Beitzah Daf 27 - Bikur Mumin B'Yom Tov, Muktzah Status of Neveilah
Summary
- The shiur dedicates today’s learning to several sponsors and then completes the sugya of *muktzeh le-chatzi Shabbos* with an inconclusive third proof from cooking *polin ve-adashim*, distinguishing cases whose resolution is in human hands from those dependent on Heaven. It presents a chain of episodes and sources about viewing a *mum* on Yom Tov, beginning with רבי יהודה נשיאה’s case sent to רבי אמי and רבי יצחק נפחא, tending toward רבי שמעון based on a ברייתא that states his view בלשון חכמים, and then tests and rejects a linkage to רבי מאיר via the *kehilla kedisha d’Yerushalayim* because that dispute is a *k’nas*. It records practical conduct: not ruling on Yom Tov unless the sighting occurred beforehand, and probing the prohibition of even *geram hatalas mum* derived from “מום לא יהיה בו … כל מום.” It states the משנה that a בהמה that died on Yom Tov and חלה שנטמאת are not moved, and reconciles this with רבי שמעון by establishing cases of *behemas kodshim* and/or *mesukenes*, and concludes with a new משנה on דף לג עמוד ב.
- The shiur is sponsored by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children; by Eitan Gavrun לרפואה שלמה for his father Barry Gavrun ברוך בן מרים who is in the ICU; by Karen and Marky Benson commemorating the יארצייט of Pauline Benson פערל בת ברוך חיים הכהן עליה השלום on שמיני עצרת, 22 תשרי; and by Mr. Joey Husney לעילוי נשמת עובדיה בן אדל, אברהם בן רבקה, ועזרא בן בליסה.
- Rav Zeira brings a proof from everyday practice with *polin ve-adashim*: initially edible raw, then inedible while boiling, then edible at the end, showing that temporary inedibility in the middle does not fix permanent *muktzeh* status. Abaye answers that by the same logic all pots at *bein ha-shmashos* would be forbidden when they are boiling, and clarifies that when the outcome is in human hands (cooling, finishing the cook) it is not considered a rejection; the unresolved question concerns cases dependent on Heaven like rain-soaked figs and raisins. The sugya concludes that this third proof remains inconclusive for *muktzeh le-chatzi Shabbos*.
- רבי יהודה נשיאה had a *bechor* with a blemish and, due to כל הנגעים אדם רואה חוץ מנגעי עצמו and כל הבכורות אדם רואה חוץ מבכורות עצמו, sent it to רבי אמי, an exceptional כהן and תלמיד חכם, who declined to view it on Yom Tov. רבי זריקא (or רבי ירמיה) argued that הלכה כרבי יהודה against רבי שמעון, but רבי אבא cited רבי זירא that הלכה מצד מסתברא follows רבי שמעון, supported by the fact that the משנה states רבי שמעון’s rule “כל שאין מומו ניכר מבעוד יום, אינו מן המוכן,” and a ברייתא restates it בלשון חכמים. A תלמיד later confirmed with רבי זירא that he had said only “מסתברא,” not a formal “הלכה,” deriving plausibility from the ברייתא’s anonymous formulation.
- Rav Yosef cites רבי שמעון בן פזי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר רבי יוסי בן שאול אמר רבי משום *kehilla kedisha d’Yerushalayim* that רבי שמעון וחביריו aligned with רבי מאיר regarding a different bechor ruling, and he explains they associated the stance that אין רואין מומים ביום טוב with רבי מאיר’s view. The association is drawn from בכורות: השוחט את הבכור ואחר כך הראה מומו—רבי יהודה מתיר and רבי מאיר אומר הואיל ונשחט שלא על פי מומחה אסור—indicating ראיית בכור is not like ראיית טרפה and depends on the חכם’s declaration. From this they infer that determinative reality checks like טרפה can be done even on Yom Tov, but bechor rulings, being akin to דין, must be from ערב Yom Tov, thus matching רבי שמעון and outnumbering רבי יהודה.
- Abaye responds that the dispute in בכורות is a *k’nas*, not a theory about the nature of bechor evaluation. Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of רבי יוחנן explains that all agree דוקין שבעין cannot be ruled after slaughter since it changes, and the dispute concerns bodily blemishes: רבי מאיר holds גזרינן מום שבגוף אטו מום שבעין and רבי יהודה holds לא גזרינן. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak notes the לשון “הואיל ונשחט שלא על פי מומחה אסור” implies a penalty, confirming it is a *k’nas* and undermining the claimed alignment as proof for רבי שמעון.
- Ami Vardina’a, who examined the נשיא’s *bechorot*, refrained on Yom Tov; רבי אמי endorsed this and clarified that when he ruled, he viewed the blemish from before Yom Tov and only questioned the כהן on Yom Tov to verify non-inducement. A case with רבא shows him glancing ערב Yom Tov to see the blemish, then questioning the owner on Yom Tov about causation; the owner described a thorn fence incident cutting the lip, and רבא probed possible *gerama*, which the owner denied, allowing the ruling.
- The ברייתא expounds “מום לא יהיה בו” and “כל מום” to forbid even *geram hatalas mum*, such as placing dough or fig cake on an ear so a dog bites and causes a blemish. The derivation prohibits both direct and indirect blemishing of a *bechor*.
- The משנה rules “בהמה שמתה לא יזיזנה ממקומה” and recounts that they asked רבי טרפון about this and about “על החלה שנטמאת,” and the בית המדרש answered “לא יזיזו ממקומם.” The rationale is that the carcass is *muktzeh* and the *challah shenitme’ah* is unusable for a כהן on Yom Tov, rendering both non-moveable.
- The גמרא notes רבי שמעון permits cutting gourds and even נבילה for dogs, and answers that even רבי שמעון is מודה בבעלי חיים שמתו שאסורין when the animal was healthy at *bein ha-shmashos*. Against the version that רבי שמעון חולק even there, Zeiri establishes the case as *behemas kodshim*, supported by the juxtaposition to *challah shenitme’ah*, yielding a diyyuk that *chullin* would be permitted. To accommodate the version that רבי שמעון is מודה, the sugya sets the case as both *behemas kodshim* and *mesukenes*, so the diyyuk implies that had it been *chullin mesukenes* it would be permitted according to רבי שמעון.
- The משנה states “השוחט לעובד כוכבים שחיטתו כשרה ורבי אליעזר פוסל.” רבי חנינא says “לא שנו אלא במפרש אבל בסתם כשרה,” implying an alternative version “לא שנו אלא במפרש אבל בסתם פסולה.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions