ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(c) In any case, the author of our Mishnah can now be either Rebbi or the