Beitza 20b - Nedarim and Nedavos

The gemara asks, acc. to opinion that nedarim and nedavos can't be brought on yom tov, what would be if one violated shechita, would you sprinkle the blood. The gemara says that if the meat is around all agree that you can sprinkle the blood (and violate a shevus of zrika - see pesachim 65b) in order to eat the meat on yom tov (ochel nefesh pushes off the shevus of zrika).

R' Yisroel Gordon raised an interesting question. The gemara implies "avar vishachat" that he intentionally violated the prohibition to shecht the korban, so the meat should be assur m'drabonon to eat just like one who cooks on shabbos b'mazid the food is assur (beitza 17b!). If it is assur to eat the meat there is no longer a heter to do the zrika (acc. to rava)? He suggested that since there is a mitzvah to eat kodshim, we can apply mitzvos la'av l'eihanos nitnu to allow eating the korban. To me it seems that this would only work with the chiddush of r' moshe (o.c. 1:126:3) that we are magdir even the issur d'rabonon of ma'aseh shabbos as an issur hana'a so that the heter of mitzvos la'av leihanos nitnu would apply. If it would be a regular kenas derabonon not to eat it, there wouldn't be a heter of mitzvos la'av leihanos nitnu.

I couldn't find anyone else (i.e. tzlach, pnei yehoshua, sfas emes) address the question.

Beitza 20b - Zeman Kavua

Beis Shamai and BH argue about whether an olas ri'iya can be brought on yom tov. All agree that if it would be "zeman kavua", it can be brought. The argument is, do we consider it zeman kavua, since it can be brought on chol hamoed and does not need to be brought on Yom Tov. Beis Hillel says, that since there is a finite time that it can be brought, as it cannot be brought after chag, it is called zeman kavua. Simply speaking this could mean that since the zeman for the korban is the duration of the chag, it is called zeman kavua. However, Rashi is apparently bothered by this idea, the fact that it can only be brought for the duration of the chag is not a justification for bringing it on yom tov (since it can be done on chal hamoed).

Rashi says 20b (and also 19a) that we are concerned he will be negligent or o'nes and not bring it on chol hamoed. Why is that a rationale to push off yom tov? It seems that Rashi defines "zeman kavua" as a korban that if not done on yom tov, has a chance of being lost not done at all. Only karbonos whose opportunity will not expire cannot be done on yom tov. But since there is a chance of negligence on chal hamoed and a concern that it will be missed entirely, we consider it zeman kavua to push off yom tov. It should follow from this that any korban who's time is limited and expires, is considered zeman kavua and can be brought on yom tov. Acc. to Rashi's approach it would seem that the fact that the zeman is the entire chag, is merely coincidental, but even if the zeman would be 2 weeks, so long as there is a limited time that it can be brought bec. of an expiration on the zeman, there is a chance that if we don't allow it to be brought on yom tov it may not be done ever, it is considered zeman kavua and could be brought on yom tov!

הערה בנוסח דעירוב מנין לרמ"א דמעכב

הרמ"א סובר דנוסח "בהדי עירובא וכו" מעכב ולדידיה חוזר ומברך ומניח, וכבר תמהו הנושאי כלים מנין לו העיכוב? ויותר צ"ע (שמעתי להקשות) דכל הנוסח לא מפורש בגמרא ומנין כל זה?

וחשבתי שאולי מקורו מהגמ' טז ע"ב

אמר רב הונא ערובי תבשילין צריכין דעת. פשיטא דעת מניח וכו' וברש"י שם שידעו שלשם כך נעשו ורב הונא לא פירש וכו'וכבר מקשים האחרונים מה הנידון הרי זכין לאדם שלא בפניו. אך אולי כוונת רב הונא כרמ"א שצריך דעת מפורשת ששם העירוב לבשל ולאפות וכדו' וא"כ יש הו"א שגם צריך דעת מי שהניחו בשבילו. (ומחשבה תמיד צריכה דיבור חוץ מקדשים שהיא אולי מ"ח רש"י ותוס'

what do you think?

עוד הערה: מי של"צ לבשל האם יש עליו מצוות עירוב? ולראשונים לקמן שגם לאדלוקי שרגא צריך א"כ יצטרך אך לראשונים שחולקים מאי? ויש לי קצת לדייק מהמשנה שהתחילה דינה מדין שלא יבשל בתחילה לשבת אך אם הותיר מיו"ט יאכל, ואם הוי חיוב מדוע לא התחילה לומר שחייב אדם בעירוב. ואם ניחות לדא, א"כ יהיה קשה על הראשונים שמצריכים עירוב כדי לאדלוקי שרגא.

Beitza 15b - Eiruv Tavshilin

הערה מאת הסבא הרב גפן ביצה טו: - משנה: ועושה תבשיל מערב יוט וסומך עליו לשבת. ב"ש אומרים שני תבשילין ובה אומרים תבשיל אחד ושווין בדג וביצה שעליו שהן שני תבשילין בדרך כלל כשהתנא מביא מח' בין ב"ש וב"ה וממשיך ואומר ושווין, המובן הוא שאם כי הם חלוקים כאן אבל ביחס לדין אחר בנין דומה הם שווין לדוגמא עיין שבת יז/יח בנתינת עור לעבדן ע"ש שב"ש סוברים דבעינן שיעשה מבעוד יום וב"ה מתירין עם השמש וממשיך התנא לומר ששווין שטוענים קורת בית הבד ועיגולי הגת וכן בביצה יז: ב"ש אומרים מטבילין הכל מלפני השבת וב"ה אומרים כלים מלפני שבת ואדם בשבת ושווין שמשיקין את המים בכלי אבן לטהרם אך כאן הלשון ושווין צ"ע קצת משנתנו שב"ש וב"ה מסכימים שדג וביצה שעליו נחשבים לשני תבשילין אך לב"ה מאי נפקותא יש להם אי הוי כב' תבשילין או אחד, הרי לדידהו די בתבשיל אחד ?כל שהתנא צריך לומר הוא ומודים ב"ש לב"ה בדג וביצה שעליו. ואני רציתי לומר שכשם שמצינו לגבי הטיה בק"ש שהמטה כב"ש ראוי להתחייב בנפשו, כן כאן אם ירצה אדם להחמיר כב"ש דוקא בב' תבשילין אינו ראוי ולכן אמר ששווין בדג וביצה שעליו שלב"ש הם שני תבשילין בעוד שלב"ה יכול להחשב כתבשיל אחד

אך הסבא לא קיבל דברי שנימוק שהיה צ"ל להאמר שאסור להניח שני תבשילין

Beitza 19a - Tevillas Keilim Bein Hashmashos

Rashi writes that you can't be tovel a kli during bein hashmashos because it is "not for a yom tov need". Maharsha asks, why doesn't rashi just say that it is assur bec. of all the 4 reasons mentioned earlier i.e. nir'ah kimisaken? He explains that it is going according to the opinion that during Bein Hashmashos all shevus is permitted, so he has to explain the issur is tevilla for a non-yom tov use, since it needs he'rev shemesh. It seems from the maharsha that the issur rashi refers to is not nir'ah kimsaken, but rather an issur to prepare on yom tov for afterwards. It should follow from the Maharsha that anytime you need the kli on shabbos you can be tovel it during bein hashmashos. The problem with this approach is that it seems to be against the halacha bec. we pasken like the mishnah in 2nd perek of shabbos (shulchan aruch 261:1), that you cannot be tovel keilim during bein hashmashos even if you will use them on shabbos.

I would like to suggest a slightly different peshat in rashi:

The m.b. (261) brings from magen avrohom (s.k. 6) that the mishna (and shulchan aruch 261:1) which says you cannot be tovel keilim during bein hashmashos is only speaking about a case where you have other keilim for shabbos, but if you need this kli bec. you don't have others, you can be tovel it during bein hashmashos (we pasken that they were not gozer on shevus only if it is absolutely necessary). Perhaps this is what rashi means. We are assuming that he needs this kli and has no others (that is why he is running to be tovel it during bein hashmashos). So, if this tevilla during bein hashmashos would be usable on yom tov, it would be permitted, but since it needs he'rev shemesh and is not usable for yom tov, therfore it is assur to be tovel it. The reason for the issur is not bec. of preparing for after yom tov, but rather that we are gozer on shevus that are not needed during bein hashmashos, so the issur is in fact bec. of nir'ah kimisaken.

Neshama Yeseira discussion

I saw that the discussion we had regarding Neshama Yeseira (i.e. women) was deleted, and I thought it was chaval to lose such an interesting discussion, so here it is in the comments.

beitza 18 - man going to the mikvah today on shabbos

biur halacha and a question on him:

• biur halacha explains (i think 328) that today going to the mikveh is worse and better. Worse, because it is more obvious that one is going to the mikveh since our minhag is not to bath on shabbos; and better because out tevilah doesn't accomplish anything halachically since a baal kery can learn and daven. Therefore, there is a great debate in poskim if today a baal kery is allowed to go dip.
• the biur halacha says that according to everyone it seems permissible if one became a baal kery on shabbos or y"t and his proof is our gemara that if one becomes tame on y"t then the braysa says (acc to rashi and tos) that one is allowed to go to mikveh.
• my question is, in our gemara the reason this is allowed is because becoming tameh on y"t for a dish is not common and chachamim didn't make a gzeira, but becoming a baal kery is common so it seems that he has no proof from our gemara. i mamash dont chap?

Beitza 17a - Ribuy Shiurim

The gemara in today's daf makes a distinction between cooking extra and baking extra. Really there is no difference between cooking and baking, but rather whether it is done in one shot (i.e. putting a large full pot on the fire) or in multiple shots (sticking loaf after loaf to the oven wall). Really cooking extra should be an issur torah, but the Ran explains that increasing shiurim over what is needed for ochel nefesh is permissible on yom tov, so long as it is done in one shot (to the exclusion of putting a pot on the fire and then putting in piece after piece).

However, acc. to Rashi that mitoch is matir even something which is not a yom tov need, it would seem that the prohibition to cook extra on yom tov would at most be an issur derabonon of hachana for after yom tov (unless you say that cooking for after yom tov is worse than for no reason at all, which would answer tosafos question 12a from pesachim 46b, as pointed out by r' yossi in an earlier comment). It comes out that acc. to Rashi the concept of Ribuy shiurim may only apply to remove an issur derabonon such as preparing from yom tov for chol.

This approach would be very helpful in dealing with the Ran's question from menachos where the gemara seems to imply that cutting a stem with more figs than one needs for pikuach nefesh, is assur min hatorah, why don't we say since it is done in one shot it is Ribuy shiurim and permitted, like we do here?

Acc. to Rashi the answer is that we only rely on this concept to remove an issur derabonon of hachana, but ribuy shiurim would not be matir an issur torah of kotzer. Therefore, Rashi will not have to make a distinction between yom tov and shabbos or between pikuach nefesh and ochel nefesh like the Ran.

beitza 17 - eiruv from y"t to shabbos

1. why does rashi not mention hachana in the whole sugya, rashi explains that you may not put an eiruv from y"t to shabbos because you are fixing, what happened to the gemara in eiruvin of hachana?
2. just pointing out that there is an obvious argument betwen rashi and tosfos as to what it means that you cannot acquire shvita on y"t. acc to rahi it is probably because of fixing or something similar because rashi has to find a heter for eiruv tavshilin, but acc to tosfos it is because of acquiring a house. the obvious nafka mina is eiruv chazeros, although the gemara omits, we hold (based on the Rosh, Rif) that one may make a tnay on eiruv chazeros although one cannot on techumin, but acc to rashi this would seem to be wrong.

Beitza 15b - Simchas Yom Tov

The gemara in today's daf asks on R' elazar why he was so strict about leaving the drasha, simchas yom tov is a mitzah? The gemara says that acc. to r"e it is only a reshus since he holds you can do all for hashem or all for lachem.

I think the gemara fits nicely into the rule that you are not mevatel learning for a mitzvah that can be done later (or by someone else as we see in moed kattan). Simchas yom tov is not a mitzvah like lulav, but rather applies every minute of the day and requires one to be in a state of simcha, so the gemara asks it is a mitzvah that can't be done later so why didn't r"e want people to leave (since they were getting hungry, they were not violating the mitzvah of simchas yom tov)? To this the gemara answers that acc. to r"e it is a reshus - meaning that although it is certainly a kiyum mitzvah, it is not a chov bec. one can choose to devote the entire day to learning or eating or split as he wishes (ya'avetz), therefore it is not a mitzvah that must be done now so you may not stop learning for it.

beitza 15 - sending a toaster to a friend on y"t

the gemara says that one may send tefilin on y"t but not the spiked sandal.

what about a toaster oven? is it similar to tefilin or sandal?

from my brief look, it seems that there is a machlokes tosfos yom tov and rav akiva eiger if tefilin on y"t are a kli shmlachto leisur. acc to rav akiva eiger it is not (only shabbos it is - see there because carrying) therfor a toaster might be asur lest he will use it, however acc to tosfos y"t maybe sandal is especially assur but tefilin and other things that are melachto leisur will be mutar.

would love to hear from the rabbi's on this one. either case, can we agree that what people are makpoid not to give a sefer as a gift on shabbos is wrong and should be mutar?

Beitza 14a - Safek Derabonon L'kula

Tosafos says a rule that we only apply safek derabonon l'kula to situations where one side is a clear leniency and the other clearly stringent. But if each side has a kula and chumra, it is impossible to be lenient by both since that is definitely an issur, and you can't choose one over the other, so you are forced to be machmir by both. We find a similar sevara in the Ran in Pesachim 108a (and in megilla by safek walled cities) where acc. to one side the first 2 cups need leaning and according to the other the last 2 need leaning, therefore the Ran says we have to lean by all 4 because we have no way of choosing one over the other, and to be lenient by both would be uprooting the mitzvah of leaning completely. Would our Tosafos definitely agree with the Ran and would the Ran definitely agree with our Tosafos?
It seems that Tosafos would not be forced to agree with the Ran, because in our case if you were lenient to grind spices when you knew before yom tov what you planned on cooking and also the spice doesn't loose flavor, you are doing an issur of grinding according to everyone. But in the case of the Ran you are only passively loosing a mitzvah, not doing an issur (furthermore, you are only loosing reclining of the 4 cups, but are still fulfilling reclining with matzah).
But, would the Ran be forced to say like Tosafos?

Beitza 12a - Rashi on "mitoch"

נחלקו רש"י ותוס' בפירושו של מתוך שהותרה וכו'. לתוס' שייך הכי רק כשהוא צורך היום קצת, ולרש"י מותר מה"ת אף כשאינו צורך היום כלל. נמצא דלתוס' יש לפרש מתוך שהותרה וכו' בב' אופנים: א. פירושו של "מתוך" היינו "כיון", כלומר כיון שלצורך או"נ מותר ממילא מותר לגמרי, דלא מסתברא להו לחלק בין או"נ לשאר הנאת הגוף ואגב אוכל נפש גררינן כל צורך היום כעין לא פלוג. ב. פירושו של "מתוך" היינו "מכלל", כלומר שכל הנאות הגוף הם בכלל ההיתר של או"נ (כ"כ הקה"י בשם היראים). אמנם לפרש"י שלא לצורך היינו אף שלא לצורך כלל ע"כ צריך לפרש דלא חלקה תורה בעצם המלאכה לאסור ולהתיר, וכל מלאכה שהותרה לצורך או"נ הותרה לגמרי. והנה, רש"י מפרש דלפי ההו"א דטעמא דב"ה משום דאין עירוב והוצאה ביו"ט לא שייך לאסור טלטול אבנים מדרבנן דכל איסור טלטול הוא רק שלא יבא לידי הוצאה. אבל למסקנא דטעמא משום מתוך וכו' כיון דאכתי שייך איסור הוצאה ביו"ט שייך לאסור טלטול אבנים מדרבנן (דטרחא שלא לצורך הוא) עכת"ד. וצ"ע דכיון דלרש"י פירושו של מתוך וכו' הוא דליכא איסור הוצאה ביו"ט כלל כדביארנו, הא אף למסקנא דטעמא דב"ה משום מתוך, לא הו"ל לאסור טלטול אבנים כיון דא"א לבא לידי איסור תורה של הוצאה.
ונלענ"ד עפמש"כ בביה"ל ריש ס' תקי"ב דאף לפרש"י דאמרינן מתוך אף להתיר דבר שאינו צורך היום כלל מ"מ לצורך נכרי גזה"כ הוא לאסור דכיון שגילתה תורה "לכם" ולא לנכרי, גרע טפי מלא לצורך כלל ויש בזה איסור דאורייתא. ובסוף דבריו בשם השטמ"ק דאף הוצאה לצורך נכרי אסור מדאורייתא, ולא אמרינן מתוך וכו'. נמצא דלפי המסקנא דטעמא דב"ה משום מתוך וכו' שפיר שייך איסור הוצאה כשהוא מוציא לצורך נכרי וממילא שייך לאסור טלטול אבנים מדרבנן ודו"ק

בסוגיא דתריסין אם יש איסור משום טירחא

ברש"י י ע"א מבואר דיש הו"א לאסור החזרת תריסין משום טירחא, אך בסוגיא הכא משמע ברש"י ־וכן הבין המ"ב־ שהצד לאסור הוא שיש דין בנין בכלים מדרבנן משום גזירה ולא הזכיר טירחא

וצ"ע דלמסקנה שבשאין בו ציר כלל מותר אפילו בבית, הפוסקים כותבים דמותר אפילו להחזיר אך אם יש טירחא צ"ע אם מותר. ובפנ"י משמע שכשאין ציר אין גם טירחא כי נמצא דהחנות קטנה, אך לפ"ז צ"ע מדוע נקט רש"י לעיל סברת טירחא. ועיין בפנ"י ולא עיינתי

Beitza 9b - Opinion of Beis Shamai by Kisuy Hadam

This point on the daf yomi was raised by R' Menachem Spira. In the situation of Kisuy Hadam, there are 2 issues, one is a chafira issue that the gemara says is not deoraysa since you don't need the hole, and the other is a muktzah issue that deker na'utz hepls for (Beis Hillel is only willing to rely on deker nautz bidieved, but l'chatchila they require afar muchan or eifer kirah). When the Gemara suggests that we don't have to swap BS and BH, because BS maybe is really more machmir in simchas yom tov than BH, but the reason he is more lenient by Kisuy Hadam is bec. there is a deker na'utz so there is no issur at all. It seems that this is not sufficient, as Tosafos points out 8a (d.h. v'eino) that there is still an issur derabonon of chafira for the dirt (melacha shein tzricha l'gufa), and BS is lenient bec. of simchas yom tov. Therefore, the mishna should still imply that BS is more lenient by simchas yom tov than BH!

rov and karov

שאלה בסוגיא דרוב וקרוב

האם דין קרוב דומה לרובא דליתא קמן? דלכאורה שניהם תלויים בסברא? אך לפ"ז צ"ע דאנן קיי"ל דרוכ עדיף מקרוב אך נ"ל קי"ל דרובא דליתא עדיף מרובא דאית לן ־ עיין שמעתתא ג פט"ו וד' פ"א

beitza 8b

בדין רבא דמוכן לודאי לא מוכן לספק

נשאלתי- צ"ע מדוע המוכן לודאי לא מוכן לכוי הרי סו"ס מדין ספק תמיד צריך לכסות הכוי

עוד צ"ע היכן מצינו דיש המוכן לדבר אחד ולא לשימוש אחר, אם האפר מוכן מדוע שיהיה מוקצה לכוי

ומצאתי שתי הקושיות בספר של משפחת אלישיב וכן עיין שפ"א שמשתמש בסרא ראשונה לומר פשט בגמ' לקמן בעמוד

ושם מבואר דמצינו לקמן ל"ב־ל"ג דעצי הסקה מוכנים רק להסקה א"כ ישנו מושג שדבר קצת מוקצה ומותר רק לשימושים מסויימים ע"ש בראשונים. וא"כ הכא נמי באפר עדיין קצת מוקצה ולכן צותר שימושו רק לסוג א' של שימוש ולא לספק. אך כשדעתו בפירוש לספק מהני. דהיינו בדבר ש'קצת מוקצה' צריך דעת בפירוש לסוג השימוש. כך הבנתי דבריהם.

ועיין דאף דאנן פסקינן שחוששים להתרת חלבו עדיין לצל"ח במובא במ"ב )תצ"ח צ:ה( נוגע להלכה דכל המ"ח בכוי שהוי בריה

בפנ"ע אך לכוי שבא מתיש וצבי אין חשש התרת חלבו.

good luck in the dinner down west!

Beitza 7b - Safek Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin

The Gemara says that an egg laid when no rooster is around, and we are not sure if it was laid before yom tov or on yom tov, is mutar misafek (it is only assur if you checked before yom tov and didn't find it). Tosafos explains that even though it is a non-fertilized egg, it is more likely that it was laid by day before yom tov, so you can be lenient (rashi seems to imply the same). The Ran is still bothered that we don't use "rov" to be mevatel by a davar sheyesh lo matirin, so why should we assume it is from before yom tov, even though it is more common. He explains that when there is definite issur present, we don't allow bitul b'rov, but to go after rov and assume that what is more likely to happen actually happened, is followed even by a davar sheyesh lo matirin.
This answers another question. Earlier the gemara implied that it was possible to hold we would be lenient misafek by yesh lo matirin, even though we would not rely on bitul b'rov. In a case where an assur egg falls into 2 kosher eggs they are all assur, even though each one is only a safek if it is the assur one. By definition when we don't allow bitul, we also are machmir misafek! The answer is that certainly a safek created by a mixture which is ischazek issura would be assur without r' ashi. When we thought that safek is more lenient than bitul that is only bec. it is not ischazek issura; whereas bitul is always in a situation when it is ischazek issura. Therefore, even R' Ashi who is mechadesh that safek is assur even when it is not ischazek issura; but if there is a greater chance of it being born before yom tov than on yom tov, we follow the greater chance to be lenient because we follow rov when it is not ischazek issura.

Beitza 6a - Burial on Yom Tov

The gemara seems to be struggling with 3 different problems. 1. It is a degrading for a non-jew to do the burial. 2. It is degrading to violate yom tov for burial. 3. It is degrading to leave the corpse without burial.

It seems that on YomTov we consider the order of importance for these problems to be 3-2-1. Therefore, on Yom Tov rishon we allow the meis to be buried, but only through a non-jew so as to lessen the Yom Tov violation. On Yom Tov Sheini, it is less of a violation of Yom Tov so the order is 3-1-2. Therefore, we bury specifically through a Jew (even when a non-jew is available). But on Shabbos which is most severe, we are most concerned with #2 and therefore even though it is a only a derabonon through a goy, we do not allow it (see Tosafos Baba kama 81a).

The question is on Yom Tov Sheini, why did chazal have to turn it into "a weekday" for a meis? Is the reason because even things which are not really needed but do add to the kavod of the meis are more important than yom tov sheini and therefore they should be done. Or was it simply a method of lessening the degradation to yom tov by declaring it to be like a weekday in the presence of a meis, so they can be done, but they would not encourage doing things which aren't really integral to burial?

4a Hachana derabbah

It seems there is a machlokes between rashi and tosfos in the understanding of hachana drabbah. Rashi both on 2b and 4a subsutitues the word hazmanah with hachana. Therefore when it comes to a beitza which is nolad on shabbos and the question is if you can eat it on the next day yom tov the reason why you can't is pasut to rashi because there was no hazmana beyom chol ( Hazmana, pshat is a active hazmana because achsevei lesudas shabbos). but tosfos 4a has to try to find a reason that in such a case you still have hachana on shabbos, if the beitza was negmar on chol.If he held of hazmana he would answer pashut like rashi.