Beitzah 2b — the Talmud in English

But ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

regarding

muktze on

Yom Tov, for the anonymous tanna established

in an anonymous Mishna

according to Rabbi Yehuda

who prohibits an item that a person consciously set aside, even when it is fit for use.

As we learned [below 31a]:

there is no chopping of wood

from beams

for the purpose of kindling on Yom Tov

from the beams

prepared for construction, which are muktze because of monetary loss [and are prohibited even according to Rabbi Shimon],

and not from the beam

of the house

that broke on Yom Tov,

even though now it is fit for kindling, since yesterday the person had set his mind away from it, for it did not then stand for kindling and “since it was set aside at twilight, it was set aside for the entire day.”

The prohibition of muktze in the beam of a house that broke applies only according to Rabbi Yehuda. For according to Rabbi Shimon, the person’s conscious setting aside does not take effect, since a person does not set the beam aside with an absolute setting aside in his mind: if the beam broke on Yom Tov, it had certainly already been weak since the previous day, and he was “sitting and anticipating” in his mind the possibility that he would use this beam for kindling. Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, the status of muktze did not take effect upon it

. Since on Yom Tov we find that the anonymous tanna in the Mishna established that “we hold of muktze,” meaning that there is the law of a person’s conscious setting aside even with regard to an item fit for use, the same applies to a person’s conscious setting aside of something fit for eating, such as a chicken on Yom Tov, when he sets it aside in his mind to raise eggs and not for eating.

And therefore

he establishes it

Rav Naḥman

according

to the words of

Beit Hillel as Rabbi Yehuda

who prohibit an egg born on Yom Tov because of muktze.

And Rav Naḥman establishes our Mishna as referring to a chicken that is muktze because it stands to raise eggs, and the egg born from the muktze chicken is likewise prohibited with the prohibition of muktze, like the chicken that laid it.

For according to Rav Naḥman, on Yom Tov the halakha is like Rabbi Yehuda with regard to such muktze!

[And Rabbi Shimon also agrees with the fundamental law of muktze on Yom Tov; rather, he disagreed with regard to such muktze, in which a person performs a non-absolute setting aside in his mind.]

And we raised an objection to it:

Since,

after all,

who is the one who makes the Mishna anonymous,

who is the tanna who made the Mishnayot anonymous, and when the words of one of the tannaim appeared correct to him, he did not mention his name with them, so that it would appear as though many had said so and they would rule according to him,

Rabbi

is he, for he is the tanna who arranged all the Mishnayot!

If so, we must examine Rabbi’s reason: why did he distinguish in the laws of muktze between Shabbat and Yom Tov, despite the fact that the prohibition of muktze fundamentally applies to both:

What is different on Shabbat, that he made it anonymous

Rabbi

according to Rabbi Shimon, and what is different on Yom Tov, that he made it anonymous

Rabbi

according to Rabbi Yehuda?

They said

to answer:

Shabbat, which is stringent,

for its punishment is stoning,

and people will not come to treat it lightly,

so that they will not come to introduce further leniencies with regard to it if they are lenient in the laws of muktze [by ruling according to Rabbi Shimon]; therefore

he made it anonymous

Rabbi

according to Rabbi Shimon, who is lenient.

But

Yom Tov, which is lenient,

for it involves only a positive commandment and a negative commandment

, and people will come to treat it lightly,

so that they will come to introduce further leniencies in it if we are lenient in its laws of muktze [when we rule according to Rabbi Shimon]; therefore

he made it anonymous

Rabbi

according to Rabbi Yehuda, who is stringent

.

And now the Gemara discusses what Rav Naḥman established concerning our Mishna: an egg born to a muktze chicken, the chicken having been designated to raise eggs, and the egg being muktze by virtue of the setting aside of its mother, the chicken.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

With what did you establish it,

with what did Rav Naḥman establish our Mishna? —

With a chicken that stands to raise eggs, and because of muktze.

If so, before they disagreed,

before Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed

with regard to the egg —

let them disagree with regard to the chicken

itself, whether it is permitted for eating when it was set aside for raising eggs.

And we answer: the reason that we established the dispute as concerning the egg is in order

to make known the strength of Beit Shammai, that

even

with regard to “nolad” it is permitted,

Beit Shammai permitted it, despite the fact that there was reason to prohibit it more than muktze, since it was not known at all, as was explained on the preceding page. If they had disagreed only with regard to a chicken that is muktze, we would not know that Beit Shammai’s view is also to permit an egg born on Yom Tov, even though it is “nolad.”

And we refute this: why should the law of the Mishna preferably be established as concerning an egg, in order to teach that Beit Shammai permit even nolad?

And let them disagree

after all, their dispute should be established as concerning a

chicken,

in order

to make known the strength of Beit Hillel, that

even

with regard to muktze

alone, which is not “nolad,”

they prohibit!?

And if you would say that the force of the permitting view is preferable,

to make it known, since one who permits “relies upon his tradition and is not afraid to permit” [Rashi’s wording, meaning that he is certain of his permission], whereas one who is stringent may be stringent even when he is not entirely certain of his words , and therefore the tanna preferred to state their dispute with regard to an egg, to teach us that Beit Shammai permit even nolad.

And let them disagree regarding both,

and let us say:

A chicken that stands to raise eggs, it,

the chicken,

and its egg —

Beit Shammai say: it may be eaten,

the chicken and its egg,

and Beit Hillel say: it may not be eaten,

neither it nor its egg. And we do not answer this, and it is difficult for Rav Naḥman! And since we remain with a difficulty against Rav Naḥman’s explanation, the Gemara brings another explanation:

The second view:

Rather, Rabba said: Actually,

our Mishna is dealing

with a chicken that stands for eating,

which itself is not muktze,

and we are dealing with Yom Tov that occurs immediately after Shabbat.

And because of

the prohibition of lack of

“preparation”

from a weekday, Beit Hillel said that the egg may not be eaten, which is a Torah prohibition, and not because of the prohibition of muktze, which is a rabbinic prohibition.

And Rabba holds: every egg that is born now,

every egg that was now born on Yom Tov that occurs on Sunday,

from yesterday,

on Shabbat,

it was completed,

the egg was completed and became prepared then in the chicken’s body.

And according to Rabba, every thing that was not prepared for Shabbat or Yom Tov from a weekday, but was prepared on the Shabbat preceding Yom Tov, or was prepared on the Yom Tov preceding Shabbat, is prohibited for eating, since the Torah said that all the foods of Shabbat and Yom Tov must be prepared and made ready beforehand, specifically on weekdays

. And Rabbah follows his own reasoning,

that there is a prohibition against eating something that is “lacking preparation” on weekdays, and even something whose preparation is by Heaven.

For Rabbah said: What

is this

that is written [Exodus 16:5]

[Exodus 16:5]

“And it shall be on the sixth day

that they shall prepare what they will bring”?

If it comes to teach that they should bake and cook on the sixth day for the needs of the Shabbat meals, this matter we learned from another verse.

For the verse said [in verse 23]: “A holy Shabbat to the Lord is tomorrow. Whatever you will bake—bake [today, on the sixth day, and not tomorrow, on Shabbat]. And whatever you will cook—cook [today, on the sixth day].”

Rather, the verse came with “and they shall prepare” to teach you even concerning preparation performed by Heaven, that it is permitted only if it had already been prepared on weekdays for the sake of Shabbat, because the Torah considered the Shabbat meal important, and required preparation and designation for it from the weekdays.

And therefore only a

weekday prepares for Shabbat, and

only a

weekday prepares for a Festival.

And a Festival does not prepare for Shabbat, and Shabbat does not prepare for a Festival.

And therefore every food on Shabbat and on a Festival that was not prepared on the weekday preceding it is muktzeh, even if it was prepared on the Shabbat preceding it. And therefore the egg that was laid on the Festival following Shabbat was prohibited .

Abaye said to

Rabbah:

If so—

according to your view, that the prohibition is because the preparation of the egg was completed yesterday, on Shabbat—

an ordinary Festival,

which occurs on one of the weekdays that is not adjacent to Shabbat, and an egg was laid on it,

should be permitted,

the eating of the egg should be permitted, for its preparation was completed yesterday, on a weekday,

Rabbah said to him: Indeed, by Torah law it is permitted, but the Sages prohibited it,

as a decree because of a Festival

that occurs

after Shabbat.

Abaye said to Rabbah: If so,

an ordinary Shabbat

that is not preceded by a Festival, and an egg was laid on it—

should be permitted,

the egg should be eaten raw, without cooking, for its preparation was completed on Friday! —

For according to your words, the prohibition is only because of preparation, and the egg is not muktzeh because it was laid by a hen [which is muktzeh on Shabbat], since the prohibition of slaughter applies only to the hen and is not needed as preparation for the egg that emerges from it, and there is no need to violate the prohibition of slaughter in order to permit the egg!?

Rabbah said to him: The Sages also prohibited eating an egg laid on an ordinary Shabbat,

as a decree because of Shabbat after a Festival.

And Abaye challenged him:

And do we decree

that is, did they decree concerning an egg that was prepared on a weekday and laid on Shabbat, because of the concern that people would come to violate the prohibition of lacking preparation, with an egg that was prepared on a Festival that occurs on the eve of Shabbat?

But it was taught in a beraita: One who slaughters the hen

on a Festival

and finds complete eggs inside it—

they are

permitted to eat them on the Festival,

and it implies that this refers even to a Festival after Shabbat, and even if the eggs were completed on Shabbat they are not prohibited because of lacking preparation, for as long as they are in their mother’s innards they are part of its body, and the hen itself was “prepared” from yesterday, during the daytime [and the absence of the act of slaughter is not considered a lack in its preparation].

And if it is so,

that they decreed concerning an egg laid on a Festival that occurs after a weekday, because of the concern that people would come to permit an egg laid on a Festival that occurs after Shabbat,

let them decree

also concerning eggs found in the hen’s innards, which are permitted by the fundamental law, even when it was slaughtered on a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, since as long as they have not been laid they are like one of its limbs ; but if we decree because of the concern that they will eat another egg that is prohibited, here too let us decree

because of those

eggs

that are laid on their days,

which are laid today and are prohibited because of lacking preparation.

He said to him,

Rabbah:

Complete eggs in their mother’s innards—

it is an uncommon matter, and

in an

uncommon matter—

the Sages did not decree.

But a Festival after Shabbat or Shabbat after a Festival are common times; therefore they decreed concerning an egg laid on a Festival or Shabbat that occurred after a weekday, because of an egg laid on a Festival or Shabbat for which there had been no preparation.

The third view:

Rav Yosef said:

The prohibition against eating an egg laid on a Festival always concerns a hen designated for eating, and the egg is not prohibited because of muktzeh, nor because of nolad, nor because of lacking preparation on a weekday.

Rather, the prohibition is on account of

a decree because of “fruits that fall.”

The fruits that fall from a tree on Shabbat and on a Festival are prohibited for eating, for the reason that will be explained. And the Sages also decreed concerning an egg laid on a Festival, because it too resembles fruits that fall, and they prohibited it like them.

And Abaye understood that Rav Yosef said that they decreed concerning an egg lest one come to eat fruits that fall. Therefore

Abaye said to him:

But

fruits that fall

on a Festival—

what is the reason

that they are prohibited for eating?