ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 6
BEITZAH 6-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
(a) One may bury a dead person on the first day only through Nochrim,
whereas on the second day, even through Jews.
(b) This distinction applies to Rosh Hashanah as well.
(c) According to Rava, the concession on the second day does not apply to an
egg (as we learned earlier). The Neherda'i disagree - because, they argue,
there is no real basis for the two days Rosh Hashanah, since it never
happened again (after Ezra's time) that Elul had thirty days and a second
day needed to be added.
(a) Rav restricts burying a dead person on the second day to where the
corpse had been lying for some time and decay is likely to set in. Rav Ashi
permits it even if he died only on that day, because, in his opinion, Chazal
declared the second day of Yom-Tov like a weekday, with regard to burial.
(b) This concession is not confined to the burial itself - it extends to
cutting clothes for him, too, even clothes other than shrouds, which are
obviously permitted (since they are included in the concession of burial
(c) They also used to cut a myrtle-twig - which they would place on his
coffin to dispel the smell. This too, was permitted on the second day of
(d) In Ravina's time, they rescinded the concession, because of the Chavri.
The Chavri were a wicked nation who came with the Persians. They would force
the Jews to work for them. On Yom-Tov however, the Jews always had the
excuse that it was Yom-Tov (and they were not even permitted to work for
themselves) - and this excuse would lose its validity if the Chavri saw them
burying their dead on Yom-Tov.
(a) Someone who forgot to prepare an Eruv Tavshilin before Yom-Tov - can
prepare it on the first day of Yom-Tov (on the assumption that it is not
Yom-Tov, and that if it is, his Eruv is not valid); then, on the second day,
he does the same thing again.
(b) Nevertheless, on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, Rav Ashi was sad at
having forgotten to make an Eiruv - because this concession, he argued, did
not apply to Rosh Hashanah (whose two days have the Din of one Kedushah, as
we learned earlier).
(c) Ravina quoted him the Neherda'i, who permitted even *an egg* on the
second day of Rosh Hashanah - but Rav Mordechai - a disciple of Rav Ashi -
informed him that Rav Ashi had specifically told him that he disagreed with
(a) According to Rav, a chick that is born on Yom-Tov is forbidden just like
an egg. Shmuel, or according to others, Rebbi Yochanan, permits it -
because, he maintains, when it is born, it becomes permitted through
Shechitah; and since ('Migu') its birth creates this Heter, it also permits
the Isur of Muktzah.
(b) The Beraisa permits a calf that is born on Yom-Tov, Rav concedes -
because even before it was born, it would have been permitted via the
Shechitah of its mother.
(a) One may not eat a calf that one finds inside a Tereifah that one
(b) Nevertheless, Rav will also concede that a calf that is born from a
Tereifah is permitted - because it is permitted via its mother, who was fit
already when Yom-Tov came in, to feed to the dogs.
(c) Not so a chick that was born on Yom-Tov - which remains Nolad, since it
was still in its shell when Yom-Tov came in, and was neither fit to feed to
the dogs at that stage, nor was it the owner's intention to do so.
(a) In spite of the fact that an animal is intended for man's use, one is
not permitted to cut up a healthy animal that died on Shabbos to feed one's
dog - because one does not tend to designate what is prepared for one's
personal use for one's animals.
Until now, we have been speaking about a newly-born chick on Yom-Tov. Rebbi
Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "le'Chol ha'Sheretz
ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz" - that a new-born chick is Asur (even during the
week) as long as it has not yet opened its eyes.
(b) Rav nevertheless permits a calf that was born from a Tereifah animal on
Shabbos 'since it was fit for dogs via its mother' - because he always has
in mind to use for himself whatever he possibly can. Consequently, whatever
he designates for his animals, he certainly designates for himself.
(a) If one Shechts a chicken and finds inside it eggs whose yellow is
complete, but that are still attached to the mother, one may ...
(b) When Rav Huna, quoting Rav, declares only *an egg that emerges* to be
complete, we ask from a Beraisa that permits even *an egg that one finds
inside the mother* that was Shechted on Yom-Tov, to be eaten on the same
day. But maybe this Beraisa is a Chidush, asks the Gemara - with which no
Mishnah agrees (since Rebbi did not include it anywhere)?
- ... eat them with milk.
- ... eat them if the mother was Shechted on Yom-Tov.
(c) We infer from our Mishnah, however, where Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel
argue by an egg that was laid on Yom-Tov - that if it was found inside the
mother after it is Shechted, then even Beis Hillel will agree that it is
permitted, thereby concurring with the Beraisa.
(d) We cannot explain that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel also argue by eggs
that one finds inside the mother, and that the Tana presents the case of
eggs that were laid on Yom-Tov, to teach us that even there, Beis Shamai is
lenient, and permits the eggs - because then, who will be the author of the
above Beraisa? If it is Beis Shamai, why does he present the case of the
eggs that were found inside the Shechted mother (seeing as *they* permit
even an egg that is laid); and if it is Beis Hillel, we have just said that
Beis Hillel *forbid* even an egg that one finds inside the Shechted mother?
So we are forced to say that Beis Hillel agrees here that the egg is
(a) We finally establish Rav Huna Amar Rav - by buying and selling.
(b) The ramifications of this ruling - are a case where someone pays for
eggs that are fit to hatch, and he is supplied with eggs that had not
completely emerged. Due to Rav Huna Amar Rav's ruling, he will be entitled
to return the eggs and to receive his money back.
(a) A certain man let it be known that he wanted 'Bei'i de*'Pachya*' - which
are eggs that are laid from a live mother (who *clucks* when giving birth).
(b) When someone sold him complete eggs that were found inside the Shechted
mother - Rebbi Ami ruled that it was a false sale, and that he could claim
his money back.
(c) Even though the man specifically said 'Bei'i de'Pachya', it is not so
obvious that the sale is invalid - because we might have thought that he
really wanted the eggs to eat (like most people do), and the only reason
that he specified 'Bei'i de'Pachya' - was because they are *completely*
ready to eat, and that is what he wanted.
(d) Had the man really meant that, the sale would have been valid - but he
would have been entitled to claim the difference in price between the two
different kinds of eggs back from the seller.