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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 11, 2021 | 讛壮 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 11 – Shabbat September 11

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

If one designated birds from one nest and found birds in front of the nest on Yom Tov instead of in the nest, they are forbidden because they may not be the ones he designated. Is it because when there is “majority” and “proximity”, we follow the majority? Rava and Abaye explain the case – each in a different way, each showing that this is not a case where proximity is different than the majority. What does the mishna means when it says that if there are no more chicks in the area, then it can be assumed that what one finds is what was designated? Isn’t it obvious?! Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree on the matter of using a pestle on Shabbat for cutting meat, a permitted activity. Abaye derives from the mishna that only a pestle is forbidden by Beit Shammai, but a wooden anvil would be permitted. There is a slightly different version of Abaye鈥檚 opinion. According to the second version, Beit Shamai is not concerned that one will change one鈥檚 mind regarding the use of the anvil 鈥 however, this contradicts other cases where Beit Shami is concerned one will change one鈥檚 mind. What is the difference between the cases? How can one take care of the hide of an animal that is slaughtered on Yom Tov? Can one put it on the floor and people will trample on it? What can be done with the forbidden fats of the animal on Yom Tov? Is it possible to salt a few pieces of meat on a Yom Tov if you only need one for the holiday? Is it possible to remove shutters in a store on Yom Tov to sell items needed for the holiday? Is it possible to return them to their place after, to protect the goods? There is a dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel on the issue. Ulla counts three cases and Rechava adds a fourth in which something is allowed because of its beginning – in order for people to perform another mitzvah, such as to ensure people will slaughter animals and fulfill the mitzvah of Simchat Yom Tov. 聽Why did Ulla have to indicate these cases – what was not clear in the mishnayot in which all these cases were mentioned? Why did Ulla not mention the case of Rehava? How did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar understand differently the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding the shutters? And in which case did they agree – with/without a hinge? What kind of hinge?

讚诪转注讻诇 拽讟专讬讬讛讜

their knot becomes worn and untied. Consequently, it is possible that someone took only one of the two pouches.

讘转讜讱 讛拽谉 讜诪爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讛拽谉 讗住讜专讬谉 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

搂 The mishna taught that if one designated fledglings inside the nest and found them before the nest, they are prohibited. The Gemara comments: Let us say that this supports the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi 岣nina said: In a case involving a majority and an item that is near, one follows the majority. Since doves from the outside world are more numerous than those that one designated, the assumption is that these fledglings are from the majority, and therefore they are prohibited.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讚祝 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 拽谞讬谉 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讝诪谉 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讝诪谉 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诪爪讗 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讚讗住讬专谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讱 讗砖转专讘讜讘讬 讗砖转专讘讜讘 讜谞讞讜转

Abaye said, in refutation of this claim: Here we are dealing with a ledge affixed to the front of the nest, where all the doves gather. Therefore, the principle pertaining to a majority and an item that is near does not apply to this case. Rava said: Here we are dealing with two nests, one above the other, i.e., adjacent nests rather than any two nests. And it is not necessary to state that in the case of one who designated the fledglings in the lower nest and did not designate those in the upper one, and he found fledglings in the lower one and he did not find fledglings in the upper one, that the fledglings are all prohibited. The reason is that we say: These that were in the lower nest went to the outside world, while these still present have dragged themselves and come down.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讝诪谉 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讝诪谉 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 讗住讬专讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讱 住专讜讻讬 住专讬讱 讜住诇讬拽讜

Rather, even if one designated fledglings in the upper nest and did not designate fledglings in the lower one, and he came and found fledglings in the upper one and did not find fledglings in the lower one, those in the upper nest are also prohibited, as we say: Those that he originally designated went to the outside world, and those in the lower nest have clutched and climbed. Therefore, there is cause for concern in both of these cases.

讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪驻讜专讞讬谉 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The mishna states that if there are no others there apart from them, they are permitted. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that the mishna is dealing with fledglings that are already able to fly, it is possible to say that those that he designated went to the outside world, and the ones that are present are other ones.

讗诇讗 讘诪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 拽谉 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚讚讜讬讬 讗讚讚讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 拽谉 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诪讜转专讬谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诇 讛诪讚讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讚讚讛 讬讜转专 诪讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛

Rather, the mishna must be referring to fledglings that can only hop from one place to another. However, if it deals with a case where there is another dove nest within fifty cubits, the fledglings might have jumped and come from that nest; and if there is no nest within fifty cubits, it is obvious that they are permitted, for from where could they have come? As Mar Ukva bar 岣ma said: With regard to any creature that hops, it does not hop more than fifty cubits.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬讻讗 拽谉 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讻讙讜谉 讚拽讬讬诪讗 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讚讚讜讬讬 讗讚讚讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讚讚讛 讜讛讚专 讞讝讬 诇拽谞讬讛 诪讚讚讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪讚讚讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a case where there is another nest within fifty cubits, and it deals with a situation where the additional nest is situated around a corner from the first nest, rather than in a straight line from it. Lest you say: The fledglings jumped from one nest to the other, the mishna therefore teaches us that anywhere that a fledgling hops and turns and sees its nest, it will continue to hop. But if it can no longer see its original nest, it will not hop any farther.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬诐 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 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 注诪讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

MISHNA: 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. Likewise, Beit Shammai say: One may not place an unprocessed hide before those who will tread on it, as this constitutes the prohibited labor of tanning on a Festival. And one may not lift the hide from its place, 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 it in both cases.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 拽爪讘 注诇讬讜 讘砖专 砖讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜

GEMARA: The Sage taught in a baraita: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that if one already cut the meat he needs for the Festival on the pestle, it is prohibited to move the pestle farther on the Festival. The reason is that the vessel is muktze as a utensil whose primary function is a prohibited use, and therefore it is permitted to handle it only when one requires it.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注诇讬 讗讘诇 讘转讘专讗 讙专诪讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 驻砖讬讟讗 注诇讬 转谞谉

Abaye said: This dispute applies specifically in the case of a pestle; however, in the case of a wooden anvil used for breaking bones, everyone agrees that it is permitted. The Gemara asks: This is obvious; we learned in the mishna: A pestle. Why would one think that an object not even mentioned in the mishna is prohibited?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 转讘专讗 讙专诪讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讬 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗住讜专 谞诪讬 砖专讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Abaye鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say: The same is true, i.e., Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree, even with regard to a wooden anvil used for breaking bones; and that which the mishna specifically teaches: A pestle, is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel, that they permitted moving even an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use. Abaye therefore teaches us that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to a wooden anvil used for breaking bones.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讘专讗 讙专诪讬 讞讚转讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪诪诇讱 讜诇讗 转讘专 注诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Some say a different version of the previous discussion. Abaye said: It is necessary to say only: Even a new wooden anvil used for breaking bones is also permitted. Lest you say: Perhaps one will reconsider and not break bones on it, but rather set it aside for a different purpose, Abaye therefore teaches us that this is not a concern.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讟讘讞 讜住讻讬谉 讗爪诇 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讗爪诇 讟讘讞 讜住讻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讝讛 讗爪诇 讝讛

The Gemara asks: And is that so? Are Beit Shammai not concerned about the possibility that one might reconsider? But isn鈥檛 it taught (Tosefta, Beitza 1:13): Beit Shammai say: On a Festival, one may not lead a butcher with a knife in hand to an animal located far from him, so that he can slaughter it; nor may one lead an animal to a butcher with a knife, lest he reconsider, in which case he will have handled the knife unnecessarily, which is prohibited; and Beit Hillel say: One may lead them from one to the other, as they are not concerned about unnecessary use of the knife.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 转讘诇讬谉 讜诪讚讜讱 讗爪诇 诪讚讜讻讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讜讻讛 讗爪诇 转讘诇讬谉 讜诪讚讜讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讝讛 讗爪诇 讝讛

By the same reasoning, Beit Shammai say: One may not bring spices or a pestle to a mortar,nor a mortar to spices and a pestle, as he might change his mind and will have handled these utensils on the Festival for no purpose. And Beit Hillel say: One may bring one to the other, as there is no concern that he may reconsider. This shows that Beit Shammai are, in general, concerned that one might reconsider, as they prohibit one to handle items for this reason.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讗转讬 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬 讚讗诪专 谞砖讘拽 讛讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讻讞讜砖讛 讜诪讬讬转讬谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专讬转讬 讚砖诪讬谞讛 诪讬谞讛 拽讚专讛 谞诪讬 讗转讬 诇讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讚讗诪专 谞砖讘拽 讛讗讬 拽讚专讛 讚讘注讬讗 转讘诇讬谉 讜诪讬讬转讬谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 转讘诇讬谉 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪诪诇讱 讜诇讗 转讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟讛 诇转讘讬专讗 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara refutes this: How can these cases be compared? Granted, in the case of an animal, one is liable to come to reconsider, as he might say: Let us leave aside this animal, as it is thin, and we will bring a different animal, fatter than it. With regard to a pot, too, one is liable to come to reconsider, as he might say: Let us leave aside this pot of cooked food, as it requires spices and would take great effort to prepare, and I will bring a different one that does not require spices and can be cooked as it is. However, here, with regard to a wooden anvil used for breaking bones, what is there to say? Will one reconsider and not break the bones? Since he has slaughtered an animal, it stands ready for its bones to be broken, as it cannot be eaten in any other way.

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 转谞讗 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪讜诇讞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘砖专 诇爪诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪诇讬 讗讘诇 诇拽讚专讛 诇讗

搂 It was taught in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: One may not place an unprocessed hide before the one who will tread on it. The Sage taught (Tosefta, Beitza 1:13): And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may salt meat for roasting on this hide, and there is no concern that some of the salt will fall on the hide, which would be similar to tanning the hide by salting. Abaye said: They taught that one may salt meat only for roasting, in which case it is not salted a great deal. However, in the case of meat for a pot, i.e., for cooking, the Sages did not say that one may salt it on the hide, as meat must be well-salted on all sides before cooking, and a large amount of salt will inevitably spill onto the hide.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇爪诇讬 转谞谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇爪诇讬 讻注讬谉 拽讚专讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: It is obvious the one may not salt meat for cooking in a pot, as we explicitly learned in the Tosefta just cited: For roasting, and not for cooking. The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us that even the permission to salt meat for roasting applies only if one does so in the usual manner. However, if one salts it in a manner of meat salted to be cooked in a pot, which requires more salt than is necessary for roasting, it is prohibited.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讞讬谉 讗转 讛讞诇讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讛驻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专讜 砖讜讟讞谉 讘专讜讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讬转讚讜转

The Sages taught: On a Festival, one may not salt the fats of an animal, which is done so that they will not decompose and emit a foul odor. This is true even if the animal was slaughtered on the Festival. And one may not turn them over. The fats are unfit for use on the Festival, and therefore they are muktze. They said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: One may spread the fats out in the wind on pegs to prevent them from decaying.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讞讬讚

Rav Mattana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. Some say that Rav Mattana said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this statement is necessary. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that since this is a dispute between an individual and the many, one should apply the principal that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many. Rav Mattana therefore teaches us that, in this case, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the individual.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪住转讘专 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 诪诪谞注 讜诇讗 砖讞讬讟 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

However, according to the one who said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this is obvious. In a case involving an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the many. The Gemara answers: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say: Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 opinion is more reasonable, for if you do not permit him to air out the fats, he will refrain and not slaughter an animal at all. Rav Mattana therefore teaches us that this factor is not taken into consideration.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注讜专 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讜专住谉

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from placing a hide before those who will tread on it, which Beit Hillel, whose ruling is accepted as halakha, permit for the very reason that, if one is not allowed to do so, he will refrain from slaughtering animals?

讛转诐 诇讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪诇转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 诇讬 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇住专讞 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪砖讟讞讬谞讛讜 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪诪诇讞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of spreading out the hide, the matter is not so evident that it is spread out for tanning because in its current state, it is fit to recline on, and therefore it can be said that one placed it for this purpose. However, here, with regard to fats, he himself might come to say: What is the reason that the Sages permitted it to me? So that it will not emit a foul odor. If so, what is the difference to me if I spread them out, and what is the difference to me if I salt them? This reasoning will lead one to salt hides, which is a prohibited labor.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜诇讞 讗讚诐 讻诪讛 讞转讬讻讜转 讘砖专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇讞转讬讻讛 讗讞转 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪注专讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讙专诪讗 讙专诪讗

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may salt on a Festival several pieces of meat at one time, although he requires only one piece, as it is all one act of salting. Rav Adda bar Ahava would employ artifice and salt bone by bone. After salting one bone, he would say: I prefer this one instead, and would thereby salt all the meat in his possession.

诪转谞讬壮 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

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may not remove the shutters [terisin] of a store on a Festival, due to the prohibition against building and demolishing. And Beit Hillel permit one not only to open the shutters, but even to replace them.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转专讬住讬谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 转专讬住讬 讞谞讜讬讜转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are these shutters?Ulla said: This is referring to shutters of shops. The marketplace shops or stalls were large crates or wagons, not buildings. They were closed at night with shutters. The shopkeepers would open the shutters on the Festival so that people who did not manage to finish all of their Festival preparations before the Festival could take the articles they required and settle accounts with the storekeeper later. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed whether the shutters may be opened and closed on the Festival itself.

讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注讜专 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讜专住谉 讜转专讬住讬 讞谞讜讬讜转

And Ulla said: With regard to three matters, the Sages permitted an action whose result is undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. And these are the three matters: First, they permitted spreading out the hide of an animal slaughtered on a Festival before those who will tread on it, a stage in its tanning. This was permitted because the Sages wish to encourage slaughtering the animal to enable celebration on the Festival. And second, the Sages permitted the replacement of shutters of shops on a Festival, so that storeowners could supply the Festival requirements for those in need.

讜讞讝专转 专讟讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖

And the third permitted action is the replacement of a bandage in the Temple. If a priest had an injury on his hand, he would have to remove the bandage while performing the Temple service, as it is prohibited for any item to interpose between his hand and whatever he must handle as part of the rite. After concluding his Temple service, he was allowed to replace the bandage on Shabbat, despite the fact that this is ordinarily prohibited, so as not to discourage him from engaging in Temple service.

讜专讞讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讛驻讜转讞 讞讘讬转讜 讜诪转讞讬诇 讘注讬住转讜 注诇 讙讘 讛专讙诇

And Ra岣va said that Rabbi Yehuda said: There is also one other matter, i.e., another instance where the Sages permitted an action whose result was undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. This concerns a 岣ver, a member of a group that is meticulous with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, who opens his barrel of wine or prepares and begins to sell his dough to pilgrims for the sake of the Festival.

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讬讙诪讜专

And this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: He may finish selling all the bread made from that dough and all the wine in the barrel. Wine or dough sold to the general public is usually classified as ritually impure, as it might have been touched by an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not careful with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. During a Festival, however, the Sages decreed that all wine and dough sold in Jerusalem is ritually pure, so as not to embarrass ignorant people, and they may therefore be bought even by a 岣ver. Rabbi Yehuda adds that even if a large quantity of wine or dough remains after the Festival, it retains its status as ritually pure and one may continue to sell it to a 岣ver. This is a case of permitting an action whose result is undesirable for the sake of an initial action, in that the Sages maintained the wine and dough鈥檚 status as ritually pure after the Festival in order to encourage people to sell wine and dough on the Festival.

注讜专 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讜专住谉 转谞讬谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讚注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗

With regard to Ulla鈥檚 statement, the Gemara asks: We already learned the halakha that one may spread out an animal鈥檚 hide before those who will tread on it. Why did Ulla find it necessary to restate an explicit teaching of a mishna? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the reason of Beit Hillel is because the hide is fit for reclining on it, and therefore even if the animal was slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, it would also be permitted to spread out its hide on the Festival. Ulla therefore teaches us that the reason for the leniency is that the Sages permitted an action whose result was undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. Consequently, in the case of an animal slaughtered on a Festival, yes, this halakha applies; but with regard to one that was slaughtered on the eve of a Festival, no, one may not spread out its hide.

转专讬住讬 讞谞讜讬讜转 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 [讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讗祝 诇讛讞讝讬专] 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 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 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘转讬诐 谞诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讚讞谞讜讬讜转 讗讬谉 讚讘转讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara further asks: We already learned the halakha of the shutters of shops as well, as the mishna states that Beit Hillel permit one even to replace them. The Gemara explains: This, too, is necessary. Lest you say: Beit Hillel鈥檚 reason for being lenient is that there is no prohibition of building with regard to vessels and no prohibition of dismantling with regard to vessels. Since these shops are not attached to the ground, they are vessels rather than houses, and it is therefore permitted to replace their shutters; and as a result, the dismantlement and replacement of shutters of large vessels, even of those found in houses, should also be permitted. To counter this logic, Ulla therefore teaches us that the reason the Sages allowed the replacement of shutters of shops on a Festival is because they permitted an action whose result is undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. Consequently, in the case of the shutters of shops, yes, they permitted their replacement; in the case of those of houses, no, they did not allow it.

讞讝专转 专讟讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 专讟讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 砖讘讜转 讘诪拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讚讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗

The Gemara further asks: We already learned the halakha of the replacement of a bandage in the Temple as well: One may replace a bandage in the Temple but not in the rest of the country. The Gemara explains that this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: What is the reason that a bandage may be replaced? It is because rabbinic decrees prohibiting labor do not apply in the Temple. Since the prohibition against applying a bandage is by rabbinic law, this leniency should apply to all who are in the Temple, even to a priest who is not a candidate to perform the Temple service. Ulla teaches us that this is not the case; rather, it is an instance where the Sages permitted a result for the sake of an initial action: If one is a candidate for service, yes, he may replace his bandage; if one is not a candidate for service, no, he may not replace his bandage.

驻讜转讞 讗转 讞讘讬转讜 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛驻讜转讞 讗转 讞讘讬转讜 讜诪转讞讬诇 讘注讬住转讜 注诇 讙讘 讛专讙诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专

The Gemara asks a similar question with regard to Ra岣va鈥檚 addition: We already learned the halakha of one who opens his barrel of wine, as well: In the case of one who opens his barrel to sell its wine, and similarly in the case of one who begins selling his dough for the sake of the Festival, the substance is ritually pure. If some is left over, the tanna鈥檌m disputed whether it retains its presumed status as ritually pure after the Festival and one may continue to sell it to a 岣ver. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may finish selling the wine or dough, and the Rabbis say: He may not finish. What is added by including it in the list of matters where a result is permitted for the sake of an initial action?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘专讙诇 讻讟讛专讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛转讞讬诇 谞诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讛转讞讬诇 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛转讞讬诇 诇讗

The Gemara explains: Ra岣va鈥檚 statement is necessary. Lest you say: It is permitted to finish selling the wine or dough because the Sages rendered the ritual impurity of an am ha鈥檃retz on a Festival as ritually pure, and although one did not begin to sell this wine or dough on the Festival but at an earlier stage, he should likewise be permitted to finish, as items do not contract ritual impurity on a Festival. To counter this logic, Ra岣va therefore teaches us: In this case, too, the Sages permitted an action whose result is undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. If one had begun, yes, he may finish selling; if one had not begun, no, he may not do so.

讜注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: And Ulla, what is the reason that he did he not state this halakha alongside the other cases he listed? The Gemara answers: He is not dealing with a case that is a matter of dispute. He listed only cases where the ruling is unanimous. The Gemara challenges this: These other three matters are also subject to dispute, as they all involve a disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers: When Beit Shammai express an opinion where Beit Hillel disagree, Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is not considered a legitimate opinion in the Mishna, and it is completely disregarded. Since everyone knows that Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is entirely rejected by halakha, it is not taken into consideration. Therefore, those cases are not viewed as disputes at all.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖诪住诇拽讬谉 讗转 讛转专讬住讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讬砖 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

搂 The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may remove shutters on a Festival. They disagree only as to whether it is permitted to replace them, as well, as Beit Shammai say: One may not replace them, and Beit Hillel say: One may even replace them. And in what case is this statement said? When these shutters have a hinge that can be inserted into a slot in the side of the vessel. However, if they do not have a hinge, everyone agrees that it is permitted, as this is merely replacement of a board, and it is not similar to building.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讬砖 诇讛谉 爪讬专 诪谉 讛爪讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讻诇 注讬拽专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讬砖 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讘讗诪爪注

The Gemara challenges this claim: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said? What is the situation in which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree? They disagree when the shutters do not have a hinge; however, if they have a hinge, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. Abaye said that the two sources can be reconciled: When they have a hinge on the side, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as the placement of a hinge in the side is a complicated endeavor that resembles building. If they have no hinge at all, everyone agrees that it is permitted, as it is considered merely the replacement of a board. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where they have a hinge in the middle rather than on the side.

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...

Beitzah 11 – Shabbat September 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 11 – Shabbat September 11

讚诪转注讻诇 拽讟专讬讬讛讜

their knot becomes worn and untied. Consequently, it is possible that someone took only one of the two pouches.

讘转讜讱 讛拽谉 讜诪爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讛拽谉 讗住讜专讬谉 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

搂 The mishna taught that if one designated fledglings inside the nest and found them before the nest, they are prohibited. The Gemara comments: Let us say that this supports the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi 岣nina said: In a case involving a majority and an item that is near, one follows the majority. Since doves from the outside world are more numerous than those that one designated, the assumption is that these fledglings are from the majority, and therefore they are prohibited.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讚祝 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 拽谞讬谉 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讝诪谉 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讝诪谉 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诪爪讗 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讚讗住讬专谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讱 讗砖转专讘讜讘讬 讗砖转专讘讜讘 讜谞讞讜转

Abaye said, in refutation of this claim: Here we are dealing with a ledge affixed to the front of the nest, where all the doves gather. Therefore, the principle pertaining to a majority and an item that is near does not apply to this case. Rava said: Here we are dealing with two nests, one above the other, i.e., adjacent nests rather than any two nests. And it is not necessary to state that in the case of one who designated the fledglings in the lower nest and did not designate those in the upper one, and he found fledglings in the lower one and he did not find fledglings in the upper one, that the fledglings are all prohibited. The reason is that we say: These that were in the lower nest went to the outside world, while these still present have dragged themselves and come down.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讝诪谉 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讝诪谉 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 讗住讬专讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讱 住专讜讻讬 住专讬讱 讜住诇讬拽讜

Rather, even if one designated fledglings in the upper nest and did not designate fledglings in the lower one, and he came and found fledglings in the upper one and did not find fledglings in the lower one, those in the upper nest are also prohibited, as we say: Those that he originally designated went to the outside world, and those in the lower nest have clutched and climbed. Therefore, there is cause for concern in both of these cases.

讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪驻讜专讞讬谉 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The mishna states that if there are no others there apart from them, they are permitted. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that the mishna is dealing with fledglings that are already able to fly, it is possible to say that those that he designated went to the outside world, and the ones that are present are other ones.

讗诇讗 讘诪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 拽谉 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚讚讜讬讬 讗讚讚讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 拽谉 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诪讜转专讬谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诇 讛诪讚讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讚讚讛 讬讜转专 诪讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛

Rather, the mishna must be referring to fledglings that can only hop from one place to another. However, if it deals with a case where there is another dove nest within fifty cubits, the fledglings might have jumped and come from that nest; and if there is no nest within fifty cubits, it is obvious that they are permitted, for from where could they have come? As Mar Ukva bar 岣ma said: With regard to any creature that hops, it does not hop more than fifty cubits.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬讻讗 拽谉 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讻讙讜谉 讚拽讬讬诪讗 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讚讚讜讬讬 讗讚讚讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讚讚讛 讜讛讚专 讞讝讬 诇拽谞讬讛 诪讚讚讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪讚讚讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a case where there is another nest within fifty cubits, and it deals with a situation where the additional nest is situated around a corner from the first nest, rather than in a straight line from it. Lest you say: The fledglings jumped from one nest to the other, the mishna therefore teaches us that anywhere that a fledgling hops and turns and sees its nest, it will continue to hop. But if it can no longer see its original nest, it will not hop any farther.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬诐 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 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 注诪讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

MISHNA: 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. Likewise, Beit Shammai say: One may not place an unprocessed hide before those who will tread on it, as this constitutes the prohibited labor of tanning on a Festival. And one may not lift the hide from its place, 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 it in both cases.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 拽爪讘 注诇讬讜 讘砖专 砖讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜

GEMARA: The Sage taught in a baraita: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that if one already cut the meat he needs for the Festival on the pestle, it is prohibited to move the pestle farther on the Festival. The reason is that the vessel is muktze as a utensil whose primary function is a prohibited use, and therefore it is permitted to handle it only when one requires it.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注诇讬 讗讘诇 讘转讘专讗 讙专诪讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 驻砖讬讟讗 注诇讬 转谞谉

Abaye said: This dispute applies specifically in the case of a pestle; however, in the case of a wooden anvil used for breaking bones, everyone agrees that it is permitted. The Gemara asks: This is obvious; we learned in the mishna: A pestle. Why would one think that an object not even mentioned in the mishna is prohibited?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 转讘专讗 讙专诪讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讬 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗住讜专 谞诪讬 砖专讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Abaye鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say: The same is true, i.e., Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree, even with regard to a wooden anvil used for breaking bones; and that which the mishna specifically teaches: A pestle, is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel, that they permitted moving even an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use. Abaye therefore teaches us that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to a wooden anvil used for breaking bones.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讘专讗 讙专诪讬 讞讚转讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪诪诇讱 讜诇讗 转讘专 注诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Some say a different version of the previous discussion. Abaye said: It is necessary to say only: Even a new wooden anvil used for breaking bones is also permitted. Lest you say: Perhaps one will reconsider and not break bones on it, but rather set it aside for a different purpose, Abaye therefore teaches us that this is not a concern.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讟讘讞 讜住讻讬谉 讗爪诇 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讗爪诇 讟讘讞 讜住讻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讝讛 讗爪诇 讝讛

The Gemara asks: And is that so? Are Beit Shammai not concerned about the possibility that one might reconsider? But isn鈥檛 it taught (Tosefta, Beitza 1:13): Beit Shammai say: On a Festival, one may not lead a butcher with a knife in hand to an animal located far from him, so that he can slaughter it; nor may one lead an animal to a butcher with a knife, lest he reconsider, in which case he will have handled the knife unnecessarily, which is prohibited; and Beit Hillel say: One may lead them from one to the other, as they are not concerned about unnecessary use of the knife.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 转讘诇讬谉 讜诪讚讜讱 讗爪诇 诪讚讜讻讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讜讻讛 讗爪诇 转讘诇讬谉 讜诪讚讜讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讝讛 讗爪诇 讝讛

By the same reasoning, Beit Shammai say: One may not bring spices or a pestle to a mortar,nor a mortar to spices and a pestle, as he might change his mind and will have handled these utensils on the Festival for no purpose. And Beit Hillel say: One may bring one to the other, as there is no concern that he may reconsider. This shows that Beit Shammai are, in general, concerned that one might reconsider, as they prohibit one to handle items for this reason.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讗转讬 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬 讚讗诪专 谞砖讘拽 讛讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讻讞讜砖讛 讜诪讬讬转讬谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专讬转讬 讚砖诪讬谞讛 诪讬谞讛 拽讚专讛 谞诪讬 讗转讬 诇讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讚讗诪专 谞砖讘拽 讛讗讬 拽讚专讛 讚讘注讬讗 转讘诇讬谉 讜诪讬讬转讬谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 转讘诇讬谉 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪诪诇讱 讜诇讗 转讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟讛 诇转讘讬专讗 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara refutes this: How can these cases be compared? Granted, in the case of an animal, one is liable to come to reconsider, as he might say: Let us leave aside this animal, as it is thin, and we will bring a different animal, fatter than it. With regard to a pot, too, one is liable to come to reconsider, as he might say: Let us leave aside this pot of cooked food, as it requires spices and would take great effort to prepare, and I will bring a different one that does not require spices and can be cooked as it is. However, here, with regard to a wooden anvil used for breaking bones, what is there to say? Will one reconsider and not break the bones? Since he has slaughtered an animal, it stands ready for its bones to be broken, as it cannot be eaten in any other way.

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 转谞讗 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪讜诇讞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘砖专 诇爪诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪诇讬 讗讘诇 诇拽讚专讛 诇讗

搂 It was taught in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: One may not place an unprocessed hide before the one who will tread on it. The Sage taught (Tosefta, Beitza 1:13): And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may salt meat for roasting on this hide, and there is no concern that some of the salt will fall on the hide, which would be similar to tanning the hide by salting. Abaye said: They taught that one may salt meat only for roasting, in which case it is not salted a great deal. However, in the case of meat for a pot, i.e., for cooking, the Sages did not say that one may salt it on the hide, as meat must be well-salted on all sides before cooking, and a large amount of salt will inevitably spill onto the hide.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇爪诇讬 转谞谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇爪诇讬 讻注讬谉 拽讚专讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: It is obvious the one may not salt meat for cooking in a pot, as we explicitly learned in the Tosefta just cited: For roasting, and not for cooking. The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us that even the permission to salt meat for roasting applies only if one does so in the usual manner. However, if one salts it in a manner of meat salted to be cooked in a pot, which requires more salt than is necessary for roasting, it is prohibited.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讞讬谉 讗转 讛讞诇讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讛驻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专讜 砖讜讟讞谉 讘专讜讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讬转讚讜转

The Sages taught: On a Festival, one may not salt the fats of an animal, which is done so that they will not decompose and emit a foul odor. This is true even if the animal was slaughtered on the Festival. And one may not turn them over. The fats are unfit for use on the Festival, and therefore they are muktze. They said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: One may spread the fats out in the wind on pegs to prevent them from decaying.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讞讬讚

Rav Mattana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. Some say that Rav Mattana said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this statement is necessary. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that since this is a dispute between an individual and the many, one should apply the principal that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many. Rav Mattana therefore teaches us that, in this case, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the individual.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪住转讘专 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 诪诪谞注 讜诇讗 砖讞讬讟 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

However, according to the one who said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this is obvious. In a case involving an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the many. The Gemara answers: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say: Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 opinion is more reasonable, for if you do not permit him to air out the fats, he will refrain and not slaughter an animal at all. Rav Mattana therefore teaches us that this factor is not taken into consideration.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注讜专 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讜专住谉

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from placing a hide before those who will tread on it, which Beit Hillel, whose ruling is accepted as halakha, permit for the very reason that, if one is not allowed to do so, he will refrain from slaughtering animals?

讛转诐 诇讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪诇转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 诇讬 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇住专讞 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪砖讟讞讬谞讛讜 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪诪诇讞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of spreading out the hide, the matter is not so evident that it is spread out for tanning because in its current state, it is fit to recline on, and therefore it can be said that one placed it for this purpose. However, here, with regard to fats, he himself might come to say: What is the reason that the Sages permitted it to me? So that it will not emit a foul odor. If so, what is the difference to me if I spread them out, and what is the difference to me if I salt them? This reasoning will lead one to salt hides, which is a prohibited labor.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜诇讞 讗讚诐 讻诪讛 讞转讬讻讜转 讘砖专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇讞转讬讻讛 讗讞转 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪注专讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讙专诪讗 讙专诪讗

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may salt on a Festival several pieces of meat at one time, although he requires only one piece, as it is all one act of salting. Rav Adda bar Ahava would employ artifice and salt bone by bone. After salting one bone, he would say: I prefer this one instead, and would thereby salt all the meat in his possession.

诪转谞讬壮 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

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may not remove the shutters [terisin] of a store on a Festival, due to the prohibition against building and demolishing. And Beit Hillel permit one not only to open the shutters, but even to replace them.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转专讬住讬谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 转专讬住讬 讞谞讜讬讜转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are these shutters?Ulla said: This is referring to shutters of shops. The marketplace shops or stalls were large crates or wagons, not buildings. They were closed at night with shutters. The shopkeepers would open the shutters on the Festival so that people who did not manage to finish all of their Festival preparations before the Festival could take the articles they required and settle accounts with the storekeeper later. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed whether the shutters may be opened and closed on the Festival itself.

讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注讜专 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讜专住谉 讜转专讬住讬 讞谞讜讬讜转

And Ulla said: With regard to three matters, the Sages permitted an action whose result is undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. And these are the three matters: First, they permitted spreading out the hide of an animal slaughtered on a Festival before those who will tread on it, a stage in its tanning. This was permitted because the Sages wish to encourage slaughtering the animal to enable celebration on the Festival. And second, the Sages permitted the replacement of shutters of shops on a Festival, so that storeowners could supply the Festival requirements for those in need.

讜讞讝专转 专讟讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖

And the third permitted action is the replacement of a bandage in the Temple. If a priest had an injury on his hand, he would have to remove the bandage while performing the Temple service, as it is prohibited for any item to interpose between his hand and whatever he must handle as part of the rite. After concluding his Temple service, he was allowed to replace the bandage on Shabbat, despite the fact that this is ordinarily prohibited, so as not to discourage him from engaging in Temple service.

讜专讞讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讛驻讜转讞 讞讘讬转讜 讜诪转讞讬诇 讘注讬住转讜 注诇 讙讘 讛专讙诇

And Ra岣va said that Rabbi Yehuda said: There is also one other matter, i.e., another instance where the Sages permitted an action whose result was undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. This concerns a 岣ver, a member of a group that is meticulous with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, who opens his barrel of wine or prepares and begins to sell his dough to pilgrims for the sake of the Festival.

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讬讙诪讜专

And this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: He may finish selling all the bread made from that dough and all the wine in the barrel. Wine or dough sold to the general public is usually classified as ritually impure, as it might have been touched by an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not careful with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. During a Festival, however, the Sages decreed that all wine and dough sold in Jerusalem is ritually pure, so as not to embarrass ignorant people, and they may therefore be bought even by a 岣ver. Rabbi Yehuda adds that even if a large quantity of wine or dough remains after the Festival, it retains its status as ritually pure and one may continue to sell it to a 岣ver. This is a case of permitting an action whose result is undesirable for the sake of an initial action, in that the Sages maintained the wine and dough鈥檚 status as ritually pure after the Festival in order to encourage people to sell wine and dough on the Festival.

注讜专 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讜专住谉 转谞讬谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讚注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗

With regard to Ulla鈥檚 statement, the Gemara asks: We already learned the halakha that one may spread out an animal鈥檚 hide before those who will tread on it. Why did Ulla find it necessary to restate an explicit teaching of a mishna? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the reason of Beit Hillel is because the hide is fit for reclining on it, and therefore even if the animal was slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, it would also be permitted to spread out its hide on the Festival. Ulla therefore teaches us that the reason for the leniency is that the Sages permitted an action whose result was undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. Consequently, in the case of an animal slaughtered on a Festival, yes, this halakha applies; but with regard to one that was slaughtered on the eve of a Festival, no, one may not spread out its hide.

转专讬住讬 讞谞讜讬讜转 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 [讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讗祝 诇讛讞讝讬专] 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 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 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘转讬诐 谞诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讚讞谞讜讬讜转 讗讬谉 讚讘转讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara further asks: We already learned the halakha of the shutters of shops as well, as the mishna states that Beit Hillel permit one even to replace them. The Gemara explains: This, too, is necessary. Lest you say: Beit Hillel鈥檚 reason for being lenient is that there is no prohibition of building with regard to vessels and no prohibition of dismantling with regard to vessels. Since these shops are not attached to the ground, they are vessels rather than houses, and it is therefore permitted to replace their shutters; and as a result, the dismantlement and replacement of shutters of large vessels, even of those found in houses, should also be permitted. To counter this logic, Ulla therefore teaches us that the reason the Sages allowed the replacement of shutters of shops on a Festival is because they permitted an action whose result is undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. Consequently, in the case of the shutters of shops, yes, they permitted their replacement; in the case of those of houses, no, they did not allow it.

讞讝专转 专讟讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 专讟讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 砖讘讜转 讘诪拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讚讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗

The Gemara further asks: We already learned the halakha of the replacement of a bandage in the Temple as well: One may replace a bandage in the Temple but not in the rest of the country. The Gemara explains that this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: What is the reason that a bandage may be replaced? It is because rabbinic decrees prohibiting labor do not apply in the Temple. Since the prohibition against applying a bandage is by rabbinic law, this leniency should apply to all who are in the Temple, even to a priest who is not a candidate to perform the Temple service. Ulla teaches us that this is not the case; rather, it is an instance where the Sages permitted a result for the sake of an initial action: If one is a candidate for service, yes, he may replace his bandage; if one is not a candidate for service, no, he may not replace his bandage.

驻讜转讞 讗转 讞讘讬转讜 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛驻讜转讞 讗转 讞讘讬转讜 讜诪转讞讬诇 讘注讬住转讜 注诇 讙讘 讛专讙诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专

The Gemara asks a similar question with regard to Ra岣va鈥檚 addition: We already learned the halakha of one who opens his barrel of wine, as well: In the case of one who opens his barrel to sell its wine, and similarly in the case of one who begins selling his dough for the sake of the Festival, the substance is ritually pure. If some is left over, the tanna鈥檌m disputed whether it retains its presumed status as ritually pure after the Festival and one may continue to sell it to a 岣ver. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may finish selling the wine or dough, and the Rabbis say: He may not finish. What is added by including it in the list of matters where a result is permitted for the sake of an initial action?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘专讙诇 讻讟讛专讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛转讞讬诇 谞诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛转讬专讜 住讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 转讞诇转谉 讛转讞讬诇 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛转讞讬诇 诇讗

The Gemara explains: Ra岣va鈥檚 statement is necessary. Lest you say: It is permitted to finish selling the wine or dough because the Sages rendered the ritual impurity of an am ha鈥檃retz on a Festival as ritually pure, and although one did not begin to sell this wine or dough on the Festival but at an earlier stage, he should likewise be permitted to finish, as items do not contract ritual impurity on a Festival. To counter this logic, Ra岣va therefore teaches us: In this case, too, the Sages permitted an action whose result is undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. If one had begun, yes, he may finish selling; if one had not begun, no, he may not do so.

讜注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: And Ulla, what is the reason that he did he not state this halakha alongside the other cases he listed? The Gemara answers: He is not dealing with a case that is a matter of dispute. He listed only cases where the ruling is unanimous. The Gemara challenges this: These other three matters are also subject to dispute, as they all involve a disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers: When Beit Shammai express an opinion where Beit Hillel disagree, Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is not considered a legitimate opinion in the Mishna, and it is completely disregarded. Since everyone knows that Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is entirely rejected by halakha, it is not taken into consideration. Therefore, those cases are not viewed as disputes at all.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖诪住诇拽讬谉 讗转 讛转专讬住讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讬砖 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

搂 The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may remove shutters on a Festival. They disagree only as to whether it is permitted to replace them, as well, as Beit Shammai say: One may not replace them, and Beit Hillel say: One may even replace them. And in what case is this statement said? When these shutters have a hinge that can be inserted into a slot in the side of the vessel. However, if they do not have a hinge, everyone agrees that it is permitted, as this is merely replacement of a board, and it is not similar to building.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讬砖 诇讛谉 爪讬专 诪谉 讛爪讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讻诇 注讬拽专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讬砖 诇讛谉 爪讬专 讘讗诪爪注

The Gemara challenges this claim: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said? What is the situation in which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree? They disagree when the shutters do not have a hinge; however, if they have a hinge, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. Abaye said that the two sources can be reconciled: When they have a hinge on the side, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as the placement of a hinge in the side is a complicated endeavor that resembles building. If they have no hinge at all, everyone agrees that it is permitted, as it is considered merely the replacement of a board. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where they have a hinge in the middle rather than on the side.

Scroll To Top