(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 22

BEITZAH 21 & 22 - have been dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, NBG'M (3 Tamuz), by one of his Chasidim.



(a) Rava tries to establish the Machlokes in our Mishnah concerning Hatmanah, even when the owner *did* prepare an Eiruv. Beis Shamai nevertheless forbids it - because it is obviously being performed for Shabbos (and is therefore a denigration of Kavod Yom-Tov), whereas cooking and baking are not.

(b) Abaye refutes Rava's explanation on the basis of - the Beraisa which quotes Chananyah, who, in the name of Beis Shamai, permits *baking* on Yom- Tov for Shabbos, as long as one prepared something *baked* beforehand; *cooking* on something *cooked* and wrapping on something *wrapped*. So we see that Beis Shamai *does* permit wrapping if one prepared an Eiruv for it.

(c) Abaye therefore establishes our Mishnah like Chananyah - when one prepared something cooked or baked for one's Eiruv but both something wrapped, which Beis Hillel permit, but Beis Shamai forbid.

(a) Our Mishnah, which speaks about picking up a fallen Menorah on Yom-Tov, cannot be understood literally, because what can possibly be wrong with doing that? The Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding a Menorah that fell down - concerns one that is made of pieces and which came apart when it fell; Beis Shamai forbid picking it up and putting it together, because they hold 'Yesh Binyan u'Setirah be'Keilim', whereas Beis Hillel hold 'Ein Binyan u'Setirah be'Keilim'.

(b) Ula was once a guest by Rav Yehudah - and his servant straightened a lamp on Yom-Tov, in order to distance the oil from the wick, so that it should go out (to save the remaining oil).

(c) Rav Yehudah queried his action from a Beraisa - which says that someone who adds oil to a burning lamp on Shabbos is Chayav because of Mav'ir, and that someone who removes oil is Chayav because of Mechabeh (and Mechabeh is not permitted on Yom-Tov).

(d) Ula replied - that his servant had acted without his knowledge.

(a) Rav permitted Kanva on Yom-Tov - meaning to trim a singed wick.

(b) When Aba bar Marsa asked Abaye about extinguishing a light for Tashmish ha'Mitah on Yom-Tov - he suggested that he moves to another room, puts up a temporary Mechitzah or covers the lamp with an overturned vessel.

(c) Even if none of these alternatives was possible - he did not grant him permission to extinguish the light directly.

(d) Abaye establishes the Beraisa which permits extinguishing a burning log to prevent one's house from becoming smoky on Yom-Tov - like Rebbi Yehudah, who include in the Heter of 'Ochel Nefesh' on Yom-Tov Machshirei Ochel Nefesh (incorporating all one's personal needs, of which Tashmish ha'Mitah is one). He learns this from "Lachem" -'le'Chol Tzorcheichem'.

4) If it is a matter of ...
  1. ... life-danger - one may extinguish a flame.
  2. ... saving one's property - one may not, even according to Rebbi Yehudah (since it is not needed for Yom-Tov).


(a) It is permitted to paint one's eye on Yom-Tov in cases of Rira, Ditza, Dama, Dim'asa and Kadchasa.
1. Rira - is a discharge from the eye; Ditza - if a sharp object pierced it; Dama - bleeding; Dim'asa - a constant flow of tears, and Kadchasa - a high fever in the eye.
2. All of these are considered life-danger.
3. All of these are crucial only at the beginning of the illness, but not at a later stage.
(b) One may not paint one's eye on Yom-Tov in any other case or circumstances - when it is merely a matter of seeing better.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah *would* permit painting one's eyes on Yom-Tov - because it is included in "Lachem", as we explained earlier.

(a) Rav Ashi permits cures, as long as they were performed by a Nochri on Yom-Tov - provided one does *not* assist the Nochri directly, but forbids them, when one *does*.

(b) Ameimar permits someone to have his eye painted by a Nochri (and possibly even allowing a Nochri to paint *his* eye (even though this entailed opening and closing his eye as the Nochri applied the paint) - because *he* maintained that assisting in this manner (where the paint will anyway enter the eye in due course) is not of any significance and is permitted.

(c) Rav Ashi queried Ameimar, who permitted a Jew to paint his eye on the second day of Rosh Hashanah - on the basis of Rava, who ruled that Chazal gave Rosh Hashanah the Din of other Yamim-Tovim regarding burying one's dead exclusively, but not with regard to an egg that was laid on the first day (as we learned earlier on Daf 6a.), in which case, it has the Din of one long day.

(d) Ameimar (who holds like the Neherda'i on Daf 6a.) was not concerned that Elul may turn out to be a thirty-day month, making the second day of Rosh Hashanah the *real* Rosh Hashanah - because, as Rav Chinena bar Kahana pointed out, that is something that has never happened since the days of Ezra.




(a) Beis Shamai prohibit baking 'thick loaves' on Pesach; Beis Hillel permit it. Rav Huna's source for giving the thickness of these loaves as one Tefach - is the Lechem ha'Panim, which were baked as Matzah and were one Tefach thick.

(b) Rav Yosef however, gives five reasons to confine this Shiur to the Lechem ha'Panim (and not to any other bread); These reasons are to do with ...

1. ... the people who prepared them - from the family of Beis Garmu, who were great experts in this field as well as being labelled 'Zerizin' (alert).
2. ... the dough - which was exceptionally well prepared (three hundred rubbings with the hand, and five hundred beatings with the fist).
3. ... the wood - which was all cut in the dry summer months (before Tu be'Av), and was therefore more worm-free than regular fire-wood.
4.&5. ... the oven - which was extremely hot, because it was made of metal and because it was used every single day (either for the Menachos or for roasting the Korbanos).
(c) The Tana mentions Pesach only because he happened to be holding in the Inyan of Pesach, but not because he is concerned with the Isur of Chametz (as we at first thought).
8) If Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba was quoting ...
  1. ... himself - 'Rebbi' would refer to Rav.
  2. ... Rav, 'Rebbi' would be Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi (also known as Rebbi).


(a) Raban Gamliel was lenient in three issues - with regard to sweeping between the couches on Yom-Tov, Mugmar (placing frankincense on heated coals to create a pleasant aroma - both on Yom-Tov) and preparing a whole roasted kid for the Seder.

(b) Rav Asi establishes Raban Gamliel's leniency by Mugmar - when one comes to aromatize clothes - but even the Rabbanan concede that a Mugmar that is intended to create an aroma in the room is permitted.

(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok testified with regard to ...

1. ... sweeping between the couches - that Raban Gamliel would sweep *before* Yom-Tov, and cover the swept area with a sheet, which he removed on Yom-Tov.
2. ... placing the Mugmar on the coals - that Raban Gamliel would prepare the incense in metal shovels with lids *before* Yom-Tov. He would stop up the holes in the lid before Yom-Tov, and unstop them on Yom-Tov, releasing the aroma.
(d) The Chachamim reply to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok in both of his testimonies - that, if that is what Raban Gamliel's father used to do, it would be permitted even *on Shabbos* (so why did the Tana restrict the concession to Yom-Tov?).
(a) In any event, we see from Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok's testimony - that the Mugmar was not to aromatize clothes, but to create a pleasant aroma in the room.

(b) Consequently, we finally establish the Machlokes by whether one may use incense to create a pleasant aroma in the *room*, but even the Rabbanan of Raban Gamliel will concede that aromatizing *clothes* is forbidden (because it is not for direct personal pleasure, and does not therefore fall under the category of Ochel Nefesh - others explain because creating a new smell in clothes is forbidden, as we shall soon see).

(a) The Gemara asks whether 'Ishun' is permitted on Yom-Tov. 'Ishun' -means scattering powdered spices on fruit (which is placed on top of hot coals) to aromatize it.

(b) Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Rav forbids Ishun - because, although it is a form of Ochel Nefesh, it is not Shaveh le'Chol Nefesh (i.e. it is something which not everybody tends to do - only wealthy, finicky people).

(c) Shmuel permits it, not because he doesn't hold of the principle of 'Shaveh le'Chol Nefesh' - but because on his opinion, everyone, even the poor, might do this if they could afford it (in the same way as it is permitted to Shecht and prepare venison, even though most people do not eat it, because not eating it is not a matter of principle, but because venison is hard to come by [to quote an old saying 'they would if they could, but they can't']).

(d) Ishun involves first Mechabeh - as one places the powder on the fruit, and then Mav'ir - as the coals begin to heat the fruit.

(a) If the fruit is placed on top of heated *earthenware*, Rav Yehudah permits Ishun - because there is no Kibuy by earthenware.

(b) Even the Hav'arah is k'Le'achar Yad (not the regular way of making a fire, and therefore no more than an Isur de'Rabbanan - which will not apply by a Melachah which is basically permitted, but is forbidden only because it is not 'Shaveh le'Chol Nefesh').

(c) Rabah forbids Ishun even on top of heated earthenware - because one creates a new smell in the earthenware.

(d) Molid Rei'ach is Asur de'Rabbanan - because it is similar to creating a new object.

Next daf


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