Avodah Mailing List
Volume 20: Number 24
Sun, 29 Oct 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
From: "Edward Chalk" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:12:09 +1100
Subject: [Avodah] Daf Yomi - Beitza Daf Beis
This is a dvar torah on Beitza Daf beis in the sugya of hachonoh de'rabboh.
Any feedback or comments would be appreciated.
The first mishna in Beitza says
???? ?? ?, ?; ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????
If an egg is laid on Yom Tov ? Beis Shamai say it may be eaten and Beis Hillel say that it may not be eaten.
The gemara asks on the mishna:
???? ??????, ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???
What is the case in the mishna? If you will say that we are talking about a chicken that is meant to be eaten, then why do Beis Hillel say that the egg is ossur ? it is food that has seperated from another food. Rather we must be talking about a chicken that is meant for laying eggs, if so, what is the reason of Beis Shammai who say that the egg may be eaten, it (the egg) is muktzeh?
The explanation of the gemara is as follows:
There are two types of muktzeh, one type of muktzeh is a prohibition of using the item, the second type of muktzeh is a prohibition of moving the item. The term muktzeh when used in our gemara does not refer to whether or not the item may be moved, although this is commonly what people mean when they say that something is muktzeh on Yom Tov or Shabbos. Here the term muktzeh refers to whether or not the item may be used, specifically whether the chicken and the egg may be eaten.
The prohibition of using muktzeh is more severe than the prohibition of moving muktzeh items. Rashi on '???? ? quotes a gemara in Pesachim where it is suggested that the prohibition of using a muktzeh item may even be ossur mideoraisoh (forbidden by Torah law and liable to malkos - lashes). The second type of muktzeh is definitely only ossur miderabonon (forbidden by Rabbinical Law).
The basis to consider the egg to be muktzeh is becuase the egg is nolad, it has been created anew on Yom Tov. This is a very severe form of muktzeh. Rainwater that falls on Shabbos or Yom Tov has a similar halachah of muktzeh. The word muktzeh means set aside. The opposite of muktzeh is muchan - prepared. If something only appears on Yom Tov, such as an egg or rainwater, it was not possible for anyone to intend to use it on Yom Tov or Shabbos because yesterday it did not exist, by default it is muktzeh.
Nevertheless, the gemara states that halachah of the egg is dependant on the halachah of the chicken that laid the egg:
Chicken before the egg
Before we can understand whether or not the egg is muktzeh, we have to consider if the chicken that laid the egg is muktzeh. This depends on whether or not the chicken is used for laying eggs or if the chicken has been designated to be eaten. On Yom Tov, you are allowed to shecht (slaughter) animals and cook them. Therefore, if the chicken is set aside to be eaten, it is not muktzeh becuase it may be shechted (slaughtered) and eaten today. The egg that it lays is also not muktzeh. We do not consider the egg to be a new creation and muktzeh becuase of nolad, it is simply a part of the chicken that has become detached. Both the chicken and the egg are food items, the egg is simply a small piece of food that has seperated from a large piece of food. This is similar to slicing a piece from a loaf of bread where we do not say that the piece sliced from the loaf is muktzeh because it is a new creation. Therefore the gemara asks; If the chicken is designated to be eaten, why do Be
l say that the egg may not be eaten?
However, if the chicken is set aside for laying eggs, then the owner does not want it to be slaughtered and the chicken is muktzeh becuase it is not intended for use on Yom Tov. The chicken is not classified as a food item. Therefore the status of the chicken does not help the egg, and we return to the basic halacha of nolad. The egg is a new creation, it was not prepared from the weekday for Yom Tov, and everyone should agree that the egg is muktzeh. Why do Beis Shammai say that the egg may be eaten?
Hachonoh De'Rabboh - Rabbah's halachah of preparing
The gemara gives four explanations for the machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. We will deal here with the second explanation that is given by Rabbah on the second amud:
??? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??
"Rabbah says, really we are talking about a chicken that is meant to be eaten (if so, the question is, why is the egg assur according to Beis Hillel?) and we are talking about a case where Yom Tov falls (on Sunday, the day) after Shabbos. The reason that the egg is forbidden is because of ?preparation? and Rabbah is of the opinion that an egg that is laid today is finished within the chicken on the previous day."
"Every egg that was laid today was completed yesterday: And even altough this was done by Hashem [so there is no prohibition in the preparation, just as Hashem cases rain to fall and plants to grow on Shabbos, nevertheless] the egg is still forbidden because we require that all Shabbos meals and Yom Tov meals should be readied and prepared from the previous ordinary weekday."
The reason that the egg is forbidden is not becuase there was anything wrong done when it was created on Shabbos, but is rather because it lacks [verbal] preparation from the weekday. Rabboh is of the opinion that not only must food be physically prepared from the weekday for Shabbos but also that the food must be verbally or mentally prepared in honour of Shabbos from a weekday.
The gemara continues to explain that Rabbah learns this halachah from a passuk in the Torah:
???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??"? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???
Rabbah goes according to his own reasoning because Rabbah said, what does the passuk mean when it says ?And it will be on the sixth day and they will prepare that which they will bring? - Weekday prepares for Shabbas, and weekday prepares for Yom Tov, Yom Tov cannot prepare for Shabbos and Shabbos cannot prepare for Yom Tov.
"Rabbah who says that preparation [from Shabbos to Yom Tov] is ossur even if it was not actually done by hand."
"Goes according to his own reasoning, because Rabbah said in Pesachim - and he learns from here that the prohibition of muktzeh is mideoraisoh (a Torah Law)."
"Veheichinu ? and they should prepare ? for example the person says from here I will eat tomorrow ? because if you will say that the possuk is refering to physical food preparation and that the possuk is saying that they should bake and cook from the previous day, this is already stated in a different passuk - "That which you will want to bake, you should bake" - rather the passuk is talking about preparing the food verbally - and the passuk says ???? ???? ???? - and it will be on the sixth day - and a normal sixth day of the week is not Yom Tov. So you see that Hashem made the Shabbos meal important so that he should prepare it verbally from the previous day and from a weekday (not Shabbos or Yom Tov)."
The explanation that Rabbah gives in the mishna is dependant on three facts:
1) An ukimtah - A circumstance: The source of the halachah is a case when Yom Tov falls on Sunday.
2) A biological fact: If an egg is laid today, it was finished inside the chicken yesterday.
The egg was laid on Yom Tov that fell on a Sunday, therefore the formation of the egg was completed on Shabbos.
3) A halacha: Food that is eaten on Shabbos or Yom Tov must have been intended to be eaten on Yom Tov or Shabbos from a weekday becuase Shabbos and Yom Tov are important and meals eaten on Shabbos or Yom Tov have to be readied to be eaten from a weekday.
Therefore, if an egg was laid on Yom Tov that fell on a Sunday, and we know that the formation of the egg was completed on Shabbos, then the egg may not be eaten on Yom Tov because it did not exist during an ordinary weekday and could never have been prepared for Yom Tov on a weekday.
The gemara continues to explain that even if an egg is born on Yom Tov that did not fall on Sunday, the egg is still ossur, because of a gezeiroh onto a case when Yom Tov was on Sunday.
The Rashba asks a number of questions on Rashi's explanation of the gemara. One of the questions is as follows:
Rashi explains that the halcaha of Rabbah is a new stringency in muktzeh. If so, even if the egg is laid on Yom Tov during the week it should still be muktzah becuase it was not prepared to be eaten on Yom Tov? The owner did not say "mikaan ani ochel lemochor" - "I will eat from this tomorrow." Why does the gemara say that the only reason that the egg is ossur if it is laid on a Yom Tov that is not Sunday is because of a gezeiroh?
If an egg is laid on Yom Tov that falls on Wednesday, for example, then owner of the egg never knew about the existence of the egg within the chicken on Tuesday. Therefore the egg was never prepared to be eaten for Yom Tov. Every food that is eaten on Shabbos or Yom Tov must have been intended to be eaten because the meals on Yom Tov and Shabbos are important and require that the food be readied for the occasion.
The egg was never readied and it should be ossur to eat even on a Yom Tov which is not Sunday? Why does the gemara say that this is only ossur becuase of a gezeiroh?
The Shitah Mekubetzes
The Shitah Mekubetzes answers as follows:
If an egg is laid on Yom Tov that falls during the week and not on Sunday, the reason that the egg may be eaten is because of the halachah of "uchla de'afras" - "food that has seperated." Rabbah explains that the mishna is referring to an chicken that is meant to be eaten. The chicken may be shechted on Yom Tov and is a type of food. Therefore, even although the egg itself was not prepared to be eaten, because it is a part of a chicken that was, it acquires the prepared status of the chicken and may be eaten.
If so, asks the Shitah Mekubetzes on himself, even if the egg is laid on Sunday on Yom Tov, it should still be permissible becuase of the halachah of "uchla de'afras" - "food that has seperated"?
Three Types of Preparation
The Shitah Mekubetzes explains that the halacha of Hachana De'Rabbah states that all food preparation must be prepared for Yom Tov or Shabbos from a weekday. This applies to three types of preparation:
1) Hachana beyadayim - physical preparation such as cooking and baking. Food may not be cooked on Yom Tov for Shabbos.
2) Hachanah be'peh - verbal preparation - the person who is going to eat the food must say "mikaan ani ochel lemochor" - I am going to eat from this food tomorrow
3) Hachanah biyedei shamayim - Preparation that is done by Hashem.
Explains the shitah, Rabbah states that not only hachana beyadayim, physically cooking and preparing food is significant, but also that hachana bepeh, verbal preparation is ossur. You must prepare food verbally for Yom Tov, if this is done on Shabbos it simply does not work, the food is unprepared. Shabbos is a day of rest, any preparation that is done on Shabbos does not work. The Torah does not recognise any change in state or development with regards to food preparation that is performed on Shabbos.
By the same reasoning, we discount Hachana Biyedei Shamayim is done on Shabbos, it is "kemaan delesoh" - it is as if it isn't. Just as if food was verbally prepared on Shabbos for Yom Tov the preparation is invalid and the food is un-prepared because Shabbos is a day of rest and not a day of preparation, so too if the food is physically created Biyedei Shamayim on Shabbos, the preparation does not work and it is as if the egg was not made into an egg.
Therefore, when the egg is laid on Sunday, we cannot say the halachah of 'uchla de'afras' - food that has seperated. The egg is not considered to be part of the chicken. The chicken is food but the egg is not, it is not tofel - secondary - to the chicken and remains muktzeh.
Please send feedback to dafyomi at torahdownunder dot org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
Go to top.
From: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:17:18 GMT
Subject: [Avodah] Lighting Neros on Yom Tov
We know that when melacha is allowed on Yom Tov, it is not a blanket
heter. The melacha is allowed only if there is a *need* for that
action. The poskim discuss which needs are legitimate, and which
needs are insufficient to allow the melacha to be done. This post
will discuss an application of this principle.
In Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa, perek 62 note 31, Rav Shlomo Zalman
Auerbach is quoted as questioning whether an avukah may be lit on for
havdalah when Yom Tov falls on Motzaei Shabbos. He explains that this
action is being done only for Hidur Mitzvah, not for Hanaah. He
leaves it as a Tzarich Iyun.
That same footnote points to Shaar Hatziyun 435:9, which tells of a
case where a person did not do Bedikas Chometz, and did not do a
Bitul Chometz either, and it is now Yom Tov. Even though there's no
question that such a person must now do a full Bedikah, including use
of a Ner, he asks whether a ner may be lit specifically for this
purpose if it is during the daytime. My guess is that the problem is
that because it is daytime, he's not really getting any use from the
candle's light. He leaves this question as a Tzarich Iyun.
So we have two cases about lighting a fire on Yom Tov specifically
for a mitzvah, not for actual use. Both are left as a "Tzarich Iyun".
This leads me to wonder about yet another case of lighting a candle
on Yom Tov only for a mitzvah, not for personal use:
Namely, the Yom Tov candles themselves. Sometimes they are lit before
Yom Tov, but sometimes we light them on Yom Tov itself. (See footnote
1 for more details.)
In virtually all of our homes, the room is already full of electric
light. I really do not need any more light. Unless I had a timer turn
off the electric lights for the time period when the Neros are
scheduled to be lit, the only reason I'm lighting is because of the
Is this melacha mutar? To me, this case seems similar to the other
two cases, a Tzarich Iyun.
It is undeniable that the whole world *does* light under these
conditions, and has been doing so for decades. But what is the heter?
Are there any other poskim who deal with this question? In light of
Shaar Hatziyun 435:9, how do we light Neros Yom Tov when the room is
already full of electric light? Perhaps we must arrange things so
that they are lit only in a dark room?
I do not mean to accuse Klal Yisroel of doing issurim for the past
few decades. I'm only asking if anyone knows of any poskim who have
discussed it. Perhaps the answer will be that this very case proves
that such mitzvos DO constitute adequate tzorech for this halacha,
thus resolving the "tzorech iyun" for Avukah for Yaknehaz, and of Ner
for Bedikas Chometz as well.
(Footnote 1: Some have the minhag to always light Neros Yom Tov after
Yom Tov has already started, so this question always applies to them.
Others usually light beforehand (like on Shabbos) but even they often
light on Yom Tov itself: Second night of Rosh Hashana, second night
in galus, or when any night of Yom Tov is on Motzaei Shabbos. This
question also applies to everyone regarding Ner Shabbos when Yom Tov
is on Friday afternoon.)
(Footnote 2: I should point out that in Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa,
perek 43 note 171, Rav Auerbach focuses on this exact case, but he
asks an entirely different question about it: He asks how the bracha
may be said on such a lighting, since no hanaah will be gotten from
those candles. He suggests, for several reasons, that the bracha may
be said, but as I see it, this makes the Melacha L'Tzorech question
even sharper. He explicitly writes that "leika klal shum simcha
yeseira mizeh" - there is no extra simcha whatsoever from the neros,
and the women light them only because it is an important mitzvah. So
why is it more "l'tzorech" than bedikas chometz? His conclusion is
unclear to me: He ends with both "ul'dvareinu nicha" and "v'adayin
tzarich iyun" -- "according to our explanation it's okay" and "but it
still needs more research".)
Go to top.
From: "Jonathan Baker" <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:20:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Avodah] Hakafot on Shmini Atzeret
> From: "Prof. Levine"
>>Have a look at Chapter 30 of R. A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas
>>Torah (page 267). There you will see that due to a mistake in
>>transcription, people were under the impression that the ARI danced
>>in front of the Sifrei Torah on Shmini Atzeres night. However, he
>>actually danced on Motzoei SA after Maariv.
>>It seems to me that this error in transcription is the "basis" for
>>what Chassidim do.
>WADR, Yaari is writing a naarishkeit.
Ainochenami. Insulting Yaari without reading him doesn't change anything.
Even so, I think Prof. Levine has oversimplified Yaari's argument, and
missed the point.
>To have even a hava amina that the "basis" of a minhag practised by
>tzadikim and kedoshim and thousands of their followers over centuries
>is "due to a mistake in transcription" is ludicrous and mischievous.
In fact, Yaari says that the whole thing is based on this mistaken
He quotes from Shaar Hakavvanot (R' Chaim Vital; shaar 6) "...I saw
my teacher [the Ari] z"l who was very careful in this to circle after
the sifrei torah or before them or after them and to dance and to sing
before them as much as he could on the night of motzai Yom Tov after
The problem was that Shaar Hakavvanot was not printed until 1852, and
then in Salonika. Various excerpts appeared from manuscripts in collections
of customs of the Ari. One such was the Negid uMitzvah of R' Jacob Tzemach,
(Amsterdam, 1712, p. 76) who wrote "...and to dance and sing before them,
and to make seven circuits with all his strength with great simcha at night,
and in the day we did not see him do so."
R' J. Zemach was not accurate in his transcription, and left out "motzai
Yom Tov", transposing it to Simchat Torah night (Shmini Atzeret, since
he was in EY).
The author of Hemdas Yomim (part 3, Days of Sukkot, ch. 8) did not have
a ms. of Shaar Hakavvanot, and relied on R' Jacob Tzemach.
RCV did not bring any reasons for the 7 hakafot; later authors attributed
meanings to it, e.g. the 7 midos according to the Shelah hakodesh, etc.
Actually, I don't think this is necessarily the origin of chassidim
in chutz laaretz davka doing hakafot on leil Shmini Atzeret. It seems
instead to be the origin of most of Jewry's doing it on the night of
Simchat Torah, rather on motzaei Simchat Torah. Meanwhile, in EY, the
original Ari minhag of motzaei ST took hold in Chevron and J'lem, at
least down to the 1700s. In Italy, too, they had accurate versions of
Shaar Hakavvanot, and did their hakafot on motzaei ST.
In fact, the Chasidish minhag to make hakafot on leil Shmini Atzeret
was a chiddush of the Hemdat Yamim (ibid., ch 7), to express unity with
the Jews of EY who were making their hakafot that night. It was picked
up by R' Alexander Ziskind of Horodno (Yesod veShoresh HaAvodah 11:16).
A misnaged (quoted in S. Dubno, History of Chasidism, 446) testifies
(lefi tumo) that in the Maggid's kloyz in 1772 he saw the Chasidim making
hakafot on Shmini Atzeret "like we do on ST".
The hakafot that we do during the day seem to be a much later invention.
They sprang up independently in several places, in Germany, in Baghdad,
in Poland (as testified to by the above Yesod veShoresh HaAvodah), etc.
in the late 18th century.
So even if you won't read Yaari, you can read this summary, with
pointers to his sources. There was a mistake in transmission, which
led to the universal Simchat Torah night hakafot, and there was a
conscious choice made by the author of Hemdat Yamim, and ratified by
early Chasidim, to do extra hakafot on the night of Shmini Atzeret.
* * *
Other well-known halachot based on "mistakes": the kashrut of bee-honey
(when the text meant date-honey) and turkey (based on a mistake about
Asian Indians vs. American Indians). When asked about turkey, isn't it
based on a mistaken identity, the late Bobover Rebbe replied, "It's a good
thing our ancestors weren't as frum as we are". So now we have a mesorah
that turkey is kosher. And now we have hundreds of years of a minhag to
do hakafot on leil Simchat Torah. It matters far less what the origin
was, than that it has been ratified by pretty much all of Klal Yisrael.
name: jon baker web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
address: firstname.lastname@example.org blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
Avodah mailing list
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 24
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."