More Discussions for this daf
1. Avraham Avinu cooked for Nochrim 2. Two Shmuels or One 3. Raba bar Rav Huna
4. Pesach 5. A Raven flew by 6. Army of Nochrim
7. Rav Avia 8. The Chumra of Raban Gamliel 9. Graf Shel Re'i
10. תוד"ה עושה אדם כל צרכו
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BEITZAH 21

Dov Rosen asked:

This question is not on today's daf, but I heard that Rav Montrose is an expert in all of shas, and I am not thinking about this question anymore (I would add that I have not exactly explored it more than just pshat).

The gemorrah explains a case where a goyish army came to plunder the city. The rav (sorry, don't have my gemorrah in front of me) cooked for them. For such an action, he may have lost his schar. However, because he took from a treifah, there is a din of "ho'il", which makes it o.k because it was fit for a dog. And, there is a tanna who does not hold "for you and not for a dog". Pashtus: if it's fit for a dog, it's fit for a goy because of the din of "ho'il". But there is a problem. According to the continuation of the gemorrah, there are only 2 opinions; either it means "for you and not for a dog", or it means "for you and not for goyim". Either way you're stuck. If you hold that you cannot make it for a dog, then the entire supposition of the gemorrah is a problem because through "ho'il", only if it's fit for a dog, then it is fit for a goy. If you hold (as the gemorrah seems to assume)that you can cook it for a dog, then by definition, you use the posuk to say "!

for you and not for goyim"--then how could he have made it for goyim anyway?

One might say that he can cook it both for a dog and for a goy, but the gemorrah (in conitnuing to the end) seems to make a very stark contrast between preparing for a dog and for goyim. My problem basically is that the gemorrah says that a goy can eat based on a tanna who does not exclude cooking for dogs, but that same tanna says that you can't cook for a goy!!

(btw answering that he cooks for the dog, and by extension it is good for the goy by din of "ho'il" eventhough he can't officially cook for the goy seems very "dachuk", but if it's all you got, well, I guess I have to take it).

Help me get some sleep at night-answer me this question,

Thanks,

Dov Rosen, R. Bet Shemesh, Israel

The Kollel replies:

Let me explain the Gemara, which will hopefully answer your question.

The Gemara is not trying to justify the actions of that Tana, namely Shimon ha'Teimani. The Gemara is explaining the rebuke of Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava, who said that the money they saved from this plundering army by giving them this Treifah was not worth the punishment they will receive for transgressing Yom Tov for the slaughtering. The Gemara asks, couldn't they have eaten from it (and thereby not transgressed Yom Tov)? Rav Yosef answers the calf was a Treifah, and therefore they could not have. The Gemara proceeds to ask, couldn't the dogs have eaten from it (and they therefore would have been permitted to slaughter for that purpose)? The Gemara answers with the argument of the Tanaim that you quoted above: either the Pasuk means "for you and not for a dog" or "for you and not for Nochrim." The Gemara's point with this answer is to say that Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava's rebuke was based on the opinion "for you and not for dogs."

Shimon ha'Teimani probably held, as you implied, like the opinion "for you and not for Nochrim." This would mean that he might have slaughtered the Treifah, given some to the dogs, and then given some to the Nochrim. This is not a difficult answer at all, as the Gemara's last question was indeed that Rebbi Yehudah's rebuke seems out of place as this is probably what happened. The fact that the Gemara only answers this by saying Rebbi Yehudah held like the opinion that one cannot do Melachah for dogs shows that Shimon ha'Teimani probably held the opposite, and therefore gave some to the dogs, thereby permitting to give the rest to the Nochrim.

All the best,

Yaakov Montrose