ביצה דף ט

גלגל עיסה מערב יום טוב — מפריש ממנה חלתה ביום טוב. אבוה דשמואל אמר: אפילו גלגל עיסה מערב יום טוב — אין מפריש ממנה חלתה ביום טוב.

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

לימא פליגא דשמואל אדאבוה (דשמואל). דאמר שמואל: חלת חוצה לארץ, אוכל והולך ואחר כך מפריש!

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

אמר רבא: מי לא מודה שמואל שאם קרא עליה שם שאסורה לזרים?

Rava said: This is not necessarily the case. Doesn’t Shmuel concede that if one designated a piece of dough as ḥalla 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 ḥalla. Therefore, he might also agree with his father that it is prohibited to separate ḥalla on a Festival even outside of Eretz Yisrael.

מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים: אין מוליכין את הסולם משובך לשובך, אבל מטהו מחלון לחלון. ובית הלל מתירין.

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.

גמ׳ אמר רב חנן בר אמי: מחלוקת ברשות הרבים, דבית שמאי סברי: הרואה אומר להטיח גגו הוא צריך, ובית הלל סברי: שובכו מוכיח עליו.

GEMARA: Rav Ḥanan 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.

אבל ברשות היחיד — דברי הכל מותר.

איני? והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: כל מקום שאסרו חכמים מפני מראית העין, אפילו בחדרי חדרים אסור! תנאי היא. דתניא: שוטחן בחמה, אבל לא כנגד העם.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t 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’im, 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.

רבי (אליעזר) ורבי שמעון אוסרין.

איכא דאמרי, אמר רב חנן בר אמי: מחלוקת ברשות היחיד, דבית שמאי אית להו דרב יהודה אמר רב, ובית הלל לית להו דרב יהודה אמר רב,

Some say a different version of this discussion. Rav Ḥanan 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.

אבל ברשות הרבים — דברי הכל אסור.

לימא רב דאמר כבית שמאי?

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

תנאי היא, דתניא: שוטחן בחמה, אבל לא כנגד העם. רבי (אליעזר) ורבי שמעון אוסרין.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is a dispute between tanna’im, 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 Ḥanan bar Ami accepts the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, who rejects Rav’s principle. According to the opinion of that tanna, it can be claimed that Beit Hillel also rejected Rav’s 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.

מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא, דתניא, אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר: מודים בית שמאי ובית הלל שמוליכין את הסולם משובך לשובך. לא נחלקו אלא להחזיר,

§ 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.

שבית שמאי אומרים: אין מחזירין, ובית הלל אומרים: אף מחזירין.

אמר רבי יהודה: במה דברים אמורים — בסולם של שובך, אבל בסולם של עליה — דברי הכל אסור. רבי דוסא אומר: מטהו מחלון לחלון.

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. Aḥerim say in the name of Rabbi Dosa: One may even shift the ladder from one place to another by shuffling its legs.

אחרים אומרים משום רבי דוסא: אף מדדין בו.

בני רבי חייא נפוק לקרייתא. כי אתו, אמר להו אבוהון: כלום מעשה בא לידכם? אמרו לו: סולם בא לידינו, והתרנוהו. אמר להם: צאו ואסרו מה שהתרתם.

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya said to them: Go out and prohibit that which you permitted.

אינהו סבור: מדקא אמר רבי יהודה בסולם של עליה לא פליגי, מכלל דתנא קמא סבר פליגי. ולא היא, רבי יהודה טעמיה דתנא קמא קא מפרש.

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Ḥiyya’s 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 Ḥiyya’s 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.

ממאי, מדקתני: מוליכין את הסולם משובך לשובך, ואי סלקא דעתך בסולם של עליה פליגי, האי ״מוליכין את הסולם משובך לשובך״, ״מוליכין את הסולם לשובך״ מבעי ליה.

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’t 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.

אלא לאו הכי קאמר: של שובך — אין, של עליה — לא.

ואידך: מי קתני ״סולם של שובך״? ״משובך לשובך״ קתני, ואפילו לכמה שובכין.

The Gemara asks: And the others, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s 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.

איכא דאמרי, אמרו לו: הטוי סולם של עליה בא לידינו והתרנוהו. אמר להם: צאו ואסרו מה שהתרתם. אינהו סבור: מאי דקא אסר תנא קמא,

Some say a slightly different version of this incident. Rabbi Ḥiyya’s 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 Ḥiyya 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.

קא שרי רבי דוסא. ולא היא, מאי דקא שרי תנא קמא, קא אסר רבי דוסא.

אבל מטהו מחלון לחלון וכו׳. אלמא, גבי שמחת יום טוב בית שמאי לחומרא ובית הלל לקולא.

§ 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.

ורמינהי: השוחט חיה ועוף ביום טוב, בית שמאי אומרים: יחפור בדקר ויכסה, ובית הלל אומרים: לא ישחוט אלא אם כן היה לו עפר מוכן מבעוד יום.

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.

אמר רבי יוחנן: מוחלפת השיטה. ממאי: דלמא עד כאן לא קאמרי בית שמאי התם, אלא היכא דאיכא דקר נעוץ, אבל היכא דליכא דקר נעוץ — לא.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The attribution of the opinions of the tanna’im is reversed. The opinion attributed to Beit Hillel is actually that of Beit Shammai, and vice versa. The Gemara rejects Rabbi Yoḥanan’s 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.

ואי נמי: עד כאן לא קאמרי בית הלל הכא, אלא דשובכו מוכיח עליו, אבל התם — לא.

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.

אלא, אי קשיא — הא קשיא: בית שמאי אומרים: לא יטול אלא אם כן נענע מבעוד יום, ובית הלל אומרים: עומד ואומר זה וזה אני נוטל.

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous version and suggests that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אלמא, גבי שמחת יום טוב בית שמאי לחומרא ובית הלל לקולא, ורמינהי: השוחט חיה ועוף ביום טוב, אמר רבי יוחנן: מוחלפת השיטה.

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 slaughter at all, unless there was a shovel ready from the day before. It was with regard to this contradiction that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed.

ודלמא לא היא: עד כאן לא אמרי בית שמאי, אלא היכא דאיכא דקר נעוץ

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.