Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 7, scan section 3

it anonymous) according to R. Jehudah ? This is no question. Relating to Sabbath, which is so rigorous that it has a capital punishment and there is no fear that anyone will dare to dis- regard its rules, therefore Rabbi made an anonymous Mishna in accordance with the more lenient R. Simeon ; but relating to festivals, which have no capital punishment at all, and the rules are lenient, for fear that otherwise they may be disre- garded. Rabbi made an anonymous Mishna in accordance with R. Jehudah. Now, then, if the Mishna means a hen which is kept for laying eggs, and the reason that the school of Hillel prohibit it, is be- cause the Qgg is Muktzah, why do they not differ about the hen itself? (whether it is permitted to eat it or not). Therefore said Rabba : The Mishna refers to a hen kept for eating, and to a festival which falls after Sabbath ; and the teaching of the school of Hillel is not for the reason of Muktzah, but of preparation ; i.e., an tgg which is laid to-day Rabba is certain that it was ripe the preceding day, and it is in accordance with his theory, thus : It is written [Ex. xvl. 5] : '* And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, when th^y prepare what they shall have brought in " ; i.e., only on a week-day shall anything be prepared for the Sabbath or for festivals, but nothing should be prepared on a festival for the Sabbath, and vice versa. Said Abayi to Rabba : Let it then be permitted on a festival which does not come after Sabbath, and he answered : It is as a precautionary measure for the festival which falls after Sabbath. TRACT BETZAH (YOM TOB). 3 Said Abayl again : Let it then be permitted on a Sabbath, and he rejoined again : It is a precautionary measure for the Sabbath which falls after a festival. Said Abayi again : Do we take such precautionary measures? Have we not learned in a Boraitha : If one kills a hen on a festival and finds in it ripe eggs, he is per- mitted to eat them ? Now, if such precautionary measures are taken, why should not the same precautionary measure be taken for the above eggs, for fear lest one eat new-laid eggs ? Rabba again rejoined : Ripe eggs in the entrails of a hen are not a usual occurrence, and for an unusual occurrence no precautionary meas- ures are taken. R. Joseph, however, said that (the prohibition of eating an egg from a hen kept for eating) is as a precautionary meas- ure lest one may eat fruit which has fallen from a tree on Sabbath. R. Itz'hak said that the precautionary measure is taken lest one drink the beverages which flow from a tree on Sab- bath. From the following teaching we learn that R. Johanan agrees with R. Joseph's opinion, viz. : R. Johanan found R. Je- hudah contradicting himself, namely : We have learned in a Mishna in Sabbath, one may not press fruit to derive beverage from it ; and even if the beverage flowed of itself, it is prohibited. R. Jehudah, however, said : If the fruit was for the purpose of eating, the beverage which flows from it is permitted, and if the fruit was for beverage, the latter is not permitted. From this we see that although the beverage which flows from the fruit was not prepared on the preceding day, its use is nevertheless permitted ; and in another place we find that the same R. Jehudah said, *' that an egg which was laid on one festival day may be eaten on the second festival day" — on the second, but not on the first. This contradicts his first dictum, that the beverage may be used on the same day. And R. Johanan answered about this contra- diction thus : Say, that it is on the contrary, that not R. Jehu- dah permits to drink the beverage, but the first Tana in the above Mishna. Now, when R. Johanan contradicted the teaching con- cerning the beverage and the egg, we must say that the prohibi- tion of both is for one and the same reason. Rabbina the son of R. Ula said : It is not so. R. Jehudah, who says that the egg must be eaten on the second day, and not on the first, refers to a case where the hen was kept for laying eggs only, and this is according to his theory of Muktzah. An objection was raised from the following Boraitha : An egg which was laid on Sabbath or on a festival day must not be 4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. handled to cover a vessel with it, or to support the foot of a bed with it. It is permitted, however, to cover it with a vessel to prevent it from breaking. If it is doubtful whether the egg was laid on that day or not, it is also disallowed to use it. Should it become mixed in even with a thousand eggs, all the eggs are pro- hibited to be used on that day. It is right according to Rabba's teaching, who says that w^hen the egg is prohibited for the reason of preparation, which is biblical, therefore a doubtful egg must not be used because it is doubtful according to a biblical law, and all doubts about biblical ordinances must be decided more rigorously ; but according to R. Joseph and R. Itz'hak, who say that it is prohibited only as a precautionary measure, why then is it not allowed to use the doubtful egg that is so only according to a rabbinical ordinance, and all doubts concerning rabbinical ordinances must be decided more leniently ? The latter part of the Boraitha means that it was doubtful whether it was laid by a hen biblically forbidden to be eaten {e.^., sick or crippled). If it is so, how will the latter part of this Boraitha, '' if it were mixed in even with a thousand eggs, all are prohibited," be explained? It would be right if there were a doubt whether it was laid on a week-day or on a festival, where the prohibition is temporary (because on the morrow all may be eaten) ; and there is a rule when anything is temporarily prohibited, if it is mixed in with a thousand, the prohibition remains, but if the egg was doubtful to be from a biblically forbidden hen (in which case the prohibi- tion remains in force always), then if it is mixed in with other eggs, why should they all be invalid ? Let it be ignored as against the majority? (that one egg be removed, and the remaining should be used). The assumption that an egg is a thing of value, and therefore must not be ignored, would apply only to those who say that all things usually counted must not be ignored ; but what can be said to those who say that only things which are always sure to be counted may be ignored ? (This objection remains.) R. Ashi said : The meaning of '' doubtfulness " in the Borai- tha is, whether it is a week or festival day, it is nevertheless prohibited to use it, although according to R. Joseph and R. Itz'hak it is only a rabbinical doubt, because the prohibition is only temporary, and in case of a temporary prohibition even a rabbinical one must wait till the prohibition is over.