Resources for Beitzah daf 26

Daf A Week
PDF

מראה מקומות

Rabbi Yitzchok Gutterman

  1. The משנה says that רבי שמעון held one is not allowed to be רואה מומין on יו"ט. There is a great מחלוקת ראשונים as to the reasoning behind רבי שמעון’s ruling. רש"י says that it is נראה כמתקן as well as כדן דין (מהר''ם says these are two distinct reasons). תוספות on our דף agree to רש"י as to why אין רואין מומין ביו"ט. However, תוספות add that since a חכם can’t come and check it on יו"ט, a person is מקצה הבכור מדעתו and it is therefore מוקצה. See the רמב''ם הלכות יו"ט פּרק ב' הל' ג' who says the reason it is forbidden is a גזירה to prevent a situation where the חכם will be מתיר the animal without checking whether the blemish developed on יו"ט and resulting in its שחיטה even though it is מקצה. See the מגיד משנה there who brings another reason which is if it turns out the מום was a מום עובר, the חכם would have been מטלטל the item which, as it turns out, was מוקצה (the assumption is that it is nearly impossible to check a מום without moving the animal.) See theט"ז או"ח סימן תצ"ח ס"ק ט' who says that according to this, how could a רב pasken any שאלה on food, since if it’s אסור, it was מוקצה? He answers that a בכור is different in that it has a חזקת איסור, whereas typical food- שאלות have a חזקת היתר. The נפקא מינה would be a food with a חזקת איסור as a result of איסור falling in and then additional היתר fell in. The ט"ז says this would be forbidden to pasken on יו"ט.  See theביאור הלכה סימן תצ"ח ד"ה יכול לחקור who asks why food that you can’t eat would be מוקצה as it is still ראוי לכלבים? See theמשנה ברורה סימן תצ"ח ס"ק נ' who paskens that a רב can pasken any שאלה other than בכור. בכור is unique in that the psak itself is necessary to be מתיר If you were to shecht it without showing it to a חכם, it is אסור even if it turns out that it really had a מום. Therefore, it is similar to being מתקן as opposed to other איסורים which are just classified as ידיעת דבר.
  1. Regarding רש"י’s comment that seeing a מום would be כדן דין, see תוספות רבינו פּרץ who asks how can there be an issue of דן דין in this case?  דן דין is a גזרה that you might come to write as is done with most פּסקי דינים. However, in the case of checking a בכור it is not typical to write the result down, so the גזרה should not be relevant. (Perhaps רש"י had this question and therefore he offered two explanations.)
  1. The גמרא discusses whether יש מוקצה לחצי שבת או אין מוקצה לחצי שבת and in the end does not have a clear מסקנא. See the רא"ש סימן ז', as well as almost every other ראשון, who says that the גמרא’s question is only whether you could consume/use the item, however touching/handling is definitely מותר.  See the אגלי טל, טוחן, ס"ק מ' who explains that the איסור טלטול is a גזירה אטו הוצאה, whereas using or consuming מוקצה is learned from the פּסוק of והיכינו את אשר יביאו as רש"י writes here in ד"ה ואי דלא. Therefore, it is more חמור. (Similarly, we saw in the previous דף where רב said that רשב"ג was not concerned with ספק מוכן and was only referring to touching it, not eating it.) See also תוספות ישנים דף ג' who says that the reason ספק מוכן  is אסור is that we treatמוקצה  as if it was מדאורייתא. The issue then becomes the pask—in other words, our גמרא doesn’t come out with a clear מסקנא as to whether יש מוקצה לחצי שבת או אין מוקצה לחצי שבת. If this מוקצה is actually learned out of a פּסוק, then it may be מדאורייתא, in which case we should be מחמיר שיש מוקצה לחצי שבת.  However, even though רש"י quotes a פּסוק, see the מהרש"ל here who just says it is an אסמכתא בעלמא. See also the רא"ש סימן ז' who says that we can apply the principle of בדברי סופרים הולך אחר המקיל.

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

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