Beitzah 3aביצה ג׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Beitzah 3a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
3aג׳ א

גזרה שמא יעלה ויתלוש היא גופה גזרה ואנן ניקום ונגזור גזרה לגזרה כולה חדא גזרה היא

It is a decree lest one climb the tree and pick the fruit, as this would constitute the prohibited labor of harvesting. If so, the prohibition against eating fruit is itself due to a decree. And will we arise and issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree? Rav Yosef responded: That is not so; rather, when the Sages issued the initial decree, they enacted the prohibitions against both fruit that fall and a laid egg, as all the prohibitions are components of one decree. In other words, the similar cases of the fruit and the egg were both included in the original decree.

רבי יצחק אמר גזרה משום משקין שזבו

Rabbi Yitzḥak said a different reason: An egg that was laid on a Festival is prohibited as a decree due to liquids that seeped from the fruit (Eiruvin 39b), which is prohibited on that day. The legal status of an egg that was laid on a Festival is like that of liquids that seeped from a fruit on a Festival.

אמר ליה אביי משקין שזבו טעמא מאי גזרה שמא יסחוט היא גופה גזרה ואנן ניקום ונגזור גזרה לגזרה כולה חדא גזרה היא

Abaye said to him: With regard to liquid that seeped from fruit, what is the reason that the Sages prohibited it? It is a decree lest one purposely squeeze the fruit, and thereby perform the prohibited labor of threshing. However, the prohibition against consuming this juice is itself a rabbinic decree. And will we arise and issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree? Rabbi Yitzḥak replied: All the prohibitions are components of one decree. When the Sages prohibited this juice, they banned the eating of an egg laid on a Festival for the same reason, as the actions are similar.

כולהו כרב נחמן לא אמרי כי קושיין כרבה נמי לא אמרי הכנה לית להו

As various explanations have been offered for this mishna, the Gemara seeks to clarify why each Sage was dissatisfied with the other explanations and suggested an alternative. The Gemara says: All of them, Rabba, Rav Yosef, and Rabbi Yitzḥak, did not state their explanations in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, as stated in our previously stated objection to Rav Naḥman’s explanation. The other Sages also did not state their explanations in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as they do not accept that there is a Torah prohibition of using items whose preparation was from Shabbat to a Festival or from a Festival to Shabbat.

אלא רב יוסף מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבי יצחק אמר לך ביצה אוכלא ופירות אוכלא לאפוקי משקין דלאו אוכלא

However, the following question arises: Since Rav Yosef provides an explanation that is similar to that of Rabbi Yitzḥak, what is the reason that he did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak? The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: An egg is food, and fruit is food, i.e., an egg is comparable to fruits that fall. This observation would serve to exclude juice, which is not food but drink. Consequently, an egg is not comparable to juice and would not be included in the same decree.

ורבי יצחק מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב יוסף אמר לך ביצה בלועה ומשקין בלועין לאפוקי פירות דמגלו וקיימו

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And with regard to Rabbi Yitzḥak, what is the reason that he did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the case of an egg is more similar to juices that seep from fruit. How so? An egg is enclosed inside a chicken before it is laid, and likewise juice is enclosed inside the fruit. This observation serves to exclude fruits that fall from a tree, which are standing exposed on the tree. Therefore, the comparison between fruits that fall and an egg is weaker than the comparison between liquid that seeped from fruit and an egg.

ואף רבי יוחנן סבר גזרה משום משקין שזבו דרבי יוחנן רמי דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה ומשני

§ The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds that the prohibition against eating an egg laid on a Festival is a decree due to liquid that seeped from fruit. What proof can be cited for this? It is proven as Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and a different statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and he resolved the apparent contradiction in a manner that indicates his own opinion.

תנן אין סוחטין את הפירות להוציא מהן משקין ואם יצאו מעצמן אסורין רבי יהודה אומר אם לאוכלין היוצא מהן מותר ואם למשקין היוצא מהן אסור

The Gemara elaborates on the previous statement. We learned in a mishna (Shabbat 143b): One may not squeeze fruits to extract liquids from them on Shabbat, and if the liquids seeped out on their own, it is prohibited to use them on Shabbat, lest he come to squeeze fruits intentionally. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the fruit is designated for eating, e.g., apples, the liquid that seeps from them is permitted. Since there is no concern that one might squeeze the fruit, there is no reason to prohibit its liquid. And if the fruit was originally designated for liquids, such as grapes for wine, there are grounds for concern that one might squeeze them, and therefore the liquid that seeps from them is prohibited.

אלמא כל אוכלין לרבי יהודה אוכלא דאפרת הוא

From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda said that liquid from fruit intended for eating is permitted, one can infer that, apparently, all food that comes out of another food is classified as food that was separated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Food that was separated is not considered a new food, but part of the food that previously existed.

ורמינהו ועוד אמר רבי יהודה מתנה אדם על כלכלה של פירות ביום טוב ראשון

And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this from a different source: And Rabbi Yehuda said further, concerning untithed fruit, which may not be rendered fit to be eaten on a Festival by separating teruma and tithes from it (Eiruvin 39a): A person may stipulate a condition with regard to a basket of untithed fruit on the first day of a Festival, and say: If today is the true Festival day, the second Festival day is actually a weekday. Therefore, this fruit is permitted, once I separate tithes from it, as on any other weekday. And vice versa: If today is, in fact, a weekday, and tomorrow is the Festival, I hereby separate its tithes today.

ואוכלה בשני וכן ביצה שנולדה בראשון תאכל בשני

Likewise, on the following day, he should again stipulate: If today is a weekday and yesterday was holy, I hereby separate tithes from the fruit now; if today is holy and yesterday was a weekday, separating the tithes yesterday was sufficient. And he may then eat the produce on the second Festival day, as in either case no prohibition is involved. And similarly, an egg laid on the first Festival day may be eaten on the second day, regardless of which day is the actual Festival.

בשני אין בראשון לא ומשני רבי יוחנן מוחלפת השיטה

Rabbi Yehuda’s statement indicates that on the second day, yes, it is permitted to partake of the egg; but if the egg was laid on the first day, no, one may not eat it. If so, Rabbi Yehuda apparently contradicts himself, as he said previously that liquid from food prepared for eating has the same status as the food itself, and that its emergence is considered to be nothing more than the separation of two foods from each other. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolves the difficulty: The attribution of the opinions with regard to the second day of the Festival is reversed (Berakhot 17b), so that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion corresponds with his ruling above.

ומדקא מרמי להו אהדדי שמע מינה חד טעמא הוא

The significance of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement for the issue at hand is as follows: Since Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a contradiction between the cases of an egg and liquid that oozed, one may conclude from this that it is the same reason in both cases, i.e., an egg is prohibited on a Festival due to the rabbinic decree against liquid that oozed from fruit.