Beitzah 7b — the Talmud in English

Rav Gamda said in the name of Rav: Wherever ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

its voice is heard during the day,

up to the distance at which its voice is heard during the day, and during the day its voice is heard at a shorter distance than at night; but the matter depends specifically on hearing during the day, since its mating is during the day.

Rav Mari performed an act,

for he examined [the place] on the eve of the Festival and did not find [an egg], and he rose early in the morning before dawn and found an egg, and permitted it on the basis of a rooster that was near its place,

up to

a distance of

sixty houses,

sixty houses, for Rav Mari estimated that up to there its voice could be heard, and therefore he did not suspect safena de-ara.

And if there is a river

separating it from the rooster,

it does not cross

the river, and then, even if it hears its voice, we must suspect that it absorbed seed from the earth.

But

if there is a ferry

a bridge over the river—

it crosses,

it crosses to it over the bridge, and we need not suspect that it absorbed seed from the earth.

And if there is

only

a narrow crossing,

which is a very narrow bridge, made of a narrow wooden beam, and one can cross upon it only if one holds onto a rope stretched above it—

it does not cross

the rooster over it to the rooster.

And the Gemara refutes the last assumption, since

there was an incident, and it crossed

the hen

over the narrow crossing.

And now the Gemara explains Rav’s words above: that if he examined the nest on the eve of the Festival and there was no egg in it, even though he rose early and found an egg in it before dawn, the egg is forbidden. And we explained that his reason is that one must suspect that the egg was laid at night, since the hen absorbed seed from the earth.

And we raised an objection to it:

How did you establish

what Rav said?—

As referring to one that absorbed seed from the earth.

And if so, this is seemingly difficult:

Why specifically

why did Rav establish his ruling with regard to one who

examined

the nest on the eve of the Festival? For even

if he did not examine

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

also

he should have forbidden it, since one must suspect that it laid it at night, because it absorbed seed from the earth!?

And we explain: If

he did not examine

the nest, we can attribute it to the fact that it laid the egg yesterday, and it is possible to attribute it thus:

“Perhaps: it was from yesterday”

it was there, 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 give birth during the day,

when he also examined [the nest],

and did not find an egg in it, why do we attribute it contrary to the majority and say that it was laid at night because it absorbed seed from the earth, and do we not say

“Perhaps”

this egg

“most of it emerged”

during the day

“and returned”—is it!

And this egg was laid during the day, but it was not found in its nest because it returned to its mother’s womb?

And in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan,

who says that in such a case it is permitted even if it was laid at night, since when most of it emerged during the day it is already called and considered an egg that was laid.

And we answer: We do not attribute it to the possibility that it emerged and returned, since this case of

Rabbi Yohanan is

not common

at all, and it is preferable to attribute it to the fact that it was laid at night, which is a less uncommon birth than this case.

And since the Gemara brought the statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul in the name of Rav concerning an egg that was laid, it brings another statement in his name, concerning a different matter.

And Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said in the name of Rav: This crushed garlic

crushed garlic, which is a liquid paste—

is dangerous

it is

for exposure.

For if it was left uncovered, one must suspect that a snake came and drank from the liquid and injected venom into it.

We learned in our Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: leaven

on Passover, its measure of prohibition is

an olive-bulk,

whereas the measure of the prohibition of leavened bread is the size of a kotevet.

And we raised an objection to it:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai,

who distinguish between the measure of leaven and the measure of leavened bread?

And we answer:

If so,

that their measures were equal, an olive-bulk,

let the Torah write leavened bread, and it would not need

to write

leaven, and I would say

on my own:

And if leavened bread, whose leavening is not severe,

which cannot leaven other doughs, has a measure of

an olive-bulk,

leaven, whose leavening is severe—

is it not all the more so

that it is forbidden in an olive-bulk? () 3a

And if so,

“leaven” that the Torah wrote—

why do I need it?

To tell you: the measure of this,

the leaven,

is not like the measure of this,

the leavened bread.

And since the measure of leavened bread is the size of a kotevet, like the measure of eating prohibited on Yom Kippur, or because this is the halakha given to Moses at Sinai 3b (), therefore the verse had to state that the measure of leaven is smaller than it, for without the verse’s disclosure that leavened bread and leaven differ in their measures, the measure of leaven would also have been the size of a kotevet.

And Beit Hillel,

who equate the measure of leavened bread and leaven at an olive-bulk, hold that

both are necessary

for both the prohibition of leaven and the prohibition of leavened bread to be written:

For if the Torah had written

only the prohibition of

leaven, we would have said

that the Torah forbade only it

because its leavening is severe.

But leavened bread, whose leavening is not severe—

perhaps not

would it not be forbidden; therefore,

it is necessary

to teach us the prohibition of leavened bread.

And if the Torah had written

only the prohibition of

leavened bread,

we would have said that only it is forbidden

because it is fit

for

eating.

But leaven, which is not fit for eating, perhaps not

would it not be forbidden; therefore,

it is necessary

to teach us its prohibition.

And we raised another question:

And

if

Beit Shammai,

who distinguish between leaven and leavened bread,

do they not have

his exposition,

that of Rabbi Zeira?

For Rabbi Zeira said

concerning the verse in the Book of Exodus [12:19]: “For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses, for whoever eats leavened food, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel”:

The verse began with leaven and concluded with leavened bread,

in order

to tell you: this is leaven, this is leavened bread,

that the two are equal! And since the verse equated them with one another, their measures should also be equated.

And we answer: Indeed,

with regard to eating everyone does not disagree,

and Beit Shammai agree that leavened bread and leaven are equal in their measure, which is an olive-bulk, in accordance with Rabbi Zeira’s derivation.

When they disagree—

concerning

the measure of liability for

removal

of leavened matter, in which the measures of leavened bread and leaven differ.

Beit Shammai hold: We do not derive

the measure of

removal from eating,

since we find that the verse had to distinguish between leaven and leavened bread with regard to removal; therefore, the measure of removal for leaven, which is an olive-bulk, differs from the measure of removal for leavened bread, which is the size of a kotevet.

And Beit Hillel hold: We derive removal from eating.

It was likewise 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 [prohibited] by an olive-sized amount.

It was likewise taught

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

For it was 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 regarding this there is

a dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel,

as the House of Shammai say:

removal of

leavening [is required] by an olive-sized amount, and

removal of

leaven [is required] by a date-sized amount.

And the House of Hillel say: Both this and that

its removal [is required]

by an olive-sized amount.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

the House of Shammai say: He should dig with a spade and cover [the blood].

And the Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna:

“One who slaughters”

and not “a person slaughters,” to teach us that only if he slaughtered

after the fact

yes,

then he should dig and cover the blood.

But

at the outset

no,

he should not slaughter when he does not have prepared earth with which to cover the blood.

And we raise an objection:

let us say the latter clause

of our Mishna:

“And the House

of Hillel say: He should not slaughter.”

By inference, the first tanna,

the House of Shammai,

holds

that even at the outset

he should slaughter!

And the first clause is difficult from the latter clause.

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

For this is the explanation of the words of the House of Hillel:

“He should not slaughter and cover,” he said.

That is, he should not complete the act of the mitzva of slaughter, which is the covering of the blood, even though he has already slaughtered [the animal].

And the House of Hillel did not come to dispute the House of Shammai and prohibit the slaughter that the House of Shammai permitted, for the House of Shammai did not dispute them concerning this, and according to their view as well, at the outset one should not slaughter. Rather, the House of Shammai only said that if it happened that he had already slaughtered after the fact, he should cover the blood, while the House of Hillel said that even if he slaughtered, he should not cover the blood.

And we raise an objection to the answer:

let us say the latter clause

of our Mishna:

“And they concede,”

the House of Hillel

“that if he slaughtered”

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

And

by inference

it has just been learned,

the first clause

in which the House of Hillel said, “A person should not slaughter on a Festival a wild animal or a bird”

is not

one who slaughtered

after the fact,

and in a situation in which he already slaughtered, but their intention is to say that he should not slaughter at the outset!

For in the latter clause the House of Hillel explicitly said that if he slaughtered after the fact, he should dig and cover its blood; necessarily, in the first clause they prohibited slaughtering at the outset if he does not have prepared earth, while the House of Shammai permitted it even at the outset.

And if so, the previous question returns: from the wording of the House of Shammai, “one who slaughters,” it is implied that only after the fact, if he slaughtered, should he cover its blood, whereas from their dispute with the House of Hillel it is implied that the House of Shammai permit him to slaughter even at the outset.

Rabba said: This is what

the tanna of the Mishna

is saying: “One who slaughters”

who does not have prepared earth,

who comes to consult

a decisor concerning what he should do—

what does

the decisor

say to him? The House of Shammai say: He says to him: Slaughter, dig, and cover.

And the House of Hillel say: He should not slaughter unless he had prepared earth from the day before.

And this wording proves that according to the House of Shammai he slaughters at the outset, and one should not infer from the wording “one who slaughters” that its meaning is only after the fact.

Rav Yosef said

to resolve it somewhat differently, that

this is what

the tanna of the Mishna

is saying: “One who slaughters who comes to consult”

what does he say to him?

The House of Shammai say: He says to him: Go dig

even before the slaughter, and afterward

slaughter and cover.

And the House of 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 according to the words of the House of 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 words of

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav, are you disputing?

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 to cover the blood from above with earth—

it was not stated, rather

it was stated, “And cover it

with earth,”

which means: when he comes to cover the blood with earth from above, the blood must already be mixed with and hidden in earth.

This passage teaches

that this verse

teaches that the slaughterer must place earth below

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

and earth above,

after the slaughter, to cover it.

For my master,

Rav Yosef,

holds Rabbi Zeira’s view,

and therefore he should dig and prepare loose earth at the place of slaughter even before he slaughters.

But Rabba does not hold Rabbi Zeira’s view,

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

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

“Whether according to me or according to Rabba,”

we both hold Rabbi Zeira’s view,

that loose earth is required both below and above.

And here we dispute concerning this:

Rabba and I:

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 lest he change his mind

lest he regret it after digging

and not slaughter,

and it will emerge that he dug on the Festival for no need.

And this is what Rabba said: If he has prepared earth below, upon which he can slaughter, and they can say to him, “Slaughter now immediately,” the House of Shammai permit him to slaughter. But if he does not have prepared earth, the House of Shammai do not permit him to dig and slaughter.

And

if

according to me,

I, Rav Yosef, hold the opposite, for

this,

to permit him to dig before the slaughter, and not to enact a prohibition because of the concern lest he dig and regret it—

is preferable! For if you do not permit him

since if you do not permit one who does not have prepared earth to dig and slaughter—

he will come

he will come

to prevent himself

from refraining

from the joy of the Festival,

from eating meat.

We also learned in the Mishna:

“And they concede,”

the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai,

“that if he slaughtered,”

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

Rabbi Zerika said in the name of Rav Yehuda:

The House of Hillel did not permit digging on a Festival for the sake of covering the blood, for they do not hold that the positive commandment of covering the blood comes and overrides the prohibition of labor on a Festival ; and what they said, that the House of Hillel concede that if he already slaughtered, he should dig and cover, is specifically on the condition that:

“and this is

that he has a spade stuck

in the ground

from the day before.”

So that the earth within the spade has already been dug up, and he is not performing an additional act of digging, but only lifting the spade together with the dug-up earth inside it.

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

But he is performing crushing

of the clods of earth in which the skewer is inserted, for he needs to cover the blood with loose earth, and the labor of crushing the clods is a derivative of the labor of grinding, and according to Rav Yehuda’s explanation of the position of Beit Hillel, it is forbidden to perform it on Yom Tov; and if so, what is the permission of “a skewer inserted” in the earth?!