BEITZAH - 021a – ביצה – פרק שני – יום טוב,כא ע”א

it is accepted. In order to burn the emurim in the evening: if he threw it, after the fact, yes;^[1]

הורצה על מנת להקטיר כו' - that is: he will burn the emurim in the evening and will not burn them today.

from the outset, no.

לכתחלה לא - since he will not eat meat today.

This fits well according to Rava, but according to Rabbah bar Rav Huna it is difficult! It is indeed difficult.^[2]

Or, if you wish, say: the shevus of Shabbos is different from the shevus of Yom Tov.^[3]

שאני שבות שבת - the Sages were stricter about their own words on Shabbos than on Yom Tov.

Rav Avya Sava asked Rav Huna: An animal half belonging to a gentile and half to a Jew: may it be slaughtered on Yom Tov?^[4]

He said to him: It is permitted.

He said to him: Then what is the difference between this and vow- and gift-offerings?^[5]

מה בין זה לנדר ונדבה - which are half his and half for the Most High, and it is forbidden to slaughter them because of the share of the Most High.

He said to him: A raven flew.^[6]

עורבא פרח - a raven flying overhead: he diverted him to another matter.

When he went out,

כי נפק - Rav Avya.

Rabbah his son said to him:^[7]

אמר ליה רבה בריה - the son of Rav Huna, to his father.

Is this not Rav Avya Sava, whom you, master, praise as a great man?

לאו היינו כו' - so why did you push him off, so that he went away in embarrassment?

He said to him: What could I do for him? Today I am (Shir Hashirim 2:5) “sustain me with flasks, spread apples around me,”^[8]

אני היום סמכוני באשישות - it is Yom Tov, and I expounded to the public, and I grew ill from the effort of the discourse, and I apply to myself “sustain me with flasks”: bring me a meal and I will eat.

and he asked me something that requires reasoning.

דבעיא טעמא - and I need to think and look into it.

And what is the reason?^[9]

וטעמא מאי - this is the sugya of the Gemara.

An animal half belonging to a gentile and half to a Jew may be slaughtered on Yom Tov, because an olive's worth of meat is impossible without slaughtering.^[10]

But vow- and gift-offerings may not be slaughtered on Yom Tov, because when the kohanim acquire, they acquire from the table of the Most High.^[11]

כהנים משלחן גבוה קא זכו - in the breast and thigh,^[12] and the same is true of the owners in the rest of the meat, like a servant who takes a portion from his master’s house; so the whole slaughter turns out to be for the sake of the Most High.

Rav Chisda said: An animal half belonging to a gentile and half to a Jew may be slaughtered on Yom Tov, because an olive’s worth of meat is impossible without slaughtering.^[13]

Dough half belonging to a gentile and half to a Jew may not be baked on Yom Tov, because he can divide it at the kneading.^[14]

Rav Chana bar Chanilai challenged this: Dogs’ dough, when the shepherds eat from it, is subject to challah,^[15]

חייבת בחלה - for it is called bread.

and one may make an eruv with it,^[16]

ומערבין בה - eruvei chatzeros, to carry from houses to the courtyard; for the houses are each individual’s own domain and the courtyard is the domain of them all, and they need an eruv for each to carry from his house to the courtyard.

and one may make a shituf with it,

ומשתתפים בה - shituf is the term used for an alley onto which many courtyards open; all courtyards in Shas stand in front of the houses, and one goes out through the courtyard to the public domain or to the alley.

and one recites a blessing over it,

ומברכין עליה - Hamotzi.

and one makes a zimun over it,

ומזמנים עליה - three who ate together.

and it may be baked on Yom Tov,

ונאפת בי"ט - because of the shepherds’ share.

and a person fulfils his obligation with it on Pesach.^[17]

ואדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח - on the first night of Pesach, when it is a mitzvah to eat matzah, as it is written “in the evening you shall eat matzos” (Shemos 12:18); and on the other days, if he wishes to eat other things without bread, he may.

But why? He can divide it at the kneading!^[18]

Dogs’ dough is different, since it is possible to appease them with carrion.^[19]

לפייסן בנבלה - so all of it turns out to be eaten by people.

But does Rav Chisda hold of “since”?^[20]

ומי אית ליה הואיל - in the end he feeds the dogs from it, for he has no carrion; and on the strength of “since,” that had he had carrion, you permit it for him.

Has it not been stated: One who bakes on Yom Tov for a weekday: Rav Chisda said he receives lashes; Rabbah said he does not receive lashes.^[21]

מיו"ט לחול - he baked after he had eaten, so it is certainly for the weekday.

Rav Chisda said he receives lashes^[22]: we do not say “since guests may come to him, it is fit for him, so now too it is fit for him.”

Rabbah said he does not receive lashes^[23]: we do say “since.”

Rather, do not say “since it is possible,” but the case is where he has carrion, so that it is certainly possible to appease them with carrion.^[24]

They asked Rav Huna: These villagers

בני באגא - Jews living in villages.

on whom the soldiers’ flour was imposed: may they bake it on Yom Tov?^[25]

דרמו עלייהו קמחא דבני חילא - the king imposed on them to bake and cook for his troops, his men of war.

He said to them: Let us see: if they give a loaf to a child and do not mind, each and every one is fit for a child, and it is permitted; and if not, it is forbidden.^[26]

כל חדא וחדא כו' - Rav Huna disagrees with Rav Chisda, who said that dough half belonging to a gentile and half to a Jew may not be baked.

But it was taught in a beraisa: It happened that Shimon HaTeimani^[27]

התימני - he was from Timnah, as it is written (Shoftim 15:6) “Shimshon, the son-in-law of the Timnite,” from Timnah.

did not come the previous evening to the beis midrash.

אמש - that is, the afternoon of Yom Tov.

In the morning Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava found him^[28] and said to him: Why did you not come to the beis midrash last evening?

He said to him: A troop came to our town and sought to plunder the whole town, so we slaughtered a calf for them, fed them and sent them off in peace.

בלשת - a great force of bands of gentiles who search and hunt for spoil.

He said to him: I wonder if your gain has not been lost through your loss, for the Torah said “for you,” and not for star-worshippers.^[29]

יצא שכרכם - what you gained in money is gone and lost through the loss of the punishment you will incur for desecrating Yom Tov. “And not for dogs” is not in our text.

But why? It was fit for them to eat from it!^[30]

והא חזי למיכל מניה - and they would not mind, for it was their own. “This is what he said to him” and so on is not in the text; rather the text reads: “but it is fit for dogs.”

Rav Yosef said: The calf was a treifah.^[31]

But it is fit for dogs!^[32]

It is a dispute of Tannaim,

תנאי היא - for there is a Tanna who forbids it for dogs.

as it was taught: (Shemos 12:16) “only what is eaten by every soul, that alone may be done for you.” From what it says “every soul,” I understand that even the soul of an animal is included, as in the verse (Vayikra 24:18) “one who strikes the soul of an animal shall pay for it.”^[33]

לכל נפש - “only what is eaten by every soul.”

The verse therefore says “for you”^[34]

Tosafos

אבל נדרים ונדבות כי קא זכו משלחן גבוה קא זכו - the kohanim in the breast and thigh, and the Yisrael in the meat, [receive] from the table of the Most High, like a servant who takes a portion from his master; so Rashi explained. And even according to Rabbi Yosi HaGlili, who says in Bava Kamma (12b)^[35] that kodashim kalim are the owners’ property, and says even after the throwing of the blood that they are the owners’ property, except for the gifts of the kohanim: nevertheless that property was acquired from the table of the Most High, for the essence of the offering is for the Most High. Therefore, although it is his property, to betroth a woman with it, nevertheless all the services are performed for the need of the Most High.

עיסה חציה של נכרי וחציה של ישראל - and if you ask: but it was said above^[36]: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says a woman may fill an oven with bread even though she needs only one loaf, because bread bakes well when the oven is full, and baking on Yom Tov is permitted even from the outset. And if you say this follows the Tanna Kamma: but the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon, who permits. One may answer that it is different there, for all the bread belongs to the Jew, who is free to eat any one of them, this one or that; and further, perhaps guests will come. But here, where half of it belongs to a gentile, it is forbidden to bake it on Yom Tov.

הואיל ומקלעי אורחים וכו' - this is puzzling, for it says in Shabbos, perek Hamatznia (95a), that one who removes honeycombs^[37] on Yom Tov receives forty lashes. Why does he receive lashes according to Rabbah, who says here “since” and so on? There too let us say “since guests may come” and so on. One cannot say that it is different there because it could be done on Erev Yom Tov, for with food there is no distinction between what could be done earlier and what could not, as I explained at the beginning of our masechta (3a), regarding Rav Yosef, who said “because of fallen fruit.” One may answer that the case is where the honey has spoiled and is not fit for eating but only for the kesishah of camels. Alternatively, he detached the honeycomb close to dark, and there was no time for guests to eat it even if they came.

חזינן אי יהבינן לינוקא ולא קפדי כל חדא וחדא וכו' - Rashi explained: this disagrees with the earlier statement of Rav Chisda, who said dough half belonging to a gentile and so on, because it can be divided at the kneading. But the Ri^[38] says they do not disagree. Dough half belonging to a gentile and half to a Jew is different, for the Jew can divide it and bake his share. But here the case is that the flour belonged to the soldiers, and only the labour of baking was imposed on the villagers. Therefore they could not take any of the flour at all before the baking, to bake it for the child; but afterwards, once they had baked for the troops, they did not mind. Likewise with the calf below, “he can divide it” does not apply, for they gave of their own; therefore if they took from it [the raiders] would mind, unless through the labour of the cooking, in the way of cooks, who eat a little of what is cooked. That is why he challenges Rav Huna from here.

Notes

1. 1. This continues the beraisa of the lambs of Atzeres from 20b: “If it was Shabbos he does not throw; and if he threw, it is accepted.” The Gemara draws the inference: only after the fact is it accepted, but one may not throw the blood on Shabbos from the outset in order to burn the emurim that night.
2. 2. For Rava, throwing the blood is allowed only so the meat can be eaten today. On Shabbos the meat cannot be eaten, so the beraisa fits him. For Rabbah bar Rav Huna, throwing in order to burn the emurim at night is enough, so why not from the outset? The Gemara leaves this as a difficulty.
3. 3. A shevus is a prohibition of the Sages on Shabbos and Yom Tov. This second answer saves Rabbah bar Rav Huna: he spoke of Yom Tov, and the Sages were stricter on Shabbos, so the beraisa does not contradict him.
4. 4. Rav Avya Sava was an Amora whom Rav Huna praised, as appears below. On Yom Tov one may not prepare food for a gentile (“for you, and not for gentiles”). The question is what happens when the animal is half a Jew’s.
5. 5. In a vow- or gift-shelamim, part goes to the mizbe’ach and part is eaten, yet for the view that they are not offered on Yom Tov it may not be slaughtered then. So why should an animal half owned by a gentile be different?
6. 6. Rav Huna does not answer. According to Rashi he turned Rav Avya’s attention to a raven flying overhead. His reason for this comes just below.
7. 7. This is Rabbah, Rav Huna’s son, the same Rabbah bar Rav Huna named at the top of the page.
8. 8. The verse reads: “sustain me with flasks, spread apples around me, for I am sick with love.” As Rashi explains there, the ashishos are the food of the sick: flasks of grapes or cakes of fine flour. Rav Huna applies this to himself: he had given the public discourse, felt weak, and needed a meal.
9. 9. According to Rashi, from here on the Gemara itself is speaking, not Rav Huna, and it gives the reason behind the answer to Rav Avya’s question.
10. 10. Even an olive’s worth of meat for the Jew requires slaughtering the entire animal, since slaughter cannot be divided. So the whole act counts as being for the Jew’s need.
11. 11. The kohanim and owners do not eat what is their own; they receive from what belongs to the Most High. So the slaughter is not for a person’s need at all, and that is the difference from an animal half owned by a Jew.
12. 12. The breast and the right thigh of a shelamim are the portions given to the kohen.
13. 13. Rav Chisda was an Amora of Sura, a disciple and colleague of Rav Huna. He repeats the rule about the animal in order to draw the contrast with dough.
14. 14. The Jew can divide the dough at the kneading and bake only his own part, so he may not bake the gentile’s part. Tosafos below asks about this from the permission to fill an oven.
15. 15. This is the Mishnah in Challah 1:8. Dough made for dogs counts as bread when the shepherds eat from it too. The challenge: it is partly for dogs and partly for shepherds, and it can be divided, yet it may be baked on Yom Tov.
16. 16. An eruv of courtyards and a shituf of alleys use a shared loaf to unite the residents into one domain, so they may carry between them on Shabbos. That this dough can serve for it shows that it is bread fit for people.
17. 17. Every item on the list shows that this dough has the full status of bread for people, up to fulfilling the mitzvah of matzah on the first night of Pesach.
18. 18. The Gemara’s objection to Rav Chisda: here too the dogs’ share could be separated at the kneading, as with dough half owned by a gentile. So why is baking allowed?
19. 19. Carrion may be fed to dogs. Since he can give them carrion instead, all of the dough may end up eaten by the shepherds, so all of it counts as baked for people.
20. 20. Hoil, “since,” is reasoning that permits a labour because of what could have happened even though it did not. Here he has no carrion, and the permission rests only on what would be if he had. The Gemara asks whether Rav Chisda accepts this at all.
21. 21. The dispute also appears in Pesachim 46b. According to Rashi, he baked after he had already eaten, so the baking is certainly for the weekday.
22. 22. The Gemara explains the opinion. Had “since” been accepted, guests might have come, the bread would be fit for them today, and he would not be liable. Since Rav Chisda makes him liable, he evidently rejects “since.”
23. 23. This Rabbah is Rabbah bar Nachmani, head of the yeshivah of Pumbedisa, not Rabbah bar Rav Huna named above.
24. 24. The Gemara now withdraws its first answer. The reason is not “since,” but that he actually has carrion for the dogs, so all the dough goes to the shepherds.
25. 25. The flour belonged to the army, and one may not bake on Yom Tov for gentiles. The question is whether the baking can be permitted because it may also serve a Jew.
26. 26. If the soldiers do not mind a child taking a loaf, any loaf may turn out to be for a Jew, so all may be baked. Rashi says Rav Huna disagrees here with Rav Chisda; the Ri in Tosafos says he does not.
27. 27. The Gemara brings a beraisa against Rav Huna. Shimon HaTeimani was a Tanna, named according to Rashi after the town of Timnah.
28. 28. Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava was a Tanna of the generation after the Churban, who gave semichah to the disciples of Rabbi Akiva.
29. 29. The slaughter was for gentiles, which “for you” forbids on Yom Tov, so the money saved will be lost through the punishment. Rashi notes that the words “and not for dogs” are not in his text.
30. 30. The objection follows Rav Huna’s reasoning. The calf was the townspeople’s own and the raiders would not have minded their eating from it, so it was fit for Jews. Why then was the slaughter forbidden?
31. 31. Rav Yosef headed the yeshivah of Pumbedisa. A treifah is an animal with a fatal defect, forbidden for a Jew to eat. So the slaughter served no Jew at all.
32. 32. A further objection: a treifah may be fed to dogs. If slaughtering for dogs is allowed, the calf could have served the town’s dogs.
33. 33. In the Torah “soul” can include an animal, as in “one who strikes the soul of an animal.” So “every soul” alone would allow cooking for animals as well, and “for you” comes to exclude that.
34. 34. The beraisa continues on 21b: “for you, and not for dogs: the words of Rabbi Yosi HaGlili,” and Rabbi Akiva disagrees.
35. 35. Kodashim kalim are offerings such as shelamim, whose meat is eaten by the owners. Rabbi Yosi HaGlili holds that they are the owners’ property, so one can betroth with them. Tosafos explains that even for him the service is entirely for the Most High.
36. 36. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s statement is in 17a. There one may fill the oven though only one loaf is needed, so why not here? Tosafos distinguishes: there all the bread belongs to a Jew.
37. 37. One who removes honeycombs takes honey out of the hive. He is liable to lashes although it is food. The question to Rabbah: why lashes, and why not say “since guests may come”?
38. 38. The Ri is Rabbeinu Yitzchak of Dampierre, a leading Tosafist. He disagrees with Rashi: the flour belonged to the army, so nothing could be separated before baking.