Ask A Question about the Daf

Introduction to Beitzah

Beitzah 2

1) INTRODUCTION TO MUKTZAH
One of the main topics of Maseches Beitzah is the topic of Muktzah. In order to better understand the discussions throughout the Gemara regarding Muktzah, it is worthwhile to review some of the basic concepts involved.

(a) MUKTZAH - The word Muktzah (from the word "Katzah") literally means "set aside at the far edge [of one's intentions for use]." The term is used to describe items that are set aside not to be used on this day, such as wood stacked away in storage (the word for a storage area is "Muktzah"). In a broader sense, the word Muktzah includes anything that a person did not intend to use at the time of the onset of Shabbos or Yom Tov, for whatever reason.

(b) THE ARGUMENT OF THE TANA'IM - Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue whether, on Shabbos, one may handle items that fall into certain categories of Muktzah. When we say that Rebbi Shimon "does not hold of Muktzah," that does not mean that Rebbi Shimon maintains that there is no prohibition of Muktzah whatsoever. Rather, it means that he holds that *certain categories* of Muktzah are not prohibited. There are, however, categories of Muktzah which are prohibited according to everyone. There are at least six different categories of Muktzah concerning which Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon disagree:

1. HIKTZEHU MI'DA'ATO ("he set it aside from his mind"). This refers to objects which a person did not have in mind to use during Shabbos or Yom Tov. According to Rebbi Yehudah, any object that one put aside because he did not intend to use it on Shabbos, is Muktzah and is prohibited. According to Rebbi Shimon, even objects which one put aside because he did not intend to used them may be used, and do not become Muktzah, as long as they have a use that is permitted on Shabbos or Yom Tov. Only items which a person shows that he consciously decided *not to use* by making them unfit for use on Shabbos (such as fruits that he put out to dry right before Shabbos, which become inedible until they are fully dried) are prohibited as Muktzah items. Even if such items become fit for use on Shabbos (i.e. before he had intended them to), they may still not be used on Shabbos.

2. NOLAD. When an item did not exist in its present form during Bein ha'Shemashos between Friday and Shabbos, but rather it was created (or was significantly changed) on Shabbos, it belongs to the category of Muktzah known as Nolad ("born"). Utensils that broke on Shabbos did not exist in their present form before Shabbos. Therefore, they are considered Nolad. Similarly, date pits from dates that were eaten on Shabbos are Nolad, since they were part of a fruit when Shabbos entered and emerged as pits only on Shabbos. Moving such items is prohibited according to Rebbi Yehudah, since a person could not have had in mind to use them before Shabbos, when they did not yet exist, and is permitted according to Rebbi Shimon, since he holds that advance positive intention to use an item on Shabbos is not necessary.

3. MUKTZAH MACHMAS ISUR ("Muktzah due to a prohibition;" also known as Migo d'Iskatza'i, "since it was set aside"). According to Rebbi Yehudah, anything that was Muktzah during Bein ha'Shemashos remains Muktzah for the rest of Shabbos or Yom Tov even if the reason for it being set aside has abated. This is called "Migo d'Iskatza'i l'Vein ha'Shemashos, Iskatza'i l'Chulei Yoma" ("since it was set aside for Bein ha'Shemashos, it is set aside for the entire day"). According to Rebbi Shimon, there are times when we do not apply the principle of "Migo d'Iskatza'i." If an object was Muktzah during Bein ha'Shemashos, and its owner *realized* that it will probably become usable during Shabbos, he may use or move the object after the point in which it becomes usable (see Shabbos 44a, 46b).

4. MUKTZAH MACHMAS MI'US. Items that are repulsive are automatically considered set aside not to be used (Muktzah) according to Rebbi Yehudah.

5. KELI SHE'MELACHTO EINO ELA L'ISUR. Items which are used *almost exclusively* for tasks which are prohibited on Shabbos or Yom Tov are considered Muktzah according to Rebbi Yehudah. According to Rebbi Shimon, they may be used for a permitted purpose (but they may not be moved for their own protection). This is not to be confused with Kli she'Melachto l'Isur, items which are used for a prohibited purpose *and are sometimes used* for permitted uses as well. Even Rebbi Yehudah permits moving a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur in order to use it for a permitted purpose, or to make room for something else ("l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo") - TOSFOS Shabbos 36a DH Ha Rebbi Yehudah, 44a DH Mitah

6. MUCHAN L'ADAM EINO MUCHAN L'KELAVIM (lit. "that which is prepared for use of man is not prepared for dogs"). There are two distinct types of Muktzah which can be included in this expression:

a. An object that was fit for human use, but cannot be used because of the laws of Shabbos or Yom Tov. For example, on Shabbos, a live animal is not fit for human use since it is forbidden to slaughter an animal on Shabbos. Even though live animals are sometimes fed to dogs, since this animal was designated to be used for *humans* after Shabbos, it is Muktzah (according to Rebbi Yehudah) and may not be fed to dogs.
b. If something happens to an object *on Shabbos* that makes it unfit for man, it is Muktzah and may not even be fed to dogs (according to Rebbi Yehudah). This is a form of Nolad. For example, if an animal was alive before Yom Tov (and was fit for man, since he could slaughter and eat it on Yom Tov) and then it died on Yom Tov, becoming unfit for man, Rebbi Yehudah prohibits feeding it to dogs. Rebbi Shimon permits feeding it to dogs.

(c) There are other categories of Muktzah that are prohibited according to both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon:

1. MUKTZAH MACHMAS GUFO (lit. "set aside because of itself"). This refers to any item which intrinsically has no use, such as a rock.
2. HUKTZAH L'MITZVASO (lit. "set aside for its Mitzvah"). Items which are designated to be used for a Mitzvah may not be used for other purposes, that detract from the Mitzvah, *even during the week*. On Shabbos, such items are Muktzah (as long as they are still fit for the Mitzvah -- if they become unfit for the Mitzvah in middle of Shabbos, their status will depend on the Halachah of Migu d'Iskatza'I, see above, (b):3.
3. DAVAR SHE'EINO RA'UY SHE'DECHA'O B'YADAYIM ("an item which is not fit to be used on Shabbos because its owner actively put it into a situation that it would not be able to be used on Shabbos"). An item which is not fit for use, *and* which one consciously decided not to use, is Muktzah, even if one subsequently decides to use it. (See above, (b):1)
4. DAVAR HE'ASUR BEIN HA'SHEMASHOS SHE'LO CHASHAV SHE'YAVO L'YEDEI HETER B'SHABBOS. An item which was forbidden at Bein ha'Shemashos (such as fruits from which Terumah had not yet been separated), which one did not think would become permitted on Shabbos, remains prohibited as Muktzah even when the Isur that prohibited until now is removed.
5. MUKTZAH MACHMAS CHISARON KIS. Items which are set aside from use due to their fragility (i.e., their main use is prohibited on Shabbos, and using them in any other manner may damage them) are Muktzah (for example, a Mohel's scalpel).

(d) According to most Rishonim, the prohibition of Muktzah is only mid'Rabanan. It was created by Nechemya ben Chakalya (Shabbos 124b) in order to prevent people from carrying on Shabbos from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Rabim (Beitzah 37b; Shabbos 124b). The Rabanan prohibited moving a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur (to protect it) lest a person use it in a prohibited manner on Shabbos (RAMBAM Hil. Shabbos 24:13. Other reasons proposed by the Rishonim for the laws of Muktzah, which differentiate between the way a person carries on Shabbos and during the week, are so that a person will not spend the entire Shabbos moving items around from place to place, and not resting, and so that people who do not normally work during the week will also notice the Shabbos (Rambam, ibid. 13-14).

However, RASHI (Beitzah 2b DH v'Hechinu, 26b DH v'Iy) appears to hold that at least according to Raba, Muktzah is a Torah prohibition (otherwise known as "Hachanah d'Raba"). Nevertheless, the Rishonim quote Rashi as saying that only *eating* Muktzah was prohibited by the Torah according to Raba; moving Muktzah is only a Rabbinic prohibition, as the other Rishonim maintain (note in Rashi 2a, cited by SHITAH MEKUBETZES there DH Man d'Shari, see also introduction of the PRI MEGADIM to Hilchos Yom Tov, section on Muktzah; introduction of the CHASAM SOFER's Mahadura Tinyana; the "Nesivos" in KOHELES YAKOV OC 509:7).

OPINIONS: Rav Nachman points out that Rebbi compiled the Mishnah in Shabbos regarding Muktzah on Shabbos in accordance with the view of Rebbi Shimon (that Muktzah is Mutar), without appending Rebbi Shimon's name to it. At the same time, Rebbi compiled the Mishnah in Beitzah regarding Muktzah on Yom Tov in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yehudah (that Muktzah is Asur), without appending Rebbi Yehudah's name to it. We know that when Rebbi compiled a "Stam" Mishnah (attributing the Halachah to no particular Tana), that indicates that Rebbi ruled in accordance with that view. If so, Rebbi seems to contradict himself in the Mishnayos in Shabbos and Beitzah. Rav Nachman answers that Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Shimon regarding Shabbos, since on Shabbos all Melachos are Asur and it needs no additional rabbinical safeguards, while he ruled like Rebbi Yehudah regarding Yom Tov, on which some Melachos are permitted, and thus it was necessary to strengthen the observance of Yom Tov by applying additional safeguards.

What is the Halachah on Shabbos and on Yom Tov regarding Muktzah? Does the Halachah follow Rav Nachman's explanation of Rebbi's view? (See Insights above regarding the different types of Muktzah; here, we are discussing only the type of object which is Muktzah because one did not have in mind to use it at the onset of Shabbos or Yom Tov, "Hiktzehu mi'Da'ato".)

(a) The RIF, RAMBAM, and other Rishonim write that the Halachah is like Rebbi and Rav Nachman: we are Machmir on Yom Tov and prohibit Muktzah in order to safeguard the sanctity of Yom Tov. (The RA'AVAD writes that even on Yom Tov, Rebbi maintains that Muktzah is actually Mutar. However, he wrote the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah so that *ignorant people*, who only learn only Mishnah, will think that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah on Yom Tov and they will not treat Yom Tov lightly. A Talmid Chacham, though, may be lenient with Muktzah on Yom Tov.)

(b) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR rules like Rebbi as explained by Rav Nachman, but he explains the Gemara differently. He proposes that it is impossible to be more stringent on Yom Tov than on Shabbos. Rather, when Rebbi ruled that Muktzah is Asur on Yom Tov, he was referring only to items which are Muktzah on Shabbos because of an Isur that applies to Shabbos (such as cooking), but which would not have been Muktzah on Yom Tov since the Isur does not apply on Yom Tov. For example, wood should not be Muktzah on Yom Tov because it can be used for fire, which is permitted to be made on Yom Tov. On Shabbos, though, wood is Muktzah because making a fire on Shabbos is forbidden. Rebbi's ruling makes items like wood Asur even on Yom Tov, in order to safeguard the sanctity of Yom Tov. Safeguarding the sanctity of Yom Tov ("Lo l'Zilzulei") only makes Yom Tov as stringent as Shabbos, but not more so. According to the Ba'al ha'Me'or, Rebbi is only Machmir with regard to items which require burning, Shechitah, or cooking (Melachos that are Mutar on Yom Tov and Asur on Shabbos) in order to make them usable.

(c) RABEINU CHANANEL at the end of Beitzah rules like our Gemara, that we are more stringent on Yom Tov in order to safeguard its sanctity. However, this stringency on Yom Tov does not apply to normal Muktzah items ("Hitzehu mi'Da'ato") -- such items are indeed Mutar to use on Yom Tov just like on Shabbos, like Rebbi Shimon holds. Rather, this stringency applies only to items which have another reason that makes them Muktzah (such as "Nolad," or "Muktzah Machmas Isur").

(d) The ROSH at the end of Beitzah (5:14) cites RASHI, RI, and RABEINU TAM who are lenient even with regard to Yom Tov, ruling that Muktzah is always Mutar. Their reason is because it was only Rav Nachman who asserted that there is a difference between Yom Tov and Shabbos, in order to explain the opinion of Beis Hillel in the Mishnah (who says that an egg laid on Yom Tov is Asur). Since the other Amora'im conclude that our Mishnah is not referring to an egg that is Asur because it is Muktzah, but rather because of other reasons that make it Asur, we no longer have to differentiate between Shabbos and Yom Tov. And since the Gemara at the end of Shabbos says that we rule like Rebbi Shimon, we rule like him regarding Yom Tov as well.

However, there is a slight difference between the view of Rabeinu Tam and that of Rashi and the Ri. Rabeinu Tam rules that although we are lenient with regard to Muktzah on Yom Tov, nevertheless we are stringent regarding Nolad (both on Yom Tov and on Shabbos). Rashi (33a, DH v'Hilchisa) and the Ri do not differentiate between Muktzah and Nolad, permitting both on Yom Tov and on Shabbos.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 495:4) rules like the Rif and Rambam (opinion (a) above), that we are stringent and prohibit Muktzah on Yom Tov but not on Shabbos. The REMA, however, rules leniently and permits Muktzah both on Shabbos and on Yom Tov (like opinion (d) above). However, he accepts Rabeinu Tam's stringency and does not permit Nolad on either day.

The MISHNAH BERURAH (495:17) cites Acharonim who are even more lenient and permit Nolad on Shabbos, and prohibit it only on Yom Tov (like the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel, (c) above).

2b

QUESTION: The Gemara asks why did Rebbi follow the view of Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah regarding Muktzah on Shabbos, while he followed the view of Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah regarding Muktzah on Yom Tov. The Gemara answers that he did not want people to treat the sanctity of Yom Tov lightly, and therefore he was stringent. Shabbos, though, which is already more stringent than Yom Tov, needed no additional safeguard.

Why did the Gemara not say that Rebbi was following the opinion of Beis Hillel, for it is Beis Hillel who is lenient on Shabbos and stringent on Yom Tov, according to Rav Nachman's explanation? The Gemara then should have asked why *Beis Hillel* rules differently on Shabbos than he does on Yom Tov.

ANSWER: RABEINU CHANANEL explains that Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah were not arguing about the same thing as Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. It is not that both Beis Shamai and Rebbi Shimon hold that Muktzah is Mutar, while Beis Hillel and Rebbi Yehudah hold that it is Asur. Rather, Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah both hold like Beis Hillel, but they are arguing about what Beis Hillel said. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that Beis Hillel is stringent and prohibits Muktzah on both Shabbos and Yom Tov. Rebbi Shimon maintains that Beis Hillel was lenient in both cases, Shabbos and Yom Tov.

In Maseches Shabbos, Rebbi quoted Beis Hillel according to Rebbi Shimon's version, and in Beitzah he quoted Beis Hillel according to Rebbi Yehudah's version. He wrote the Mishnah in each place "Stam" accordingly. The Gemara therefore asks why did Rebbi quote differing opinions in Beis Hillel in the two places, and it answers that he decided to make that compromise for the sake of preserving the sanctity of Yom Tov. (This is also the explanation of the RAMBAN in Milchamos, who explains it in more detail.)

QUESTION: Rabah says that an egg laid on Yom Tov is Asur, according to Beis Hillel in our Mishnah, because of "Hachanah." The formation of an egg is completed one day before it is laid. When Yom Tov falls after Shabbos, the egg laid on Yom Tov was completed on Shabbos. Since it is forbidden to use an item that was prepared on Shabbos for Yom Tov, the egg may not be used.

RASHI (DH v'Ein Yom Tov; 26b DH v'Iy -- see PNEI YEHOSHUA) equates the principle of "Hachanah d'Rabah" with Muktzah, saying that the egg that was prepared on Shabbos for Yom is Muktzah. He says that one must prepare the Yom Tov meal in advance, or otherwise the food may not be eaten on Yom Tov, mid'Oraisa (as he learns from Pesachim 47b -- see SHITAH MEKUBETZES). The preparation of the food has to be done on a weekday and not on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

It stands to reason that just like an item prepared on Shabbos for Yom Tov cannot be used on Yom Tov, so, too, an item that comes into existence on Yom Tov should also be Asur, because it was not prepared for use on a weekday before Yom Tov. If so, why does the Gemara have to say that the case of the Mishnah is when Yom Tov falls after Shabbos, and an egg laid today was completed *yesterday*? If it is also Asur to eat something created on Yom Tov, then the Gemara should say that the Mishnah is referring to *every* Yom Tov, and if an egg is completed on the *same* day that it is laid, the egg is Asur because it was not properly prepared before Yom Tov!

ANSWERS:

(a) The ME'IRI (Chidushei ha'Me'iri, p. 4a) writes that according to Rashi, the Gemara does not mean that the egg is Asur only because it was completed the day before (on Shabbos), and that it would have been Mutar if it had been completed the same day it was laid, on Yom Tov. Even if it would have been completed today, it would have been Asur. However, it was simply a known fact to the Gemara that an egg does *not* become completed on the day that it is laid, but on the day before. Therefore, the Gemara has to attribute the prohibition to the case of an egg laid on Yom Tov that falls after Shabbos.

(b) The PNEI YEHOSHUA writes that if eggs become completed on the day that they are laid, we would not be able to justify the opinion of Beis Shamai, who permits eggs laid on Yom Tov. (That is, Rashi preferred not to have to suggest that Beis Shamai argues with the entire notion of Hachanah, according to Raba.)

(c) Tosfos and most other Rishonim (cf. BA'AL HA'ME'OR) disagree with Rashi. They write that the Isur of Hachanah is not related to Muktzah. The egg is Asur not because the food was not properly designated for Shabbos or Yom Tov, but because of a special rule in the Torah that one may not use something on Yom Tov that came into being on the Shabbos that immediately precedes it (nor may one use something on Shabbos that came into being on the Yom Tov that immediately precedes it). Consequently, if the egg came into being on Yom Tov, there is no problem with using it on Yom Tov, because the Isur of the Torah was never said in such a case. The Gemara was forced to conclude that according to Rabah, an egg is completed on the day *before* it is laid.

QUESTION: Rabah explains that the reason Beis Hillel prohibits eating an egg laid on Yom Tov (that falls immediately after Shabbos) is because of "Hachanah." The formation of an egg is completed one day before it is laid. When Yom Tov falls after Shabbos, the egg laid on Yom Tov was completed on Shabbos. Since it is forbidden to use an item that was prepared on Shabbos for Yom Tov, the egg may not be used. The Gemara questions Rabah's explanation and says that according to Rabah, why should an egg laid on a regular Shabbos be Asur? It was completed (and thus prepared) the day before, which was a weekday!

Why is the Gemara asking that an egg laid on Shabbos should be Mutar according to Rabah? Every hen is Muktzah on Shabbos since it cannot be slaughtered! If so, an egg that comes from a hen should have the same status as the hen, just like we find that an egg laid on Yom Tov by a hen that is designated for laying eggs (and not for eating) is Asur (2a)! Why is this egg that comes from Muktzah on Shabbos any different, such that it should be Mutar according to Rabah?

ANSWERS:

(a) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR cites "Yesh Mefarshim" who offer a rather forced answer and say that the Gemara is referring to case of an egg laid on Shabbos in a home where there is a very sick person whose like is in danger (Choleh she'Yesh Bo Sakanah). The people of the house planned, before Shabbos, to slaughter the hen on Shabbos for the sick person. Therefore, the hen was not Muktzah, and thus the egg that comes from it is also not Muktzah.

The Ba'al ha'Me'or himself rejects this answer, because this case is a very rare situation (a "Milsa d'Lo Shechicha") and the Rabanan do not apply their Gezeiros in such cases (as the Gemara itself says), and thus the egg indeed should be Mutar.

(b) The RA'AVAD (on the Rif) explains that the Gemara holds that there is no Isur of Muktzah on Shabbos (like Rebbi Shimon), even Muktzah Machmas Isur (such as a hen, which is prevented from use at the beginning of Shabbos due to an Isur).

(c) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR formulates a new rule for Muktzah. He explains that whenever a person has in mind to use a certain item which will come into existence (or become permitted to him) on Shabbos, it is not Muktzah at all, even according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Even though the Mishnah in Shabbos says that oil left in a lamp after the flame goes out is Muktzah according to Rebbi Yehudah, that is because there might not be any left when the flame goes out, and thus one did not expect to use any oil, so he did not have it in mind. In this case, though, one expects the item (the egg) to come into the world.

(d) The RAMBAN (in Shabbos 144b and Milchamos, Beitzah 21a) says that Muktzah Machmas Isur only makes something Asur, according to Rebbi Yehudah if the person himself *made* the object Asur at the start of Shabbos (for example, by lighting the candle, he made the oil Asur). Here, the item (hen/egg) became Asur *by itself*, and therefore when the Isur goes away it becomes Mutar (i.e., the principle of "Migu d'Iskatza'i" does not apply in such a case). Only when an Isur actually was performed with an object on Shabbos, do we say that it is prohibited because of Migu d'Iskatza'i even though it became Asur by itself -- such as when an animal is slaughtered on Shabbos in transgression of the Isur Shabbos. (In the Milchamos in Pesachim (56b) the Ramban seems to contradict this ruling, for he writes that if figs are on top of a tree and are not accessible without climbing the tree on Shabbos, they become Muktzah Machmas Isur and even if they fall down they may not be used.)

(e) The RAN explains that there is no general rule that anything that comes from Muktzah is Muktzah. Rather, if an egg comes from a hen designated for laying eggs, it is Muktzah and Asur because it is *Nolad*. Since the hen was not a food and the egg is a food, something new has come into the world. In our Gemara, though, we are discussing a hen that is designated for eating; it is just the Isur of slaughtering on Shabbos that prevents one from eating it. Such a hen is still called a food, and therefore its egg is "Uchla d'Ifras," a piece of food that broke off, and it is not Nolad. The fact that it came from a hen which is Muktzah does not make a difference, anything which is edible is considered prepared for use on Shabbos (as long as it is not Nolad).

QUESTION: The Gemara asks that eggs found inside a hen that was slaughtered on Yom Tov should be Asur because of a Gezeirah of eggs that were *laid* on Yom Tov (which, Rashi explains, refers to Yom Tov that falls right after Shabbos). These eggs, though, should be Asur for a different reason -- they are a Safek Isur! That is, there is a doubt whether the eggs that were extracted from the slaughtered hen were completed the day before, on Shabbos (in which case they are Asur because of "Hachanah d'Rabah"), or today, on Yom Tov (in which case they would be permitted according to most Rishonim, see above, 4:c)!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Milsa) explains that the problem of Hachanah, of being prepared on Shabbos for Yom Tov, occurs only retroactively, after the egg is laid. The RAMBAN (Milchamos) explains that this is because it is only at the moment it is laid, that one benefits from the completion of the egg that occurred the day before (on Shabbos), for now it becomes possible to eat the egg without slaughtering the mother. While the egg is still in the mother, one has gained nothing from its completion. The Rishonim (RA'AVAD and others) cite the Yerushalmi that presents a different reason why the egg's completion becomes useful only retroactively, after it is laid. After it is laid is when it is able to develop into a chick. Alternatively, that is when it begins to taste good. Before it is laid, the fact that it has been completed does not make a difference and thus it is not called "Hachanah" on Shabbos for Yom Tov..

(b) The RA'AVAD, explaining the opinion of RABEINU EFRAIM, says that an egg that is completed the previous day is laid immediately in the morning. If it is already later in the day when the egg is removed from the slaughtered hen, it is clear that it was not completed the day before, but today, and it is therefore permitted.

(c) RABEINU EFRAIM, as cited by the Ba'al ha'Me'or, indeed says that eggs found inside a hen are Asur because of a Safek that they might have been completed the day before. The way the Ra'avad (above, (b)) understands Rabeinu Efraim, he is only referring to eggs found in a hen slaughtered at night. However, it could be that Rabeinu Efraim is talking about eggs from a hen that was slaughtered even during the day, and he learns our Sugya differently. Instead of discussing a Yom Tov that falls right after Shabbos, the Gemara is discussing a regular Yom Tov that does not follow Shabbos. When the Gemara says that these eggs should be Asur because of a Gezeirah of eggs laid on Yom Tov, it does not mean a Gezeirah of *other* eggs laid on Yom Tov, but it means a Gezeirah that perhaps these eggs themselves were going to be laid today, and thus they should be included in the normal Gezeirah of eggs laid on Yom Tov! The Gemara answers that the Rabanan did not enact such a Gezeirah because it is uncommon to eat eggs found inside the hen. But if a hen is slaughtered on a Yom Tov which follows a Shabbos, the eggs would certainly be prohibited mid'Oraisa.