Beitzah 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Gamda said in the name of Rav: Wherever

its voice is heard during the day,

up to the distance at which its voice is heard during the day—for during the day its voice is heard at a shorter distance than at night—but this depends specifically on hearing during the day, since its mating takes place during the day.

Rav Mari acted:

He inspected the nest on the eve of the Festival and found nothing, and early in the morning, before dawn, he found an egg and permitted it on the basis of a rooster that was near its location,

up to

a distance of

sixty houses,

sixty houses, which Rav Mari estimated to be the distance at which its voice could be heard. Therefore, he was not concerned that the hen had absorbed the egg from the ground.

And if there is a river

separating the hen from the rooster,

it does not cross

the river. In that case, even if it hears its voice, we must be concerned that it absorbed the egg from the ground.

But

if there is a ma'bara

a bridge over the river—

it crosses,

it crosses to the rooster over the bridge, and we need not be concerned that it absorbed the egg from the ground.

And if there is

only

a metzara,

which is a very narrow bridge made of a narrow wooden beam, over which one can pass only by holding on to a rope stretched above it—

it does not cross

the bridge to reach the rooster.

And the Gemara challenges the last assumption, since

there was an incident, and it crossed

the hen

the metzara.

The Gemara now explains Rav’s statement above: if one inspected the nest on the eve of the Festival and there was no egg in it, then even if he rose early and found an egg in it before dawn, the egg is forbidden. We explained that the reason is that one must be concerned that the egg was laid at night, since the hen may have absorbed it from the ground.

And we raise a difficulty:

How did you establish

Rav’s statement—

in a case where the hen absorbed the egg from the ground?

If so, this is seemingly difficult:

why specifically

did Rav state his ruling with regard to one who

inspected

the nest on the eve of the Festival? Even

if he did not inspect

the nest on the eve of the Festival, and found an egg in it on the night of the Festival,

also

he should forbid it, since one must be concerned that the hen laid it at night because it may have absorbed it from the ground!?

And we explain:

If he did not inspect

the nest, we may attribute the matter to the possibility that the hen laid the egg yesterday; it is possible to say,

“Perhaps: it was there since yesterday,”

since most hens lay their eggs during the day and not at night. Therefore, if he rose early and found an egg, it is permitted.

If so,

since we rely on the majority of hens that lay during the day,

when he also inspected the nest,

and did not find an egg in it, why do we attribute the matter contrary to the majority and say that the hen laid it at night because it absorbed the egg from the ground, rather than saying

“Perhaps”:

this egg

“emerged for the majority”

during the day

“and returned”!?

This egg was laid during the day but was not found in the nest because it returned to its mother’s womb.

And in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan,

who said that in such a case the egg is permitted even if it was laid at night, since once most of it emerged during the day, it is already regarded as an egg that was laid.

And we answer: We do not attribute the matter to its having emerged and returned, since this case,

of Rabbi Yohanan, is

not at all common.

It is preferable to attribute the egg to having been laid at night, since laying at night is less uncommon than this case.

Since the Gemara cited a statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul in the name of Rav concerning an egg that was laid, it cites another statement in his name, concerning a different matter.

And Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rav said: This crushed garlic

crushed garlic, in the form of a liquid paste—

is dangerous

when left uncovered.

If it was left uncovered, one must be concerned that a snake came and drank from the liquid and injected venom into it.

We learned in our Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: With regard to se'or

on Passover, its measure for prohibition is

an olive-bulk,

whereas the measure for the prohibition of leaven is the volume of a kotevet.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai,

who distinguish between the measure of se'or and the measure of leaven?

And we answer:

If so,

that their measures were equal, an olive-bulk,

the Torah should have written “leaven,” and it would not have needed

to write

“se'or, and I would have said

on my own:

How much more so leaven, whose leavening is not severe,

as it cannot leaven other doughs, has a measure of

an olive-bulk.

With regard to se'or, whose leavening is severe—

is it not all the more so

that it should be forbidden at an olive-bulk? 3a

If so,

“se'or,” which the Torah wrote—

why do I need it?

To teach you: The measure of this,

se'or,

is not like the measure of that,

leaven.

Since the measure of leaven is the volume of a kotevet, like the measure of prohibited eating on Yom Kippur, or because this is the halakha given to Moses at Sinai 3b, the verse therefore had to state that the measure of se'or is smaller than it. Were it not for the verse’s disclosure that leaven and se'or have different measures, the measure of se'or would also have been the volume of a kotevet.

And Beit Hillel,

who equate the measures of leaven and se'or as an olive-bulk, maintain that

both are necessary

to have the prohibition of se'or and the prohibition of leaven written.

Had the Torah written only the prohibition of

se'or,

I would have said

that the Torah prohibited only it

because its leavening is severe.

But leaven, whose leavening is not severe—

perhaps it is not

forbidden. Therefore

it is necessary

to teach us the prohibition of leaven.

And had the Torah written

only the prohibition of

leaven,

I would have said that only it is forbidden

because it is fit

for

eating.

But se'or, which is not fit for eating, perhaps it is not

forbidden. Therefore

it is necessary

to teach us its prohibition.

And we raise another difficulty:

And

if

Beit Shammai,

who distinguish between se'or and leaven,

do they not have

his exposition,

that of Rabbi Zeira?

For Rabbi Zeira said

concerning the verse in Exodus 12:19: “For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, for whoever eats leavened food, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel”:

The verse begins with se'or and concludes with leaven,

in order

to teach you: This is se'or; this is leaven,

indicating that the two are equivalent. Since the verse equates them, their measures should likewise be equated.

And we answer: Indeed,

with regard to eating, everyone agrees

that Beit Shammai agree that the measures of leaven and se'or are equal, namely, an olive-bulk, in accordance with Rabbi Zeira’s derivation.

They disagree

with regard to

the measure of liability for

removal

of leaven, for in this matter the measures of leaven and se'or differ.

Beit Shammai maintain: We do not derive

the measure of

removal from eating,

since we find that the verse had to distinguish between se'or and leaven with regard to removal. Therefore, the measure for removing se'or, which is an olive-bulk, differs from the measure for removing leaven, which is the volume of a kotevet.

And Beit Hillel maintain: We derive the measure of removal from eating.

It was also stated: Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The dispute is with regard to removal, but with regard to eating -

everyone agrees that both this and that are measured by an olive-bulk.

It was taught likewise:

that they disputed only with regard to removal, but not with regard to eating:

As it is taught: It is stated in the book of Exodus [13:7]:

“And no leaven shall be seen for you, and no leavening shall be seen for you.”

This

is the prohibition against seeing leaven, on account of which one is obligated to remove it, and with regard to this there is

a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

as Beit Shammai say: The removal of

leavening

is by an olive-bulk, and the removal of

leaven

is by a date-bulk.

And Beit Hillel say: Both this and that

are removed

by an olive-bulk.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a Festival day,”

Beit Shammai say: He must dig with a spade and cover the blood.

The Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna:

“One who slaughters”

and not “a person who slaughters,” teaching us that only if he slaughtered after the fact—

after the fact

yes,

then he may dig and cover the blood.

But

initially—

no,

he should not slaughter when he has no prepared earth with which to cover the blood.

And we raise an objection:

Let us say the latter clause

of our Mishna:

“And Beit

Hillel say: He should not slaughter.”

By inference, the first tanna,

Beit Shammai,

holds

that even initially

he should slaughter!

This is difficult, as the first clause contradicts the latter clause.

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

This is how the words of Beit Hillel are to be understood:

“He should not slaughter and cover,” is what they said.

That is, he should not complete the mitzva-act of slaughter, namely, covering the blood, even though he has already slaughtered.

Beit Hillel did not come to disagree with Beit Shammai and prohibit the slaughter that Beit Shammai permitted, because Beit Shammai did not disagree with them regarding that point, and according to their view as well, one should not slaughter initially. Rather, Beit Shammai said only that if it happened that one had already slaughtered after the fact, he should cover the blood, whereas Beit Hillel said that even if he slaughtered, he should not cover the blood.

We challenge this answer:

Let us say the latter clause

of our Mishna:

“And Beit Hillel concede

to Beit Shammai

that if he slaughtered”—

“that he should dig with a spade and cover.”

And

by inference,

we have just learned

that the first clause,

in which Beit Hillel said, “A person should not slaughter a wild animal or a bird on a Festival day,”

is not

a slaughter performed

after the fact,

but rather their intention is that one should not slaughter initially!

For in the latter clause Beit Hillel explicitly said that if one slaughtered after the fact, he should dig and cover its blood. Necessarily, in the first clause they prohibited slaughtering initially when he has no prepared earth, whereas Beit Shammai permitted it even initially.

If so, the earlier difficulty returns: the wording of Beit Shammai, “one who slaughters,” indicates that only after the fact, if he slaughtered, he should cover his blood, whereas from their dispute with Beit Hillel it appears that Beit Shammai permit slaughter even initially.

Rabba said:

This is what the tanna of the Mishna means:

“One who slaughters”

when he has no prepared earth

and comes to consult

a halakhic decisor about what he should do—

what does he say to him?

The halakhic decisor?

Beit Shammai say: He says to him, “Slaughter, dig, and cover.”

And Beit Hillel say: “He should not slaughter unless he had prepared earth from the day before.”

This wording proves that according to Beit Shammai he slaughters initially, and one should not infer from the wording “one who slaughters” that it refers only to an act performed after the fact.

Rav Yosef said

to resolve the matter somewhat differently:

This is what

the tanna of the Mishna means:

“One who slaughters and comes to consult”—

what does he say to him?

Beit Shammai say: He says to him, “Go dig”

before the slaughter, and afterward

“slaughter and cover.”

And Beit Hillel say: “He should not slaughter unless he had prepared earth from the day before.”

That is, Rav Yosef placed the digging before the slaughter in the statement of Beit Shammai.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Shall we say that you, my master,

[Rav Yosef,] who said that the digging should precede the slaughter,

and Rabba

who said that the slaughter should precede the digging—

in

the matter of

the statement of Rabbi Zeira citing Rav, do you disagree?

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav: “One who slaughters”

a wild animal or a bird

must place earth below

the blood

and earth above

the blood.

As it is stated

[Leviticus 17:13]:

“And he shall pour out its blood, and cover it with earth.”

And we infer: “And cover it

earth,”

which would mean covering the blood from above with earth—

it does not say that, but rather

it says, “and cover it

with earth,”

meaning: When he comes to cover the blood with earth from above, the blood must already be mixed with and enclosed in earth.

The verse teaches

that

the one who slaughters must place earth below

before the slaughter, so that the blood will fall upon it and mix with it,

and earth above,

after the slaughter, to cover it.

For

Rav Yosef

holds in accordance with Rabbi Zeira,

and therefore he must dig and prepare loose earth at the place of slaughter even before slaughtering.

But Rabba does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Zeira,

and therefore it is sufficient for him to dig after the slaughter.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

Both according to me and according to Rabba—

we hold in accordance with Rabbi Zeira,

that loose earth is required both below and above.

And here is what Rabba and I dispute:

Rabba and I differ as follows:

Rabba holds

that one who slaughters on a Festival only—

if there is earth below—

yes,

he should slaughter;

if not—

no,

he should not slaughter. Since

we are concerned that perhaps he will change his mind

after digging

and not slaughter,

he will be found to have dug on the Festival for no purpose.

And this is what Rabba said: If he has prepared earth below upon which he can slaughter, and he can be told to slaughter immediately, Beit Shammai permit him to slaughter. But if he has no prepared earth, Beit Shammai do not permit him to dig and slaughter.

But

if

according to me,

I, Rav Yosef, hold the opposite,

this—

permitting him to dig before the slaughter, rather than instituting a prohibition out of concern that he may dig and then change his mind—

is preferable! For if you do not permit him,

since if you do not permit one who has no prepared earth to dig and slaughter,

he will come

to

refrain

from

the joy of the Festival,

that is, from eating meat.

We learned further in the Mishna:

“And they concede”

Beit Hillel to Beit Shammai

“that if he slaughtered,”

“that he should dig with a spade and cover.”

Rabbi Zerika said in the name of Rav Yehuda:

Beit Hillel did not permit digging on a Festival for the purpose of covering the blood, as they do not hold that the positive mitzva of covering the blood comes and overrides the prohibition against performing labor on a Festival; and what they said, that Beit Hillel concede that if he had already slaughtered he should dig and cover, applies specifically on the following condition:

“And this is

when he has a spade embedded

in the ground

from the day before.

Thus the earth inside the spade has already been dug up, and he is not performing additional digging; rather, he merely lifts the spade together with the earth dug up inside it.

And we challenge Rav Yehuda, who explains that according to Beit Hillel, the positive mitzva of covering the blood does not override the prohibition against performing labor on Yom Tov:

But he is performing crushing!

The clods of earth in the peg driven into the ground, since he must cover the blood with loose earth, and crushing the clods is a derivative of the labor of grinding, and according to Rav Yehuda’s explanation of Beit Hillel, it is forbidden to do so on Yom Tov. If so, what is the basis for permitting the case of a peg driven into the ground?