Shiur 12/22/15 – Beitza 3b (2)

Beitzah 3b (2)

1- Our Beraisa states:  A Treifa egg that was mixed into a group of many Kosher eggs causes the entire mixture to be prohibited.

We are trying to figure why?

The general rule rule is that a non Kosher food item, when mixed into Kosher products is ‘Batul’, nullified.

There are a myriad of rules as to the precise ratio of Kosher to the non-Kosher one needs. But in general – the minority portion of non-Kosher is ‘batul’ and the entire mixture is permitted.

So why does this egg cause the mixture to be completely forbidden?

2- The Gemara attempts various answers. We tackled the first one:

Reb Meir states: An item which is sold by unit is considered important  – “chashuv”, and therefore not ‘Batul’. 

The Gemara discusses if it means: “only sold by unit” or “generally sold by unit”.

An egg, at least in the Gemara’s times, was usually sold by unit.

So if one assumes that an item that is “generally sold by unit” is not ‘batul’ this would answer why the Braisa states that  a treifa egg that was mixed into a group of many kosher eggs causes the entire mixture to be prohibited.

The halacha is that only 7 items are important enough for them not to be Batul an any mixture. See here.

3- Talking about the ratio of ‘Bitul’ we mentioned the various ratios:


עבודה זרה ,יבש ביבש ,לח בלח/ מין בשאינו מינו, תרומה, כלאי הכרם and חמץ respectively.


Discussed letters between the Rebbe and his father regarding the number 1,000 and 10,000 mentioned in Tanya in regards to ‘Bitul’ of ‘evil’ in a צדיק שאינו גמור. The context of their correspondence is as to where one finds in Halacha these ratio numbers.


Chapter 10 (Chitas of next week Monday) from

Now, this level — that of the “incomplete tzaddik” who “knows evil” — is subdivided into myriads of levels, consisting of [varying degrees in] the quality of the minute remaining evil [deriving] from [any] one of the four “evil elements” of which the animal soul is composed (see ch. 1).

The Alter Rebbe will now describe (as it were) a quantitative subdivision, depending on the degree to which the evil loses its identity within the good. In one tzaddik the vestigial evil may be such that the proportion of good to evil could be described as 60:1; the evil in another tzaddik may be more minute, so that it is overwhelmed by a proportion of good that is 1000:1; and so on.

Yet, to borrow a term from the law concerning non-kosher foodstuffs, where in certain cases of error the rule is that even a preponderance of 60 parts (kosher) to 1 (non-kosher) is sufficient to render the entire mixture kosher (since the non-kosher food is no longer capable of tainting the mixture with its flavor), we may likewise say in our case that a preponderance of good over evil to the degree of 60:1 is also capable of preventing the expression and perception of the remaining evil.

In the Alter Rebbe’s words:

ובענין ביטולו במיעוטו     [The subdivision] also takes into account the degree to which [the remaining evil] is nullified [in the good] because of its minuteness,

בששים על דרך משל, או באלף ורבבה וכיוצא, על דרך משל

whether in sixty [times as much good], for example, or in a thousand, or ten thousand, and so on.

See here the Rebbe’s own notes on this.

4- We mentioned the question posed by the famous Reb Menachem Mendel Kruchmel – the ‘original’ Tzemach Tzedek.

He is known for his many rulings among them a ruling pertaining to ‘one man one vote’ in community matters. This was in response to the wealthy and learned individuals who complained that their tax payments were considerably higher than the poor people and thus should have more than than one vote each. A true believer in democracy! 

Also mentioned is his ruling obligating the relatives of a murdered person R”L to pursue the murderer legally in the local court system. This he explains is part of the Mitzva of ‘Goel HaDom’ and applies to a Jewish murderer and of course also to a non-Jew.

Now to the crux of our discussion – the concept, which is a topic discussed by many great scholars thru-out the generations, is an interesting one. Tzemach Tzedek # 68.

Here it is.

A- An egg hatched on Shabbos or Yom Tov is prohibited. (Beis Hillel in our Mishna 2a)

If this egg gets mixed up with other eggs the entire mixture is prohibited. Why – see last weeks shiur. In short because it is  a דבר שיש לו מתירין- one can eat the egg on Sunday with no ‘Bitul’.

B-  An egg from a treifa bird is prohibited.

If this egg gets mixed up with other eggs the entire mixture is permitted.

So what happens if A and B happens to one egg? A farmer enters his coop on Yom Tov morning and collects all the eggs that were recently hatched into one basket. He then realizes that one of his chickens has a nail sticking out of its stomach rendering it and its egg treif.

If this were to occur on a weekday then the entire basket would be permitted because the treifa egg is nullified. But on Yom Tov this teirfa egg has, in addition to the treif problem, the issue of ביצה שנולדה ביו”ט!

So the issue of treif is ‘Batel’ today. But the issue of Yom Tov is not!


So telling someone to wait until Sunday to eat it without Bitul (for the Yom Tov problem)  is in a sense incorrect because we will still need Bitul for the treifa problem. So why not eat it today?

On the other had, (and so writes the Tzemach Tzedek and others) one can argue to split the two problems. Namely- what is Batul today (treif) cannot eliminate the Yom Tov issue which will be resolved on Sunday without Bitul.

5- We spoke briefly of the brilliant proof by Reb Akiva Eiger from chametz on Pesach. See here. # 65.



Shiur 12/15/15 Beitza 3B

Beitza 3b

1-    We leaned the Beraisa with the 3 points:

  • a) An egg hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos is Muktzah.
  • b) If we are in doubt if it was hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos is still Muktzah.
  • c) If this egg got mixed up with other eggs the entire mixture becomes Muktzah.

Point b above can only be understood if the prohibition of eating an egg hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos is Min Hatorah. [This is indeed the opinion of (hachana of) Raba 2b] Thus, all ‘doubts’ [safek] are ‘lechumra –  ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.

On the other hand if eating the egg is only a ‘d’Rabannan’ [Rav Nachman, Rav Yosef & Rav Yitzchak] then why would an egg that is only a ‘safek’ if it was hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos be prohibited? All ‘sefeikos’ of ‘deRabonon’ are ruled leniently  ספק דרבנן לקולא.


2-    The Gemara suggest that the ‘safek’ in point b is [not whether it was hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos, but]  whether the egg came from a kosher or non-kosher fowl


3-    So then point c becomes problematic. Why would such an egg not be ‘batel’ when mixed in with other eggs.

4-    Introduction of the concept of “DAVAR SHE’YESH LO MATIRIN” דבר שיש לו מתירין.

The Gemara states that an egg laid on Yom Tov is a “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin,” an item that eventually will become permitted, and therefore if it was mixed with any number of normal, permitted eggs, the entire mixture is prohibited. The Gemara concludes that a “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin” does not become nullified in a mixture even if it is only an Isur d’Rabanan which became mixed with permitted items (such as in our case of an egg laid on Yom Tov).

Furthermore, even if the item is a Safek Isur d’Rabanan (such as when it is not known whether the egg was laid today, on Yom Tov, or whether it was laid on a weekday, before Yom Tov), it is not permitted if it is a “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin.” The normal principle of “Safek d’Rabanan l’Kula” does not apply to permit the item.

What is the logic behind the Rabanan’s enactment to prohibit a “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin”?

RASHI explains that since one will be able to eat the item when it becomes permitted (after Yom Tov), he should not rely on Bitul or on the principle of “Safek d’Rabanan l’Kula” in order to eat it on Yom Tov.

We mentioned the brilliant explanation of the Ran on this.

The Ran in Nedarim (52a) explains that the reason why, normally, an item of Isur becomes annulled in a mixture with items of Heter is because when opposites combine they contrast against each other and annul (whichever one is the majority is Mevatel the one which is the minority). This is the mechanism behind the concept of Bitul. When like items combine they cannot be Mevatel each other because there is no contrast.

Normally, when an item of Isur becomes mixed with Heter, one annuls the other. Even though the two items are the same type of food, they contrast because one is Asur and one is Mutar, and thus they are considered opposites. However, if an item is Asur now and will become Mutar later, it cannot become annulled when it falls into Heter because there is not enough opposition; it is as if the item of Isur (which will become Mutar later) is Mutar right now.

“דהיינו טעמא משום דמין במינו לא בטיל לפי שכל דבר שהוא דומה לחבירו אינו מחלישו ומבטלו אלא מעמידו ומחזקו ”

5-    We spoke about the story that occurred at a Shabbos sheva brochos that some of the chairs were Muktzah as a result of the lighting candles on them. The next morning these few chairs reappeared in the dinning mixed in with the other chairs.

The question was raised if any of the chairs at all were permitted to be used. Arguments pro and con were presented.

Pro: the Muktzeh chairs were a minority. Thus they were ‘batel’ to the large amount of the unproblematic chairs.


Con: The prohibition of the chairs – Muktzah – are only temporary. The ‘issur dissipates after the close of Shabbos! Therefore the principal of “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin,” kicks in and there is no ‘bitul’.

Pro: The Noda Biyehuda’s logic: “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin,” is only on items that can be used only once. Like food. So the logic is that why eat it with ‘bitul’ when you can eat it tomorrow without ‘bitul’.

On the other hand if it is an item that can be used over and over again (like chairs) then the fact that it can be used tomorrow without ‘bitul’ should not hold us back from using it today. Since it is a multi-use item then each use is individual.

וספק דרבנן בדבר שיש לו מתירין

Some in our shiur didn’t like this logic.

no logic

6-    Mentioned the issue of the kashrus of milk cows. Mendel Nemenov referred us to this link:

7-    Mentioned last week the ‘proof’ from Megilas Esther that an institution (a mosad) is never closed……




Shiur 12/01/2015 Beitza 3A

Beitza 2b-3a.

1- We continue with answers #3 and #4.


The question: Why is an egg hatched on Yom Tov permissible to eat according to Beis Shamai and prohibited according to Beis Hillel.

The premise is that if one may Shecht the chicken (which is permissible on Yom Tov provided that one had the intention to do so before Yom Tov) then the egg should also be permitted.

Conversely if the chicken cannot be used (since it is an egg-laying chicken, and not intended to be shechted on yom tov, and therefore cannot be shechted on Yom Tov) then the egg is also Muktzeh/Nolad.

Answer #3- Rav Yosef: Picking a fruit (and harvesting in general) is prohibited on Yom Tov. (see below as to why). The Chachamim enacted a ‘Gezeira’ that prohibits a fruit that fell off of a tree as well.

When they enacted this ‘Gezeira’ they included a newly hatched egg as well. Thus the prohibition of Beis Hillel in our Mishna.

Answer #4 – Rav Yitzchak: Squeezing juice out of a fruit is prohibited on Yom Tov. (see below as to why). The Chachamim enacted a ‘Gezeira’ that prohibits a juice that flowed out of a fruit on it own as well.

When they enacted this ‘Gezeira’ they included a newly hatched egg as well. Thus the prohibition of Beis Hillel in our Mishna.

2- Underlying logic and difference between the two answers above: 

A hatched egg is more like a fruit because it is solid –  unlike juice which is liquid.

On the other hand an egg is more like juice since it is not visible until hatched, like juice which remains unseen until the fruit is squeezed – unlike fruit itself which is visible on the tree prior to picking.

Jabuticaba – The Tree that Fruits on its Trunk

3- We discussed at length the basic premise of work allowed on Yom Tov for the purpose preparing food.

The Torah prohibits all work on Yom Tov. All 39 Melachos just like Shabbos. But then it allows ‘all work that pertains to the preparation of food’. 

is all work permitted? All 39 Melachos? No. Some are indeed not allowed on Yom Tov; like picking fruit of fishing.

Why? So here is a fundamental argument in regard to the Halachos of Yom Tov:

A- Tosfos and many others are of the opinion that the Torah hinted as to what is permitted on Yom Tov.

In the adjoining verse permitting food related work אך אשר יאכל לכל-נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם [‘all work that pertains to the preparation of food’]  then it states ושמרתם את-המצות ‘ and also watch the Matzos’ so it should not become chametz.


When does the watching the Matzos begin?

Way before this!

Obviously not before the harvesting. The first opportunity for chometz in Matzos is after the harvesting the wheat.

So the Torah is hinting that only work that starts after harvesting is permitted. So kneading and baking is OK. Harvesting, picking fruit, threshing and the similar is not.

This picture was not taken on Yom Tov.

B- Other Rishonim (Rambam and others) disagree. In their opinion min Hatorah, every type of work is permitted.

It is only a Rabbinic decree that limits the work permitted on Yom Tov.  And the parameters of the type of work/melacha allowed in the preparation of food is only work that is performed for, say, one meal at a time, like cooking. As opposed to harvesting which is usually done with an entire field. Another example is milling of flour which is performed on tons of grains at a time.

The rationale is that if such work would be permitted then people would delay these time consuming jobs for a day when one is of from work…Yom Tov! And that would inevitably reduce Simchas Yom Tov.

See here  and here the Alter Rebbe that accepts this latter opinion.

4- We mentioned the Chasam Sofer that brilliantly reconciles the Gemara and Midrash regarding the ‘Mon‘ falling on Yom Tov.

A Freilichen Chanukah!