Resources for Beitzah daf 25

Daf A Week
PDF

מראה מקומות

Rabbi Yitzchok Gutterman

  1. The גמרא says that it is אסור משום גזל to take found birds that were tied together or shaken. רש"י explains that the original owner was קונה the birds with הגבהה. תוספות in ד"ה המקושרין disagrees since the גמרא never says anything about a הגבהה. Rather, תוספות explain that the original owner was קונה the birds by just looking at them, coupled with his having tied or shaken them. See the שיטה מקובצת here who says that רש"י must hold that although we didn’t see a הגבהה, we assume that he must have been מגביה the birds in order to tie them. The שיטה מקובצת also asks why both תוספות and רש"י don’t just say he was קונה them when they were within his 4 אמות (with קנין חצר presumably)? He answers that we are also discussing a רשות הרבים where that קנין doesn’t work.
  1. The גמרא discusses the מחלוקת תנאים regarding the slaughter of a בהמה מסוכנת on יו"ט, whether you need to be able to eat a כזית צלי or a כזית in raw form suffices. See the אפיקי ים ח"ב סימן י"ד ד"ה מכבר who explains theirמחלוקת is centered around the nature of the תורה’s heter of מלאכת אוכל נפש, namely what is considered an אכילה? Do we include an אכילה שלא כדרכה or not? The ת"ק must hold that you need a real אכילה and ר"ע does not.

In a somewhat related issue, the גמרא said you must be able to eat a כזית. See the גליוני הש"ס who asks: where did the שיעור of כזית come from? כזית is usually a שיעור for אכילה. On יו"ט, however, one is allowed to do מלאכה even if you just get הנאה from it, and there is no שיעור of כזית for הנאה?!  He leaves it as a צ"ע. See the טורי אבן מגילה ז' who seems to understand that our גמרא is לאו דוקא when it says כזית and just means any amount.

  1. The גמרא says that a בהמה בחייה בחזקת איסור עומדת. Which איסור is the גמרא referring to? רש"י says it refers to the איסור of אבר מן החי. תוספות in ד"ה בחזקת איסור argue and say how could that be the איסור when that איסור completely goes away with the animal’s death. Rather, תוספות say the איסור being referred to is אינו זבוח. See the רשב"א חולין דף ט' ד"ה הבהמה who explains that רש"י must hold of a concept called מחזיקין מאיסור לאיסור. Therefore, when the animal was alive it had a חזקת איסור ofאבר מן החי and now that it died, it automatically gets a חזקת נבילה even though there was no time where we knew it was in fact a נבילה. If, however, it was shechted properly and then got a ספק טריפה, it would be considered בחזקת היתר since there was definitely a מעשה המכשיר.
  1. The גמרא concludes that when רמי בר חמא said a person first needs to do הפשט וניתוח on his meat before eating, it was just saying it מדרך מוסר and not as an absolute requirement. The question is as follows: there is an איסור brought by the ירושלמי and many ראשונים (as well as by the שו"ע) that while we do not always need to check for the י"ח טריפות, a person must always check the lungs of an animal for סירכאות as they are very common. If so, why is the גמרא suggesting that רמי בר חמא’s הלכה is justמדרך מוסר? There is a real חיוב to do הפשט וניתוח so one can check the lungs?! In fact, see the רא"ש סימן ד' who proves from this גמרא that if the lungs got lost before they were checked, בדיעבד one can eat the meat. This almost highlights the question even more: if there is a חיוב, at least לכתחילה, to check the lungs, why did the גמרא say that רמי בר חמא was just giving a מוסר vort? See the פּני יהושע who says that the obligation to check the lungs is only for a בהמה גסה but not for a בהמה דקה. The גמרא understood thatרמי בר חמא was saying his הלכה by all animals, and therefore it must have been justמדרך מוסר. לכאורה, this would not seem to work with the רא"ש.

-------------------------------------------------------

Click below to download daf summary by Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz (in PDF)