## Beitzah Daf 27a

###### Beitzah 27a:1
[Beitzah 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:1)

גָּמַר בִּשּׁוּלַיְיהוּ — חֲזוּ לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And then when **their cooking is finished, they** once again **become fit** for eating. This demonstrates that even food that had temporarily been set aside because it had become inedible does not remain prohibited for the entire day.


###### Beitzah 27a:2
[Beitzah 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תִּקְשֵׁי לָךְ קְדֵרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא, דְּהָא סְתָם קְדֵרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת רוֹתְחוֹת הֵן, וּלְאוּרְתָּא אָכְלִינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning** that foods are temporarily considered *muktze* while being cooked, **cooked dishes in general** present **a difficulty for you** on Shabbat as well. **As ordinary cooked dishes in general are** still **bubbling at twilight** and not yet edible, **and** yet **we partake of them** later **in the evening.** This demonstrates that although the food was considered *muktze* at the critical moment of twilight, it is not prohibited for the duration of Shabbat.


###### Beitzah 27a:3
[Beitzah 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:3)

אֶלָּא גְּמָרוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם לָא קָא מִבַּעְיָא לַן. כִּי קָא מִבַּעְיָא לַן גְּמָרוֹ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that **we have no dilemma** with regard to a food **whose completion, which** brings it to its finished and edible form, **is** entirely **in the hands of a person,** e.g., beans and lentils. Such foods are certainly not considered as *muktze* for all of Shabbat simply because they had become temporarily unfit for eating. **Where we have a dilemma** is with regard to an item **whose completion is in the hands of Heaven,** such as figs and grapes, which dry by the heat of the sun. This dilemma remains unresolved.


###### Beitzah 27a:4
[Beitzah 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:4)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהוּא בּוּכְרָא. שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, סְבַר דְּלָא לְמֶחְזְיֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זְרִיקָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. הֲדַר שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, סְבַר דְּלָא לְמֶחְזְיֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the issue of permitting firstborn animals. **Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had a firstborn** animal that acquired a blemish on a Festival, and he wished to serve it to priests staying at his house. **He sent it to** be presented **before Rabbi Ami** for examination, and Rabbi Ami **thought** that he should **not examine it,** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. **Rabbi Zerika said to him, and some say** it was **Rabbi Yirmeya:** The principle is that in cases of dispute between **Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,** the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who in this case permits examination of the firstborn. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia **then sent** the firstborn **to** be presented **before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa,** who likewise **thought** that he should **not examine it. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him, and some say** it was **Rabbi Zerika:** The principle is that in cases where **Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon** disagree, the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Beitzah 27a:5
[Beitzah 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא שְׁבַקְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן לְמֶעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאַתְּ מָה בִּידָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said to** Rabbi Yirmeya: **What is the reason** that **you did not allow the Sages to act in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon? He said to him: And you, what do you have?** Do you have a tradition that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Abba **said to him** that **Rabbi Zeira said as follows:** The ***halakha*** in this case **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Beitzah 27a:6
[Beitzah 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:6)

אֲמַר מַאן דְּהוּא: אֶזְכֵּי וְאֶסַּק לְהָתָם, וְאֶגְמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּמָרַהּ. כִּי סָלֵיק לְהָתָם, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי זֵירָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲמַר מָר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, אֲנָא ״מִסְתַּבְּרָא״ אֲמַרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **a certain** unidentified **person** in Babylonia **said:** May it be His will that **I merit to go up there** to Eretz Yisrael, **and** that **I learn** this **teaching from the mouth of its Master;** I will ask Rabbi Zeira himself for his opinion on this matter. **When he went up there** to Eretz Yisrael, **he found Rabbi Zeira** and **said to him:** Did **the Master say** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon?** Rabbi Zeira **said to him: No,** that is not what I said; rather, **I said: It stands to reason** that this is so. It is reasonable to rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon on this issue, although I do not have a definitive tradition to this effect.


###### Beitzah 27a:7
[Beitzah 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:7)

מִדְּקָתָנֵי בְּמַתְנִיתִין: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כֹּל שֶׁאֵין מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — אֵין זֶה מִן הַמּוּכָן, וְקָתָנֵי לַהּ בְּבָרַיְיתָא בִּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira explains: Why do I think so? **From** the fact **that it teaches in the mishna** that **Rabbi Shimon says: Any** firstborn animal **whose blemish is not perceptible while it is still day is not** considered to be **among** the animals **prepared** prior to the Festival for use on the Festival. **And** a *baraita* **taught** the same ruling **in the name of the Sages,** indicating that this is the majority opinion. One should therefore **learn from this that it stands to reason** that the *halakha* is ruled **in accordance with** the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Beitzah 27a:8
[Beitzah 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:8)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַלְיָא בְּאַשְׁלֵי רַבְרְבֵי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל אָמַר רַבִּי מִשּׁוּם קְהָלָא קַדִּישָׁא דְּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וַחֲבֵרָיו אָמְרוּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In the final analysis, **what** conclusion **was** reached **about** this matter? Whose opinion does the *halakha* follow? **Rav Yosef said: Come** and **hear, as** this matter **hangs on great trees,** meaning it is the subject of a dispute among the early Sages. **As Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said** that **Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said in the name of the holy community in Jerusalem: Rabbi Shimon** ben Menasya **and his colleagues said** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.**


###### Beitzah 27a:9
[Beitzah 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:9)

אָמְרוּ? וְהָא אִינְהוּ קַשִּׁישֵׁי מִנֵּיהּ טוּבָא! אֶלָּא: בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲמָרוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara wonders at the wording of this report: How could the holy community in Jerusalem have reported that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues **said** that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? **Aren’t they much older than he?** Why, then, would they have reported a *halakha* in his name? The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the holy community in Jerusalem said the following: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues, who said that one may not examine blemishes on a Festival, **spoke in** accordance with **the opinion of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Beitzah 27a:10
[Beitzah 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:10)

דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֶרְאָה אֶת מוּמוֹ — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי מוּמְחֶה — אָסוּר. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: רְאִיַּית בְּכוֹר לָאו כִּרְאִיַּית טְרֵפָה, רְאִיַּית בְּכוֹר — מֵחַיִּים, רְאִיַּית טְרֵפָה — לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To which teaching of Rabbi Meir is the Gemara referring? It is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Bekhorot* 28a): If **one slaughtered a firstborn** before it was shown to a Sage and deemed permitted, **and afterward he showed its blemish** to a Sage, who confirmed that it was indeed a permanent blemish that permitted the animal to be slaughtered, **Rabbi Yehuda permits** it, as it had been established that the animal was blemished. **And Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without** the permission **of an expert, it is prohibited. Apparently Rabbi Meir holds** that **the examination of a firstborn is not** as simple a process **as the examination of a *tereifa*,** since it involves more than a mere examination of the body of the animal. **The examination of a firstborn** must be conducted **when** the animal is **alive,** whereas **the examination of a *tereifa*** may be performed even **after slaughtering.**


###### Beitzah 27a:11
[Beitzah 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:11)

וּמִינַּהּ: רְאִיַּית טְרֵפָה — אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, רְאִיַּית בְּכוֹר — מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from this** Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and his colleagues inferred that **the examination of a *tereifa*,** which consists merely of clarifying the facts of the animal’s physical state, may be done **even on a Festival.** On the other hand, **the** more stringent **examination of a firstborn,** which can be likened to the rendering of a judgment, a process with principles of its own, must be performed **on the eve of the Festival.**


###### Beitzah 27a:12
[Beitzah 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַטּוּ הָתָם, בְּרוֹאִין מוּמִין פְּלִיגִי? בִּקְנָסָא פְּלִיגִי. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִשְׁתַּנִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** to Rav Yosef: **Is that to say** that **there,** in that mishna, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir **disagree** about whether or not one may **examine blemishes** on a Festival? That was not their dispute; rather, **they disagree with regard to** the question of whether or not there is a **penalty** for one who acted improperly. **As Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If the blemish was **in the eyelids,** e.g., if a fissure developed there that disqualifies the animal, **everyone,** including Rabbi Meir, **agrees** that the animal **is prohibited, because** such a blemish **changes** its appearance after the slaughter. It is possible that after slaughter what was a temporary blemish will then look like a permanent one, and the animal will incorrectly be permitted retroactively.


###### Beitzah 27a:13
[Beitzah 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:13)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף, רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף אַטּוּ מוּמִין שֶׁבָּעַיִן. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When they disagree** is in a case of **blemishes in the body,** e.g., if an ear had been cut off or a foreleg broken, which are prominent blemishes whose appearance does not change after death. **Rabbi Meir holds that we issue a decree** that **blemishes in the body** are prohibited **due to blemishes in the eye, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that we do not issue** such a **decree.**


###### Beitzah 27a:14
[Beitzah 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:14)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי מוּמְחֶה — אָסוּר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: קְנָסָא הוּא דְּקָא קָנֵיס, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** The wording of **the mishna** in tractate *Bekhorot* **is also precise** according to this explanation, **as it teaches** that **Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without** the permission of **an expert** who confirmed that this is a permanent blemish, **it is prohibited. Learn from this** that this is **a penalty** that Rabbi Meir **imposes** and nothing else. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from this** that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.


###### Beitzah 27a:15
[Beitzah 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/27a:15)

אַמֵּי וַרְדִּינָאָה חָזֵי בּוּכְרָא דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה הֲוָה. בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא לָא הֲוָה חָזֵי. אֲתוֹ וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: שַׁפִּיר קָא עָבֵיד דְּלָא חָזֵי. אִינִי? וְהָא רַבִּי אַמֵּי גּוּפֵיהּ חָזֵי! רַבִּי אַמֵּי כִּי חָזֵי — מֵאֶתְמוֹל הֲוָה חָזֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates that **Ami of Vardina** was **the examiner of firstborns in the household of the *Nasi*. On Festivals he would not examine** firstborn blemishes. **They came and told Rabbi Ami** about this. **He said to them: He does well not to examine** them. The Gemara raises an objection: **Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Ami himself examine** firstborns for blemishes on a Festival? The Gemara answers: **When Rabbi Ami would examine** the blemishes of firstborns, it was **on the day before** the Festival that **he would examine** them, to see whether the blemishes were permanent or temporary.