The Elliot B. Sitt edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Masechet Beitzah, has been dedicated anonymously for the refuah sheleimah of Meir ben Esther. We recite the prayer: "El na refa na lo, El na refa na lo, El na refa na lo," for the healing of all the sick among the people of Israel, Amen. Furthermore, Masechet Beitzah has also been dedicated for the elevation of the soul of Sarah bat Mazal. May the spirit of the Lord rest in the Garden of Eden, Amen. We bless our anonymous sponsor that, with the help of God, he should be blessed with long life, health, wealth, and honor, and may he merit in the near future to raise a family and continue all his good work for the community, Amen. Today's daf has been dedicated for the refuah sheleimah of Esther bat Leah. We again recite, "El na refa na la, El na refa na la, El na refa na la," for the healing of body and soul, may healing come soon, and let it be His will, and we say, Amen.
We begin today's daf on Kaf Vav Amud Bet, and we are right at the bottom line. We concluded yesterday's daf with a question that Rav Hillel asked Rava: "Is there muktzeh for half of Shabbat or is there no muktzeh for half of Shabbat?" What does this question entail? It concerns an item that entered Shabbat permissible, but then on Shabbat became muktzeh, and then became usable again. A classic case involves a person who had fruit drying on his roof. When bein ha-shmashot arrived, the fruit was already dry and edible. However, if it started to rain, the fruit would become inedible. If the sun came out again and dried it, it would become edible once more. The question is, during that time in the middle of Shabbat when the fruit became muktzeh, does it remain muktzeh for the rest of Shabbat? This leads to two possibilities: "Is there muktzeh for half of Shabbat?" or "Is there no muktzeh for half of Shabbat?" Once it entered Shabbat permissible, even if it temporarily became muktzeh, once it is edible again, it is mutar.
To explore this, the Gemara cites a proof. Rabbi Zeira states: "Come and listen to this: Pulin and adashim." Pulin refers to beans. The proof begins with the premise that these items were customarily cooked on Yom Tov. When raw, they are edible, as Rashi explains, "they are fit for chewing." What happens next? When placed in the pot to cook, for a moment they become unfit for consumption because they are boiling. Thus, they start off permissible, then become muktzeh when boiling, and after the cooking process, they become permissible again. This demonstrates that even if on Yom Tov itself there was a moment when they were muktzeh, once they cool off, they become edible again. Thus, we conclude that there is "no muktzeh for half of Shabbat."
To further this discussion, Abaye challenges this reasoning by asking about regular pots of food on Shabbat. He points out that when entering Shabbat, every pot of food is boiling hot and therefore muktzeh. According to the logic presented, this would mean that all pots would be muktzeh throughout Shabbat, which contradicts our understanding since we consume food from them on Leil Shabbat. The Gemara then clarifies that we are not discussing something that can finish in human hands. The food on Leil Shabbat is in our control; we can take it off the fire and cool it down. Therefore, we do not have to worry about muktzeh in this case.
The Gemara then circles back to the initial question about the fruit that dried on the roof. The issue arises when the fruit is out of the person's control, such as when it rains. This leads to the inquiry of whether there is muktzeh for half of Shabbat. The Gemara concludes that the earlier proof from Pulin and adashim does not apply to this situation because the latter case is one of human control, while the fruit case is not.
Next, the Gemara transitions to a new topic regarding the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon about rendering a ruling on a bechor on Yom Tov. A bechor is sacred, and the Kohanim cannot eat it unless it has a mum. Rabbi Yehuda asserts that if the mum was evident before Yom Tov, one may seek a ruling on Yom Tov. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon argues that it is not considered prepared if it had a mum before Yom Tov and thus cannot be ruled upon.
The Gemara recounts a story involving Rabbi Yehuda Nasi, who had a bechor and sent it to Rav Ami for a ruling on Yom Tov. Rav Ami initially refused to inspect it, prompting Rabbi Yirmeya to remind him that the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda, which permits seeking a ruling on Yom Tov if the mum was evident beforehand. This exchange highlights the differing opinions on the matter.
Later, Rabbi Abba interjects, questioning why Rav Ami refuses to allow the ruling to proceed when it aligns with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. The discussion shifts back to the authority of Rabbi Zeira, who states that the halacha follows Rabbi Shimon in this case. The Gemara explores the implications of this ruling, noting that a student expressed a desire to learn directly from Rabbi Zeira in Eretz Yisrael.
As the Gemara continues, it examines the practical implications of these rulings. The discussion around the bechor and its mum leads to the conclusion that the halacha is nuanced and dependent on the circumstances surrounding the animal's condition prior to Yom Tov.
Finally, the Gemara addresses the issue of an animal that dies on Yom Tov. The ruling states that one cannot move it, as it is considered muktzeh. This leads to a broader discussion on the treatment of animals and the implications of their status in Jewish law. The Gemara concludes with the understanding that the treatment of animals, particularly those that are sacred or have died, must be approached with care and respect for the laws governing Yom Tov.