Beitzah 4b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rav Pappa:

If only now

if I had instructed you yesterday, when I was drunk with wine,

I would have forgotten

the halakha and instructed you a wrong permission concerning it,

and I would have said to you

according to the principle:

Rav and Rabbi Yohanan—

the halakha is according to Rabbi Yohanan.

And this principle is not correct in our matter.

For

Rava said

below [5b]:

the halakha

is according to Rav in these three.

That is, in the three halakhot in which Rav disputed with other amoraim concerning the law of an egg that was born on the first day of two adjacent sanctities, including this matter, of adjacent Shabbat and Yom Tov—the halakha in them is according to Rav,

whether

Rav instructed in them

leniently, whether

Rav instructed in them

stringently.

[And below, at the end of the sugya [the end of page 5], the three halakhot will be brought.]

And indeed now, that the effect of the wine has passed, I know to instruct you according to the halakha: concerning an egg that was born on Shabbat, the halakha is according to Rav and not according to Rabbi Yohanan, and it is forbidden to eat it on the following day, on Yom Tov.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Trees that fell from the palm tree on Shabbat—

it is forbidden to burn them on Yom Tov

that follows it.

And do not answer me

from the words that I said concerning an

egg

born on Shabbat, that it is permitted on the Yom Tov that follows it, since with palm-tree wood there is a reason to be more stringent and prohibit it more than an egg.

And Rabbi Yohanan explains his words:

What is the reason

to be more stringent with palm-tree wood? Because

an egg, since on the day

the day of Shabbat on which it was born

it too is fit to swallow,

it is fit to swallow,

and

nevertheless

he does not permit it

we did not permit eating it

until the following day—

it is known

to a person

that

an egg

of that day

born on Yom Tov

is forbidden,

and they will not come to err if we permit eating on Yom Tov an egg born on Shabbat, saying that an egg born on that very day is also permitted.

But

trees, which are not fit for their day,

for on Shabbat they have no use at all, since kindling is forbidden on it, there is concern that

if he permits them on the following day

to

burn

them on the Yom Tov following Shabbat,

they will come

people will come to err and

say

that

on their day

they too are permitted,

and are not muktzeh.

And

the fact that they did not use them

yesterday

is no proof for them that they are forbidden to burn on the day on which they fell, for they will say:

it is because of Shabbat, when they are not fit,

that they are not fit on it

for burning,

but on Yom Tov it is permitted to burn them even if they fell on that very day.

Rav Mattana said: Trees that fell from the palm tree into the oven

on Yom Tov

and they are muktzeh, since they had been attached to the palm tree and a person had not intended that they fall on Yom Tov, and it is forbidden to use muktzeh trees for kindling on Yom Tov, and they also decreed that they be prohibited when they fall, lest one climb up and detach them; therefore, if he wishes to use them—

He increases prepared trees upon them and burns them!

And it is permitted to do so because most of the heat of the burning comes from the permitted trees, and the use of the muktzeh is nullified in the majority.

And we considered the words of Rav Mattana: what benefit did the increase of the permitted trees provide for the purpose of using them?

But

when he

turns over

the trees in the oven,

with

the trees of

the prohibition,

which are muktzeh, he turns them over, and he moves muktzeh! And we answer:

since the majority

of the trees

are permitted!

The branches of muktzeh are nullified by the majority, and it follows that

when he turns over

the branches of muktzeh—

he is turning over permissible [branches]!

And we ask: How is it permitted for him to increase the permissible branches?

But he is nullifying a prohibition ab initio!

«И» если бы мы учили:

But

if we had

taught: One may not nullify a prohibition ab initio!

And we answer: This that one may not nullify a prohibition ab initio,

applies to a

prohibition

from the Torah; but with a rabbinic prohibition, one may nullify it.

And the prohibition of these branches is only rabbinic .

But

it is still possible to challenge

Rav Ashi, who says: Anything that has a permitted time, even

with a prohibition

that is rabbinic, is not nullified—

what can be said?

But the prohibited branches have a permitted time on the conclusion of the Festival, and they are not nullified!

And we answer:

This applies

when something that has a permitted time is not nullified even when the prohibition is rabbinic,

where the prohibition is present in its own form,

when the prohibition remains present in its own form even after its nullification, and it follows that through its nullification one permits the use of an existing prohibition that has a permitted time.

But

here,

the use of the heat of the branches for fuel comes only after

it is completely consumed by fire,

when the prohibited

branches

have already burned and become coals, since the customary way is to fuel with coals; therefore, even something that has a permitted time is nullified , .

And now the Gemara brings another dispute between Rav and an amora concerning an egg laid on the first day out of two adjacent sanctities.

It was stated: The two Festival days of the Diaspora,

which all the Diaspora communities observe by making every Festival two days holy, since they do not know whether the court in the Land of Israel intercalated the month or not, because the messengers who go out to inform them of the time when the beginning of the month was established cannot reach them from the beginning of the month until the Festival .

Rav said:

An egg that

was laid on this one,

on the first Festival day, is

permitted on this one,

on the second Festival day. For, whichever way you look at it, one of the two days is an ordinary weekday. If the first day is holy, the egg was not prohibited on the following day, the weekday. And if the second day is holy, it follows that the egg was laid on a weekday, and it was prepared for the following Festival from before, during the weekday.

And Rav Asi said: An egg laid on this one—

is forbidden on this one!

And we discuss it:

Shall we say that Rav Asi maintains, by forbidding it, that the two Festival days of the Diaspora

—

are one sanctity,

since the Sages gave them the status of one long day by making both of them certainly holy forever , even when the time of the sanctification of the month becomes clear, and therefore an egg laid on the first is forbidden on the second?!

But it is impossible to say this, for:

But Rav Asi

was

making havdala [A0141][saying: “Blessed is He who distinguishes between the holy and the ordinary”]

[he would say, “Blessed is He who distinguishes between sacred and ordinary”]

from the Festival day

the first

to

the Festival day

of his fellow,

the second!

Since Rav Asi held that nowadays we are expert in establishing the new moons, and we know that the second day is an ordinary weekday, and that what we observe as two festival days is only because we maintain the custom of our ancestors, who were uncertain, Rav Asi therefore recited havdala at the conclusion of the first day. If so, it is proven that the Sages did not institute that the two days should certainly be sacred with a single sanctity, for Rav Asi would not have recited havdala in the middle of the long sanctified day.

And we answer:

Rav Asi was uncertain,

whether the Sages instituted the two days as a statute for the inhabitants of the Diaspora, even if they would recognize the establishment of the new moons, or perhaps the inhabitants of the Diaspora practiced this on their own, because of uncertainty; and then, if the inhabitants of the Diaspora recognize the establishment of the new moons, they must recite havdala at the conclusion of the first festival day.

And

Rav Asi, on the one hand,

acted here stringently,

in that he imposed a stringency because of his uncertainty, considering the two days to be one long sanctity and prohibiting an egg laid on the first day also on the second.

And

on the other hand, he also conducted himself

here

with regard to havdala

stringently,

and recited havdala at the conclusion of the first festival day.

And the amoraim disagreed as to which of the two of them [Rav and Rav Asi] was correct:

Rabbi Zeira said: The position of Rav Asi is more reasonable,

for an egg laid on this day is prohibited on that day because the Sages established the two days as a permanent institution and made them one long sanctity.

And the proof is:

for nowadays,

for now

we know the

calculation of

the establishment of the month, and

nevertheless

we observe two days.

And it is implied from this that it is a permanent institution, and that the two days are one sanctity.

Abaye said: The position of Rav is more reasonable,

for the two days are not one long sanctity, since they are observed only because of uncertainty, and one of them is an ordinary weekday while the other is sacred; in either event, the egg is permitted.

And the proof is from this,

as we learned: At first

in the beginning

they would light beacons

of fire on the summits of the mountains on the day when the court sanctified the month, in order to announce to all the places the time of the sanctification of the month by the court.

But

when the Samaritans corrupted matters,

for they lit beacons on a day when the court had not sanctified [the month], in order to mislead the people,

they instituted that messengers should go out

to announce everywhere when the month had been sanctified. In a place to which they reached by the fifteenth of the month, they observed one festival day, according to the sanctification of the month; and in places to which the messengers could not reach before the fifteenth of the month, they observed two festival days because of uncertainty.

And

it is implied from the words of the Mishna that

if they were abolished

and passed from the world, the

Samaritans

and their corruption—

we would observe

only

one day

by means of lighting the beacons on the summits of the mountains.

And where they reach

the place to which the

messengers

reach—we observe one day.

And it is proven that there was no institution of the Sages that they should observe two festival days throughout the Diaspora, and they observed this only because of uncertainty: one day is sacred and one day is an ordinary weekday. This is in accordance with Rav’s opinion, who permitted the egg on the second day in either event.

And Abaye adds and explains:

And now, when we know the establishment of the month

through the calculation of the moladot—

why do we observe two days?

Because they sent from there,

Rabbi Elazar sent an instruction from the Land of Israel to Babylonia:

Be careful concerning the custom of your ancestors in your hands,

to observe two festival days of the Diaspora, despite your being expert in calculating the moladot, since

at times a decree of persecution is issued,

at times the government issues decrees of persecution forbidding the study of Torah, and they will forget the calculations of the “secret of intercalation,” and nevertheless will continue to observe only one festival day ,

and it will come to corruption,

the matter will lead to corruption: they will eat leaven on Passover, because a day will be lacking from a full month, or a day will be added to a deficient month. Therefore the Sages instructed them to observe two days, on one of which the festival will fall .

It was stated: The two festival days of Rosh Hashanah,

which the Sages instituted to be observed everywhere as a matter of certainty and not as a matter of uncertainty, are sanctified with one long sanctity. Therefore:

Rav and Shmuel both said: An egg laid

an egg

on this day

on the first festival day of Rosh Hashanah—

is prohibited on that day,

on the second day.

And the proof that these two days were instituted to be observed as one certain sanctity is from that

which we learned

in tractate Rosh Hashanah [30b]:

We learned:

Originally, they would accept testimony concerning the new moon

of Tishrei—

the entire day

throughout the thirtieth day of the month of Elul. And if the witnesses arrived even toward the end of the day, that day would be sanctified retroactively from its beginning with the sanctity of the festival day of Rosh Hashanah. Therefore, even before the witnesses arrived, they would refrain from work from its outset , lest witnesses arrive and it be sanctified retroactively.

This uncertainty continued until sunset, because they accepted witnesses throughout the entire day; but then the two days were not considered as one long day, for the first was holy by uncertainty, and if the second was sanctified, it became clear that the first had been a weekday.

One time the witnesses were delayed in coming

beyond the time at which they were accustomed to arrive: they came after the time of the offering of the daily offering between the evenings, whereas every year the witnesses came before this time.