## Beitzah Daf 2a

###### Beitzah 2a:1
[Beitzah 2a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:1)

**בֵּיצָה** שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: תֵּאָכֵל, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא תֵּאָכֵל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׂאוֹר בְּכַזַּיִת וְחָמֵץ בְּכַכּוֹתֶבֶת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: זֶה וְזֶה בְּכַזַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **an egg that was laid on a Festival** (*Eduyyot* 4:1), **Beit Shammai say: It may be eaten** even on that day, **and Beit Hillel say: It may not be eaten,** as the Gemara will explain at length. Apropos this exceptional case, in which Beit Shammai are lenient and Beit Hillel are strict, the mishna cites additional *halakhot* of the Festivals in which this unusual phenomenon occurs (*Yoma* 79b). **Beit Shammai say: Leaven,** i.e., dough that has leavened to such an extent that it is no longer used as food but as a leavening agent for other dough, is prohibited on Passover in the measure **of an olive-bulk.** However, the measure for edible **leavened bread** is greater, that **of a large date-bulk. And Beit Hillel say:** For both **this and that,** the measure is that **of an olive-bulk.**


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

הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וָעוֹף בְּיוֹם טוֹב, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יַחְפּוֹר בַּדָּקָר וִיכַסֶּה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לוֹ עָפָר מוּכָן מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וּמוֹדִים שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט, שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹר בַּדָּקָר וִיכַסֶּה — שֶׁאֵפֶר כִּירָה מוּכָן הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, with regard to **one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird on a Festival** (*Eduyyot* 4:2), in which case there is a mitzva from the Torah to cover the blood after slaughtering (Leviticus 17:13), **Beit Shammai say: He digs** earth **with a shovel and covers** the blood with that earth *ab initio*. **And Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter** *ab initio*, **unless he had earth prepared** for that purpose **while it was still day. But** even Beit Hillel **concede that if one** already **slaughtered** the animal or the bird, **then he should dig with a shovel and cover** the blood. Additionally, they agree **that the ashes of a stove are** considered **prepared** for the use of covering blood, as will be explained by the Gemara.


###### Beitzah 2a:3
[Beitzah 2a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָעוֹמֶדֶת לַאֲכִילָה, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל? אוּכְלָא דְּאִפְּרַת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara inquires: **With what** case **are we dealing** in this mishna? **If we say** that the mishna is referring **to a chicken that is designated for eating,** i.e., one planned to slaughter and eat a chicken that laid an egg, **what is the reason that Beit Hillel** prohibit eating the egg? **It is food that has been separated [*de’ifrat*].** The entire chicken is considered food, as it is designated for eating, and this egg is simply a part that became detached. Just as one may partake of the chicken itself on a Festival, its egg should likewise be fit for consumption.


###### Beitzah 2a:4
[Beitzah 2a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:4)

אֶלָּא, בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְגַדֵּל בֵּיצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna must be referring to the case **of a chicken designated for laying eggs.** Since the owner of this chicken decided not to eat it on the Festival, it is classified as set-aside [*muktze*], and *muktze* items may not even be moved, let alone eaten. Since the chicken itself is *muktze*, its egg is *muktze* as well.


###### Beitzah 2a:5
[Beitzah 2a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:5)

מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? מוּקְצֶה הִיא! וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֵית לְהוּ מוּקְצֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **what is the reason of Beit Shammai** for permitting one to eat the egg? After all, **it is *muktze*.** The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: **And what is the difficulty? Perhaps Beit Shammai do not hold** that there is a prohibition of ***muktze*?** There are different opinions with regard to the scope of the prohibition of *muktze*. It is possible that Beit Shammai, like other *tanna’im*, maintain that there is no prohibition of this type of *muktze*. Perhaps this is the subject of their dispute with Beit Hillel.


###### Beitzah 2a:6
[Beitzah 2a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:6)

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין: אֲפִלּוּ מַאן דְּשָׁרֵי בְּמוּקְצֶה, בְּנוֹלָד אָסַר. מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before stating its proposed solutions for this difficulty, the Gemara notes: **It enters our mind** to say that **even one who permits** moving an item that was **set aside** by its owners on a Festival or Shabbat **prohibits** the owners from doing so **with** an object that **came into being [*nolad*]** on a Festival. One may not move an object that came into being on a Festival or Shabbat, since the owner never entertained the notion that he would be able to use it. This egg is certainly an object that came into being on the Festival. **What,** then, **is the reason of Beit Shammai?**


###### Beitzah 2a:7
[Beitzah 2a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:7)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לְעוֹלָם בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְגַדֵּל בֵּיצִים, וּדְאִית לֵיהּ מוּקְצֶה — אִית לֵיהּ נוֹלָד, וּדְלֵית לֵיהּ מוּקְצֶה — לֵית לֵיהּ נוֹלָד. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: Actually,** the mishna is referring **to a chicken designated for laying eggs.** However, our previous assumption was mistaken, as the Sage **who holds** that there is a prohibition of ***muktze*** in general also **holds** that there is a prohibition of objects that **came into being,** while one **who does not hold** that there is a prohibition of ***muktze*** likewise **does not hold** that there is a prohibition of objects that **came into being** (*Shabbat* 45b). Consequently, the dispute can be summed up as follows: **Beit Shammai** hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who maintains that there is no prohibition of *muktze*; **and Beit Hillel** hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who rules that there is a prohibition of *muktze*.


###### Beitzah 2a:8
[Beitzah 2a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:8)

וּמִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הָכִי? וְהָתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מַגְבִּיהִין מֵעַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן עֲצָמוֹת וּקְלִיפִּין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְסַלֵּק אֶת הַטַּבְלָא כּוּלָּהּ וּמְנַעֲרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara is puzzled by this explanation: **And did Rav Naḥman** actually **say that** Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Shabbat* 143a) that **Beit Shammai say: One** may **remove bones and shells** left from the meal **from the table,** despite the fact that they are inedible and are *muktze*. **And Beit Hillel say:** It is prohibited to do so; rather, **one** may **remove the entire board [*tavla*]** that is the table surface, which is a vessel that may be carried, **and shake it** all at once. By moving the table, which is not *muktze*, one is able to shake off the bones and shells, but he may not move the items themselves.


###### Beitzah 2a:9
[Beitzah 2a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:9)

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman said:** That version of the mishna is not in accordance with the *halakha*; rather, the opinions should be reversed, as **we** have **nothing other** than the following version of this dispute: **Beit Shammai** hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who maintains that the prohibition of *muktze* applies, while **Beit Hillel** hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who maintains that the *halakha* of *muktze* does not apply. Why, then, does Rav Naḥman explain that the ruling of Beit Hillel in the case of the egg in the mishna is based on the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there actually is a prohibition of *muktze*?


###### Beitzah 2a:10
[Beitzah 2a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:10)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב נַחְמָן: גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת, דִּסְתַם לַן תְּנָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּתְנַן: מְחַתְּכִין אֶת הַדִּלּוּעִין לִפְנֵי הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאֶת הַנְּבֵלָה לִפְנֵי הַכְּלָבִים —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rav Naḥman** could have **said to you** in reply: **With regard to Shabbat,** this is a case **where** the ***tanna* taught us an unattributed** mishna, which is generally accepted as the *halakha*, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, as we learned** in a mishna (*Shabbat* 156b): **One** may **cut pumpkins before an animal** to facilitate their consumption, **and** likewise one may cut up **an animal carcass before dogs,** even if the animal died on Shabbat, to enable them to consume it. Although that carcass is classified as *muktze*, it may be moved on Shabbat.


###### Beitzah 2a:11
[Beitzah 2a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2a:11)

מוֹקֵים לָהּ לְבֵית הִלֵּל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֲבָל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: That unattributed mishna in tractate *Shabbat* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. For this reason, Rav Naḥman **establishes** that the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai should be understood to mean **that Beit Hillel** hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** whom the *halakha* apparently follows, as there is a principle that the *halakha* is always in accordance with Beit Hillel’s opinion. **However,**