Previous daf

1)

(a) In a similar incident to the one that we just discussed, the seller supplied the purchaser who asked for eggs that came from a male - with eggs from a Safna de'Ar'a (where the female heats herself on the ground).

(b) It was not obvious that the sale was invalid - because, seeing as most people buy eggs to eat, we may have thought that, he really wanted them to eat, and was therefore not fussy about eggs from a male. The reason that he specified egges from a male, is because eggs from a male are larger.

(c) Had he really meant that - then the sale would have been valid, only he would have been been entitled to claim back the difference in value between the two kinds of eggs.

3)

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa (whom we quoted earlier) permits eating together with milk, complete eggs that one finds inside a Shechted chicken - Rebbi Ya'akov agrees with this only if they are not joined to the nerves; if they are, they are forbidden.

(b) The carcass of a Tahor (i.e. Kasher) bird is unique, inasmuch as it does not render one Tamei by touching - only by eating it, in which case, he and the clothes he is wearing become Tamei.

(c) One does not become Tamei if one eats the Sh'lal shel Beitzim, the bones or the nerves of a Nivlas Of Tahor. The Sh'lal shel Beitzim is - the batch of eggs that are still attached to the spinal cord of the bird.

(d) One does not become Tamei if one eats flesh that was detached whilst the animal was still alive - since it is not Neveilah.

(a) One *does* however, become Tamei if one eats the Eshkol shel Beitzim, the stomach or the intestines. The 'Eshkol shel Beitzim' - is the flesh of the spine to which the eggs are attached.

(b) One *is* Tamei if one melted the fat of a Tahor bird and drank it - because the word "ha'Nefesh" (mentioned in this regard in Acharei-Mos) comes to include drinking.

(c) This Tana holds that even when complete eggs are still attached to the mother they are no longer called 'meat'. Rav Yosef maintains that the author cannot be Rebbi Ya'akov (who forbids such eggs to be eaten with milk) - Abaye argues that Rebbi Ya'akov is talking about the Isur of Basar be'Chalav, but perhaps, when it comes to Tum'ah, he will agree that it is not called meat?

(d) Chazal may well have decreed that these eggs should be called meat with regard to eating - but not with regard to Tum'ah, because they were wary of adding new Tum'os to the existing Tum'os.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Yosef takes for granted that the author of the Beraisa must be Rebbi Ya'akov, because of his ruling in the Seifa, that the 'Eshkol' shel Beitzim is Metamei. According to this Lashon - we interpret 'Eshkol shel Beitzim' as we previously interpreted 'Sh'lal shel Beitzim'; 'Sh'lal shel Beitzim now means completed eggs whose shell has virtually formed, and which are virtually detached from the spine.

(b) Who said that 'Eshkol shel Beitzim' refers to the *eggs*, asks Abaye? Perhaps it refers to the *flesh of the spine* (as we learned in the first Lashon)?

(c) If 'Eshkol shel Beitzim' means part of the chicken itself, the Chidush of the Beraisa will be exactly the same as that of the stomach of the bird and the intestines, which the Tana mentions because - we might otherwise have thought that they are not considered part of the the bird, seeing as not everyone eats them.

(d) Based on the principle that all species give birth in the same period of day or night as they procreate ...

1. ... a chicken lays eggs specifically by day - because it procreates with its mate by day.
2. ... a bat gives birth specifically by night - because it procreates with its mate by night.
3. ... a woman gives birth either by day or by night - because she procreates with her husband either by day or by night.

(a) The ramifications of the fact that a chicken only lays eggs by day is that - if one finds an egg in a chicken-coop just before Yom-Tov morning, it is permitted on Yom-Tov, even if he had searched the coop before nightfall and found no eggs.

(b) Even though he found no eggs there before nightfall - we have no option but to say that he did not search properly.

(c) We reconcile this Halachah with Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul quoting Rav, who rules that if one searched before night on Erev Yom-Tov and did not find any eggs, then the eggs that he finds before dawn-break next morning are forbidden - by establishing his case by a Safna de'Ar'a (which the chicken *can* lay during the night).

(d) The case of Rav Mari Brei de'Rav Kahana speaks by an egg that was formed from a male - because it speaks when there was a male in the vicinity, in which case, the chicken will never produce a Safna de'Ar'a.

7)

(a) For the chicken to desist from heating itself on the ground - the male must be sufficiently close for the chicken to hear it by day (which is not as far as it will hear it by night).

(b) Rav Mari permitted an egg on Yom-Tov (under the above circumstances) relying on the fact that there was a rooster sixty houses away. These Halachos ...

1. ... will not apply - if there is a river between the chicken and the rooster, in which case the rooster may as well be not be there.
2. ... will however, apply - if there is a bridge spanning the river, but not, if ...
3. ... the bridge is no more than a narrow crossing consisting of a narrow plank and a rope to hold on to. In spite of this ruling, it happened once that a chicken crossed such a narrow bridge to get to rooster.

(c) Even though the case of Rav Yossi ben Shaul quoting Rav (quoted earlier) speaks by a Safna de'Ar'a, Rav nevertheless finds it necessary to mention that he searched on the eve of Yom-Tov and found nothing - because otherwise, we would have followed the majority of chickens, which lay their eggs (even those that are Safna de'Ar'a) during the day.

(d) Once he searched just before night-time, and found no eggs, we do not contend with the possibility that most of the egg emerged before Yom-Tov and returned into the mother (like Rebbi Yochanan) - because this is unusual, and we do not contend with unusual contingencies.

9)

(a) Beis Shamai differentiates between Chametz and yeast - because, in his opinion, the Torah does not need to mention yeast (which we would know from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Chametz, which does not cause other things to rise). Consequently, the Torah mentions yeast to teach us that it does not have the same Shiur as Chametz, from which we derive that although the Shiur for yeast is a k'Zayis, that of Chametz is only a ke'Koseves.

(b) Beis Hillel disagree. In their opinion, the Torah *does* need to write yeast - which we cannot learn from Chametz, because it is not edible like Chametz is. Consequently, the Shiur for both is a k'Zayis.

(c) Beis Shamai explains Rebbi Zeira's Derashah, that the Torah opens the Pasuk with Se'or and ends with Chametz, to teach us that Chametz and yeast have the same Shiur - exclusively with regard to the Isur of *eating* Chametz, whereas they argue with Beis Hillel by the Mitzvah of *destroying* it (incorporating the La'avin of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei).

(a) If '*ha'Shochet* Chayah ve'Of be'Yom-Tov, Beis Shamai Omrim Yachpor ... ' means Bedi'eved (as it usually does) - Beis Hillel's statement 'Lo Yishchot Ela im Kein Hayah Lo Afar Muchan ... ' will mean 'Lo Yishchot vi'Yechaseh' meaning that if he Shechted, he should not make Kisuy ha'Dam.

(b) We conclude however that, on the basis of the Seifa, where Beis Hillel concedes that Bedieved, one may use the peg to cover the blood, that their Machlokes must be with regard to Lechatchilah - in which case, the Lashon 'ha'Shochet' of Beis Shamai means that if one comes to ask whether he may Shecht, we tell him that he may (Lechatchilah).

(c) According to Rabah (in Beis Shamai), Beis-Din tells him 'Shechot Chafor ve'Chasei!' whereas according to Rav Yosef, they tell him 'Chafor, Shechot ve'Chasei'! Abaye initially tries to explain that they argue over Rebbi Zeira - who says that the one who Shechts is obligated to place earth both underneath the blood and on top of it. Rav Yosef, who learns that we tell him first 'dig'! and then 'Shecht'! will hold like Rebbi Zeira, whilst Rabah, who puts 'Shecht'! first, will not.

(d) Rav Yosef assured Abaye however, that Rabah too, agrees with Rebbi Zeira. Nevertheless, Rabah learns that, according to Beis Shamai, the earth that precedes the Shechitah must already be there from before Yom-Tov. Otherwise - we are afraid that he may take the trouble to place it on Yom- Tov, and then change his mind, in which caase, he will have bothered on Yom- Tov for nothing.

(a) Rav Yehudah maintains that Beis Hillel only permits covering the blood on Yom-Tov (both according to Beis Hillel Bedieved, and according to Beis Shamai Lechatchilah - see Maharam), if the peg was already stuck in the ground from before Shabbos (as we shall see later at the end of 9b.). The Gemara asks that, even with the peg stuck in the ground, he will be breaking up earth - which is a Toldah of Tochen (grinding), and forbidden on Yom-Tov.

(b) We resolve that Kashya - by establishing our Mishnah when the peg is stuck in *soft* earth, which does not require breaking up.

(c) If Beis Hillel permitted making Kisuy ha'Dam because of the principle of 'Asei Docheh Lo'Sa'aseh' - then he would not require a peg to be stuck in ground from before Yom-Tov (as Rav Yehudah prescribes).

(d) True, he will inevitably dig a hole when he removes the earth. Nevertheless, he will not be transgressing any Isur when he does, like Rebbi Aba - who says that someone who digs a hole on Shabbos is only Chayav if he needs the *hole*; if it is only the *earth* that he needs, then he will be Patur (i.e. he transgresses only an Isur de'Rabbanan). In our case, the Mitzvah of Simchas Yom-Tov will override the Isur de'Rabbanan.