Beitzah 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said:

in loose soil,

which is soft soil that does not need to be crushed.

But it is still difficult:

But he is making a cavity.

For when he removes the peg together with the soil, a cavity is formed in its place. One who makes a cavity in his house or courtyard, thereby improving his house, is liable for such an act on account of the labor of “building,” since every improvement made in a house is considered the labor of building .

And we answer: Making the cavity is not considered a labor here, because he has no need for it. Even Rabbi Yehuda, who holds one liable for a labor not needed for its own purpose, agrees that here, when he has no need for the cavity, the act is not considered an improvement of the house .

In accordance with Rabbi Abba.

As Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a cavity on Shabbat and needs only its soil—

is exempt for it,

both according to Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Shimon, since digging a cavity in a house, when the homeowner has no need for it, is considered destruction and not improvement of the house.

Here, he has no need for the cavity, neither to improve the house nor to sow in it; he is merely causing destruction , and therefore it is not prohibited here even rabbinically, because of the mitzva of covering [or because of the joy of the Festival—Tosafot].

We learned in the Mishna, at its conclusion:

“Oven ash is prepared.”

The implication is that these words provide the reason for the law mentioned earlier in the Mishna.

And we raise a difficulty:

Oven ash—

who mentioned it?!

Where was oven ash mentioned earlier, such that the Mishna now gives its reason, namely, that it is prepared?

Rabba said: This is what

the tanna

and

intended: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree concerning an additional matter , that

oven ash

is prepared,

and is not muktzeh, for the reason that will be explained below.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught

that oven ash is considered prepared and is not muktzeh

only

with regard to ash produced from the wood of a stove

that was kindled

already

on the eve of the Festival,

so that the wood became ash before the Festival, and the person intended the ash for whatever suitable use he might have for it, including covering the blood; thus the ash was prepared for covering.

But

if

the stove was kindled

on

the Festival,

when the person had not formed an intention concerning it the previous day,

it is prohibited

to use the ash on the Festival, since it was not prepared from the previous day. The ash is considered a newly created object, which everyone agrees is prohibited on the Festival, even according to Rabbi Shimon, since it is something entirely new .

And if

the ash was hot, containing hot embers

such that it was fit to roast

through the heat of the embers,

an egg,

the ash is still fit for use and is not muktzeh, since it is permitted to turn over the hot ash in order to cause the egg to roast .

This ash is a direct continuation of the wood that had been prepared from the previous day for kindling and roasting. Thus, as long as it is hot, it continues the status of being “prepared” from the previous day [when these embers were still wood designated for kindling].

Therefore, it is also permitted to take and move this prepared ash in order to cover the blood with it, although, with regard to covering the blood with soil, the ash was not “prepared” from the previous day, since when it was firewood it was not fit for covering the blood .

It was taught likewise in accordance with Rav’s statement, as it was taught:

in accordance with Rav’s statement, as it is taught:

When they said that the ashes of a stove are prepared, they said this only when

the stove was heated

before Yom Tov,

but

if

the stove was heated

the oven

it is forbidden

to use its ashes, because they are not prepared.

to use its ash, because it was not prepared in advance.

And if

the ashes are

fit to roast

in their heat

an egg—

it is permitted

to use them and to cover blood with them.

The beraita continues and adds:

And if

a person brought in

a large quantity of

earth

on the eve of Yom Tov

for

the needs of

his garden and for

the needs of

his ruin,

to spread it over the ground in order to create a smooth surface on it, and it was loose earth [which does not require digging or crushing, and the entire issue concerning it is whether it is considered “prepared”].

The law of this earth, so long as it is gathered in one place in a large quantity and has not yet been spread out as a surface, is that it is considered as though he had it in mind to use it for all his needs; therefore

it is permitted

also

to cover with it

the blood.

But if he has already spread the earth out as a surface, the earth spread in each place is nullified to the ground [since it is like the soil of the garden], and the earth’s “preparedness” for use is nullified; he may no longer cover with it.

The Gemara brings the opinion of an amora who maintains that not only is a large quantity of earth not nullified to the ground and it is permitted to use the earth, but even a small quantity is not nullified.

And Rav Yehuda said: A person may bring a full measure of earth in his basket ,

and place the earth in one particular location without specifying that he is designating it for use, and it is nevertheless permitted to use it;

and he may do with it

the earth

that is gathered whatever he needs,

because so long as it remains gathered in one place, it retains its preparedness from the eve of Yom Tov, and the small amount of earth is not nullified to the floor of the house.

However, since Rav Yehuda’s novel teaching was stated with regard to a small quantity of earth, enough to fit into only one basket, there is a limitation to this preparedness:

And as

Mar Zutra taught in the name of Mar Zutra the Great [

the elder], Rav Yehuda’s statement does not apply in every circumstance, but rather—

and this is when he designated for it

the earth he brought in the basket a special place in

a corner,

and likewise he did not spread out the earth, because only then is it evident that this earth is intended for all his needs and is prepared for that purpose.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yehuda’s statement that even a basket of earth brought into the house without specifying a purpose is prepared for use, and that the small amount of earth is not nullified to the floor of the house, from the Mishna in tractate Ḥullin [83b].

challenging Rav Yehuda’s statement that even a basket of earth brought into the house without specifying a purpose is prepared for use, and that the small amount of earth does not become nullified with respect to the ground of the house. The challenge is based on the Mishna in tractate Ḥullin [83b].

As we learned:

A koy

is an animal that is in doubt whether it is a wild animal or a domesticated animal—

one may not slaughter it on Yom Tov,

because perhaps it is a wild animal and requires the blood-covering mitzva, but it is impossible to cover its blood on Yom Tov, since we must take into consideration the other possibility, that perhaps it is a domesticated animal, whose blood is not subject to the covering mitzva; and it is forbidden to move earth for the sake of covering the blood of a domesticated animal, since there is no mitzva to cover it.

And if they slaughtered

the koy—

they may not cover its blood!

For, as stated, it may be a domesticated animal, with which the mitzva of covering the blood does not apply, and it is forbidden to move earth for the sake of covering its blood.

The Gemara now asks:

And if it is so,

if it is possible to bring a small amount of earth in a basket, in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s statement, and use it for all needs, why may one not slaughter a koy on Yom Tov, and why, if they slaughtered it, may they not cover its blood?

After all, it is possible

to cover it in accordance with Rav Yehuda,

if one brought a small amount of earth in a basket.

The Gemara rejects the question with a counter-question:

But according to your reasoning,

that you asked according to Rav Yehuda why the blood of a koy is not covered with a small amount of earth, you still have a difficulty:

Let him cover it,

the blood of the koy,

with the ashes of a stove or with a

stake driven into the ground,

as it is explicitly taught in our Mishna that these are prepared. Why, then, do you raise the question only against Rav Yehuda?

Rather,

necessarily you will explain that the statement we learned—that one may not slaughter a koy on Yom Tov—applies when

he does not have,

when ashes of a stove or a stake driven into the ground are not available to him. If so,

here too,

we can explain, according to Rav Yehuda, that one may not slaughter a koy in a case where

he does not have

prepared earth, because he did not bring even a small amount of earth in a basket!

And the Gemara challenges this:

If so,

if the Gemara’s answer established that the prohibition against slaughtering a koy on Yom Tov is because one lacks the ability to cover its blood ,

why specifically

did the Mishna establish the prohibition of covering with regard to a koy that is

a case of doubt

whether its blood must be covered?

After all, if one has no way to cover,

even certainly

a wild animal, whose blood must be covered,

also may not

be slaughtered, and if one slaughtered it, he may not cover it, since the halakha follows Beit Hillel: one may neither slaughter nor cover if there is no stake driven into the ground. [According to Tosafot below, 9b, even Beit Shammai require a stake driven into the ground in order to cover.]

And we answer: The tanna in the Mishna

stated a “needless to say” formulation!

That is,

“it goes without saying”

: There is no doubt that, with regard to a wild animal, whose obligation to cover the blood is

certain,

one should not slaughter it

since he will be unable to cover its blood;

but

with regard to a koy, which is

of uncertain status, one might say that, because of the joy of Yom Tov, one should slaughter it and not cover its blood

, and it would therefore be permitted to nullify the mitzva of covering the blood in a case of uncertainty through inaction, for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva of the joy of Yom Tov.

It teaches us

the tanna in the Mishna that even the uncertain nullification of the mitzva of covering the blood is not overridden by the joy of Yom Tov, and therefore one may not slaughter a koy .