ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 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
(a) For Shechting a Bechor that has no blemish outside the Azarah - one is
(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 - the animal must have become
blemished before Yom-Tov (in which case it is not Muktzah).
(c) Rebbi Shimon forbids examining the animal - because it is a form of
Tikun, similar to judging, which is also forbidden on Yom-Tov for that
reason (see Tosfos Yom-tov and Tif'eres Yisrael).
(d) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon could not possibly be arguing about
Muktzah - because in this Mishnah, it is Rebbi Yehudah who is lenient and
Rebbi Shimon who is strict; whereas by Muktzah, they hold the reverse
(a) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether a Chacham is permitted to
examine a blemish of a Bechor on Yom-Tov or not.
(b) The reason that they argue about a Bechor which *fell into a pit* - is
to teach us that in spite of the possible Heter of 'Tzar Ba'alei Chayim'
(the pain of the animal - for which reason Rebbi Yehoshua is lenient in a
similar case), our Tana is strict and forbids taking it out.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua is lenient on account of the animal's pain - when an
animal and its child fell into a pit. Rebbi Yehoshua permits 'cheating' i.e.
taking the one out with the intention of Shechting it, and then changing his
mind and taking the other one out.
(d) The Chidush of the Tana is indeed that one may not bring the animal out
of the pit even if it is to alleviate its pain - but that we learn from the
Reisha, when the Tana says '*Yeired* Mumcheh ... '. The Seifa, where Rebbi
Yehudah says 've'Im La'av, Lo Yeired ve'Yishchot', speaks when he had
already transgressed and taken the animal out of the pit.
(a) We establish the case when the animal had a passing blemish already
before Yom-Tov, and now on account of the fall, the blemish became
(b) We may have thought that, since the animal had a blemish on Erev Yom-
Tov, the owner definitely had his mind on it (and that it would not
therefore be Muktzah). Rebbi Yehudah's Chidush is that we do not say that.
(a) Rebbi, in a Beraisa, permits an expert to examine a Bechor Tam that fell
into a pit - he is even more lenient than Rebbi Yehudah, inasmuch as he
permits the Bechor to be Shechted, even if it only became blemished on Yom-
(b) If the text in the Beraisa omits the word 'Tam' - the Chidush will be
that, if the blemish only occurred on Yom-Tov, it will forbidden to Shecht
it because it is Muktzah. That may be obvious according to Rebbi Yehudah
(whose opinion regarding Muktzah we know), but not according to Rebbi, who
is teaching us here that he holds like Rebbi Yehudah regarding Muktzah.
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya says 'Harei Amru Ein Ro'in Mumin be'Yom-Tov' -
'Amru' refers to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai.
(b) Rebbi was a disciple of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai.
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya disagrees with the Tana of our Mishnah in Rebbi
Shimon with regard to a blemish that occurred before Yom-Tov, which the
expert only examined (contrary to the Halachah) on Yom-Tov - according to
the Tana of our Mishnah, Rebbi Shimon forbids the Bechor to be Shechted on
Yom-Tov, whereas Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya maintains that he permits it
(seeing as, in essence, it was fit).
(d) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon
agree that the animal is Muchan, and may be inspected (Lechatchilah) and
Shechted - if it is born on Yom-Tov already blemished (and we shall see
later exactly how this speaks).
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*), but that he may not do so Lechatchilah. Initially, we bring
a proof for Rabah bar Rav Huna, who holds that it is permitted to examine it
even *Lechatchilah* - from the fact that the Beraisa mentions this case,
after two cases: that if a blemish occurred on *Erev* Yom-Tov, it is only
permitted Bedieved, if it is born *on* Yom-Tov, it is forbidden (according
to Rebbi Shimon). Consequently, when the Beraisa adds that if it is born on
Yom-Tov already blemished, it is permitted, it must mean even Lechatchilah);
otherwise, the Tana should have incorporated the third case together with
(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 (and
even Bedieved) - clashing with the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya,
which permits it Bedieved, according to Rebbi Shimon (and which was the
basis of our proof in the previous question).
(b) We deduce from this Beraisa - that Rebbi Shimon (who is the Chachamim
mentioned there) now permits a Bechor that was born on Yom-Tov with a
blemish, only Bedieved (and not Lechatchilah, as we previously proved from
the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya).
(c) We bring a further proof for this from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Shimon
says that whenever the blemish is not recognisable, it is not Muchan. Now
this cannot mean that it is not recognizable at all, because that would be
obvious. What it must therefore mean is that a Bechor that was not shown to
a Chacham before Yom-Tov, is not Muchan on Yom-Tov - even Bedieved (not like
the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya).
(d) The Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya - was a misquotation, introduced
by Ada bar Uchmi, who tended to misquote Beraisos.
(a) Rav Hillel asked Rava whether 'Yesh Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos' or not.
Rava had difficulty in establishing the case (bearing in mind that S'tam
Muktzah refers to 'Gerogros and Tzimukin' - figs and grapes that were placed
on the roof to dry) because if they were already fit when Beis Hashemashos
arrived, then why should they be Muktzah? And if they were not, then since
they were not prepared before Shabbos, they would obviously be Muktzah (min
ha'Torah, like Rabah, because of "ve'Heichinu es Asher Yavi'u")?
(b) The case must be - when they were fit with the advent of Shabbos, but
then water fell on them, rendering them unfit, and later, they became fit
once more. The She'eilah is whether we apply the principle of 'Migu
de'Isketza'i le'bein Hashemashos, Isketza'i le'Kula Yoma' to the middle of
Shabbos, to say that since it became Muktzah for a short while during
Shabbos, it remains Muktzah for the remainder of Shabbos, or not.
(c) Rava replied 'Yesh Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos'. Nevertheless, the Beraisa
of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya permits the Bechor that was born on Yom-Tov with
a blemish, if the expert proclaimed it to be a blemish (and we do not say
'Yesh Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos') - because it speaks when the expert was
already sitting there when it was born. He saw the blemish immediately, in
which case, the Bechor was never Muktzah.
(d) In the second Lashon, Rava rules 'Ein Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos. There
is no proof from the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya (which seems to
permit a Bechor which was initially unfit - when it was born - and then it
became fit, when the expert examined it) because it speaks, as we explained
in the previous answer, when the expert was already sitting there when it
(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. The Tana finds it necessary to add that he was first eating
the grapes - to teach us that, despite the fact that at the time of eating,
he certainly had his mind on them, they still become Muktzah unless he
prepared them before Shabbos.
(b) This Halachah does extend to other fruits that one places to dry, such
as peaches or quinces.
(c) We have the same problem establishing this case as we had earlier;
namely - if the fruit *is* fit, then why should it require preparation? And
if it is *not*, of what use is the preparation?
(a) We cannot establish the case ...
1. ... when the fruit had already dried and was now fit to eat, only the
owner did not know that - because Rav Kahana has already taught us that if
the fruit is fit when Shabbos come in, it is permitted, even if the owner
was not aware of it (and it would not therefore require preparation).
(b) Preparation will be ineffective in this latter case - because when
Shabbos came in, they were permitted anyway, so what would preparation
2. ... when it was fit when Shabbos came in, but subsequently become unfit
and fit again on Shabbos - because if we hold 'Ein Muktzah le'Chatzi
Shabbos', then why should preparation be necessary, and if we hold 'Yesh
Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos', then of what use is the preparation?
(c) We establish the case - when the fruit is slightly ready to eat, so that
some people would eat it as it is, and some people would not. It is in such
a case that preparation will be effective, because by preparing the fruit,
he demonstrates that he pertains to those who will eat it as it is.
(a) Rebbi Zeira proves from beans and lentils - which are initially fit to
chew raw, then, when placed in the pot on Yom-Tov, they become unfit (for as
long as the pot is on the boil), and then, when the cooking process is
complete, they become fit again, that 'Ein Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos' (since
eating beans and lentils on *Yom-Tov* in this way is a fact of life).
(b) Abaye refutes that proof on the basis of all pots at Bein Hashemashos -
which are boiling hot when *Shabbos* comes in (and which should therefore
remain Muktzah the whole of Shabbos - due to the principle 'Migu
de'Isketza'i le'Bein Hashemashos ... '.
(c) In fact, there is no Kashya from the one, and no proof from the other -
because the She'eilah of Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos, concerns something that
becomes Muktzah outside of one's control (because, for that period, one
pushes it out of one's mind); whereas pots that are cooking, are considered
within his control, and his mind is therefore on them (even during the time
that they are not fit), in which case they are not Muktzah.