Beitza 7b.

1- The Gemara turns to the Machlokes of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel as to the minimum amount of Chometz and Seor that is prohibited to own or to eat on Pesach.

Leaven, or yeast.

A – Chometz is any product containing fermented grain from the 5 species (wheat, oat, barley, rye, spelt).

Starter Culture

B- Seor is not prevalent today, but is often translated as ‘sourdough’. Years ago, (prior to the days of commercial, packaged yeast) people would leave a small quantity of dough to super-ferment. They would then use a small piece of this ‘old dough’ as the starter culture for each new batch of baked goods to accelerate the rising process. This barely edible ‘old dough’ used in the past as yeast is called Seor.

Beis Shamai says that Seor – due to its sourness – is prohibited even when the size is a Kezayis. Chometz is only when the size is of a Koseves –  a date.

Beis Hillel’s opinion is that both Chometz and Seor are both of the shiur of Kezayis.

2- The Gemara begins to explain the split shiur size according to Beis Shamai. It says that if the Torah would have prohibited only regular Chametz then we would derive Seor, a tougher form of Chometz, with a Kal Vochomer (fortiori argument). The fact that the Torah seemingly superfluously states both Chometz and Seor, is proof that these two types are of different shiurim.

3- We spoke about the famous question that the general rule is that one cannot use a Kal Vochomer to create a new Halacha that will result in the penalty of Malkus. We discussed the answer that Seor is also Chometz etc.

4- What about anything less than a Kezayis? It would seem to be prohibited as well min Hatorah justs like any other Chatzi Shiur (see half way down the page chidush of Shagas Aryeh in our gemara). 

a- Bal Yiraeh – owning a piece of Chometz less than a Kazayis. We mentioned the Chacham Tzvi (also in a previous Makos Shiur) brought down in the Alter Rebbe’s Kuntres Achron, siman  242 note 12 that there is no issur Min Hatorah in less than a Kazayis.

b- Achilah – eating a piece of Chametz less than a Kazayis. Prohibited Min Hatorah.  We discussed the Rambam that seems to use a special posuk for Chometz. See Kesef Mishna here.

Microscopic Yeast

5- Spoke about Reb Yosef Engel. Chassidisher Gaon of the previous generation (1858-1920) who was a prolific writer with a gift of clarity. See here,  Hebrew –  and here He wrote many seforim which became very popular in the Yeshiva world.

 

In one sefer Ayin Panim LaTorah, he gives 70 answers to a single question!

 

In his Sefer, Lekach Tov, first printed in 1893, he explores an interesting topic. Are any of the Taryag (613) Mitzvos a ‘Sayag’ for another Mitzvah?  He finds 17 mitzvos that can perhaps fit into this category.

The first example pertains to our Gemara. He quotes the Ran in the beginning of Pesochim (2a, d”h bodkin, end) that states that perhaps the reason the Torah prohibits possessing any Chametz (as opposed to say owning regular treif meat) is because the prohibition of eating Chometz.

 

link

So we do find one/two  of the Taryag mitzvos (Bal Yiroeh/Bal Yimotze) that are a Sayag for the Mitvah of not eating Chametz.

6- We concluded with the following thought: In Megillas Esther it relates that Mordechai accepted the suggestion by Esther to fast on Pesach very reluctantly. The Gemara says that what bothered him was ‘fasting on Yom Tov’.

Why was he not bothered (as many commentaries ask) by the non eating of Matzoh which is Min Hatorah as opposed to just ‘fasting on Yom Tov’?  – ויעבור מרדכי

Perhaps Mordechai’s rationale was that the Chachamin could conceivably find a way to justify the not eating the Matzah for just that one year. (Eliyohu – Mount Karmel).

But fasting on Yom Tov would basically entail omitting the entire Seder night. Being that the Seder is such a pivot in Jewish family life, the skipping of the Seder, (and not just the Matzah) was what bothered him.

5- This cover says what the book is about.

http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/14066

 

 

 

 

 

Beitza 7a.

1- The Gemara discussed as to what stage (in the process of the formation of an egg to it being laid) does the egg ‘detach’ itself from being part of the chicken.

2- Opinion of the Chachamim is that even early on it is considered an entity for itself and therefore never ‘fleishigs‘. Reb Yaakov maintains that if the egg is still wrapped around with the veins and sinews it is considered part of the chicken and therefore ‘fleishigs’.

3- The Gemara then proceeds to a case of one who checks his chicken coop at twilight Erev YomTov and finds the coop empty. He then checks again on Yom Tov  fartugs – before dawn and lo and behold, finds an egg.

It’s seems obvious that the egg was laid in the middle of the night on Yom Tov and thus prohibited from consumption.

But the Gemara takes issue with a chicken laying eggs at night.

The general rule is that animals that mate only during the day, such as the rooster and the hen, give birth or lay eggs –  only during daylight hours. So this egg found in the chicken coop could not have been laid on Yom Tov night.

So how did it get there?

One must say that some rare event had happened. The chicken laid the egg on Erev Yom Tov but before it totally exited from the chicken it went back into the chicken which is why the nest seemed empty.

So technically it was laid before Yom Tov and therefore permitted.

4- However here is the caveat – Eggs are created either by the mating with a rooster or thru ‘safna de’ara’ – the heat of the ground.

The rule that chickens only lay eggs during daylight hours is only if the egg was fertilized – it was created via a rooster. If there was no rooster involved the chicken may lay the eggs even at night.

How can one know the type of egg it is? Naturally or due to mating with a rooster? The Gemara says that it is an accepted axiom that if there is a rooster within 60 homes away from the coop the chicken will never create an egg on its own! It will wait for the rooster.

More so – even if the rooster needs to cross a bridge to get to the chicken the chicken will still not produce an egg on its own.

5- Speaking of animals we mentioned a humorous error by a famed enlightened professor who penned an article claiming that Chazal disparaged the 7 prophetess mentioned in Gemara Megila amongst them Chulda the Nevia.

One of the ‘proofs’ this professor mentions is that Chulda the Prophetess  was not even accepted by all as a prophetess. He quotes an ‘opinion’ questioning her being a prophetess.

Where did this professor find this ‘opinion’?  On Google it seems.

The Gemara discusses in Pesachim if a weasel (Chulda in Hebrew) hides an entire loaf of bread it encounters or leaves some to pick up at a later date. One opinion is that it depends. All year when bread is baked daily the weasel relies on the availability the next day and sees no need to take it all. On the other hand on Erev Pesach knowing that bread will not be baked it will hoard it all.

The Gemara asks “Is then a weasel/Chulda a propetess to know that Pesach is approaching”…….

 

 

 

 

Beitzah 7a.

1- “An egg is considered an egg only once it is laid” Rav said.

Our Gemara continues to decipher the meaning of this cryptic statement.

2- Perhaps it means that only an egg that is laid naturally is considered an egg. As opposed to eggs that are found inside a chicken after it was shechted, which are not considered eggs per se.

The practical difference would be is if a buyer specifies that he wants to buy “live eggs” (only), meaning that he does not want eggs found inside a chicken.

If the seller did indeed deliver such eggs (from inside the chicken) then he technically didn’t deliver “eggs”, but rather a different product.

The Gemara relates a story of a Din Torah pertaining to the above. Rav Ami ruled that the seller must return the money for a full refund. We do not say that the sale was an effective sale and the seller only needs to refund the difference in the value (ביני ביני) between natural born eggs and ‘inside the chicken eggs’. Rather, the entire sale is voided – מקח טעות.

We discussed as to why we would think that the sale was effective when the general rule in Halacha in regards to commerce is that the seller must deliver exactly as advertised and promised. If he does not, then the sale is invalidated. The seller cannot simply offer the buyer the difference between the value of the inferior product delivered to the one advertised. We would call that a discount. A full refund is the rule.

 

3- Similar story of a dispute when the buyer expected fertilized eggs and received unfertilized eggs.

4- Our Gemara continues discussing if the sac of the eggs and the ovary are considered “‘flesh of the chicken” or not in regards to ‘Felishigs’ and Tumah.

“Kurkavan” also, see the cluster of eggs in the center…. – שלל של ביצים

Cluster of eggs, from tiny to almost fully formed – אשכול של ביצים

 

5- Related the story of the Din Torah regarding a sale of a condo unit sold specifically and clearly ‘as is‘ condition.

Months after the buyer moved in the complaints began arriving in torrents.

Discussed if the ‘as is’ concept exists in Halacha.

It seems like it does not!

Unless the seller states and itemizes the exact defect(s) and the buyer accepts it. otherwise, a general ‘as is’, even if the buyer signs a release when he moves in does not preclude the buyer from requesting payment for items unknown to him when he signed the release.

We discussed the three sources/ reasons as to why, in general, eating an egg is not prohibited as an ‘eiver min ha’chai’.

See here  232;7, and also found this online.

We discussed the three sources/reasons as to why, in general, eating an egg is not prohibited as an ‘eiver min ha’chai’.

We discussed the three sources/ reasons as to why, in general, eating an egg is not prohibited as an ‘eiver min ha’chai’:

The gemara in Chullin proves that eggs from a non-kosher bird are not kosher from a possuk in this week’s parshah – “ואת בת היענה” – “and the daughter of the ostrich”.

The gemara asks “does an ostrich have a daughter?”

Tosfos says we must say that this possuk comes to teach us that the egg of a kosher bird is kosher. (We already knew that an egg from a non-kosher bird was not-kosher because it came from a non-kosher bird). See here, last tosfos. We touched on honey last week, which is toward the end of this tosfos).

Tosfos also brings the proof from Shiluach Hakan.

The Ramban explains that since we know it is permissible to eat chickens, we must say their eggs are permissible too (using the same principle of the בה”ג above – כל היוצא מן הטמא, טמא  – because if the eggs were assur, the chickens would have to be assur too.

Beitzah 6a.

1- The Gemara  now focuses on the case of an ‘efroach’ [chick] that emerged from its egg on Yom Tov.

Rav prohibits it from being eaten whereas Shmuel and/or Reb Yochanon permit it.

The reason for Rav’s ruling is simply that it is Muktza. Shmuel and/or Reb Yochanon rationale is based on an interesting concept:

“Ho’il” [since]. Meaning  the egg, by hatching,  causes itself to become permitted to be eaten after Shechita, whereas before it was hatched, it was forbidden, and of course Shechita would not help.

And since it has been rectified regarding Shechita is also effectively removes the Muktza aspect.

2- We spoke about the famous Reb Shmuel Strashun and his prolific notes on the entire Sha”s! (And Berel’s family would not allow his pirush to be learned in their home).

We mentioned that today one would certainly label him as Modern Orthodox……

On our topic he finds a similar Gemara in Yevamos 7a where this concept of when an item has two prohibitions and one is removed it affects the removal of the second one as well. (Kohen, Azara, Shaar Nikanor, blood and thumbs).

3- Shasik Rav – “שתיק רב”.

Rav was asked as to why he prohibits shechting an efroach that was hatched on Yom Tov and yet permits the shechting of a newborn calf. Why are both not Muktza?

He answered that the calf was ‘edible’ prior to its own birth and its own shechita by the shechting of its mother prior to its birth. Whereas the egg was not edible in any way prior to it being hatched.

He was then asked by his colleagues as to why one may shecht a newborn calf that was born to a cow that was not edible – such as a ‘ tereifa’ ?

And here we find an expression (as in a few other places in Sha”s); Shosik Rav’. Rav did not answer. He remained silent.

Does this mean that he agreed with them? Or did he not? If he kept his ground then why did he not respond?

We read the text of a note the Rebbe wrote and printed in a few Ma’amorim. The Rebbe Rashab and the Freidiker Rebbe explain that occasionally one comprehends something with clarity and conviction. It is as if he ‘see the concept’.

And yet, despite being convinced of its truth, he cannot explain it. His ability to rationalize his understanding to others is not developed. ‘Chochma that has not descended to Bina’. As an example they quote our Gemara where Rav simply did not answer the question.

This was not out of a lack of substance to respond. As the Rebbe notes the Halacha, according to many is indeed like Rav, despite him being ‘apparently checkmated’ by his colleagues. So the the truth is indeed with Rav’s ruling despite his silence and our lack of understanding the rationale behind it.

He then quotes the Rama of Fanu  who writes that Rav’s silence was due to totally different reason. Rav was a Kabbalist and he knew the Halacha and its reasoning also based on ‘Pnimiyus Hatorah – Sod’. He thus refrained from revealing the secret reasoning as was the custom in those days to keep such matters under wraps.

[The Seder Hadoros writes that Rav was a ‘talmid muvhak’ of Reb Shimon Bar Yochai!]

4- Speaking of newborn calves we mentioned the Alter Rebbe pointing to certain Halachos that are probably never going to be encountered in a practical situation.

One is “ve’karkoso”. What does “ve’karkoso” mean?

Briefly, a child (human or animal) that passed thru the birth canal without touching the uterus! Is this child/calve a ‘bechor’?

Here is from chabad.org Tanya with Rabbi Wineberg’s O”H explanation.

וכרכתו כו׳, פרק ד׳ דחולין

and [detailed queries such as] “If she wrapped him…,” in ch. 4 ofChullin.⁹

The question discussed there is whether a firstborn animal can be considered to have directly “opened the womb” (and hence be sanctified) in either of two hypothetical cases. According to Rashi, it is a question of what happens if the person assisting in the birth entirely wraps up the animal as it is born. According to Rabbeinu Tam, the question involves a multiple birth, with a cow being born together with the firstborn bull, and wrapping itself completely around it — something extremely unlikely to ever occur.

Nevertheless, all these detailed queries were given to Moses at Sinai.

————-

We spoke about the recent medical events where a complete uterus was transplanted and the recipient conceived and gave birth.

see baby born from grandmothers donated womb

Is this child a ‘bechor’? He did indeed pass thru and come in contact with the uterus but not his mother’s! Is he considered his mother’s first offspring?

Next- assuming he is considered his mother’s first offspring, if this uterus came from a donor that had given birth already? This child may be his mother’s first but the uterus’s second…

Funny stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

Beitzah 5b,

1- We studied the text of the Kesef Mishna regarding the opposing opinions of the Rambam and the Ra’avad regarding a 2nd Beis Din overturning a prior Beis Din’s Takanah – an enactment by a Beis Din based on a particular reason.

Now years later the reason is no longer valid:  All agree that the enactment – Takanah/Gezeira- does not simply disappear on its own. Another competent Beis Din needs to convene and take a vote to revoke the Takanah.

The question is whether the second Beis Din needs to be greater in “intelligence and count” גדול בחכמה ובמנין – than the original Beis Din that enacted the Takanah to begin with with.

The Rambam’s opinion is that it needs to surpass the previous Beis Din whereas the Ra’avad disagrees and rules that any Beis Din can reverse a previous ruling if the original reason and cause of the Takanah is no longer applicable.

See previous Shiur where the students of Reb Eliezer make him aware of a Takanah that was reversed by Reb Yochanon ben Zakai. 

The Ra’avad’s point is that surely Reb Yochanon ben Zakai was not greater than the originators of this particular Takanah. And yet he did reverse his predecessor’s proving his point that when the reason no longer exists any Beis Din can rescind it.

2- Interestingly, the Kesef Mishna attempts to defend the Rambam’s position by saying “and who says that Reb Yochanon ben Zakai was not greater than the Beis Din that originally enacted this Takanah?”

He then goes into a lengthy historical themed argument based on the Gemara that Hillel had eighty students. The greatest was Reb Yonason ben Uziel and Reb Yochanon ben Zakai being the “smallest”!

So Reb Yochanon ben Zakai was indeed “smaller”… So is the Ra’avad correct?

But, he says, that  Reb Yochanon ben Zakai was also well versed in all areas of knowledge including the “conversations of demons…” etc.

So perhaps his knowledge in comparison to his colleagues was ‘small’ in areas not of Torah.

The fact is that from all 80 students of Hillel it was Reb Yochanon ben Zakai who succeeded Hilled as Nasi!

3- We discussed the Takanahs that had a set time limit on inception. Such as “do not drink the water from this well until Pesach”.

Pesach passes – do we need an Beis Din to recind this Takanah or is it self expired.

Rashi elsewhere is Shas seems to say that we do, whereas Tosfos in our Mesechta is in the opinion that we do not.

4- In passing we mentioned the connection of our Gemora to the religious Zionist Mizrachi movement. 

One of their basic points (as opposed to all others in the Chareidi camp) was that the Beis Hamikdosh can be built even before the coming of Moshiach. They based this belief on a Yerushalmi of which the first part is quoted in our Gemara.

The words of the Yerushalmi: Said Reb Acha “this means that the Temple will be rebuilt before the kingship of the house of David.”

See here from the Satmar site:

The Zionists, however, have found one source that seems to say that the Temple will be built before Moshiach. The Torah says that the fruits from the fourth year in the life of a fruit-bearing tree must be eaten in Jerusalem. But if the owner wishes, he may transfer the holiness of the fruits onto money, bring the money to Jerusalem, buy food and eat it there.

The Rabbis enacted that within a one-day radius of Jerusalem, the fruits themselves and not their monetary equivalent must be brought, so as to beautify the streets of Jerusalem with fruit.

When the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem fell into the hands of the Romans, there was no longer any need to beautify it, so the Rabbis suspended their decree and allowed the redemption of the fruits with money. However, they stipulated that whenever the Temple would be rebuilt, the decree would automatically come back into force (Mishnah Maaser Sheini 5:2). The Talmud Yerushalmi says, “This means that the Temple will be rebuilt before the kingship of the house of David.”

5- We spoke where the Rebbe mentions another Yerushalmi  that was also used as a basis for the outlook of religious Zionism.

The Rebbe points out that surely the Rambam was well aware of this Yerushalmi and yet he rules that Moshiach will come prior to the building of the Beis Hamikdosh’.

See here. Footnote 51,  3rd paragraph.

 

 

 

 

Beitzah 5a

1- We continue concerning the situation after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash.

Being no longer concerned about wreaking havoc in the performance of rituals in the Beis Hamikdosh, witnesses were now accepted all day. Rosh Hashana was still occasionally observed 2 days but only because of ‘doubt’,  not by Takana or edict.

On the 30th day of Elul people would observe the day as a ‘potential’ Rosh Hashana because perhaps witnesses may yet come forth. They would wait until the end of the day. If no one came to testify then the next day would be Rosh Hashana by default.

Since these two days would both be observed because of doubt, not a Takana, they are two separate entities and not a Yoma Arichtah.

2- The issue is how the previous Takana of not accepting witnesses after Mincha was rescinded.

The Gemara states that a Takana enacted by Beis Din may be rescinded only by annulment of Beis Din (“Davar she’b’Minyan Tzarich Minyan Acher l’Hatiro”). Without the annulment, the enactment will not be canceled even when the cause for the enactment is no longer extant.

So the problem is that when this Takana was rescinded by Reb Yochanan Ben Zakai he only rescinded the practice of not accepting witnesses after Mincha,  but he did not rescind the prohibition of the egg born on the first day Rosh Hashana.

3- In general, the above rule needs clarification as to when does this principle apply, and to what extent does it apply?

The example the Gemara uses is from the Takana concerning Kerem Revai.

Fruit that grows in the fourth year, following the three years of Orlah, is called Reva’i. The Torah refers to these fruits as Kodesh .  They must be brought to Yerushalayim and eaten there while one is in a state of purity.

Harvesting Orla – tools of the trade

Alternatively, one may be Podeh (redeem) the fruits for money, in which case the money equal to their value gains the status of the original fruits of Reva’i. This money likewise must be brought to Yerushalayim and spent there to purchase food which must be eaten while one is in a state of purity.

A  Takana was enacted that all fruits of farms within a day’s walk from Yerushalayim cannot be redeemed. The reason was to ‘beautify the markets of Yerushalayim’ by having  bountiful produce displayed in the markets. Obviously, after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh with goyim controlling the city there would be no need to bring the fruit into Yerushalayim.

Rebbi Eliezer lived many years after the destruction of the Beis ha’Mikdash.  To avoid the bother of hauling his fruit to Yerushalayim he wanted to renounce (mafkir) his ownership of his fruit in favor of the poor and they would bring it to Yerushalayim to eat.

His students told him that hefker is not needed to avoid bringing the fruit to Yerushalayim.

Why? Because ‘your fellow friends have already gathered and ruled that it is not necessary to bring the actual produce to Yerushalayim after the churban’.

The fact that they mentioned “your fellow friends have already gathered and ruled” shows that the removal of the reason alone for the enactment of a Takana is insufficient to have it rescinded.

A Beis Din would need to convene and rule to rescind it.

4- We began to read the opinions of the Rambam and the Ra’avad on this. Interesting Kesef Mishna next week bl”n.

 

 

 

Beitzah 4b-5a.

1- Now we turn to the topic of two days Rosh Hashanah.

Unlike all other Yomim Tovim, Rosh Hashana was occasionally observed as a two day Yom Tov not because of any doubt as to when the first day of Tishrei is.

Rather an enactment knowing full well that the first day of this Yom Tov was the 30th day of Elul and Rosh Hashanah is the following day! Nevertheless, despite it being not a ‘day of holiness’ it was observed.

Thus the two day Rosh Hashanah is considered as one long day.

Such an occurrence happened when the witnesses came to testify about seeing the new moon after the afternoon Korban Tamid. To accept their testimony would cause havoc in the Beis Hamikdosh.

Tamid

[We discussed this ‘havoc’ stated in our Gemare of the Leviyim singing a non-Rosh Hashanah song and the famous question of Tosfos that why not the say a greater issue of not bringing the Rosh Hashanah Musaf.]

 

As a result, Beis Din would not accept their testimony until the following day. By doing that it followed that the time until the witnesses arrived (and of course following it)  the day was deemed a ‘yom chol’. And yet it was declared that it be declared a Yom Tov.

In such a scenario two days were observed as Yom Tov. The first, the 30th of Elul and the second 1st of Tishrei. [Unlike what we have today that the two days of Rosh Hashana are the 1st and 2nd day of Tishrei.]

So if in Yerushalayim two days were observed not because of doubt but as a ‘vadai’ then people living far away also observed two day of Rosh Hashana not only based on doubt but as a ‘vadai’.  Thus our Rosh Hashanah is a “Yoma Arichtah’.

2- We spoke as to why we have two days Rosh Chodesh. If we follow the calendar we know that the first day of the new month is on the second day of Rosh Chodesh. So what’s the purpose of the first day ‘Rosh’ Chodesh?

See here one answer quoted by the Chido.

Briefly- a new moon appears every 29 and 1/2 days.

In reality, should the new moon appear in the middle of the 30th day we should split the 30th day in half and allocate the first half to the previous month and the second to the next month. But that is obviously not practical.

So in a full month, when the moon appears in the middle of the 30th day we declare Rosh Chodesh to be the following day (the 31st) but still observe the 30th as Rosh Chodesh because the actual reappearance occurred on the 3oth day.

3- The Gemara says that after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh  Raban Yochanan ben Zakai’s reinstated the practice that witnesses who come to testify about the sighting of the new moon are accepted by Beis Din all day long, even after the time of Minchah.

The only time two days of Rosh Hashanah were observed now that the original enactment is no longer in effect is when the doubt which day is really the first of the month.

4- We spoke about the practice in Eretz Yisroel after the establishment of the calendar by Hllel II concerning Rosh Hashanah. We find that some Rishonim say that only one day was kept!

 

 

Beitzah 5b.

1- Interesting Gemara giving one a glimpse into the life of Jews outside Eretz Yisroel after the Churban prior to the establishment and acceptance of a universal ‘Luach’ – calendar.

Here are the dates of our topic:

The calendar was established approximately(according to most opinions) in the year 4100 .

Our Gemara refers to an argument that occurred in Bavel 100 years or so before the acceptance of the calendar when it was common to observe two days of Yom Tov.

Living in Bavel meant that on a typical Rosh Chodesh one was unaware as to what day was established as Rosh Chodesh in Eretz Yisroel. Was it on the 30th day of the previous month or the 31st? Thus all observed two days of Yom Tov.

Remember the key: Historically all who lived far away from Yerusholayim observed two days of Yom Tov. Just as we, today, observe two day despite us following the calendar.

 

The question is if  these two days were originally observed because it was so enacted by the Beis Din (Takana) to keep two days (as one) or it was rather an ad-hoc Minhag by default due to the uncertainty (safek) of when Rosh Chodesh was established in Yerusholayim.

Is there a practical difference? Yes!

For example, if prior to the Luach being established, a town had astronomers with the knowledge to mathematically calculate when the new moon could be seen and therefore conclude when the Beis Din in Yerushalayim ‘sanctified’ Rosh Chodesh.

This particular town still needed to keep two days Yom Tov of course. But the second day was really a non Yom Tov according to their calculation and therefore Havdala needed to be made at the end of day one! 

Here is the logic:

If the two-day-Yom-Tov was a Takana by Beis Din then such calculations are cast aside. Regardless of the mathematics one must keep two days with no Havdala between them.  More so – both days are considered as one long Yom Tov day. 

On the other hand if the reason a two-day-Yom-Tov was practiced was only because that is what frum people do when in doubt (safek) ….. they go lechumra [without an edict from Beis Din] and in order to be certain that Matzah is eaten on Pesach proper they ate Matzah on both of the two days…

– so if Beis Din never ruled to keep two days, if they are not in doubt, such as an occurrence of a definitive calculation, the two-day-Yom-Tov practice is redundant and one day is kept as real Yom Tov and the second just observed as Yom Tov and as a consequence Havdala must to be made between the two days.

2- Reb Zeira offers proof to the opinion that all Jews in exile keep two day as a result of a non reversible Takana.

The fact is that today that we have an established calendar and thus we all are ‘groise chachomin’ and accomplished astronomers…. as to when Rosh Chodesh is.

So why do we keep two days? Obviously it is because a strict two day Yom Tov Takana was enacted [way back in history when Jews moved away from Yerusholayim to a distance of more than 15 days of travel]  and cannot be changed even when we accepted to follow the mathematical calendar.

Therefore even before the establishment of the calendar one must keep two days (as one) as part of the Takana even if one knows when the real Rosh Chodesh is.

3- Abaye on the other hand brings proof from a Mishna, RH 2,1, that it was never a Takona. Two days were kept only as a sofek.

 

Originally [they had no need to send out messengers to inform the people of the new moon, rather,] they used to light a series of torches [which, when sighted, was a sign of the new moon] but when the heretics [Kusim]  perverted [justice and tried to mislead the people by lighting their own torches] they enacted that messengers should go forth [to announce the new moon].

Had the Kusim stopped causing this problem and the torches would be seen all the way into Bovel then it would have reverted back to keeping only one day. This is proof that there never was a Takana two keep two days. It was only kept as a sofek.

If, according to Abaye,  no Takana was ever enacted, and it all was because of a sofek which can be reversed once the situation changes, so why today, when we follow the calendar do we keep two days?

The Gemore explains that it is because ‘Minhag Avoiseihem’ for a reason that we will learn next week.

4- We mentioned two Seforim that were written as an encyclopedia enumerating what Mitzvah is min Hatorah or mid’Derabonon.

Here they are:

http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/41926

 

http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/31452

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beitzah 4b

1 We discussed the curious case of the fellow who planned a BBQ on Yom Tov. Prior to Yom Tov he prepared and placed firewood into the BBQ pit with the intention to fire them up before the meal.

On Yom Tov twigs and branches fell from a tree into the BBQ pit. The amount of the new and unprepared Muktze wood was more than the prepared firewood that was originally in the BBQ.

They only way the mixed pile of wood can be used is by adding stored logs that he had prepared before Yom Tov to the fire. By adding this permissible non-Muktze into the pit the majority of the firewood would now be non-Muktze!

 

The issue the Gemara discusses is the universal concept of Ein Mevatlin Issur Le’chatchila.

 אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה

If the kosher food unintentionally falls into the non-kosher food then the rule of Bitul applies.

But, one may not intentionally  add Kosher permissible items into non-kosher food or into a kosher and non-kosher mixture (with the majority being non kosher) in order the raise the amount/volume of kosher to nullify (Mevatel) the non-kosher.

2- We discussed the wide ranging ramifications of this rule.

a- if the adding was done not with the intention of Bitul. See a previous shiur on the baby food company that after manufacturing trief food makes a ‘run’ of kosher food. A hechsher is granted  (amongst other reason) because when this run is completed the treif food imbedded in the machinery is nullified. But that is not the intention of Beech Nut.

b- One has a treifa piece of meat and wants to give it to his non-Jewish neighbor. In order to make this gift more substantial can he add two more glatt kosher steaks and wrap them all together?

Let’s think; if the pieces of meat are indistinguishable… in theory the gift of the three steaks are now all kosher!!  (2 kosher vs 1 trief). Not that all can be eaten simultaneously and/or by one person. See here. See here. He was Mevatel an Issur Lechatchilo, created a kosher gift but not with the intention to be consumed. Is this permitted?

c-  adding to the mixture to nullify prior to the non-kosher food becoming non-kosher. How?

A product that has an ingredient of chometz. On Pesach it would be prohibited (Bitul is ineffective on Pesach) but one can be Mevatel this chometz before Pesach because chometz is not considered ‘prohibited’/ assur prior to Pesach. (As Berel points out, that’s why people boil their sugar before Pesach).

d- Ein Mevatlin Issur Le’chatchila – Min Hatora or MideRabonon?

e- Adding kosher schach onto a sukka that has pasul schach (for example, it has branches hanging down).

See here – schach  הגהה בסעיף ט.

.4- We spoke about the logic of this halacha. Some suggest that if one would be permitted  to add more and more kosher volume into a non kosher food until the majority becomes kosher, then we would be in effect nullifying the entire idea of non-kosher food.

Imagine every cholent to be made with one part bacon and sixty parts kishke…….or adding two rolls of tuna sushi to every roll of (identical looking) crab fish sushi……

3- We discussed  at length the brilliant idea of the Chidushei Hari”m.

The author was the founder of the Gerer dynasty.

His reasoning for  Ein Mevatlin Issur Le’chatchila goes as follows:

There is a general prohibition in dealing with non kosher food. Treifa food business is prohibited unless it is ‘Nizdamnu‘ – meaning that the treifa food ‘happened‘ to come into the Jew’s possession. Only then can one sell this non kosher food.

This is the Heter of the kosher abattoirs (shlacht houses) to sell the animals that are found to be trief. (over 75% of the animal including the hindquarter) This is a real case of ‘Nizdamnu‘ – נזדמנו.

We discussed the various aspects of this rule:

• We see  frum people drive a Boar’s Head route.
• Jewish fur trappers selling the flesh of the skinned beavers and foxes.
• 
• Related the story of my father when he imported once, as part of his pearl business, cans of oysters that contained a pearl.

So, concludes the Chidushei Hari”m, when one has non-kosher food (in a mixture or as stand alone) by permitting the practice of adding more kosher food to make it entirely kosher you are basically allowing him to make a ‘gesheft’ with non-kosher food!

One can gift the non-kosher food to a goy of course. But to allow intentional Bitul on an ongoing basis is allowing him to benefit in a business-like manner.

Hillel creator of the fixed Calendar

4- We began the sugya of two days of YomTov and the establishment of calendar we use to this date.