## Beitzah Daf 4a

###### Beitzah 4a:1
[Beitzah 4a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:1)

אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת כָּאֵלּוּ הֵן פְּרוּדוֹת, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


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

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה פּוּמִּין — יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו — הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין, וְהַשּׁוּלַיִם מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 4a:3
[Beitzah 4a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:3)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה פּוּמִּין — יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו — הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין, וְהַשּׁוּלַיִם מוּתָּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת פּוּמִּין — לֹא יַעֲלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

דְּרָסָהּ בְּעִגּוּל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה עִגּוּל דְּרָסָהּ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יַעֲלוּ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל?! הַיְינוּ פְּלוּגְתַּיְיהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 4a:5
[Beitzah 4a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:5)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: דְּרָסָהּ בְּעִגּוּל, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מְקוֹם עִגּוּל דְּרָסָהּ, אִי לִצְפוֹנָהּ אִי לִדְרוֹמָהּ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יַעֲלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Beitzah 4a:6
[Beitzah 4a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:6)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם סָפֵק יוֹם טוֹב סָפֵק חוֹל הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין — אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן לֹא בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Beitzah 4a:7
[Beitzah 4a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:7)

תַּנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: בֵּיצָה — תֵּאָכֵל הִיא וְאִמָּהּ. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָעוֹמֶדֶת לַאֲכִילָה — פְּשִׁיטָה דְּהִיא וְאִמָּהּ שַׁרְיָא! אֶלָּא בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְגַדֵּל בֵּיצִים — הִיא וְאִמָּהּ אֲסוּרָה! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: תֵּאָכֵל אַגַּב אִמָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Beitzah 4a:8
[Beitzah 4a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:8)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ סְתָם, נִשְׁחֲטָה — הוּבְרְרָה דְּלַאֲכִילָה עוֹמֶדֶת. לֹא נִשְׁחֲטָה — הוּבְרְרָה דִּלְגַדֵּל בֵּיצִים עוֹמֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 4a:9
[Beitzah 4a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:9)

רַב מָרִי אָמַר: גּוּזְמָא קָתָנֵי. דְּתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: בֵּיצָה תֵּאָכֵל הִיא וְאִמָּהּ, וְאֶפְרוֹחַ וּקְלִיפָּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Beitzah 4a:10
[Beitzah 4a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:10)

מַאי קְלִיפָּתוֹ? אִילֵּימָא קְלִיפָּה מַמָּשׁ, קְלִיפָּה בַּת אֲכִילָה הִיא? אֶלָּא אֶפְרוֹחַ בִּקְלִיפָּתוֹ. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּיָצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֹא יָצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם — לָא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 4a:11
[Beitzah 4a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:11)

אֶלָּא ״אֶפְרוֹחַ וּקְלִיפָּתוֹ״ — גּוּזְמָא, הָכָא נָמֵי ״תֵּאָכֵל הִיא וְאִמָּהּ״ — גּוּזְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Beitzah 4a:12
[Beitzah 4a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:12)

אִתְּמַר, שַׁבָּת וְיוֹם טוֹב, רַב אָמַר: נוֹלְדָה בָּזֶה — אֲסוּרָה בָּזֶה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: נוֹלְדָה בָּזֶה — מוּתֶּרֶת בָּזֶה. נֵימָא קָסָבַר רַב: קְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Beitzah 4a:13
[Beitzah 4a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:13)

וְהָאָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּאַרְבָּעָה זְקֵנִים וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר: שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Beitzah 4a:14
[Beitzah 4a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:14)

אֶלָּא, הָכָא בַּהֲכָנָה דְרַבָּהּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי: רַב אִית לֵיהּ הֲכָנָה דְרַבָּה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית לֵיהּ הֲכָנָה דְרַבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Beitzah 4a:15
[Beitzah 4a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:15)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: נוֹלְדָה בְּשַׁבָּת — תֵּאָכֵל בְּיוֹם טוֹב, בְּיוֹם טוֹב — תֵּאָכֵל בְּשַׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: עֲדַיִין הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: תֵּאָכֵל, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא תֵּאָכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 4a:16
[Beitzah 4a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:16)

אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָּנֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה הֲווֹ לֵיהּ הָנָךְ בֵּיצִים מִיּוֹם טוֹב לְשַׁבָּת. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי לְאַטְווֹיִנְהוּ הָאִידָּנָא וְנֵיכְלִינְהוּ לִמְחַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*?


###### Beitzah 4a:17
[Beitzah 4a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ, רַב וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא קָא שָׁרֵי אֶלָּא לְגוֹמְעָהּ לְמָחָר, אֲבָל בְּיוֹמֵיהּ לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 4a:18
[Beitzah 4a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:18)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אַחַת בֵּיצָה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בְּשַׁבָּת וְאַחַת בֵּיצָה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב — אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָהּ, לֹא לְכַסּוֹת בָּהּ אֶת הַכְּלִי, וְלֹא לִסְמוֹךְ בָּהּ כַּרְעֵי הַמִּטָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Beitzah 4a:19
[Beitzah 4a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:19)

אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָּנֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ, הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא. הֲווֹ לֵיהּ הָנָךְ בֵּיצִים מִשַּׁבָּת לְיוֹם טוֹב. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְמֵכְלִינְהוּ לִמְחַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל הָאִידָּנָא וּתָא לִמְחַר, דְּרַב לָא מוֹקֵי אָמוֹרָא עִלָּוֵיהּ מִיּוֹמָא טָבָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שִׁכְרוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 4a:20
[Beitzah 4a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/4a:20)

כִּי אֲתָא לִמְחַר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** that man **came** back **on the following day,** Rav Pappa **said to him:**