Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 10, 2021 | 讚壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 10

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Lydia Medwin in memory of her grandmother Helen Bloom. “We never met, but as I carry your name, I like to think that you’d be proud of how I carry our tradition and my new-found love of Talmud as well. I always think of you when I pull out your china for the holidays. May your soul be in perfect rest.” And 鈥淎 shout out to all the Daf Yomi learners in Santa Barbara, CA from Hazzan Mark Childs.鈥

The Gemara mentions a few more mishnayot in which Beit Shamai is stricter and Beit Hillel is lenient regarding Simchat Yom Tov and raises the contradiction from the first mishna where Beit Shamai is lenient and Beit Hillel is stricter (covering the blood). The structure of the answer is similar to the structure of the answers given earlier when asked the same question about other mishnayot. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about designation of the chicks beforehand – should they be taken in hand when summoned or it is sufficient to just point with one鈥檚 finger. Is the controversy in the first brood of birds or the second? What is the basis of the controversy? Why does Beit Hillel not think it is sufficient to say, 鈥淚 will take birds from here tomorrow鈥 and based on laws of retroactive designation, it should work. The Gemara rejects the possibility that Beit Hillel does not hold by retroactive designation. So how can his opinion be explained? If one designated birds and when one returned to take them, he/she found a different situation than was before, what is the law? If they were black and there were white ones or there were three and now only two or vice versa, is one permitted to take them? If there were three and now only two, it is permissible to assume that one flew and the two remained. Does this only correspond to the opinion of Rebbi and not the rabbis that disagree in the case of money from the second tithe that one placed aside and when he/she returned there was less money than he/she remembered leaving? The Gemara explains how the rabbis would still agree with our mishna, despite their opinion regarding the second tithe as the cases aren鈥檛 comparable.

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讜拽爪讛 讛讜讗 讘注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 住讙讬 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

However, where there is no embedded shovel, even Beit Shammai did not permit it. Alternatively, it is possible that Beit Hillel say their opinion only here, since a dove is muktze, which is prohibited by rabbinic law, and therefore when he stands and says: I will take this and that, it is enough. However there, where the prohibition applies by Torah law, they did not say so.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗转 讛注诇讬 诇拽爪讘 注诇讬讜 讘砖专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

Rather, if there is a difficulty involving a contradiction, this is the difficulty, from a different mishna (11a): Beit Shammai say: One may not take a large pestle from a mortar, which is normally used for crushing wheat in the preparation of porridge, for any other purpose on a Festival, e.g., to cut meat on it; and Beit Hillel permit it. Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai say: He may dig earth with a shovel and cover the blood, and Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter an undomesticated animal or a fowl, unless he had earth prepared for that purpose while it was still day. It was in this regard that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this: From where do you know this? Perhaps it is not so. Rather, Beit Shammai say their opinion only there, where there is a shovel embedded and prepared the day before, but where there is no embedded shovel, they did not rule leniently. Alternatively, one can say that Beit Hillel say their opinion only here, with regard to a pestle, which at least has the status of a vessel, and therefore it is not completely muktze. However, there, in the case of slaughtering, Beit Hillel did not issue a lenient ruling.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗转 讛注讜专 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讜专住谉 讜诇讗 讬讙讘讬讛谞讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty: It is taught in a mishna (11a): Beit Shammai say: One may not place an unprocessed hide before those who will tread on it, as this is an instance of the prohibited labor of tanning on a Festival. And one may not lift the hide from its spot, as it is considered muktze, unless there is an olive-bulk of meat on it, in which case it may be carried on account of its meat. And Beit Hillel permit one to place a hide before those who will tread upon it.

讗诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

Once again the Gemara states: Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai say, etc. Concerning this case, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讜讬讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

Here too, the Gemara rejects this: From where do you know this? Perhaps that is not so. Rather, Beit Shammai say their opinion only there, where there is a shovel embedded and prepared the day before, but where there is no embedded shovel, they did not rule leniently. Alternatively, Beit Hillel say their opinion only here, with regard to a hide, which is suitable for people to recline upon, and therefore it is not completely muktze. However, there, in the case of slaughtering, they were not lenient.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪住诇拽讬谉 讗转 讛转专讬住讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讗祝 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讻讜壮

Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty, as it is taught (11a): Beit Shammai say: One may not remove the shutters of a store on a Festival, to open the store by raising them, due to the prohibition against building and demolishing on a Festival; and Beit Hillel permit not only to open the shutters, but even to replace them. Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai say, etc.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽砖讬讗

Granted, the contradiction between one statement of Beit Shammai and the other statement of Beit Shammai is not difficult, as it can be explained as follows: There, in the slaughtering case, it is referring to a situation where there is a shovel embedded and prepared the day before; here, there is no embedded shovel, and therefore Beit Shammai are stringent. However, the contradiction between one statement of Beit Hillel and the other statement of Beit Hillel is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛 (讗讬 谞诪讬) 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 住转讬专讛 讘讻诇讬诐 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

It is with regard to this contradiction that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed. The Gemara comments: Alternatively, one can suggest a different answer without reversing the opinions: Beit Hillel say their lenient opinion only here, in the case of the shutters, because they maintain that there is no prohibition against building with regard to vessels and there is no prohibition against dismantling with regard to vessels, which means that no Torah prohibition is violated in removing the shutters. However, there, in the case of slaughtering, where there are no extenuating circumstances, Beit Hillel did not permit it. Consequently, there is no contradiction that necessitates a reversal of the opinions.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞注谞注 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may not take fledgling doves from a dovecote on a Festival, unless he shook the ones he wished to take while it was still day, thereby preparing them. And Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary to shake; rather, it is sufficient if one stands the day before and says: I will take this fledgling and that one.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘专讬讻讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬

GEMARA: Rav 岣nan bar Ami said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies to the first brood, the first pair of fledglings hatched in the first month of the year from a pair of doves. Those fledglings are usually left in the nest and are not used for food. As Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree prohibiting taking them, as perhaps on the Festival he will come to reconsider after handling them and decide to leave them in their place, in which case he has moved them unnecessarily. However, once he has already shaken them, there is no further concern that he might change his mind on the Festival itself.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讘专讬讻讛 砖谞讬讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 住讙讬讗

And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree, as there is no concern that one might change his mind, and therefore a verbal commitment is sufficient. However, with regard to the second brood, the fledglings born on the second cycle in the following month, everyone agrees that it is enough for one to stand and say: I will take this one and that one.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 诇讬诪讗 诪讻讗谉 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 诇诪讞专

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, why does one need to say: I will take this one and that one? Let him say: From here, this dovecote, I will take tomorrow. Why does one have to specify exactly which fledglings he plans to remove from the dovecote?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讘专讬专讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪转 讘讘讬转 讜诇讜 驻转讞讬诐 讛专讘讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬诐

And if you say that Beit Hillel do not accept the principle of retroactive designation, i.e., they reject the idea that a person鈥檚 original intention can be clarified retroactively, and therefore it cannot be said that the fledglings one takes on the Festival were the ones he had in mind beforehand, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ohalot 7:3): If a corpse is located in a house, and the house has many entrances, whether they are open or closed, not only is the inside of the house ritually impure as a tent of the dead, but all the entrances are likewise ritually impure and impart impurity to the vessels they contain? The reason is that the corpse might be removed via any of the entrances, and therefore they all contract impurity.

谞驻转讞 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞砖讘 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗讜 讘讞诇讜谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 讻诇 讛驻转讞讬诐 讻讜诇谉

If only one of the entrances was open after the person died, that entrance alone is ritually impure, as the corpse will certainly be removed through it, and all the other entrances remain ritually pure. The same applies if one decided from the outset to remove the corpse through one of the entrances, or to carry it out through a window that is four by four handbreadths in size, which is large enough for a corpse. This intention spares all the other entrances from ritual impurity, as it is clear that the corpse will not be removed through them.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜讛讜讗 砖讞砖讘 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转 讛诪转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪砖讬诪讜转 讛诪转

With regard to this case, Beit Shammai say: This halakha applies only if one had decided to remove the corpse by a particular entrance before the person died, so that the entrance through which the body would be removed was already determined at the time of death. And Beit Hillel say: This halakha applies even after the person died, as the principle of retroactive designation is invoked, which means that the entrance through which the deceased will be removed is retroactively designated. This indicates that Beit Hillel do accept the principle of retroactive designation.

讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讟讛专 讗转 讛驻转讞讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇讟讛专 讗转 讛驻转讞讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讗讬谉 诇诪驻专注 诇讗

The Gemara refutes this proof: Wasn鈥檛 it stated by amora鈥檌m with regard to this mishna that Rabba said: In this case, Beit Hillel referred only to purifying the entrances from that point forward. In other words, after one has decided on an entrance that he will use to remove the dead, any vessels in the space of the other entrances do not become ritually impure. However, vessels that were located inside the space of the other entrances before the decision was made remain impure. According to these amora鈥檌m, Beit Hillel do not accept the principle of retroactive designation. And, so too, Rav Oshaya said: This halakha is referring to purifying the entrances from that point forward, which indicates: From here onward, yes, the entrances are ritually pure; retroactively, no, they are not considered pure.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇诪驻专注 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讟诇讟诇 讜砖讘讬拽 诪讟诇讟诇 讜砖讘讬拽 讜拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛

Rava said that there is a different way to resolve the conflicting rulings of Beit Hillel: Actually, in the case of ritual impurity, Beit Hillel maintain that all the entrances are ritually pure retroactively. And here, with regard to fledglings, this is the reason why Beit Hillel insist that one designate which particular fledglings one plans to take on the Festival: Perhaps one will move fledglings, and put them down, and again move them, and put them down until he finds the pair he wants, thereby moving an object that is not suitable for him, i.e., which is muktze.

讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讘注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 住讙讬讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara raises an objection: But if this is indeed the concern, didn鈥檛 you say that it is enough if one stands and says: I will take this one and that one. In this case, too, he does not touch them. It is therefore possible that he may reconsider his choice of fledglings on the Festival after he handles them. The Gemara answers: This applies only when one made his choice on the eve of the Festival. Since he knows that he may not alter his decision on the Festival itself even if he does not like the ones he chose, he definitively decides to take those fledglings and will not handle others.

讗讘诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖转讻讞讬 砖诪谞讬诐 讻讞讜砖讬诐 讜讻讞讜砖讬诐 砖诪谞讬诐 讜拽诪讟诇讟诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖转讻讞讬 讻诇讛讜 讻讞讜砖讬诐 讜砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 讜讗转讬 诇讗诪谞讜注讬 诪砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

However, on the Festival it is prohibited, as sometimes those that seemed to him to be fat ones will be found to be thin, and thin ones will be found to be fat, and he will move an object that is not suitable for him, thereby transgressing the prohibition against moving muktze objects. Alternatively, sometimes they will all be found to be thin, and he will leave them all, and he will come to neglect the rejoicing of the Festival. If, however, one announces the day before: I will take this one and that one, he will indeed take only those fledglings, thereby enhancing his Festival joy.

诪转谞讬壮 讝诪谉 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜诪爪讗 诇讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 讜诪爪讗 砖讞讜专讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讜诪爪讗 砖诇砖讛 讗住讜专讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讜诪爪讗 砖谞讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐

MISHNA: If, on the eve of a Festival, one designated black fledglings to be slaughtered, and on the following day found white ones in the dovecote, rather than the birds he had designated, or if one designated white ones to be slaughtered and found black ones, or if one designated two fledglings to be slaughtered and found three, they are prohibited, as these are not the same fledglings he had designated earlier. If, however, one designated three to be slaughtered and found only two, they are permitted, as it is presumed that one of the fledglings escaped.

讘转讜讱 讛拽谉 讜诪爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讛拽谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讛诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬诐

If one designated them inside the nest and the next day he cannot find them there, and he found fledglings before the nest, they are prohibited, as they might be fledglings other than the ones he designated and left inside the nest. But if there are only those fledglings in the immediate vicinity, they are permitted, as it can be assumed that these are the ones he designated inside the nest.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讝诪谉 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜诇讘谞讬诐 讜讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 砖讞讜专讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 诇讘谞讬诐 讜诇讘谞讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讜专讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 讗讬谞讛讜 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗转讛驻讜讻讬 讗转讛驻讜讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讱 讗讝讚讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But it is obvious that if one designated black ones to be slaughtered and found white ones, they are not the same birds. Rabba said: With what are we dealing here? The mishna is referring to a case where one designated both black and white ones to be slaughtered, and he arose and found black ones in the place where the white ones had been, and white ones in the place of the black ones. Lest you say: These are those same fledglings and they simply exchanged places, the mishna teaches us that this claim is not accepted. Instead, it is assumed that these ones that he designated have gone to the outside world, and these ones that he found are others that have come from elsewhere.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讜讘 讜拽专讜讘 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi 岣nina said: When resolving an uncertainty with regard to the identity of an item, if the majority indicates one ruling but the item in question is proximate to a source that indicates otherwise, one follows the majority. In this case, the majority of fledglings are prohibited, as they were not designated for use on the Festival. Consequently, the found fledglings are prohibited, despite the fact that the nearest fledglings are the designated ones.

讻讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讚祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讚祝

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Perhaps it is as Abaye said with regard to a different issue: We are dealing with fledglings located on a ledge, a flat piece of wood protruding from the dovecote, around which many doves congregate. Here too, the mishna is referring to a ledge. Since other doves are regularly found there, the principle that one follows the majority rather than the proximate source does not apply, as both the majority of doves and the proximate source of doves are not the original ones, and therefore all the fledglings are prohibited.

砖谞讬诐 讜诪爪讗 砖诇砖讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 讚诪注专讘 讘讛讜

The mishna taught that if one designated two and found three, they are prohibited. The Gemara explains: Whichever way you look at this matter, the fledglings are prohibited. If these are others, they are others that have not been designated. And if they are not others, i.e., two of the fledglings that one designated are still there, nevertheless there is one that he certainly did not designate and that is mingled with them, which renders the others prohibited as well.

砖诇砖讛 讜诪爪讗 砖谞讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛谞讬 讗讬谞讛讜 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗讝诇 诇注诇诪讗

搂 The mishna taught that if one designated three and found two, they are permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: These are the same ones, and one of them has gone to the outside world, leaving two behind.

诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讬讞 诪谞讛 讜诪爪讗 诪讗转讬诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and not that of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: If one placed one hundred dinars of tithe money in a safe place and found two hundred there, it is assumed that this is non-sacred money and second-tithe money mingled together. Someone must have come and added another hundred to his tithe money. Therefore, he separates one dinars from the total and states: Whatever part of this is the tithe, is fine; whatever part of it is non-tithe money, let it be used to redeem the tithe money, and this should be sanctified as tithe money in its place. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. Since the money is not as he left it, the assumption is that someone took the original one hundred dinars; and he, or someone else, replaced it with two hundred dinars of regular money.

讛谞讬讞 诪讗转讬诐 讜诪爪讗 诪谞讛 诪谞讛 诪讜谞讞 讜诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉

Conversely, if one placed two hundred dinars and found one hundred dinars, it is presumed that one hundred dinars has been left in its place and is tithe money, and one hundred dinars was removed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. It is assumed that someone removed all the money, and the one hundred dinars he found must have been placed there by someone else, and is not connected to the money he left. The halakha with regard to the case of fledglings apparently follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion in the case of second-tithe money.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖讗谞讬 讙讜讝诇讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讚讚讜转

The Gemara refutes this claim: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it can be explained, as it was stated with regard to this mishna that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar both say: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop from place to place. Therefore, it is possible that one of them escaped. By contrast, a money pouch cannot move of its own accord and must have been taken by someone.

讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇砖谞讜讬讬 注诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讙讜讝诇讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讚讚讜转 讜讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘讻讬住 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘讻讬住 讗讞讚 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪谞讛 诪讜谞讞 讜诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇

The Gemara asks: And why do I need to answer with regard to it: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop? But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna, which deals with a money pouch, that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar disagree over it: One of them said: The dispute applies only to a case of two pouches, with one hundred dinars in each pouch. However, if all of the money was in a single pouch, everyone agrees that it is non-sacred money, as it is unlikely that only half of the money was removed while the other half was left in its place. And the other one of them said: The dispute applies only to one pouch, but with regard to two pouches, everyone agrees that one hundred dinars of tithe is left and one hundred dinars has been removed.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇砖谞讜讬讬 讛讻讗 砖讗谞讬 讙讜讝诇讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讚讚讜转 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讻讬住 讗讞讚 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪谞讛 诪讜谞讞 讜诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讛砖转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇砖谞讜讬讬 注诇讛 讛讗 讗诪专转 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara explains: Granted, according to the one who said that the dispute deals with a case of two pouches, this is why it was necessary to answer here: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop. However, according to the one who says that the dispute involves a case of one pouch, but with regard to two pouches everyone agrees that one hundred dinars of tithe is left and one hundred dinars has been removed, now consider: Why do I need to answer, with regard to it, that there is a difference between that halakha and the case of fledglings? You said that they do not disagree even with regard to two separate pouches, and therefore they certainly do not disagree in the case of fledglings.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讗 讘讙讜讝诇讜转 诪拽讜砖专讬诐 讜讻讬住讬诐 诪拽讜砖专讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讙讜讝诇讜转 诪谞转讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻讬住讬谉 诇讗 诪谞转讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬

Rav Ashi said: Here we are dealing with fledglings tied together and with money pouches tied together. In other words, when it is stated that the dispute applies to one pouch, this refers to two pouches that are tied together, as well. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the rabbis agree only with regard to two pouches that are entirely separate. Consequently, it is necessary to explain that there is a difference between pouches tied together and fledglings tied together: Fledglings can release themselves from each other,and therefore it is possible that only one of them escaped, whereas pouches cannot release themselves from each other. Therefore, it is evident that someone must have taken them. Since they were tied together, he certainly took both of them.

讜专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬住讬谉 谞诪讬 讝诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But if that is indeed the case, and it is obvious that someone came and took the money, what is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 reasoning? The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: Pouches, too, sometimes

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah: 7-14 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue the discussion of finding an egg on a Festival and if you are allowed to...
dovecote

Lovey Dovey

Ask anyone what bird is the symbol of peace or what beautiful creature is sometimes released at weddings and the...

Beitzah 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 10

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讜拽爪讛 讛讜讗 讘注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 住讙讬 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

However, where there is no embedded shovel, even Beit Shammai did not permit it. Alternatively, it is possible that Beit Hillel say their opinion only here, since a dove is muktze, which is prohibited by rabbinic law, and therefore when he stands and says: I will take this and that, it is enough. However there, where the prohibition applies by Torah law, they did not say so.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗转 讛注诇讬 诇拽爪讘 注诇讬讜 讘砖专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

Rather, if there is a difficulty involving a contradiction, this is the difficulty, from a different mishna (11a): Beit Shammai say: One may not take a large pestle from a mortar, which is normally used for crushing wheat in the preparation of porridge, for any other purpose on a Festival, e.g., to cut meat on it; and Beit Hillel permit it. Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai say: He may dig earth with a shovel and cover the blood, and Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter an undomesticated animal or a fowl, unless he had earth prepared for that purpose while it was still day. It was in this regard that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this: From where do you know this? Perhaps it is not so. Rather, Beit Shammai say their opinion only there, where there is a shovel embedded and prepared the day before, but where there is no embedded shovel, they did not rule leniently. Alternatively, one can say that Beit Hillel say their opinion only here, with regard to a pestle, which at least has the status of a vessel, and therefore it is not completely muktze. However, there, in the case of slaughtering, Beit Hillel did not issue a lenient ruling.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗转 讛注讜专 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讜专住谉 讜诇讗 讬讙讘讬讛谞讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty: It is taught in a mishna (11a): Beit Shammai say: One may not place an unprocessed hide before those who will tread on it, as this is an instance of the prohibited labor of tanning on a Festival. And one may not lift the hide from its spot, as it is considered muktze, unless there is an olive-bulk of meat on it, in which case it may be carried on account of its meat. And Beit Hillel permit one to place a hide before those who will tread upon it.

讗诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

Once again the Gemara states: Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai say, etc. Concerning this case, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讜讬讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

Here too, the Gemara rejects this: From where do you know this? Perhaps that is not so. Rather, Beit Shammai say their opinion only there, where there is a shovel embedded and prepared the day before, but where there is no embedded shovel, they did not rule leniently. Alternatively, Beit Hillel say their opinion only here, with regard to a hide, which is suitable for people to recline upon, and therefore it is not completely muktze. However, there, in the case of slaughtering, they were not lenient.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪住诇拽讬谉 讗转 讛转专讬住讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讗祝 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讻讜壮

Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty, as it is taught (11a): Beit Shammai say: One may not remove the shutters of a store on a Festival, to open the store by raising them, due to the prohibition against building and demolishing on a Festival; and Beit Hillel permit not only to open the shutters, but even to replace them. Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai say, etc.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽砖讬讗

Granted, the contradiction between one statement of Beit Shammai and the other statement of Beit Shammai is not difficult, as it can be explained as follows: There, in the slaughtering case, it is referring to a situation where there is a shovel embedded and prepared the day before; here, there is no embedded shovel, and therefore Beit Shammai are stringent. However, the contradiction between one statement of Beit Hillel and the other statement of Beit Hillel is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛 (讗讬 谞诪讬) 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 住转讬专讛 讘讻诇讬诐 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

It is with regard to this contradiction that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed. The Gemara comments: Alternatively, one can suggest a different answer without reversing the opinions: Beit Hillel say their lenient opinion only here, in the case of the shutters, because they maintain that there is no prohibition against building with regard to vessels and there is no prohibition against dismantling with regard to vessels, which means that no Torah prohibition is violated in removing the shutters. However, there, in the case of slaughtering, where there are no extenuating circumstances, Beit Hillel did not permit it. Consequently, there is no contradiction that necessitates a reversal of the opinions.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞注谞注 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may not take fledgling doves from a dovecote on a Festival, unless he shook the ones he wished to take while it was still day, thereby preparing them. And Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary to shake; rather, it is sufficient if one stands the day before and says: I will take this fledgling and that one.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘专讬讻讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬

GEMARA: Rav 岣nan bar Ami said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies to the first brood, the first pair of fledglings hatched in the first month of the year from a pair of doves. Those fledglings are usually left in the nest and are not used for food. As Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree prohibiting taking them, as perhaps on the Festival he will come to reconsider after handling them and decide to leave them in their place, in which case he has moved them unnecessarily. However, once he has already shaken them, there is no further concern that he might change his mind on the Festival itself.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讘专讬讻讛 砖谞讬讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 住讙讬讗

And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree, as there is no concern that one might change his mind, and therefore a verbal commitment is sufficient. However, with regard to the second brood, the fledglings born on the second cycle in the following month, everyone agrees that it is enough for one to stand and say: I will take this one and that one.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 诇讬诪讗 诪讻讗谉 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 诇诪讞专

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, why does one need to say: I will take this one and that one? Let him say: From here, this dovecote, I will take tomorrow. Why does one have to specify exactly which fledglings he plans to remove from the dovecote?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讘专讬专讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪转 讘讘讬转 讜诇讜 驻转讞讬诐 讛专讘讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬诐

And if you say that Beit Hillel do not accept the principle of retroactive designation, i.e., they reject the idea that a person鈥檚 original intention can be clarified retroactively, and therefore it cannot be said that the fledglings one takes on the Festival were the ones he had in mind beforehand, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ohalot 7:3): If a corpse is located in a house, and the house has many entrances, whether they are open or closed, not only is the inside of the house ritually impure as a tent of the dead, but all the entrances are likewise ritually impure and impart impurity to the vessels they contain? The reason is that the corpse might be removed via any of the entrances, and therefore they all contract impurity.

谞驻转讞 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞砖讘 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗讜 讘讞诇讜谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 讻诇 讛驻转讞讬诐 讻讜诇谉

If only one of the entrances was open after the person died, that entrance alone is ritually impure, as the corpse will certainly be removed through it, and all the other entrances remain ritually pure. The same applies if one decided from the outset to remove the corpse through one of the entrances, or to carry it out through a window that is four by four handbreadths in size, which is large enough for a corpse. This intention spares all the other entrances from ritual impurity, as it is clear that the corpse will not be removed through them.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜讛讜讗 砖讞砖讘 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转 讛诪转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪砖讬诪讜转 讛诪转

With regard to this case, Beit Shammai say: This halakha applies only if one had decided to remove the corpse by a particular entrance before the person died, so that the entrance through which the body would be removed was already determined at the time of death. And Beit Hillel say: This halakha applies even after the person died, as the principle of retroactive designation is invoked, which means that the entrance through which the deceased will be removed is retroactively designated. This indicates that Beit Hillel do accept the principle of retroactive designation.

讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讟讛专 讗转 讛驻转讞讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇讟讛专 讗转 讛驻转讞讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讗讬谉 诇诪驻专注 诇讗

The Gemara refutes this proof: Wasn鈥檛 it stated by amora鈥檌m with regard to this mishna that Rabba said: In this case, Beit Hillel referred only to purifying the entrances from that point forward. In other words, after one has decided on an entrance that he will use to remove the dead, any vessels in the space of the other entrances do not become ritually impure. However, vessels that were located inside the space of the other entrances before the decision was made remain impure. According to these amora鈥檌m, Beit Hillel do not accept the principle of retroactive designation. And, so too, Rav Oshaya said: This halakha is referring to purifying the entrances from that point forward, which indicates: From here onward, yes, the entrances are ritually pure; retroactively, no, they are not considered pure.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇诪驻专注 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讟诇讟诇 讜砖讘讬拽 诪讟诇讟诇 讜砖讘讬拽 讜拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛

Rava said that there is a different way to resolve the conflicting rulings of Beit Hillel: Actually, in the case of ritual impurity, Beit Hillel maintain that all the entrances are ritually pure retroactively. And here, with regard to fledglings, this is the reason why Beit Hillel insist that one designate which particular fledglings one plans to take on the Festival: Perhaps one will move fledglings, and put them down, and again move them, and put them down until he finds the pair he wants, thereby moving an object that is not suitable for him, i.e., which is muktze.

讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讘注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 住讙讬讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara raises an objection: But if this is indeed the concern, didn鈥檛 you say that it is enough if one stands and says: I will take this one and that one. In this case, too, he does not touch them. It is therefore possible that he may reconsider his choice of fledglings on the Festival after he handles them. The Gemara answers: This applies only when one made his choice on the eve of the Festival. Since he knows that he may not alter his decision on the Festival itself even if he does not like the ones he chose, he definitively decides to take those fledglings and will not handle others.

讗讘诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖转讻讞讬 砖诪谞讬诐 讻讞讜砖讬诐 讜讻讞讜砖讬诐 砖诪谞讬诐 讜拽诪讟诇讟诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖转讻讞讬 讻诇讛讜 讻讞讜砖讬诐 讜砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 讜讗转讬 诇讗诪谞讜注讬 诪砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

However, on the Festival it is prohibited, as sometimes those that seemed to him to be fat ones will be found to be thin, and thin ones will be found to be fat, and he will move an object that is not suitable for him, thereby transgressing the prohibition against moving muktze objects. Alternatively, sometimes they will all be found to be thin, and he will leave them all, and he will come to neglect the rejoicing of the Festival. If, however, one announces the day before: I will take this one and that one, he will indeed take only those fledglings, thereby enhancing his Festival joy.

诪转谞讬壮 讝诪谉 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜诪爪讗 诇讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 讜诪爪讗 砖讞讜专讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讜诪爪讗 砖诇砖讛 讗住讜专讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讜诪爪讗 砖谞讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐

MISHNA: If, on the eve of a Festival, one designated black fledglings to be slaughtered, and on the following day found white ones in the dovecote, rather than the birds he had designated, or if one designated white ones to be slaughtered and found black ones, or if one designated two fledglings to be slaughtered and found three, they are prohibited, as these are not the same fledglings he had designated earlier. If, however, one designated three to be slaughtered and found only two, they are permitted, as it is presumed that one of the fledglings escaped.

讘转讜讱 讛拽谉 讜诪爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讛拽谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讛诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬诐

If one designated them inside the nest and the next day he cannot find them there, and he found fledglings before the nest, they are prohibited, as they might be fledglings other than the ones he designated and left inside the nest. But if there are only those fledglings in the immediate vicinity, they are permitted, as it can be assumed that these are the ones he designated inside the nest.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讝诪谉 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜诇讘谞讬诐 讜讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 砖讞讜专讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 诇讘谞讬诐 讜诇讘谞讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讜专讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 讗讬谞讛讜 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗转讛驻讜讻讬 讗转讛驻讜讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讱 讗讝讚讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But it is obvious that if one designated black ones to be slaughtered and found white ones, they are not the same birds. Rabba said: With what are we dealing here? The mishna is referring to a case where one designated both black and white ones to be slaughtered, and he arose and found black ones in the place where the white ones had been, and white ones in the place of the black ones. Lest you say: These are those same fledglings and they simply exchanged places, the mishna teaches us that this claim is not accepted. Instead, it is assumed that these ones that he designated have gone to the outside world, and these ones that he found are others that have come from elsewhere.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讜讘 讜拽专讜讘 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi 岣nina said: When resolving an uncertainty with regard to the identity of an item, if the majority indicates one ruling but the item in question is proximate to a source that indicates otherwise, one follows the majority. In this case, the majority of fledglings are prohibited, as they were not designated for use on the Festival. Consequently, the found fledglings are prohibited, despite the fact that the nearest fledglings are the designated ones.

讻讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讚祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讚祝

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Perhaps it is as Abaye said with regard to a different issue: We are dealing with fledglings located on a ledge, a flat piece of wood protruding from the dovecote, around which many doves congregate. Here too, the mishna is referring to a ledge. Since other doves are regularly found there, the principle that one follows the majority rather than the proximate source does not apply, as both the majority of doves and the proximate source of doves are not the original ones, and therefore all the fledglings are prohibited.

砖谞讬诐 讜诪爪讗 砖诇砖讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 讚诪注专讘 讘讛讜

The mishna taught that if one designated two and found three, they are prohibited. The Gemara explains: Whichever way you look at this matter, the fledglings are prohibited. If these are others, they are others that have not been designated. And if they are not others, i.e., two of the fledglings that one designated are still there, nevertheless there is one that he certainly did not designate and that is mingled with them, which renders the others prohibited as well.

砖诇砖讛 讜诪爪讗 砖谞讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛谞讬 讗讬谞讛讜 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗讝诇 诇注诇诪讗

搂 The mishna taught that if one designated three and found two, they are permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: These are the same ones, and one of them has gone to the outside world, leaving two behind.

诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讬讞 诪谞讛 讜诪爪讗 诪讗转讬诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and not that of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: If one placed one hundred dinars of tithe money in a safe place and found two hundred there, it is assumed that this is non-sacred money and second-tithe money mingled together. Someone must have come and added another hundred to his tithe money. Therefore, he separates one dinars from the total and states: Whatever part of this is the tithe, is fine; whatever part of it is non-tithe money, let it be used to redeem the tithe money, and this should be sanctified as tithe money in its place. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. Since the money is not as he left it, the assumption is that someone took the original one hundred dinars; and he, or someone else, replaced it with two hundred dinars of regular money.

讛谞讬讞 诪讗转讬诐 讜诪爪讗 诪谞讛 诪谞讛 诪讜谞讞 讜诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉

Conversely, if one placed two hundred dinars and found one hundred dinars, it is presumed that one hundred dinars has been left in its place and is tithe money, and one hundred dinars was removed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. It is assumed that someone removed all the money, and the one hundred dinars he found must have been placed there by someone else, and is not connected to the money he left. The halakha with regard to the case of fledglings apparently follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion in the case of second-tithe money.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖讗谞讬 讙讜讝诇讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讚讚讜转

The Gemara refutes this claim: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it can be explained, as it was stated with regard to this mishna that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar both say: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop from place to place. Therefore, it is possible that one of them escaped. By contrast, a money pouch cannot move of its own accord and must have been taken by someone.

讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇砖谞讜讬讬 注诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讙讜讝诇讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讚讚讜转 讜讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘讻讬住 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘讻讬住 讗讞讚 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪谞讛 诪讜谞讞 讜诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇

The Gemara asks: And why do I need to answer with regard to it: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop? But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna, which deals with a money pouch, that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar disagree over it: One of them said: The dispute applies only to a case of two pouches, with one hundred dinars in each pouch. However, if all of the money was in a single pouch, everyone agrees that it is non-sacred money, as it is unlikely that only half of the money was removed while the other half was left in its place. And the other one of them said: The dispute applies only to one pouch, but with regard to two pouches, everyone agrees that one hundred dinars of tithe is left and one hundred dinars has been removed.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇砖谞讜讬讬 讛讻讗 砖讗谞讬 讙讜讝诇讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讚讚讜转 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讻讬住 讗讞讚 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪谞讛 诪讜谞讞 讜诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讛砖转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇砖谞讜讬讬 注诇讛 讛讗 讗诪专转 讘砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara explains: Granted, according to the one who said that the dispute deals with a case of two pouches, this is why it was necessary to answer here: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop. However, according to the one who says that the dispute involves a case of one pouch, but with regard to two pouches everyone agrees that one hundred dinars of tithe is left and one hundred dinars has been removed, now consider: Why do I need to answer, with regard to it, that there is a difference between that halakha and the case of fledglings? You said that they do not disagree even with regard to two separate pouches, and therefore they certainly do not disagree in the case of fledglings.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讗 讘讙讜讝诇讜转 诪拽讜砖专讬诐 讜讻讬住讬诐 诪拽讜砖专讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讙讜讝诇讜转 诪谞转讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻讬住讬谉 诇讗 诪谞转讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬

Rav Ashi said: Here we are dealing with fledglings tied together and with money pouches tied together. In other words, when it is stated that the dispute applies to one pouch, this refers to two pouches that are tied together, as well. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the rabbis agree only with regard to two pouches that are entirely separate. Consequently, it is necessary to explain that there is a difference between pouches tied together and fledglings tied together: Fledglings can release themselves from each other,and therefore it is possible that only one of them escaped, whereas pouches cannot release themselves from each other. Therefore, it is evident that someone must have taken them. Since they were tied together, he certainly took both of them.

讜专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬住讬谉 谞诪讬 讝诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But if that is indeed the case, and it is obvious that someone came and took the money, what is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 reasoning? The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: Pouches, too, sometimes

Scroll To Top