Beitzah 3b — the Talmud in English

Ravina said: Never reverse

the opinions in the Mishna “One may not squeeze,” and in truth Rabbi Judah permits liquid that flowed from fruit designated for eating because it is ukhla de-ifrat, and according to his view an egg that was laid is permitted even on the first day.

And

what

Rabbi Judah

said, “An egg that was laid on the first day may be eaten on the second”—

he said this according to the words of the Rabbis,

and this is what he said:

For me, the egg is permitted even on the first day

the egg, and just as it is permitted to drink liquids that flowed from fruit designated for eating, since

that

liquid that flowed from such fruit, and likewise an egg that was laid—

is ukhla de-ifrat!

But according to you,

according to your view, that you hold that it is liquid and not ukhla de-ifrat, and likewise the egg is not considered ukhla de-ifrat but is forbidden by the law of liquids that flowed [from fruit],

at least concede to me that on

the

second

day of Rosh Hashanah

it is permitted

the egg, since

they are two sanctities,

and if yesterday was sacred, today is ordinary, and there is no prohibition at all; and if today is sacred, then the egg was laid yesterday, on an ordinary day, and was not forbidden.

And the Rabbis said to him: No,

not as you say, that the two days of Rosh Hashanah are two sanctities, but the sanctity of the two days

is one sanctity,

and since liquids that flowed are forbidden on a Festival, on Rosh Hashanah the egg that was laid on the first day is forbidden until the conclusion of the second day, for they are like one day.

And the Gemara brings another resolution to the contradiction between Rabbi Judah’s statements:

Ravina, son of Rav Ulla, said: Here,

in the Mishna concerning an egg that was laid on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, it is dealing

with a hen designated for producing eggs, and Rabbi Judah

who forbade the egg on the first day

follows his own position,

he follows his view,

for he holds of muktzeh,

and therefore the egg that was laid is also muktzeh, and by virtue of the law of muktzeh it must be forbidden, and not because of the decree concerning liquids that flowed.

An objection is raised—

against the amoraim who hold that the prohibition of an egg laid on a Festival is because of the decree concerning fallen fruit, or liquids that flowed—from what we learned in a beraita:

As it was taught:

Whether an egg was laid on Shabbat or whether an egg was laid on a Festival—

a.

One may not move it,

not

in order

to cover a vessel with it, nor to support the legs of a bed with it

that is wobbling, when he sets the egg beneath it.

b.

But one may cover it with a vessel,

to protect it

so that it will not break.

And it teaches us that it is permitted to take a vessel that may be moved even for the sake of something that may not be moved.

c.

And the doubt

concerning this egg—

is forbidden.

d.

And if it became mixed

the forbidden egg even

with a thousand

permitted eggs, it is not nullified by the majority; rather—

all of them are forbidden.

The Gemara discusses this beraita on the basis of the assumption that the doubt mentioned in the beraita is whether the egg was laid on a Festival or on an ordinary day:

Granted, according to Rabbah, who said

that an egg laid on a Festival is forbidden by Torah law

because of

lack of

preparation

from the ordinary days for Shabbat or a Festival, it is well that its doubtful one is forbidden, for according to Rabbah

it is

this egg

a Torah doubt, and every Torah doubt

is treated

stringently.

But according to Rav Yosef and Rabbi Yitzhak, who said

that the prohibition of this egg is only

because of a decree,

the difficulty is: after all,

it is a rabbinic doubt, and every rabbinic doubt

is treated

leniently!

And we answer:

The final clause

of the beraita, which deals with a doubt, is not speaking of a prohibition arising from the Festival, but rather

we come to a doubt concerning a tereifa,

where there was a doubt whether this egg was laid by a tereifa hen, and it is a Torah doubt; therefore it is treated stringently, and the egg is forbidden.

And they raise an objection:

If so,

if the latter clause now deals with a possible tereifa status and no longer with an egg whose possible prohibition results from the festival, raise the following objection:

Come and hear the latter clause

of the beraita:

If the egg became mixed

the egg

with one thousand—

all of them are prohibited.

It works out well if you say

that the beraita is still dealing, as it did at the beginning, with an egg whose prohibition is due to the

possibility that it was laid on

a

festival, or possibly on

a

weekday—

the reason is understood

because it is

considered

the egg

“an item that will become permitted,”

since it will become permitted to eat after the festival without requiring the dispensation of nullification in a majority.

The Sages therefore imposed a stringency and prohibited

every item that will become permitted—

and it is not nullified even in a thousand parts.

Since it can eventually be eaten with complete permission, the Sages were stringent and prohibited eating it while it is prohibited by means of nullification in a majority, even though according to Torah law it would be permitted because it was nullified in the majority .

But if you say

that the beraita is now dealing with an egg that is

possibly a tereifa—

then it is

an item that does not

have a way to become permitted, and

if so,

it should be nullified in a majority,

as are all prohibitions of the Torah! Why, then, does the beraita say that all of them are prohibited?

And should you say

in response that

an egg

is

“significant and is not nullified,”

as is the law regarding a “significant item,” concerning which the Sages enacted that it is not nullified in a majority —

This answer, however, does not accord with everyone!

For we find that Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disputed the meaning of Rabbi Meir's statement in tractate Orla: A significant item [which is not nullified in a majority] is one that is “customarily counted,” meaning that it is sold by number rather than by estimation.

According to Rabbi Yohanan, only something that all people insist on selling by number is a significant item. According to Reish Lakish, it is sufficient that some people insist on selling it by number for it to be considered a “significant item.”

The Gemara therefore asks:

This works out well according to the one who says, “Every

item

that is customarily counted is what we learned,”

in the Mishna in tractate Orla, according to Rabbi Meir's view, namely, that such an item is significant.

That is, anything that some people, because of its significance, insist on selling not by estimation but only by “number,” counting each individual unit separately, is a “significant item” that is not nullified in a majority [by rabbinic law], even though some people sell it by estimation. Accordingly, an egg from a tereifa hen is not nullified in a majority, since some people consider an egg significant enough to sell specifically by number rather than by estimation.

But according to the one who says

that only

“the

item

that is customarily counted is what we learned,”

meaning that only a unique item, which all people customarily count, is not nullified in a majority because of its significance—“the item suited for this, which no one sells by estimation,” as Rashi explains—and not an item that some people sell by estimation,

what can be said?

How can we explain according to his view why an egg from a tereifa hen is not nullified in a majority?

After all, eggs are also sold by estimation and are not considered significant items. Why, then, should the egg not be nullified in a majority?

The Gemara now explains where Rabbi Meir's statement regarding the definition of a significant item is found, and where the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish concerning his view is found:

As we learned

in tractate Orla (chapter 3, mishnayot 6–7):

One who had bundles of fenugreek

[a type of legume used to sweeten cooked food, according to Rashi]

from forbidden mixtures in a vineyard—

they must be burned.

Their law is to be burned, as is the law of forbidden mixtures in a vineyard.

And if

they became mixed

these bundles

with

other permitted bundles,

and

even if some of the

other

bundles in the mixture [into which the bundles of forbidden mixtures became mixed] again became mixed

with

other permitted bundles,

all of them must be burned; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

The Mishna will explain his words shortly.

And as the Mishna explains his words:

But the Sages say: They may be raised,

meaning that they are nullified in a majority and the prohibited bundles of fenugreek become permitted,

in

a ratio of

one

prohibited item

to two hundred

permitted items, as is the law for forbidden mixtures in a vineyard, which are nullified in a ratio of one to two hundred .

The Mishna explains that Rabbi Meir prohibits all of them because

Rabbi Meir would say: An item that is customarily counted—

anything significant because it is customarily sold by number rather than by estimation—

sanctifies

the mixture: if it is forbidden mixtures in a vineyard or Orla, it prohibits the entire mixture and requires it all to be burned, in accordance with the wording of the verse regarding forbidden mixtures in a vineyard, “lest the yield become sanctified”; and we expound: it shall be consumed by fire.

But

if

the Sages say:

even an item that is customarily counted

is not

significant enough to be

sanctifying

the mixture, so that it is not nullified in a majority and the entire mixture becomes prohibited and must be burned because of its significance;

rather

only

six items

that are especially significant

alone .

запретом орлы. И всякая вещь пригодная быть посевами виноградника, как овощи, черешки шпината, стебли капусты и ионийская тыква, запрещает всю смесь из-за посевов виноградника. И было сообщено, и мы учили толкование этой Мишны относительно слов Рабби Меира: Рабби Йоханан сказал: «То, что принято пересчитывать» — так мы учили в словах Рабби Меира. То есть только вещь, которую никто не продаёт на глаз, а каждый продаёт поштучно из-за её значимости, называется значимой вещью, которая не аннулируется в большинстве. А Рабби Шимон бен Лакиш сказал: «Всякую вещь, которую принято пересчитывать, — так мы учили», и достаточно того, что некоторые люди продают её поштучно из-за её значимости; несмотря на то что не все считают её таковой, она значима согласно Рабби Меиру и не аннулируется в большинстве.

Rabbi Akiva says: There are

seven

especially significant items.

And these are

the six significant items:

Perekh nuts

[the name of a place],

and Badan pomegranates

[the name of a place],

and

wine

barrels when they are

sealed, and spinach

[stalks of],

and cabbage stalks

[in the Land of Israel, cabbage grew very large],

and Ionian squash.

Rabbi Akiva adds

a seventh item:

even loaves

of bread

belonging to a householder,

which are not made by a baker but are prepared in a distinctive manner and are significant because of their uniqueness.

The Mishna further explains:

Any item

suitable

from among these seven items

to

be

Orla,

that is, something that grows on a tree, such as nuts, pomegranates, and wine, prohibits the entire mixture with the prohibition of

Orla.

And any item

suitable to

be

forbidden mixtures in a vineyard,

such as vegetables, spinach stalks, cabbage stalks, and Ionian squash, prohibits the entire mixture because of

forbidden mixtures in a vineyard.

And it was stated

and they taught the following

concerning

this Mishna, in explanation of Rabbi Meir's words:

Rabbi Yohanan said: “An item that is customarily counted”

is what we learned

in Rabbi Meir's statement. That is, only an item that no one sells by estimation, but everyone sells by number because of its significance, is called a significant item that is not nullified in a majority.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “Every item that is customarily counted is what we learned,”

meaning that it is sufficient for some people to sell it by number because of its significance, even though not everyone regards it this way, for it to be significant according to Rabbi Meir and not be nullified in a majority .

And now the Gemara explains the difficulty:

This works according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

for it is possible to explain that the beraita prohibiting an egg that is possibly from a tereifa follows the view of Rabbi Meir, and according to him an egg of a tereifa is not nullified by a majority, since there are people who consider it something that is not sold by estimation but by count.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that something important is only something that everyone does not sell by estimation but by count, whereas there are people who sell an egg by estimation—

what can be said?

How, according to him, shall we explain the law that an egg of a tereifa is not nullified even in one thousand? After all, according to his words, even according to Rabbi Meir the egg is not important!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: This tanna

who prohibits an egg of a tereifa even when it became mixed with one thousand is not Rabbi Meir; rather, he is

the tanna of

the beraita of

“a litra of dried figs.”

For

this tanna

said: Everything that

there are people who sell

by count—

is important, and

even in

a

rabbinic

prohibition it

is not nullified

by a majority,

and all the more so in

a

Torah

prohibition, as with an egg of a tereifa.

Any prohibited matter [including teruma forbidden to non-priests] that became mixed with a majority of permitted matter is nullified by a majority, according to Torah law, and it is permitted to eat the entire mixture.

Included within the category of “mixture” are all things concerning which it is uncertain whether they are from the permitted matter or from the prohibited matter; but things concerning which we are certain that they are permitted are not included in the “mixture,” and they do not join together to create a majority of permitted matter that would nullify the prohibition mixed with it.

There are things concerning which the Sages were stringent that they not be nullified by an ordinary majority, such as teruma, which is not nullified by an ordinary majority; rather, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests only if the mixture contains the ratio of one part teruma to one hundred parts non-sacred produce.

But, on the other hand, concerning rabbinic teruma, the Sages disputed whether permitted matter may be added to create the mixture in the ratio of one to one hundred—whether they were lenient regarding it, allowing things concerning which we are certain that they are permitted also to be joined to the mixture, in a manner that they have some connection to the mixture.

For it was taught: A litra

[a particular measure] of

ketziot

dried figs, which had been sanctified with the sanctity of teruma, and their sanctity is only rabbinic, since according to Torah law there is teruma only with respect to grain, wine, and oil [produce, wine, and oil],

that was pressed

[that is, they would press the dried figs and join them into large masses by pressing them in certain vessels, such as an “igul,” which is a round vessel in which they compress the ketziot until a joined mass is formed in the shape of a “circle,” or they compressed it in a barrel or a trough]—then, if he pressed the litra of ketziot sanctified with the sanctity of teruma:

on top of a round mold,

on the upper part of the round vessel, and he did not compress it inside it, while inside it there are non-sacred ketziot, and there are here many other round vessels containing non-sacred ketziot, and the round vessel whose mouth contains the litra of teruma ketziot became mixed among them,

and he does not know

the person who pressed the litra of teruma ketziot

in which round mold he pressed it

for the litra of teruma.

Or he pressed the litra of teruma ketziot

on top of a barrel, and he does not know in which barrel he pressed it.

Or he pressed it

on top of a trough, and he does not know in which trough he pressed it.

And there are not here one hundred mouths of vessels containing non-sacred ketziot, so that we could say that the mouth of the round vessel containing teruma is nullified among one hundred mouths of round vessels containing non-sacred produce.

Rabbi Meir says:

This is how Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disputed this matter: