(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 26

BEITZAH 26, 27, 28, 29 - dedicated by Yitzchak Gross of Brooklyn, NY, l'Iluy Nishmas his father, Menashe Yehudah ben Matisyahu, and his mother, Dina bas Yisroel.


(a) What is the penalty for Shechting a Bechor that has no blemish outside the Azarah?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah permits an expert to examine a Bechor that fell into a pit on Yom-Tov and is in danger of dying there.
Considering that Rebbi Yehudah is the one who is stringent by Muktzah, when must the animal have become blemished?

(c) On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon forbid examining the animal?

(d) Why could Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon not possibly be arguing about Muktzah?

(a) What then, is the basis of their Machlokes?

(b) Then why do they argue about a Bechor which *fell into a pit*? Let them argue by *any* Bechor that is blemished?

(c) In which case is Rebbi Yehoshua lenient on account of the animal's pain?

(d) If the Chidush of the Tana is that one may not bring the animal out of the pit even if it is to alleviate its pain, then why does Rebbi Yehudah say 'Lo Yishchot' and not 'Lo Ya'aleh ve'Yishchot'?

(a) What is then Rebbi Yehudah's Chidush? Why would we have even thought that the animal may then be Shechted, seeing as this statement refers to a Tam (that has no blemish)? What is the final case?

(b) What is the Chidush?

(a) Rebbi, in a Beraisa, permits an expert to examine a Bechor Tam that fell into a pit.
In which point is Rebbi even more lenient than Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah?

(b) What will be the Chidush if the text in the Beraisa omits the word 'Tam'? Why can we not ask that if the blemish only occurred on Yom-Tov, is it not obvious that it is Muktzah?

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya says 'Harei Amru Ein Ro'in Mumin be'Yom-Tov'. To whom does 'Amru' refer?

(b) What was the relationship between Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon?

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya goes on to differentiate between a blemish that occurred *before* Yom-Tov and one that occurred *on* Yom-Tov? In which point does he disagree with the Tana of our Mishnah (in Rebbi Shimon)?

(d) In which case do Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon agree (according to Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya) that the animal is Muchan, and may be inspected (Lechatchilah) and Shechted?

Answers to questions


6) In the latter case (when the Bechor is born on Yom-Tov already blemished), Rav Nachman's father holds that it may be eaten only if the expert examined it (*Bedieved*).
What proof do we initially bring for Rabah bar Rav Huna, who holds that it is permitted to examine it even *Lechatchilah*, from the three cases of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya in the Beraisa?


(a) Rebbi Oshaya quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Shimon forbids the inspection of a Bechor even if the blemish occurred on Erev Yom-Tov.
How does this clash with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya in the previous Beraisa?

(b) What do we deduce from this Beraisa with regard to a Bechor that was born on Yom-Tov with a blemish?

(c) How do we prove this from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Shimon says that wherever the blemish was not recognisable is not Muchan?

(d) So how do we explain the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya?

(a) Rav Hillel asked Rava whether 'Yesh Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos' or not.
What problem did Rava have in establishing the case?

(b) How *do* we finally establish it? What is the She'eilah?

(c) Rava replied 'Yesh Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos'.
How does he then explain the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya, which permits the Bechor that was born on Yom-Tov with a blemish, if the expert proclaimed it to be a blemish.
Why should we not say there too, 'Yesh Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos'?

(d) How does Rava rule according to the second Lashon? Do we now have a proof for this from the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya (from the case cited in c.)?

(a) If someone was eating grapes (or figs) on Erev Shabbos, and he left some over to take up to the roof, to become raisins (or dried figs), the Beraisa forbids them to be eaten on Shabbos unless one prepared them (verbally) before Shabbos.
Why does the Tana find it necessary to add that he was first eating the grapes?

(b) Will this Halachah extend to other fruits that one places to dry, such as peaches or quinces?

(c) What problem do we have with establishing the case?

(a) Why can we not establish the case ...
  1. ... when the fruit had already dried and was now fit to eat, only the owner did not know that?
  2. ... when it was fit when Shabbos came in, but subsequently become unfit and fit again on Shabbos?
(b) Why will preparation be ineffective in this latter case? (c) So how *do* we establish the case? In which case will we both need preparation and the preparation will be effective?
(a) How does Rebbi Zeira prove from beans and lentils on Yom-Tov that 'Ein Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos'?

(b) How does Abaye refute that proof on the basis of all pots at Bein Hashemashos of Shabbos?

(c) Why in fact, is there no Kashya from the one, and no proof from the other? Why are they not connected with Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos?

Answers to questions
Next daf

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