Beitzah 4a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

says:

Even though the dried figs found inside the containers are certainly not part of the doubt—for we know with certainty that the teruma is found only at the opening of the container and not inside it, and anything that is not part of the doubt cannot be added to the amount of the mixture that nullifies the prohibition through a majority—here the Sages were lenient, because the teruma of figs is only a rabbinic prohibition.

But

we “see” the

dried figs

above as though they were separated

from the opening of the container. That is, the dried figs found at the opening of the container are not considered a separate substance; rather, they are considered mixed with all the dried figs in the container. If we add together all the dried figs in all the containers, there will be a majority of one hundred against the pound of teruma dried figs at the opening of the container.

And

therefore, the

lower

dried figs—which according to the basic law were not part of the doubt—are added to the doubtful upper dried figs at the openings of the round stacks and barrels, to create a majority of one hundred against the pound of teruma; thereby they

render

permitted through the law of nullification by a majority

the

dried figs

above,

which by themselves do not contain a majority of one hundred.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

The Sages were not lenient in making such an addition.

Rather, only

if there are

at least

one hundred openings

of the one containing the teruma,

they may be rendered permitted .

And if not—

all

the openings are prohibited.

And

only

the bottoms,

all the dried figs found below the opening of the container—

are permitted,

for they are certainly permitted.

Rabbi Yehuda says,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree in the manner stated by Rabbi Meir. Rather, this is the subject of their disagreement:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred openings, they may be rendered permitted, but if not—

the openings are prohibited, and the bottoms are permitted.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred openings

of non-sacred produce—

they may not be rendered permitted!

Since the dried figs at the opening of the round stack are an important item, which is sold by number and not by estimation, they are not nullified, even though the teruma of figs is only a rabbinic prohibition.

Rabbi Yehuda concludes: But if one

pressed

the pound of teruma

into a round stack, and he does not know into which round stack

he pressed it—

everyone agrees that it may be rendered permitted.

As the Gemara will immediately explain.

The Gemara discusses Rabbi Yehuda’s statement at the end of the

source: If he pressed it into a round stack,

everyone

says that it may be rendered permitted!? But

that is precisely their disagreement,

for according to Rabbi Yehoshua, a round stack is an important item that is not nullified!

Rav Pappa said: This is what

Rabbi Yehuda meant: And if

he pressed it into a round stack, but does not know in what place

in the

round stack he pressed it—whether in its northern part or in its southern part—

everyone agrees that it may be rendered permitted.

For from this point onward, the pound is not located in a specific place where it is sold as an item sold by number. Rather, it is an unidentified part of the entire round stack. Therefore, although the round stack itself is sold by number, the pound mixed into it does not itself have the status of an item sold by number, and consequently everyone agrees that it is nullified .

According to Rabbi Yohanan, it is possible to establish what we learned in the

source—that an egg that is possibly from a tereifa bird is not nullified by a majority—in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, according to Rabbi Yehuda. Any item that some people customarily sell by number is an important item and is not nullified by a majority, even when the prohibition is rabbinic, as with the pound of dried figs, whose status as teruma is only rabbinic . Rav Ashi said

to answer differently the Gemara’s earlier difficulty concerning the

source that prohibits an egg of uncertain status—even according to those who say that an egg laid on a Festival is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, because of fruit that fell from a tree or liquids that flowed on their own. If so, in a case of uncertainty, one should rule leniently: -

In fact, the source’s latter clause is not discussing an egg from a tereifa bird. Rather, it continues to discuss the law of an egg laid on a Festival. The uncertainty concerning the egg in the source is:

perhaps

the egg was laid on a

Festival, perhaps

it was laid on an ordinary

weekday. Nevertheless, it is prohibited, despite being a possible rabbinic prohibition, because

this egg

is

an item

“that has a permitted time,”

for it can be eaten permissibly after the Festival, without relying on the rule that in a case of uncertainty concerning a rabbinic prohibition one rules leniently .

And every

possible prohibition that is

an item that has a permitted time—

even in

a rabbinic

prohibition it is not nullified!

Just as one is stringent concerning a mixture, so that mixing does not serve to nullify and permit an item that has a permitted time, so too one is stringent concerning its uncertain status. Even though it is only a rabbinic uncertainty, one does not rule leniently .

Therefore, an egg concerning which there is uncertainty whether it was laid on a Festival or on Shabbat is prohibited, even according to the amoraim who say that its prohibition is only due to a rabbinic decree.

The Gemara cites a

baraita: Others say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: An egg

that was laid on a Festival

may itself and its mother be eaten.

The Gemara asks:

What case are we discussing?

If you say

that it is a chicken designated for eating—

it is obvious

that even according to the School of Hillel, the egg itself and its mother may be eaten,

for

after all,

itself and its mother are permitted.

And if Rabbi Eliezer wished to say that he follows the School of Shammai, he should have taught his statement concerning the egg alone and not concerning its mother, since no one disputes that a chicken designated for eating is permitted.

Rather,

the baraita must be discussing

a chicken designated for laying eggs.

And you may object: Behold, Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is muktzeh [below 34a],

and if so—

both it and its mother are forbidden!

Rabbi Zeira said:

This is what Rabbi Eliezer said: An egg that was born on a Festival—

may be eaten

only together with its mother,

by virtue of its mother.

And we inquire about it:

What are the circumstances?

Abaye said: For example, that he acquired

the hen

without specification,

not designating it at the time of purchase either for eating or for raising eggs. Therefore:

If it

was slaughtered

on the Festival—

it is thereby established that it was intended for eating,

and its egg may also be eaten.

And if it

was not slaughtered—

it is thereby established that it was intended for raising eggs,

and it is muktzeh, and its egg is like it . [

And according to the amoraim who say that the prohibition of the egg is because of a decree, and that Beit Hillel also forbid it in the case of a hen intended for eating, it is proven that Rabbi Eliezer holds like Beit Shammai. But according to Rav Naḥman, Beit Hillel forbid because of muktzeh on a Festival, and permit it when it is intended for eating].

And concerning this Rabbi Eliezer said that both it and its mother may be eaten. His intention is that when he slaughters the mother in order to eat it, it will become clear that from the beginning of the Festival it had been intended for this purpose, and both it and its egg are permitted.

Rav Mari said

a different explanation: In fact, it concerns a hen intended for eating. And the fact that Rabbi Eliezer taught that its mother may also be eaten is an expression of

exaggeration.

In order to strengthen his words, he stated that everything may be eaten, both the mother and its egg, and he intended to disagree with Beit Hillel.

And the proof that he used an expression of exaggeration is from

that which was taught in a beraita: Others say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: An egg

that was born on a Festival

may be eaten, both it and its mother, and

so may the

chick and its shell.

And we inquire about it:

What

is meant by “it may eat its

shell”?

If you say the actual shell—

is

a shell fit for eating!?

Rather,

necessarily, the intention is that one may eat the

chick

while it is still

in its shell,

before it was born and emerged from the egg! But this is impossible, for

it is only in this matter that they disagreed [

below 6b],

the Sages with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who forbids eating a chick that was born as long as its eyes have not opened, and permit it for eating immediately

only where it emerged

from the egg

into the air of the world; but where it did not emerge into the air of the world—

they did not disagree,

but agree that it is forbidden to eat!

Rather,

Rav Mari explains that what Rabbi Eliezer said,

“a chick and its shell”—

is an expression of

exaggeration

he used, adding unnecessary words, as though it were permitted to eat the shell, even though it is unfit for eating. He stated this to say forcefully that there is no prohibition at all in eating an egg born on a Festival, to the extent that even a chick in its shell would have been permitted [were there not the prohibition of a creeping creature applying to it].

If so,

here too,

in the beraita here, when Rabbi Eliezer stated concerning a hen intended for eating that

both it and its mother may be eaten—

it is an expression of

exaggeration, unnecessarily stated with regard to permitting its mother.

expression, unnecessarily mentioning the permission of the mother hen.

It was stated: Shabbat and the Festival

that are adjacent to one another.

Rav said:

An egg that

was born on this one—

is forbidden on the other.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

An egg that

was born on this one—

is permitted on the other.

And we inquire about it:

Shall we say that Rav holds

that Shabbat and the Festival—

are one sanctity,

a long one,

they are ,

and therefore the prohibition of an egg born on one of the two days extends to both days .

But if they were considered two sanctities, Rav would not forbid the egg on the second day, for Beit Hillel forbade the egg only on the day on which it was born, and not on the following day.

And

behold, it is impossible that this is Rav’s view.

For

Rav said: The halakha is according to the four elders [

whom Rav mentions there], who said that one may place two different eruvei techumin for Shabbat and the Festival that are adjacent to one another, one eruv for Shabbat separately and one eruv for the Festival separately, since they are considered two sanctities.

And

because these four elders follow

the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who said:

Shabbat and the Festival—

two

separate

sanctities they are!

Rather, here—

Rav and Rabbi Yohanan disagree concerning “Rabba’s preparation,”

whether one should hold like Rabba above [2b], that there is a deficiency in an object that was not prepared for Shabbat and the Festival from the weekdays .

Rav holds of Rabba’s preparation,

and since the egg was not prepared from a weekday but on a holy day, it is forbidden to eat it even on the second day .

And Rabbi Yohanan—

does not hold of Rabba’s preparation,

and therefore permitted the egg on the second day, even though it was not prepared on a weekday.

And this dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yohanan is

like the

dispute of

the tannaim.

For it was taught in a beraita: An egg that

was born on Shabbat—

may be eaten

the following day,

on the Festival,

and an egg that was born

on the Festival—

may be eaten on the following Shabbat, for the egg was forbidden only on the day on which it was born, and it need not be prepared from a weekday, because of the decree concerning liquids that flowed. But

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi

Eliezer: It is still,

even such an egg,

is

in

dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in our Mishna, who disagreed concerning an egg born on a Festival following Shabbat, when the egg was completed on a holy day:

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in our Mishna, where they disputed the status of an egg laid on a Festival following Shabbat, whose formation was completed on a sacred day:

For Beit Shammai say: It may be eaten.

And Beit Hillel say: It may not be eaten,

and this dispute also applies to an egg born on a Festival followed by Shabbat, for the preparation of the egg on the Festival forbids eating it on the following Shabbat.

His host,

the householder

of Rav Adda bar Ahava, had these eggs

that had been born

from the Festival

that had occurred

before

the

Shabbat,

and he wished to eat them on the following Shabbat.

The host came

the innkeeper

before him,

before Rav Adda bar Ahava on the Festival, and

said to him: What if I roast them today

—is it permitted for me to roast them now, on the Festival—

and eat them tomorrow

in order to eat them tomorrow, on Shabbat?

His question was whether the entire prohibition was only to eat them, or whether it was forbidden even to move them .

He said to him,

Rav Adda bar Ahava:

What is your view,

what is your opinion? That is, your question proves that it is clear to you that tomorrow it is permitted to eat them, and you came to ask only about moving them today, since in the dispute between

Rav and Rabbi Yohanan—

the halakha is like Rabbi Yohanan.

And indeed you are correct in this, that the halakha is like Rabbi Yohanan, who did not forbid the egg because of the lack of preparation, and it is permitted to eat them tomorrow, on Shabbat.

But concerning your question whether you may move and roast them today in order to eat them tomorrow, the answer is: No!

For

even Rabbi Yohanan permits only

merely

to swallow it tomorrow

on Shabbat, when it is a raw egg,

but

to move it and roast it

on its day,

on the Festival on which it was born—

not

did Rabbi Yohanan permit .

And

the proof that an egg born on a festival day is forbidden even to be moved is from that which

was taught:

Whether an egg that was born on Shabbat or an egg that was born on a festival day

one may not move it, neither to cover a vessel with it nor to support the legs of a bed.

The host

of Rav Pappa,

and some say, that certain man

an ordinary other man,

who came before Rav Pappa, had these eggs

that had been born

on Shabbat

and wanted to eat them

on the festival day.

He came before

Rav Pappa.

He said to him: What is the ruling regarding eating them

these eggs that had been born on Shabbat

tomorrow

on the festival day?

He said to him: Go now and come tomorrow.

Go now, and come tomorrow.

And Rav Pappa did not answer him immediately concerning his question because he had drunk wine, and one who is drunk with wine is forbidden to issue a ruling.

And Rav Pappa explained to him that he was refraining from issuing a ruling today, similar to the conduct of Rav.

For Rav would not appoint an amora over him,

for Rav would not stand before himself an “amora” who would proclaim his lecture aloud,

from

the time when he ate the meal on

the festival day

and drank wine at it, until

the

day

of his fellow,

that is, until the following day,

because of drunkenness.

For Rav would refrain from lecturing to the public because he included in his lecture practical halakhot, and since he had drunk wine on the festival day, he refrained from lecturing and issuing a halakhic ruling.

When he came

that man

the next day

before Rav Pappa to hear the answer to his question: