## Beitzah Daf 26b

###### Beitzah 26b:1
[Beitzah 26b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:1)

בְּיוֹם טוֹב, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ — שֶׁזֶּה מִן הַמּוּכָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**on** the **Festival** itself, **Rabbi Shimon says: It is not** considered to be **among the** animals **prepared** prior to the Festival for use on the Festival; therefore, even if it was examined by an expert, it may not be slaughtered. **And** Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon **agree that if** the animal **was born with its blemish, it is** considered to be **among the** animals **prepared** for use on the Festival.


###### Beitzah 26b:2
[Beitzah 26b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:2)

דָּרֵשׁ רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: נוֹלַד הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ — מְבַקְּרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב לְכַתְּחִלָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן, אַבָּא תָּנֵי: אִם עָבַר וּבִקְּרוֹ — מְבוּקָּר, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מְבַקְּרִין אוֹתוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Rav Huna taught** the *halakha* as follows: If a firstborn **was born with its blemish,** experts may **examine it on a Festival *ab initio*,** and if the blemish is found to be permanent, the animal may then be slaughtered. **Rav Naḥman said to him: Father would teach** on this matter that **if he transgressed and examined it,** it is considered **examined** after the fact, **and you say** that **one** may **examine it** even ***ab initio*?**


###### Beitzah 26b:3
[Beitzah 26b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:3)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי תְּלָתָא בָּבֵי: נוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב — אֵין מְבַקְּרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. לְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא דְּלָא, הָא דִּיעֲבַד — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: It stands to reason** that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabba bar Rav Huna from** the fact **that** the *baraita* **is taught** in **three parts,** which suggests that each part contains a novel *halakha*. The first section states: If a firstborn **developed a blemish on the eve of a Festival one** may **not examine it on** the **Festival** itself, from which one can learn that **it is** only ***ab initio* that one** may **not** examine it; **but after the fact, it seems well,** and the examination is valid.


###### Beitzah 26b:4
[Beitzah 26b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:4)

נוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּיוֹם טוֹב, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן — דַּאֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא. וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ, שֶׁזֶּה מִן הַמּוּכָן — דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The second section of the *baraita* states: If **it developed a blemish on** the **Festival** itself, **Rabbi Shimon says: It is not** considered to be **among** the animals **prepared** prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. In other words, **even after the fact, no,** if the animal was examined by an expert, it may not be slaughtered and eaten. **And then** in the third section **it teaches: And** Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon **agree that if** the animal **was born with its blemish, it is** considered to be **among** the animals **prepared** for use on the Festival. The fact that the *baraita* taught this *halakha* as an independent clause indicates that **even *ab initio* as well,** the animal may be examined.


###### Beitzah 26b:5
[Beitzah 26b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:5)

וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: בֵּין שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, וּבֵין שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּיוֹם טוֹב, חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But isn’t** it so that **when Rav Oshaya came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he came and brought the** following ***baraita* in his hand: Whether** the animal **developed a blemish on the eve of the Festival or it developed a blemish on** the **Festival** itself, **the Rabbis say: It is not** considered to be **among** the animals **prepared** for use on the Festival, so that even after the fact, if the animal was examined, it may not be slaughtered and eaten. According to this, the allowance granted in the case of a firstborn that was born with its blemish can be only after the fact, as argued by Rav Naḥman, and not *ab initio*, as maintained by Rabba bar Rav Huna. Why, then, does Abaye accept the opinion of the latter and not that of the former?


###### Beitzah 26b:6
[Beitzah 26b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:6)

וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הָךְ! הָהִיא — אַדָּא בַּר אוּכָּמֵי הִיא, דִּמְשַׁבֵּשׁ וְתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **that** *baraita* cited earlier, which presents these *halakhot* differently, is **difficult.** The Gemara answers: This does not pose a problem, as **that** *baraita* **was** taught by **Adda bar Ukhmei, who** would often **confuse** the opinions in the text **and teach** an inaccurate version of the dispute; therefore, his version is unreliable.


###### Beitzah 26b:7
[Beitzah 26b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:7)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְיקָא. דְּקָתָנֵי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב — אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן. מַאי אֵין מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר? אִילֵּימָא שֶׁאֵין מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר כְּלָל — פְּשִׁיטָא, צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The mishna is also precise** in its wording according to the opinion that no blemish may be examined *ab initio*. **As** the mishna **teaches** that **Rabbi Shimon says:** Even if the animal has a blemish, it is prohibited to slaughter it, since **any** firstborn animal **whose blemish is not perceptible on the eve of the Festival** while it is still day **is not** considered to be **among** the animals **prepared** prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. **What is** the meaning of the phrase: **Whose blemish is not perceptible? If we say that its blemish is not perceptible at all,** it is **obvious. Need it be said** that an animal whose blemish was not perceptible at all prior to the Festival is not considered prepared for use on the Festival?


###### Beitzah 26b:8
[Beitzah 26b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:8)

אֶלָּא, דְּלָא אִתְחֲזִי לְחָכָם מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב אִם מוּם קָבוּעַ אִם מוּם עוֹבֵר. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one must say that the animal had a perceptible blemish, but **it was not shown to a Sage on the eve of the Festival** to determine **whether it is a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish. In any event,** the mishna **teaches: It is not** considered to be **among** the animals **prepared** prior to the Festival for use on the Festival, which indicates that it is not considered prepared even after the fact. It follows that the allowance granted in the case of a firstborn that was born with its blemish is also only after the fact, but the blemish may not be examined *ab initio*. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from this** that this is so.


###### Beitzah 26b:9
[Beitzah 26b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:9)

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ הִלֵּל מֵרָבָא: יֵשׁ מוּקְצֶה לַחֲצִי שַׁבָּת אוֹ אֵין מוּקְצֶה לַחֲצִי שַׁבָּת? הֵיכִי דָמֵי: אִי דְּאִחֲזִי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת — אִחֲזִי. אִי דְּלָא אִחֲזִי — לָא אִחֲזִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Hillel raised a dilemma before Rava: Is there** a prohibition of ***muktze* for half of Shabbat or is there no** prohibition of ***muktze* for half of Shabbat?** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **If** an item **was fit** for eating or for some other purpose **at twilight** between Friday and Shabbat, it would then **be fit** for the entire Shabbat. And **if it was not fit** at twilight, **it is not fit** for the entire day, as anything considered *muktze* at twilight remains so throughout Shabbat. How, then, could there be a case of an item that is considered *muktze* for half of Shabbat?


###### Beitzah 26b:10
[Beitzah 26b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:10)

לָא צְרִיכָא: דְּאִחֲזִי, וַהֲדַר אִדְּחִי, וַהֲדַר אִחֲזִי. מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יֵשׁ מוּקְצֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **No,** it is **necessary** to raise this dilemma in a case **where** the item **had** once **been fit** for use, **and then became disqualified** on Shabbat itself for some reason, **and then** once again **became fit.** It is about such a case that Hillel asked: **What** is the *halakha*? Rava **said to** Hillel: **There is** a prohibition of ***muktze*** for half of Shabbat, that is to say, once an item becomes disqualified for use on Shabbat, it retains that status for the rest of the day.


###### Beitzah 26b:11
[Beitzah 26b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:11)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ — שֶׁזֶּה מִן הַמּוּכָן. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: הַאי בְּכוֹר מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה חֲזֵי אַגַּב אִמֵּיהּ, אִתְיְלִיד לֵיהּ — אִדְּחִי לֵיהּ, אַחְזְיֵיהּ לְחָכָם — אִשְׁתְּרִי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Hillel **raised an objection** from the previously cited *baraita* that taught: **And** Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon **agree that if** the animal **was born with its blemish, it is** considered to be **among** the animals **prepared** before the Festival for use on the Festival. **But why** should this be? **Let us say** as follows: **This firstborn was fit at the outset** to be eaten **on account of its mother,** as had its mother been slaughtered before giving birth to the firstborn, it would have been permitted to eat them both. This being the case, when the firstborn **was born, it became disqualified,** since once a firstborn is born, it may not be eaten until it acquires a permanent blemish. And later, when **he showed it to a Sage, it** once again **became permitted to him.** This shows that although the animal had the status of *muktze* for part of the day of the Festival, it did not retain that status for the entire day.


###### Beitzah 26b:12
[Beitzah 26b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:12)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב סָפְרָא: כְּגוֹן דְּיָתְבִי דַּיָּינֵי הָתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said, and some say** it was **Rav Safra** who said: Here, the *baraita* is referring to a case **where judges were sitting there,** observing the firstborn as it was being born, and they immediately saw that it was blemished. Therefore, the animal never lost its permitted status even for a moment.


###### Beitzah 26b:13
[Beitzah 26b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:13)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין מוּקְצֶה לַחֲצִי שַׁבָּת. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ — שֶׁזֶּה מִן הַמּוּכָן. וְהָא בְּכוֹר מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה חֲזִי אַגַּב אִמֵּיהּ, אִתְיְלִיד לֵיהּ — אִדְּחִי לֵיהּ, אַחְזְיֵיהּ לְחָכָם — אִשְׁתְּרִי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that Rava **said** the opposite **to** Hillel: **There is no** prohibition of ***muktze* for half of Shabbat,** that is to say, even if an item becomes disqualified for use on Shabbat, once it becomes fit again, it is no longer prohibited. The Gemara responds: **Let us say that** the previously cited *baraita* **supports** Rava: **And** Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon **agree that if** the animal **was born with its blemish, it is** considered to be **among** the animals **prepared** before the Festival for use on the Festival. **But wasn’t this firstborn fit** to be eaten **at the outset on account of its mother;** and then when **it was born it became disqualified;** and then later, when **he showed it to a Sage, it** once again **became permitted to him?** This indicates that for half of Shabbat there is no prohibition of *muktze*.


###### Beitzah 26b:14
[Beitzah 26b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:14)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב סָפְרָא: כְּגוֹן דְּיָתְבִי דַּיָּינֵי הָתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said, and some say** it was **Rav Safra** who said: This proof is inconclusive, as the *baraita* may be referring to a case **where judges were sitting there** when the firstborn was born, and they immediately saw that it was blemished; therefore the animal never acquired the status of *muktze* at all.


###### Beitzah 26b:15
[Beitzah 26b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה אוֹכֵל בַּעֲנָבִים, וְהוֹתִיר וְהֶעֱלָן לַגָּג לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן צִמּוּקִין, בִּתְאֵנִים, וְהוֹתִיר וְהֶעֱלָן לַגָּג לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן גְּרוֹגְרוֹת — לֹא יֹאכַל מֵהֶן עַד שֶׁיַּזְמִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וְכֵן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא בַּאֲפַרְסְקִין וּבַחֲבוּשִׁין וּבִשְׁאָר כׇּל מִינֵי פֵירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a different *baraita*: If one **was eating grapes and left** some over **and took them up to the roof** to dry in order **to make them** into **raisins,** or if he was eating **figs and left** some over **and took them up to the roof** in order **to make them** into **dried figs, he** may **not eat from them** on Shabbat **unless he designates them** as food to be eaten **while it is still day.** Otherwise, they are prohibited as *muktze*. **And you** would **find the same with regard to peaches, and quinces, and all other types of fruit** that one left out to dry. It is prohibited to eat any of them on Shabbat due to the prohibition of *muktze*.


###### Beitzah 26b:16
[Beitzah 26b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:16)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דַּחֲזוּ — לְמָה לֵיהּ הַזְמָנָה? אִי דְּלָא חֲזוּ — כִּי אַזְמֵין לְהוּ מַאי הָוֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to clarify this *baraita*: **What are the circumstances? If they are fit** to be eaten, as they have already dried, **why does he require** prior **designation?** Since he placed them there in order to eat them after they dried, they should be considered food that has been designated to be eaten. And **if they are not fit** to be eaten, as they are yet not dry, even **if he designates them** the day before, **what of it?** Of what use is such designation, seeing that the fruit is still unfit to be eaten?


###### Beitzah 26b:17
[Beitzah 26b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:17)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, דְּלָא יָדַע אִי חֲזוּ אִי לָא חֲזוּ, וְהָאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מוּקְצֶה שֶׁיָּבַשׁ וְאֵין הַבְּעָלִים מַכִּירִין בּוֹ — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** the *baraita* is referring to a case where he could not ascend to the roof to examine them, and therefore **he did not know whether they were fit or unfit,** so that his designation was conditional, there is a difficulty. **As didn’t Rav Kahana say:** If fruit had been **set aside** for drying, and it **dried** and became fit for eating before Shabbat, **but the owner did not know about it** before Shabbat but only on Shabbat, the fruit **is permitted,** since he removed it from his mind only for as long as it would be unfit for eating.


###### Beitzah 26b:18
[Beitzah 26b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:18)

אֶלָּא לָאו, דִּחֲזוֹ וְאִדְּחוֹ, וַהֲדַר אִחֲזוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין מוּקְצֶה, לְמָה לְהוּ הַזְמָנָה? אֶלָּא מַאי יֵשׁ מוּקְצֶה? כִּי אַזְמֵין לְהוּ מַאי הָוֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is** the *baraita* **not** referring to a case **where** the fruits **were fit, and** then **became disqualified, and then** once again **became fit,** and therefore they have the status of *muktze*? **And if you say** that **there is no** prohibition of ***muktze*** for half of Shabbat, **why do they require** prior **designation?** The Gemara refutes this argument: **Rather, what** then do you say, that **there is** in fact a prohibition of ***muktze*** for half of Shabbat? In that case, **if he designates them** the day before, **what of it?** How does his designation permit that which is prohibited as *muktze*?


###### Beitzah 26b:19
[Beitzah 26b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:19)

לָא צְרִיכָא: דְּאִחֲזוֹ וְלָא אִחֲזוֹ. דְּאִיכָּא אִינָשֵׁי דְּאָכְלִי, וְאִיכָּא אִינָשֵׁי דְּלָא אָכְלִי. אַזְמֵין — גַּלִּי דַּעְתֵּיהּ, לָא אַזְמֵין — לָא גַּלִּי דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** the *baraita* is **necessary** for a case **where** the fruits **were fit but not** completely **fit,** meaning **that there are people who eat** them in that state **and there are** other **people who do not eat** them. Therefore, if **he designated** them as food to be eaten, **he has revealed his intention** that he is included among those who do eat them; if **he did not designate** them as food, **he has not revealed his intention.** Therefore, no proof can be adduced from here.


###### Beitzah 26b:20
[Beitzah 26b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/26b:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: תָּא שְׁמַע מִפּוֹלִין וַעֲדָשִׁים. דְּהָא פּוֹלִין וַעֲדָשִׁים מֵעִיקָּרָא חֲזוּ לָכוֹס, שְׁדִינְהוּ בִּקְדֵרָה — אִדְּחוֹ לְהוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said: Come** and **hear** a resolution to the problem raised above **from** the *halakha* governing **beans and lentils** cooked on a Festival. **As beans and lentils at the outset,** at twilight, when they are still raw and uncooked, **are fit to be chewed** as they are and are therefore not in the category of *muktze*; then, when **he casts them into the pot** to cook them, **they become disqualified** because while they are being cooked they are fit neither to be chewed raw nor to be eaten cooked.