Beitzah 12

מר סבר גזרינן ציר באמצע אטו ציר מן הצד ומר סבר לא גזרינן

One Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that we issue a decree and prohibit a hinge in the middle due to a hinge on the side; and one Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that we do not issue this decree. Since placing a hinge of this type does not constitute the prohibited labor of building, it is permitted.

מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים אין מוציאין לא את הקטן ולא את הלולב ולא את ספר תורה לרשות הרבים ובית הלל מתירין

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may carry out on a Festival neither a minor child, nor a lulav, nor a Torah Scroll into the public domain, as none of these are required for the preparation of food; and Beit Hillel permit it.

גמ׳ תני תנא קמיה דרבי יצחק בר אבדימי השוחט עולת נדבה ביום טוב לוקה

GEMARA: The tanna who reviews mishnayot teaches a baraita before Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi: One who slaughters a gift offering on a Festival is flogged for transgressing the prohibition: “No manner of work shall be done on them” (Exodus 12:16). Since this slaughtering was not performed for the purpose of eating, the action constitutes a prohibited labor on a Festival.

אמר ליה דאמר לך מני בית שמאי היא דאמרי לא אמרינן מתוך שהותרה הוצאה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך דאי בית הלל הא אמרי מתוך שהותרה הוצאה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך הכא נמי מתוך שהותרה שחיטה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to that tanna: Who could have said this baraita to you? It is evidently in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that we do not say: Since carrying out was permitted on a Festival for the purpose of food preparation, it was also permitted not for that purpose. For if you say the baraita is accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, they say: Since carrying out was permitted for the requirements of food preparation, it was also permitted not for these requirements. Here, too, with regard to the prohibited labor of slaughtering, since slaughter was permitted for the requirements of food preparation, it was also permitted not for these requirements. It was permitted for any purpose that benefits people, whether directly or indirectly.

מתקיף לה רבה ממאי דבית שמאי ובית הלל בהא פליגי דלמא בערוב והוצאה לשבת ואין ערוב והוצאה ליום טוב קא מיפלגי

Rabba strongly objects to this reasoning: From where do you infer that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree over this issue? Perhaps they disagree about the following: The halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but there are no halakhot of eiruv nor a prohibition against carrying out on a Festival.

מר סבר ערוב הוצאה לשבת וערוב הוצאה ליום טוב

The Gemara clarifies the dispute according to this explanation: One Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that the halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, and similarly the halakhot of eiruv and carrying out apply to a Festival. The only difference is that, on a Festival, carrying, like other types of prohibited labor, is permitted for the sake of food preparation.

ומר סבר ערוב הוצאה לשבת ואין ערוב הוצאה ליום טוב כדכתיב ולא תוציאו משא מבתיכם ביום השבת בשבת אין ביום טוב לא

And one Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that the halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but there are no halakhot of eiruv nor a prohibition against carrying out on a Festival, as it is written: “Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Shabbat day” (Jeremiah 17:22), from which Beit Hillel inferred: On Shabbat, yes, carrying from one domain to another is indeed prohibited; on a Festival, no, it is not prohibited. According to this explanation, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about whether a prohibited labor that is permitted for the purpose of food preparation on a Festival is also permitted when it does not serve that purpose.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף אלא מעתה ליפלגו באבנים אלא מדלא מפלגי באבנים שמע מינה

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation of Rabba: However, if that is so, that the dispute is whether the prohibition against carrying out applies on a Festival, Beit Hillel should permit one to move muktze objects, as the prohibition of handling muktze is an extension of the prohibition against carrying out. Consequently, let them differ with regard to whether or not it is permitted to carry out stones on a Festival. Rather, from the fact that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to stones but concerning objects that serve some sort of purpose, conclude from this: Everyone agrees that carrying out is prohibited on a Festival, and the Torah permitted it only when it is necessary for sustenance.

בהוצאה שלא לצורך פליגי

Instead, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to carrying out that is not for the purpose of food preparation. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, since carrying out is permitted for the sake of sustenance, it is entirely permitted. According to Beit Shammai, the Sages permitted only labor that serves the purpose of food preparation.

ואף רבי יוחנן סבר במתוך שהותרה הוצאה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך פליגי דתני תנא קמיה דרבי יוחנן המבשל גיד הנשה בחלב ביום טוב ואכלו לוקה חמש

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the principle: Since carrying out is permitted on a Festival for the purpose of food preparation, it was also permitted not for this purpose, as the tanna teaches a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: One who cooks the sciatic nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged for violating five distinct prohibitions.

לוקה משום מבשל גיד ולוקה משום אוכל גיד ולוקה משום מבשל בשר בחלב ולוקה משום אוכל בשר בחלב ולוקה

How so? (1) He is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking the sciatic nerve, which is prohibited because the sciatic nerve is unfit for consumption; (2) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, which is explicitly prohibited by the Torah; (3) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking meat in milk; (4) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk; (5) and lastly, he is flogged

משום הבערה

due to the prohibition of kindling a fire on a Festival.

אמר ליה פוק תני לברא הבערה ובשול אינה משנה ואם תמצא לומר משנה בית שמאי היא דאמרי לא אמרינן מתוך שהותרה הוצאה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך הכא נמי לא אמרינן מתוך שהותרה הבערה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to that tanna: Leave and teach it outside, i.e., this baraita is not fit for discussion in the study hall. The opinion that there is a prohibition against kindling and cooking on a Festival is not a mishna worthy of serious consideration. And if you say that it is a mishna rather than an error, this statement is still not in accordance with the halakha, as it is following the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: We do not say: Since carrying out was permitted on a Festival for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes. Here, too, we do not say: Since kindling was permitted on a Festival for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes.

דאי בית הלל כיון דאמרי מתוך שהותרה הוצאה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך הכא נמי מתוך שהותרה הבערה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך

The Gemara explains why the baraita cannot be attributed to Beit Hillel. If one were to suggest that this baraita follows the opinion of Beit Hillel, this cannot be the case, as they say: Since carrying out was permitted for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes. Here, too, since kindling was permitted for the purposes of food preparation, it was also permitted when performed not for these purposes. Therefore, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, kindling cannot be included amongst those prohibitions for which one is liable on a Festival.

מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים אין מוליכין חלה ומתנות לכהן ביום טוב בין שהורמו מאמש בין שהורמו מהיום ובית הלל מתירין

MISHNA: The separation of ḥalla is permitted on a Festival, as one is permitted to prepare dough and bake it on a Festival, and bread may not be eaten without first separating ḥalla. Beit Shammai say: One may not bring separated ḥalla or any of the other priestly gifts, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of a slaughtered animal, to a priest on a Festival, though it is permitted to separate them from an animal slaughtered on a Festival. This is prohibited regardless of whether they were separated last evening, i.e., before the Festival, or whether they were separated today. And Beit Hillel permit it.

אמרו להם בית שמאי גזרה שוה חלה ומתנות מתנה לכהן ותרומה מתנה לכהן כשם שאין מוליכין את התרומה כך אין מוליכין את המתנות

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: This halakha can be derived by an analogy: Ḥalla and the other gifts are both considered a gift to the priest, and likewise teruma separated from produce is also a gift to the priest. Just as you agree that one may not bring teruma to a priest on a Festival, so too, one may not bring the other gifts.

אמרו להם בית הלל לא אם אמרתם בתרומה שאינו זכאי בהרמתה תאמרו במתנות שזכאי בהרמתן

Beit Hillel said to them: No, this analogy is incorrect. If you said that you derive the halakha from teruma, where its separation is not allowed on the Festival, how will you say the same with regard to the gifts from an animal or ḥalla, concerning which their separation is allowed on the Festival? Since it is not prohibited to separate these gifts, they may likewise be brought to a priest.

גמ׳ קא סלקא דעתך שהורמו מהיום ושנשחטו מהיום ושהורמו מאמש ושנשחטו מאמש מני מתניתין לא רבי יוסי ולא רבי יהודה אלא אחרים דתניא אמר רבי יהודה לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על המתנות שהורמו מערב יום טוב שמוליכין עם המתנות שהורמו מהיום ושנשחטו מהיום לא נחלקו אלא להוליכן בפני עצמן שבית שמאי אומרים אין מוליכין ובית הלל אומרים מוליכין

GEMARA: It enters your mind to explain that when the mishna states: They were separated today, it means: From animals slaughtered today. And the phrase: They were separated last evening, is referring to animals slaughtered last evening. The Gemara asks: If so, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not Rabbi Yosei nor Rabbi Yehuda, but the opinion of Aḥerim, as it is taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute with regard to gifts separated on the eve of a Festival, that one may bring them to a priest on a Festival day itself along with gifts separated that day and from those animals slaughtered that day. They disputed only the halakha of bringing gifts separated the day before by themselves, as Beit Shammai say: One may not bring these gifts by themselves, and Beit Hillel say: One may bring them.

וכך היו בית שמאי דנין חלה ומתנות מתנה לכהן ותרומה מתנה לכהן כשם שאין מוליכין את התרומה כך אין מוליכין את המתנות אמרו להם בית הלל לא אם אמרתם בתרומה שאינו זכאי בהרמתה תאמרו במתנות שזכאי בהרמתן

And Beit Shammai would reason as follows: Ḥalla and gifts from a slaughtered animal are a gift to the priest, and teruma is a gift to the priest. Just as one may not bring teruma to a priest on a Festival, so too, one may not bring the other gifts. Beit Hillel said to them: No, granted, if you said so with regard to teruma, the reason is that separation is not allowed on a Festival, but how will you say the same with regard to the other gifts, concerning which separation is allowed on the Festival? It is therefore permitted to bring these gifts to a priest as well. This is Rabbi Yehuda’s interpretation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, according to which Beit Shammai prohibit bringing even gifts separated on the Festival itself.

אמר רבי יוסי לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על המתנות שמוליכין לא נחלקו אלא על התרומה שבית שמאי אומרים אין מוליכין ובית הלל אומרים מוליכין וכך היו בית הלל דנין חלה ומתנות מתנה לכהן ותרומה מתנה לכהן כשם שמוליכין את המתנות כך מוליכין את התרומה אמרו להם בית שמאי לא אם אמרתם במתנות שזכאי בהרמתן תאמרו בתרומה שאין זכאי בהרמתה

Rabbi Yosei said: That is not the correct record of the dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute about the fact that one may bring the gifts from an animal to a priest on a Festival. They disputed only with regard to teruma, as Beit Shammai say: One may not bring it, and Beit Hillel say: One may even bring teruma. And Beit Hillel would reason as follows: Ḥalla and gifts are a gift to the priest, and teruma is a gift to the priest. Just as one may bring the other gifts on a Festival, so too, one may bring teruma. Beit Shammai said to them: No; if you said so with regard to the other gifts, concerning which their separation is allowed on the Festival, will you say the same with regard to teruma, whose separation is not allowed?

אחרים אומרים לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על התרומה שאין מוליכין לא נחלקו אלא על המתנות שבית שמאי אומרים אין מוליכין ובית הלל אומרים מוליכין לימא אחרים היא ולא רבי יהודה

Aḥerim say that the dispute was as follows: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute with regard to teruma, that one may not bring it to a priest on a Festival. They disputed only the case of the other gifts, as Beit Shammai say: One may not bring the other gifts, and Beit Hillel say: One may bring them. The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara does not even suggest that the mishna might be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is clear that it cannot be reconciled with his explanation.

אמר רבא מי קתני שהורמו מהיום ושנשחטו מהיום שהורמו קתני ולעולם שחיטתן מאמש לימא רבי יהודה היא ולא אחרים אפילו תימא אחרים ובהנך דנשחטו מאמש

Rava said: Is it taught in the mishna: They were separated that day and were slaughtered that day? No; it teaches: They were separated, and actually the mishna should be explained as follows: They were slaughtered last evening and separated today, which is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda said. The Gemara asks: If so, let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim? The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim, it can still be claimed that, in their opinion, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed the case of these animals that were slaughtered last evening, not those slaughtered on the Festival.

אי הכי היינו רבי יהודה איכא בינייהו טפלה

The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same opinion as that of Rabbi Yehuda. What, then, is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Aḥerim? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to secondary gifts. If one has gifts separated before a Festival, is he permitted to join them as secondary gifts along with others separated on the Festival and transport them together to a priest? Rabbi Yehuda maintains that secondary gifts may be brought to a priest, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, whereas Aḥerim prohibit it.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוסי רב טובי בריה דרב נחמיה הוה ליה גרבא דחמרא דתרומה אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף אמר ליה מהו לאמטויי לכהן האידנא אמר ליה הכי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוסי

With regard to the dispute cited in the Tosefta, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara relates: Rav Tovi, son of Rabbi Neḥemya, had a bottle of teruma wine. He came before Rav Yosef and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to bringing this wine to a priest now, on a Festival? Rav Yosef said to him: That is what Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that Beit Hillel permit one to bring teruma to a priest on a Festival, and the halakha is in accordance with their opinion.

אושפזיכניה דרבא בר רב חנן הוה ליה אסורייתא דחרדלא אמר ליה מהו לפרוכי ומיכל מנייהו ביום טוב לא הוה בידיה אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה מוללין מלילות ומפרכין קטניות ביום טוב

§ The Gemara relates: The host of Rava, son of Rav Ḥanan, had bundles of unprocessed mustard, whose seeds remained in their stems. He said to his guest, the Sage: What is the halakha with regard to crushing these mustard stalks and eating from them on a Festival? Rava, son of Rav Ḥanan, did not have an answer readily available, so he came before Rava to ask his opinion. Rava said to him that it was taught: One may husk kernels by rubbing them between one’s fingers, and one may likewise crush legumes on a Festival. This statement indicates that it is permitted to crush mustard stalks.

איתיביה אביי המולל מלילות מערב שבת למחר מנפח מיד ליד ואוכל אבל לא בקנון ולא בתמחוי

Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: In the case of one who husks kernels of grain on Shabbat eve, on the following day, on Shabbat itself, he may winnow the chaff in an irregular manner by passing the kernels from hand to hand and then eat them. However, one may not do so, neither by means of a basket [kanon] that is occasionally used for sorting and separating the chaff nor with a large vessel.

המולל מלילות מערב יום טוב למחר מנפח על יד על יד ואוכל אפילו בקנון ואפילו בתמחוי אבל לא בטבלא ולא בנפה ולא בכברה מערב יום טוב אין ביום טוב לא

With regard to one who husks kernels of grain on a Festival eve, on the following day, he may winnow a little grain at a time and eat, even with a tray or a large vessel. However, he may not do so with a tablet, nor with a winnow, nor with a sieve. Since these vessels are designed for winnowing, they are used only for large quantities, and therefore it will appear as though he were preparing for after the Festival, which is certainly prohibited. In any case, the wording of the baraita indicates: On a Festival eve, yes, one may husk or crush legumes; on the Festival itself, no, it is prohibited to do so.

אפילו תימא ביום טוב ואיידי דתנא רישא מערב שבת תנא סיפא נמי מערב יום טוב

The Gemara refutes this: Even if you say that it is permitted on a Festival, the baraita can be understood. The reason is as follows: Since he taught in the first clause of the baraita: On Shabbat eve, as husking grain may not be performed on Shabbat itself, for it might lead to a prohibited labor on Shabbat, he also taught in the latter clause: On a Festival eve. However, this does not mean that rubbing or crushing legumes is prohibited on the Festival itself.

אם כן מצינו תרומה שזכאי בהרמתה ותנן לא אם אמרתם בתרומה שאינו זכאי בהרמתה וכו׳

Abaye raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rava from a different angle: If you say so, we have thereby found a case of teruma for which separation is allowed on a Festival. Before being rubbed, the grains of wheat were certainly not fit to be eaten, and therefore there was no obligation to separate teruma from them. Now that one has prepared them as food by rubbing them, he is obligated to separate teruma from them, and if one is permitted to eat them, he must be permitted to separate teruma from them first. And we learned explicitly in the mishna: No, if you said that you derive the halakha from teruma, where its separation is not allowed on the Festival. This statement indicates that even Beit Hillel agree that one may not separate teruma of any kind on a Festival.

לא קשיא

The Gemara refutes this challenge: This is not difficult.