Beitzah 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

Rava said

If one died,

the deceased is lying there and must be buried ,

On the first day of Yom Tov —

they shall attend to him

only for the needs of his burial

by gentiles —

non-Jews, and not by Jews .

On the second day of Yom Tov —

the Sages were lenient with regard to it out of respect for the deceased, so that

Jews shall attend to him

for his burial and for performing labors, such as digging the grave.

And

this permission to attend to the burial of the deceased on the second day of Yom Tov applies

even on

the second day of

the two days of Rosh HaShana,

for they were lenient with regard to burying the deceased on it, just as on the other second days of Yom Tov observed in the Diaspora during the festivals.

This is not so with regard to an egg,

for we were not lenient with regard to it on the second day of Rosh HaShana as we were with regard to the other second days of the festivals. Rather, it is forbidden, because the two days of Rosh HaShana have the status of one extended sanctity.

However,

the scholars of Nehardea say: Even with regard to an egg

we were lenient on the second day of Rosh HaShana: if it was laid on the first day of Yom Tov, it is permitted on the second day.

The reason for the matter is as follows:

What is your basis

for prohibiting the egg on the second day for those people who are distant from the court and do not know when the court sanctified the month?

After all, if the court sanctifies the thirtieth day, only one day is sanctified; and because of the uncertainty as to which day was sanctified, those distant from the court are not required to observe two days with one extended sanctity.

The reason they must be concerned to observe two days with one extended sanctity is only the concern

perhaps

that it happened that witnesses did not arrive at the seat of the court on the thirtieth day until after the time of the afternoon offering. And

they will intercalate it,

the court will intercalate

the

month of

Elul,

and make it thirty days .

Then, according to the original enactment, at the place of the court they would observe an extended sanctity on both days, whereas the court would sanctify the month on the following day, in order to calculate the festivals of the year from that sanctification.

Therefore, all the places distant from the court must likewise observe two days with one extended sanctity, just as at the place where the court was situated.

And since the practice of observing two days as one extended sanctity was instituted solely because of this concern, and on account of that one sanctity they prohibited an egg laid on the first day so that it would not be eaten on the second, there is no reason to be concerned about this enactment once it has become clear that such a thing never occurred at the place where the court was situated.

For

Rab Ḥinnana bar Kahana said in the name of Rav: From the days of Ezra onward —

we have never found an intercalated Elul,

for the witnesses always arrived on the thirtieth day of Elul before the afternoon offering, and the court sanctified the month on the basis of their testimony that day. From then onward, they never observed two days with one sanctity.

Only once did it happen that the witnesses arrived after the afternoon offering, and the court accepted them, and the Levites became confused in their song. At that time they enacted that witnesses would not be accepted after the afternoon offering. This enactment was never put into practice, since the witnesses always arrived on the thirtieth day before the time of the afternoon offering. It was therefore annulled retroactively, and when they began to establish the calendar according to calculation, they did not observe two days, since it had become clear that the enactment had never taken effect .

Mar Zutra said: We said

above, in Rava’s statement, that if one died on the second day, he is buried through the agency of Jews ,

only

if it happened

that he had remained unburied,

so that the deceased had been delayed from burial and there was concern that he would putrefy .

However,

if he

has not remained unburied —

we leave him unburied

until after Yom Tov .

Rav Ashi said: Even though he has not remained unburied,

we likewise do not leave him unburied.

What is the reason?

With regard to a deceased person, the second day of Yom Tov

the

day

the Sages made like an ordinary weekday,

and it is permitted

even to cut cloth for him,

to cut fabric and make it into a garment for him,

and to cut for him

and even to cut, for his honor,

myrtle

from a growing plant, although these things are not necessary for him.

for the deceased; it is permitted to make them on the second day of Yom Tov in his honor .

Ravina said: And nowadays, when there are “Havrei

that is, members of a wicked nation who compel Jews to perform their labor, while on Yom Tov they exempt them from that labor,

we are concerned

that those wicked people may see Jews burying their dead on the second day of Yom Tov and come to enslave them for their labor. Therefore, nowadays we do not bury on the second day of Yom Tov.

Ravina was sitting before Rav Ashi on the two days of Rosh HaShana

which had fallen on Thursday and Friday.

He saw

Ravina saw Rav Ashi

sitting sorrowfully.

He said to him

Ravina:

Why is the Master sorrowful?

He said to him

Rav Ashi:

Because I did not establish

I regret that I did not establish

an eruv tavshilin,

and I cannot cook today for Shabbat. An eruv tavshilin may be established only on the eve of Yom Tov.

He said to him

Ravina:

Then let

the Master establish

it

an eruv tavshilin

now,

today, on the first day of Rosh HaShana.

For

did

not

Rava say:

if the two days of Yom Tov fall on Thursday and Friday,

a person establishes

an eruv tavshilin from the first day of Yom Tov

[on Thursday

for the other,

the second day of Yom Tov [on Friday],

and stipulates:

If today is the Yom Tov by Torah law and tomorrow is an ordinary weekday, I do not need an eruv tavshilin; but if tomorrow is the Yom Tov by Torah law and today is an ordinary weekday, I am now establishing, on the eve of Yom Tov, my eruv tavshilin.

He said to him

Rav Ashi to Ravina:

Say that Rava said

that one may establish an eruv and stipulate only

on the two festival days observed in the Diaspora,

where each day is prohibited because of uncertainty.

But

with regard to the two festival days of Rosh HaShana,

which constitute one extended sanctity,

who said

that Rava permits one to establish an eruv on the first day and stipulate? After all, the eve of Yom Tov of this single extended sanctity is only the Wednesday preceding it!?

Ravina asked about Rav Ashi’s statement:

But the scholars of Nehardea said: Even an egg

that was laid on the first day of Rosh HaShana

is permitted

on the second day of Rosh HaShana, just as on the other two festival days observed in the Diaspora, because the two days do not constitute one sanctity.

He said

he replied

to him, Rav Mordekhai,

Rav Ashi’s student, to Ravina, thereby answering his question:

Explicitly

the Master told me

Rav Ashi

that he does not accept this statement of the scholars of Nehardea.

Therefore, he does not establish an eruv tavshilin on the first day of Rosh HaShana, since the two days have one sanctity .

It was stated: With regard to a chick that was born on Yom Tov—

Rav said: It is prohibited

to eat it, for the reason that will be explained.

And Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan, said: It is permitted

to eat it.

The Gemara explains their reasoning:

Rav said: It is prohibited,

because the chick

is muktze,

since the day became holy before it was born, when it was not fit for eating because of the prohibition against eating a chick that had not yet been born. Therefore, the prohibition of muktze took effect upon it for the entire day .

And Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan, said: It is permitted

the chick—

since it renders itself permitted

when it emerges into the world

through slaughter.

That is, a fundamental change takes place in the chick at its birth: from that point it can be permitted for eating through slaughter. Consequently, a change also takes place in its status with regard to muktze: from that point it is no longer muktze but permitted for eating.

For the essence of the prohibition of muktze is leaving an item in its status of being set aside. The Sages prohibited anything that had been set aside from handling or use, so that it may not be handled or used, in accordance with the status to which it had been assigned.

The chick, however, was muktze only while it had the status of a chick, by virtue of the prohibition against eating it. But as soon as it emerged into the air of the world and became permitted through slaughter, its status changed from that of a prohibited “chick” to that of a permitted “bird.” One cannot continue to impose upon the bird the prohibition of muktze that applied to a “chick,” since it now has an entirely different status—that of a “bird,” which is permitted through slaughter. If it is now prohibited by the law of muktze, this is not a continuation of its previous status of being set aside .

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav

who prohibited a chick born on Yom Tov because it was muktze:

What

difference is there

between

this chick

that

was born on Yom Tov, which you prohibit because of muktze,

and a calf born on Yom Tov

which, according to everyone, is permitted? Necessarily, it is not prohibited as nolad, since it “renders itself permitted through slaughter”!

He said to them:

The calf is permitted because

since it was prepared

the calf was fit for eating on Yom Tov

along with its mother, through slaughter.

Had one slaughtered the calf’s mother while the calf was still in her womb, the mother’s slaughter would also have permitted the calf for eating. It follows that the calf was fit and “prepared” for eating at all times; therefore, it was never muktze at all, and it does not require the reason that it “renders itself permitted through slaughter” .

However, before the chick hatched and emerged from the eggshell, it had no possibility of being permitted at all. It was therefore muktzeh at that time and “not prepared.” Consequently, it continues to retain its status as muktzeh even after it is born .

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi continued to question Rav: Why did he prohibit a chick that was born:

And what difference is there between

this chick

that

you prohibited

and a calf born from

a tereifa?

If one had slaughtered its tereifa mother while the calf was still in her womb, the slaughter of its mother would not have been effective for it; at that time it would have been muktzeh and would not have been prepared incidentally through its mother. Nevertheless, if the calf was born on a Festival, one may slaughter and eat it. It must therefore be that it “renders itself permitted through slaughter.” If so, the chick should likewise be permitted to slaughter and eat on a Festival.

Rav remained silent,

because he had no answer to their question from the case of a calf born from a tereifa.

Rabba said, and some say Rav Yosef: What is the reason that Rav remained silent?

Let him say to them:

It is not muktzeh while it is in its mother’s womb,

since

it is

prepared

at that time

incidentally through its mother, for she was cast together with it to be eaten by

dogs,

and once it was prepared in its mother’s womb for dogs, it is thereby also prepared for human consumption after it is born .

This is not so with regard to a chick, for while it is inside the eggshell it is not fit even for animal consumption; therefore, it is prohibited as something “born.”