Beitza 10a-b. (2)

1- We learned the Mishna regarding one who chose birds on Erev Yom Tov to be shechted on Yom Tov and finds that the ones he selected have been replaced by others. For example ‘he prepared white ones and found black ones’.

 

In such a case the Gemara explains it is obvious that the black ones are not the the white ones that he prepared. So the Mishna must be talking about a case where he prepared white and black ones. In the morning he finds the same amount of blacks and whites but that perhaps they switched places.

The question revolves on whether we can make assumptions that the ones he found are indeed – albeit the change of place, the ones he had designated.

2- We mentioned the humorous headline in a Torah journal in the mid 60’s when the the Maccabees, predecessors of the Shomrim/Shmira, organized by Reb Shmuel Shrage were accused of attacking white gangs despite their stated goal of protecting Crown Heights from the marauding gangs of color.

 

The headline:  ” זמן שחורים ומצא לבנים”

Found this on-line:

http://crownheights.info/something-jewish/498685/heres-my-story-the-maccabees/

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19641216&id=q28sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wcsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7242,2981696&hl=en

http://www.nytimes.com/1964/06/09/racism-minimized-in-crown-heights.html

3- So we have a dilemma. Are these black and whites the ones chosen yesterday and they just switched places. Or perhaps the ones chosen had flown away and these are different ones and hence muktzeh.

The Gemara introduces the concept of ‘rov and korov‘. Meaning when two methods of resolving doubt clash and come to different conclusion.

An example is precisely our discussion. We are presented a case of doubt of whether these birds are the original ones or new ones. One can resolve this problem in two logical ways with opposite conclusions.

a- ‘Rov’- Majority. The odds are that these are different birds simply because there are millions of free roaming birds.

b- ‘Korov’ – proximity. In our case, these birds although being found not exactly where they were originally placed, nevertheless they are/were closer than any other ‘birds of the world’. So ‘korov’ would imply that we can assume that these are indeed the ones chosen yesterday.

Reb Chanina is the one who posited that one follows ‘rov’ and not ‘korov’.

4- ‘Prepared 3 and found 2’.

Here the issue is whether the 2 are of the the original set of 3 or 2 new ones.

To be continued next week IY”H.

5- Speaking of the laws of ‘egla arufa’ we mentioned Reb Shimshon of Chinon, France. His popular book is ‘Sefer Hakrisus‘. Here

At the very end of this sefer he poses a famous question:

The Torah prohibits the plowing of a field where the ‘egla arufa’ was beheaded. So why do we not suspect that every field is perhaps one had an ‘egla arufa’ process right there!

We cannot follow the concept of ‘rov‘ (most fields in the world did obviously not have this performed on it) because of the rule of ‘kovua‘! So basically all fields have a 50-50 chance (in theory) of being prohibited to be plowed and planted.

 

 

Beitza 10a.

1- Mishna discusses the process of identifying fowl (on erev Yom Tov) that one will use on Yom Tov. Bais Shamai’s opinion is that one must pick up and shake the actual bird(s) and thereby remove their ‘muktze’ status. [shake before you bake…]

Beis Hillel permits one to designate the birds for use on Yom Tov merely by naming them verbally.

2- Our Gemara discusses the requirement of Bais Hillel in identifying the actual bird one plans to shecht. It is insufficient to merely generally state “I will take some of these birds” and then choose the actual ones on Yom Tov.

The Gemara delves into the concept of Breira. Meaning, subsequent decisions can under certain circumstances be retroactively applied to change or clarify the nature and Jewish-law consequences of prior events.

If follows that if Breira would apply here one would be allowed to merely ‘choose a group of birds’ and on Yom Tov itself select individual ones. This selection would retroactively be considered to have taken place prior to Yom Tov.

3- The case of Breira quoted by our Gemara concerning ‘sof ha’tumah lotzeis’. The path of a deceased body on the way to burial is considered ‘tamei’ rendering all overhead rooms, halls, arches and doors to be tamei. If Breira applies here then by choosing a particular path after the person has dies this choice is valid retroactively and all other paths are tahor.

4- We mentioned the story of the sefer Ohr Hameir by Reb Meir Shapiro. Reb Meir having attended the Rebbe’s wedding gave the Rebbe a copy of his book as a wedding gift . See here page 367 (376)  http://www.chabadlibrary.org/books/pdf/mbhg-h.pdf for the inscription.

The Rebbe once quoted this sefer at a Farbreingen in 1971.

5- The first teshuva in this sefer concerns a tragic accident in an attic of a shul where a grinding machine(?)  chewed off the arm of its user causing a partial collapse to the attic etc.

The question was if Kohanim were to be allowed into this shul least the severed arm is still intact under the rubble rendering the entire shul as tamei. He points out that even if the attic is a separate entity and the arm in the attic has no effect on the main beis medrash nevertheless the path the arm will follow to its burial will pass through the shul!

6- We spoke about the halacha quoted by the Rama in the name of the Trumas Hadashen (previous shiur regarding chickens laying an egg bein hasmashos…) that prohibits Kohanim from traveling on a bridge where a funeral will be passing. The concept of ‘sof ha’tumah lotzeis’ creates a tumah under every door, gate, arch or bridge that is in the path of the planned funeral route.

7- We mentioned a case of a family that wanted to delay a funeral of a deceased family member and kept the body in their apartment (as opposed to storing it in a funeral home). The issue is that all the kohanim in that complex would basically become homeless until the funeral procession.

Can the neighbors protest? See here. End of sk4.

Beitzah 9a-b. (2)

1- Our Gemara goes through the 7 Machlokos of Bais Shamai and Beis Hillel pertaining to Yom Tov where in two of them Beis Shamai is more lenient.

(Here is a list from a Mishna in Ediyos (perek daled) specifiying where Beis Shamai is more lenient then Beis Hillel).

2- We spoke about the famous Sicha of the Rebbe where he states that although the Torah was given on Shabbos (and one of the  Aseres Hadibros is about Shabbos) and Shabbos has to be a 24-hour period, the hours following Matan Torah were not considered Shabbos!

So the rest of Shabbos day after Matan Torah was considered a weekday!

Thus the first observed Shabbos was only the Shabbos after Matan Torah!

3- Based on the above, in a footnote in this Sicha (47*) the Rebbe explains a perplexing Mishnah Brura. 12.

The Mishnah Brura writes that he “heard from a Gadol that the reason we eat milchigs on Shavuot is because after Matan Torah having just received  the new laws of shechita etc. it would have taken time to shecht and cook. So the food they ate was milchigs”. 

But, the Rebbe asks, was not Matan Torah given on Shabbos? So regardless one would be prohibited to shecht on Shabbos?

Based upon the idea above that after Matan Torah there was no ‘din of Shabbos’ had the laws of shechita been known, shechita would have been indeed permitted!

4- We mentioned that in some later editions of the Mishnah Brura there is a page of “corrections’ by the author [Luach Hatikun]. One of the correction is that this idea of the Gadol is vexing because since Matan Torah was on Shabbos even if the laws of the preparation of meat were familiar, the schechita would have been prohibited.

Gut Shabbos Gut Yom Tov.