Beitzah 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

Is this not because of

a decree: lest one climb up and detach

attached fruit and transgress the Torah prohibition against harvesting?

And since

it itself

, the decree concerning fallen fruit, is itself

a decree

of the Sages and is not part of the basic law—

and

should

we arise and enact a decree upon a decree,

decreeing against eggs laid on a Festival because of the decree concerning fallen fruit?!

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

It is all one decree!

That is, the Sages did not first enact the regulation concerning fallen fruit and then enact a further regulation prohibiting an egg laid on a Festival, so that people would not err regarding the regulation concerning fallen fruit. Rather, from the outset the Sages enacted that every fruit that falls, including an egg, which involves no prohibition of detaching, may not be eaten on a Festival.

Such an enactment is considered a single decree and is not regarded as a decree upon a decree, even though some of the components of the decree serve only to reinforce it.

The fourth opinion:

Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

The Sages prohibited an egg laid on a Festival

because of the decree concerning “liquids that flowed.”

The Sages decreed [in tractate Shabbat [143b] that one may not drink on Shabbat liquids that flowed on their own from fruit on Shabbat or a Festival, lest one come to squeeze them.

Abaye understood that, so that people would not come to compare liquids that flowed with eggs that were laid, since both emerge from a place in which they had been contained, and thereby permit drinking liquids that flowed, the Sages also prohibited eggs laid on Shabbat and on a Festival.

Abaye said:

But

what is the reason that liquids that flowed

are prohibited? Is it not because of

the decree lest one squeeze

the fruit?

And since

it

, the decree concerning liquids that flowed, is

itself a decree, and

should

we arise and enact a decree upon a decree?

Rav Yitzḥak said to him: They did not decree against liquids that flowed and then enact a further decree against an egg that was laid. Rather,

it is all

one decree.

They decreed against all liquids that flowed, including an egg that was laid, since it too resembles liquids that flowed.

The Gemara now explains why each of the four amoraim did not accept the reason given by the other three.

It is readily understandable to us that

all of them

, Rabba, Rav Yitzḥak, and Rav Yosef,

in accordance with Rav Naḥman

, who explained that the prohibition is due to muktzeh,

did not state their opinions

because of

our question

: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel should have disagreed regarding both the hen and its egg, so that we could identify their dispute as applying both to muktzeh and to nolad. It is likewise readily understandable why

in accordance with Rabba

, who explained that the prohibition is from Torah law and is due to the absence of preparation from the weekday,

the others likewise did not state their opinions

, since the prohibition of absence of

preparation, they do not hold.

Rather,

this is what is difficult for us: A.

a.

Rav Yosef

, who explained that the prohibition is due to a decree concerning fallen fruit—

for what reason did he not state his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Yitzḥak

, that the decree is due to liquids that flowed? And we answer:

Rav Yosef could say

:

An egg

is

food, whereas fruit

is

food,

and therefore they are included in a single decree concerning fallen fruit [and one should decree against eggs because of fallen fruit, since people might come to compare them with eggs that were laid].

To exclude liquids, which are not food

they are. Therefore eggs cannot be included in the decree concerning liquids that flowed. B.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak,

who explained that the prohibition of an egg is due to the decree concerning liquids that flowed—

for what reason did he not state his opinion in accordance with Rav Yosef

, that the decree is due to fallen fruit?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yitzḥak could say

:

An egg

is

contained

within the hen and “flows” outward,

and

similarly

contained liquids

are within fruit. Therefore the egg can be included in the decree concerning liquids that flowed.

To exclude fruit—

which is exposed and present

, being present and exposed on the tree just as it is exposed after being detached. Therefore eggs cannot be included in the decree concerning fallen fruit.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan likewise held

that the prohibition against eating an egg laid on a Festival is due to

the decree concerning liquids that flowed.

The proof is as follows:

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised

a contradiction between the

w

ords of

Rabbi Yehuda concerning

the

words of Rabbi Yehuda, and resolved it

, as follows. On the one hand,

we learned: One may not squeeze fruit

on Shabbat

to extract liquids from it.

And if they emerged

the liquids

on their own—

they are prohibited

to drink on Shabbat, as a decree lest one squeeze them by hand.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If

the fruit was designated

for eating

, to eat it as it is, there is no concern lest one come to squeeze it. Therefore the liquid

that emerges from it

on its own on Shabbat is

permitted

to drink on Shabbat.

And if

the fruit was designated

for

squeezing for drinking

liquids—the liquid

the liquid

that emerges from it

on its own is

prohibited

to drink on Shabbat, as a decree lest one come to squeeze it.

It follows

from Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, “If [the fruit was designated] for eating, the liquid that emerges from it is permitted,” that with regard to

all

fruit designated

for eating

, the law governing the liquids that emerge from it,

according to Rabbi Yehuda

, is like

food separated from food. The liquid is regarded as food that was merely separated from food, and not as liquid that flowed from food; therefore they did not decree against it because of liquids that flowed.

The liquid is considered food that was merely separated from food, and not liquid that flowed out of food. Therefore the decree concerning liquids that flowed out does not apply to it.

And he raised a contradiction

, and Rabbi Yoḥanan challenged this from Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the Mishna in tractate Eruvin [39a]:

For we learned: With regard to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana, according to the Sages they are like one long day, and the sanctity of the two days is one definite sanctity [by rabbinic enactment]. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, they are two separate days, each of them possessing a sanctity that is uncertain, since it is possible that the day is an ordinary weekday.

The practical difference is that according to Rabbi Yehuda, a person may establish two different eruv תחumin, one for each day, whereas according to the Rabbis one may establish only one eruv for both days.

And furthermore

, several laws

Rabbi Yehuda stated,

as a consequence of his view that the two days of Rosh HaShana are two separate days. A. It is prohibited to separate teruma on a Festival from untithed produce. But if a person had untithed produce on the first Festival day of Rosh HaShana, he may rectify it conditionally and eat it on the second day. This is what he does:

He stipulates

: A person separates

terumot and ma’asrot

conditionally

from a basket

, a basket

of

untithed

produce on the first Festival day

, by designating a place for the teruma and ma’aser produce and conferring sanctity upon it on condition that the day is an ordinary weekday. If not—that is, if the day is sacred—he declares that his words have no effect.

He can then stipulate again on the second day, saying: If today is an ordinary weekday, I am now separating the terumot and ma’asrot. But if not, if today is sacred, then yesterday was an ordinary weekday, and the separation I performed yesterday took effect.

And

can

eat it

to consume the fruit prepared on

the second

of Rosh HaShanah.

b.

Likewise, an egg that was laid on

Yom Tov

the first

of Rosh HaShanah, since it is uncertain whether it is sacred or profane,

may be eaten on

Yom Tov

the second

for either way: If it is sacred, the egg was prepared yesterday, on a weekday. And if it is profane, there is certainly no prohibition against eating on a weekday an egg that was laid on Yom Tov.

And Rabbi Yohanan proves:

On

Yom Tov

the second

of Rosh HaShanah,

yes,

only on that day is it permitted to eat an egg that was laid on the first day of Yom Tov; but an egg that was laid

on

Yom Tov

the first—

no,

it is not permitted to eat it on the first day of Yom Tov itself! And it is thereby proven that the egg, despite being food, is included in the decree concerning liquids that seeped from produce, and is therefore prohibited on the first day.

But the egg emerges from the hen, and both are foods, so according to Rabbi Yehuda it should have been considered “food separated from food” and should have been permitted!

And he changes it,

and Rabbi

Yohanan

answers this contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s statements:

The view

is

reversed.

The opinions of those who hold the views in the Mishna stating, “One may not squeeze produce,” must be reversed: Rabbi Yehuda prohibits liquids that seeped from foods, while the Sages permit them.

And the Gemara infers from Rabbi Yohanan’s statement:

And from the fact that he sets them against one another,

and from the fact that Rabbi Yohanan raised the contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda’s statements in the two Mishnayot,

against each other—

infer from this

that the two Mishnayot

have one underlying reason,

and an egg, too, is prohibited because of the decree concerning liquids that seeped from produce.