More Discussions for this daf
1. Eggs inside a chicken on Yom Tov 2. Tosfos 3. Nolad as Muktzah
4. Muktzah & Tevel 5. Tosfos DH u'Beis Hillel, Tosfos DH Gabei 6. Hachana d'Rabah
7. Eruv Tavshilin 8. Eruv Tavshilin for Gebrochts 9. Beit Shamai's Chidush
10. Hachanah from Shabbos for a weekday 11. Hachanah by cooking and baking 12. The Heter to use a broken utensil
13. Introduction to Muktzah 14. Beis Hillel/Beis Shamai 15. Addition to Insight
16. Possible mistake 17. Hachanah d'Rabah 18. ביצה שנולדה ביו"ט
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BEITZAH 2

Yaron Barach asks:

On 2b, Rashi "v'hichinu" says that according to Rabba, you need hazmana b'peh to allow use of an item on shabbos (or yom tov, as Rashi says later). And in explaining why an egg laid on a Sunday Yom Tov is assur, Rashi says because it needs to be muzmenes and muchenes from chol. So it's not just a problem that shabbos was meichin for yom tov, but that it didn't have hazmana from chol.

If so, why is an egg laid on a regular shabbos or yom tov mutar, (if not for the gzeirah of back-to-back shabbos and yomtov)-thre was no hazmana b'peh? And if you shecht a hen on a Sunday Yom tov and find eggs inside, they are mutar because there is no gzeira in this case-but how is it mutar, there was no hazmana b'peh on chol. Unless we have to make the ukimta that he actually was mazmin bpeh from chol, that if the egg is laid I'll eat it. But that sounds a bit dachuk.

Yaron Barach, Brooklyn , NY

The Kollel replies:

(a) The example that Rashi gives in order to prove that Hazmanah b'Peh is necessary ("mi'Kan Ani Notel l'Machar...") is from Beitzah 10a, and 34b. In both cases, the matter under discussion is an item that is not yet designated for eating - i.e. Muktzah. Only in such cases would Hachanah b'Peh be necessary.

If an item is clearly designated for eating - such as eggs inside of a hen which are collected daily for eating - there would be an Umdena that it is Muchan for Shabbos (just like a hen that is being raised for slaughtering, in the Gemara above). No further Hachanah would be necessary.

(b) Regarding whether Rabah's Hachanah would have to be verbal ("b'Peh") - as we mentioned, Rashi's words are based on the Mishnah which specifies " Omer mi'Kan Ani Notel...". The word "Omer", however, can also mean "think" - see Gilyon Hashas to Zevachim 2a (especially the Rashi in Kidushin that he cites, which says it is not necessary to verbalize the Machshavah) and Tosfos Yom Tov to Uktzin 3:11 etc.

Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld