Torah Community Connections

Week 125 - Wednesday - 17 April 2002

EDUYOT: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 2

An animal born on Yom Tov, all agree that it is permitted. And a chick, which hatched from an egg, all agree that it is forbidden. One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on Yom Tov, the School of Shammai says, He is to dig with a spade and cover; but the School of Hillel says, He may not slaughter unless he had earth prepared. And they agree, that if he slaughtered - he should dig with a spade and cover; that the ashes of a stove are prepared.

Kehati

There are two topics in this mishnah: a) An addition to the previous mishnah and the dispute between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel about an egg laid on Yom Tov. The present mishnah informs us that there are certain items which are nolad (literally, “just born," signifying things unavailable at the beginning of Yom Tov) which both schools permit, and other nolad items which both forbid. b) A dispute between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel regarding the slaughter of an undomesticated animal or a fowl on Yom Tov. The Torah commands that the blood of these be covered, as it states (Lev. 17:13), "And whatsoever man ... that takes in hunting any beast or fowl that maybe eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust." The two Schools differ as to whether a person is permitted to slaughter an undomesticated animal or a fowl on Yom Tov if he has not got prepared earth before Yom Tov to cover the blood. This dispute is also recorded in Betzah (1:2). There are versions of this mishnah that exclude the first part, up to "all agree it is forbidden." Tosefot Yom Tov explains that those texts are correct, and apparently the addition in our text is from the baraita.

An animal born on Yom Tov, all agree that it is permitted – The School of Hillel, too, which holds that an egg laid on Yom Tov may not be eaten, agrees that if an animal was born on Yom Tov it may be eaten on Yom Tov and is not considered to be muktzeh, for the mother was designated for food. In other words, since the mother was ready before Yom Tov to be slaughtered on Yom Tov and eaten on that day, its young is also considered prepared, as the rule is that if a person slaughters an animal and finds an unborn young inside, it may be eaten without slaughter (Hullin 4:5). It is true that a newborn animal may not be slaughtered until it is eight days old, but if it was born after a full period of pregnancy (nine months for the large animal species and five months for the small species), it may be eaten on the day it was born (Rambam, Hil. Ma'akhalot Asurot 4:4).

And a chick which hatched from an egg - on Yom Tov, all agree that it is forbidden - on Yom Tov because of muktzeh, and even the School of Shammai agrees to this, as it was not ready to be eaten on the day before Yom Tov, for on the day before Yom Tov it was still in its shell. Nor can one say, that "it was ready by virtue of its mother" (Betzah 6b).

One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on Yom Tov - The Talmud (Betzah 7b) explains that if a person wishes to slaughter an animal of an undomesticated species (such as a deer) or a fowl, and comes to a court to enquire what he must do regarding the covering of the blood (as explained in the introduction), the School of Shammai says, He is to dig with a spade and cover - The Talmud explains that if be already has a spade stuck in loose earth, and if by merely pulling it out a spadeful of earth comes out with it, he is permitted to slaughter the animal or fowl, and must then pull out the spade with the earth and cover the blood; but the School of Hillel says, He may not slaughter - One does not permit him to slaughter such an animal or fowl on Yom Tov, unless he had earth prepared - from the day before Yom Tov. And they agree - The School of Hillel agrees with the School of Shammai, that if he slaughtered - If, without asking, a person slaughtered an animal or fowl even though he did not have earth ready from the day before Yom Tov, he should dig with a spade and cover - That ex post facto if he has a spade stuck in the ground, he should pull out a spadeful of earth, as explained above. So too do all agree that the ashes of a stove are prepared - If the stove was lit before Yom Tov, its ashes are not considered muktzeh, for it is presumed that a person would want to use the ashes on Yom Tov; he may therefore use such ashes for covering the blood of an animal or fowl that was slaughtered on Yom Tov. It must be noted, though, that such ashes are only considered to be ready for use if they are still hot enough to roast an egg, for we then say that since they are usable for the preparation of food, one may also use them for covering the blood.

EDUYOT: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 3

The School of Shammai says, Ownerless for the poor is ownerless; but the School of Hillel says, It is not ownerless until it is made ownerless also for the rich, as the shemitah year. All the sheaves of a field are of a kab each, and one is of four kabs, and he forgot it - the School of Shammai says, It is not shikhehah; but the School of Hillel says, It is shikhehah.

Kehati

This mishnah appears in Peah (6:1), and deals with two topics: a) Items belonging to a person which he abandons, thereby rendering them ownerless (Heb. hefker). The halakhah exempts ownerless grain and fruit from the otherwise obligatory gifts to the poor and from the various tithes. In this mishnah, the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel disagree in a case where a person abandoned his produce to the poor but not to the rich, whether or not the produce is still considered ownerless. b) The Torah states (Deut. 24:19), "When you reap your harvest in your field, and have forgot a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless and the widow..." Such a forgotten sheaf is called shikhehah. Here, the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel disagree as to whether or not it is considered Shikhehah when a person forgets a sheaf, which is four times as large as his other sheaves.

The School of Shammai says, Ownerless for the poor is ownerless - If a person abandons his grain to the poor but not to the rich, it is considered to be ownerless and is exempt from the various tithes; the School of Shammai's reason is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud. The Torah states in regard to leket (individual stalks of grain that fall during the harvest) and peah (the corner of the field), (Lev. 19:10), "you shall leave them for the poor and stranger." Why does the Torah state: "you shall leave them"? To teach us that there is another type of "leaving," namely abandoning one's produce, which has the same law as these. Just as the former (leket and peah) applies only to the rich and not to the poor and is exempt from tithes, so too when one abandons his produce to the poor but not to the rich, it is considered to be ownerless and is exempt from tithes; but the School of Hillel says, It is not ownerless, until it is made ownerless also for the rich - Produce does not become ownerless unless a person abandons it for both the poor and the rich, as the shemitah year - of which the Torah states (Ex. 23:11), "but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow..." The Jerusalem Talmud explains: "Why was it necessary to add 'and lie fallow'? The Torah teaches another 'lying fallow,' namely something, which is ownerless, which is like shemitah. Just as shemitah produce is ownerless to everyone, both poor and rich, so too anything else must be ownerless to both poor and rich to be considered ownerless. Thus it follows that a person who abandons his produce only to the poor and not to the rich does not make it ownerless, and he must give the proper tithes.

All the sheaves of a field are of a kab each – If all the sheaves of a field are small, each a kab in size, and one is of four kabs - And one sheaf is a large one of four kabs, and he forgot it - And when the owner gathered his sheaves into his barn, he forgot the large sheaf in the field, the School of Shammai says, It is not shikhehah - It is not considered to be "forgotten grain," and the owner is permitted to go back and take it. The reason for this, according to the School of Shammai, is that four sheaves together are not considered to be shikhehah (Peah 6:5), and this large sheaf is regarded as four separate sheaves, each of a kab; but the School of Hillel says, It is shikhehah - Even though it is four times larger than the other sheaves, it is nevertheless considered to be shikhehah, for the School of Hillel does not consider it to be the same as four separate sheaves. If the sheaf was greater than four kabs, then even the School of Hillel do not consider it shikhehah (according to Rambam, Hil. Matnot Aniyim 7:17).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives