Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 513 - The Laws [Pertaining to] an Egg Laid on a Festival

Beitzah 2b.

The Alter Rebbe specifies that the egg is “forbidden to be eaten that day,” because theoretically it is not forbidden to benefit from the egg on that day, provided the person does not move it (see subsection 3 below). See sec. 308:14, where the Alter Rebbe states:

>>…it is not forbidden to derive benefit from using any article that is muktzeh provided one does not [cause it to] move. [This is permitted] as long as – while using the article that is muktzeh – he does not perform a [specific forbidden] act using the substance of the [article that is] muktzeh.

See also sec. 509:16 and the Kuntreis Acharon (note 4) to sec. 507. In these sources, the Alter Rebbe discusses benefitting from articles that are muktzeh.

Beitzah, loc. cit. The Alter Rebbe proceeds to quote the manner in which the Sages derived this conclusion in the coming lines. Since the prohibition against eating such an egg is derived from the exegesis of Scriptural verses, the Alter Rebbe emphasizes that this prohibition has the power of Scriptural Law.

Shmos 16:5. Our translation of the verse reflects the way it is interpreted by our Sages when deriving this law.

Ibid. 16:23.

As the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain, since this verse specifically mentions these activities, it must be concluded that Shmos 16:5 refers to some other form of food preparation.

See sec. 250:1 where the Alter Rebbe writes:

>>A person should always rise early on Friday morning to work [to] prepare his Shabbos needs. An allusion to this practice is found in the verse: “And it will be on the sixth day when they prepare that which they will bring….” The implication is that they should prepare [the manna] immediately after bringing it. And they would bring [the manna] in the morning, as it is written, “And they gathered it every morning.”

See also sec. 250:5.

Beitzah 2b.See also subsections 9 and 19, below.

See subsection 9, below, where the Alter Rebbe presents the laws pertaining to an egg that matured on Friday and was laid on Shabbos.

See sec. 488:1 and sec. 489:3, which cite the interpretation of Vayikra 23:11 found in the Sifra to this verse and in Menachos 65b. Sec. 487:1 also mentions this concept.

The Alter Rebbe is explaining why, even though in a physical sense, an egg that is laid on Sunday was prepared on Shabbos, that fact is not halachically significant and there is no reason to forbid the egg.

Beitzah, loc. cit.

The Alter Rebbe specifically mentions that the eggs from a hen that was set aside to be slaughtered on a festival are forbidden, because such an animalis not muktzeh. Furthermore, were the hen to be slaughtered on the festival, any eggs contained within its womb would be permitted to be eaten. Therefore, one might think that since the hen that laid the egg on the festival is not muktzeh, the egg would be permitted to be eaten on that day.

See sec. 498:8-9, where the Alter Rebbe presents the laws regarding a calf that was born on a festival.

See sec. 308:9, where the Alter Rebbe rules that, “This category of muktzeh also includes all foods from which it is forbidden to derive benefit,” and specifically mentions an egg laid on a festival.

See the Kuntreis Acharon (note 1) where the Alter Rebbe explains this ruling, citing the works of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi (Beitzah 13b) and Rabbeinu Asher (Beitzah 3:2) as the sources upon which he based this ruling. Although Magen Avraham 513:1 mentions another rationale, that of Maharshal (Yam shel Shlomoh, Beitzah 1:5), the approach followed by Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbeinu Asher is accepted as halachah. See also sec. 515:4, where this principle is mentioned.

See sec. 308:14, where the Alter Rebbe writes, “Any [article that is] muktzeh is only forbidden to be moved. One may, however, touch it with his hand, as long as he does not shake even a portion of it.”

See sec. 310:10.

See also sec. 265:6, where the Alter Rebbe explains that on Shabbos, it is forbidden to touch a candelabra hanging in the air, because, as in the instance mentioned here, it is likely to be moved when touched.

Talmud Yerushalmi, Beitzah 5:1.

These subsections discuss various issues related to moving muktzeh.

Beitzah 3b.

The Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain that since the egg in question will be permitted after the festival ends, there is no reason to permit it on the festival. See sec. 497:8, where the Alter Rebbe rules that whenever there is a doubt as to whether or not an article is muktzeh, it is forbidden for this very reason.

The Alter Rebbe mentions this concept in many places including sec. 318:4; sec. 325:10, 14; sec. 445:8; et al.

As can be inferred from subsection 1 above, an egg laid on a festival is permitted on the day following the festival. As the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain here, it is for this reason that such an egg is considered a davar sheyeish lo matirin.

The Alter Rebbe explains and substantiates his ruling in the main text in his Kuntreis Acharon (note 2). He begins by acknowledging that although his ruling is not based on any explicit ruling from the Acharonim, the leniency he grants can be justified based on the following halachic logic: Rama (Yoreh Deah 110:8) rules that when there is a halachically recognized necessity (a tzorech mitzvah), a davar sheyeish lo matirin can be permitted, provided there is a compounded doubt (sefek sefeika). It appears from Rama's wording that this ruling applies even when a severe loss is not involved.

In his ruling, the Alter Rebbe accepts the premise that using an egg can be considered necessary for the person to adequately rejoice on the festival and that is considered a halachically recognized necessity. Thus, the Alter Rebbe specifies that the first condition set forth by Rama is met.

According to Sifsei Kohen (Yoreh Deah 110:56), an egg laid on the second day of a festival would be permitted even when it is not mixed with other eggs on the second day of the festival. Sifsei Kohen based his ruling on the following sefek sefeika: It is possible that the egg in question was laid before the festival, and even if it was laid on the festival, it is possible that the second day of the festival is actually an ordinary weekday. This reasoning is based on the concept that the status of the second day of a festival is doubtful, i.e., the entire reason for instituting its observance is that we are unsure on which day the festival should be observed.

The Alter Rebbe notes that Magen Avraham 497:4 does not agree with Sifsei Kohen's conception of the status of the second day of the festival, and maintains that there is no doubt regarding the status of the second day of a festival in the present era. Instead, Magen Avraham considers the observance of the second day of the festival to be a definite obligation established by Rabbinic decree. Hence, according to Magen Avraham, there is no compounded doubt regarding an egg that may have been laid on the second day of a festival. Thus, Magen Avraham asserts that it is absolutely prohibited to use such an egg because, according to the Rabbinic decree, the second festive day celebrated in the Diaspora has the same status as the first festive day.

Although the Alter Rebbe upholds Magen Avraham's stringency regarding an egg laid on the second day of a festival, when such an egg becomes mixed with other eggs, there is room for leniency. In explanation, the Alter Rebbe notes that there are many Rishonim (Tosafos, Beitzah 3b, et al.) who even permit using eggs from a mixture containing an egg that was possibly laid on the first day of a festival. True, there is a general halachic consensus that when there is a doubt regarding the halachic status of an object, and it becomes mixed with other objects which are definitely permitted, it is not considered as a compounded doubt {see the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (Yoreh Deah 110:9)}. Hence, the view of these Rishonim is not accepted, and it is therefore not permitted to use an egg from such a mixture on the first day of a festival. However, Bach (Yoreh Deah 102) and Turei Zahav (Yoreh Deah 102:4) permit the use of an egg whose status is unknown on the first day of a festival, provided it was mixed up into two distinct mixtures. Thus, if an egg whose status is unknown became mixed up with eggs that were definitely laid before the festival (the first mixture), and then an egg from that mixture became mixed into another batch of eggs laid before the festival (the second mixture), both Bach and Turei Zahav permit using an egg from the second mixture on the first day of the festival. Accordingly, the Alter Rebbe concludes that, combining the leniencies from all these different opinions, on the second day of the festival, there are sufficient grounds to permit using eggs from a first mixture even though the eggs are considered a davar sheyeish lo matirin.

The Alter Rebbe specifies that these eggs are necessary for the person to adequately rejoice on the festival, because as mentioned in footnote 22 above, rejoicing adequately on a festival is considered a recognized halachic necessity (tzorech mitzvah). This is a key requirement in the Alter Rebbe's ruling. As the Alter Rebbe explains in the Kuntreis Acharon (note 2), which is summarized in footnote 22 above, leniency is only granted regarding using a davar sheyeish lo matirin when there is a compounded doubt, and when using the davar sheyeish lo matirin constitutes a recognized halachic necessity.

See the Kuntreis Acharon (note 2), which is summarized in footnote 22 above. In that source, the Alter Rebbe explains that although there are halachic authorities who permit using eggs from a second mixture on the first day of a festival, the halachic consensus is that their use is forbidden because a davar sheyeish lo matirin is involved.

Only the egg whose status is questionable is forbidden to be eaten or moved. It should be covered with a utensil or set aside in another manner that does not involve moving it until after the festival.

Chulin 97a, 98a. When only one egg is forbidden, the mixture must contain a total of 62 eggs. In general, a prohibited substance is batel, nullified, in 60 times its volume of a permitted substance. In this instance, however, the Sages were stringent and required the mixture to contain 61 times the volume of forbidden eggs. This stringency was imposed because all eggs are not the same size (i.e., some eggs are slightly larger than others). For this reason, the Sages required that the mixture contain an extra permitted egg {see Sifsei Kohen (Yoreh Deah 86:16)}.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (Yoreh Deah 86:5).

I.e., the taste of the forbidden egg can only become batel when the forbidden egg accidentally becomes mixed with other eggs, not when one intentionally mixes it together with the permitted eggs.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (Yoreh Deah 99:5-6). See also sec. 442:5, where the Alter Rebbe mentions this concept.

Chulin 97b; Talmud Yerushalmi, Terumah 10:6.

In this instance, not only its flavor, but also the actual substance of the egg is present in the mixture. As the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain, in such an instance it is permitted to eat the cooked food on the festive day, provided the permitted substance in the dish is at least 60 times the volume of the forbidden substance.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 3), the Alter Rebbe notes that the ruling in the main text is based on Magen Avraham 513:5. The Alter Rebbe explains that the rationale for his ruling is dependent on three conditions. The first condition is that the forbidden substance has mixed with one or more substances of a different type (known as a taaroves min beshe’einu mino in Talmudic terminology). The second condition is that even though the actual substance of the forbidden entity is present, it has been totally absorbed within the cooked food. Finally, the forbidden substance may not have been intentionally added to improve the resulting food. As the Alter Rebbe clearly states in the main text, when these stipulations are met, the forbidden egg is batel, insignificant, when the mixture it is included in contains 60 times its volume of permitted substances.

As the Alter Rebbe proceeds to state, different laws apply if a forbidden substance that is a davar sheyeish lo matirin is mixed together with permitted substances of the same type (known as a taaroves min be’mino). In that instance, when the actual physical substance of the forbidden entity is present, it is never considered to be batel, even if it has been totally absorbed in the mixture, and is no longer a distinct entity, (see Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah 102:9; Pri Chadash, Yoreh Deah 102:9, et al).

It should be noted that if the actual substance of a forbidden entity that is a davar sheyeish lo matirin was removed from the mixture,its flavor can become batel even when the mixture is a taaroves min be'mino, provided the volume of the permitted substances are more than 60 times greater than that of the forbidden substance.

See subsection 5 above, and footnote 26 there. As explained in those sources, 61 times the forbidden substance is only required in a mixture containing forbidden eggs because eggs vary in size.

Talmud Yerushalmi, Nedarim 6:4.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (Yoreh Deah 102:1). See also sec. 335:4 and sec. 397:12, where the Alter Rebbe rules regarding various mixtures that contain a davar sheyeish lo matirin.

As the Alter Rebbe explains in subsection 4 above, the general rule is that a davar sheyeish lo matirin is never nullified within taaroves min be'mino, a mixture comprised of the same type of substance, because the davar sheyeish lo matirin will become permitted at a later date, without having to be nullified.

Sifsei Kohen 102:4 explains that the reason for that ruling is that when a davar sheyeish lo matirin is mixed into a substance of the same type (e.g., one egg is mixed up with other eggs), the mixture is referred to as a quantity of that type of substance.Therefore, the davar sheyeish lo matirin is considered to be significant. However, when the davar sheyeish lo matirin is mixed with other substances (taaroves min beshe’einu mino, e.g., an egg that is forbidden on the festival becomes thoroughly mixed up with the stuffing for meat that is permitted on the festival), the mixture is referred to by another name. The fact that the mixture is not referred to as the davar sheyeish lo matirin indicates that the davar sheyeish lo matirin is no longer significant. As such, it can become batel.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 4), the Alter Rebbe explains his ruling in the main text, noting that Magen Avraham 513:7 rules that if a davar sheyeish lo matirin is not visibly apparent in a mixture, it can be nullified in 60 times its volume, even if it was added to improve the cooked dish.

The Alter Rebbe explains that Magen Avraham's ruling could be seen as fitting the wording of the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro's ruling in Orach Chayim 513:3. Nevertheless, the Alter Rebbe does not rule in this manner. Rather, he follows Rav Yosef Caro's approach in Yoreh Deah 102. The Alter Rebbe substantiates his decision by pointing out that Orach Chayim 513 is not the fundamental place where Rav Yosef Caro discusses these laws; rather, that source is Yoreh Deah 102. Furthermore, the Alter Rebbe notes that Rav Yosef Caro wrote his Yoreh Deah after Orach Chayim, and therefore Rav Yosef Caro's final opinion on the matter – on which basis the halachah is decided – is reflected by his ruling in Yoreh Deah.

In his Beis Yosef to Yoreh Deah 102, Rav Yosef Caro writes that all substances that are necessary to bake a loaf of bread in the desired manner are considered as min be’mino, i.e., of the same type as the flour in the dough. Therefore, if one of these substances is a davar sheyeish lo matirin, its presence is never nullified within the flour, even if it is mixed with 1000 times its volume of flour.

The Alter Rebbe cites many Rishonim and Acharonim who accept this ruling, and notes that Magen Avraham 397:9 also rules in this manner. Therefore, the Alter Rebbe accepts this position as halachah, as reflected by his ruling here.

In this Kuntreis Acharon, the Alter Rebbe also emphasizes another point: It is a general rule in halachah that when a substance is described as being added to improve a cooked food, its flavor alone need not be sufficient to improve the cooked food. Instead, as long as the substance contributes to the improvement of the food – even when other ingredients must also be added for the substance in question to have the beneficial effect – it is halachically considered as having been added to improve the cooked dish. The Alter Rebbe cites rulings of Beis Yosef and Darchei Moshe (Orach Chayim 513 and Yoreh Deah 102) as well as other Rishonim and Acharonim that support this position.

See subsections 4 and 6 above.

Beitzah 4b. See also sec. 515:6, where the Alter Rebbe issues another ruling based on the same logic that he proceeds to present here.

I.e., it is not necessary to wait the amount of time necessary for the egg to be laid before using the egg. See sec. 497:9 and notes, where a rationale for a similar ruling is given.

The Alter Rebbe is alluding to the following rationale: The Sages ordained the observance of a second festive day in the Diaspora because the residents of the Diaspora were often unsure of the proper day on which the festival should be observed. Thus, only one of the two festive days observed in the Diaspora is actually the festival. Therefore, logic dictates that an egg laid on the first day should be permitted on the second. If the first day was indeed the festival, once that day is over, there is no problem in partaking of the egg immediately upon that day's conclusion. And if the first day celebrated in the Diaspora was an ordinary weekday, then an egg laid on it may be eaten on the second day, which is truly the festival. See subsection 10 below, where the Alter Rebbe employs similar logic in his ruling.

See sec. 600:3-4, where this concept is explained. See also sec. 496, footnote 21, where the ruling in sec. 600:3-4 is quoted and explained.

Beitzah 4a.

Talmud Yerushalmi, Beitzah 1:1. It cannot be said that the egg was unfit to be eaten before it was laid, since eggs found within a slaughtered hen are edible. However, an egg that has been laid is still considered to have been prepared to be eaten on the preceding day because it is preferable to eat such an egg than to eat one found in a slaughtered hen.

See subsection 1, above. See also subsection 19, below.

The Alter Rebbe mentions this concept in several different sources, including: sec. 318:3, which states that food unintentionally cooked on Shabbos may not be eaten on a festival; sec. 498:10, which states that a calf born on Shabbos may nevertheless be slaughtered on a festival for the reason mentioned there; and sec. 501:18, which states that wicks that were kindled on Shabbos may not be reused on a festival.

Thus, it can be said that the egg was prepared to be eaten on Shabbos. See sec. 328:43, where the Alter Rebbe mentions swallowing a raw egg on Shabbos.

See subsection 2, above.

See sec. 515:7, where the Alter Rebbe issues a similar ruling regarding the prohibition against eating fruit that fell from a tree on a Shabbos or festival on a Shabbos or festival that follows directly afterwards.

See subsection 9, above.

I.e., the festival falls on a Sunday and Monday.

If the first day of the festival celebrated in the Diaspora is holy, the egg may be eaten on the second day based on the logic explained in subsection 8 above and footnote 40 there.

I.e., Rosh HaShanah falls on Thursday and Friday. The Alter Rebbe does not mention the two days of Rosh HaShanah falling directly after Shabbos, because the first day of Rosh HaShanah can never fall on Sunday (see Rambam, Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh 7:1).

Beitzah 7a.

Beitzah 7a-b states that a hen will only seek out a rooster if she can hear it crow. The Talmud then states that if one is the distance of 60 houses from the other, it will not be possible for the hen to hear the rooster's crow. Therefore, the Alter Rebbe specifies that the rooster must be within the distance of 60 homes of the hen. One might wonder why the distance of 60 homes is not converted into some standard unit of measure.

Beitzah 7a-7b.

The general rule in halachah is that when there is a doubt concerning a Rabbinic ordinance, the lenient perspective is followed. (See sec. 10:16, 67:1, 160:13, 167:12, 248:4, 489:12. See also the Alter Rebbe's Yoreh Deah sec. 184:19, 187:23 et.al.) Therefore, the Alter Rebbe specifies that this ruling is an exception to the general rule.

See subsections 4-6.

Beitzah 7b.

See Kuntreis Acharon (note 5), where the Alter Rebbe substantiates this ruling, explaining that as a general rule, halachic rulings follow the prevalent patterns of behavior (i.e., the rov). This rule applies even when a davar sheyeish lo matirin is involved. Hence, since eggs are generally laid during the day, we assume that this egg was also laid during the day.

Beitzah, loc. cit. I.e., it is unlikely that the eggs were laid on the first night of the festival.

See subsection 8, above.

The Alter Rebbe uses the expression masiach lifi tumo, which we have translated as, “in the course of conversation.” The intent is that the non-Jew mentions when the eggs were laid in the course of his ordinary conversation, without any ulterior motive, and without being questioned or prompted about the matter. See sec. 451:5, sec. 467:6, and sec. 515:10 where the Alter Rebbe uses this term.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See Rama (Yoreh Deah 69:10); Turei Zahav (Yoreh Deah 69:24); Sifsei Kohen (Yoreh Deah 69:42-43). See also the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro, Yoreh Deah 98:1; Turei Zahav (Yoreh Deah 98:2); Sifsei Kohen (Yoreh Deah 98:2); et al.

See subsection 1, above. As explained in that source, the rationale is that eggs are "prepared" inside the hen's womb on the day before they are laid. Hence, when eggs are laid on a festival, they were prepared inside the hen’s womb on the preceding day. In the instance presented in this subsection, that day was Shabbos, and Shabbos may not prepare for a festival.

The Alter Rebbe specifies that this ruling applies to the second day of Rosh HaShanah as well to the second festive day of other festivals because the laws applying to the second day of Rosh HaShanah are generally more stringent than those applying to the second festive day of other festivals. See footnote 41 above and the sources cited there. This instance is an exception for the reason that the Alter Rebbe proceeds to state.

As explained in subsection 1 above, and in footnote 64 above, eggs are "prepared" in the hens' wombs on the day before they are laid. Hence, eggs that were laid on the festival that directly followed Shabbos, would be forbidden according to Scriptural Law. However, in the Alter Rebbe’s era, most of the eggs sold in the market were laid on the day prior to the day they were brought to market. As the Alter Rebbe explains in subsection 9, above,the prohibition against eating an egg that was laid on Shabbos on a festival that follows directly after Shabbos is merely Rabbinic. Hence, the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain that in such an instance, if a non-Jew states in the course of conversation that the eggs he is selling were laid on Friday, his word may be relied upon. Needless to say, this ruling applies in the present age, when eggs are almost always sold several days after they were laid.

When a person or an object is separated (pireish) from its established setting (kavua) in which it was previously located, we assume that it is one of the majority of persons or articles found in the setting where it was found. Therefore, its status is determined by that of the majority in the present setting. This principle is applied in many contexts in Jewish Law.

The classic example of this principle is mentioned in Kesubos 15a: When there are ten butcher stores in a given area, nine of which sell kosher meat, and one of which sells non-kosher meat, a piece of meat of unknown origin that is found in the marketplace is considered to be kosher according to Scriptural Law. The rationale is that since the meat has become separated (pireish) from its original, established (kavua) setting, its status is determined by the meat sold in the majority of the stores in the area.

It should be noted that even in that instance, our Sages ruled stringently and prohibited partaking of the meat for other reasons. See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro(Yoreh Deah, 63:1). See also sec. 32:75, sec. 329:2 (footnote 7 there), sec. 439:1, and sec. 453:18, where the Alter Rebbe applies this principle in different halachic contexts.

In the instance described in the main text here, the eggs that are being sold in the marketplace are considered as having been separated (pireish) from their kavua setting.

See subsections 2 and 15.

In this instance, when the non-Jew states that his eggs were laid on Friday, he is stating that his eggs are less fresh than other eggs that are being sold. Thus, he is denigrating, not praising his merchandise. This lends greater credence to his words (see Turei Zahav, Yoreh Deah 316:4).

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 5), the Alter Rebbe discusses his ruling in the main text, that the eggs a non-Jew brings to market on a festival that follows Shabbos are permittedif the non-Jew casually states in the course of conversation that the eggs were laid on Friday. The Alter Rebbe explains that he based his ruling on the rulings of Maharshal (Yam shel Shlomoh, Beitzah 1:6), Turei Zahav 513:9, and his interpretation of Magen Avraham 513:13, despite the fact that Rama (Orach Chayim 513:6) and other esteemed authorities rule stringently.

The Alter Rebbe notes that Maharshal only granted leniency if the non-Jew’s statement was made in the course of conversation, without having been prompted in any way. True, in this instance, most of the eggs brought to the market were laid on the preceding day, i.e., on the day before the festival, which was Shabbos.Therefore, there are grounds to say that blanket leniency should be granted and the eggs be permitted even when the non-Jewish merchant does not make such a statement. Nevertheless, Maharshal does not rule in that manner because he maintains that the general rule that we follow the prevalent pattern (i.e., the rov, in halachic terminology) does not apply when the item in question is a davar sheyeish lo matirin.

There is reasons not to accept Maharshal's stringency, for we find that regarding the prohibition against eating grain that is chadash before the 17th of Nissan, Rama rules that if most of the grain sold in a given area (i.e., the rov) is not chadash, then it is permitted to use grain that may be chadash, even though the prohibition against using grain that is chadash involves a davar sheyeish lo matirin (see Rama, Yoreh Deah 293:3). (In this instance, the grain will be permitted on the following day.) The rationale for this ruling is that it has not been definitively established that a prohibited substance is present. Similarly, one might argue that in the present instance, it has not been definitively established that any eggs laid on a festival are being sold, and therefore the eggs should be permitted even if the non-Jewish merchant does not make any statements indicating that his eggs were laid on the day before the festival.

Nevertheless, the Alter Rebbe explains that he accepts Maharshal’s requirement, that the non-Jewish merchant make a casual statement regarding when the eggs he is selling were laid, based on the following logic: Most of the eggs sold in the marketplace are laid on the day before they are sold. In the instance presented in this subsection, the day before the festival was Shabbos. Thus, in this instance, if the eggs in question are part of the majority (rov) that were laid on Shabbos, they would still be forbidden because of a Rabbinic prohibition against using eggs that were laid on Shabbos. However, if the non-Jewish merchant states in the course of conversation that his eggs were laid on Friday, we may rely on that statement because a Rabbinic – but not a Scriptural – prohibition is involved.

See footnote 62 above, and sources mentioned there.

The Alter Rebbe is referring to the leniencies mentioned in subsections 15-16.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 6), the Alter Rebbe substantiates his ruling in the main text, explaining that he based this ruling on Magen Avraham 513:11. Although Magen Avraham cites the rulings of Sifsei Kohen (Yoreh Deah 69:23) and Turei Zahav (Yoreh Deah 69:43), he omits certain stringencies implied by their words – that it is necessary for the non-Jew to make the statements regarding when the eggs were laid in the presence of more than one Jew, but not in front of the owner of the eggs. Furthermore, Sifsei Kohen and Turei Zahav require that for the non-Jew's statements to be accepted, he must be speaking about other matters (i.e., not about the eggs), yet his words must indicate when the eggs were laid. The rationale for these stringencies is that since the non-Jew is aware of Jewish practice, there is concern he will make statements that he feels will ingratiate himself to the Jewish owner of the eggs, and curry favor with him.

Nevertheless, Magen Avraham does not think there is a need for such concern and therefore does not uphold these stringencies. The Alter Rebbe explains that the rationale for Magen Avraham's lenient ruling is that in this instance the non-Jew was not paid according to how many eggs he sells, nor does he stand to derive any benefit from making such a statement. Since he is making the statement in the course of conversation without realizing the impact his words have on the Jew, he will have no reason to think that he will gain favor by making such a statement. Hence as the Alter Rebbe mentions in subsection 15 above, since the prohibition involved is merely Rabbinic, the non-Jew’s word can be relied upon. Needless to say, if the non-Jew stands to benefit in any way from selling more eggs, then his word regarding when the eggs were laid cannot be accepted.

The following stringency applies even if the non-Jew is not selling a Jew’s eggs.

Since the non-Jew is being asked a direct question, there is concern that he will try to answer in a way that will ingratiate himself to the Jew.

Beitzah 2b.

See Talmud Yerushalmi, Beitzah 1:1, which relates that the flavor of an egg before it is laid, is different from its flavor after it has been laid. Accordingly, the Sages did not consider an egg’s preparation as having been completed unless it was laid.

Beitzah 6a.

See sec. 498:18.

See sec. 498:18; see also sec. 501:1. In these sources, the Alter Rebbe mentions other instances where the authorities who generally permit moving muktzeh on a festival agree that it is forbidden to do so.

As mentioned previously in this subsection, before the chick was hatched, it was not fit to be eaten at all. This constitutes the difference between a chick that hatches on a festival and a calf born on a festival. As the Alter Rebbe explains in sec. 498:9, a calf is fit to be eaten before it is born – i.e., if the mother were slaughtered on a festival, the calf in her womb is permitted to be eaten on the festival just as the mother cow’s limbs are permitted to be eaten. In sec. 498:10, the Alter Rebbe explains that it is permitted to slaughter and eat a calf on a festival that follows directly after the Shabbos on which it was born.

See sec. 316:13.

See subsections 1 and 9 above.