Beitzah 26b — the Talmud in English

b.

A blemish developed in it ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

on the Festival

itself:

In such a case,

Rabbi Shimon says: This is not prepared!

And even if he transgressed and examined it, and found that the blemish that developed in it on the Festival was a permanent blemish, he may not slaughter it, since by doing so he completely rectifies it on the Festival.

And they agree,

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon, who dispute the law of muktze,

that if it was born

the firstborn

with its blemish together with it—

that this is prepared.

And this is, for example, when judges sat at the time of its birth and saw that it was blemished. And since the firstborn becomes sacred only at the time of its birth, it follows that it was never established in a state of prohibition, and the judges’ seeing it at the time of birth is not considered its rectification, because it was never “defective” on account of the uncertainty of its sanctity.

Rabba bar Rav Huna expounded:

A firstborn that

was born with its blemish together with it—

one examines it on the Festival, ab initio.

Rav Naḥman said to him: My father

of mine

teaches: If he transgressed and examined it—

it is examined!

And it implies that this is only after the fact.

And

if

you said

that

one examines it ab initio!?

Abaye said: Like him,

as

that

said

Rabba bar Rav Huna,

that it is permitted to examine it on the Festival ab initio,

it is reasonable:

From the fact that he teaches it

in the earlier beraita, according to the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, in

three clauses,

in a division into three matters:

a.

A blemish developed in it on the eve of the Festival—

one does not examine it on the Festival.

And it is proven from the wording of the beraita itself that only

ab initio is it not the case that

one examines it.

But

if they examined it

after the fact—

it is well,

and it is permitted to eat it.

b.

A blemish developed in it on the Festival; Rabbi Shimon says: This is not prepared.

And the wording of the beraita implies

that even

if they examined it

after the fact—

also not

may they eat it, since it is not prepared.

And there is further proof that this is the meaning of the tannai:

For if the intention is that only ab initio he may not examine it, but if he examined it, it is permitted to slaughter it, then the law of “a blemish developed in it on the Festival” would be equal to the earlier law of “a blemish developed in it on the eve of the Festival,” for in both cases one may not examine it ab initio, but if he examined it, after the fact it would be possible to slaughter it and eat it. If so, why are these two laws divided as two different matters?

c.

And then he teaches: And they agree that if it was born with its blemish together with it, that this is prepared.

And from this additional division into three, it implies

that even ab initio as well.

For if it were permitted only after the fact, it would have been possible to include this law together with the first law, and to say: “If a blemish developed in it on the eve of the Festival, or if it was born with its blemish on the Festival, one does not examine it on the Festival,” and it would have implied that ab initio one does not examine it, but after the fact it is permitted.

And we challenge Abaye:

But when

when

Rav Oshaya

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he came and brought a beraita

a beraita

in his hand,

in which there is no division at all between the first two laws; rather, it includes in one law both the firstborn in which a blemish developed on the eve of the Festival and the firstborn in which a blemish developed on the Festival.

As it was taught: A firstborn,

whether a blemish developed in it on the eve of the Festival, or whether a blemish developed in it on the Festival—

the Sages say: This is not prepared.

And since the beraita does not distinguish between a blemish that developed on the eve of the Festival and a blemish that developed on the Festival, it implies that in both cases it is muktze, and it is prohibited even after the fact, even if he examined it!

And this beraita is according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one does not inspect blemishes on the Festival.

And according to this beraita, it is possible to establish the other law, that Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon agree regarding one that was born with its blemish together with it, that this is prepared, as meaning that it is prohibited to see it ab initio, and only if he saw it is it permitted after the fact, in accordance with the words of Rav Naḥman. And there is no proof from here for Rabba bar Rav Huna, who permits it entirely when it was born with its blemish together with it.

And Abaye’s inference from the beraita that he brought above, that when it was born with its blemish together with it, it is permitted ab initio, based on the fact that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya did not include the law of “it was born with its blemish together with it” together with the law of “a blemish fell upon it on the eve of the Festival,” does not apply according to this beraita. For this beraita prohibits a blemish of the eve of the Festival even after the fact, whereas when it was born with its blemish together with it, according to everyone it is permitted after the fact; therefore it is impossible to include them together.

And this is a difficulty for Abaye, concerning that which he supported Rabba bar Rav Huna, who permitted entirely the case of one born with its blemish together with it, and brought him proof from the division of the beraita into three matters.

But rather, this is difficult:

the other

And we resolve:

That

beraita that Abaye brought as proof is the words of

Ada bar Ukhmi, who corrupts

beraitot

and teaches

them, and one may not rely upon it, but rather upon the beraita that Rav Oshaya brought.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Our Mishna

our Mishna

also proves precisely

according to the words of the beraita that Rav Oshaya brought:

For it teaches

in it:

Rabbi Shimon says: Anything whose blemish is not recognizable from the eve of the Festival—

this is not prepared.

What does “whose blemish” not recognizable mean?

If you say that its blemish was not recognizable

yesterday

at all,

meaning that there was no blemish in it on the eve of the Festival, but at that time it was an unblemished firstborn, which is muktze,

then

it is obvious

that it is muktze according to Rabbi Judah; and is it

necessary

for Rabbi Shimon

to say

to Rabbi Judah that it is not prepared!?

Rather,

necessarily, it is speaking of a case

where it was not fit to be shown to a sage on the eve of the Festival as to whether

it was

a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish.

And

at any rate he teaches

that

“this is not prepared.”

And it is proven that even if it had a blemish on the eve of the Festival [but it was not then shown to a sage], it is prohibited even after the fact. And it is proven from our Mishna against the beraita that we established as the words of Ada bar Ukhmi, from which it would be possible to infer that in the case of a blemish on the eve of the Festival, it is permitted after the fact.

And we conclude:

Conclude from it.

Hillel asked Rava:

Whether

there is

a law of

“muktze for part of Shabbat, or there is no muktze for part of Shabbat?”

And the question is: Does the fact that an object is muktze for part of Shabbat prohibit it for the entire Shabbat, even though its designation as muktze was annulled?

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

What is the doubt?

The ordinary muktze, about which everyone agrees, concerns one who raises figs and raisins to dry them, thereby setting them aside with his hands. And their way is to become unfit to eat at the beginning of their drying, and to return to being fit to eat once they have dried completely.

If they were fit

for eating already

at twilight—

then

they were fit

for eating, and there is no muktze for part of Shabbat here.

And

if they were not fit

at twilight, then

they were not fit

for the entire duration of Shabbat, since they were not prepared while it was still day.

And the foundation of muktze is based upon the lack of preparation for Shabbat, and the obligation of preparation is supported by the verse, “On the sixth day—and they shall prepare,” from which the Sages based their statement that the preparation must be while it is still day, and without it the object is muktze for eating.

And the Gemara explains:

It is not necessary,

but rather in a case

where they were fit

at twilight for eating, because they had already dried then,

and afterward became unfit

for eating because rain fell upon them, causing them to become moist again and unfit for eating,

and afterward became fit

for eating when they returned to drying in the sun on Shabbat.

And the question is—

what: Are they, because they became prohibited in the middle of Shabbat, when rain fell upon them, also set aside for the remainder of Shabbat until the conclusion of Shabbat? Or perhaps they were set aside only for the time when they were moist, and no more!?

He said to him: There is muktze

for part of Shabbat, and they remain prohibited until the conclusion of Shabbat. And the same law applies: there is muktze for part of the Festival.

He raised an objection to him

to Rava from the beraita:

And they agree that if it was born with its blemish together with it—

that this is prepared.

And it is difficult:

But why

did they say this, according to Rava?

For according to Rava, who says that there is muktze for part of Shabbat and it is prohibited for the entire Shabbat, and likewise there is muktze for part of the Festival,

let us say:

This firstborn,

indeed

at first,

at the entry of Shabbat until it was born,

was fit,

it was fit to be eaten if it were slaughtered

together with its mother,

and found at the time of slaughter in its mother’s womb, for it has no sanctity until its birth.

But at the time that

it was born to him—

it became unfit for him,

it was then rejected from eating in accordance with the law of muktze, so long as it had not been seen by a sage, for it was prohibited to slaughter it and eat it until the sage would see it, since at that time it was presumed to be an unblemished firstborn.

He showed it to a sage,

who saw its blemish and permitted it,

it became permitted to him

then from the prohibition of eating it on account of the uncertainty of its firstborn status.

And according to Rava, it should continue to be muktze, because there is muktze for part of the Festival, rendering it prohibited for the entire day. And why did they say that if the firstborn was born with its blemish together with it, everyone agrees that it is permitted to eat it, that this is prepared?

Abaye said, and some say Rav Safra:

The beraita is speaking of

a case where judges were sitting there,

at the time of its birth, and saw at the time of birth that it was born with its blemish, and it follows that it was never presumed to be an unblemished firstborn.

There are those who say

as follows:

He said to him,

Rava:

There is no muktze for part of Shabbat.

And we say:

Let it support him

Rava from the beraita that we learned in it:

And they agree that if it was born with its blemish together with it—

that this is prepared.

And the Gemara proves:

But this firstborn,

this one,

at first,

in its mother’s womb,

was fit together with its mother.

It was born to him—

it became unfit for him; he showed it to a sage—

it became permitted to him.

And they permit it. And it is proven that there is no muktze for part of Shabbat.

Abaye said, and some say Rav Safra:

You have no proof from there, because there it is speaking

of a case where judges were sitting there,

and it was never set aside under the status of a firstborn.

Come and hear

a proof that there is muktze for part of Shabbat, from that which was taught: One who

was eating grapes and left some

of them,

and raised them to the roof to make raisins from them.

And likewise one who was eating

figs and left some, and raised them to the roof to make

fig cakes from them may not eat from them

on Shabbat

until

he designates them while it is still day!

And likewise you find this with peaches, and quinces, and all other kinds of fruit.

And the Gemara proves:

What are the circumstances?

If they are fit,

if they have already dried and were fit for eating on the eve of Shabbat—

why does he need designation?

If they are not fit

for eating at the entry of Shabbat—

when I designate them

on the eve of Shabbat

what has occurred?

For a person cannot designate a future object, but only an object that is presently fit before him!

And if you will say that he did not know

the person who designates them

whether they were fit or whether they were not fit,

since he does not trouble himself to climb to the roof, and he must designate them on the assumption that they are presently fit for eating; then, if he climbs to the roof on Shabbat and sees that they had been fit for eating on the eve of Shabbat, he may eat them on the basis of his designation on the eve of Shabbat—

It is impossible to say this, because

Rav Kahana said: A fruit of

muktze

that dried

on the roof on the eve of Shabbat,

and the owners did not know of it

on the eve of Shabbat that it had dried—

it is permitted

to eat it on Shabbat even without having designated it, since he set it aside initially only until the time when it would dry and become prepared for eating, and since on the eve of Shabbat it was prepared, there is no need to designate it!

Rather, is it not

necessarily necessary to say that the case is

that they were fit

at the entry of Shabbat,

and became unfit

in the middle of Shabbat,

and afterward became fit again

on Shabbat. Therefore, only if he designated them on the eve of Shabbat did his designation help, since at the time that he designated them they were fit for eating.

And if you say that there is no muktze

for part of Shabbat—

why do they need designation

in order to permit them when they return and become fit!? For if there is no muktze for part of Shabbat, then when they return and become fit again, the muktze is annulled from them!

And we challenge:

But rather, what

according to your words,

there is muktze

for part of Shabbat; then you too will have a difficulty:

when I designate them

for the time when they return and become fit for eating—

what has occurred!?

How can the designation help him to permit them, since by virtue of “there is muktze for part of Shabbat” they are prohibited until the conclusion of Shabbat!? For the designation has no greater power than the very fact that they were fit for eating at the entry of the day!

And we resolve:

It is not necessary,

but rather for a case

where they were fit but were not fit.

For at the entry of Shabbat they had dried, but they had not dried completely.

And that is,

that there are people who eat

them

and there are people who do not eat

them.

Therefore, if he

designated them—

he revealed his intention

that a degree of dryness such as this was fit for him to eat, and these dried fruits are not muktze for him.

If he did not designate them—

he did not reveal his intention

that they were fit for him, and then they are muktze.

And there is no connection between this beraita and the question of whether there is muktze for part of Shabbat or not.

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear

that there is no muktze for part of Shabbat,

from beans and lentils

that we cook on the Festival:

for these beans and lentils, at first,

before the Festival, while they are raw before their cooking,

were fit to chew

and are fit to chew them as they are.

And when

he throws them

on the Festival

into a pot

in order to cook them, then at the beginning of the cooking process, when the boiling begins, they are fit neither for eating nor for chewing, and therefore

they become unfit for them

for eating throughout the entire time of the boiling.