Beitzah 6b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to

Rabba or Rav Yosef: Even if we say that the calf that was a tereifa was prepared, while it was in its mother’s womb, for dogs, nevertheless, when it was born, that preparation was canceled. It is therefore muktze, an item set aside and not available for use, because it was not prepared for what it is now intended for—for human consumption!

For if your statement is correct, that it is considered prepared along with its mother for dogs, there is a difficulty:

now,

according to Rabbi Yehuda [who holds that the prohibition of muktze also applies to something fit for eating when a person consciously sets it aside], something that is

prepared

from before Shabbat even

for a person—

is not prepared for dogs,

because if its status changes during Shabbat or the Festival from “prepared for a person” to “prepared for dogs,” it has the deficiency of being “unprepared.” Before Shabbat it was not prepared for dogs [and although preparation for a person is more important, it nevertheless does not include preparation for dogs].

As we learned

in tractate Shabbat [156b]:

One may cut pumpkins

that were detached before Shabbat

before an animal.

And

similarly, one may cut

an animal carcass

that died on Shabbat

before dogs,

so that they can eat it more easily.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was not a carcass from before Shabbat—

it is forbidden

to move it on Shabbat in order to feed it to dogs,

because it is not “from what was prepared,”

for while it was alive, before Shabbat, it was prepared and designated only for human consumption, and it was not “prepared” for dogs.

If so, is it possible to say that something which before Shabbat or the Festival was

prepared

only

for dogs—

is

prepared

for a person

during Shabbat or the Festival, even

for a person,

since preparation for a person’s needs is more important [and certainly

its preparation was not included in the preparation before Shabbat for the needs of dogs]!?

He said to him,

Rabba or Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Yes,

that is indeed possible, because only something

prepared for a person—

is not

prepared for dogs,

because

anything that is fit for a person

is something suitable for a person,

he does not throw it away

he does not discard it

to dogs,

and since he does not expect it to spoil, he consciously sets aside the possibility of throwing it to dogs. It consequently becomes muktze with regard to them.

But something that is

prepared for dogs

is, by virtue of its preparation for them,

prepared

also

for a person,

because

a person’s intention

is

to eat anything that is fit for him.

He does not completely remove it from consideration as food for himself while it is designated for dogs.

Here too, while the calf is in its mother’s womb and at that time is fit only for dogs, the person does not consciously set it aside. Rather, he also considers the possibility that it will be born and that he will be able to eat it. Thus it is “prepared” also for a person, whereas a chick that is not prepared along with its mother is forbidden as muktze.

The Gemara brings two beraitot concerning the law of a chick: one supports Rav, and the other supports Shmuel.

It was taught

in one beraita

in accordance with Rav,

whereas

it was taught

in another beraita

in accordance with Shmuel, and some say, Rabbi Yoḥanan.

It was taught in accordance with Rav: A calf born on a Festival—

is permitted; a chick born on a Festival—

is forbidden.

And what is the difference between this and that?

This one,

the calf, is

prepared

for eating

along with its mother through slaughter.

And this one,

the chick,

is not prepared along with its mother.

It was taught in accordance with Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan: A calf born on a Festival—

is permitted, and a chick born on a Festival—

is permitted.

What is the reason?

This one,

the calf, is

prepared along with its mother.

And this one,

the chick,

makes itself permitted through slaughter,

as was explained above in Shmuel’s words.

The Sages taught: A chick born on a Festival—

is forbidden.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Even on a weekday it is forbidden

to eat it immediately upon its birth,

because its eyes have not opened,

and this makes it forbidden to eat, as will be explained below.

The Gemara explains:

According to whom does

the following beraita proceed,

this

beraita

that was taught:

[Leviticus 11]

“Every creeping creature that creeps upon the earth”—

the extra word “every” comes

to include chicks whose eyes have not opened,

which still cannot walk upon the earth because they cannot see.

According to whom? —

According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

And the Gemara brings an additional halakha of Rav concerning an egg.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: An egg —

only

with its emergence is completed!

And before its emergence, while it is still in the hen’s womb, it is not considered a completed egg.

And we raised an objection concerning this:

What —

with regard to what matter did Rav say that an egg only

“with its emergence is completed”?

If we say: “With its emergence it is completed,”

and

only then

is it permitted to eat it with milk,

for only from the time of its emergence is there no prohibition of eating meat with milk,

then

if it was found

in its mother’s womb,

is it considered like meat, like her,

and is it forbidden to eat it with milk?

This is not correct. For:

And it was taught in a beraita: One who slaughters a hen and finds completed eggs inside it,

which have yolks, even though they are still attached to the hen by sinews —

it is permitted to eat them with milk!

And it is thereby demonstrated that it is considered an egg even while it is in its mother’s womb, and it is not considered meat.

Rather,

Rav’s intention was only to say

“with its emergence it is completed,”

for only then do we know with certainty that the egg had been completed on the eve of the Festival,

and

therefore only if it emerged on the eve of the Festival

is it permitted to eat it on the Festival,

for then it is certain to us that its completion took place on an ordinary weekday.

But

if it was found on the Festival

in its mother’s womb —

it is forbidden to eat it on the Festival,

for there is concern that it was completed in its mother’s womb on the Festival and was not completed on the eve of the Festival; and it follows that it became a “completed egg” on the Festival, and we must prohibit it on account of hakhana de-Rabba, since it was not prepared as an “egg” from the eve of the Festival. And we challenge this:

But it was taught in a beraita: One who slaughters a hen and finds completed eggs inside it —

it is permitted to eat them on the Festival!

And if you would say

to resolve that the halakha does not follow this beraita, since this tanna

teaches us

a halakha

in the beraita what

—a matter

that he did not teach us

like it

in the Mishna,

and it is not possible that a tanna would teach a new halakha in a beraita that Rabbi did not state explicitly in the Mishna; for if Rabbi, the editor of the Mishna, did not teach this halakha, Rabbi Chiyya, the editor of the beraitot—from where did he teach it?

This is not a resolution.

For

we also learned this

—for we learned this halakha from the words of the Mishna, in our Mishna:

As we learned:

An egg that was born on a Festival —

Beit Shammai say: It may be eaten; and Beit Hillel say: It may not be eaten.

And we must infer:

And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed only concerning one that was born, but concerning one in their mothers’ wombs —

everyone agrees that they are permitted,

they are permitted.

And since this is implied directly by our Mishna, the beraita that permits eggs found in their mothers’ wombs on the Festival follows the halakha, and it is difficult for Rav.

And if you would say

to reject this and say:

Beit Hillel even

in their mothers’ wombs also prohibit them, and the reason that it teaches

in our Mishna an egg that

“was born”

is in order

to inform you of the strength of Beit Shammai —

who permit an egg born on a Festival —

that even one born they also permit.

It is impossible to reject it in this way, for:

Rather, this beraita that was taught: One who slaughters a hen and finds completed eggs inside it —

it is permitted to eat them on the Festival —

whose opinion is it?

It is not Beit Shammai,

for they permit even when the egg was born; so why did the beraita state the permission only when the eggs are in their mothers’ wombs?

And it is not Beit Hillel,

for they prohibit even when the eggs were found in their mothers’ wombs. [According to what the Gemara proposed in rejecting the proof from the Mishna.]

And since the beraita must necessarily have been stated according to the halakha, and even eggs found in their mothers’ wombs are permitted, it is demonstrated that Rav did not intend to prohibit them.

Rather,

Rav’s intention in saying, “An egg with its emergence is completed,” concerns an entirely different matter.

And so Rav said: An egg only

with its emergence is completed —

it becomes fit to

raise chicks.

But

in its mother’s womb —

it is not

fit to

raise chicks.

What practical difference does it make? —

For a sale and purchase.

For if a person sold eggs to another for raising chicks, he is obligated to give him eggs that were born, and not completed eggs in their mothers’ wombs. And if the seller gave him completed eggs that were found in their mothers’ wombs, the sale is void.