ביצה ג׳ ב:י׳-ד׳ א:ד׳

With regard to the contradiction presented by Rabbi Yoḥanan, which led him to suggest that the opinions should be reversed, Ravina said that this is not the only possible resolution: Actually, do not reverse the opinions. Rather, in the case of the two Festival days, one could claim that Rabbi Yehuda spoke to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, rather than presenting his own opinion.,If so, Rabbi Yehuda’s statement should be understood as follows: In my opinion, even on the first Festival day, the egg is also permitted, as it is food that was separated. However, according to your opinion, which is that you prohibit liquid that comes from food, at least agree with me that it is permitted on the second day, as they are two sanctities. The first and second days of Rosh HaShana are not one unit, but two separate entities. Therefore, it is possible that the first day is sacred, while the second is a weekday. Consequently, an item prohibited on the first day might be permitted on the second. And the Rabbis said to him: No, the two days are one sanctity, i.e., they are viewed as a single continuous unit. The uncertainty applies equally to both of them.,Ravina, son of Rav Ulla, said: There is an alternative resolution to the contradiction raised by Rabbi Yoḥanan. Here, in the case of the egg laid on a Festival, Rabbi Yehuda prohibited eating the egg since it is not from a chicken designated for food, whose legal status is that of food. Rather, the case refers to a chicken designated for laying eggs, and Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he holds that there is a prohibition of muktze. Since the egg is produced by something muktze, it is certainly muktze itself, which means that the halakha of food that was separated is inapplicable to this case.,§ The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita, which clarifies the issue differently: Both an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a Festival are considered to be muktze, and therefore in both cases, one may not move the egg, neither for the sake of food nor for any other purpose: Not to cover a vessel with it, nor to support the legs of a bed with it.,However, if one wishes, he may cover the egg with a vessel, without handling the egg itself, so that it does not break from being accidentally trodden upon. Although it is prohibited to move the egg itself, it is nevertheless permitted to move a vessel for its sake. And even if there is uncertainty with regard to whether this egg was laid on a Festival, it is prohibited to move it. And, furthermore, if it became intermingled with a thousand permitted eggs, they are all prohibited.,The Gemara notes: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabba, who said that an egg is prohibited due to the lack of preparation, this case involves an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by Torah law; and in any case of an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by Torah law, the ruling is stringent. Therefore, the egg is prohibited even if there is uncertainty whether it was laid on a Festival.,However, according to the opinions of Rav Yosef and Rabbi Yitzḥak, who say that an egg is prohibited due to a decree, this case involves an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by rabbinic law, and in any case of an uncertainty with regard to the legal status of an item prohibited by rabbinic law, the ruling is lenient.,The Gemara answers: In the latter clause of the baraita, we have arrived at a different case. The case does not involve the prohibition of an egg laid on a Festival; the case involves an egg laid by a chicken with regard to which there is uncertainty whether it is an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is prohibited by Torah law. The uncertainty with regard to the legal status of the chicken is relevant to the egg.,The Gemara raises a difficulty with this response: If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: If it became intermingled with a thousand other eggs, they are all prohibited. Granted, if you say that there is uncertainty whether the egg was laid on a Festival and uncertainty whether it was laid on a weekday, then it is an object whose prohibition is temporary, as the egg will be permitted on the following day, and the principle is: Any object whose prohibition is temporary is not nullified, even by a thousand permitted items. Since its prohibition will lapse on its own, there is no need to make use of the option of nullification.,However, if you say that the egg referred to in the baraita is an uncertain tereifa, it is an object whose prohibition is not temporary, as there is no way to permit the prohibition of tereifa, and it should therefore be nullified by a simple majority.,The Gemara adds: And if you say that an egg is significant and is not nullified, as nullification applies only to items that have no intrinsic significance, while a significant object cannot be nullified, that works out well according to the one who said that we learned: Any item whose manner is also to be counted, i.e., that is sometimes sold by unit, rather than by weight or volume, is considered significant. An egg falls into that category, as it is sometimes sold by unit.,However, according to the one who said that we learned: That item whose manner is exclusively to be counted, i.e., that is always sold by unit, is considered significant, what can be said? Although eggs are often sold by unit, they are also often sold by weight or volume.,The Gemara cites the mishna where the dispute cited above appears. As we learned (Orla 3:6–7): With regard to one who had bundles of clover, a type of legume, that were diverse kinds of food crops that grew in a vineyard, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, those bundles must be burned. If the bundles were intermingled with others, and those others were intermingled with others, they must all be burned. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They may be nullified by one part in two hundred similar parts. When the prohibited portion is less than one-half of one percent of the permitted portion, the prohibition is nullified.,The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir says that they must all be burned, as Rabbi Meir would say: That whose manner is exclusively to be counted, is considered significant and cannot be nullified. Therefore, it renders the entire mixture forbidden, and it must be burned. And the Rabbis say: Only six items are sufficiently significant to render the entire mixture forbidden. Rabbi Akiva says: There are seven. And they are: High-quality nuts from Perekh, and pomegranates from Badan, and sealed barrels of wine, and branches of spinach, and cabbage stalks, and Greek pumpkin. Rabbi Akiva adds: Even loaves of a homeowner.,Different prohibitions apply to these seven items. That which is fit to be forbidden due to orla, fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree is planted, is forbidden due to orla. That which is fit to be forbidden due to diverse kinds of food crops that grew in a vineyard is forbidden due to diverse kinds in a vineyard (Avoda Zara 74a). And it was stated about the wording of this mishna that there is an amoraic dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan said that we learned: Only that whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, and it is therefore prohibited by Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that we learned: Any item whose manner is also to be counted, is significant and cannot be nullified.,Returning to the matter of the egg, the Gemara reprises its question: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, but according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what can be said? Since an egg is not sold exclusively by unit, it is not significant. Therefore, the egg of a tereifa should be nullified by a simple majority.,Rav Pappa said: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this tanna, who said that an egg cannot be nullified, is the tanna of the halakha concerning a litra of dried figs, who, based on his statement, said: Any item that is counted, even if it is prohibited by rabbinic law, cannot be nullified, and all the more so items prohibited by Torah law, e.g., the egg of a tereifa.,As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a litra of dried figs, whose stems were removed, and were dried and pressed in different vessels and shaped into circles, the obligation to tithe fruits is by rabbinic law. If one forgot to tithe the figs, and later remembered that he placed the figs into a barrel, and during the process of producing a circle he pressed the figs onto the mouth of one of the circular vessels in which the circles are formed, and does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it; or, if he recalls that he pressed it on the mouth of a barrel, but does not know in which barrel he pressed it, or if he recalls that he pressed it on the mouth of a straw receptacle, but does not know in which receptacle he pressed it, Rabbi Meir says that in all these cases there is a dispute between the tanna’im of the previous generation: Rabbi Eliezer says: One considers the upper circles of dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs in the entire barrel to nullify the upper litra.,In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred mouths of different barrels or circular vessels there, the prohibited litra of untithed figs on the mouth of one of the vessels is nullified by a ratio of one part of prohibited figs to one hundred parts of similar, permitted figs. And if not, all of the circles of figs at the mouths of the barrels or circular vessels are prohibited, as one of them clearly contains a prohibited litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the prohibited figs certainly did not reach there. This is Rabbi Meir’s version of the dispute.,Rabbi Yehuda says a different version of the dispute. Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred mouths of vessels with permitted figs present there, in addition to the prohibited one, it is nullified by the one hundred permitted mouths. And if not, the figs at the mouths are prohibited and those at the bottom are permitted. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred mouths present there, they are not nullified, as this litra cannot be nullified in any manner. Rav Pappa was referring to this opinion when he said that there is a tanna, meaning Rabbi Yehoshua in Rabbi Yehuda’s version, who maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, e.g., a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.,The same mishna further states: If one pressed the litra of figs into a circular vessel but he does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it, everyone agrees that the prohibited fig cakes are nullified. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Everyone agrees? This is the very matter of their dispute, whether or not the litra is nullified.,Rav Pappa said: This is what the tanna said, i.e., he meant the following: One pressed it onto a circular vessel but does not know onto which place, which side of the circular vessel he pressed it, whether on its north or on its south side. In this case, as the prohibited litra is not located in a specific place and it cannot be distinguished from the others, it certainly cannot be considered an object of significance, and everyone agrees that it is nullified.,The Gemara explained why the egg mentioned in the baraita, an egg laid by a chicken that is a tereifa, cannot be nullified even if it is mingled with a thousand permitted eggs. However, Rav Ashi said: Actually, the baraita can be explained as referring to a case where there is uncertainty whether it is a Festival or a weekday. While it is true that according to most opinions this is a rabbinic prohibition, and the halakha is generally lenient with regard to uncertainties involving rabbinic law, it is an object whose prohibition is temporary. And with regard to any object whose prohibition is temporary, even if it involves a rabbinic prohibition, it cannot be nullified.,§ It is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: With regard to an egg laid on a Festival, it and its mother may be eaten. The Gemara asks: With what case are we dealing? If we say that this is dealing with a chicken designated for food, it is obvious that it and its mother are permitted. Rather, say that this is dealing with a chicken designated for laying eggs, but in that case it and its mother are both prohibited. Rabbi Zeira said that the baraita should be understood as follows: The egg may be eaten on account of its mother; if the chicken is eaten on the Festival, the egg may also be eaten.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? In which case is it necessary to apply this ruling? Abaye said: It is referring to a case where one bought this chicken without specifying whether he intended to eat it or use it for its eggs. In that case, if the chicken was slaughtered on a Festival, it has been retroactively clarified that it was intended for food, and the eggs it lays are, therefore, permitted. If it was not slaughtered, it has been retroactively clarified that it was intended for laying eggs, and the eggs it lays are prohibited.,Rav Mari said that the phrase: It and its mother may be eaten, should not be taken literally. Rather, the tanna is teaching an exaggeration [guzma], for extra emphasis, as it is taught in another baraita: Aḥerim say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: An egg may be eaten, it and its mother, and a chick and its shell.,The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of this addition: Its shell? If we say it is referring to an actual shell, is a shell edible? Rather, the baraita must be referring to the consumption of a chick that is still in its shell. This explanation is problematic, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov only in permitting the eating of a chick immediately after it hatches, when it has already entered the world. However, when it has not yet entered the world, i.e., if the chick is still in its shell, they do not disagree. Even the Rabbis accept that this chick has the status of a creeping animal and may not be eaten.,Rather, evidently the expression: A chick and its shell, should not be understood literally, as it is an exaggeration. Here, too, the phrase: It and its mother may be eaten, is an exaggeration. It does not mean literally that the chick and its mother may be eaten, but is merely a statement of emphasis that the egg is undoubtedly permitted.,§ It was stated that amora’im disputed the following issue (Eiruvin 38b): If Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, Rav said: An egg laid on this one is prohibited on that one, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: An egg laid on this one is permitted on that one. The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav holds that when Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, it is considered one continuous sanctity, i.e., a single, indivisible day.,But didn’t Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of four elders, who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: When a Shabbat and a Festival occur consecutively, they are two sanctities rather than one long day; therefore, a joining of Shabbat boundaries need not be placed on a weekday, but may be placed on the first of the holy days to allow going beyond the Shabbat boundary on the second. Evidently, this issue cannot be the basis of their dispute.,Rather, here they disagree with regard to Rabba’s preparation, i.e., an item that was prepared on its own from one day to the other, whose use Rabba prohibits. Rav holds that items prepared by means of Rabba’s preparation are prohibited, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold that items prepared by means of Rabba’s preparation are prohibited.,The Gemara comments: This dispute is like a dispute between tanna’im: An egg laid on Shabbat may be eaten on a Festival; if it was laid on a Festival, it may be eaten on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: This opinion is not unanimous; rather, it is still a matter of dispute, as Beit Shammai say it may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say it may not be eaten, just as they disagreed about whether an egg is permitted on the day on which it was laid.,The Gemara relates: Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host [ushpizikhnei] had these eggs that were laid on a Festival that occurred on a Friday, and the host was unsure whether eggs laid on the Festival were permitted from the Festival for use on Shabbat. He came before his guest, Rav Adda, and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to roasting these eggs now, on the Festival, although eating them today is prohibited due to nolad, and let us eat them tomorrow, as they will be no longer be prohibited due to nolad?,Rav Adda said to him: What is your opinion that led you to pose this question? You evidently assume that in the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and therefore an egg laid on one day will be permitted on the following day. However, even Rabbi Yoḥanan permitted one to swallow it only raw, on the next day, when it is no longer prohibited; but on the same day that it was laid, he did not permit one even to move it, and certainly not to roast it.,And it is taught likewise in a baraita: With regard to both an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a Festival, one may not move it, neither to cover a vessel with it nor to support the legs of a bed with it.,The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rav Pappa’s host, and some say it was a certain man who came before Rav Pappa, had these eggs that were laid on a Shabbat that occurred before a Festival. He came before him and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to eat these eggs tomorrow, on the Festival? Rav Pappa said to him: Go away from me now, and come back tomorrow. He said this because Rav would not place a disseminator before him to explain his lectures, from one Festival day until the end of the other, the second Festival day, due to drunkenness. Since it was customary in those times to drink a great deal of wine during Festival meals, Rav was concerned that his mind would not be sufficiently clear to issue a public ruling.,When that man came back on the following day, Rav Pappa said to him: