POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafBeitzah 10
BEITZAH 6-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
1) APPLYING R' YOCHANAN'S ANSWER TO OTHER CONTRADICTIONS IN THE
POSITIONS OF BEIS HILLEL AND BEIS SHAMAI
(a) Question: A contradiction could be raised from their
positions regarding the permissibility of using the Ali
as a meat cutting board.
2) MISHNAH: DESIGNATING BIRDS FOR USE ON YOMTOV
1. Beis Shamai prohibits (Keli Sh'Melachto l'Isur)
(b) Answer (R. Yochanan): Reverse their positions regarding
2. Beis Hillel permits (Tzorech Gufo).
3. This demonstrates the Chumrah of Beis Shamai
regarding Simchas YomTov, in contradistinction to
(c) Question: But there are alternative explanations!?
1. Beis Shamai could be relying on Deker Na'utz for
their Kulah in our Mishnah.
(d) Question: A contradiction might be raised from their
positions regarding spreading out (m'Abed) or raising
(Muktzeh) the hides.
2. Beis Hillel might view the Ali as a K'li.
(e) Answer (R. Yochanan): Reverse their positions regarding
stepping on the hides.
(f) Question: But there are other explanations!?
1. Beis Shamai could be relying on Deker Na'utz.
(g) Question: A contradiction might be raised from their
positions regarding removing the doors of the stores
(where Beis Shamai prohibits their removal and Beis
Hillel even permits their being replaced).
2. Beis Hillel might be lenient here because the hide
has a YomTov purpose.
(h) Answer (R. Yochanan): Reverse their positions.
(i) Question: But there are other explanations (Beis Hillel
may not recognize Binyan and Stirah by Keilim)!?
(a) (Beis Shamai) One must have handled the birds before
YomTov in order to designate them for use on YomTov.
3) DEFINING THE MACHLOKES
(b) (Beis Hillel) It is sufficient to stand and state which
birds are going to be taken.
(a) (R. Chanan b. Ami) The Machlokes only applies to the
1. These are normally left in the coop.
(b) Question: Why does Beis Hillel require specific
designation at all (let his selection on YomTov
indicate retroactively his intent Erev YomTov)!?
2. Beis Shamai requires additional signs of
designation to avoid Tiltul Muktzeh).
3. Not so by subsequent sets of offspring, where they
would agree that stating which birds will be taken
(c) Answer: Beis Hillel does not hold of Bereirah.
(d) Question: But we find him holding Bereirah in the
Mishnah regarding Tumas Pesachim (where the designation
could be made even after the person died)!?
(e) Answer: That Mishnah was explained by Rabah (and by R.
Oshiya) as referring only to the future status of the
openings from that point onward, not retroactively.
(f) Answer (Rava): Beis Hillel meant retroactive Tumah and
Taharah, but a general designation by the birds is not
sufficient to prevent him from changing his mind after
handling a bird (resulting in Tiltul Muktzeh).
(g) Question: Then how is stating his intent (without
handling the specific birds) sufficient!?
(h) Answer: He may make his verbal designation when he
recognizes the birds before YomTov.
4) MISHNAH: WHEN MIGHT THE BIRDS BE OTHER THAN THE DESIGNATED
1. If, however, he is attempting to rely on his
selection on YomTov, we would not permit it given
our concern that he will handle Muktzeh while
making his selection.
2. Alternately, we are concerned that he will be
disappointed with all of the available birds and
(if he is not bound by his previous designation)
he will go without Simchah on YomTov altogether.
(a) If the designated birds are black and the ones he finds
are white (or the reverse), or if he designated two and
finds three, they are all prohibited from use.
5) ASSUMPTIONS OF THE FIRST CASE OF THE MISHNAH (ROV VERSES
(b) If he designated three and finds two, they are
(c) If they were originally within the nest and are now on
the shelf in front of the coop, they are prohibited.
(d) If, however, no other birds were around the coop before
YomTov, then these birds are permitted.
(a) Question: That case seems obvious (they are surely not
the same birds if they are a different color)!?
6) DESIGNATING TWO AND FINDING THREE
(b) Answer: We might have permitted the birds when he
designated black birds in one nest and white birds in
the other, under the assumption that they traded places
(rather we give precedence to Rov over Karov).
(c) Question: Is this Mishnah a support for R. Chanina who
gives precedence to Rov over Karov!?
(d) Answer: It need not be, as the Mishnah may be explained
(as Abaye does) where the nest has a shelf in front of
it, making all (non-designated) birds just as Karov
(and surely the Rov).
(a) The Isur is based on the following Ma Nafshach:
7) DESIGNATING THREE AND FINDING TWO
(b) If these birds are all new, they are Asurim.
(c) If one of them is new, then it is not Batel since it is
a Davar SheYesh Lo Matirin.
(a) Question: On what basis are these permitted?
(b) Answer: We assume that two remained and one flew away.
(c) Question: Is this Mishnah sides with Rebbi (in his
argument with Rabanan, and thus against the Halachah)?
1. (Rebbi) One who finds 200 in a box where he placed
100 of Ma'aser must view them as a mixture of
Chulin and Ma'aser.
(d) Answer: The Rabanan could concur with our Mishnah given
the teaching of R. Yochanan and R. Elazar that money is
less likely to be out of its place than birds.
2. (Rabanan) The entire 200 is Chulin (since Ma'aser
funds are normally kept segregated).
3. (Rebbi) If he found 100 after leaving 200 he
presumes them to be half of his Ma'aser funds.
4. (Rabanan) They are all Chulin.
5. In our case, the Rabanan would, apparently, view
the two remaining birds as not the same as the
originally designated trio!?
(e) Question: Why did we need to force this distinction
between money and birds, if in the scenario of "two
money-sacks" there is no dispute between Rebbi and
1. There is a Machlokes between R. Yochanan and R.
Elazar as to the case in which Rebbi and Rabanan
(f) Answer (R. Ashi): When speaking of the 200 in one sack,
they meant two sacks which were tied together, and the
parallel case in our Mishnah is where the birds were
tied together, as well.
i. (One view) They only argue when the 200 were
in two sacks of 100 each, but they would
agree that it is all Chulin if they were in
2. The distinction between birds (which hop) and
money (which does not) is needed only according to
the first view (to explain why Rabanan view both
sacks as having been taken, but view only one bird
as having left).
ii. (The other view) They argue only when the 200
was in one sack, but if it were split then
all agree that this is half of the original
3. But according to the second view, the distinction
1. Birds, given their motion, untie from one another.
2. Coin sacks, on the other hand, do not.
3. (Rebbi) The tie between coin sacks also is prone
to come undone (and one might inadvertently take
one sack and leave the other).