No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Beis Hillel permit an egg laid on Yom Tov from a chicken designated for eating, while Beis Shammai forbids even a chicken designated for eggs? The shiur develops the Rishonim's frameworks: Rashi (רש"י) holds the egg is part of the mother's food status, while Tosfos requires that you could have slaughtered the mother to access the egg, resolving the tension between nolad and muktzeh.
This shiur delivers a comprehensive analysis of Beitzah 2a, focusing on the fundamental machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding an egg laid on Yom Tov. The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between a chicken designated for eating (tanagol ha'omed l'achilah) versus one designated to produce eggs (tanagol ha'omed legadel beitzim). The central question is whether the egg is considered nolad (newly created) and muktzeh (set aside from one's mind). The shiur begins by establishing that according to Rabi Yochanan, the prohibition is based on nolad rather than muktzeh. A critical Tosafos (תוספות) on daf 45a indicates that one may move a chicken designated for eating even though handling it is generally restricted, suggesting muktzeh doesn't apply but nolad remains a concern. The Gemara's question—if we're dealing with a chicken designated for eating, why isn't the egg permitted like other separated food (uchla d'afris)—drives the entire sugya.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Beitzah 2a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
