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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 9, 2021 | 讙壮 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 9

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Elimelech and Reena Lebowitz in honor of Zisi Turner Berkowitz on becoming a Yoetzet Halacha. “May all your decisions be strong and with love.”

Is it possible to move a ladder from dovecote to dovecote to take out birds to eat on Yom Tov? Beit Shamai forbids and only allows tilting from window to window. Beit Hillel permits moving it. Rabbi Hanan Bar Ami limits the controversy to the public domain but in his opinion, but in private, all will permit it. Beit Shamai forbids in the public domain because of marit haayin, people will see and think one is moving in order to plaster his roof. And Beit Hillel believes that there is no concern about that because there is a different ladder that is used to climb to the roof. Rav Hanan鈥檚 opinion contradicts Rav who holds that where sages forbade because of marit haayin, 聽they also forbade in private? The answer is that this issue is a tannitic debate and each holds by a different tanaitic opinion. There is another version in the words of Rabbi Hanan and the difficulty raised by Rav鈥檚 opinion and a different resolution to the question is brought. 聽The Gemara brings a braita in which there is a different understanding in the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. According to the braita they disagree regarding returning the ladder but to bring it, all agree that it is allowed. The braita also brings up other opinions regarding the type of ladder that is being debated and whether it is only permissible to tilt or even move slowly. It is told of the sons of Rabbi Chiya who permitted something with a ladder because they understood the braita in a certain way but Rabbi Chiya proved them wrong in their understanding and made them undo their ruling. There are two versions to the story regarding what they permitted and why they thought it was allowed and on what basis Rabbi Chiya disagreed with them. If Beit Shamai is strict here, even though it is for the purposes of Simchat Yom Tov, why is he lenient regarding covering the blood (in the first mishna)? And why is Beit Hillel lenient here and strict there? Rabbi Yochanan suggests exchanging their views on the issue of covering the blood. But the Gemara rejects these words and suggests that there are distinctions between the cases. The same question is raised from the next mishna and the same type of answers are given.

讙诇讙诇 注讬住讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讛 讞诇转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙诇讙诇 注讬住讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讛 讞诇转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

If one kneaded dough on a Festival eve, i.e., the day before the Festival, he may separate its 岣lla on the Festival. In general, one may not separate teruma and tithes on a Festival. However, since it is permitted bake bread on the Festival for the requirements of the day, and because bread may not be eaten unless 岣lla has first been separated from it, separating 岣lla is considered a necessary stage in the preparation of bread, and the Sages permitted it. Shmuel鈥檚 father said: Even if one kneaded dough on a Festival eve, he may not separate its 岣lla on the Festival, as he should have separated 岣lla then. The mitzva of separating 岣lla goes into effect at the time of the kneading of the dough.

诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚讗讘讜讛 (讚砖诪讜讗诇) 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪驻专讬砖

The Gemara comments: Let us say that Shmuel disagrees with his father, as Shmuel said: With regard to 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the separation of 岣lla is a rabbinic obligation, one may proceed to eat the bread and afterward separate the 岣lla from the remainder of the dough. This statement indicates that the separation of 岣lla outside of Eretz Yisrael is not required to render the bread permitted, in contrast to the separation of teruma and tithes from produce. Consequently, separating 岣lla is permitted on a Festival, as it does not involve a significant change. This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel鈥檚 father, who prohibited separating 岣lla that could have been separated before the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗诐 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讝专讬诐

Rava said: This is not necessarily the case. Doesn鈥檛 Shmuel concede that if one designated a piece of dough as 岣lla outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is prohibited to non-priests? This proves that even Shmuel admits that a certain measure of sanctity applies to the 岣lla. Therefore, he might also agree with his father that it is prohibited to separate 岣lla on a Festival even outside of Eretz Yisrael.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 讗讘诇 诪讟讛讜 诪讞诇讜谉 诇讞诇讜谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may not carry a ladder, which was used for reaching doves, from one dovecote to another. However, one may move it slightly so that he tilts it from one window to another in the same dovecote. And Beit Hillel permit even carrying a ladder from one dovecote to another.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛讟讬讞 讙讙讜 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖讜讘讻讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

GEMARA: Rav 岣nan bar Ami said: This dispute applies only in a case where one moves the ladder in the public domain, as Beit Shammai hold that one who sees someone carrying his ladder will say to himself: He must need the ladder to plaster his roof, to prevent rainwater from dripping into his house. In other words, an onlooker will suspect him of performing prohibited labor on the Festival. And Beit Hillel hold that his dovecote proves about him that he is not moving the ladder for the purpose of a transgression, as it is evident that he is placing the ladder alongside the second dovecote, and everyone will understand his intention. However, in the private domain, where one will not be observed by strangers, everyone agrees that it is permitted.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗住专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪专讗讬转 讛注讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚专讬 讞讚专讬诐 讗住讜专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讟讞谉 讘讞诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛注诐 专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: Wherever the Sages prohibited an action due to the appearance of prohibition, even if one performs the act in his innermost chamber, where no one will see it, it is prohibited. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: One whose clothes fell into water on Shabbat or a Festival may spread them out to dry in the sun, but he may not do so opposite the masses, i.e., in a place where people can see him, lest they suspect him of laundering on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon prohibit doing so even in private.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

Some say a different version of this discussion. Rav 岣nan bar Ami said: The dispute applies to the private domain, as Beit Shammai are of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and therefore Beit Shammai apply the decree to the private domain. And Beit Hillel, by contrast, are of the opinion that the halakha is not in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. However, in the public domain, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to move the ladder.

诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

The Gemara challenges this interpretation: Should we say that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with that of Beit Shammai? According to Rav 岣nan bar Ami, only Beit Shammai maintains that anything prohibited by the Sages due to appearances may not be performed even in private.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讟讞谉 讘讞诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛注诐 专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: If clothes fell into water on Shabbat or a Festival, one may spread them out in the sun but not opposite the masses. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon prohibit doing so. Rav 岣nan bar Ami accepts the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, who rejects Rav鈥檚 principle. According to the opinion of that tanna, it can be claimed that Beit Hillel also rejected Rav鈥檚 principle, and they permitted moving the ladder in private but not in public. Rav, on the other hand, follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon in interpreting the opinion of Beit Hillel.

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 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 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

搂 With regard to the mishna itself, the Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another to take doves; they disagree only after one has finished at the second dovecote, whether it is permitted to replace the ladder to its original spot at the first dovecote, as Beit Shammai say: One may not replace the ladder, and Beit Hillel say: One may even replace it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘住讜诇诐 砖诇 砖讜讘讱 讗讘诇 讘住讜诇诐 砖诇 注诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诪讟讛讜 诪讞诇讜谉 诇讞诇讜谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗祝 诪讚讚讬谉 讘讜

Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? With regard to a dovecote ladder, which clearly serves the purpose of taking doves. However, in the case of an attic ladder, which has a variety of uses, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as this will raise suspicions. Rabbi Dosa says: One may tilt it from one window to another in the same dovecote. A岣rim say in the name of Rabbi Dosa: One may even shift the ladder from one place to another by shuffling its legs.

讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞驻讜拽 诇拽专讬讬转讗 讻讬 讗转讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讻诇讜诐 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇讬讚讻诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 住讜诇诐 讘讗 诇讬讚讬谞讜 讜讛转专谞讜讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜讗住专讜 诪讛 砖讛转专转诐

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi 岣yya went out to the villages to attend to their business. When they came back, their father said to them: Did any incident requiring a ruling of halakha come to your notice? They said to him: The issue of carrying an attic ladder to a dovecote came to our notice, and we permitted it. Rabbi 岣yya said to them: Go out and prohibit that which you permitted.

讗讬谞讛讜 住讘讜专 诪讚拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘住讜诇诐 砖诇 注诇讬讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 驻诇讬讙讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 拽讗 诪驻专砖

The Gemara explains: Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sons thought that from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to an attic ladder, this proves by inference that the first tanna holds that they do disagree. Consequently, Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sons thought that according to the first tanna, Beit Hillel permit even the use of a loft ladder, and they ruled in accordance with this opinion. But that is not so, as Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree with him, but rather he explains the reason of the first tanna.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住讜诇诐 砖诇 注诇讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗讬 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诇砖讜讘讱 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诇 砖讜讘讱 讗讬谉 砖诇 注诇讬讛 诇讗

From where can this be inferred? From the fact that the first tanna teaches: One may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another. And if it enters your mind to say that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to an attic ladder, if so, this phrase: One may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another, is inexact, as he should have said: One may carry a ladder to a dovecote. Rather, isn鈥檛 this what the tanna said: With regard to a dovecote ladder, yes, it is permitted to move it; however, in the case of an attic ladder, no, one may not use it.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 住讜诇诐 砖诇 砖讜讘讱 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 拽转谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻诪讛 砖讜讘讻讬谉

The Gemara asks: And the others, Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sons, what is their reasoning? The Gemara answers that they would reply: Is it taught in the baraita: A dovecote ladder? It teaches: From one dovecote to another, and this simply means that it is permitted to do so even with regard to several dovecotes.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讟讜讬 住讜诇诐 砖诇 注诇讬讛 讘讗 诇讬讚讬谞讜 讜讛转专谞讜讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜讗住专讜 诪讛 砖讛转专转诐 讗讬谞讛讜 住讘讜专 诪讗讬 讚拽讗 讗住专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 拽讗 砖专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讚拽讗 砖专讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 拽讗 讗住专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗

Some say a slightly different version of this incident. Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sons said to him: The tilting of an attic ladder came to our notice, and we permitted it. We were asked whether an attic ladder positioned near a dovecote before the Festival may be moved from one window to another in the same dovecote, and we allowed it. Rabbi 岣yya said to them: Go out and prohibit that which you permitted. The Gemara explains that they thought: That which the first tanna prohibits, i.e., moving an attic ladder, Rabbi Dosa permits, i.e. Rabbi Dosa is more lenient than the first tanna and permits moving even an attic ladder from one window to another. And that is not so. Rather, that which the first tanna permits, moving a dovecote ladder, Rabbi Dosa prohibits. He is more stringent and maintains that even a dovecote ladder may be moved only by tilting rather than in the usual manner.

讗讘诇 诪讟讛讜 诪讞诇讜谉 诇讞诇讜谉 讜讻讜壮 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

搂 The mishna taught: However, everyone agrees that one may tilt a dovecote ladder from one window to another in the same dovecote. The Gemara infers: Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient.

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 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诇讜 注驻专 诪讜讻谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the first mishna of the tractate (2a): 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. This indicates that it is Beit Shammai who are concerned for the honor and joy of the Festival, and they are therefore lenient with regard to covering the blood; whereas Beit Hillel do not share the same concern and are stringent about covering the blood, despite the fact that their ruling might adversely affect the joy of the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 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

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m is reversed. The opinion attributed to Beit Hillel is actually that of Beit Shammai, and vice versa. The Gemara rejects Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 answer: From where do you infer that this extreme conclusion is necessarily the case? A different explanation is possible: Perhaps Beit Shammai say their opinion, that it is permitted to cover the blood, only there, where there is already a shovel embedded in the earth ready for this purpose, and therefore there are grounds for a lenient ruling. However, where there is no embedded shovel, they did not permit it.

讜讗讬 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 讚砖讜讘讻讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

Alternatively, it is possible to say that Beit Hillel say their opinion, that an act is permitted for the sake of the joy of the Festival, only here, where his dovecote, the place where he ultimately positions the ladder, proves with regard to him that he intended to use his ladder for a permitted purpose; but there, where there is no equivalent proof, they were not lenient. This shows that there is no clear contradiction between the rulings in the two cases.

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 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

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous version and suggests that Rabbi Yo岣nan issued his statement with regard to a different issue: If the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is difficult, this is what is difficult: It was taught in a different mishna (10a): Beit Shammai say: One may not take fledgling doves on a Festival unless he shook them, as an act of preparation, while it was still day. And Beit Hillel say: It is indeed necessary to perform some act of preparation to permit the taking of fledglings on a Festival, but this does not have to be done by shaking them. Rather, it is enough if one stands the day before and says: I will take this dove and that one.

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 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

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 as above: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai are lenient and allow one to dig with a shovel to cover the blood, due to the joy of the Festival, whereas Beit Hillel do not permit one to slaughtering at all, unless there was a shovel ready from the day before. It was with regard to this contradiction that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓

The Gemara challenges this explanation: But perhaps that is not so, as a different explanation is possible: Beit Shammai only state their lenient opinion, that it is permitted to cover the blood, where there is an embedded shovel.

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 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 9

讙诇讙诇 注讬住讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讛 讞诇转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙诇讙诇 注讬住讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讛 讞诇转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

If one kneaded dough on a Festival eve, i.e., the day before the Festival, he may separate its 岣lla on the Festival. In general, one may not separate teruma and tithes on a Festival. However, since it is permitted bake bread on the Festival for the requirements of the day, and because bread may not be eaten unless 岣lla has first been separated from it, separating 岣lla is considered a necessary stage in the preparation of bread, and the Sages permitted it. Shmuel鈥檚 father said: Even if one kneaded dough on a Festival eve, he may not separate its 岣lla on the Festival, as he should have separated 岣lla then. The mitzva of separating 岣lla goes into effect at the time of the kneading of the dough.

诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚讗讘讜讛 (讚砖诪讜讗诇) 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪驻专讬砖

The Gemara comments: Let us say that Shmuel disagrees with his father, as Shmuel said: With regard to 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the separation of 岣lla is a rabbinic obligation, one may proceed to eat the bread and afterward separate the 岣lla from the remainder of the dough. This statement indicates that the separation of 岣lla outside of Eretz Yisrael is not required to render the bread permitted, in contrast to the separation of teruma and tithes from produce. Consequently, separating 岣lla is permitted on a Festival, as it does not involve a significant change. This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel鈥檚 father, who prohibited separating 岣lla that could have been separated before the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗诐 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讝专讬诐

Rava said: This is not necessarily the case. Doesn鈥檛 Shmuel concede that if one designated a piece of dough as 岣lla outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is prohibited to non-priests? This proves that even Shmuel admits that a certain measure of sanctity applies to the 岣lla. Therefore, he might also agree with his father that it is prohibited to separate 岣lla on a Festival even outside of Eretz Yisrael.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 讗讘诇 诪讟讛讜 诪讞诇讜谉 诇讞诇讜谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may not carry a ladder, which was used for reaching doves, from one dovecote to another. However, one may move it slightly so that he tilts it from one window to another in the same dovecote. And Beit Hillel permit even carrying a ladder from one dovecote to another.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛讟讬讞 讙讙讜 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖讜讘讻讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

GEMARA: Rav 岣nan bar Ami said: This dispute applies only in a case where one moves the ladder in the public domain, as Beit Shammai hold that one who sees someone carrying his ladder will say to himself: He must need the ladder to plaster his roof, to prevent rainwater from dripping into his house. In other words, an onlooker will suspect him of performing prohibited labor on the Festival. And Beit Hillel hold that his dovecote proves about him that he is not moving the ladder for the purpose of a transgression, as it is evident that he is placing the ladder alongside the second dovecote, and everyone will understand his intention. However, in the private domain, where one will not be observed by strangers, everyone agrees that it is permitted.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗住专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪专讗讬转 讛注讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚专讬 讞讚专讬诐 讗住讜专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讟讞谉 讘讞诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛注诐 专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: Wherever the Sages prohibited an action due to the appearance of prohibition, even if one performs the act in his innermost chamber, where no one will see it, it is prohibited. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: One whose clothes fell into water on Shabbat or a Festival may spread them out to dry in the sun, but he may not do so opposite the masses, i.e., in a place where people can see him, lest they suspect him of laundering on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon prohibit doing so even in private.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

Some say a different version of this discussion. Rav 岣nan bar Ami said: The dispute applies to the private domain, as Beit Shammai are of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and therefore Beit Shammai apply the decree to the private domain. And Beit Hillel, by contrast, are of the opinion that the halakha is not in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. However, in the public domain, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to move the ladder.

诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

The Gemara challenges this interpretation: Should we say that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with that of Beit Shammai? According to Rav 岣nan bar Ami, only Beit Shammai maintains that anything prohibited by the Sages due to appearances may not be performed even in private.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讟讞谉 讘讞诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛注诐 专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: If clothes fell into water on Shabbat or a Festival, one may spread them out in the sun but not opposite the masses. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon prohibit doing so. Rav 岣nan bar Ami accepts the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, who rejects Rav鈥檚 principle. According to the opinion of that tanna, it can be claimed that Beit Hillel also rejected Rav鈥檚 principle, and they permitted moving the ladder in private but not in public. Rav, on the other hand, follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon in interpreting the opinion of Beit Hillel.

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 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 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

搂 With regard to the mishna itself, the Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another to take doves; they disagree only after one has finished at the second dovecote, whether it is permitted to replace the ladder to its original spot at the first dovecote, as Beit Shammai say: One may not replace the ladder, and Beit Hillel say: One may even replace it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘住讜诇诐 砖诇 砖讜讘讱 讗讘诇 讘住讜诇诐 砖诇 注诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诪讟讛讜 诪讞诇讜谉 诇讞诇讜谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗祝 诪讚讚讬谉 讘讜

Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? With regard to a dovecote ladder, which clearly serves the purpose of taking doves. However, in the case of an attic ladder, which has a variety of uses, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as this will raise suspicions. Rabbi Dosa says: One may tilt it from one window to another in the same dovecote. A岣rim say in the name of Rabbi Dosa: One may even shift the ladder from one place to another by shuffling its legs.

讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞驻讜拽 诇拽专讬讬转讗 讻讬 讗转讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讻诇讜诐 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇讬讚讻诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 住讜诇诐 讘讗 诇讬讚讬谞讜 讜讛转专谞讜讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜讗住专讜 诪讛 砖讛转专转诐

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi 岣yya went out to the villages to attend to their business. When they came back, their father said to them: Did any incident requiring a ruling of halakha come to your notice? They said to him: The issue of carrying an attic ladder to a dovecote came to our notice, and we permitted it. Rabbi 岣yya said to them: Go out and prohibit that which you permitted.

讗讬谞讛讜 住讘讜专 诪讚拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘住讜诇诐 砖诇 注诇讬讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 驻诇讬讙讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 拽讗 诪驻专砖

The Gemara explains: Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sons thought that from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to an attic ladder, this proves by inference that the first tanna holds that they do disagree. Consequently, Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sons thought that according to the first tanna, Beit Hillel permit even the use of a loft ladder, and they ruled in accordance with this opinion. But that is not so, as Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree with him, but rather he explains the reason of the first tanna.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住讜诇诐 砖诇 注诇讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗讬 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 讛住讜诇诐 诇砖讜讘讱 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诇 砖讜讘讱 讗讬谉 砖诇 注诇讬讛 诇讗

From where can this be inferred? From the fact that the first tanna teaches: One may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another. And if it enters your mind to say that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to an attic ladder, if so, this phrase: One may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another, is inexact, as he should have said: One may carry a ladder to a dovecote. Rather, isn鈥檛 this what the tanna said: With regard to a dovecote ladder, yes, it is permitted to move it; however, in the case of an attic ladder, no, one may not use it.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 住讜诇诐 砖诇 砖讜讘讱 诪砖讜讘讱 诇砖讜讘讱 拽转谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻诪讛 砖讜讘讻讬谉

The Gemara asks: And the others, Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sons, what is their reasoning? The Gemara answers that they would reply: Is it taught in the baraita: A dovecote ladder? It teaches: From one dovecote to another, and this simply means that it is permitted to do so even with regard to several dovecotes.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讟讜讬 住讜诇诐 砖诇 注诇讬讛 讘讗 诇讬讚讬谞讜 讜讛转专谞讜讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜讗住专讜 诪讛 砖讛转专转诐 讗讬谞讛讜 住讘讜专 诪讗讬 讚拽讗 讗住专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 拽讗 砖专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讚拽讗 砖专讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 拽讗 讗住专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗

Some say a slightly different version of this incident. Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sons said to him: The tilting of an attic ladder came to our notice, and we permitted it. We were asked whether an attic ladder positioned near a dovecote before the Festival may be moved from one window to another in the same dovecote, and we allowed it. Rabbi 岣yya said to them: Go out and prohibit that which you permitted. The Gemara explains that they thought: That which the first tanna prohibits, i.e., moving an attic ladder, Rabbi Dosa permits, i.e. Rabbi Dosa is more lenient than the first tanna and permits moving even an attic ladder from one window to another. And that is not so. Rather, that which the first tanna permits, moving a dovecote ladder, Rabbi Dosa prohibits. He is more stringent and maintains that even a dovecote ladder may be moved only by tilting rather than in the usual manner.

讗讘诇 诪讟讛讜 诪讞诇讜谉 诇讞诇讜谉 讜讻讜壮 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

搂 The mishna taught: However, everyone agrees that one may tilt a dovecote ladder from one window to another in the same dovecote. The Gemara infers: Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient.

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 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞驻讜专 讘讚拽专 讜讬讻住讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诇讜 注驻专 诪讜讻谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the first mishna of the tractate (2a): 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. This indicates that it is Beit Shammai who are concerned for the honor and joy of the Festival, and they are therefore lenient with regard to covering the blood; whereas Beit Hillel do not share the same concern and are stringent about covering the blood, despite the fact that their ruling might adversely affect the joy of the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 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

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m is reversed. The opinion attributed to Beit Hillel is actually that of Beit Shammai, and vice versa. The Gemara rejects Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 answer: From where do you infer that this extreme conclusion is necessarily the case? A different explanation is possible: Perhaps Beit Shammai say their opinion, that it is permitted to cover the blood, only there, where there is already a shovel embedded in the earth ready for this purpose, and therefore there are grounds for a lenient ruling. However, where there is no embedded shovel, they did not permit it.

讜讗讬 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 讚砖讜讘讻讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讛转诐 诇讗

Alternatively, it is possible to say that Beit Hillel say their opinion, that an act is permitted for the sake of the joy of the Festival, only here, where his dovecote, the place where he ultimately positions the ladder, proves with regard to him that he intended to use his ladder for a permitted purpose; but there, where there is no equivalent proof, they were not lenient. This shows that there is no clear contradiction between the rulings in the two cases.

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 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

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous version and suggests that Rabbi Yo岣nan issued his statement with regard to a different issue: If the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is difficult, this is what is difficult: It was taught in a different mishna (10a): Beit Shammai say: One may not take fledgling doves on a Festival unless he shook them, as an act of preparation, while it was still day. And Beit Hillel say: It is indeed necessary to perform some act of preparation to permit the taking of fledglings on a Festival, but this does not have to be done by shaking them. Rather, it is enough if one stands the day before and says: I will take this dove and that one.

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 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

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 as above: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai are lenient and allow one to dig with a shovel to cover the blood, due to the joy of the Festival, whereas Beit Hillel do not permit one to slaughtering at all, unless there was a shovel ready from the day before. It was with regard to this contradiction that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚拽专 谞注讜抓

The Gemara challenges this explanation: But perhaps that is not so, as a different explanation is possible: Beit Shammai only state their lenient opinion, that it is permitted to cover the blood, where there is an embedded shovel.

Scroll To Top