Commentary for Eruvin 78:4

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי משום דליכא למיגזר עלייהו אבל ביצה דאיכא למיגזר בה משום פירות הנושרין ומשום משקין שזבו אימא מודה להו לרבנן צריכא:

it might have been presumed [that R'Judah maintained his view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the two days are regarded as two entities of holiness.');">¹¹</span> in these only] because there is no prohibition On account of which these should be forbidden as a preventive measure, but that in the case of the EGG, where there is reason to forbid it as a preventive measure as fallen fruit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On a holy day it is forbidden to eat fruit that dropped from the tree on that day, as a preventive measure against one's climbing the tree and plucking them (cf. Bezah 2b) ; and it is similarly forbidden to drink the juice of fruit that exuded on that day, as a preventive measure against one's squeezing of the fruit (cf. op. cit, 3a) . An egg might have been assumed to come under the former or latter category.');">¹²</span> or as liquids that excluded,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On a holy day it is forbidden to eat fruit that dropped from the tree on that day, as a preventive measure against one's climbing the tree and plucking them (cf. Bezah 2b) ; and it is similarly forbidden to drink the juice of fruit that exuded on that day, as a preventive measure against one's squeezing of the fruit (cf. op. cit, 3a) . An egg might have been assumed to come under the former or latter category.');">¹²</span> he agrees with the Rabbis.

Explore commentary for Eruvin 78:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.