, then *that* doorway is Tamei, but not the others. According to Beis Shamai, Machshavah will only help *before* the man has dies, but not *afterwards* - either because they hold 'Ein Bereirah', or because once the Din of Tum'ah takes effect on a doorway, it cannot be removed by mere Machshavah, only through an act.

(b) Vessels that are placed under one of the other doorways *after* a valid Machshavah - will remain Tahor.

(c) Beis Hillel hold ...

1. ... that it is vessels that are placed in those doorways *after* the Machshavah exclusively, that are Tahor, according to Rabah and Rebbi Oshaya - but not those that were there *prior* to it, which remain Tamei, because Beis Hillel hold 'Ein Bereirah.
2. ... that even vessels that were there *prior* to the Machshavah become Tahor, according to Rava - because Beis Hillel hold 'Yesh Bereirah'.



(a) If one prepared *two* birds and found *three*, they are *forbidden* - because there is no escaping the fact that the third bird was not prepared; whereas if he prepared *three*, and found *two*, they are *permitted* - because we assume that they are two of the three that he prepared, and the third one flew away.

(b) The Chidush in the latter case - is that we do not suspect that just as the one bird flew away, so did the others, and these two are different birds that came from outside, and are consequently Muktzah.

(a) Our Mishnah states that, if he prepared black birds and found white ones or vice-versa, they are forbidden. This is not obvious because - it speaks in a case when, on Erev Yom-Tov, he prepared black and white birds in two different nests, and on Yom-Tov morning, he found white birds where he had prepared the black ones and vice-versa. We may have thought that these are the same birds that he prepared, and they switched places. We learn from our Mishnah that this is not the case.

(b) When there is a question of whether to go after the majority or after the nearest - Rebbi Chanina follows the majority.

(c) We cannot bring a proof from our Mishnah (according to the way that we just explained it - that we suspect that the birds came from the outside [the majority], rather than from the neighboring nest [the nearest]), that we go after the majority, just like Rebbi Chanina says - because our Mishnah may be speaking when there is a board attached to the outside of the dove- cot onto which other birds tend to alight (making it as close as the neighboring nest - besides having the Din of majority), just as we will explain later.

(a) According to Rebbi, if someone left *one* Manah of Ma'aser Sheini money and found *two*, Chulin and Ma'aser Sheini are mixed together - because we assume that one of the Manah that he found is the one that he left, and someone added the other one.

(b) He takes the best of the two coins, and declares that if it *is* the one he left, then it is Ma'aser money anyway; but if it is *not*, then he now transfers the Kedushah of the second coin (which must then be the one that he left) on it. He now treats this coin as a Ma'aser Sheini coin.

(c) The Chachamim say that all the money is Chulin - because, in their opinion, he must have inadvertently taken the Manah and placed it somewhere else, and subsequently placed these two coins there.

(d) If he left *two* Manah of Ma'aser money, and found *one*, Rebbi says that that Manah is one of those that he left, and that it is Ma'aser. According to the Chachamim - it is Chulin, because, seeing that he did not take the coins to Yerushalayim, he is unlikely to have removed one without the other; so he probably removed them both, and put another coin in the same place.

(a) It is possible, say Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar, that the Chachamim, who hold that, by the coins, he probably removed both of the coins (and not just one of them) - might well agree in our Mishnah, that the *two* birds that he found where he had left *three*, are the same ones and therefore permitted, because birds tend to hop away by themselves, and it is likely that one of them did so, but not the other one.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue: one of them establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim when the two Manah were placed in two purses (where one might have taken the one purse and not the other) - but when the money was placed in one purse even Rebbi will agree that both coins are Chulin.

(c) The other one establishes the Machlokes by *one* purse; but by *two*, even the Rabbanan will agree that the Manah that he did find is one of those that he left (and is therefore Ma'aser). The problem now is that - in that case, seeing as the three birds are similar to the two coins in two purses (by both of which the Rabbanan will agree that whatever remainder is probably the one that he left, why did he (Rebbi Yochanan or Rebbi Elazar) need to differentiate between money and birds (in a.)?

(a) Rav Ashi resolves this problem by establishing both the Mishnah and the Beraisa when the birds and the bags are tied. The Rabbanan will now hold that - whereas two purses that are tied together *are* like one purse (and both coins are Chulin - because he would not have removed one without the other), two birds that are tied together *are not*, because the friction created by their movements will untie the knot (and one of the birds could then have hopped away).

(b) Rebbi does not agree with the Rabbanan's distinction - because, according to him, two purses that are tied together can also become automatically untied.

(c) In any case, the author of our Mishnah can now be either Rebbi or the Rabbanan.

Next daf


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