ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 7
BEITZAH 6-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
(a) In a similar incident to the one that we just discussed, the seller
supplied the purchaser who asked for eggs that came from a male - with eggs
from a Safna de'Ar'a (where the female heats herself on the ground).
Based on Rebbi Yochanan, who says that, if most of an egg emerged on Erev
Yom-Tov, before returning inside the mother, that egg is permitted on Yom-
Tov, we give one of two new possible explanations in Rav Huna Amar Rav (that
an egg is complete only after it has emerged) - either he means, not that
the *entire* egg emerged, only *most* of it (like Rebbi Yochanan), or that
only after the entire egg has emerged, but not most of it, in which case he
disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan.
(b) It was not obvious that the sale was invalid - because, seeing as most
people buy eggs to eat, we may have thought that, he really wanted them to
eat, and was therefore not fussy about eggs from a male. The reason that he
specified egges from a male, is because eggs from a male are larger.
(c) Had he really meant that - then the sale would have been valid, only he
would have been been entitled to claim back the difference in value between
the two kinds of eggs.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa (whom we quoted earlier) permits eating
together with milk, complete eggs that one finds inside a Shechted chicken -
Rebbi Ya'akov agrees with this only if they are not joined to the nerves; if
they are, they are forbidden.
(b) The carcass of a Tahor (i.e. Kasher) bird is unique, inasmuch as it does
not render one Tamei by touching - only by eating it, in which case, he and
the clothes he is wearing become Tamei.
(c) One does not become Tamei if one eats the Sh'lal shel Beitzim, the bones
or the nerves of a Nivlas Of Tahor. The Sh'lal shel Beitzim is - the batch
of eggs that are still attached to the spinal cord of the bird.
(d) One does not become Tamei if one eats flesh that was detached whilst the
animal was still alive - since it is not Neveilah.
(a) One *does* however, become Tamei if one eats the Eshkol shel Beitzim,
the stomach or the intestines. The 'Eshkol shel Beitzim' - is the flesh of
the spine to which the eggs are attached.
(b) One *is* Tamei if one melted the fat of a Tahor bird and drank it -
because the word "ha'Nefesh" (mentioned in this regard in Acharei-Mos) comes
to include drinking.
(c) This Tana holds that even when complete eggs are still attached to the
mother they are no longer called 'meat'. Rav Yosef maintains that the
author cannot be Rebbi Ya'akov (who forbids such eggs to be eaten with milk)
- Abaye argues that Rebbi Ya'akov is talking about the Isur of Basar
be'Chalav, but perhaps, when it comes to Tum'ah, he will agree that it is
not called meat?
(d) Chazal may well have decreed that these eggs should be called meat with
regard to eating - but not with regard to Tum'ah, because they were wary of
adding new Tum'os to the existing Tum'os.
(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Yosef takes for granted that the author of the
Beraisa must be Rebbi Ya'akov, because of his ruling in the Seifa, that the
'Eshkol' shel Beitzim is Metamei. According to this Lashon - we interpret
'Eshkol shel Beitzim' as we previously interpreted 'Sh'lal shel Beitzim';
'Sh'lal shel Beitzim now means completed eggs whose shell has virtually
formed, and which are virtually detached from the spine.
(b) Who said that 'Eshkol shel Beitzim' refers to the *eggs*, asks Abaye?
Perhaps it refers to the *flesh of the spine* (as we learned in the first
(c) If 'Eshkol shel Beitzim' means part of the chicken itself, the Chidush
of the Beraisa will be exactly the same as that of the stomach of the bird
and the intestines, which the Tana mentions because - we might otherwise
have thought that they are not considered part of the the bird, seeing as
not everyone eats them.
(d) Based on the principle that all species give birth in the same period of
day or night as they procreate ...
1. ... a chicken lays eggs specifically by day - because it procreates with
its mate by day.
2. ... a bat gives birth specifically by night - because it procreates with
its mate by night.
3. ... a woman gives birth either by day or by night - because she
procreates with her husband either by day or by night.
(a) The ramifications of the fact that a chicken only lays eggs by day is
that - if one finds an egg in a chicken-coop just before Yom-Tov morning, it
is permitted on Yom-Tov, even if he had searched the coop before nightfall
and found no eggs.
(b) Even though he found no eggs there before nightfall - we have no option
but to say that he did not search properly.
(c) We reconcile this Halachah with Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul quoting Rav, who
rules that if one searched before night on Erev Yom-Tov and did not find any
eggs, then the eggs that he finds before dawn-break next morning are
forbidden - by establishing his case by a Safna de'Ar'a (which the chicken
*can* lay during the night).
(d) The case of Rav Mari Brei de'Rav Kahana speaks by an egg that was formed
from a male - because it speaks when there was a male in the vicinity, in
which case, the chicken will never produce a Safna de'Ar'a.
(a) For the chicken to desist from heating itself on the ground - the male
must be sufficiently close for the chicken to hear it by day (which is not
as far as it will hear it by night).
Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul said that - ground garlic that has been left
uncovered, is dangerous, because a snake may have eaten from it, leaving
some of its venom inside.
(b) Rav Mari permitted an egg on Yom-Tov (under the above circumstances)
relying on the fact that there was a rooster sixty houses away. These
1. ... will not apply - if there is a river between the chicken and the
rooster, in which case the rooster may as well be not be there.
(c) Even though the case of Rav Yossi ben Shaul quoting Rav (quoted earlier)
speaks by a Safna de'Ar'a, Rav nevertheless finds it necessary to mention
that he searched on the eve of Yom-Tov and found nothing - because
otherwise, we would have followed the majority of chickens, which lay their
eggs (even those that are Safna de'Ar'a) during the day.
2. ... will however, apply - if there is a bridge spanning the river, but
not, if ...
3. ... the bridge is no more than a narrow crossing consisting of a narrow
plank and a rope to hold on to. In spite of this ruling, it happened once
that a chicken crossed such a narrow bridge to get to rooster.
(d) Once he searched just before night-time, and found no eggs, we do not
contend with the possibility that most of the egg emerged before Yom-Tov
and returned into the mother (like Rebbi Yochanan) - because this is
unusual, and we do not contend with unusual contingencies.
(a) Beis Shamai differentiates between Chametz and yeast - because, in his
opinion, the Torah does not need to mention yeast (which we would know from
a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Chametz, which does not cause other things to rise).
Consequently, the Torah mentions yeast to teach us that it does not have the
same Shiur as Chametz, from which we derive that although the Shiur for
yeast is a k'Zayis, that of Chametz is only a ke'Koseves.
(b) Beis Hillel disagree. In their opinion, the Torah *does* need to write
yeast - which we cannot learn from Chametz, because it is not edible like
Chametz is. Consequently, the Shiur for both is a k'Zayis.
(c) Beis Shamai explains Rebbi Zeira's Derashah, that the Torah opens the
Pasuk with Se'or and ends with Chametz, to teach us that Chametz and yeast
have the same Shiur - exclusively with regard to the Isur of *eating*
Chametz, whereas they argue with Beis Hillel by the Mitzvah of *destroying*
it (incorporating the La'avin of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei).
(a) If '*ha'Shochet* Chayah ve'Of be'Yom-Tov, Beis Shamai Omrim Yachpor ...
' means Bedi'eved (as it usually does) - Beis Hillel's statement 'Lo
Yishchot Ela im Kein Hayah Lo Afar Muchan ... ' will mean 'Lo Yishchot
vi'Yechaseh' meaning that if he Shechted, he should not make Kisuy ha'Dam.
(b) We conclude however that, on the basis of the Seifa, where Beis Hillel
concedes that Bedieved, one may use the peg to cover the blood, that their
Machlokes must be with regard to Lechatchilah - in which case, the Lashon
'ha'Shochet' of Beis Shamai means that if one comes to ask whether he may
Shecht, we tell him that he may (Lechatchilah).
(c) According to Rabah (in Beis Shamai), Beis-Din tells him 'Shechot Chafor
ve'Chasei!' whereas according to Rav Yosef, they tell him 'Chafor, Shechot
ve'Chasei'! Abaye initially tries to explain that they argue over Rebbi
Zeira - who says that the one who Shechts is obligated to place earth both
underneath the blood and on top of it. Rav Yosef, who learns that we tell
him first 'dig'! and then 'Shecht'! will hold like Rebbi Zeira, whilst
Rabah, who puts 'Shecht'! first, will not.
(d) Rav Yosef assured Abaye however, that Rabah too, agrees with Rebbi
Zeira. Nevertheless, Rabah learns that, according to Beis Shamai, the earth
that precedes the Shechitah must already be there from before Yom-Tov.
Otherwise - we are afraid that he may take the trouble to place it on Yom-
Tov, and then change his mind, in which caase, he will have bothered on Yom-
Tov for nothing.
(a) Rav Yehudah maintains that Beis Hillel only permits covering the blood
on Yom-Tov (both according to Beis Hillel Bedieved, and according to Beis
Shamai Lechatchilah - see Maharam), if the peg was already stuck in the
ground from before Shabbos (as we shall see later at the end of 9b.). The
Gemara asks that, even with the peg stuck in the ground, he will be breaking
up earth - which is a Toldah of Tochen (grinding), and forbidden on Yom-Tov.
(b) We resolve that Kashya - by establishing our Mishnah when the peg is
stuck in *soft* earth, which does not require breaking up.
(c) If Beis Hillel permitted making Kisuy ha'Dam because of the principle of
'Asei Docheh Lo'Sa'aseh' - then he would not require a peg to be stuck in
ground from before Yom-Tov (as Rav Yehudah prescribes).
(d) True, he will inevitably dig a hole when he removes the earth.
Nevertheless, he will not be transgressing any Isur when he does, like Rebbi
Aba - who says that someone who digs a hole on Shabbos is only Chayav if he
needs the *hole*; if it is only the *earth* that he needs, then he will be
Patur (i.e. he transgresses only an Isur de'Rabbanan). In our case, the
Mitzvah of Simchas Yom-Tov will override the Isur de'Rabbanan.