Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Beitzah 27

27b

QUESTION: The Gemara records a dispute among the Amora'im whether Rebbi Shimon -- who permits Muktzah -- will even permit moving an animal that died on Yom Tov or Shabbos (such as to feed it to a dog).

We know that Rebbi Shimon permits Muktzah Machmas Isur -- such as the oil of a candle that was burning during Bein ha'Shemashos -- only when the person was expecting the item to become permitted on Yom Tov or Shabbos, as the Gemara tells us in Shabbos 46b and Beitzah 30b (such as when the person who lit the candle was "Yoshev u'Metzapeh" during Bein ha'Shemashos, anticipating that the candle will go out and the oil will become permissible). If the candle is large enough that it can burn throughout the entire Shabbos, then even Rebbi Shimon agrees that it is Muktzah and is Asur, because one was not anticipating that it would go out on Shabbos. (For this reason, the Gemara in Shabbos (46b) says that Rebbi Shimon agrees that a Bechor will be Muktzah, even if it gets a Mum on Shabbos, because one did not expect it to get a Mum, and nor did he expect that the animal would become Mutar by being shown to a Mumcheh (see Tosfos, Beitzah 26a).)

According to this, why should an animal that died on Shabbos be permitted according to Rebbi Shimon? One was not waiting for the animal to die during Bein ha'Shemashos, and during Bein ha'Shemos it was Asur to slaughter the animal (on Shabbos). If so, it should be Muktzah even according to Rebbi Shimon!

ANSWERS:

(a) From the words of RASHI (DH sh'Meisu) it seems that even those who permit the animal, only permit it on Yom Tov. On Shabbos, though, it will indeed be Muktzah Machmas Isur. On Yom Tov, it is not Muktzah Machmas Isur because one may slaughter it. The only reason why an animal that dies on Yom Tov would be Asur is because it becomes Nolad, a new object which did not exist heretofore, and Rebbi Shimon permits Nolad. The opinion that prohibits animals that died holds that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Yehudah that Nolad is Asur in certain cases (such as when the object attains a completely new status, as Tosfos says on 2a, DH Ka Salka Da'atach). This also seems to be the opinion of Tosfos in Eruvin (40a, DH Ha).

What about the Gemara in Shabbos (45b) that quotes the opinion that Rebbi Shimon permits an animal that died today, even though it is discussing Shabbos, and not Yom Tov? That Gemara is discussing animals that are not Muktzah Machmas Isur because they have a permitted use on Shabbos when alive, such as a chick which children play with (as Rabeinu Yosef in Tosfos there (DH Hacha) says).

(b) The RASHBA here explains that even on Shabbos, Rebbi Shimon permits animals that died. The reason it is permitted even though one does not have his mind on it at the onset of Shabbos is because one did not actively push it off of his mind by *making* it unusable (he was not "Docheh b'Yadayim"); rather, it was unusable in its natural state. One needs to have specific intention to use it on Shabbos ("Yoshev u'Metzapeh") only actively makes an object unusable for Shabbos, such as is the case when a person lights an oil lamp and makes its oil Muktzah Machmas Isur.

(According to this explanation, why is a Bechor that obtained a Mum on Shabbos prohibited according to Rebbi Shimon, if one did not actively push it off from use? It could be that a Bechor is Asur for another reason; because it is so *far removed* from being usable on Shabbos -- one does not know if it will obtain a Mum, and even if it gets a Mum, one cannot know if he will be able to find a Mumchah, and if the Mumchah will check it and declare it permitted -- see TOSFOS in Shabbos 46b, DH Mi Yeimar.)

(c) The RASHBA later (30b) suggests another reason why animals that die on Shabbos are permitted according to Rebbi Shimon. Since it is *common for animals to die*, one anticipates the possibility that his animal will die, and therefore one is considered to have been "Yoshev u'Metzapeh." This also seems to be the opinion of Tosfos in Shabbos (45b DH Hacha).

OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah only prohibits moving animals of Kodshim that died on Shabbos (just like the other case in the Mishnah, that of Chalah, also refers to something that is Kadosh). The Gemara asks that according to the opinion that animals that died on Shabbos are prohibited to be handled, then even an animal of Chulin (which is not Kadosh) should be Asur. Why does the Mishnah say that only an animal of Kodshim is Asur?

The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is referring to an animal which is "Mesukenes" (mortally ill) and its ruling is therefore correct "according to everyone" ("Divrei ha'Kol"). This implies that both Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah agree that an animal that is Mesukenes is not Muktzah when it dies on Shabbos.

If Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon agree that animals that died on Shabbos are Asur according to this opinion, and they also agree that a Mesukenes is Mutar when it dies on Shabbos, then in what case do they argue? We find that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue in Shabbos (106b) regarding an animal that died on Shabbos!

(a) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR according to those who indeed include the words "v'Divrei ha'Kol" ("according to all opinions") in their texts of the Gemara, the Machlokes involves neither a healthy animal nor a dying animal, but rather a sick animal. In such a case, Rebbi Yehudah permits it when it dies on Shabbos, while Rebbi Yehudah prohibits it. The Ba'al ha'Me'or says that this is the opinion of the RIF.

(b) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR himself says that the phrase, "v'Divrei ha'Kol" should be erased from the texts of the Gemara. Rather, in the case of a Mesukenes, it is only Rebbi Shimon who permits the animal when it dies on Shabbos, and not Rebbi Yehudah. The Gemara is not trying to explain the Mishnah in accordance with Rebbi Yehudah. This also seems to be the Girsa of RASHI (DH Hacha b'Mai) and other Rishonim.