Talmud - Beitza 4a ביצה ד׳ א׳

says: One considers the upper circles of dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs in the entire barrel to nullify the upper litra.

In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred mouths of different barrels or circular vessels there, the prohibited litra of untithed figs on the mouth of one of the vessels is nullified by a ratio of one part of prohibited figs to one hundred parts of similar, permitted figs. And if not, all of the circles of figs at the mouths of the barrels or circular vessels are prohibited, as one of them clearly contains a prohibited litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the prohibited figs certainly did not reach there. This is Rabbi Meir’s version of the dispute.

Rabbi Yehuda says a different version of the dispute. Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred mouths of vessels with permitted figs present there, in addition to the prohibited one, it is nullified by the one hundred permitted mouths. And if not, the figs at the mouths are prohibited and those at the bottom are permitted. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred mouths present there, they are not nullified, as this litra cannot be nullified in any manner. Rav Pappa was referring to this opinion when he said that there is a tanna, meaning Rabbi Yehoshua in Rabbi Yehuda’s version, who maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, e.g., a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.

The same mishna further states: If one pressed the litra of figs into a circular vessel but he does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it, everyone agrees that the prohibited fig cakes are nullified. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Everyone agrees? This is the very matter of their dispute, whether or not the litra is nullified.

Rav Pappa said: This is what the tanna said, i.e., he meant the following: One pressed it onto a circular vessel but does not know onto which place, which side of the circular vessel he pressed it, whether on its north or on its south side. In this case, as the prohibited litra is not located in a specific place and it cannot be distinguished from the others, it certainly cannot be considered an object of significance, and everyone agrees that it is nullified.

The Gemara explained why the egg mentioned in the baraita, an egg laid by a chicken that is a tereifa, cannot be nullified even if it is mingled with a thousand permitted eggs. However, Rav Ashi said: Actually, the baraita can be explained as referring to a case where there is uncertainty whether it is a Festival or a weekday. While it is true that according to most opinions this is a rabbinic prohibition, and the halakha is generally lenient with regard to uncertainties involving rabbinic law, it is an object whose prohibition is temporary. And with regard to any object whose prohibition is temporary, even if it involves a rabbinic prohibition, it cannot be nullified.

§ It is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: With regard to an egg laid on a Festival, it and its mother may be eaten. The Gemara asks: With what case are we dealing? If we say that this is dealing with a chicken designated for food, it is obvious that it and its mother are permitted. Rather, say that this is dealing with a chicken designated for laying eggs, but in that case it and its mother are both prohibited. Rabbi Zeira said that the baraita should be understood as follows: The egg may be eaten on account of its mother; if the chicken is eaten on the Festival, the egg may also be eaten.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? In which case is it necessary to apply this ruling? Abaye said: It is referring to a case where one bought this chicken without specifying whether he intended to eat it or use it for its eggs. In that case, if the chicken was slaughtered on a Festival, it has been retroactively clarified that it was intended for food, and the eggs it lays are, therefore, permitted. If it was not slaughtered, it has been retroactively clarified that it was intended for laying eggs, and the eggs it lays are prohibited.

Rav Mari said that the phrase: It and its mother may be eaten, should not be taken literally. Rather, the tanna is teaching an exaggeration [guzma], for extra emphasis, as it is taught in another baraita: Aḥerim say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: An egg may be eaten, it and its mother, and a chick and its shell.

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of this addition: Its shell? If we say it is referring to an actual shell, is a shell edible? Rather, the baraita must be referring to the consumption of a chick that is still in its shell. This explanation is problematic, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov only in permitting the eating of a chick immediately after it hatches, when it has already entered the world. However, when it has not yet entered the world, i.e., if the chick is still in its shell, they do not disagree. Even the Rabbis accept that this chick has the status of a creeping animal and may not be eaten.

Rather, evidently the expression: A chick and its shell, should not be understood literally, as it is an exaggeration. Here, too, the phrase: It and its mother may be eaten, is an exaggeration. It does not mean literally that the chick and its mother may be eaten, but is merely a statement of emphasis that the egg is undoubtedly permitted.

§ It was stated that amora’im disputed the following issue (Eiruvin 38b): If Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, Rav said: An egg laid on this one is prohibited on that one, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: An egg laid on this one is permitted on that one. The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav holds that when Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, it is considered one continuous sanctity, i.e., a single, indivisible day.

But didn’t Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of four elders, who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: When a Shabbat and a Festival occur consecutively, they are two sanctities rather than one long day; therefore, a joining of Shabbat boundaries need not be placed on a weekday, but may be placed on the first of the holy days to allow going beyond the Shabbat boundary on the second. Evidently, this issue cannot be the basis of their dispute.

Rather, here they disagree with regard to Rabba’s preparation, i.e., an item that was prepared on its own from one day to the other, whose use Rabba prohibits. Rav holds that items prepared by means of Rabba’s preparation are prohibited, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold that items prepared by means of Rabba’s preparation are prohibited.

The Gemara comments: This dispute is like a dispute between tanna’im: An egg laid on Shabbat may be eaten on a Festival; if it was laid on a Festival, it may be eaten on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: This opinion is not unanimous; rather, it is still a matter of dispute, as Beit Shammai say it may be eaten, and Beit Hillel say it may not be eaten, just as they disagreed about whether an egg is permitted on the day on which it was laid.

The Gemara relates: Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host [ushpizikhnei] had these eggs that were laid on a Festival that occurred on a Friday, and the host was unsure whether eggs laid on the Festival were permitted from the Festival for use on Shabbat. He came before his guest, Rav Adda, and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to roasting these eggs now, on the Festival, although eating them today is prohibited due to nolad, and let us eat them tomorrow, as they will be no longer be prohibited due to nolad?

Rav Adda said to him: What is your opinion that led you to pose this question? You evidently assume that in the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and therefore an egg laid on one day will be permitted on the following day. However, even Rabbi Yoḥanan permitted one to swallow it only raw, on the next day, when it is no longer prohibited; but on the same day that it was laid, he did not permit one even to move it, and certainly not to roast it.

And it is taught likewise in a baraita: With regard to both an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a Festival, one may not move it, neither to cover a vessel with it nor to support the legs of a bed with it.

The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rav Pappa’s host, and some say it was a certain man who came before Rav Pappa, had these eggs that were laid on a Shabbat that occurred before a Festival. He came before him and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to eat these eggs tomorrow, on the Festival? Rav Pappa said to him: Go away from me now, and come back tomorrow. He said this because Rav would not place a disseminator before him to explain his lectures, from one Festival day until the end of the other, the second Festival day, due to drunkenness. Since it was customary in those times to drink a great deal of wine during Festival meals, Rav was concerned that his mind would not be sufficiently clear to issue a public ruling.

When that man came back on the following day, Rav Pappa said to him:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Beitza 4a examines rabbinic debates over nullifying untithed fig cakes mixed among permitted ones, contrasting Rabbi Meir's and Rabbi Yehuda's versions of the dispute.