ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 11
BEITZAH 11-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
(a) If one left birds inside the top floor (the attic) of the dove-cot on
Erev Yom-Tov, and on Yom-Tov, he found it empty, but the same number of
birds on the ledge (i.e. the extention of the floor of one of the nests)
outside the actual cot - he is forbidden to take them.
(b) Abaye explains that this is no proof for Rebbi Chanina, who says that,
in a case of the majority versus the closest, we go after the majority,
because the Tana is speaking when there is a ledge attached to the dove-cot
(i.e. it is *not* part of the floor of the attic) which is meant for birds
from the outside to rest on. Rava explains - that our Mishnah speaks when
there were *two* nests containing birds, only one of which he prepared, and
subsequently, he only found birds on the extended ledge, not inside the
nest, and not in the second nest. We now assume that the birds came from the
unprepared nest, and not from the prepared one (so it is no longer a case of
the majority versus the closest).
(c) And he is speaking, not necessarily when he finds the birds on the ledge
of the *lower* floor (onto which chicks will hop down with ease), but even
when he finds them on the ledge outside the *attic* (to which they will
ascend with some difficulty - and we may have thought that we will not
contend with that), and the lower nest is empty.
(a) Our Mishnah concludes that if the birds that he finds not where he left
them, are the only birds there, then they are permitted. The Tana must be
referring to birds that cannot fly - because otherwise, why should we not
contend with the possibility that they flew in from the outside.
(b) Nor do we suspect that maybe they hopped from a nearby nest - because
the Mishnah speaks when there is no nest within fifty Amos of this one (and
young birds will not hop more than fifty Amos to the next nest).
(c) The Chidush is that although there is *no* nest within a straight line
of fifty Amos - there *is* one around the corner from this nest. And the
Tana teaches us that although a young bird will hop a distance of fifty Amos
from its nest to get to a neighboring nest, that is only if the second nest
lies directly in line with its own, but not if it has to turn a corner, This
is because, come what may, it will not hop out of sight of its own nest.
(a) Beis Shamai will permit picking up on Yom-Tov, a hide that was stripped
the same day - provided it contains a k'Zayis of flesh.
(b) Beis Hillel permit it anyway - because even without the flesh, it is fit
to sit on.
(a) Beis Shamai forbid using a board meant for chopping wheat (which is
forbidden on Yom-Tov) - though they permit a regular chopping-board.
(b) We might have thought that they forbid a regular chopping-board, too -
because of a decree that one might pick it up to chop on it, and then change
one's mind (in which case one will have picked up the object for nothing).
(c) Nevertheless, the Tana mentions specifically an 'Ali', to demonstrate
that Beis Hillel permits even an object whose usage is forbidden on Yom-Tov
(and we have a principle 'Ko'ach de'Heteira Adif').
(a) In the second Lashon, Abaye restricts the Chidush to a *new* chopping-
board which might be forbidden even an *old* one is permitted - because,
after picking it up, the owner might consider it a shame to spoil such a
nice new chopping-board, and decide to postpone using it.
(b) Beis Hillel permit the Shochet to carry his knife to the animal that
needs to be Shechted on Yom-Tov or vice-versa, and similarly, they permit
carrying the spices to the grinder or vice-versa - Beis Shamai forbid both
cases, because he may change his mind and decide not to Shecht the animal or
grind the spices.
(c) Abaye maintains that Beis Shamai will agree that - by a chopping-board,
the owner will not change his mind, because, having Shechted the animal,
what else will he do with the bones? Whereas by the animal and the spices,
he might decide to Shecht a better, stronger-looking animal, and cook a dish
that does not need spices.
(a) Although Beis Shamai forbid placing a freshly-stripped hide on Yom-Tov,
to be trodden - they nevertheless permit salting meat over the hide, if it
is for roasting - because roasting does not require much salt.
(b) When Abaye commented that the Beraisa only permits this when it is for
roasting - he meant to say that it is permited only if he salts it as one
normally does for roasting; but not if he decides to salt it well (almost
like one does for cooking).
(a) One is ...
1. ... not permitted to salt the fat-pieces of an animal that has just been
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua permits spreading them out on posts in the wind, to
prevent them from going bad.
2. ... not permitted to turn them over (to prevent them from going off).
(c) Some quote Rav Masna as saying that the Halachah *is* like Rebbi
Yehoshua; others, as saying that it is *not*. The Chidush of ...
1. ... the first opinion - is that the Halachah is like him, despite the
fact that he is the minority opinion.
(d) Beis Hillel permit spreading a hide in front of the treaders because, in
addition to the fact that it is a matter of Simchas Yom-Tov (as we just
explained), it is not such a blatant case of Mar'is ha'Ayin (which might
cause people to abuse the Heter) due to the fact that they will say that he
is spreading the skin to sit on (which one often tends to do), whereas in
the case of the fat, there is no reason to prevent people from saying that
if one is permitted to spread them out on a pole, why should one not also be
permitted to salt them?
2. ... the second opinion - is that the Halachah is not like him despite the
fact that it would be logical to rule like him, because otherwise, one may
withdraw and not Shecht the animal, thereby causing a breach in Simchas
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel permits salting many pieces of meat
simultaneously - because he can do it all in one action, and it does not
entail any extra bother.
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah used to salt one piece of meat (as if he wanted to
eat it) - and then decide that another piece suited him better, and
proceeded to salt that. Then he would do the same with that piece, and so
on, until he had salted all the pieces that needed salting (though this is
only permitted because there is no real Isur involved here anyway).
(a) Ula lists three cases where Chazal only permitted the end because of the
beginning: spreading the hide before the treaders, returning the shutters to
the portable shop-fronts, and the Kohanim in the Beis Hamikdash returning a
plaster that they had removed for the Avodah. Rachbah Amar Rebbi Yehudah
adds 'ha'Pose'ach Chavito ve'ha'Maschil be'Isaso', according to Rebbi
Yehudah - who says that, once the Chaver opens his barrel on Yom-Tov and his
loaves to sell to the Am-ha'Aretz, he may continue to sell them, even after
Yom-Tov (whereas according to the Chachamim, it is forbidden, because we
assume them to be Tamei).
(b) The *Rebbi* Yehudah that Rachba quotes is *Rav* Yehudah, the Amora (even
though the Amora'im were not normally referred to as 'Rebbi', since they did
not have Semichah). Rachba referred to him as Rebbi, however, because he was
the only Rebbe from whom Rachbah learned, to ensure that nobody would
mistake him for a different Rav Yehudah.
(c) Rachbah cannot possibly have been referring to - because Rachbah never
left Bavel and therefore would never have seen Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi.
(a) Ula teaches us that Beis Hillel permit spreading out a hide in front of
the treaders only because otherwise, one will desist from Shechting, and not
fulfill Simchas Yom-Tov properly, but *not* because the hide is fit to sit
on anyway - because if it were, it would have been permitted to spread it
out even if the animal was Shechted *before* Yom-Yov; whereas now, it is
only permitted if it was Shechted *on* Yom-Tov.
(b) Ula also teaches us that Beis Hillel permit returning the shutters only
because otherwise, they will not take them down in the first place, which in
turn, will interfere with the sale of spices etc. for Simchas Yom-Tov, and
*not* because they hold 'Ein Binyan u'Setirah be'Keilim' (even
mi'de'Rabbanan) - because if it were, then it would even be permitted to
take off and remove the shutters from vessels in the house (even though the
reason of Simchas Yom-Tov does not apply); whereas now, the Heter is
confined to the shutters of portable stores.
(c) And he also teaches us that Chazal only permitted Kohanim in the Beis
Hamikdash to return plasters to their wounds on Shabbos or Yom-Tov when they
had finished the Avodah, because otherwise, they would not want to remove
them in the first place (rather opting not do the Avodah), and not because
of the principle 'Ein Sh'vus ba'Mikdash' - because if it were, then even
Kohanim who were not actually performing the Avodah at that moment would
also be permitted to return their plasters; whereas now, Kohanim were only
permitted to return after the Avodah, the plasters that they had removed in
order to perform the Avodah.
(d) Applying a plaster (in the form of a salve) is generally forbidden on
Shabbos - because one may come to grind, for which reason Chazal forbade all
cures on Shabbos and Yom-Tov, even when they do not entail any Melachah
(a) Rachbah quoting Rebbi Yehudah adds the wine of a 'Chaver' or his dough
after Yom-Tov (that he opened or began on Yom-Tov) in the name of Rebbi
Yehudah. If not for Rachbah, we would have ascribed Rebbi Yehudah's
concession - to the Pasuk in Shoftim "ke'Chol ha'Am Chaveirim", which the
Rabbanan used as a base (an Asmachta) to declare Tum'as Am ha'Aretz on Yom-
Tov, Tahor, in which case, Rebbi Yehudah would permit any barrel of wine or
dough that was touched by an Am ha'Aretz, even if the Chaver had not begun
selling them on Yom-Tov; whereas now, it is only wine and loaves that he
began to sell on Yom-Tov which Rebbi Yehudah permits.
(b) Ula does not include Rachba's case in his list - because he was not
concerned with cases that were subject to a Machlokes Tana'im.
(c) Sure, even Ula's examples are a Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis
Hillel - but we have a principle that Beis Shamai in face of Beis Hillel is
not considered a Mishnah (as far as we are concerned, Beis Shamai's opinion
(a) Beis Shamai in our Mishnah forbids even the *removal* of the shutters on
Yom-Tov. Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa maintains that - Beis
Shamai only argue regarding *returning* the shutters, but they concede that
one may *remove* the shutters due to Simchas Yom-Tov.
(b) Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel ...
1. ... agree that if the shutters have no hinges at all - they may even be
returned on Yom-Tov.
(c) When the Beraisa says ...
2. ... agree that if the shutters have hinges at the *side* - that they may
not be returned.
3. ... dispute when the shutters have hinges in the middle - Beis Shamai
*decree* this case because of when they have hinges at the side, whereas
Beis Hillel do *not*.
1. ... that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue when the shutters *have
hinges*, but that when they *do not*, then both agree that one may even
return them - it means that they argue when they have hinges in the middle,
but agree when they have no hinges at all.
2. ... that they only argue when they *have no hinges*, but that when they
*do*, both agree that one may return them - that they only argue when they
have no shutters at the side (only in the middle), but when they *do*, both
agree, that one may not return them.