Beitzah Daf 26 ביצה דַף 26

The next Mishnah states: בכור שנפל לבור – If a bechor fell into a pit on Yom Tov, Rebbe Yehudah says: ירד מומחה ויראה – An expert may go down and examine it. אם יש בו מום יעלה וישחט – If the expert finds that it has a permanent mum, one may bring it up and shecht it. If not, he may not shecht it. Rebbe Shimon says: כל שאין מומו ניכר מבעוד יום אין זה מן המוכן – In a case where its mum was not recognized while it was still day before Yom Tov, the animal is not considered to be prepared and may not be shechted on Yom Tov. Rashi explains that Rebbe Yehudah, who is machmir in muktzeh, would certainly hold that if the mum occurred on Yom Tov, the animal would be prohibited, since the owner did not intend to shecht it before the mum occurred. Rather, the Mishnah is referring to where the animal was already blemished before Yom Tov but had not been examined by an expert to determine that the mum was permanent and the bechor is permitted for use. Rebbe Shimon cannot mean that the animal is forbidden because of muktzeh because he is lenient in muktzeh. Rather, he holds that it is forbidden to examine the animal, since passing judgment is equivalent to being דן and דין - adjudicating a lawsuit, which is prohibited on Yom Tov.

The Gemara asks in what do Rebbe Yehudah and Rebbe Shimon disagree? אי נימא ברואין מומין קמפלגי – If we say that they disagree whether a mumcheh can examine mumin on Yom Tov, why did the Mishnah present the machlokes in a case of a bechor falling into a pit, instead of disagreeing in an ordinary case of examining blemishes of a bechor? The Gemara answers that it was necessary to teach the case of a bechor falling into a pit. Otherwise, you might have thought that משום צער בעלי חיים לערים ולסקיה – because of the pain of a living creature let the owner submit to subterfuge and take it out of the pit, like Rebbe Yehoshua who permits הערמה elsewhere to remove an animal and its offspring that fell into a pit on Yom Tov. The Mishnah is coming to teach that Rebbe Yehudah does not permit removal of the bechor from the pit before the mumcheh examines it.

The Amora Hillel asked Rava: יש מוקצה לחצי שבת או אין מוקצה לחצי שבת – Is muktzeh established by half of Shabbos or not? The Gemara clarifies that Hillel’s question is where דאחזי והדר אדחי והדר אחזי – where the item was fit at the onset of Shabbos and subsequently became unfit during Shabbos and again became fit for use while it was still Shabbos. When Rava answered יש מוקצה, Hillel challenged him from a Baraisa that stated נולד ומומו עמו שזה מן המוכן – If a bechor was born with its mum, that it is considered to be muchan. Why should this be so? Let us say that this bechor was originally, at the start of Yom Tov, fit for use through its mother. Had the mother been shechted bein hashemashos, the unborn animal would have been permitted. Then, when it was born, it became unfit since it then assumes the kedushah of a bechor and may not be shechted until it is examined. Then when it was shown to a mumcheh and found to be permanently blemished it became permitted. According to Rava, it should still retain its muktzeh status? Abaye, and some say it was Rav Safra, answered, that the Baraisa refers to a case where the judges were sitting there when the animal was born and examined the mum during birth. Therefore, the animal never became muktzeh.