## Beitzah Daf 7b

###### Beitzah 7b:1
[Beitzah 7b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:1)

דְּשָׁמְעָה קָלֵיהּ בִּימָמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**where** the hen can **hear its voice by day,** when sounds cannot be heard as easily as at night. If the chicken is close enough to hear the rooster’s call by day, the rooster is considered close enough to the chicken that the latter will produce eggs only through fertilization by the male.


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

עֲבַד רַב מָרִי עוֹבָדָא עַד שִׁתִּין בָּתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Mari took action** in accordance with this opinion, when he found an egg on a Festival morning after he had looked in the nest the day before and failed to find an egg there. He examined **up to** a distance of **sixty houses** from the chicken, and although he did not find a rooster within this area, he assumed there was one further away and permitted the egg.


###### Beitzah 7b:3
[Beitzah 7b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:3)

וְאִי אִיכָּא נַהֲרָא — לָא עָבְרָא. וְאִי אִיכָּא מַבָּרָא — עָבְרָא. וְאִי אִיכָּא מִיצְרָא — לָא עָבְרָא. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וְעָבְרָא אַמִּיצְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And if** there is **a river** between the rooster and the chicken, the chicken **does not cross** the river; **but if there is a bridge,** it **crosses** the river. **And if there is** only **a rope bridge** suspended across the river, the chicken will **not cross** on the rope. The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, **an incident** occurred in which a chicken **crossed over on a rope bridge.** However, one may not rely on this possibility.


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

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא — בִּדְסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא, מַאי אִירְיָא בָּדַק? כִּי לָא בָּדַק נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **In what** manner **did you establish** this *halakha* of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul, who prohibits eating an egg discovered in a nest on a Festival morning after the previous day’s examination revealed nothing? You said that it is referring to a case **in** which the chicken **absorbed from the earth.** If so, **why** discuss **specifically** a situation in which **one examined** the nest the evening before? The same *halakha* should apply **even when one did not examine** the nest beforehand.


###### Beitzah 7b:5
[Beitzah 7b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:5)

כִּי לָא בָּדַק, אֵימָא מֵאֶתְמוֹל הֲוַאי. אִי הָכִי כִּי בָּדַק נָמֵי, אֵימָא: יָצְתָה רוּבָּהּ וְחָזְרָה הִיא, וְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן! דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In a case **where he did not examine** the nest, one could **say** that the egg **was** laid **yesterday,** and there is no reason to prohibit its use. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul therefore specified that he checked the day before and is certain that the egg was not laid prior to the Festival. The Gemara challenges this: **If so, when he examined** the nest **as well, say:** Perhaps this **is** a case in which **most of** the egg **emerged and returned, and** the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan?** The Gemara answers: The case discussed **by Rabbi Yoḥanan,** where most of the egg emerged from the chicken and returned, **is uncommon,** and therefore it is assumed not to have occurred.


###### Beitzah 7b:6
[Beitzah 7b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:6)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל אָמַר רַב: הַאי תּוּמָא שְׁחִיקָא, סַכַּנְתָּא לְגִלּוּיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos one statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul in the name of Rav, the Gemara cites another ruling that **Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said** that **Rav said: This crushed garlic** poses the **danger of exposure.** If mashed garlic is not properly covered, there is concern that a snake might have tasted from it and thereby injected its venom into the food. This garlic is consequently prohibited as a health risk.


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

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׂאוֹר בְּכַזַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that **Beit Shammai say:** The measure that determines liability for **leaven** is **an olive-bulk.** However, the measure for leavened bread is greater, a large date-bulk. According to Beit Hillel, the measure in both cases is an olive-bulk.


###### Beitzah 7b:8
[Beitzah 7b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:8)

מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא חָמֵץ, וְלָא בָּעֵי שְׂאוֹר, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה חָמֵץ שֶׁאֵין חִמּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה — בִּכְזַיִת, שְׂאוֹר שֶׁחִמּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן. שְׂאוֹר דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? לוֹמַר לְךָ: שִׁיעוּרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֹא כְּשִׁיעוּרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Beit Shammai?** The Gemara explains: **If** it is **so** that the measures are equal, **let the Merciful One write** only the prohibition of **leavened bread, and it would not be necessary** to write **leaven, and I would say** an *a fortiori* inference: **If** the measure that determines liability for **leavened bread, whose leavening is not** as **extensive,** is **an olive-bulk,** then **leaven, whose leavening is extensive, all the more so** should the measure that determines liability be an olive-bulk. If so, **why do I** need the explicit reference to **leaven that the Merciful One wrote** in the verse: “Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses” (Exodus 12:19)? It must be **to tell you** that **the measure of this,** leavened bread, **is not equal to the measure of that,** leaven. Rather, the measure that determines liability for leaven is smaller.


###### Beitzah 7b:9
[Beitzah 7b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:9)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל: צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא שְׂאוֹר, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּחִמּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה, אֲבָל חָמֵץ, דְּאֵין חִמּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Beit Hillel** maintain that both the mention of both leaven and leavened bread **are necessary. As if the Merciful One had written** only **leaven, I would have said** its measure that determines liability is an olive-bulk **because its leavening is extensive. However,** with regard to **leavened bread,** whose **leavening is not extensive, say no,** that is not the measure. Therefore, it is **necessary** to mention leavened bread as well.


###### Beitzah 7b:10
[Beitzah 7b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:10)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא חָמֵץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה. אֲבָל שְׂאוֹר, שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if the Merciful One had written** only **leavened bread,** I would have said that the measure that determines liability for leavened bread is an olive-bulk, **because it is fit for consumption** on its own; **however, leaven, which is not fit for consumption** on its own but only when used as a leavening agent for dough, **say no,** its measure is not like that of leavened bread. Therefore, it is **necessary** to mention both cases.


###### Beitzah 7b:11
[Beitzah 7b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:11)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי לֵית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: פְּתַח הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׂאוֹר וְסִיֵּים בְּחָמֵץ, לוֹמַר לְךָ: זֶהוּ שְׂאוֹר זֶהוּ חָמֵץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Beit Shammai, don’t they hold** in accordance with **Rabbi Zeira’s** opinion? **As Rabbi Zeira said,** the verse states: “Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses, for whoever eats that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the assembly of Israel” (Exodus 12:19). **The verse begins with leaven and ends with leavened bread to say to you** that **leaven is equivalent to leavened bread.** How, then, can Beit Shammai maintain that the two are prohibited by different measures?


###### Beitzah 7b:12
[Beitzah 7b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:12)

לְעִנְיַן אֲכִילָה כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי לְעִנְיַן בִּיעוּר. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: לָא יָלְפִינַן בִּיעוּר מֵאֲכִילָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: יָלְפִינַן בִּיעוּר מֵאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Indeed, **with regard to** the measure that determines liability for **eating, everyone agrees** that the same measure applies to leavened bread and leaven. **When they disagree** it is **with regard to** the **removal** of leavened bread from one’s house. **Beit Shammai hold** that **we do not derive** the *halakha* of **removal from** that of **eating.** Rather, with regard to the obligation of removal, different measures apply to leavened bread and leaven. **And Beit Hillel hold** that **we derive** the *halakha* of **removal from** the measure that determines liability for **eating.**


###### Beitzah 7b:13
[Beitzah 7b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:13)

אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת לְעִנְיַן בִּיעוּר, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אֲכִילָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל זֶה וְזֶה בִּכְזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: This idea **was also stated** explicitly by *amora’im*. **Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:** The **dispute** between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel was stated **with regard to** the **removal** of leavened bread; however, **with regard to** the measure that determines liability for **eating, everyone agrees** that the measure for both **this and that** is **an olive-bulk.**


###### Beitzah 7b:14
[Beitzah 7b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:14)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ (שְׂאוֹר) וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ (חָמֵץ)״. זֶהוּ מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁבֵּין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׂאוֹר בִּכְזַיִת וְחָמֵץ בִּכְכוֹתֶבֶת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: זֶה וְזֶה בִּכְזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That** opinion **is also taught** in a *baraita*. The verse states: **“And no leavened bread shall be seen with you, and no leaven shall be found in all your borders”** (Exodus 13:7). **This** obligation to remove leavened bread **is** subject to **a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say:** The measure that determines liability for removal of **leaven** is **an olive-bulk, and** the measure for leavened bread is **a large date-bulk, and Beit Hillel say:** The measure for **both this and that** is **an olive-bulk.** This *baraita* indicates that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to the obligation to remove leavened bread, not liability for eating it.


###### Beitzah 7b:15
[Beitzah 7b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:15)

הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וָעוֹף בְּיוֹם טוֹב וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also dispute whether or not **one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird on a Festival,** without having prepared earth the day before with which to cover the blood after the slaughter, may dig out earth on the Festival itself to cover the blood.


###### Beitzah 7b:16
[Beitzah 7b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:16)

הַשּׁוֹחֵט, דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט. מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר יִשְׁחוֹט!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the wording of the mishna: **One who slaughters** an animal; this indicates that **after the fact, yes,** one may dig out dirt, but ***ab initio*, no,** even Beit Shammai agree that one may not slaughter an undomesticated animal or a bird if there is no prepared dirt. Otherwise, the mishna would have said: One may slaughter an undomesticated animal or a bird on a Festival. **Say the latter clause** of the mishna: **And Beit Hillel say** that one **may not slaughter** it. This proves **by inference that the first *tanna*,** Beit Shammai, **holds** that one **may slaughter** it even *ab initio*.


###### Beitzah 7b:17
[Beitzah 7b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:17)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט וִיכַסֶּה קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** is **not difficult,** as Beit Hillel **said** and meant the following: **One may not slaughter** an animal **and cover** the blood. They are emphasizing that one may not cover the blood even if he slaughtered an animal, whereas Beit Shammai maintain that if one slaughtered he may cover the blood *ab initio*.


###### Beitzah 7b:18
[Beitzah 7b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:18)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וּמוֹדִים שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט, שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹר בַּדֶּקֶר וִיכַסֶּה. מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו דִּיעֲבַד הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation: **Say the latter clause** of the mishna: **And** Beit Hillel **concede that if he** already **slaughtered, then he may dig with a shovel and cover** the blood, which indicates that Beit Hillel were not emphasizing the covering of the blood. This proves **by inference that** the **first clause** of the mishna **is not** referring to one’s action **after the fact,** but to the *halakha ab initio*.


###### Beitzah 7b:19
[Beitzah 7b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:19)

אָמַר רַבָּה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַשּׁוֹחֵט שֶׁבָּא לִימָּלֵךְ — כֵּיצַד אוֹמֵר לוֹ? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: שְׁחוֹט, חֲפוֹר וְכַסֵּה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לוֹ עָפָר מוּכָן מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said** that **this is what** the mishna **is saying.** The phrase: One who slaughters an animal, is not a broad directive on how to act, but rather it means: If there is **one who slaughters** animals **who comes to consult** a Sage on how to proceed, **what** should the Sage **say to him? Beit Shammai say** that the Sage **says to him: Slaughter** it *ab initio*, **dig, and cover** the blood. **And Beit Hillel say: He may slaughter** the animal **only if he had earth** that was **prepared while it was still day.**


###### Beitzah 7b:20
[Beitzah 7b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:20)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַשּׁוֹחֵט שֶׁבָּא לְהִמָּלֵךְ, כֵּיצַד אוֹמֵר לוֹ? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: לֵךְ חֲפוֹר, שְׁחוֹט וְכַסֵּה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לוֹ עָפָר מוּכָן מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef** provided a slightly different explanation of the mishna and **said** that **this is what** the mishna **is saying:** With regard to **one who slaughters animals who comes to consult, what does** the Sage **say to him? Beit Shammai say** that **he says to him: Go dig, slaughter** the animal, **and cover** the blood. **And Beit Hillel say: He may slaughter** the animal, **only if he had earth** that was **prepared while it was still day.**


###### Beitzah 7b:21
[Beitzah 7b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: לֵימָא מָר וְרַבָּה בִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב קָא מִפַּלְגִיתוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּתֵּן עָפָר לְמַטָּה וְעָפָר לְמַעְלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר״. ״עָפָר״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״בֶּעָפָר״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּתֵּן עָפָר לְמַטָּה וְעָפָר לְמַעְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let us say** that **the Master,** i.e., Rav Yosef, **and Rabba dispute** the following statement **that Rabbi Zeira** said that **Rav said, as Rabbi Zeira said** that **Rav said: One who slaughters** an undomesticated animal or bird is obligated to perform the mitzva of covering the blood, and therefore **he must place earth beneath** the blood **and earth above** it,**as it is stated: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it in earth”** (Leviticus 17:13). It **is not stated:** Cover it with **earth, but “in earth,”** indicating that the blood must be concealed inside the earth. The verse thereby **teaches that one who slaughters** an animal **must place earth beneath and earth above** the blood.


###### Beitzah 7b:22
[Beitzah 7b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:22)

דְּמָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, וְרַבָּה לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye is suggesting **that the Master is of** the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Zeira,** and therefore he requires one to dig first and only afterward slaughter the animal and have the blood flow onto that earth and then cover it with additional earth, **and** that **Rabba is of** the opinion that the ruling is **not** in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Zeira.**


###### Beitzah 7b:23
[Beitzah 7b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:23)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּין לְדִידִי בֵּין לְרַבָּה אִית לַן דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִפַּלְגִינַן, רַבָּה סָבַר: אִי אִיכָּא עָפָר לְמַטָּה — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא. חָיְישִׁינַן דִּלְמָא מִמְּלִיךְ וְלָא שָׁחֵיט. וּלְדִידִי (אַדְּרַבָּה) הָא עֲדִיפָא, דְּאִי לָא שָׁרֵית לֵיהּ — אָתֵי לְאִמְּנוֹעֵי מִשִּׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to** Abaye: This is not so; rather, **both** according **to me and** according **to Rabba we are** of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Zeira, and here we disagree with regard to this** matter: **Rabba holds** that **if there is** prepared **earth beneath, yes,** in that case one may slaughter an animal, but **if there is no** earth prepared beneath, **no,** he may not slaughter it at all. Why not? Rabba says: **We are concerned** that **perhaps one will reconsider and not slaughter** it at all, and he will have dug a hole on a Festival unnecessarily. **And according to my** opinion, **on the contrary: This** situation, in which he is permitted to dig first, **is preferable, since if you do not permit him** to dig in all cases for the purpose of slaughter, **he will** be unable to eat meat and will **refrain from rejoicing on the Festival.**


###### Beitzah 7b:24
[Beitzah 7b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/7b:24)

וּמוֹדִים שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט — שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹר בַּדָּקָר וִיכַסֶּה. אָמַר רַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ דָּקָר נָעוּץ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וְהָא קָא עָבֵיד כְּתִישָׁה! אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ That mishna states: **And** Beit Hillel **concede that if one** transgressed and **slaughtered an** animal, **then he digs with a shovel and covers** the blood. **Rabbi Zerika said** that **Rav Yehuda said: And that is** the *halakha* specifically **when one has a shovel** already **embedded** in the ground **while it was still day,** before the onset of the Festival. The Gemara asks: **But** what purpose does an embedded shovel serve; **doesn’t he** still **perform** the act of **crushing,** as one must crush the lumps of earth to make the soil fit for covering? **Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said** that **Rav said:**