QUESTIONS: The Gemara discusses selecting birds before Yom Tov in order to
slaughter them on Yom Tov. The Gemara cites the Mishnah later on this Amud,
in which Beis Shamai says that one must pick up the birds and shake them,
and it does not suffice to merely name them verbally. Beis Hillel permits
designating the birds for use on Yom Tov by merely verbally naming them.
RASHI at the top of this Amud explains that Beis Shamai does not permit
merely naming them verbally, because perhaps one will pick up a bird on Yom
Tov, inspect it, and then decide not to use, in which case he will have
handled the bird for no reason on Yom Tov. Rashi adds that by changing his
mind about this bird, he retroactively annuls the Hachanah with which he
verbally prepared the bird before Yom Tov (and it turns out that when he
handled the bird it was Muktzah).
Rashi's words are self-contradictory. He first says that the problem,
according to Beis Shamai, is that the person will commit an unnecessary
Tircha (exertion) on Yom Tov. In the end of his explanation, Rashi says that
the problem is that the person will move something that was retroactively
Muktzah (which is different than an unnecessary Tircha)!
Second, why should the fact that the person opted not to use this bird annul
the Hachanah retroactively? If he said, "This bird and that bird I am going
to take," even if he does not take the bird he designated, why should that
annul the Hachanah? After all, he prepared them no matter what, and if he
decides not to take them, that should not make them not-prepared and
Muktzah! (This point is clear from the Gemara itself, later on the page,
which differentiates between "Zeh v'Zeh Ani Notel" and a situation of
Bereirah [retroactive determination].)
Third, Rashi himself -- when he explains the Mishnah later on the Amud --
says that according to Beis Shamai the problem will be "Tiltul she'Lo
l'Tzorech" -- unnecessary exertion (DH Gazrinan). Rashi makes no mention of
annulling one's preparation of the bird retroactively and handling Mutkzah
as a result. (TAL TORAH, BIGDEI YOM TOV, CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM)
ANSWER: Why should Beis Shamai prohibit the bird that was prepared before
Yom Tov because, as the Gemara puts it, "he might change his mind (and not
slaughter it)?" Since it was prepared for use before Yom Tov, simply
deciding not to eat it will not make it Muktzah on Yom Tov. Why, then, can
one not handle the bird? Rashi writes (DH Gazrinan) that the person will be
doing "unnecessary exertion." This explanation, though, is forced at best.
Since when are we concerned about the amount of exertion a person puts into
picking up a bird and putting it down? We must suggest that since it can be
avoided by Rabbinic instituion, the Rabanan instituted what they could so
that a person should avoid even this minimal amount of unnecessary exertion.
Some Rishonim though suggest other interpretations of this Gemara. The RE'AH
says that Beis Shamai means that declaring, "This bird and that bird I am
going to take," does not make a Hachanah Gemurah; it does not serve to fully
prepare the bird for use, because it is very common for a person to change
his mind. One's verbal declaration is not a real Hachanah unless he actually
picks up and shakes the birds before Yom Tov, showing that he really means
to use it. The RAMBAM in Perush ha'Mishnayos says that Beis Shamai was
afraid that a person might change his mind *before* Yom Tov, choosing other
birds instead, and then when he changes his mind back again on Yom Tov and
takes these birds they will be Muktzah. RABEINU CHANANEL explains that Beis
Shamai is afraid that on Yom Tov the person will not find the birds he
prepared fit for a Yom Tov meal, and since he prepared no other birds, he
will not eat, and refrain from Simchas Yom Tov.
Rashi at beginning of the Amud perhaps learns like the Re'ah, that since it
is common for a person to change his mind, the verbal Hachanah of the birds
is not a complete Hachanah. Why, though, is it not a complete Hachanah? His
statement clearly designated the birds for use on Yom Tov. It is only in his
heart that he is uncertain, and the principle of "Devarim sh'b'Lev Einam
Devarim" teaches that the thoughts in one's heart do not override the words
that one speaks! How can it be that it is not Muchan if he declared that it
is?
Rashi therefore explains that when he says, "This bird and that bird I am
going to take," he is including in his words a condition and is actually
saying, "I hereby prepare this bird *because* I am going to take it." If he
ends up not taking it, then that bird was never prepared (because his
condition -- that he take it -- was not fulfilled). In that case, the bird
that he decided not to use will retroactively lose its Hachanah because his
condition was not fulfilled. This is what Rashi means when he says that it
becomes Muktzah retroactively -- as a result of the lack of fulfillment of
one's condition. This is also what Rashi means when he says that one moved
the bird "for nothing," i.e. not in a permitted fashion, as he originally
thought he was moving it, but unjustly; since he did not fulfill the
condition of using it on Yom Tov, the Hachanah was annulled retroactively.
Why, though, does Rashi explain differently later and say that Beis Shamai
prohibits it because it is "Tiltul she'Lo l'Tzorech," unnecessary handling?
The Gemara at that point thinks that Beis Shamai does not hold of Bereirah,
as the Gemara explains. Therefore, Rashi had no choice but to give another
explanation, not based on Bereirah. The first explanation utilizes the
principle of Bereirah, in that one is able to determine retroactively that
the birds are not Muchan. However, the Gemara concludes that there is no
proof whether or not Beis Shamai holds of Bereirah (because the Mishnah
which the Gemara cited as a proof is not actually discussing Bereirah), and
therefore Rashi's explanation earlier, based on Bereirah, remains the more
acceptable explanation for why Beis Shamai prohibits moving the birds. (M.
Kornfeld; see also BIGDEI YOM TOV for a similar approach.)