ביצה דף ו

אמר רבא: מת ביום טוב ראשון — יתעסקו בו עממים. מת ביום טוב שני — יתעסקו בו ישראל, ואפילו בשני ימים טובים של ראש השנה.

§ Rava said: If one died on the first day of a Festival, gentiles should attend to his burial. If he died on the second day of a Festival, Jews should attend to his burial. And even with regard to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana, the halakha is that the legal status of the two days is like that of the two days of the Festivals; however, that is not so with regard to an egg that was laid on the first day of Rosh HaShana, as it remains prohibited on the second day.

מה שאין כן בביצה.

נהרדעי אמרי: אף בביצה. דמה דעתיך, דלמא מעברי ליה לאלול, הא אמר רב חיננא בר כהנא אמר רב: מימות עזרא ואילך לא מצינו אלול מעובר.

The Sages of Neharde’a say: Even with regard to an egg, Rosh HaShana is no different from other Festivals, as an egg laid on the first day is permitted on the second. As what do you think i.e., what is your concern; perhaps witnesses will fail to arrive, and the court will proclaim the month of Elul full, i.e., thirty days long, and begin counting the year only from the following day? In that case, both days are kept as sacred ab initio. Didn’t Rav Ḥinnana bar Kahana say that Rav already said in this regard: From the days of Ezra and onward we have not found that the month of Elul was full, as the Sages employed various methods to ensure that there would be no need to add a thirtieth day. Consequently, Rosh HaShana would always occur on the thirtieth day after the beginning of Elul.

אמר מר זוטרא: לא אמרן, אלא דאשתהי. אבל לא אשתהי — משהינן ליה.

Mar Zutra said: We said that Jews should attend to the dead on the second day of Rosh HaShana only when the burial of the corpse has already been delayed and for some reason the burial was not on the day that he died. In that case, the body might begin to decay, and the dignity of the dead is at stake. However, if the burial has not been delayed, and there is no concern for the dignity of the corpse, its burial may not be attended to on the Festival; rather, we delay it until the Festival has ended.

רב אשי אמר: אף על גב דלא אשתהי, נמי לא משהינן ליה. מאי טעמא, יום טוב שני לגבי מת — כחול שויוה רבנן, אפילו למיגז ליה גלימא,

Rav Ashi said: Even though the burial was not delayed, but it is the day that he died, we still do not delay the burial. What is the reason for this? With regard to the dead, the Sages equated the legal status of the second Festival day with that of a weekday. This is true to such an extent that on a Festival it is permitted even to cut material to fashion a cloak for the deceased. And similarly, it is permitted to cut myrtles for the deceased, to be placed on the bier in their honor.

ולמיגז ליה אסא.

אמר רבינא: והאידנא דאיכא חברי — חיישינן.

Ravina said: And nowadays, when there are ḥabarei, this practice must be adjusted. The ḥabarei were Persian priests who made false accusations against Jews in Babylonia. They cited the fact that Jews were burying their dead on the second Festival day as proof that the day was not holy, and they forced them to work on that day. Since we are concerned about this possibility, we do not bury the dead on the second day.

רבינא הוה יתיב קמיה דרב (אסי) בשני ימים טובים של ראש השנה, חזייה דהוה עציב, אמר ליה: אמאי עציב מר? אמר ליה: דלא אותיבי עירובי תבשילין.

The Gemara relates: Ravina sat before Rav Ashi on the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana, which occurred that year on Thursday and Friday. Ravina observed that Rav Ashi was sad. He said to him: Why is the Master sad? He said to him: Because I did not prepare a joining of cooked foods, and therefore I cannot prepare food or light a candle on Rosh HaShana for the upcoming Shabbat. When a Festival immediately precedes Shabbat, a joining of cooked foods is prepared before the Festival with ready-to-eat food. It is kept until Shabbat, symbolically indicating that any food prepared on the Festival for Shabbat is merely a continuation of that initial preparation.

אמר ליה: ולותיב מר האידנא? מי לא אמר רבא: מניח אדם עירובי תבשילין מיום טוב לחבירו, ומתנה!

Ravina said to him: And let the Master prepare a joining of cooked foods now, on the first day of Rosh HaShana, a Thursday. Didn’t Rava say: A person may prepare a joining of cooked foods from one Festival day of the Diaspora to another, by stipulating the following condition: If today is a weekday and tomorrow is holy, this shall be my joining of cooked foods, by means of which I may prepare food tomorrow for Shabbat; if today is holy and tomorrow a weekday, it is permitted to prepare food tomorrow as it is on any regular weekday, and a joining of cooked foods is not needed.

אמר ליה: אימר דאמר רבא בשני ימים טובים של גליות. בשני ימים טובים של ראש השנה מי אמר?

Rav Ashi said to him: You can say that Rava stated this halakha with regard to the regular two Festival days of the Diaspora; but did he actually say so with regard to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana? The two days of Rosh HaShana are considered one long day, and they are both equally holy.

והא אמרי נהרדעי: אף ביצה מותרת. אמר ליה רב מרדכי: בפירוש אמר לי מר דלא סבר להא דנהרדעי.

Ravina replied: Didn’t the Sages of Neharde’a say that even an egg is permitted on the two days of Rosh HaShana, which are treated exactly the same as other Festival days in the Diaspora? The same ruling should apply to a joining of cooked foods. Rav Mordekhai said to Ravina: This does not resolve Rav Ashi’s difficulty, as the Master, Rav Ashi, explicitly said to me that he does not hold in accordance with this opinion of the Sages of Neharde’a. Rather, he maintains that Rosh HaShana differs from other Festivals, and in this case there is no way to make up for failure to prepare a joining of cooked foods.

אתמר: אפרוח שנולד ביום טוב, רב אמר: אסור. ושמואל, ואיתימא רבי יוחנן אמר: מותר. רב אמר: אסור — מוקצה הוא. ושמואל, ואיתימא רבי יוחנן אמר:

§ It was stated that amora’im disputed the following case: With regard to a chick that hatched on a Festival, Rav said: It is prohibited. And Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan, said: It is permitted. The Gemara explains the reasoning for their respective opinions. Rav said: It is prohibited because it is muktze. And Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is permitted, since it itself is rendered permitted through slaughter. The slaughter of the chicken, which renders it fit to be eaten, is made possible by its hatching. Consequently, hatching likewise removes the prohibition of muktze.

מותר — הואיל ומתיר עצמו בשחיטה.

אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב: וכי מה בין זה לעגל שנולד ביום טוב? אמר להו: הואיל ומוכן אגב אמו בשחיטה.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: And what is the difference between this case and that of a calf born on a Festival, since you agree that a calf may be slaughtered on that day? He said to them: There is a difference. Since a calf inside its mother is considered prepared on account of its mother, by slaughter, the halakha is as follows: If a cow is slaughtered, the calf inside its womb is also permitted. Therefore, that calf never had the status of muktze, whereas the chick was considered muktze before it hatched.

ומה בין זה לעגל שנולד מן הטרפה! שתיק רב.

Rav Kahana and Rav Ashi further challenged Rav: And what is the difference between this case and that of a tereifa? If the mother has a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months, neither it nor the calf inside it may be eaten. Nevertheless, after it is born the calf may be slaughtered on a Festival and it is permitted. Rav was silent and did not offer an answer, as though he did not know how to respond to the question.

אמר רבה ואיתימא רב יוסף: מאי טעמא שתיק רב? לימא להו: הואיל ומוכן אגב אמו לכלבים!

Rabba said, and some say it was Rav Yosef: What is the reason that Rav was silent? Let him say to them: Even a calf born to a tereifa mother is not considered fully muktze, since it is prepared on account of its mother to be fed to dogs. On a Festival, it is permitted to slaughter a tereifa and give it to dogs as food, and therefore the calf is not fully muktze even before it is born. By contrast, a chick in its shell is not intended as food for dogs, and therefore a chick that hatched on a Festival was unfit for use when the Festival began. Consequently, it was considered muktze and it is now nolad, an object that came into being on Shabbat or a Festival, and it is therefore prohibited.

אמר ליה אביי:

Abaye said to him:

השתא מוכן לאדם לא הוי מוכן לכלבים, דתנן: מחתכין את הדלועין לפני הבהמה, ואת הנבלה לפני הכלבים. רבי יהודה אומר: אם לא היתה נבלה מערב שבת — אסורה,

Now, we know that food prepared, i.e., fit, for human consumption that became spoiled is not automatically considered prepared for dogs, as we learned in a mishna (see 2a): One may cut pumpkins before an animal to facilitate their consumption, and likewise one may cut up an animal carcass, even of an animal that died on Shabbat, before dogs. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the animal was not already a carcass, i.e., it was not dead and fit for dogs, prior to Shabbat, it is prohibited, because it is not in the category of items considered prepared for use on Shabbat. This shows that although this animal was fit for human consumption while alive, it does not automatically become prepared for dogs once it dies. If so, can food prepared for dogs be considered prepared for humans?

לפי שאינה מן המוכן; מוכן לכלבים הוי מוכן לאדם?!

אמר ליה: אין, מוכן לאדם — לא הוי מוכן לכלבים, דמאי דחזי ליה לאיניש לא שדי ליה לכלבים. מוכן לכלבים — הוי מוכן לאדם,

He said to him: Yes. It is not surprising that something prepared and fit for humans is not considered fit and prepared for dogs, as that which is fit for a person, one does not throw it to dogs, and he has therefore removed that animal from his mind. However, something that is prepared for dogs is also considered fit and prepared for humans, as a person’s mind is on anything fit to be eaten by him. One does not completely remove from his mind even food meant for dogs, if it is kosher and edible. Consequently, one has in mind the possibility that he might eat the calf of a cow that is a tereifa once it is born, since at that point it will be kosher and edible.

דדעתיה דאיניש אכל מידי דחזי ליה.

תניא כותיה דרב, תניא כותיה דשמואל ואיתימא רבי יוחנן.

With regard to the dispute itself, the Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav; and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and some say in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

תניא כותיה דרב: עגל שנולד ביום טוב — מותר, אפרוח שנולד ביום טוב — אסור, ומה הפרש בין זה לזה? זה מוכן אגב אמו בשחיטה,

The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: A calf born on a Festival is permitted; a chick born on a Festival is prohibited. And what is the difference between this case and that one? This one, the calf, is prepared on account of its mother by slaughter; and that one, the chick, is not prepared on account of its mother.

וזה אינו מוכן אגב אמו.

תניא כותיה דשמואל ואיתימא רבי יוחנן: עגל שנולד ביום טוב — מותר, ואפרוח שנולד ביום טוב — מותר, מאי טעמא: זה מוכן אגב אמו, וזה מתיר עצמו בשחיטה.

The Gemara further explains: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and some say it is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A calf born on a Festival is permitted, and a chick born on a Festival is likewise permitted. What is the reason? This one, the calf, is prepared on account of its mother; and that one, the chick, is itself rendered permitted through slaughter.

תנו רבנן: אפרוח שנולד ביום טוב — אסור. רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: אף בחול אסור, לפי שלא נתפתחו עיניו.

The Sages taught in a baraita: A chick born on a Festival is prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Even on a weekday, the chick is prohibited on the day it hatched because its eyes have not yet opened. A small chick of this kind is not yet considered a bird fit for consumption; rather, it is similar to a creeping animal.

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא: ״לכל השרץ השרץ על הארץ״, לרבות אפרוחים שלא נתפתחו עיניהם. כמאן — כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב.

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught: The verse that states: “Even all creeping animals that creep upon the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:42) comes to include in the list of prohibited creeping animals even chicks that have not yet opened their eyes. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

אמר רב הונא אמר רב: ביצה, עם יציאתה נגמרה. מאי ״עם יציאתה נגמרה״? אילימא, עם יציאתה נגמרה ומותרת לאכלה בחלב — הא במעי אמה אסורה לאכלה בחלב? והתניא:

§ Rav Huna said that Rav said: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence; i.e., it is not considered an egg until it is laid. The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of the statement: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence? To which issue is Rava referring? If we say he meant an egg is fully formed and called an egg only upon its emergence, and at this stage it is permitted to eat it with milk, this indicates that while an egg is still inside its mother, even if it is fully formed, it is considered meat and it is prohibited to eat it with milk. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters a chicken and finds fully formed eggs inside it, it is permitted to eat them with milk?

השוחט את התרנגולת ומצא בה ביצים גמורות — מותרות לאכלן בחלב!

אלא: עם יציאתה נגמרה — ומותרת לאוכלה ביום טוב. הא במעי אמה אסורה לאכלה ביום טוב? והא תניא: השוחט את התרנגולת ומצא בה ביצים גמורות

Rather, Rav’s statement should be explained as follows: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence in that it is permitted to eat it on a Festival only if the entire egg emerged on a weekday. The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: This indicates that if an egg is found inside its mother, it is prohibited to eat it on a Festival. But isn’t it taught: With regard to one who slaughters a chicken and finds fully formed eggs inside it, it is permitted to eat them on a Festival?

— מותרות לאכלן ביום טוב!

וכי תימא: קא משמע לן בברייתא מאי דלא אשמעינן במתניתין, הא נמי תנינא: ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב, בית שמאי אומרים: תאכל, ובית הלל אומרים: לא תאכל.

And if you say: The baraita teaches us that which the mishna did not explicitly teach us, and Rav stated the halakha accordingly; however, this we already learned in the mishna here, as it says in the mishna: With regard to an egg laid on a Festival, Beit Shammai say it may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say it may not be eaten. And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree only with regard to an egg that was already laid, but concerning eggs inside their mothers, all agree that they are permitted.

ועד כאן לא פליגי בית שמאי ובית הלל אלא בנולדה, אבל במעי אמן — דברי הכל שריין.

וכי תימא בית הלל אפילו במעי אמן נמי אסרי, והאי דקתני ״נולדה״ — להודיעך כחן דבית שמאי דאפילו נולדה נמי שרו, אלא הא דתניא:

And if you say that the mishna should be explained in the opposite manner, as Beit Hillel also prohibit eggs inside their mothers, and the fact that the mishna teaches: Laid, is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai, that they permit even an egg that was laid. However, consider that which is taught in the aforementioned baraita: With regard to one who slaughters a chicken and finds inside it fully formed eggs, it is permitted to eat them on a Festival. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion neither of Beit Shammai nor of Beit Hillel.

השוחט את התרנגולת ומצא בה ביצים גמורות — מותרות לאכלן ביום טוב, מני? לא בית שמאי ולא בית הלל!

אלא: עם יציאתה, נגמרה — ומגדלת אפרוחים, במעי אמה — אינה מגדלת אפרוחים. למאי נפקא מינה? למקח וממכר. כי ההוא דאמר להו: ביעי

Rather, Rav certainly did not prohibit an egg that has not yet been laid. Instead, his statement should be explained as follows: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence, and it produces chicks, i.e., an egg laid in the regular manner can be incubated and a chick will hatch from it. By contrast, an egg that remained inside its mother cannot produce chicks. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference of this observation? The Gemara answers: It is relevant for buying and selling. In other words, the difference between the types of eggs has ramifications for terms of commerce. This is like that incident involving a certain individual who would say to the general public: Eggs