## Beitzah Daf 2b

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

גַּבֵּי יוֹם טוֹב, דִּסְתַם לַן תַּנָּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּתְנַן: אֵין מְבַקְּעִין עֵצִים מִן הַקּוֹרוֹת וְלֹא מִן הַקּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב — מוֹקֵים לָהּ לְבֵית הִלֵּל כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**with regard to a Festival,** the ***tanna* taught us an unattributed** mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** (*Shabbat* 156b), **as we learned** in a mishna in this tractate: **One** may **not chop wood** on a Festival **from beams** prepared for use in construction work, **nor** may one chop kindling wood **from a beam that broke on a Festival.** As the beams were not prepared for this use when the Festival began, they are classified as *muktze*; this demonstrates that an unattributed mishna prohibits *muktze* on a Festival. Consequently, Rav Naḥman **establishes** the opinion **of Beit Hillel in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who prohibits *muktze*. He does so by asserting that the mishna is referring to the case of a chicken designated for laying eggs, which is *muktze*. This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of Rav Naḥman’s rendering of the tannaitic dispute.


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

מִכְּדֵי, מַאן סַתְמַיהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין — רַבִּי. מַאי שְׁנָא בְּשַׁבָּת דִּסְתַם לַן כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּמַאי שְׁנָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב דִּסְתַם לַן כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Now since,** i.e., consider the following: **Who is the one who** wrote and edited the Mishna, and arranged **the unattributed *mishnayot*?** It was **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. Since the same Sage formulated the statements in both tractates, the question arises: **What is different** with regard **to** the *halakhot* of **Shabbat, that** he **stated the unattributed opinion** and ruled **for us in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, and what is different** with regard **to** the *halakhot* of **a Festival, that** he **stated the unattributed opinion** and ruled **for us in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda?**


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

אָמְרִי: שַׁבָּת דַּחֲמִירָא, וְלָא אָתֵי לְזַלְזוֹלֵי בַּהּ — סָתֵם לַן כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּמֵיקֵל, יוֹם טוֹב דְּקִיל, וְאָתֵי לְזַלְזוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ — סָתֵם לַן כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּמַחְמִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They** answer and **say:** In the case of **Shabbat, which is stringent** with regard to its punishments (see 35b), **and** therefore people **will not come to treat it with contempt,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **taught us the unattributed** mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who rules leniently.** Conversely, with regard to **a Festival, which is lenient,** as certain labors may be performed on a Festival, **and** therefore people **will** be more likely to **come to treat it with contempt,** he **stated the unattributed opinion for us in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who rules stringently.**


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

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא — בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְגַדֵּל בֵּיצִים, וּמִשּׁוּם מוּקְצֶה. אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִפַּלְגִי בְּבֵיצָה, לִפַּלְגוּ בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In what** manner **did you** ultimately **establish** the mishna? It was established as referring **to a chicken designated for laying eggs, and** the prohibition is **due to *muktze*. If so, rather than disputing with regard to an egg** laid on a Festival, **let them dispute with regard to** the **chicken** itself. Instead of considering the secondary detail of an egg, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel could discuss whether or not the chicken itself may be slaughtered on a Festival.


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

לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, דִּבְנוֹלָד שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also disagree with regard to the chicken, but the dispute was phrased in this manner **to convey the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **Beit Shammai.** The formulation of the mishna emphasizes the extent of Beit Shammai’s lenient opinion, **that** even **in the case of** an egg, which is not a regular *muktze* item but an item that **came into being,** an especially stringent type of *muktze*, Beit Shammai nevertheless **permit** it. By stating the dispute with regard to an egg, the mishna stresses Beit Shammai’s lenient opinion.


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

וְלִפְלוּגי בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל, דִּבְמוּקְצֶה אָסְרִי! וְכִי תֵּימָא כֹּחַ דְּהֶתֵּירָא עֲדִיף — וְנִפְלוֹג בְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **And let them disagree with regard to a chicken,** rather than an egg, **to convey the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **Beit Hillel, who prohibit** its use **even** in the more lenient case **of *muktze*. And if you say** it is better to present the dispute as in the mishna, so as to clarify the more lenient opinion, as **the strength of leniency is preferable** (*Berakhot* 60a), there is another option: **And let them disagree with regard to both of** these cases.


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

תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְגַדֵּל בֵּיצִים, הִיא וּבֵיצָתָהּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: תֵּאָכֵל, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא תֵּאָכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna could have said: With regard to **a chicken designated for laying eggs, it and its eggs, Beit Shammai say: It may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say: It may not be eaten.** In this manner, the mishna could have referred to all aspects of the dispute, without the need for any lengthy addition. Consequently, Rav Naḥman’s explanation of the mishna is inadequate.


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

אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַבָּה: לְעוֹלָם בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָעוֹמֶדֶת לַאֲכִילָה, וּבְיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת עָסְקִינַן, וּמִשּׁוּם הֲכָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabba said: Actually,** the above explanation should be rejected. **We are dealing with a chicken designated for food and we are dealing with** an egg that was laid **on a Festival that occurs after Shabbat,** i.e., on a Sunday. **And** the relevant issue is not the *halakhot* of *muktze*; rather, one may not eat the egg **due to** the prohibition against **preparation** from Shabbat to a Festival.


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

וְקָסָבַר רַבָּה, כֹּל בֵּיצָה דְּמִתְיַלְדָא הָאִידָּנָא — מֵאֶתְמוֹל גָּמְרָה לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in this regard, **Rabba holds** that **any egg laid now was** already **fully developed yesterday,** and merely emerged from the chicken today. Consequently, an egg laid on a Festival that occurred on a Sunday may not be eaten, as it was prepared on Shabbat, despite the fact that it was prepared naturally, by Heaven, rather than by man.


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

וְרַבָּה לְטַעְמֵיהּ. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי וְהֵכִינוּ אֶת אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ״ — חוֹל מֵכִין לְשַׁבָּת, וְחוֹל מֵכִין לְיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין יוֹם טוֹב מֵכִין לְשַׁבָּת, וְאֵין שַׁבָּת מְכִינָה לְיוֹם טוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Rabba,** who prohibits one to derive benefit even from something that was not prepared by man, conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning. As Rabba said: What is** the meaning of that **which is written** with regard to the manna: **“And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in”** (Exodus 16:5)? According to Rabba, it can be inferred from this verse that on an ordinary **weekday,** “the sixth day,” **one** may **prepare** what is needed **for Shabbat, and** similarly, on an ordinary **weekday one** may **prepare** what is needed **for a Festival.** However, on **a Festival one may not prepare for Shabbat, and** likewise **on Shabbat one may not prepare for a Festival.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יוֹם טוֹב בְּעָלְמָא תִּשְׁתְּרֵי! גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם יוֹם טוֹב אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת. שַׁבָּת דְּעָלְמָא תִּשְׁתְּרֵי! גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם שַׁבָּת אַחַר יוֹם טוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rabba: **However, if** that is **so,** and the concern is only due to preparation, **let** an egg laid on **a regular Festival,** one that does not occur on a Sunday, **be permitted.** Rabba responded: That egg is not prohibited by Torah law, but by rabbinic **decree, due to** the case of **a Festival** that occurs **after Shabbat.** Abaye asked: On **a regular Shabbat,** one that does not occur after a Festival, **let** it **be permitted** to eat an egg that was laid on that day, provided that one does not cook it. Rabba similarly answered: It is **a decree due to a Shabbat** that occurs **after a Festival.**


###### Beitzah 2b:12
[Beitzah 2b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2b:12)

וּמִי גָּזְרִינַן? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתַּרְנְגוֹלֶת וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֵּיצִים גְּמוּרוֹת — מוּתָּרוֹת לְאָכְלָן בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְאִם אִיתָא — לִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם הָנָךְ דְּמִתְיַלְּדָן בְּיוֹמֵיהֶן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye further asked: **And do we issue a decree** of this kind? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (see 6b): In the case of **one who slaughters a chicken** on a Festival **and finds inside it fully developed eggs** with their shells, **it is permitted to eat them on the Festival. And if it is so,** that the aforementioned decree is in effect, **let him issue a decree** and prohibit these eggs found inside the chicken, **due to those that are laid on that day.**


###### Beitzah 2b:13
[Beitzah 2b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּיצִים גְּמוּרוֹת בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן — מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא הִיא, וּמִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא לָא גְּזַרוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him:** This is not difficult, as the case of **fully developed eggs** found **inside their mother is an uncommon matter, and** in a case of **an uncommon matter the Sages did not issue a decree** as a preventive measure (*Eiruvin* 63b). The Sages issued their decrees only for usual situations, in which people might err, but they did not apply them to rare cases. This concludes the Gemara’s discussion of Rabba’s explanation.


###### Beitzah 2b:14
[Beitzah 2b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2b:14)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם פֵּרוֹת הַנּוֹשְׁרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to explain other interpretations of the mishna. **Rav Yosef said:** An egg laid by a chicken designated for food is prohibited for a different reason: It is **a decree due to fruits that fall** from a tree (*Eiruvin* 39b). Fruits that fall from a tree on Shabbat or a Festival may not be eaten, and the same applies to eggs that emerge from a chicken.


###### Beitzah 2b:15
[Beitzah 2b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/2b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: פֵּרוֹת הַנּוֹשְׁרִין טַעְמָא מַאי —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: With regard to **fruits that fall, what** in fact **is the reason** that the Sages prohibited them?