ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 34
(a) The Mishnah in Chulin permits Shechting a bird that survived twenty-four
hours after being trodden on, hit against a wall or one that was crushed by
(b) The animal must also be a 'Mefarcheses' (unable to stand up) - in order
to fall under the category of 'Risuk Eivarim'.
(c) Having Shechted it (without waiting for it to recover) - one is not
permitted to eat it immediately, before one has examined it for 'Risuk
(d) Despite the fact that the bird needs to be examined, it must also
survive twenty-four hours - because if it does not, the fact that it was
crushed and did not survive, renders it a 'Risuk Eivarim', even if the
examination reveals no defect.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira whether one is permitted to Shecht such
a bird on Yom-Tov - bearing in mind that one may well discover that it is a
'Risuk Eivarim', and the Shechitah will then have been in vain. (This is not
comparable to the Shechitah of all animals, which is permitted despite the
fact one will later need to examine the lungs, and it may turn out to be a
Tereifah - because all animals are assumed to be Kasher [as we learned
above]), and their examination is only a Minhag, rather than an absolute
(b) Rebbi Zeira resolved the She'eilah from our Mishnah - which prohibits
the heating of tiles on Yom-Tov, because they need to be tested (as we
learned a little earlier).
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah rejected Rebbi Zeira's proof however - on the grounds
that he followed the other reason stated there ('Mipnei she'Tzarich
le'Chasman' - because they need to be strengthened).
(a) We learned in a Beraisa that if one person lights the flame, another
places wood, a third places the pot on the stove, and a fourth pours in the
water, yet another adds spices and another stirs, they are all Chayav (on
Shabbos). We reconcile this Beraisa with the Beraisa which states that only
the last one is Chayav - by establishing this Beraisa when the first person
lit the flame (as the Tana presents the case); whereas the second Beraisa
speaks when it was the last one who lit the flame.
(b) The person who places the empty pot on the stove is Chayav - only when
pot is a new one, in which case heating it strengthens it (and he is Chayav
because of 'Tikun K'li').
(c) One *may* move an oven on Shabbos - because it is fit to put things in.
(d) On Yom-Tov, smearing it with oil and rubbing it with a cloth are
forbidden. Cooling it down with cold water is sometimes forbidden and
sometimes permitted. It is ...
1. ... forbidden - if it is to strengthen it.
2. ... permitted - if it is to cool it down in order to prevent the bread that one intends to bake in it from getting burned.
(a) One may ...
1. ... boil the head or feet of a bird in boiling water (in order to remove
the hair) on Yom-Tov.
(b) One is not permitted to cut the leaves off vegetables with the scissors
with which one usually cuts them from the ground - because people will think
that he cut them from the ground on Yom-Tov.
2. ... not however, smear them with lime or earth - because this is the
method used by tanners to tan the skin.
3. ... remove the hair with scissors - because it looks as if he is doing
this for the hair.
(c) On Yom-Tov, one may ...
1. ... prepare even vegetables whose preparation entails a lot of effort.
(d) One may not, on the other hand, use a *new* Purni - because it might
crack from the heat (and one will have undertaken a lot of trouble in vain).
2. ... heat up and cook (a large amount of food) in a Purni (an extra large
oven - which entails more work than a regular one, because the door is on
the *side* rather than *on top*), or in a large water-kettle - because that
is what is needed.
(a) One may not fan the flames of a fire using bellows - because it looks
like a professional job.
(b) One may however, fan the flames by blowing through a tube.
(c) One is not permitted to prepare a spit-rod for roasting, repair it or
sharpen it, if it could have been done before Yom-Tov - even according to
(d) One may ...
1. ... not break up a bamboo into strips to use as a base for frying -
because it constitutes 'Tikun Mana'.
2. ... break a nut wrapped in a cloth, even if there is a good chance that
the cloth will tear - because even if it does, tearing which destroys is not
a Tikun and only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (in which case, to forbid it, would be
a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah).
(a) When Rebbi Eliezer permits standing by a Muktzah on Erev Shabbos in the
Shmitah-year and designating it verbally - he is referring to a food which
is partially ready to eat (i.e. which some people will eat as it is and
others will not), and designating it, demonstrates that he is among those
who do eat it as it is (as we learned above on 26b).
(b) This Din applies specifically to the Sh'mitah-year - because, in any
other year of the cycle, the fruit would need to be Ma'asered first, and
would therefore not be fit to eat.
(c) The reason that the Tana mentions a Muktzah - is because fruit in a
Muktzah is generally not Ma'asered (which explains in turn, why he has to
speak specifically about the Sh'mitah year.
(d) The Rabbanan say that verbal designation is not sufficient, but that one
must actually mark the fruit that he intends to use on Yom-Tov, because they
hold 'Ein Bereirah; whereas Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Yesh Bereirah'.
(a) The Mishnah in Ma'asros, which states that if children put away figs on
Erev Shabbos and then, and then forgot about them, one is forbidden to eat
them on Motza'ei Shabbos without Ma'asering them first - comes to teach us
that, although fruit only becomes Chayav be'Ma'asros (i.e. one may no
longer eat even a casual meal) once one brings it into the house or the
courtyard, Shabbos has the same effect as bringing it into the house
(because each meal on Shabbos is considered fixed - and eating a fixed meal
is forbidden even *before* the food enters the house or the Chatzer).
(b) The reason that the Tana mentions specifically children - is to teach us
that as long as it is accompanied by a clear-cut act (such as in this case),
the Machshavah of a child effectively determines what a fruit is to be used
for (such as in our case, where the children's Machshavah, in conjunction
with their having put it away for Shabbos, determined it as a Shabbos food).
(c) Another Mishnah there teaches us that if someone puts out figs in the
Chatzer to dry, his family are permitted to eat them casually without having
to separate Ma'asros - because, a Chatzer only fixes fruit for Ma'asros, if
it is ready to eat (and it is only figs that one intends to eat as they are,
that are ready to eat, but not figs that one puts out to dry).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg" - that whatever one
eats on Shabbos is considered fixed (i.e. that there is no such thing as a
casual meal on Shabbos).
(b) When Rava asked Rav Nachman whether Shabbos causes Muktzah to become
fixed - he was asking him whether Shabbos fixes by something that has not
yet reached the stage of Ma'asros (which is what is meant here by
'Muktzah'), just like it fixes by something that has not yet entered the
house or the Chatzer.
(c) Rav Nachman replied that is *is*. Consequently - once one *designates*
the food for Shabbos, it becomes forbidden to eat even on Motza'ei Shabbos
(without Ma'asering it first); if one does *not*, then it is forbidden to be
eaten on Shabbos (even just a snack), but is permitted the moment Shabbos
(d) Rava queried Rav Nachman - on the grounds that he saw no reason that
Shabbos should fix for Ma'aser before the food is ready to eat, any more
than Chatzer does.
(a) Mar Zutra, Rav Nachman's son, tries to prove his father's point from our
Mishnah, where Rebbi Eliezer permits verbal designation on Erev Shabbos in
the Sh'mitah-year - implying that, on any other year of the cycle, verbal
designation would not help. Is that not because Shabbos fixes for Ma'aser
even by something that has not yet reached the stage of Ma'aser (such as a
(b) We refute this proof however - because it may well be that it is not
*Shabbos* that fixes there, but the *verbal designation* that he made.
(c) The Gemara asks that, if it is the designation that renders them fixed,
then why does the Tana need to mention Shabbos, seeing as the same will
apply on a weekday? In other words, let the Tana not mention Shabbos, and
move the Mishnah from here to Ma'asros.
(d) We answer that the Tana found it necessary to teach us this Din
specifically with regard to Shabbos - to include the additional Chidush that
Tevel is Muchan regarding Shabbos, and is not Muktzah (as we shall now see).
(a) Tevel is not 'Muktzah Machmas Isur' (as a result of the prohibition of
separating Ma'asros on Shabbos and Yom-Tov) - because the Isur of separate
Ma'asros on Shabbos and Yom-Tov is only mi'de'Rabbanan (i.e. if it would be
an Isur d'Oraysa, then it would indeed, be Muktzah).
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah means to imply that one is *not permitted to
separate Ma'asros* in any other year (but not that the fruit is forbidden).
If he had meant to imply that the *fruit is forbidden in the other years
(because it is Muktzah Machmas Isur) - then he should have said something
like 'ha'Omed al ha'Muktzah ... ve'Omer ... le'Machar, *Harei Zeh min
ha'Muchan*' (from which we would be able to imply that in other years, it
would *not be* min ha'Muchan).