BEITZAH - 002a – ביצה – פרק ראשון – ביצה, ב ע”א

MISHNAH

An egg that was laid on Yom Tov:

Beis Shammai say: it may be eaten.

And Beis Hillel say: it may not be eaten.

ביצה לא תאכל - it may not be eaten — on that day. The Gemara explains the reason.

Beis Shammai say: leaven is forbidden at the size of an olive,

שאור בכזית - These three matters are taught together because in each of them Beis Shammai are lenient and Beis Hillel stringent with regard to Yom Tov. The Gemara explains their reasoning.

and chametz at the size of a date.

בככותבת - a date.

And Beis Hillel say: both of these at the size of an olive.

One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on Yom Tov:

Beis Shammai say: he digs with a spade and covers the blood.

יחפור בדקר - pelle in the vernacular.

And Beis Hillel say: he may not slaughter, unless he had earth prepared from the day before.

But they agree that if he did slaughter, he digs with a spade and covers.

ומודים שאם שחט כו' - as the Gemara explains the reason — where he has a spade already stuck in the ground from the day before.

for the ash of a stove is prepared.

שאפר כירה מוכן הוא - in the Gemara it asks what this means.

GEMARA

With what are we dealing?

If we say it is with a hen that stands to be eaten —

העומדת לאכילה - that it is not muktzeh.

what is the reasoning of Beis Hillel? It is food that has separated from food!

אוכלא דאפרת - food that has separated. Its like is in Menachos: pieces of food joined together are regarded as though separated. And so too in Shechitas Chullin (73a).

Rather, it is with a hen that stands for laying eggs —

what is the reasoning of Beis Shammai? It is muktzeh!

And what is the difficulty? Perhaps Beis Shammai do not hold of muktzeh.

לית להו מוקצה - for perhaps they hold like Rabbi Shimon, who said in the chapter Kirah (Shabbos 44a) that oil left over in a lamp or in a bowl is forbidden — the words of Rabbi Yehudah — and Rabbi Shimon permits.

It entered our mind that even one who permits muktzeh forbids nolad.

קא סלקא דעתין - this is why we asked what the reasoning of Beis Shammai is: because it entered our mind that even according to Rabbi Shimon, who permits muktzeh, nolad is forbidden. For with muktzeh he holds that a man does not deliberately set aside something that is fit for him, but with nolad he could not have known that he would want it.

What is the reasoning of Beis Shammai?

Rav Nachman said: in truth it is with a hen that stands for laying eggs,

and whoever holds of muktzeh holds of nolad, and whoever does not hold of muktzeh does not hold of nolad.

Beis Shammai follow Rabbi Shimon, and Beis Hillel follow Rabbi Yehudah.

But did Rav Nachman really say this?

ומי אמר רב נחמן הכי - that Beis Hillel follow Rabbi Yehudah.

But we learned in a Mishnah: Beis Shammai say: one may lift bones and shells from the table.

מגביהין - on Shabbos, from the table, bones that are not fit to be eaten, and nutshells. And we are not concerned for muktzeh.

And Beis Hillel say:

ובית הלל אומרים - one may not move them by hand, for they are muktzeh.

he removes the whole board and shakes it off.

אלא מסלק הטבלא - which has the status of a vessel, and shakes it off.

And Rav Nachman said: we have nothing but that Beis Shammai follow Rabbi Yehudah and Beis Hillel follow Rabbi Shimon.

ואמר רב נחמן אנו אין לנו - in the view of this Mishnah — because its view is reversed. Rather, so I heard from my teachers: that Beis Shammai follow Rabbi Yehudah and are stringent, and Beis Hillel follow Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Nachman could say to you: with regard to Shabbos, where the Tanna taught us anonymously like Rabbi Shimon.

As we learned: one may cut up gourds before an animal

מחתכין דלועין - that have been detached, before the animal. And we do not say that this is trouble taken for no need.

and a carcass before the dogs —

ואת הנבילה לפני הכלבים - even though it became a carcass on Shabbos, for at twilight it did not stand to be eaten by dogs; even so it is permitted, since we do not hold of muktzeh on Shabbos. Therefore the Mishnah of lifting from the table, which speaks of Shabbos, he establishes as Beis Hillel holding like Rabbi Shimon, so that one ruling should not contradict another — for we hold the halachah follows an anonymous Mishnah, and we hold the halachah follows Beis Hillel. But with regard to Yom Tov, where we find that Rabbi taught anonymously like Rabbi Yehudah.

he establishes Beis Hillel as holding like Rabbi Shimon.

But —

תוספות

ביצה שנולדה בי"ט בש"א תאכל ובה"א לא תאכל - And if you ask: why did the Mishnah not teach "they forbid" and "they permit"? And if you would say that "they forbid" implies it is forbidden for ever — that is not so, for we say below (6a) that a chick hatched on Yom Tov is forbidden, and that means on that day. And further, we say below (30b) that oil left over in a lamp — Rabbi Yehudah forbids — and that too is specifically on that day. And one may answer: had it taught "they forbid" and "they permit", I would have said that what they permit about the egg is to handle it, but to eat it is forbidden. And so we say below (24a) regarding a certain gentile who brought fish before Rabban Gamliel, and he said: they are permitted, only that I do not wish to accept from him — and the Gemara concludes: what does "permitted" mean? To handle; but to eat they are forbidden. And if you ask: according to Beis Hillel, who say it may not be eaten, handling would be permitted — yet we hold (4a) that even handling is forbidden! Therefore Ri explained that it used this wording because an egg ordinarily stands to be eaten. And one may further say that it used "it may be eaten" for Beis Shammai because that implies both eating and handling, for there is no eating without handling; and Beis Hillel forbid even handling, only that, since Beis Shammai said "it may be eaten", they said "it may not be eaten".

שאור בכזית - This has no bearing here; rather, the three matters are brought together because in each of them Beis Hillel are stringent and Beis Shammai lenient with regard to Yom Tov.

אוכלא דאפרת הוא - That is, food separated from food — the egg that was laid separated from the hen, and had he wished he could have slaughtered her and eaten all that was inside her.

דלמא בית שמאי לית להו מוקצה - It is a difficulty, for in a Mishnah below it says explicitly that Beis Shammai do hold of muktzeh, as it teaches (10a): he may not take it unless he moved it while it was still day. And one may answer that the muktzeh of living creatures is weightier and is muktzeh to a greater degree, and it is there that he holds of muktzeh — as we see with Rabbi Shimon, that although he does not hold of muktzeh, he does hold of it (Shabbos 45a) with regard to dried figs and raisins, which were set aside to a greater degree.

קא סלקא דעתין דאפי' מאן דשרי מוקצה בנולד אסיר - for a person does not set aside what is fit for him; but with nolad he could not have known from the day before. And it is a difficulty, for Rabbi Shimon, who permits muktzeh, permits nolad too, as we say in Shabbos (29a): Rabbi Yehudah says one may not kindle with broken vessels, and Rabbi Shimon permits — even though they are nolad. And one may answer that they are not alike: the nolad here is more of a nolad, since at the outset it was not in the world at all, whereas there the vessel was in the world and was merely broken. And so it is implied too in Eruvin (45b and there): water is absorbed within the cloud — and it objects: all the more so it is nolad and forbidden. And what is the objection? Perhaps that one follows Rabbi Shimon, for Rabbi Shimon permits nolad! Rather, certainly the reason is as I explained: since they were absorbed they were not in the world at all, and even Rabbi Shimon concedes that such a nolad is forbidden.

מגביהין מעל השלחן עצמות וקליפין - Rashi explained: even though they are fit neither for human food nor for animal food. And this does not appear correct, for in the latter clause there is: and the pods of peas and the pods of lentils, because they are fit for animal food. Therefore it appears to me that they are fit for animal food — such as soft bones and apple peels. And Beis Hillel hold that since they are not fit for human food, they are not taken.

ובית הלל אומרים מסלק את הטבלא ומנערה - It is a difficulty: but surely it is a base for a forbidden object, for he did not forget them, since he put them there knowingly. And one may answer that according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Tam it is well, for he explained in Maseches Shabbos that it is a base for a forbidden object only where he intends to leave them there the whole day. Or alternatively: since there was food there as well, it was a base both for a permitted object and for a forbidden one, and that is permitted, as is proved in the chapter Notel (Shabbos 142a). And further, this is not a case of putting them down deliberately, for he does not care where they fall.

דתנן מחתכין את הדלועין לפני הבהמה ואת כו' - And if you ask: what is the case? If it is with gourds that were attached at twilight, in that case Rabbi Shimon certainly concedes, by the decree lest one climb and pick. And one may answer that it speaks of detached ones, and it entered your mind that it is forbidden because he is making them into food, since they are hard and the cutting softens them.

ואת הנבלה כו' - We must explain that it became a carcass on Shabbos. And in any case it taught them together, even though with the gourds the reason is not on account of muktzeh as it is with the carcass, because the expression one may cut up applies to both of them.

Notes

1. 1. Nolad — something that came into being on Yom Tov itself, such as an egg laid that day. Because it was not in the world before Yom Tov, it was never prepared from the day before, and preparation is what makes a thing available for use on the festival.
2. 2. A deker is a digging tool. Where it is already stuck into the ground from before Yom Tov, the loose earth beneath it counts as prepared, and may be used to cover the blood.
3. 3. The ash of a stove is left from a fire lit before Yom Tov, so it was already there and ready from the day before and may be used for covering.
4. 4. Muktzeh — something a person put out of mind before Yom Tov and did not prepare for use that day, which may therefore not be handled. Rabbi Shimon does not hold of muktzeh; Rabbi Yehudah does.
5. 5. Food that has separated — the egg was already inside the hen, so it is not a new thing but part of food that was there all along. If so, Beis Hillel should permit it.
6. 6. The two disputes run together: one who holds of muktzeh also holds of nolad, and one who does not hold of the first does not hold of the second. That is why establishing Beis Shammai as Rabbi Shimon settles both.
7. 7. This Mishnah is about Shabbos: Beis Shammai permit handling bones and shells, and Beis Hillel forbid it. So here Beis Shammai are the lenient ones about muktzeh and Beis Hillel the stringent — the reverse of what Rav Nachman just said, which is the difficulty.
8. 8. An anonymous Mishnah is one Rabbi taught with no dissenting name attached, and the halachah follows it. Since the Shabbos Mishnah is anonymous like Rabbi Shimon, Rav Nachman must read Beis Hillel there as Rabbi Shimon, so that two accepted rulings do not contradict each other.