Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 2a
MISHNAH . [IF] AN EGG IS LAID ON A FESTIVAL-DAY, BETH SHAMMAI1 SAY: IT MAY BE EATEN [ON THE SAME DAY], BUT BETH HILLEL1 MAINTAIN: IT MAY NOT BE EATEN [UNTIL THE DAY IS OVER]. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: [THE QUANTITY OF] LEAVEN2 IS OF THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE3 AND LEAVENED BREAD IS OF THE SIZE OF A DATE,4 BUT BETH HILLEL MAINTAIN: BOTH5 ARE OF THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE. HE WHO SLAUGHTERS GAME ON POULTRY ON A FESTIVAL-DAY, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: HE MAY DIG UP [EARTH] WITH A SHOVEL6 AND COVER [THE BLOOD],7 BUT BETH HILLEL MAINTAIN: ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER8 UNLESS HE HAS [LOOSE] EARTH PREPARED FROM THE DAY BEFORE [THE FESTIVAL];9 BUT THEY AGREE THAT IF HE HAS [ALREADY] SLAUGHTERED, HE MAY DIG UP [EARTH] WITH A SHOVEL AND COVER [THE BLOOD], BECAUSE10 THE ASHES OF THE HEARTH ARE MUKAN [CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN PREPARED].11
GEMARA. What12 are we discussing? If one should say about a hen kept13 for food, what is the reason of Beth Hillel,14 [seeing that] it is food which has been separated;15 and [if] about a hen kept for laying eggs, what is the reason of Beth Shammai,16 [seeing that] it is mukzeh?17 — But what objection is this? Perhaps Beth Shammai do not accept [the prohibition of] Mukzeh? (We are of the opinion that even he who permits mukzeh forbids nolad;18 what then is the reason of Beth Shammai?) — R. Nahman replied: In table [we are debating] about a hen kept for laying eggs; but he who accepts [the prohibition of] mukzeh accepts [the prohibition of] nolad, and he who rejects [the prohibition of] mukzeh rejects [the prohibition of] nolad:19 Beth Shammai is [of the same opinion] as R. Simeon20 and Beth Hillel is [of the same opinion] as R. Judah.21 But did R. Nahman say thus? Surely we have learnt: Beth Shammai say: One may remove22 [on the Sabbath] from the table [with the hand] bones and nutshells;23 but Beth Hillel maintain: One lifts off the whole table-top and shakes it.24 And R. Nahman25 said: As for us, we only hold that Beth Shammai [follow the view] of R. Simeon! — R. Nahman can reply to you: With reference to the Sabbath where the Tanna teaches anonymously26 according to [the opinion of] R. Simeon as we have learnt: You may cut up gourds27 for cattle and a carcass28 for dogs29 Beth Hillel is made to represent the opinion of R. Simeon; but
(1) For the Schools of Shammai and Hillel v. J.E. III, 115ff.
(2) On the Feast of Passover, involving penalty; cf. Ex. XII, 19.
(3) But not less.
(4) A date is considered larger than an olive; but v. Jast. s.v.
(5) Leaven and leavened bread.
(6) If loose earth is not available.
(7) Cf. Lev. XVII, 13.
(8) On a Festival-day.
(9) In the three cases here mentioned Beth Shammai is more lenient than Beth Hillel. Hence they are taught together though not all are relevant to the subject.
(10) The sentence introduced by because has no casual relation with what precedes, and infra 8a, the letter a == because, is emended to u == and.
(11) ‘Mukan’, ‘set in readiness’; v. Glos. The wood having been kindled on the previous day, the ashes accumulated during the Festival are considered as if they were prepared before the Festival, as the house-holder had in his mind that there would be ashes which he could use for covering the blood.
(12) Kind of hen that laid the egg.
(13) Lit., ‘standing’.
(14) Who say the egg may not be eaten.
(15) From the hen. Since the hen was kept to be killed for food, the egg laid is regarded as a separated edible part of the hen. Cf., however, נרשום Hul. 14b who takes the word אפרת in the sense of פרו ורבו
(16) Who say the egg may be eaten.
(17) A thing not mentally intended or set in readiness before the Festival to be used on the Festival is called mukzeh; v. Glos. Since the hen was not ‘set in readiness’ before the Festival the egg should therefore be forbidden to be eaten or handled on the Festival.
(18) Lit., ‘born’; i.e., an object which has only come into existence in its present form on a Festival. Such is forbidden to be used on a Festival.
(19) There is no fundamental difference between mukzeh and nolad, only temporal.
(20) Who rejects the prohibition of mukzeh,cf. Shab. 44b.
(21) The opponent of R. Simeon, ibid.
(22) Because they do not accept the prohibition of mukzeh.
(23) Bones and nutshells are regarded as refuse and by the law of mukzeh may not be handled.
(24) Beth Hillel accept the prohibition of mukzeh and therefore rule that one may not remove the bones and nutshells with his hand but gets rid of them by lifting the table-top. Shab. 143a.
(25) R. Nahman, wishing to follow the standard rule that in disputes between Shammai and Hillel the law prevails as Hillel, and also to follow the rule that the law prevails according to the opinion expressed in an anonymous Mishnah, here reverses the teaching of the two Schools.
(26) A Mishnah taught anonymously without mention of its author indicates that the teaching is the prevailing law.
(27) The cutting up of gourds is not regarded as unnecessary labour on Sabbath, for the animals are then better able to feed.
(28) Of an animal that dies on a Sabbath and consequently was not intended before the Sabbath to be given to the dogs to feed on.
(29) Shab. 156b; infra 6b, 27b.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 2b
with reference to Festivals, where the Tanna teaches anonymously according to [the Opinion of] R. Judah as we have learnt: You may not [on a Festival] chop up firewood from rafters1 nor from a beam which was broken on a Festival2 — Beth Hillel is made to represent the opinion of R. Judah.
Now who taught our Mishnah anonymously, [was it not] Rabbi?3 Why then is it that with reference to the Sabbath he teaches the Mishnah anonymously according to [the opinion of] R. Simeon, whereas with reference to Festivals he teaches the Mishnah anonymously according to R. Judah? — I will answer. With respect to the Sabbath which is stringent so that people will not come to treat it lightly, he taught the Mishnah anonymously according to R. Simeon who is lenient; [with respect to] a Festival which is less stringent4 so that people might come to treat it lightly, he taught the Mishnah anonymously according to R. Judah who is strict.
How have you explained it [the Mishnah]? With respect to a hen kept for laying eggs [the prohibition is] on account of mukzeh! If so, then instead of disputing about an egg,5 let [the Mishnah state that] they dispute about the hen [itself]!6 — It is in order to inform you of the extent of the opinion7 of Beth Shammai that [even] nolad is permitted. Then let them, dispute about the hen [itself] to show you the extent [of the opinion] of Beth Hillel that they forbid [even] mukzeh! And if you reply that information with respect to the extent of the opinion of permitting is to be preferred,8 then let them dispute about it both,9 thus: ‘A hen and its egg [laid on a Festival] may be eaten; but Beth Hillel maintain: They may not be eaten’!10 — Therefore, said Rabbah: In reality, it [the Mishnah] refers to a hen kept for food; but we are discussing a Festival which fell on a Sunday,11 and [the prohibition12 is] on account of preparation [on a Sabbath].13 For Rabbah is of the opinion that every egg laid now was completely formed the day before. And Rabbah is consistent with his view;14 for Rabbah said: What is [the teaching of] that which is written,15 and it shall come to pass on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they bring in?16 [It is that] a weekday may prepare17 for Sabbath, and a weekday may prepare for a Festival; but a Festival may not prepare for Sabbath and Sabbath may not prepare for a Festival.18 Said Abaye to him [Rabbah]: But if it is so,19 let [the egg laid on] a Festival in general20 be permitted!21 — It is a preventive measure out of consideration for a Festival falling on a Sunday.22 Let [the egg laid on] a Sabbath in general23 be permitted!21 — It is a prevent ive measure out of consideration for a Sabbath [immediately] following a Festival.24 But do we enact a preventive measure [in such a case]? Surely it was taught: If one slaughters a hen25 and finds therein eggs completely formed, they may be eaten on the Festival.26 Now if this be so,27 let them28 be prohibited on account of those [eggs] laid on the same day!29 — He answered him: [The case of] there being in a hen eggs completely formed is a rare occurrence, and the Rabbis do not decree a prohibition with regard to a rare occurrence.
R. Joseph said: It30 is a preventive measure on account of [the eating of] fruit fallen [from a tree].31 Said Abaye to him: What is the reason [that] fruit fallen from a tree [on a Festival] is forbidden?
(1) Stacked for building purposes.
(2) Before the Festival the beam was not intended to be used for firewood, hence it may not be so used on account of mukzeh, infra 31a, Shab. 157b.
(3) Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi.
(4) Cf. Ex. XII, 16.
(5) Which is forbidden on account of its hen.
(6) Whether it may be eaten or slaughtered on the Festival, since it was specifically kept for laying eggs.
(7) Lit., ‘power’; i.e., how far Beth Shammai maintain their view.
(8) Because It is an evidence of courage of conviction, while the more rigid opinion may be the outcome of doubt.
(9) The hen and its egg. Granted that information respecting the power of permission is preferable, but where, by a slight addition, more information could be given, this addition should be made.
(10) And since the Mishnah does not state this, R. Nahman's explanation of the Mishnah cannot be accepted.
(11) Lit., ‘(immediately) after the Sabbath’.
(12) According to Beth Hillel.
(13) Though the egg was here prepared by nature, it is none the less forbidden.
(14) Expressed elsewhere. ‘Er. 38b. V. Tosaf. s.v. אמר
(15) This clause is omitted in ‘Er.; for such an expression is only used in haggadic passages, cf. D.S.
(16) Ex. XVI, 5.
(17) The preparation needs only be by word of mouth, or even by thought alone.
(18) [As a day of rest, a festival is included in the term Sabbath and requires also ‘preparation’; but such ‘preparation’ may not take place on the Sabbath and consequently the egg is prohibited].
(19) Lit., ‘from now’, where now refers to what Rabbah has just stated as the reason for Hillel's view.
(20) Except that falling on a Sunday.
(21) To be eaten the same day.
(22) If it should be permitted in the one case it will be thought that it is also permitted in the other.
(23) Except when a Festival falls on a Friday.
(24) V. p. 4, n. 15.
(25) On a Festival.
(26) No matter whether the Festival falls on a Sunday or on any other day, infra 7b.
(27) That a measure is enacted in such a case.
(28) The eggs found in the hen killed on a Festival falling on a Sunday.
(29) Which are forbidden.
(30) The prohibition of the egg according to Beth Hillel.
(31) On a Festival, which is forbidden. Not eating the egg laid on a Festival is fencing the law of not eating fruit fallen on a Festival.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 3a
It is a preventive measure lest one climbs [a tree] and plucks [its fruit];1 but this2 is itself [only] a preventive measure: should we then come and enact one preventive measure to safeguard [another] preventive measure! — Both3 are one preventive measure.4
R. Isaac said: It is a preventive measure on account of [the consuming of] juices exuding [from fruit].5 Said Abaye to him: What is the reason that juice exuding [from fruit on a Festival] is forbidden? It is a preventive measure lest one [purposely] squeezes out [the juice];6 [thus] this is itself [only] a preventive measure; should we then come and enact one preventive measure against [the breach of] another preventive measure! — Both7 are one preventive measure.8
All [the other Rabbis] do not explain9 as R. Nahman does, in accordance with our objection.10 Likewise they do not explain as Rabbah, because they do not accept [his rule of] Hakanah.11 But why does not R. Joseph explain as does R. Isaac? — He will answer you: An egg is food and fruit is food, excluding juice which is not food [but a beverage]. And why does not R. Isaac explain as does R. Joseph? — He will answer you: An egg is enclosed [in the hen] and juice is enclosed in the fruit, excluding fruit which is exposed all the time.
R. Johanan also is of the opinion that it is a preventive measure on account of [the consuming of] juices exuding [from fruit]. For R. Johanan pointed out a contradiction between one statement of R. Judah and another statement and [also] reconciled it: We have learnt: You may not squeeze fruit12 to bring out juice, and [even] if the juice exuded of itself it is [still] forbidden. R. Judah says: If [the fruit was intended] as an eatable, what exudes is permitted; but if [it was kept] for its juice, then what exudes is forbidden.13 So we see that according to R. Judah [what exudes from] anything [kept] as eatables is [regarded] as food separated.14 But contrast this with the following: R. Judah further said:15 One may stipulate on the first day of the [New Year] Festival with respect to a basket of fruit16 and eat it on the second [day];17 similarly an egg laid on the first [day] may be eaten on the second.18 Only ‘on the second’, but not on the first!19 And R. Johanan answered: The statement must be reversed.20 Now since he [R. Johanan] contrasts them with each other, infer from this that there is one and the same reason.21
(1) An act Biblically forbidden on a Sabbath or Festival, being in the nature of reaping.
(2) Prohibition of eating fallen fruit on a Festival.
(3) The prohibition of eating the egg laid on a Festival and the fruit fallen from a tree on a Festival.
(4) Against the same prohibition of climbing and gathering fruit. In the enactment of the measure against fallen fruit the egg was included, being regarded as a fallen fruit.
(5) On a Festival. Not eating the egg laid on a Festival is fencing the law of not consuming juice exuding from fruit on a Festival.
(6) An act Biblically forbidden on a Sabbath or Festival, being in the nature of threshing.
(7) The prohibition of eating the egg and the juice.
(8) Against the same prohibition of squeezing juice from fruit on a Festival. In the enactment of the measure against exuding juice the egg was included.
(9) Our Mishnah.
(10) Supra 2b.
(11) V. Glos.
(12) On a Sabbath or Festival.
(13) Shab. 143b.
(14) I.e., a part of the whole.
(15) With respect to the New Year Festival which even in Palestine was observed for two days.
(16) Not yet tithed.
(17) It is forbidden to separate the Levitical tithe on a Festival (v. infra 36b). But since, according to R. Judah, only one of the two days is holy, the owner can make a conditional statement on the first day as follows: if to-day is not the Festival, then let this specified portion be the tithe for the rest; if, on the other hand, to-day is the Festival, then let what I have just said be void. On the second day he says likewise: If to-day is not the Festival, then let the specified portion be the tithe; if to-day is the Festival, then the specified portion is already tithe. By means of these two conditional statements the owner can, on the second day, proceed to eat the fruit, for it has been tithed either on the first or second day. V. ‘Er. 39b.
(18) For if the first day when the egg was laid was the holy day of the two days, then it can be eaten on the following day; and if the first day was not the holy day then the egg may also be eaten on the second day because it was not laid on a Festival. ‘Er. 39b.
(19) Because the egg is not regarded as food separated from the hen, and this is contradictory to his statement above with respect to the juice being permitted to be consumed on the Festival itself. At present it is assumed that the reference here is to a hen kept for food.
(20) To remove the contradiction, R. Johanan suggests, that in the quoted Mishnah, it is not R. Judah who permits the juice to be consumed but his opponent, the anonymous Tanna.
(21) For prohibiting both the egg and the self-exuded juice, viz., it is a preventive measure against the breach of the prohibition of squeezing juice from fruit on a Festival.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 3b
Rabina says: In reality you need not reverse [the authorities] for R. Judah was speaking from the point of view of the Rabbis,1 thus: According to my view [the egg] is permitted even on the first day, because it is food separated [from the hen]; but according to your opinion, you should at least agree with me that it is permitted on the second day, for they2 are two distinct days of holiness.3 And the Rabbis answered him: No, [the two days] are one [continuous day of] holiness. Rabina, the son of R.’Ulla, says: [We are dealing] here with a hen kept for laying eggs, and R. Judah4 is consistent with his view, for he holds [the interdict of] mukzeh.5
An objection was raised: Both an egg laid on a Sabbath and an egg laid on a Festival may not be moved to cover therewith a vessel,6 nor to support therewith the leg of a bed;7 but a vessel may be placed over it so that it should not be broken; and if in doubt,8 it is forbidden; and if it got mixed up with [even] a thousand [eggs], they are all forbidden.9 This is well, according to Rabbah, who says [that it is] ‘on account of preparation’,10 [then it is a] doubt with respect to a Biblical prohibition, and every doubt with respect to a Biblical prohibition [must be decided] with stringency. But according to R. Joseph and R. Isaac, who say [that it is] ‘a preventive measure’, then it is a doubt with respect to a Rabbinical enactment, and every doubt with respect to a Rabbinical enactment [is resolved] with leniency!11 — The last clause [of the text] deals with a doubt of trefa.12 If so, consider the latter clause; ‘and if it got mixed up with a thousand [eggs] they are all forbidden’. Now if you say that the doubt is whether [the egg was laid on] a Festival or on a weekday,13 it is well, because [the egg] is an object which can become [otherwise] permitted,14 and any object which can become [otherwise] permitted is not neutralized even in a thousand [times its quantity].15 But if you say that it is a doubt of trefa, then [the egg] is an object which cannot become [otherwise] permitted and should therefore] be neutralized by a greater number [than itself].16 And if you answer ‘an egg is valuable and is not neutralized by a greater number,’ this17 would be correct according to him who says that we learnt ‘whatsoever one is wont to count’.18 But according to him who says that we learnt ‘that which one is wont to count’, what is to be said?19 For we have learnt:20 If one had trusses of fenugreek of kil'ayim of a vineyard21 they are to be burnt;22 if they got mixed up with others23 and these [again with others,24 they are all to be burnt. This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Sages say: [The forbidden trusses] are neutralized in [a majority of the proportion of] one in two hundred. For R. Meir used to say: That which one is wont to count [when selling] disqualities.25 But the sages say: Only six things26 render [the whole] prohibited — R. Akiba says: seven — and they are as follows: The nuts of Perek,27 and the pomegranates of Baden,27 casks spigoted, beetroot-tops,28 cabbage stalks29 and Greek gourds. R. Akiba adds also the loaves of a householder.30 Those mixtures which are subject to the law of ‘Orlah, [impart the prohibition of] ‘Orlah,31 and those which are subject to the law of Kil'ayim of a vineyard [impart the prohibition of] Kil'ayim of a vineyard.32 And it was stated thereon that R. Johanan said: We learnt,33 ‘that which one is wont to count [when selling]’; and Resh Lakish said: We learnt: ‘whatsoever one is wont to count [when selling].’ [Now the text]34 would be well according to the opinion of Resh Lakish; but according to the opinion of R. Johanan, what can be said? R. Papa replied: This Tanna35 is the author [of the teaching] concerning the ‘litra of dried figs’, who says that anything which [is sold] by number, even though [its prohibition is] a Rabbinical enactment, is not annulled, how much more so when it is Biblical.36 For we have learnt:37 If a litra of dried figs38 was pressed upon the top of a jar39 and he does not know on which jar it was pressed, or on the top of a barrel and he does not know on which barrel it was pressed, or on top of a basket40 and he does not know on which basket it was pressed, R. Meir maintains [that] R. Eliezer
(1) His opponents. The anonymous opinion is that of the majority of the Rabbis.
(2) The two days.
(3) Only one of which is really holy, cf. infra.
(4) Who prohibits the egg to be eaten on the first day.
(5) Cf. Shab. 156b.
(6) A wine glass or a decanter.
(7) According to an old tradition, an egg standing quite vertically can support a very heavy weight. But cf. MGWJ 71, 1927 p. 44; 72, 1928. pp. 391-5, where this Baraitha is discussed, and where it is shown that this was done for magical purposes.
(8) On the present assumption as to whether the egg was laid on a Festival or not.
(9) Infra 42; Shab. 43b.
(10) Supra 2b.
(11) And therefore the egg concerning which a doubt arose whether it was laid on a Festival or not should be permitted.
(12) I.e., whether the hen that laid it is trefa the prohibition of which is Biblical. V. Glos.
(13) Lit., ‘common’, ‘ordinary’, i.e., not a Festival-day.
(14) After the Festival the egg is in any case permitted, even though no neutralization were to take place.
(15) This is a Talmudic principle with respect to the neutralization of an object when intermixed with permitted commodities. Though normally a certain portion of the latter is sufficient to neutralize the former, that does not operate if the former is destined to become permitted without recourse to neutralization. Hence, in our case, where the egg was laid on a Festival-day and is forbidden for that day only, but not after, if that egg got mixed up with no matter how many others on the day it was laid, it is not neutralized, but all are forbidden on that day. Cf. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 314, note 2.
(16) According to the rule based on Ex. XXIII, 3.
(17) Forbidding to be eaten even though the egg got mixed up with a thousand.
(18) When selling is regarded as important and is not neutralized by a greater quantity than itself. For eggs, though occasionally sold in bulk are also sold in units and therefore do not merge in the majority.
(19) To explain this statement; for the eggs which are sometimes sold in bulk do not belong to such a category. Whatsoever is more comprehensive than that. According to the former teaching, neutralization is not permitted in the case of any objects which are regarded as of sufficiently high commercial value to be sold in units rather than in bulk. According to the latter teaching, neutralization is permitted in all cases except those where the objects are of such a high value that they are not sold save by counting single units. V. Yeb., sonc. ed,. p. 551 n. 11.
(20) ‘Orlah. III, 6; Yeb. 81a. Zeb. 72a.
(21) Cf. Lev. XIX, 19, and Deut. XXII, 9. Lit., ‘mixed growths of plantings’. V. Glos.
(22) For no benefit or usufruct may be had from such mixed growths.
(23) Trusses of fenugreek not of mixed growths of a vineyard.
(24) This clause is omitted both in ‘Orlah and Yeb. But V. Tosaf. Zeb. 72a. s.v. נתערבו
(25) Or renders forbidden the others with its prohibition. For this rendering of the word מקדש v. Jast. p. 1320a. V. also Yeb., Sonc. ed. p. 552, n. 4 and 9.
(26) If forbidden and mixed up with others.
(27) Perek and Baden are both localities in Samaria N.E. of Shechem (cf. Rashi). Tosaf. Yeb. 81b. s.v. פרך takes the former to mean cracknuts. Cf. A.Z., Sonc. ed. p. 354, note 4.
(28) For making beverage.
(29) For making crude whisky.
(30) With reference to the law of leaven during passover, as distinct from the loaves of a baker.
(31) I.e., come under the law of ‘Orlah. Lit., ‘circumcision ‘. V. Lev. XIX, 23-4. where the use of the fruit of young trees forbidden. The use is wholly forbidden during the first three years.
(32) The first three belong to ‘Orlah, the others to Kil'ayim.
(33) In the words of R. Meir.
(34) That if the egg got mixed up even in a thousand they are all prohibited.
(35) Who made the statement that even if the egg got mixed up with a thousand they are all forbidden.
(36) As the egg from the trefa hen.
(37) Cf. Ter. IV, 10. For var. lec. v. Comm. a.l.
(38) Of terumah (V. Glos.) which may not be eaten by non-priests. Cf. Lev. XXII, 10. It is the portion (from one sixtieth to one fortieth) that must be given to the priests from the produce of the harvest and can only become neutralized in a quantity 100 times itself. V. Num. XVIII, 8; Deut. XVIII, 4, where corn, wine, and oil are mentioned but not fruit. The requirement to give terumah of fruit is only a Rabbinical enactment.
(39) Which was only among many jars of figs each holding 100 litras.
(40) In the shape of a beehive.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 4a
said: We regard the upper [layers] as if they are dispersed [among each barrel] and the lower1 neutralize the upper [litra of figs]; [while] R. Joshua says: If there were there a hundred tops [of barrels] they neutralize, but if not, then [all] the top layers are forbidden and [all] the remainders are permitted. [But] R. Judah maintains2 [that] R. Eliezer said: If there are a hundred upper layers they neutralize, but if not then [all] the top layers are forbidden and [all] the remainders are permitted; [while] R. Joshua Says: Even if there are three hundred tops of barrels they do not neutralize.3 If it4 was pressed in a jar and he does not know in which jar he pressed it, all agree that they neutralize. [You say], All agree? [Why] this is the point they are disputing! Said R. Papa: This is what he says: If it was pressed in a jar and he does not know it, which part of the jar it was pressed, whether northward or southward, all agree that it is neutralized.5
R. Ashi said: In reality the doubt is whether [the egg was laid] on a Festival-day or on a weekday,6 [but] it [the egg] is a forbidden] object which will become permitted,7 and anything [forbidden] which will become permitted, even though [forbidden] by a Rabbinical enactment8 is not neutralized.9
It was taught: Others say in the name of R. Eliezer: The egg [laid on a Festival] and the hen may be eaten. About what are we discussing? If about a hen kept for food, it is self-evident that the egg and the hen are permitted;10 and if about a hen kept for laying eggs, then the egg and the hen are forbidden!11 — Answered R. Zera: [It means,] it [the egg] may be eaten in virtue of the hen.12 What are the circumstances?13 — Said Abaye: For example when he bought it [the hen] without specifying [for what purpose]; if it is killed then it is [retrospectively] clear that it was intended to be kept for food;14 if it is not killed, then it is evident that it was intended to be kept for laying eggs.15 R. Mari says: He states an exaggeration.16 For it was taught: Others say in the name of R. Eliezer: The egg may be eaten, it and its hen, and its chicken and its shell. What is meant by ‘its shell’? Shall I say [it means] literally ‘shell’, is then the shell [fit for] food?17 Again, if it should [mean] a chicken in its shell, surely the Rabbis dispute with R. Eliezer b. Jacob18 only when the chicken is actually hatched, but when it has not yet been hatched they do not dispute!19 Therefore ‘the chicken and its shell’ is an exaggeration,20 so also here ‘it and its hen may be eaten’ is an exaggeration.
It was stated: A Sabbath and a Festival [following one another]. Rab says: [An egg] laid on the one is forbidden on the other, but R. Johanan maintains: [The egg] laid on the one is permitted on the other. Shall we say that Rab holds that they [a Sabbath and a Festival immediately following] are regarded as one [continuous day of] holiness? But Rab said: The halachah is according to the four elders who decided according to the opinion of R. Eliezer who says [the Sabbath and the Festival] are two [distinct days of] holiness! — Rather they differ here in Rabbah's [law of] Hakanah;21 Rab accepts Rabbah's law of Hakanah and R. Johanan rejects Rabbah's law of Hakanah.
The same is disputed by Tannaim: If it [an egg] is laid on a Sabbath, it may be eaten on a Festival;22 [if it is laid] on a Festival it may be eaten on a Sabbath.23 R. Judah says in the name of R. Eliezer: The dispute still continues; for Beth Shammai say: It may be eaten; whereas Beth Hillel maintain: It may not be eaten.24 The host of R. Adda b. Ahabah had some eggs from a festival [which he wished to prepare] for the Sabbath.25 He came before him, and asked: Is it permitted to roast them to-day26 that we may eat their to-morrow? He answered him: What is in your mind: [in a dispute between] Rab and R. Johanan the halachah Is as R. Johanan? But even R. Johanan only allows [the egg] to be quaffed on the morrow, but not on the same day [it was laid];27 even as it was taught: Whether an egg was laid on a Sabbath or on a Festival, one may not move it to cover therewith a vessel nor to support therewith the leg of a bed.28
The host of R. Papa — some say it was another man who came before R. Papa — had some eggs from a Sabbath [which he wished to prepare] on the [immediately following] Festival. He came, asking him: Is it permitted to eat them to-morrow?29 He answered him: Go away now and come to-morrow: for Rab would not appoint an interpreter for himself from [the first day of] the Festival until [the termination of] its companion30 on account of inebriety.31 When he came on the morrow, he said to him:
(1) Layers of each barrel.
(2) R. Meir and R. Judah differ with respect to the dispute between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.
(3) The litra of figs, for the top layers of figs are in the category of things that are also sold by number and therefore the quantity of vessels is immaterial. Cf. J. Ter. IV, 7.
(4) The litra of terumah figs.
(5) Because not being a complete layer now, it is no longer in the category of being numbered. R. Joshua is then the Tanna who held that anything which is often sold by number is not annulled, and he will be the author of the teaching regarding the mixed egg.
(6) And as for the suggestion that in any doubt with respect to a prohibition based on a Rabbinical enactment leniency is required, v. supra 3b.
(7) After a certain time. The egg will in any case be permitted after the Festival.
(8) Concerning which leniency is usually preferred.
(9) And we are to proceed with stringency even in the case of doubt.
(10) That is, in the view of Beth Shammai; and if R. Eliezer intends to rule like Beth Shammai, why mention the hen-mother at all? Rashi.
(11) On account of mukzeh. V. infra 34a.
(12) If the hen is eaten on the Festival so may also the egg be eaten.
(13) When it is the actual eating of the hen that renders also the egg permissible.
(14) And therefore the egg, being part of the hen, may also be eaten.
(15) And therefore the egg is not permitted.
(16) He uses the figure of speech called hyperbole for the sake of emphasis; i.e., he states the law very emphatically, mentioning more than is necessary.
(17) All that was necessary to be said was ‘the chicken’, for the shell is not classed as food.
(18) And say that a chicken just hatched may be eaten even though its eyes were not open. V. infra 6b.
(19) I.e., they all agree that it may not be eaten. Hence it cannot mean in its shell.
(20) Saying more than is required.
(21) Supra 2b. V. Glos.
(22) Immediately following the Sabbath.
(23) Immediately following the Festival.
(24) So that the anonymous Tanna supports R. Johanan and R. Judah supports Rab.
(25) Immediately following the Festival, and he was doubtful.
(26) On Friday, the day they were laid.
(27) When it is forbidden even to move it.
(28) Supra 3b. q.v.
(29) I.e., on the Sunday.
(30) I.e.,the second day of the Festival.
(31) Rab was in the habit of appointing an interpreter who would enlarge and expand the teachings he would communicate to him. Rab was so scrupulous that he refrained from communicating teachings and decisions to his interpreter on a feast day lest he should risk giving less than his best through the influence of drinking wine on the Festival. R. Papa would not give on a Sabbath a decision for the same reason.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 4b
If [I had given my decision] forthwith, I would have erred, and told you that [in a dispute between] Rab and R. Johanan the halachah is as R. Johanan; whereas Raba has said: In these three [cases]1 the law is as Rab, both when he is lenient and when he is stringent.
R. Johanan said: If branches fell off a palm tree on a Sabbath, it is forbidden to burn them [for firewood] on the Festival [immediately following it], and do not seek to refute me [by referring to the case] of the egg.2 What is the reason? Because the egg is fit to be taken raw on the [Sabbath] day [it was laid],3 and since you do not permit it [to be eaten] until the following day, one will surely know that on the same day [that it was laid] it is prohibited.4 [But in the case of the] branches which are not fit for the [Sabbath] day [on which they fell],5 if you permit them to be used on the morrow,6 one might say that even on the [same] day [they fell off]7 , they are also permitted, while [their prohibition] the day before was on account of the Sabbath, when they were not fit for burning.
R. Mattenah said: If branches fell off a palm tree on a Festival into an oven, one may add thereto a larger amount of wood kept in readiness8 and burn them [together]. But is he not handling a prohibited object?9 Since the greater part consists of that which is permitted, when he is handling, he is handling that which is permitted. But he neutralizes a prohibited object at the outset, and we have learnt: One may not [directly] neutralize a prohibited object at the outset!10 — This applies only [where the object is prohibited] according to the Biblical law, but [where it is only] Rabbinical]y [prohibited] one may [directly] neutralize.11 But how is it to be explained according to R. Ashi, who says that an object [forbidden] which will become permitted is not neutralized even though [forbidden] by a Rabbinical enactment?12 — this applies only where the prohibited object remains intact, but here the thing forbidden is indeed burnt up.13 It was stated: [With reference to] the two Festival-days of the Diaspora,14 Rab says: [The egg] laid on the one15 is permitted on the other,16 and R. Assi maintains: [The egg] laid on the one is forbidden on the other. Shall it be said that R. Assi holds the opinion that [both days] have one continuous holiness? But R. Assi recited the habdalah17 [blessing] between the first and second Festival-days?18 — R. Assi himself was in doubt, hence he acted in both cases with stringency.19
R. Zera said: Logic supports R. Assi; for we are now well acquainted with the fixing of the new moon and, nevertheless, we do observe two days.20 Abaye said: Logic supports Rab; for we have learnt: In early times they used to light bonfires,21 but on account of the mischief of the Samaritans22 the Rabbis ordained that messengers should go forth.23 Now if the [mischief of the] Samaritans ceased24 we would [all] observe only one day; and [even during the Samaritan mischief] wherever the messengers arrived25 they observed [only] one day.26 But now that we are well acquainted with the fixing of the new moon,27 why do we observe two days? — Because they sent [word] from there [Palestine]:28 Give heed to the customs of your ancestors which have come down to you; for it might happen that the government might issue a decree29 and it will cause confusion [in ritual].
It was stated: [With respect to] the two Festival-days of the New Year, Rab and Samuel30 both say: [An egg] laid on the first day is forbidden on the second day. For we have learnt:31 In early times they [the Sanhedrin] admitted the testimony about new moon throughout the [whole]32 day.33 Once, however, the witnesses were late in arriving
(1) For the three cases v. infra 5b. Our case is one of the three.
(2) Concerning which I have said that an egg laid on a Sabbath may be eaten on the immediately following Festival-day.
(3) All egg may not be cooked on a Sabbath, but may be eaten raw because there is no work in sucking eggs.
(4) On account of mukzeh.
(5) For it is prohibited to kindle fire on a Sabbath. Cf. Ex. XXXV, 3.
(6) The following Festival-day.
(7) If it were a Festival and not a Sabbath.
(8) V. Glos. s.v. mukan.
(9) When stoking the fire the alien branches are prohibited on account of mukzeh.
(10) This statement is not found anywhere else so worded, but is inferred from Ter. V, 9, where it is stated that if one se'ah of Heave-offering fell into less than 100 se'ahs of common produce, and other common produce afterwards fell therein, if it was in error the whole is permitted, but if wantonly, it is forbidden. Cf. ר׳ש a.l.
(11) And the prohibition of mukzeh is only Rabbinical.
(12) V. supra 3a. And the wood will in any case be permitted after the Festival.
(13) Cf. Tosaf. Pes. 26b. s.v. חדש
(14) Outside Palestine every Festival which Biblically is to be observed for day is kept for two days because of doubt. Since the Festival is fixed for a certain day of the month (for example passover on the 15th Nisan) it is Important to know the exact day the New Moon appears. For the consecration of the New Moon was determined not only by mathematical calculation but by the confirmation of witnesses who had seen it. This applied only to the 30th, but on the 31st, the day would be consecrated even without witnesses, because it would be known that after the 30th the moon should become new even if it were not seen, for the moon renewed itself about every 292 days. therefore those in Palestine could easily be informed whether the new moon was consecrated by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem on the 30th day or on the 31st, thus making the month just passed either full or defective. But those in the Diaspora, not being able to be informed in time whether the new moon was consecrated on the 30th or on the 31st, kept the appointed Festival-day for two days in order to be sure of observing it (for example, in the case of Passover, they kept both the 15th and 16th of Nisan as the 1st day of Passover). Hence the two Festival-days of the Diaspora.
(15) I.e., the first day.
(16) Because only one of the two days is holy.
(17) V. Glos.
(18) He would not have recited the habdalah had he regarded the two Festival-days as one continuous day of holiness. V. Rashi.
(19) The observance in the Diaspora of two days instead of one as in Palestine can be regarded from two points of view: (a) It was an enactment of the Rabbis that for all time in the Diaspora two days should be kept for each Festival-day (v. supra n. 1). From that point of view the two days are regarded as one long day of holiness and the egg might not be eaten on the second day. (b) The people in the Diaspora have taken upon themselves the observance of two days instead of one because of their uncertainty; for those however, who were well acquainted with the fixing of the new moon, the first day only is regarded as really holy and the second day as of a minor holiness, requiring the recitation of the habdalah between the two, and the egg would be permitted to be eaten on the second day.
(20) Presumably because the Rabbis have so enacted for us to keep the two days as one continuous day of holiness and it is their ordinances that we observe.
(21) They indicated the new moon outside Jerusalem by means of firesignals whether the day just elapsed was the 30th of the past month or the 1st of the coming month.
(22) In lighting beacons at other times to confuse the Jews. For the term Cuthim v. J.E. vol. IV, p. 398.
(23) V. R.H. 22b (Sonc. ed. p. 96, n. 7).
(24) And we reverted to the lighting of fire-signals.
(25) The distance covered by the traveling messengers was relative, dependent on what day in the month a festival fell, so that sometimes they would cover more territory than at others.
(26) Evidently the observance of two days was not an enactment for all time.
(27) The calendar was fixed about the beginning of the fourth century. [This has been ascribed to Hillel II, v. Graetz IV, pp. 316-318.]
(28) To the Jews in the Diaspora. Cf. Sanh. 17b. [probably this refers to the message sent by R. Jose (J. ‘Er. III) a contemporary of Hillel II, urging the people of the Diaspora not to depart from the ancestral customs despite the calendar which have been introduced by the Patriarch, v. Graetz IV, p. 456.]
(29) To destroy all the sacred writings and prevent the study of the Law and thus all knowledge of fixing the calendar would be lost.
(30) Who are often opposed in debate.
(31) R.H. 30b.
(32) The word ‘whole’ is absent in R.H.
(33) The 30th of Ellul, which had already been determined as New Year. The 30th of Ellul, commencing at sunset, was observed as New Year's day in case witnesses should arrive during that day reporting that they had seen the new moon.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 5a
and the Levites erred in the chant.1 [In consequence] they enacted that they should only receive witnesses until Minhah,2 but if witnesses came from Minhah onwards3 they observed [the remainder of] that day4 and the following day as holy.5
Rabbah said: Since the enactment of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, the egg is permitted;6 for we have learnt:7 AFter the destruction of the Temple8 R. Johanan enacted that testimony [concerning the appearance of new moon] should be admitted the [whole] day.9 Said Abaye to him: But have not Rab and Samuel both said that the egg is forbidden [on the second day]? — He replied to him: I quote to you R. Johanan b. Zakkai, and you tell me about Rab and Samuel!10 But for Rab and Samuel our Mishnah is a difficulty! — There is no difficulty. This [ruling] applies to us [Babylonians], but that [ruling] applies to them [the Palestinians].11 But R. Joseph12 says: Even from [the time of] the enactment of R. Johanan b. Zakkai and onwards the egg is prohibited [on the second day]. What is the reason? It13 is a matter which was decided by a majority vote14 and whatever was [forbidden] by a majority vote, requires another majority vote to permit it.15 Said R. Joseph: Whence do I infer this?16 From what is written: ‘Go say to them, return ye to your tents’.17 And [Scripture] further says: ‘When the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount’.18 And we have further learnt:19 The fourth [year] vineyard [fruit] was to be brought to Jerusalem [from all places] within a radius of one day's journey [from Jerusalem], and the following are its boundaries: Elath20 on the South,21 Akrabah22 on the North, Lydda23 on the West, and the Jordan on the East.24 And ‘Ulla said — others say Rabba b. Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan — What is the reason? [It is] in order to decorate the streets of Jerusalem with fruits. And it was [further] taught: R. Eliezer had trees of the fourth year in a vineyard to the east of Lydda near Kefar Tabi25
(1) They sang the psalm for ordinary days at the eventide sacrifice and it turned out after the arrival of witnesses that it was actually New Year's day. V. Tamid VII, 3-4.
(2) The time of the offering of the eventide sacrifice. V. Glos. Cf. Schurer II, I pp. 286ff.
(3) When there was still some part of the day to run, though their testimony would not be accepted for consecrating the 30th as New Year's day, yet.
(4) The end of the 30th from the arrival of the witnesses to the close of the day was also considered holy.
(5) Hence it was seen that the Sanhedrin itself under such conditions observed the New Year's Festival for two days even where there was no uncertainty; and the people outside Jerusalem would need to observe both the 30th and the 31st of Ellul as New Year in case of such a contingency, so that the observance of two days for the New Year's Feast was an enactment of the Rabbis from the very beginning making two days one continuous day of holiness, and, therefore, an egg laid on the first day is prohibited even on the second.
(6) To be eaten on the second day.
(7) R.H. 30b.
(8) Since the Temple no longer existed the reason for the previous enactment falls away.
(9) So that the observance of the two days at the present time could only be on account of doubt, since only one of the two days is holy. For, even if witnesses came towards the end of the 30th, the whole of the 30th would be regarded as New Year and the 31st would be regarded as a weekday. But if no witnesses came on the 30th, the 31st would be New Year's day and the 30th, though observed as a holy day, was in reality an ordinary day; and therefore the egg laid on the 30th in such a case would be permitted on the 31st.
(10) R. Johanan b. Zakkai was the greater authority.
(11) The enactment of R. Johanan b. Zakkai could only affect Palestine, where only one day, viz., the 30th, would now be regarded as New Year, however late the messengers came on that day. But in Babylon and all places outside Palestine, the observance of the two days was not affected by the enactment of R. Johanan, for there the two days were kept holy by the early Rabbinical enactment, and were regarded as one continuous day of holiness.
(12) In opposition to Rabbah.
(13) The prohibition of the egg on the second day.
(14) If witnesses had not come before eventide the Assembly of Sages decided to make the two days one continuous day of holiness.
(15) Even though the reason for its prohibition no longer exists, the prohibition still holds until a further vote in Assembly had been taken and declaring it now permissible; and as no such vote had been taken the status quo remains,i.e., the prohibition of the egg is still binding. V. Sanh. 59b. It is pointed out infra 5b that the vote of Assembly was not directly dealing with the egg but with the making of the two days one continuous day of holiness.
(16) That a prohibition once made by an Assembly is still binding until it has been rescinded by another Assembly.
(17) Deut. V, 27. God had previously told them to abstain from women for three days, and this prohibition did not ipso facto cease at the expiration of the three days, but required from God direct permission to resume cohabitation. V. Tosaf. 5a, s.v. כל V. also Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 403, n. 1.
(18) Ex. XIX, 13. Here too the prohibition of ascending Mt. Sinai was on account of the Theophany, and at the ceasing of the Theophany it could be inferred that the people might ascend the Mount. Yet it was not left for anyone to infer that they might ascend, but they had to await the express a authority of God.
(19) M.Sh. V, 2; R.H. 31b. (9) Fruit of the first three years of a tree may not be eaten, and the fruit of the fourth year must be eaten before the Lord in Jerusalem, Lev. XIX, 23. If, however, the journey was too great, the fruit might be redeemed and the money expended in Jerusalem. V. Deut. XIV, 24-25. The Rabbis, however, ordained that for a radius of one day's journey from Jerusalem the fruit could not be redeemed but must be brought to Jerusalem.
(20) V. Neubauer, La Geographic du Talmud, p. 19. No place of such a name within one day's journey from Jerusalem has yet been plausibly identified.
(21) This is the correct reading as in M.Sh. and not North. Cf. D.S. a.l.
(22) Neubauer, p.159. Perhaps the modern Akrabah, 25 miles North of Jerusalem.
(23) Cf. Neh. VII, 37. V. also Neubauer, p. 76.
(24) V. R.H., Sonc. ed. p. 151, notes.
(25) Since Lydda was within one day's journey West of Jerusalem, Kefar Tabi which was East of Lydda would likewise be within one day's journey from Jerusalem.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 5b
and he wished to renounce [the vineyard] for the poor.1 But his disciples said to him: Master, thy colleagues have already taken a vote with respect to your case and permitted it.2 Who are meant by ‘thy colleagues’? R. Johanan b. Zakkai [and his school]. Now the reason [why the fruit may be redeemed] is only because they had taken a vote; but if they had not taken a vote, it would not [have been permitted].3
What is meant by ‘And [Scripture] further says’?4 — He means thus: Consider: It is written: Be ready against the third day, come not near a woman.5 Then what is the purpose of ‘Go say to them, Return ye to your tents’? Infer therefrom that every prohibition decided by a majority vote requires another majority vote to rescind it. And should you reply, it comes as a command concerning conjugal duties,6 [then] come and hear: ‘When the trumpet soundeth long they shall Come up to the mount.’ Now consider: It is written: ‘Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that Mount.’7 Then what is the purpose of:’ When the trumpet soundeth long they shall come up to the Mount’. Conclude therefrom that what has been prohibited by a majority vote requires another majority vote to rescind it.8 And should you argue, this only applies to the case of a Biblical [prohibition] but not to the case of a Rabbinical [prohibition],9 [then] come and hear: ‘The fourth [year vineyard] fruit, etc.’ Now the law concerning the fourth [year vineyard] fruit is a Rabbinical enactment, and yet they said to him: ‘Thy colleagues have already taken a vote respecting your case and permitted it!’ And if you say10 that R. Johanan b. Zakkai allowed also a vote to be taken concerning an egg and permitted it, [I will reply]: They only took a vote concerning testimony, but concerning the egg they did not take a vote. Said Abaye to him: Has there been then at all a vote taken [at any time] concerning the egg [itself]?11 The egg is dependent on [the acceptance of] testimony: If the testimony of the witnesses is disallowed, then the egg is forbidden12 but if the testimony of the witnesses is permitted then the egg is [a automatically] permitted,13
R. Adda and R. Salmon, both of Be Kelohith14 say: Even [from the time of] the enactment of R. Johanan b. Zakkai and onwards the egg is prohibited. Why? The Temple may very soon be rebuilt,15 and people would say: ‘Did we not eat last year on the second day [of the New Year] the egg [laid on the first day]? Now too, we shall continue to eat it;’ and they will not know that in the previous year16 they [the two days] were of two distinct forms of holiness17 whereas now18 they are one [continuous day of] holiness.19 If so, we should not even accept [the] testimony [of witnesses the whole day]! What is the reason? For the Temple may very soon be rebuilt, and people might say: ‘Did we not accept last year testimony concerning the New Moon during the whole day [long]? Now too, we shall [continue to] accept [their testimony]!’? — Where [is the comparison] in this? [The acceptance of] testimony is entrusted to the Beth din20 [only], but [the case of] the egg is entrusted to all.21
Raba Says: Even since the enactment of R. Johanan b. Zakkai and onwards, the egg is forbidden; [for] does not R. Johanan b. Zakkai agree that if witnesses arrive after Minhah, the remainder of that day and the following day is observed as holy?22 Raba further said: The law [is as] Rab in the foregoing three cases23 whether he is lenient or stringent. [
(1) In order not to have to bring the fruit himself to Jerusalem, but that the poor might gather the fruit for themselves and bring it to Jerusalem. Although R. Eliezer lived after the fall of Jerusalem when the reason for decorating its streets no longer existed, yet he adhered to the ruling that the fruit being within the radius of one day's journey, could not be redeemed but had to be brought to Jerusalem.
(2) I.e., the authority you are holding to has been rescinded by another authority and you can therefore redeem the fruits and bring only the money to Jerusalem.
(3) [Which proves that whatever has been decided by a majority vote requires another majority vote to abrogate the decision, even where the reason for the original decision no longer operates].
(4) The question here is: How do you infer from the first passage of Scripture the principle that a prohibition once made is absolutely binding until it has been rescinded; and if the inference is satisfactory, why is it necessary to have a second Scripture text? Rashi.
(5) Ex. XIX, 15.
(6) But not a cancelling of the previous prohibition of Ex. XIX, 15.
(7) Ibid. XXXIV, 3. The expression ‘before that Mount’ is interpreted as meaning ‘that Mount covered with the cloud of the Divine presence’, from which it might be inferred that only as long as the cloud of the Divine presence remained over the mountain no man or beast could draw near, but when the cloud was removed the people might, by their own inference, have thought that they might now ascend the mountain.
(8) The reason for the ‘trumpet sounding long’ was to indicate that the Divine presence was removed from the mountain.
(9) As our case of the egg.
(10) R. Joseph resumes here the thread of his remarks which were interrupted by quoting the source of his principle.
(11) And if no vote was directly taken, the question of requiring another vote rescinding it does not arise.
(12) For the two days are regarded as one continuous day of holiness.
(13) For then, in reality, only one of the two days is holy.
(14) Or Kaluhith Chalchitis in Mesopotamia. V. Funk Monumenta I, p. 290.
(15) When the old order of consecrating the new moon through the testimony of witnesses would be restored and the witnesses be received until eventide only.
(16) Before the Temple had been restored.
(17) For only one day was really holy and the other was observed on account of doubt.
(18) The Temple having been rebuilt.
(19) As existed before the enactment of R. Johanan R. Zakkai.
(20) The Ecclesiastical Authorities, and they know the rule to be observed after the building of the Temple. V. Yeb. 22a.
(21) The question of the egg is a matter about which anyone may feel he can decide, and decide to eat the egg on the second day after the Temple had been rebuilt as he did before the Temple was rebuilt.
(22) In which case the two days of New Year would be regarded as one continuous day of holiness. According to this view, the object of R. Johanan's enactment of accepting witnesses throughout the 30th day was for the purpose of fixing the days of the Festivals following New Year; i.e., if witnesses came any time on the 30th, that day would be the first of Tishri, from which the days of the month would be computed.
(23) (a) When a Festival-day falls on Friday or on a Sunday; (b) The two Festival-days of the Diaspora; (c) The two days of New Year.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 6a
Raba said: On the first day of a Festival, [only] Gentiles may busy themselves with a corpse,1 [but] on the second day, Israelites may busy themselves with a corpse, and2 even on the two Festival-days of the New Year, which however is not the case with respect to an egg.3 The Nehardeans4 say: The same holds good even with respect to an egg; for what is in your mind: Perhaps [the month of] Ellul will be intercalated?5 Surely R. Hinena b. Kahana said in the name of Rab: From the days of Ezra6 and onward we do not find Ellul ever intercalated.7
Mar Zutra said: This8 was said only when [the corpse] had already been lying for some time,9 but if it had not lain for a long time, we let it remain.10 R. Ashi says: Even if it had not lain for a [good] long time we do not let it remain [unburied]. What is the reason? With regard to a dead body the Rabbis have made the second day of a Festival as a weekday even with respect to cutting for it a shroud and cutting for it a [branch of] myrtle.11 Rabina said: But nowadays when there are Guebers12 we apprehend.13
Rabina was once sitting in the presence of R. Ashi on [one of] the two Festival-days of the New Year,14 [and] noticing that he was troubled, he said to him: Why is the Master troubled? He [R. Ashi] replied: I have not set an ‘erub tabshilin.15 Said he to him: Let the Master prepare an ‘erub tabshilin now. For did not Raba say: A man may set an ‘erub tabshilin on the first day of a Festival for the second and stipulate?16 — He replied: Granted that Raba [indeed] said so with respect to the two Feast-days of the Diaspora.17 But did he then say this also with respect to the two days of the New Year's Festival?18 But the Nehardeans maintain that even an egg is permitted!19 — R. Mordecai observed to him [to Rabina]: The Master20 distinctly told me that he does not accept this [teaching] of the Nehardeans.
It was stated: If a chicken was hatched out on a Festival, Rab says: It is forbidden,21 but Samuel — some say, R. Johanan — maintains: It is permitted. Rab says it is forbidden [because] it is mukzeh;22 but Samuel — some say, R. Johanan — maintains it is permitted, since it makes itself permitted through shechitah.23 R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab: What difference is there between this and a calf born on a Festival?24 — He replied to them: [The case of the calf is different] since it was [regarded as] mukan25 by virtue of its mother.26 And what difference is there between this and a calf born [on a Festival] from a Trefa?27 Rab remained silent. Said Rabbah — some say [it was] R. Joseph — Why was Rab silent? He should have replied to them: [This calf is permitted] since it is mukan for dogs through its [trefa] mother.28 — Abaye replied to him:
(1) E.g., the making of a shroud and the digging of a grave.
(2) The same holds good.
(3) I.e., an egg laid on the first day of the New Year is not permitted on the second day.
(4) The scholars of Nehardea, i.e.,the School of Samuel. V. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 42.
(5) I.e., Beth din will insert an extra day in the month of Ellul, in which case the New Year Festival would begin on the second day.
(6) Cf. Neh. VIII, 13, where ‘second day’ refers to New Year.
(7) The only exception was when the witnesses arrived late.
(8) Law that Israelites may busy themselves with a dead body on a Festival.
(9) And is decomposing and becoming offensive.
(10) Until after the Festival.
(11) The funeral trappings and the myrtle placed on the coffin were to honour the dead.
(12) The fanatical sect of Persian fireworshippers, v. Git., Sonc. ed. p. 63, n. 2. This probably refers towards the close of the Sassanid rule marked by the persecution of the Jews. V. J.E. p. 648, c. 1. The Jews had to render to the Guebers compulsory service from which they were exempt on a Festival.
(13) Lest through allowing Jews to bury on the second day of a Festival the Guebers might regard that day as an ordinary working day and compel them to work.
(14) The New Year Festival fell on Thursday and Friday.
(15) V. Glos. It is a symbolical act by which meals may be prepared on a Festival occurring on a Friday for the following Sabbath. The method is to prepare a dish on the Thursday for the Sabbath which enables all the cooking done on the Friday to be regarded as a continuation of the cooking begun on the Thursday.
(16) If the first of the two days is the real feast-day, then the preparation of the food on the second day should be permitted; and if the second day is the proper feast-day, then preparation of the ‘erub is permissible on the first day, which is not a Festival but a weekday.
(17) I.e., observed only in the Diaspora where two days are observed on account of doubt.
(18) Which are observed also in Palestine where the two days of the New Year are regarded as one continuous holy day. Surely not!
(19) On the second day, if laid on the first day of the New Year's Festival thus indicating that only one of the two days is holy.
(20) R. Ashi who was R. Mordecai's teacher, v. Sot. 46b.
(21) To be eaten on the day of the Festival.
(22) V. supra, p. 2, n. 5.
(23) V. Glos. Before the chicken is hatched, the act of slaughtering does not permit it to be eaten. It is only when born that the chicken can be eaten through ritual slaughter. And since the hatching out of the chicken (on the Festival) enables it to be eaten through slaughtering, it also frees it from mukzeh; i.e., since it gains permission for itself to be eaten through ritual slaughter, it also gains permission for itself to be free from mukzeh.
(24) Which may be eaten on the same day, v. infra.
(25) V. Glos.
(26) The calf found in a ritually slaughtered cow may be eaten through the slaughtering of its mother. The calf therefore is valid for provision even before its birth.
(27) V. Glos. This calf when found within the mother is not permitted for use by the slaughtering of its trefa mother. It must itself be ritually slaughtered before it can be permitted; and yet we do not find anyone prohibiting the eating of a calf born of a trefa on a Festival.
(28) Immediately before the Festival the mother-cow as trefa was intended as food for dogs, and this included the calf within it. The cow and the calf would thus become mukan for dogs and therefore the law of mukzeh should not apply to the calf. The same, however, cannot be said of the chicken in the egg.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 6b
Seeing that that which is mukan for human consumption is not mukan for dogs — for we have learnt: One may cut up1 gourds for cattle and a carcass for dogs;2 R. Judah says: If [the animal] was not yet nebelah3 on the eve of the Sabbath it is forbidden,4 for it was not mukan5 — can that which is mukan for dogs be considered mukan for human beings? — He said to him: It is even so; that which is mukan for human consumption is not mukan for dogs, for that which is useable for man one does not throw to dogs. [But] that which is mukan for dogs is [also] mukan for human consumption, for the mind of man is directed to everything which may be fitting for him. [A Baraitha] was taught in accordance with Rab [and a Baraitha] was taught in accordance with Samuel, or as some say, R. Johanan. [A Baraitha] was taught in accordance with Rab: A calf which is born on a Festival is permitted;6 [but] a chicken which is hatched on a Festival is forbidden. And what difference is there between the one and the other? [The calf] is mukan by virtue of its mother through shechitah,7 but [the chicken] is not mukan by virtue of its another.8 [A Baraitha] was taught in accordance with Samuel, or as some say, R Johanan: A calf which is born on a Festival is permitted; a chicken which is hatched on a Festival is permitted. Why? [The calf] is mukan by virtue of its mother and [the chicken] makes itself permitted through slaughter.
Our Rabbis taught: A chicken which is hatched on a Festival is forbidden. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: It is forbidden even on a weekday since its eyes are not yet open. With whose opinion does the following passage agree: Even all creeping things that creep upon the earth,9 this includes chickens whose eyes are not yet opened?10 With whose opinion? The opinion of R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
R. Huna said in the name of Rab: An egg is completed on its issue [from the fowl]. What is meant by ‘completed on its issue’? If we say, [it means] it is completed on its issue, so that [the egg] may be eaten with milk;11 [which implies] when it is still within the hen [the egg] may not be eaten with milk? But surely we have learnt: If one kills a hen and finds therein completely formed eggs, these may be consumed with milk! And if [it means] it is completed on its issue so that [the egg] may be eaten on a Festival;12 [which implies] when [the egg] is still within the hen,13 it may not be eaten on the Festival?14 But surely we have learnt: If one kills a hen and finds therein eggs completely formed they are permitted to be eaten on the Festival.15 And if you say that he informed us in the Baraitha what we do not learn in the Mishnah?16 This too17 we have learnt [in a Mishnah]: If an egg is laid on a Festival, Beth Shammai say: It may be eaten [on the same day], but Beth Hillel maintain: It may not be eaten [until the day is over].18 Now Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel dispute thus only about [the egg] that is laid; but if [the egg] is in the hen, all agree that it is permitted! And if you maintain that Beth Hillel prohibit [the egg] even when it is within the hen, and the reason he [the author of the Mishnah] quotes [their dispute with respect to an egg] ‘laid’ is in order to manifest to you the extent of the opinion of Beth Shammai that even if it is laid it is permitted; then as to that which we have learnt: If one slaughtered a hen and found therein eggs completely formed they are permitted to be eaten on the Festival — who will its author be? Neither Beth Shammai nor Beth Hillel!19 Therefore ‘it is completed on its issue’ [means] that [the egg] can hatch chickens, [but the egg found] in the body of the hen cannot hatch chickens. What is its practical bearing? — with respect to buying and selling.20 As once happened when someone called out [to the salesmen]: Who has eggs
(1) On the Sabbath.
(2) V. supra p. 3 and notes.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) To be given to the dogs.
(5) For dog's consumption before the Sabbath.
(6) [The prohibition of nolad (V. Glos.) does not apply to living beings. V. Tosaf. s.v. עגל .]
(7) The owner of the mother-cow could have intended to kill the cow on the Festival and the cow and the calf that was within it would be mukan. The same however cannot be said of a chicken, because the owner could never conceive of an egg within the fowl ready to be hatched, so that in the case of the chicken there is no case of mukan.
(8) Because no egg is ever upon the point of being hatched when the hen is killed.
(9) Lev. XI, 42.
(10) Hul. 64a.
(11) And is not regarded as part of the flesh of the fowl. The Biblical rule not to eat meat together with milk
(based on Ex. XXIII, 19) is extended by the Rabbis to include fowls. Eggs, however, may be eaten with milk.
(12) If the egg was laid before the Festival.
(13) Which was slaughtered on the Festival.
(14) On account of the law of Hakanah, v. supra 2b.
(15) Supra 2b.
(16) I.e., the Baraitha finds no support in the Mishnah, and therefore the Baraitha is not authoritative, so that R. Huna could rule that when the egg is still in the hen it may not be eaten on the Festival.
(17) The ruling of the Baraitha.
(18) Supra 2a.
(19) For Beth Shammai permit even the laid egg and Beth Hillel, according to this theory, prohibit the egg even though it is in the body of the hen.
(20) If one sells eggs for hatching then they must be eggs that are really laid and fertile.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 7a
of a cackling hen? When they gave him eggs [found] in a slaughtered hen, he came to R. Ammi [complaining], who said to them: It is an erroneous sale and he can withdraw [from it]. [But] this is self-evident!1 — You might say that this [buyer] really wanted [the eggs] for eating, and the reason he asked [for eggs] of a cackling hen is that [such eggs] are hard-shelled; and that the practical outcome [of] his claim2 is that he must refund him the difference,3 so he informs us [that this is not so].4
There was once one who said to [the salesmen], ‘Who has mated eggs5 [for sale]? Who has mated eggs?’ [When] they gave him unmated eggs,6 he came to R. Ammi who said to them: It is an erroneous sale and he can withdraw [from the transaction]. [But] this is self evident! — You might say that he needed [the eggs] only for eating,7 and the reason he asked for mated eggs is that they are richer; and that the practical bearing of this is that they must refund him the difference,8 so he informs us that the whole transaction is fraudulent].
Alternatively: What is meant, ‘it is completed on its issue’? [It means] it is completed with the coming forth of its greater part, and it is accordance with R. Johanan. For R. Johanan said: If the greater part of an egg issued on the day before the Festival and went back, it may be eaten on the Festival-day.9 There are some [scholars] who say: What is meant, ‘it is completed on its issue’? [It means] it is completed with the [coming forth] of the whole of it. Only with the coming forth of the whole of it, but not with its greater part,10 and this is to reject the opinion of R. Johanan.
[To revert to] the main text: If one slaughtered a hen and found therein completely formed eggs, these may be taken with milk.11 R. Jacob says: If [the eggs] were attached [to the hen] by sinews they are forbidden.12 Who is the author of that which our Rabbis taught: He who eats of a carcass13 of a clean bird, of its cluster of eggs, or of its bones, or of its veins, or of its flesh torn off while alive14 is clean;15 [but he who eats] of its ovary or of its crop or of its entrails, or if he melted its fat and swallowed it,16 he is unclean.17 — Who is the author [of the teaching], ‘[He who eats] of its cluster of eggs is clean’? — Said R. Joseph: It is not in accordance with R Jacob. For if it were in accordance with R. Jacob, lo, he says: If [the eggs] were attached by sinews they are forbidden [to be taken with milk]!18 Said Abaye to him: Whence [do you say this]? Perhaps R. Jacob regards [these eggs as flesh] only with respect to a prohibition19 but not with respect to defilement? And if you say that we should enact a preventative measure also in respect to defilement?20 [I would reply], This would be an extension of [the scope of] defilement, and we do not extend [the scope of] defilement by Rabbinical enactment.21
There are some [scholars] who say [thus]: Who is the author [of the teaching that if one eats] ‘of its ovary he is unclean’?22 Said R. Joseph: It is R. Jacob: For he says, ‘If [the eggs] were attached [to the hen] by sinews they are forbidden [to be taken with milk]’. Said Abaye to him: Whence [do you understand] that by the term ovary is meant [the eggs] that are attached to the ovary? Perhaps it means the ovary itself!23 And if you object: What need is there to say this with respect to the ovary? [I would reply]: It is analogous to the crop and the inwards; for although these are [really] flesh,24 [yet] since there are people who do not eat them, it is therefore necessary to state these; so also here [with respect to the ovary] since there are people who do not eat it, it is necessary to teach it. Our Rabbis taught: All creatures which copulate during the day are born during the day; all creatures which copulate during the night are born during the night; all creatures which copulate both by day and by night, give birth both by day and by night. ‘Those which copulate by day are born by day’, this refers to a fowl; ‘those which copulate during the night are born during the night’, this refers to the bat; ‘those which copulate by day and by night give birth by day and by night’, this refers to man and whatever is like him.
The Master said [above]: ‘Those who copulate by day are born by day refers to a fowl’. What is the practical difference? — With respect to the teaching of R. Mari son of R. Kahana. For R. Mari son of R. Kahana said: If one examined a hen-coop on the eve of the Festival and could not find in it an egg, and on the morrow he rose early25 and found in it an egg, it is permitted.26 But did he not examine [the nest]? — I say27 that he did not examine it very carefully, and even if he did examine it very carefully, I would say that [perhaps] the greater part [of the egg] came out [before the Festival] and went back; and [this ruling is] in accordance with [the opinion of] R. Johanan.28
But that is not so; for R. Jose b. Saul said in the name of Rab: If one examined a hen-coop on the eve of the Festival and did not find in it an egg and on the morrow he rose early and found an egg in it, it is prohibited?29 — This [latter passage] refers to eggs laid through friction with the earth,30 If so,31 with respect to the teaching of R. Mari, might I not also say [the egg] was laid through friction with the earth? — When there is a cock near her.32 Even when there is a cock [near her] might I not [still] say that the egg was laid through friction with the earth? — Said Rabina: There is a tradition33 that wherever there is a cock near her she will not fructify [eggs] through friction. And how near [should the cock be]?34 — R. Gamda replied in the name of Rab: Sufficiently near
(1) That it is a fraudulent sale, since he asked for one thing and was given another.
(2) Seeing that he requires them in any case for eating.
(3) Between the value of cackling eggs and the eggs received, but the sale is nevertheless valid and cannot be rescinded.
(4) But we rather assume that when he asked for eggs of a cackling hen he wanted them for hatching, hence the sale is null.
(5) Lit., ‘eggs of (a hen paired with) a cock’.
(6) Lit., ‘eggs produced through friction of the body in the earth’, but not through contact with a male.
(7) And not for hatching.
(8) Between the value of mated eggs and the eggs received, but the transaction would still be valid.
(9) If subsequently laid on the Festival-day, and the law of mukzeh does not apply in this case.
(10) Lit., ‘with the coming . . . yes, but with . . . no’.
(11) V. supra p. 25, n. 4.
(12) Because they are then regarded as flesh.
(13) The carcass of a bird not ritually slaughtered does not defile a person through being carried or touched; it is only the eating of its flesh which defiles. Cf. supra to Lev. XXII, 8 and Nid. 42b.
(14) If any part of the bird is cut off while the bird is still living, although it may not be eaten, it does not defile.
(15) Because the cluster of eggs, the bones and the veins are not considered as flesh.
(16) Drinking is included in this law of defilement.
(17) These are considered as part of the flesh.
(18) Hence they are considered flesh.
(19) Not because he regards the eggs as flesh but as a preventative measure to safeguard the breach of eating flesh and milk together.
(20) I.e.,to pronounce the person unclean when eating only the eggs.
(21) The Rabbis did not extend the law of defilement by declaring the man who eats of these eggs unclean, because of the monetary loss that would follow (by his clothes and whatever he touches becoming unclean; v. Lev. XVII, 15). But with respect to the prohibition of eating the eggs with milk, there the eggs themselves are not prohibited; it is only to safeguard the law of eating flesh and milk that the Rabbis instituted a preventive measure, and though the eggs themselves may be eaten, they may not be eaten with milk. In this respect they consider the eggs flesh.
(22) And thus considers the eggs flesh. Cf. Tosaf. Men. 70a. s.v. ביצי
(23) And that is indeed flesh.
(24) And you would understand that they defile.
(25) Before daybreak.
(26) Because it is assumed that the egg was laid the previous day as, by the nature of the case, it could not have been laid during the night.
(27) אימר Either Imperf. 1. sing., or Imper. 2. sing.
(28) Who regards the egg as having been laid. It may have been deposited during the night of the Festival, but it is not regarded as having been laid during the night.
(29) Because we assume the egg was laid during the night of the Festival.
(30) Which eggs might be laid even at night.
(31) That unmated eggs can be laid at night.
(32) Therefore the egg must have been laid during the day.
(33) Lit., ‘they (teachings) are handed down’.
(34) That the hen should not lay eggs through friction.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 7b
that [the hen] can hear his crowing in the daytime.1 R. Mari gave a decision [in a case where the cock was] at a distance of sixty houses.2 But if there is a river [between them] she [the hen] does not cross over, but if there is a bridge,3 she crosses over; if there is a plank she does not cross over. It happened once that [a hen] crossed over even a plank.
How have you explained it;4 with respect to unmated eggs? Then why particularly teach when he examined [the hen-coop]; even if he had not examined, it should also [be prohibited]! — If he did not examine it, I might say [the egg] was from yesterday. If so, even if he had examined it, I might still say that the greater part [of the egg] came out [yesterday] and went back and [should therefore be permitted] in accordance with R. Johanan! — The contingency stated by R. Johanan is rare.
R. Jose b. Saul further said in the name of Rab: This pulverized garlic is a danger to be left exposed.5
BETH SHAMMAI SAY: [THE QUANTITY OF] LEAVEN IS OF THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE, AND LEAVENED BREAD IS OF THE SIZE OF A DATE. What is Beth Shammai's reason? — If so,6 the Divine Law should only have written about leavened bread and not about leaven and I should have said: If leavened bread, the acidity of which is not very great, [is forbidden] at the size of an olive, how much more should leaven, the acidity of which is very great [be forbidden] at the size of an olive: then why does the Divine Law need to state leaven? In order to teach that the standard of the one is not like the standard of the other.7 And Beth Hillel? — It is necessary [for the Divine Law to state both]. For if the Divine Law had written only about leaven I might have said that the reason [leaven is forbidden to be seen] is that its acidity is very great, but leavened bread, the acidity of which is not great, I might have said is not [forbidden to be seen at all]. It is therefore necessary [to state leavened bread]. And if the Divine Law had stated leavened bread, [I might have said that] the reason [leavened bread is forbidden to be seen] is that it is fit for food, but leaven which is not fit for food, I might have said is not [forbidden to be seen at all]. Therefore both are necessary.
Shall we say that Beth Shammai does not agree with what R. Zera had said? For R. Zera said: The Scripture [verse]8 begins with the term ‘leaven’ and concluded with the term ‘leavened bread’ in order to teach that ‘leaven’ and ‘leavened bread’ are alike? — With respect to eating, no one differs [about the size].9 They only differ with respect to the removal [of the leaven from the house]; Beth Shammai is of the opinion that we do not learn [the law of] ‘removal’ from [that of] ‘eating’, while Beth Hillel maintains that we do learn ‘removal’ from ‘eating’.10
Likewise it was stated: R. Jose b. Hanina said: The dispute Is only with respect to the ‘removal’, but with respect to ‘eating’ all agree that both [leavened bread and leaven] are [forbidden] of the size of all olive. Likewise it was also taught: ‘And there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee neither shall there be leaven seen with thee’;11 herein lies the dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, where Beth Shammai say that leaven is the size of an olive and leavened bread is of the size of a date, but Beth Hillel maintain that both are of the size of an olive.
HE WHO SLAUGHTERS GAME OR POULTRY ON A FESTIVAL, etc. HE WHO SLAUGHTERS [implies] only if he has done so,12 but not [that it may be done] at the very outset. Then consider the subsequent clause: BUT BETH HILLEL MAINTAIN: HE MUST NOT SLAUGHTER [etc.], whence it follows that the first Tanna holds that he may slaughter [at the outset]! — This is no difficulty. He means, ‘HE MUST NOT SLAUGHTER AND COVER [etc.]’.13 But consider the final clause: BUT THEY AGREE THAT IF HE SLAUGHTERED HE MAY DIG WITH A SHOVEL AND COVER; whence it follows the first clause does not mean ‘[only] if he has done it’! — Answered Rabbah: This is what [the Mishnah] says: ‘The slaughterer who comes to ask advice14 how should one answer him? Beth Shammai say: One answers him: Slaughter, dig and cover; but Beth Hillel maintain: he must not slaughter unless he had [loose] earth set in readiness before the Festival’. R. Joseph says: This is what [the Mishnah] says: ‘The slaughterer who comes to ask advice, how should one answer him? Beth Shammai say: One answers him: Go [and] dig, slaughter and cover; but Beth Hillel maintain: He may not dig unless he had [loose] earth set in readiness from before the Festival’.
Said Abaye to R Joseph: Shall it be said that you, Sir, and Rabbah disagree with respect to the teaching of R. Zera in Rab's name? R. Zera said in the name Rab: The slaughterer [of game or poultry] must put earth beneath [to receive the blood] and earth above, for it is said:’He shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust’.15 It does not say earth but ‘in earth’,16 teaching that the slaughterer must put earth beneath and earth above. You, Sir, [therefore] accept the teaching of R. Zera and Rabbah rejects the teaching of R. Zera. He answered him: Both I and Rabbah accept the teaching of R. Zera and our dispute here is as follows: Rabbah is of the opinion that he may [only slaughter] if there is [already] earth beneath [to receive the blood]; but if not, he may not slaughter,17 for we apprehend that he might change his mind and not slaughter.18 But according to my view, it Is better,19 for if you will not permit him [to dig] he will come to be deprived of the joy of the Festival.20
BUT THEY AGREE THAT IF SOME HAS [ALREADY] SLAUGHTERED, HE MAY DIG UP [EARTH] WITH A SHOVEL AND COVER [THE BLOOD]. R. Zerika said in the name of Rab. Judah: This only holds good when the shovel had [already] been sticking [in the earth] since the previous day.21 But does he not cause crumbling of the earth?22 — Answered R. Hiyya b. Ashi in the name of Rab:
(1) The crowing does not reach so far during the daytime as at night.
(2) The cock was removed sixty houses from the hen yet R. Mari maintained that there was copulation and permitted the egg.
(3) Or ‘ferry’.
(4) The saying of R. Jose b. Saul.
(5) Any exposed liquid is forbidden for use lest a snake has drunk therefrom. The same applies to pulverized garlic.
(6) That the prohibition of both leaven and leavened bread were of the size of an olive.
(7) I.e., leavened bread is of the size of a date, for food of such a size is estimated by the Rabbis sufficient to make one ‘come to’, (cf. Yoma 79a), and leaven is of the size of an olive which is the minimum.
(8) Ex. XII, 19.
(9) I.e., even Beth Shammai agree that both leaven and leavened bread of the size of an olive are forbidden to be eaten.
(10) Ex. XII, 19 deals with the prohibition and penalty of eating anything leavened. Ex. XIII, 7 deals with the removal of anything leavened from the house. From the fact that Ex. XIII, 7 mentions both ‘leaven’ and ‘leavened bread’ Beth Shammai infer that the size of the ‘leavened bread’ with respect to removal is not that of an olive but that of a date.
(11) Ex. Xlii, 7.
(12) For otherwise, the Mishnah should state that a man may slaughter it. HE WHO SLAUGHTERS, however, implies that the law which follows holds good only if he has already slaughtered.
(13) Beth Hillel's point is made with reference to the covering of the blood, not with reference to the killing at all; and therefore a deduction as to the view of the first Tanna can likewise be made only with reference to the covering.
(14) Whether he may slaughter, having no earth.
(15) Lev. XVII, 13
(16) The preposition ב here means in rather than with, indicating that dust is to be put on all sides. V. Nachmanides a.l. for reason of covering the blood.
(17) For he may not dig to obtain the earth to place beneath.
(18) He would then have dug earth unnecessarily.
(19) That he should be allowed to dig.
(20) For he will not be able to slaughter, v. Deut. XVI, 14.
(21) So that there is no violation of the law of digging on the Festival; for digging requires both the sticking in of the shovel as well as the lifting of it with the earth in it.
(22) Granted there is not digging, but this crumbling of the earth is also forbidden, being in the nature of grinding.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 8a
[We are dealing with a case] where the soil is loose.1 But does he not make a hole?2 — This is according to R. Abba; for R. Abba said: if one digs a hole on the Sabbath and only requires its soil, he is guiltless in regard to it.3
BECAUSE THE ASHES OF THE HEARTH ARE MUKAN [CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN PREPARED]. Who is speaking here of the ashes of the hearth?4 Answered Rabbah: Read thus: ‘AND5 THE ASHES OF THE HEARTH ARE MUKAN’. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: They only taught this6 when it [the fire] had been kindled on the day of the Festival; but if it had been kindled on the Festival [itself] it is forbidden;7 but if [the ashes] are suitable8 to roast an egg therein, it is permitted.9 Likewise It was also taught: When they said [that] the ashes of the hearth are mukan, they only said so when it [the fire] had been kindled before the Festival; but if it had been kindled on the Festival it is forbidden; but if they are suitable to roast an egg therein it is permitted. If one had brought earth into his garden or into his waste land [before the Festival] one may cover the blood therewith.10
Rab Judah further said in the name of Rab: A man may bring a basket-full of earth [into his house] and may use it for whatever is necessary.11 Mar Zutra pointed out in the name of Mar Zutra the Great: This only holds good if he had appointed a special corner for it.12
An objection was raised: One may not slaughter a koy13 on a Festival, and if he did slaughter it, he may not cover its blood.14 Now if this were so15 , let him cover it [the blood] in accordance with the opinion of Rab Judah?16 — But even according to your point of view, let him cover the blood with ashes of the hearth, or with earth in which a shovel was stuck?17 Therefore you must needs say that we are dealing here with a case where he has not [any of these];18 so also explain that we are dealing with a case where he has not [a basket-full of earth in the house]. If so19 then why particularly with respect to [an animal about which there is] a doubt [whether its blood requires covering]; even with respect to an animal about which there is no doubt one also may not [cover the blood by digging]?20 — He uses the expression ‘not only but also’: not only may he not slaughter [in the case of an animal about which there is no doubt],21 but even in the case of an animal about which there is a doubt, where I might have said that because of the joy of the Festival he should be allowed to slaughter without covering the blood, he informs us [that he may not slaughter].
(1) As for example gravel or sand.
(2) When he takes it out, which is forbidden, being in the nature of ‘building’.
(3) Since it was not his intention to make the hole, the presence of the hole is only a disfigurement and for such an act of impairing or disfiguring one is not considered guilty of a breach of the Sabbath law; and although such an act is forbidden ab initio, yet for the sake of the joy of the Festival it has been permitted.
(4) Lit., ‘who has mentioned its name previously (that you are referring to it now)?’
(5) Changing the letter ש for ו. V. supra p. 1, n. 10.
(6) That the ashes of the hearth are considered mukan.
(7) On account of mukzeh.
(8) Hot enough.
(9) To use such ashes for covering the blood even though the fire was kindled on the Festival itself, because since the ashes may be used for baking they cannot be regarded as mukzeh and may therefore be used, when in such a state, for any other purpose.
(10) Since it was prepared for any purpose.
(11) And it is not regarded as a part of the earth of the house and thus be prohibited from being handled.
(12) I.e., he did scatter over the ground, thereby indicating that it was for his use.
(13) A bearded deer or antelope (GR. **) Jast. V. however Hul. 79b where it is defined as a cross between a goat and a gazelle. V. also B.K., Sonc. ed. p. 443 n. 6. A doubt prevails regarding this animal whether it is in the category of cattle the blood of which need not be covered, or in the category of game the blood of which is to be covered. Cf. Lev. XVII, 13.
(14) Perchance it is cattle and he would be handling earth unnecessarily. V. Hul. 83b, 79b.
(15) That earth thus brought could be used in any way.
(16) By listing the basket-full of earth. Even if it were definitely cattle, the earth could still be used without infringing the law not to do any work on a Festival.
(17) From before the Festival, which is stated in our Mishnah to be mukan.
(18) Viz., ashes or a shovel of earth.
(19) That we are dealing with a case where he has no earth except through digging.
(20) Since we accept the decision of Beth Hillel according to which it is forbidden to dig earth on a Festival for covering blood.
(21) Since he has no earth in readiness.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 8b
But surely since he teaches at the end [of the clause] ‘and if he did slaughter it, he may not cover its blood’, understand from this that [we are] speaking of a case where he has [earth in readiness]!1 — Therefore answered Rabbah: The ashes of the hearth2 are regarded as mukan for [the covering of blood of] animals about which there is no doubt, but they are not regarded as mukan with respect to animals about which there is some doubt [whether their blood requires covering]. Why are they not [considered mukan in respect of the blood of the animal] about which there is a doubt? because he would be making a hole [in the ashes on the Festival]! Then in the case of an animal [game] about which there is no doubt, he would also be making a hole? But [why would it not be regarded as making a hole in the ashes]? because it is in accordance with R. Abba!3 Than here also it is in accordance with R. Abba!4 And if [you say that] the reason [why he may not use them to cover the blood of an animal about which there is] a doubt is that he may cause a crumbling [of the earth],5 we should enact a preventive measure on account of crumbling of the earth even in the case of definite [game]? — In the case of [animals] about which there is no doubt, even if he crumbles the earth [it is permitted]; for the positive command [to cover the blood] comes and overrides the negative command.6 But when do we say that a positive command overrides7 a negative command, [only in cases] like ‘circumcision in leprosy’8 or ‘a linen garment with [woolen] fringes’,9 where the infringement of the negative command is at the same time as the fulfillment of the of the positive command!10 — This presents no difficulty, for simultaneously with the crumbling of the earth he covers the blood. But after all, [in] a Festival there exists both a positive and a negative command,11 and a positive command cannot override both a positive and negative command! — Therefore answered Raba: ashes of the hearth [or anything like it] are intended for a definite case of game but not for a doubt.12 And Raba follows [here] his opinion [expressed elsewhere]. For Raba said: If one brought in earth [before the Festival] to cover therewith excrement [of a child], he may cover therewith the blood of a bird;13 [to cover therewith] the blood of a bird he may not cover therewith the excrement [of a child].14 The Neharbeleans15 say: Even if one brought in earth to cover therewith the blood of a bird, he may [also] cover therewith the excrement [of a child].16
In the West17 they say: R. Jose Hama and R. Zera — some say, Raba the son of R. Jose b. Hama and R. Zera — differ therein; one says: koy is analogous to excrement,18 and the other says: koy is not analogous to excrement.19 It may be proved that it was Raba who said that koy is analogous to excrement; for Raba said: If one brought in earth to cover therewith excrement [of a child], he may cover therewith the blood of a bird, [but if he brought it earth to cover therewith] the blood of a bird, he may not cover therewith the excellent [of a child].20 Conclude from this [that it was Raba].
Rami the son of R. Yabba said: The reason why we are not allowed to cover [the blood of] a koy is that it is a preventive measure against permitting the use of its suet.21 If it is so, [it should be prohibited] even on a weekday! — On a weekday people will say because he wants to clean his court.22 What is there to be said if he slaughtered [the koy] on a dust-heap?23 [And further] what will you say if one comes to ask advice?24 — On a weekday even if there is any doubt the Rabbis would tell him: Go, take trouble and cover [the blood]; but on a Festival, if there is a doubt, would the Rabbis tell him: Go, take trouble and cover [the blood]!25 R. Zera learnt: it is not only with respect to a koy that the Rabbis said [thus]; but even if one slaughtered cattle, game and poultry and their blood became mingled, it is [also] prohibited to cover [such mingled blood] on a Festival.26
Said R. Jose b. Jasiniah: This was only said when one cannot cover it [the mingled blood] with one thrust of the shovel;27 but if one can cover it with one thrust of the shovel, it is permitted. But is not this self-evident?28 — You might assume that we should prohibit [even] one shovelful lest perchance [he might go on to use] two shovelfuls, so he informs us [that one is allowed]. Rabbah said: If one slaughtered a bird on the eve of the Festival [and omitted to cover the blood], one may not cover it on the Festival;29
(1) For otherwise there would be no point in stating the law, seeing that where no earth in readiness is available he may not cover the blood of an animal which certainly requires covering. The original question therefore remains, viz., why should he not cover the blood of the koy either according to the teaching of Rab Judah or with the ashes of the earth?
(2) The same applies to the basket-full of earth.
(3) Who does not regard this as digging a pit; v. supra 6a.
(4) Therefore the reason cannot be on account of making a hole.
(5) [It is possible that the ashes contain cinders, or the basket-full of earth clods. V. supra p. 33 n. 6].
(6) Not to do any work on a Festival.
(7) Lit., ‘positive command comes and overrides etc.’
(8) It is forbidden to remove a Leprous spot by an operation. Deut. XXIV, 8. The command to circumcise however (Gen. XVII, 10ff) has to take place even though a leprous spot is on the foreskin.
(9) Woollen fringes (Deut. XXII, 12) may be inserted in a garment of linen in spite of the prohibition not to wear a garment of heterogeneous materials.
(10) For the act of crumbling the earth precedes the action of covering the blood.
(11) In addition to the negative command ‘not to do any work’, cf. Lev. XXIII, 7, 8, 21, 35 there is also a positive command of ‘resting’, cf. ibid. XXIII, 39.
(12) [They are not considered mukan in respect of animals about which there is a doubt, not because of the infringement of any prohibition involved, but because it is assumed that he had intended to use them only for such animals as definitely require the covering of their blood].
(13) In the case of a child's excrements the need is only a probable one, but with respect to the blood, he decided beforehand to kill on that day. Therefore if he prepared the earth to use for a contingency. how much more should he be permitted to use it for that which he definitely decided.
(14) For the earth was set in readiness only for a certain definitely determined object and therefore cannot be used in case of contingency.
(15) I.e., Rami b. Berabi or Beroki V. Sanh. 17b, Sonc. ed. p. 89. Neharbel identified with Nehar Bil, east of Bagdad, Obermeyer, p. 269.
(16) Because the contingency of the excrement is almost a certainty.
(17) I.e., Palestine. The Babylonians, when alluding to Palestine, called it the West, as Palestine was to the west of Babylon. Cf. Ber. 2b. But V. Sanh. 17b.
(18) I.e., if one brought earth to cover dung, he could cover therewith the blood of the koy, for the contingency of the dung is similar to the uncertainty with respect to the koy.
(19) Because the contingency of the dung is almost a certainty, and is therefore regarded as definite in comparison with koy which is absolutely uncertain.
(20) Hence Raba regards the contingency of requiring the earth for dung as remote and not as almost a certainty
(21) Heleb (V. Glos.). Suet is disallowed in the case of oxen and sheep but not in the case of game. If therefore you allow to cover its blood, people might regard it as game.
(22) And not because the koy is regarded as game. On a Festival work is forbidden with the exception of the preparation of food. The cleansing of a court is no exception.
(23) Where you cannot say that the covering of the blood is in order to keep the dust-heap clean.
(24) Whether, if he slaughters a koy on a weekday he should cover its blood? Is there not the possibility of the one asking the question, on being told that he is to cover its blood, himself coming to the conclusion that he may regard the koy as game and thus eat its suet.
(25) Surely not! Therefore people might come to a wrong inference.
(26) Because in so doing, he would be doing unnecessary work in covering the blood of the cattle.
(27) Which would be sufficient to cover the blood of the game and poultry; so that anything more than one shovelful would be unnecessary work.
(28) The one shovelful is required for the game and poultry, so that no extra work is done on account of the blood of the cattle.
(29) Because that which could be done before the Festival may not be done on the Festival. The bird, however, could be eaten in spite of the breach of the positive command to cover the blood.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 9a
if one prepared dough on the eve of the Festival, he may separate from its hallah1 on the Festival.2 The father of Samuel Says: Even if one Prepared dough on the eve of the Festival, he may not separate from it hallah on the Festival.3 Shall it be said that Samuel disputes with his father? For Samuel said: With respect to hallah outside Palestine, one may go on eating [of the dough] and separate the priestly portion at the end!4 — Answered Raba: Does then not Samuel agree that if one designated it by name5 that it is forbidden to be eaten by laymen?6
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY NOT CARRY A LADDER [ON A FESTIVAL] FROM ONE DOVECOTE TO ANOTHER,7 BUT HE MAY INCLINE IT FROM ONE PIGEON-HOLE TO ANOTHER. BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT [THIS].
GEMARA. R. Hanan b. Ammi said: The dispute refers only to public ground, when Beth Shammai is of the opinion that whoever sees [him carrying the ladder] might say that he needed it for [plastering his roof];8 Beth Hillel hold, his dovecote proves his intention; but in private ground, all agree that it is permitted. But it is not so. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab:9 ‘Wherever the sages have forbidden anything because of appearances, it is forbidden even in the most innermost chambers!10 — It is [a contro versy of] Tannaim. For it was taught: One may spread them out in the sun, but not in the presence of people.11 R. Eleazar and R. Simeon forbid this.12
Others say [thus]: R. Hanan b. Ammi said: The dispute refers to private ground; for Beth Shammai accept the teaching of Rab Judah in the name of Rab, and Beth Hillel reject the teaching of Rab Judah in the name of Rab; but on public ground all agree that it is forbidden. Shall it be said that Rab ruled as Beth Shammai?!13 — It is [a controversy of] Tannaim.14 For it was taught: ‘He may spread them out in the sun, but not in the presence of people. R Eleazar and R. Simeon forbid this’
(1) The priestly portion of dough. V. Glos.
(2) For the decree of the Rabbis ‘not to separate tithes on a Festival’ (infra 36b) did not include dough, since it is permitted to make dough, which cannot be eaten until the priestly portion of the dough has been taken.
(3) When the Rabbis permitted the separation of hallah on a Festival, it only referred to a dough that was made on the Festival.
(4) Thus showing that the separation of hallah is not essential, since the eating of the dough does not depend upon the separation of hallah; and since one may eat of the dough before the separation one should be allowed to separate the hallah on the Festival, since the separation cannot be regarded as making the dough legally fit for use; cf. infra 36b.
(5) If one designated the separated part by the name hallah, it automatically assumes the name of terumah (V. Glos.).
(6) Hence such hallah is called terumah and can therefore be included in the Rabbinical enactment forbidding tithing on a Festival.
(7) To bring down the pigeons that are to be slaughtered.
(8) A man must avoid even the appearance of transgression.
(9) The authority of Rab as head of the Babylonian Community was not to be disputed by all Amora like R. Hanan, for he was regarded as enjoying the authority of a Tanna. CF. Sanh. 83b; ‘Er. 50b; etc.; cf. also Tosaf. B.M. 46b.
(10) If therefore on public ground it is forbidden because of appearances, It should also be forbidden even on private ground.
(11) This refers to clothes which were accidently wetted on the Sabbath. For they might say that work had been done in washing. Hence there is an opinion that in private ground where the question of because of appearances does not apply it is permitted.
(12) Shab. 64b; 146b.
(13) This explanation would make Rab appear to side with Beth Shammai against Beth Hillel. But Rab would not go against the standard rule that the halachah prevails according to the opinion of Beth Hillel.
(14) The dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel according to R. Hanan is similar to the dispute between the anonymous Tanna and Rabbis Eleazar and Simeon. Rab, however, must explain the dispute of the Mishnah as in the first stage of the argument, and Beth Hillel, according to him, permit even on public ground because the dovecote proves the intention.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 9b
. Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that one may carry the ladder from one dovecote to [another] dovecote;1 they dispute only about bringing it back, Beth Shammai saying: One may not bring it back, and Beth Hillel maintaining: One may even bring it back. R. Judah said: These words apply only to a dovecote ladder;2 but with respect to a loft-ladder all agree that it is forbidden.3 R. Dosa says: One may incline it [the ladder] from one pigeon-hole to another. Others say in the name of R. Dosa: One may even move it with [short] hop-like steps.4
The sons of R. Hiyya5 went out to the Villages [to inspect the fields]. When they came back their father asked them: Has any legal question come before you? They replied to him: A case of [carrying] a loft-ladder came before us and we permitted it. He said to them: Go and forbid what you have permitted. They were of the opinion: Since R. Judah said that they [Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel] do not dispute with respect to a loft-ladder, it follows that the first Tanna holds that they do differ [even there].6 But this is not so; R. Judah is only explaining the view of the first Tanna.7 Whence [is this known]? — Since [the list Tanna] states: ‘One may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another [dovecote].’ If therefore you maintain that they differ with respect to a loft-ladder [instead of] this [phrase], ‘One may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another dovecote,’8 he should say, ‘One may carry a ladder to a dovecote.’9 [Evidently] this is what he means: only [the ladder] of a dovecote but not that of a loft. And the other?10 — Does it then state a ladder of a dovecote’? It [only] states ‘from one dovecote to another dovecote’, [indicating] even to any number of dovecotes.11
Others say: A case of inclining a loft-ladder came before us and we permitted it. He said to them: Go and forbid what you have permitted. They were of the opinion that what the first Tanna12 forbids, R. Dosa permits.13 But it is not so. [Rather is it] what the first Tanna permits,14 R. Dosa forbids.
BUT HE MAY INCLINE IT FROM ONE PIGEON HOLE TO ANOTHER etc. Accordingly [we see] that Beth Shammai is stringent in regard to the joy of the Festival15 and Beth Hillel is lenient, but the following contradicts this: If one slaughters game or poultry on a Festival, Beth Shammai say: He may dig up [earth] with a shovel and cover [the blood], but Beth Hillel maintain: One may not slaughter unless he has [loose] earth prepared from the day before [the Festival]!16 — R. Johanan replied: The authorities should be reversed.17 ‘Whence [does this follow]?18 Perhaps Beth Shammai say thus there19 only when there is [already] a shovel sticking in the earth,20 but not where there is no shovel sticking in the earth.21 Or perhaps Beth Hillel permit here22 only because the dovecote makes it evident,23 but there24 it is not permitted!25 Rather, if there is a difficulty,26 the following is the difficulty. Beth Shammai say,27 One may not take [pigeons]28 unless he stirred [them] up29 the day before. But Beth Hillel say: He stands and declares, ‘This one or that one shall I take’.30 Accordingly [we see] that Beth Shammai is stringent in regard to the joy of the Festival and Beth Hillel is lenient; but the following contradicts this: If one slaughters game or poultry on a Festival [etc.]! — R. Johanan replied: The authorities should be reversed. Whence [does this follow]?31 Perhaps Beth Shammai [permit] only when there is [already] a shovel sticking in the earth
(1) In order not to be deprived of the joy of the Festival.
(2) As his intention is then unmistakable.
(3) For the sake of appearance, as it may certainly be thought that he wishes to repair the roof.
(4) If the top of the ladder does not reach a particular pigeon-hole otherwise.
(5) Judah and Hezekiah.
(6) And, of course, Beth Hillel's view is law.
(7) Thus none permit the use of the ladder of the loft, since R. Judah does not state a separate view.
(8) Which signifies a ladder only used for dovecotes.
(9) The word משובך should have been omitted.
(10) I.e., R. Hiyya, what was the meaning of the text to him?
(11) The expression from ‘one dovecote to another dovecote’ is not asserting that it was a dovecote ladder, but rather that the ladder may be moved to several dovecotes.
(12) The first Tanna of R Dosa is R. Judah who forbids the carrying of a loft-ladder.
(13) The loft-ladder at any rate to be inclined from one pigeon hole to another.
(14) R. Judah permits the carrying of a dovecote ladder while R. Dosa forbids carrying and only permits inclining the ladder which had been brought to the dovecote before the Festival. But a loft-ladder would be forbidden even to incline.
(15) Beth Shammai do not give a more lenient decision out of regard for the joy of the Festival.
(16) Supra 2a. In this case Beth Shammai is more lenient than Beth Hillel.
(17) Rashi: The authorities in the second Mishnah are to be reversed; Tosaf.: The authorities of the first Mishnah are to be reversed.
(18) There is no need to change the authorities for the attitude of each school in the second Mishnah can be in harmony with their attitude in the first Mishnah.
(19) That it is permissible to dig up earth with a shovel.
(20) Before the Festival when there is no likelihood of breaking any law on the Festival.
(21) Even if the earth is loose, for in sticking in the shovel it would appear as if he were digging on a Festival. Similarly in the second Mishnah an onlooker might think that he was intending to repair his roof.
(22) Not out of consideration for the joy of the Festival.
(23) That no forbidden work is intended to be performed.
(24) In the first Mishnah.
(25) To dig even though the shovel was already sticking in the earth because he may cause a crumbling of the earth which is in the nature of grinding and the possibility of an infringement of the law by digging takes precedence over the consideration of the joy of the Festival.
(26) Which led R. Johanan, to reverse the authorities.
(27) Infra 10a.
(28) For slaughtering on a Festival.
(29) V. infra 10a.
(30) Preparing then, for the following day.
(31) So D.S. as supra. Cur. edd. ‘perhaps it is not so’.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 10a
but not when there is no shovel sticking in the earth;1 or perhaps Beth Hillel rule thus only here because since it is mukzeh,2 it is sufficient if he stands and declares, ‘This one or that one shall I take’;3 but there [they do] not [rule thus]! Rather, if there is a difficulty, the following is the difficulty: Beth Shammai say: One may not take a pestle4 to cut up meat thereon; but Beth Hillel permit [it].5 Accordingly [we see] that Beth Shammai is stringent in regard to the joy of the Festival and Beth Hillel is lenient, but the following contradicts this: If one slaughters game or poultry [on a Festival] Beth Shammai etc.! — R. Johanan replied: The authorities should be reversed. ‘Whence [does this follow]? Perhaps it is not so? [Perhaps] Beth Shammai rule [thus] only there where there is [already] a shovel sticking in the earth, but not when there is no shovel sticking In the earth. Or perhaps Beth Hillel rule thus only here, because it [the pestle] bears the designation of utensil;6 but there [they do] not [rule thus]! Rather, if there is a difficulty, the following is the difficulty: Beth Shammai say: One may not lay out a hide7 for treading on8 and one may not lift it up unless it has [sticking to it] flesh [as much as] an olive;9 but Beth Hillel permit.10 Accordingly [we see] that Beth Shammai is stringent in regard to the joy of the Festival and Beth Hillel is lenient, but the following contradicts that if one slaughters game or poultry on a Festival etc! — R. Johanan replied: The authorities should be reversed. Whence [does this follow]? Perhaps it is not so; [perhaps Beth Shammai rule thus only there, where there is [already] a shovel sticking in the earth, but not when there is no shovel sticking in the earth. Or perhaps Beth Hillel rule thus only here because it [the hide] is fit for sitting thereon,11 but there [they do] not [rule thus]! Rather, if there is a difficulty, the following is the difficulty: Beth Shammai say: One may not take down shutters12 on a Festival, but Beth Hillel permit them even to be put back.13 Accordingly [we see] that Beth Shammai is stringent in regard to the joy of the Festival and Beth Hillel is lenient, but the following contradicts this: If one slaughters game or poultry on a Festival etc.! It is well [that the rulings of] Beth Shammai are not contradictory: there [it is permitted only] when there is [already] a shovel sticking in the earth but here there is no shovel sticking in the earth.14 But [the views of] Beth Hillel are contradictory! — Said R. Johanan: The authorities should be reversed. [Why reverse the authorities]?15 Perhaps Beth Hillel rule thus only here because building and pulling down do not apply to utensils,16 but there [they do] not [rule thus].
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY:17 ONE MUST NOT TAKE [PIGEONS] UNLESS HE HAS STIRRED18 [THEM] UP THE DAY BEFORE [THE FESTIVAL]: BUT BETH HILLEL SAY: HE STANDS AND DECLARES: THIS ONE OR THAT ONE WILL I TAKE. GEMARA. R. Hanan b. Ammi said: The dispute is only with respect to the first brood19 when Beth Shammai is of the opinion that20 we preventively prohibit,21 lest he may come to change his mind;22 whereas Beth Hillel is of the opinion: We do not prohibit as a precautionary measure; but with respect to the second brood all agree that it is sufficient when he stands and declares, ‘This one or that one will I take’.23
Now according to Beth Hillel, why must he declare, ‘This one or that one will I take’, let him [rather] say, ‘Of these will I take [one] tomorrow’?24 And if you reply that Beth Hillel do not accept [the law of] Bererah,25 surely we have learnt:26 If a corpse [lay] in a room27 which has many doors28 they are all unclean;29 if one of these [doors] was opened,30 it alone is unclean31 and all the others are clean.32 If he formed the intention to take it [the corpse] out through one of them, or through a window which [measures] four handbreadths square,33 this gives protection to all the other doors.34 Beth Shammai say: Providing that he had formed his intention to take it out35 before the person died;36 but Beth Hillel say: [It holds good] even [if his intention was formed] after the person died!37 — But has it not already been stated thereon: Rabbah said: [The statement of Beth Hillel is] with respect to the cleansing of the entrances from now onwards.38 R. Oshaia also said: [The statement of Beth Hillel is] with respect to the cleansing of the entrances from now onwards; only ‘from now onwards’ but not ‘retrospectively’.39 Raba says: In reality [the statement of Beth Hillel is even in respect of cleansing] retrospectively,40 and here41 the reason42 is lest he might take up [a pigeon] and put it down again, take up [a pigeon] and put it down again and thus come to take one which is not fit for him.43 But you say it is sufficient if he stands and says this or that will I take!44 — This only applies on the eve of the Festival,45
(1) Similarly they do not permit to take a pigeon on a Festival unless he had specified before the Festival the particular pigeon he intended to slaughter, for after handling one he might change his mind and decide upon another and thus the handling of the first pigeon would be regarded as unnecessary work on a Festival.
(2) Viz., the prohibition of taking pigeons without previous preparation.
(3) This constitutes sufficient preparation.
(4) Used for the pounding of groats and therefore reserved for work forbidden on a Festival and so must not be handled.
(5) Infra 11a.
(6) Lit., ‘the law of a utensil is upon it’, and one may always handle a utensil on a Festival.
(7) Flayed on the Festival.
(8) Whereby it becomes tanned.
(9) The minimum to be used as a meal and what is needful for food may be carried about on a Festival.
(10) Cf. infra p. 51.
(11) They used to sit cross-legged upon rugs.
(12) For it is of the nature of building and pulling clown. V. infra 54, n. 2.
(13) Although such work is not directly for the sake of the Festival, infra 11b.
(14) I.e., in this case there is nothing corresponding to the shovel sticking in the earth in order to permit.
(15) Cf. MS.M. Cur. ed. ‘or’. [The text is in disorder: D.S. a.l. on the basis of different MSS. reconstructs it as follows: ‘On a Festival etc.’ — Said R. Johanan: The authorities are reversed. But whence (does this follow)? Perhaps Beth Shammai rules thus only there . . . but here there is no shovel . . . earth. Or perhaps Beth Hillel rule thus only here because building etc.’ — following the same line of argument as in the preceding cases].
(16) The forms of the utensils are not changed but are only used for a different purpose.
(17) Supra 9b. q.v.
(18) To stir up, means to examine properly what sort of bird it was.
(19) It is usual to leave the first brood as company for the parent birds.
(20) If he did not ‘stir’ them before the Festival.
(21) Taking any on the Festival.
(22) About slaughtering that particular pigeon and put it back. He would thus have handled and moved the pigeon unnecessarily. If, however, he ‘stirred’ them before the Festival and chose one for slaughter, then he has definitely made up his mind to have that bird.
(23) For there is no question of putting the bird back, since it is only the first brood that is left with the parent birds.
(24) Since a verbal preparation is sufficient to remove the prohibition of mukzeh, it should be assumed that the bird chosen on the Festival is retrospectively the same one about which he spoke the day before.
(25) Retrospective selection. A legal term to denote that a present selection shall have retrospective validity. The selection of a particular dove on the Festival from a number that have been generally designated before the Festival (when it was intended to take one only) shall rank as though that dove itself has been selected before the Festival.
(26) Infra 37b; ‘Er. 68b; Oh. VII, 3.
(27) A corpse in a room defiles not only the vessels inside the room but even those standing just outside the door beneath the lintel of the entrance through which the corpse is to be carried out. If there is more than one entrance to the room the same rule applies to them all unless it has been specifically determined to carry it through one particular entrance. Such determination protects the other entrances.
(28) All of which are closed or open.
(29) The doors themselves and even the vessels outside under the same lintels; because the corpse may be carried out through any one of them.
(30) After the person's death.
(31) For it is assumed that the corpse will be taken out through the open door.
(32) I.e., all vessels placed subsequently in the remaining entrances. With respect to those vessels placed there prior to the opening of the one door v. the immediately following hypothetical dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
(33) The minimum opening through which a whole corpse could be carried out.
(34) His intention or determination is regarded as if he had actually opened the entrance.
(35) Through a particular door.
(36) But if only after death, then those vessels which had been placed in the same entrance prior to his determination would be unclean.
(37) It ranks as though that door had been designated for that purpose immediately at death; hence we see that Beth Hillel accept the rule of Bererah.
(38) I. e., from the time subsequent to his determination. According to Beth Shammai, when there has been no determination before the death, all the entrances are unclean and the subsequent determination does not remove the uncleanness except by the actual act of opening. Not so Beth Hillel. But Beth Hillel will not accept the rule of Bererah.
(39) I.e., those vessels placed in the entrances from the time of death until the forming of his intention all agree are unclean.
(40) Because Beth Hillel accept the rule of Bererah.
(41) In our Mishnah.
(42) That Beth Hillel say that he must specify this or that.
(43) On account of mukzeh; for his intention was to take only what was necessary’ for him. If, however, he said ‘this or that I will take,’ he will definitely take those designated.
(44) Why not apprehend here too lest he will pick and choose since he did not ‘stir’ them before the Festival?
(45) I.e., If he makes this declaration on the eve of the Festival to remind him that he may not pick and choose on the Festival on account of mukzeh.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 10b
but1 on the Festival [itself]2 it is forbidden;3 for sometimes the [seemingly] fat ones are found [to be] lean, and the [seemingly] lean ones are found [to be] fat, and [thus] he handles [birds] which are not fit for him; or else, sometimes they may all be found lean, and he will leave them and thus come to refrain from the joy of the Festival.4
MISHNAH. IF HE DESIGNATED5 BLACK [DOVES]6 BUT FOUND WHITE, WHITE BUT FOUND BLACK, TWO BUT FOUND THREE, THEY ARE [ALL] FORBIDDEN;7 THREE BUT FOUND TWO, THEY ARE PERMITTED. [IF HE DESIGNATED DOVES] INSIDE THE NEST AND FOUND THEM IN FRONT OF THE NEST, THEY ARE FORBIDDEN; BUT IF NONE EXCEPT THESE WERE THERE, THEY ARE PERMITTED.
GEMARA. Is not this self-evident? — Said Rabbah: We are dealing here with a case where he had designated black and white,8 and on the following morning he found black ones in the place of the white and white ones in the place of the black; you might say they are the very same [doves] and they had only exchanged [their nests], so he informs us9 that those10 are gone away and these are different ones. Shall it be said that [this Mishnah] supports the view of R. Hanina? for R. Hanina said:11 [If] majority and proximity [are in opposition]12 you follow the majority?13 — As Abaye has explained,14 when there is a board,15 likewise also here [explain] when there is a board.
[IF HE DESIGNATED] TWO [DOVES] BUT FOUND THREE THEY ARE [ALL] FORBIDDEN. Whichever way you take it [they are forbidden]; if these16 are other [doves], then they are indeed others;17 if they are the same, then there is [another] one mixed up with them.18
[IF HE DESIGNATED] THREE [DOVES] BUT FOUND TWO THEY ARE PERMITTED. What is the reason? — They are indeed the same19 and one of them has flown away. Shall it be said that the Mishnah is according to Rabbi and not according to the Sages? For we have learnt: If one deposited one hundred [zuz]20 and found two hundred,21 [it is assumed that] there is hullin [money]22 and second tithe [money] mixed together. This is the opinion of Rabbi. But the Sages say: The entire sum is hullin [money].23 If he deposited two hundred [zuz] and found one hundred, [it is assumed that] one hundred has been left24 and one hundred has been taken away. This is the opinion of Rabbi. But the Sages say: The entire sum is hullin [money].25 — You can even say [that it is] in accordance with the Sages, for It was stated thereon: R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both say:26 Doves are different since they are used to hop about.27 But why is it necessary28 to explain here, ‘doves are different since they are used to hop about’? Surely it has already been stated with respect to this [very Baraitha] that [there is a dispute between] R. Johanan and R. Eleazar; one says: The controversy [between Rabbi and the Sages] is when there were two purses,29 but when there is [only] one purse all agree that the entire sum is hullin.30 And the other says: The dispute is when there is one purse,31 but when there are two purses all agree that [we are to assume] one hundred has been left and one hundred taken away! It is well according to the view that the dispute relates to two purses; hence it is necessary to explain here ‘it is different with doves since they are used to hop about.’ But according to the view that ‘the dispute is [only] with respect to one purse but when there are two purses all agree that one hundred had been left and one hundred taken’ why is it necessary to answer it [as above]; surely you have said indeed that they do not dispute with respect to two purses?32 — Said R. Ashi: We are dealing here with doves tied together and with purses fastened together;33 doves pull themselves apart from one another, but purses do not pull themselves apart from one another.34 And Rabbi?35 — He will answer you: In the case of purses too, it occurs
(1) If he has to make up his mind.
(2) I.e., if he only said ‘of these will I take to-morrow.
(3) To take any bird.
(4) But had he specifically designated which to take, he would not change his mind.
(5) For eating on the Festival.
(6) That were in the nest.
(7) In the first case they are definitely strange doves and in the second case since he cannot recognize the doves he designated they are all forbidden.
(8) In two separated nests.
(9) That we are to suppose.
(10) Doves that have been designated for slaughter on the eve of the Festival.
(11) B.B. 23b.
(12) I.e., If a case can be decided one way on the ground of majority and another way on the ground of nearness. For majority and nearness, cf. Ex. XXIII, 2 and Deut. XXI, 3 respectively. V. also B.B., Sonc. ed. p. 117, n. 2.
(13) Here too it is probable that the doves are the same and that the nests have been exchanged owing to their close proximity. On the other hand it is possible to imagine these doves as part of the great majority of birds which do not belong to him and which had not been predetermined on.
(14) With reference to another case, infra 11a.
(15) In front of the dovecote upon which strange birds settle. Accordingly it is also probable that as soon as the old doves left their dovecote
(quitted their nest), these strange doves took their place. The question of proximity therefore applies equally to the strange doves as well as to the doves that were originally in the nest in which case no one disputes that majority decides.
(16) All three.
(17) They are therefore forbidden, for these have not been designated before the Festival.
(18) And since it is not known which is the new one they are all forbidden.
(19) I.e. , two of the three previously designated.
(20) I.e., one case of a hundred zuz of the second tithe which had to be taken to Jerusalem, but which owing to the distance was converted into money. This money had to be spent in Jerusalem. V. Deut. XIV, 22-26.
(21) I.e., two one-hundred zuz pieces.
(22) I.e., ordinary, unconsecrated, not of the second tithe.
(23) He must therefore select the finest coin for the second tithe and say: If this was originally the second tithe coin then it is well; if, on the other hand, the other coin was originally the second tithe, then let this one be exchanged for the other.
(24) For he would not have put away hullin money together with second tithe money; and since two coins were found instead of one, it is to be assumed that the one-hundred zuz piece of the second tithe had been taken out and put in another place, while this two-hundred is ordinary money subsequently put in the same place.
(25) Because the owner would not have separated one second tithe coin from the other except to take it to Jerusalem; hence the Sages assume that he had taken out the two hundred zuz which he put somewhere away, replacing them by the hundred zuz of ordinary money, but that he had forgotten the whole matter. Similarly according to the Sages it would follow that the three doves had flown away and two others came in their place. V. Pes. 100.
(26) In explanation of this seeming contradiction.
(27) Therefore one of them may have hopped away and the two left are of the original ones. But the same cannot be said with respect to money.
(28) For both R. Johanan and R. Eleazar.
(29) Each containing one hundred zuzim. It is then that Rabbi says that one hundred was left and one hundred taken away.
(30) For if he took aught of such money he would have taken the lot.
(31) It is then that the Sages assume that the entire two hundred second tithe money had been taken out and placed elsewhere.
(32) The contradiction shown between the Mishnah and the view of the Sages was removed by both R. Johanan and R. Eleazar by explaining that there was a difference between doves and coins. But since one of the same two Rabbis maintains that in the case of two purses each containing one hundred zuzim the Sages agree that the hundred left is part of the original, which is in agreement with the statement in the Mishnah, then why was he a party to that explanation of the contradiction?
(33) The expression ‘One purse containing two hundred zuzim’ means two purses, each containing one hundred zuzim, tied together and regarded as one purse; likewise ‘two purses’ would mean when they are not tied together. In the former case the Sages hold that the purse left is not one of the original two that were tied together. This view is contradictory to the Mishnah which says that the two doves found are of the original three that were tied together from which one had torn itself away. This contradiction is overcome by drawing a distinction between live birds and inanimate purses.
(34) And therefore the purse left may not be of the original two tied together.
(35) Surely this is a logical distinction!
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 11a
that their knot becomes worn out.
WITHIN THE NEST AND FOUND THEM IN FRONT OF THE NEST THEY ARE FORBIDDEN. Shall it be said that this1 supports the view of R. Hanina? For R. Hanina said:2 [If] majority and proximity [are in opposition] you follow the majority? — Said Abaye: When there is a board.3 Raba says: ‘We are treating here of two nests one above the other;4 and it goes without saying that if he designated [doves] in the lower [nest] and did not designate [those] in the upper, and [on the morrow] finds [doves] in the lower [nest] and none in the upper they are forbidden, for we assume that those of the lower [nest] had flown away and these5 had indeed hopped down; but even if he designated [doves] in the upper [nest] and did not designate [those] in the lower and he came and found [some] in the upper and did not find [any] in the lower, these too are forbidden, for we assume that those6 had flown away and these had indeed fluttered up.7 BUT IF NONE EXCEPT THESE WERE THERE THEY ARE PERMITTED. What are the circumstances? If you say that [this refers] to those which can fly, then it is possible to assume that those had flown away and these are different ones? And if [this refers] to those which can [only] hop,8 then if there is [another] nest within fifty cubits, they might indeed have hopped away;9 and if there is no [other] nest within fifty cubits, it is obvious that they are permitted, for Mar ‘Ukba b. Hama said: ‘Whatever hops does not hop more than fifty cubits! — In truth [it means] where there is [another] nest within fifty cubits, but e.g., it is situated round a corner; you might say that they has indeed hopped away,’ so it10 informs us that they only hop along as long as by turning they see their nest,11 but if not,12 they do not hop away.
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY:13 YOU MAY NOT TAKE A PESTLE14 TO CUT UP MEAT THEREON,15 BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT [IT]. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY NOT PLACE A HIDE16 FOR TREADING ON17 NOR MAY HE LIFT IT UP UNLESS THERE IS AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF FLESH WITH IT,18 BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT.
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: And they [both] agree that if he had already cut up meat thereon, it [the pestle] may not be moved.19
Abaye said: The dispute is [only] with respect to a pestle, but in the case of a butcher's block20 all agree that it is permitted. This is obvious: we learnt, A PESTLE!21 — You might say that the same applies even to a butcher's block22 and the reason it states PESTLE is in order to inform you of the extent of the view of Beth Hillel that even an object specially made for work which is forbidden23 is also permitted; hence he informs us [that it is not so]. Others state; Abaye [himself] replied:24 It is only necessary [to teach] that even a new butcher's block [is permitted]. You might say: He may change his mind and not cut up [meat] on it,25 so he informs us [that this is not so]. Do then Beth Shammai not fear [the possibility of] one changing his mind?26 Surely it was taught: Beth Shammai say: One may not lead the slaughterer27 and the knife to the animal [to be slaughtered]28 nor the animal to the slaughterer and the knife; but Beth Hillel say: One may bring the one to the other. Beth Shammai say: One may not carry spices or a pestle to the mortar, nor the mortar to the spices or the pestle; but Beth Hillel say: One may bring the one to the other! — What comparison is this? [With respect to] an animal it is well: he may come to change his mind saying, let us leave this lean animal and I will bring another animal which is fatter than this; [with respect to] a dish too he may come to change his mind, saying, let us leave this dish which requires spices and I will bring another [dish] which does not require spices. [But] here what are we to suppose? He will change his mind and not cut up [the meat]? Since he has already slaughtered [the animal], it has to be cut up.
BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY NOT PLACE A HIDE. A Tanna taught: And they [both] agree that one may salt upon it meat for roasting.29 Abaye said: It was taught only [when it is] for roasting but not for boiling.30 This is obvious: We learnt31 ‘for roasting’? — This he [Abaye] informs us that even for roasting [to salt it almost as much] as for boiling is [also] forbidden.
Our Rabbis taught: One may neither salt32 pieces of suet33 for turn them about.34 They reported in the name of R. Joshua: One may spread them out in the air on pegs [of wood]. R. Mattenah said: The halachah is as R. Joshua. Others state: R. Mattenah said: The halachah is not as R. Joshua. This is well according to the version, ‘the halachah is as R. Joshua’, [then it is necessary]: For I might say, [when] an individual and a majority [are in dispute] the halachah is as the majority: [hence] he informs us that [here] the halachah is as the individual. But according to the version ‘the halachah is not as R. Joshua’, it is obvious: [for when] an individual and a majority [are in dispute], the halachah is as the majority! — You might think that the opinion of R. Joshua is logical, for if you will not permit him35 he will altogether forbear to slaughter,36 so he informs us.37 And why is this different from the case of placing a hide before the treading place?38
(1) Statement of the Mishnah in assuming that the doves now found in front of the nest are not those that were originally within the nest.
(2) Supra 10b; B.B. 23b.
(3) Before the dovecote upon which strange doves settle. V. supra p. 48, n. 2.
(4) And the reason they are forbidden is on account of mukzeh and not that we regard them as part of the great majority of bids.
(5) At present in the lower nest.
(6) First mentioned.
(7) From the nest below.
(8) I.e., young ones that cannot yet fly.
(9) From their own cote and settled here.
(10) The Mishnah.
(11) I.e., so long as their nest is within sight.
(12) If by turning they cannot see their own nest.
(13) Supra 10a.
(14) Normally used for pounding grain, a work forbidden on a Festival.
(15) Work permitted on a Festival.
(16) Flayed on a Festival.
(17) Or, ‘before the treading place’, i.e., to be walked on as a door-mat whereby it becomes tanned; v. p. 43.
(18) I.e., clinging to it.
(19) For the purpose for which it was needed had already been done.
(20) Lit., ‘bone-breaker’.
(21) But not a butcher's block.
(22) I.e., Beth Shammai prohibits this too, lest after taking it he changes his mind and does not use it at all.
(23) On a Festival; v. p. 51, n. 7.
(24) To the question ‘is it not obvious?’
(25) In order to spare it so as not to spoil it; hence it should be forbidden; cf. n. 1.
(26) For we have just said according to Abaye that Beth Shammai agree that a new butcher's block may be moved for cutting up meat thereon, and they do not take into consideration the possibility of changing the mind.
(27) V. Marg. note; cf. also D.S.
(28) If they are distant from one another lest the slaughtering might not take place, and unnecessary toil is forbidden on a Festival.
(29) Although salt assists the tanning, because very little salt is used when the meat is to be roasted.
(30) Where much salt is required.
(31) The word תנן, is used here loosely as it refers to a Baraitha.
(32) On a Festival.
(33) In order to preserve them for use after the Festival. Suet may not be eaten but may be used for making candles, etc.
(34) To prevent them decaying.
(35) To spread the pieces of suet on pegs.
(36) And thus be deprived of the joy of the Festival.
(37) That we do not follow the opinion of R. Joshua.
(38) Which Beth Hillel permit for the reason that if you will not allow him to do this he will omit slaughtering altogether.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 11b
— There it is not manifest,1 since it [the hide] is fit to be used as a mat to sit on. Here [however] he will be led to argue: ‘What is the reason [that] the Rabbis permitted me [to spread it on pegs]: so that it should not become offensive: what difference is there whether I spread them or salt them? Rab Judah in the name of Samuel said: A man may salt [on a Festival] several pieces of meat together even though he needs only one piece.2 R. Adda b. Ahabah made use of an artifice and salted piece after piece.3
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY:4 ONE MAY NOT TAKE DOWN SHUTTERS ON A FESTIVAL,5 BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT EVEN TO PUT THEM BACK AGAIN.
GEMARA. What [kind of] shutters? — Said ‘Ulla: The shutters of a [shopkeeper's] stall.6 ‘Ulla further said: There are three cases where [the Rabbis] allowed the completing [of the action]7 on account of its beginning,8 and they are as follows: [The placing of] the hide for people to tread on;9 [the taking down of] shutters from stalls10 and the replacing of a plaster11 in the Temple. And Rehaba said in the name of Rabbi Judah:12 Also he who opens his cask [of wine] or commences [cutting] into his dough for the requirements of the Festival13 and according to R. Judah who Says: He may finish [selling them after the Festival].14
‘[The placing of] the hide for people to tread on’; we have [already] learnt it!15 — You might say that the reason of Beth Hillel16 is because it is fit to be used as a mat and therefore even though [the hide was flayed] before the Festival it is also [permitted]; so he informs us [that] they permitted its completion for the sake of the beginning: [therefore if flayed] on the Festival it is [permitted], before the Festival it is not [permitted].
‘[THE TAKING DOWN OF] SHUTTERS FROM STALLS’ we have also learnt, [viz., but Beth Hillel permit even to put them back again]: — You might say that the reason of Beth Hillel is that building or demolishing does not apply to utensils and [therefore] even [the lids of chests in] houses are also permitted,17 so he informs us that they only permitted its completion on account of the beginning; therefore of stalls only [is it permitted] but not of [chests in] houses.18
‘The replacing of a plaster in the Temple’ we have also learnt [viz.]:19 One may replace20 a plaster [on a wound] in the Temple but not in the country:21 — You might Say, what is the reason? Because there is no shebuth22 in the Temple and [therefore] even a priest not performing a Temple service [may also replace a plaster], so he informs us that they [only] permitted its completion on account of the beginning, [therefore it is permitted] only in the case of [a priest] performing a Temple service, but not when not performing a Temple service. ‘[The case of] opening a cask’, we have also learnt23 [viz.]: He who opens his cask [of wine] or commences cutting into his dough for the requirements of the Festival, R. Judah says: He may finish [selling them after the Festival]; but the Sages say: He may not finish! — You might say that the Rabbis regarded the uncleanness of an ‘am ha-arez during the [period of the] Festival as cleanness and [therefore] even though he had not commenced24 it is also [permitted];25 so he informs us that they only permitted its completion on account of the beginning, [therefore] only if he had commenced [to sell them during the Festival] but not if he had not commenced.26 And ‘Ulla: What is the reason that he does not state this?27 — He does not deal with [cases] where there is a dispute. But there is a dispute concerning those too!28 — The [opinion of] Beth Shammai against that of Beth Hillel is regarded as having no authority.29
Our Mishnah30 is not according to the following Tanna; for it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that one may take down the shutters on a Festival; they dispute only about replacing, Beth Shammai maintaining: One may not replace [them]; while Beth Hillel rules: One may even replace [them]. When is this said? Where they [the shutters] have hinges,31 but if they have no hinges all agree that it is permitted [even to replace them]. But it was taught: This applies only if they have no hinges, but if they have hinges all agree that it is forbidden! — Said Abaye: When they have hinges on the side all32 agree that it is forbidden;33 they only dispute where there is a hinge in the middle:
(1) That the spreading of the hide is for tanning.
(2) For this is not doing extra work, for there is one act of salting whether it be for one or for several pieces.
(3) After salting one piece for eating on the same day, he took another under the pretence that it was preferable, and so on until the whole was salted. The object was to preserve the meat in better condition for the days following the Festival.
(4) Supra 10a.
(5) For it is of the nature of building and pulling down, work forbidden on a Festival.
(6) Although general trading is prohibited on a Festival, yet things necessary for the full enjoyment of the Festival may be sold on trust, no payment being made on the day of the Festival. One or two shutters were taken down to show that such goods might be obtained.
(7) Which was not necessary for the Festival and in an ordinary way would have been prohibited.
(8) The beginning of the action was necessary for the enjoyment of the Festival and so the ending is permitted for the sake of the beginning. If it were forbidden, it might cause the neglect of beginning certain work which was necessary for the full enjoyment of the Festival.
(9) If he would not be allowed to use the skin in this way he would not kill.
(10) If he will not be allowed to close he will not open to give food.
(11) To apply a plaster on the Sabbath is forbidden. If, however, a priest having a plaster on a wound on his hand by reason of which he may not perform the Temple service
(because nothing may adhere to his hand during the Temple service) has removed same, then he may replace it after the Temple service is over.
(12) [The reference is to Rab Judah, whom Rehaba designated as ‘Rabbi’
(‘my teacher’) because he was his teacher (Rashi). V. D.S. a.l.]
(13) To retail these to the pilgrims during the Festival among whom may be some of the עמי הארץ who do not observe the law of purification and who may have come into contact with the wine or bread thus rendering them unclean. According to R. Judah, the remainder also may after the Festival be bought by or sold to anyone however scrupulous he may be. V. p. 56, n. 1. Here, too, if we do not allow him to sell after the Festival, he will not commence opening for the Festival.
(14) This is explained infra.
(15) Supra 11a. Then why mention it again?
(16) In permitting the hide to be trodden on.
(17) To be taken off and to be put back again.
(18) I.e. , even Beth Hillel hold that building or demolishing with respect to utensils is Rabbinically prohibited, but here they permit only on account of the enjoyment of the Festival.
(19) ‘Er. 102b.
(20) On a Sabbath.
(21) מדינה (country) used here as opposed to מקדש (Sanctuary, Temple precincts).
(22) A Rabbinical Statute concerning the true keeping of the Sabbath; an act forbidden by the Rabbis on a Sabbath as being out of harmony with the celebration of the day. The replacing of a plaster on a Sabbath, like other medicinal remedies, is forbidden by the Rabbis as a preventive measure against pounding spices. The prohibition of acts as shebuth, however, did not apply to Temple duties. V. Glos.
(23) Hag. 26b. Wine or dough which has been touched by an ‘am ha-arez may not be bought by or sold to persons who are scrupulous about purification, for the ‘am ha-arez is suspected of being unclean. If an ‘am ha-arez comes into contact with the wine or the dough during the Festival, they are not contaminated and may be bought by or sold to anybody during the Festival, even the most scrupulous. Should any wine or dough remain after the Festival, R. Judah and the Sages dispute whether these may continue to be bought by or sold to scrupulous people. If, however, wine or dough not for sale during the Festival came in contact with an ‘am ha-arez, such may not be bought by or sold to the scrupulous after the Festival even according to R. Judah.
(24) To sell during the Festival.
(25) To the most scrupulous according to R. Judah, even though an ‘am ha-arez had come into contact with these.
(26) The uncleanness of an ‘am ha-arez was regarded as clean only with respect to things that were started to be sold, but if an ‘am ha-arez touched a thing that had not been started to be sold, he contaminated them.
(27) Additional case of Rehaba.
(28) For Beth Shammai dispute the three cases he mentions.
(29) Lit., ‘Beth Shammai(‘s view), in the place of Beth Hillel is not a Mishnah’, since the halachah is determined according to Beth Hillel. Cf. Ber. 36b, Yeb. 9a.
(30) Which states the dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with respect to taking down shutters.
(31) In which case replacing appears more in the nature of building.
(32) Both Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
(33) Because it is more difficult to put them back.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 12a
One master1 holds that we preventively prohibit a hinge in the centre on account of a hinge at the side;2 and the other master3 is of the opinion we do not preventively prohibit.4
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY NOT CARRY OUT AN INFANT5 OR A LULAB6 OR A SCROLL OF THE LAW7 INTO PUBLIC GROUND,8 BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT [IT].
GEMARA. A Tanna taught before R. Isaac b. Abdimi: He who slaughters a freewill burnt-offering on a Festival is flagellated.9 Said he to him: He who taught you this held the opinion of Beth Shammai who maintain: We do not say, ‘Since carrying out is permitted for what is [actually] necessary [for the preparation of food], it is also permitted for that which is not necessary’.10 For if [he held the opinion of] Beth Hillel, surely they maintain: ‘Since carrying out is permitted where it is necessary, it is also permitted where it is not necessary’, so also here, since slaughtering is permitted where it is necessary11 it is also permitted where it is not necessary.12 To this Rabbah demurred: Whence do you know that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differ on this [point]; perhaps they differ as to whether [the laws of] ‘erub and carrying out apply to Sabbath, but [the laws of] ‘erub and carrying out do not apply to a Festival?13 One Master is of the opinion, ‘Erub and [the laws of] carrying out apply to both the Sabbath and the Festival,14 and the other Master maintains, ‘Erub and [the laws of] carrying out apply to Sabbath but ‘erub and [the laws of] carrying out do not apply to the Festival, as it is written, Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day,15 only on the Sabbath day but not on the Festival!16 To this R. Joseph demurred [in turn]: If so,17 let them18 dispute with respect to stones!19 Since, however, they do not dispute about stones, infer from it that they differ with respect to carrying out [things] that are not necessary [in the preparation of food].20
R. Johanan is also of the opinion that they differ in whether [we say], ‘Since carrying out is permitted for what is necessary [in the preparation of food] it is also permitted for what is not necessary [in the preparation of food]’; for a tanna recited before R. Johanan:21 He who boils the thigh sinew on a Festival22 in milk and eats it is flagellated on five counts, for [unnecessarily] cooking the sinew on a Festival,23 for eating the sinew, for boiling meat in milk,24 for eating meat with milk,24 and
(1) I.e., Beth Shammai.
(2) If the former is permitted, one will think that the latter, too, is permitted.
(3) I.e., Beth Hillel.
(4) And therefore permit even to put them back again. The two Baraitha therefore are not contradictory, for each refers to a different case.
(5) On a Festival, even to circumcise it. The circumcision ceremony was usually performed in a synagogue, hence the need to carry the infant out.
(6) Lit., ‘palm-branch’, which bound together with myrtles and willows was carried, together with a citron, during the Feast of Tabernacles. V. Lev. XXIII, 40. Beth Shammai prohibit the carrying out of the lulab even for the purpose of fulfilling this command.
(7) For the purpose of reading it.
(8) For only such work as is necessary in the preparation of food may be done on a Festival.
(9) The only offering which an individual may bring on a Festival is one part of which he may eat. But a burnt-offering is entirely consumed by fire on the altar; hence he does unnecessary work on the Festival. Obligatory (i.e., public) burnt-offerings are however permitted, as are all public sacrifices, both on the Sabbath and on Festivals, but voluntary offerings can be offered after the Festival.
(10) As follows from our Mishnah.
(11) For his own food during the Festival.
(12) As the freewill burnt-offering.
(13) The carrying of articles from one domain to another is forbidden, yet by means of an ‘erub it is permitted. ‘Erub is a symbolical act by which is established the legal fiction of joining one private estate with another private estate, thus extending the area in which things could be carried.
(14) Just as it is not permitted on a Sabbath to carry from one domain to another without an ‘erub, so on a Festival.
(15) Jer. XVII, 22.
(16) Thus Beth Hillel too may hold that we do not say, ‘Since a certain labour is permitted in the preparation of food, it is also permitted in other cases too’, their reason in the Mishnah being that they do not regard carrying out as a labour at all vis a vis Festivals.
(17) That Beth Hillel hold that the prohibition of carrying without an ‘erub does not apply to Festivals.
(18) Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
(19) Which it is altogether unnecessary to carry out; whether these may be carried out on Festivals into a public domain, v. Tosaf. s.v. ה ג and R. Hananel.
(20) But for the carrying out of which there is nevertheless some reason as the examples quoted in the Mishnah, v. loc. cit.
(21) Mak. 21b; Yes. 47b. In Mak. the reading is slightly different.
(22) Forbidden in Gen. XXXII, 33.
(23) Since the sinew may not be eaten, the work of cooking it is unnecessary and consequently punishable by flogging. The same applies to the work of kindling a fire.
(24) The prohibition of boiling meat with milk or eating of the same as well as making any use thereof is derived from the three passages of Scripture (Ex. XXIII, 19; XXXIV, 26; Deut. XIV, 21) forbidding to seeth a kid in its mother's milk.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 12b
for kindling fire.1 Said he [R. Johanan] to him: Go, teach [this] outside [the Academy]; [what you have said with respect to] kindling and cooking has no authority, and if you say that it has an authority, [that authority] must be Beth Shammai who maintain that we do not say, ‘Since carrying out [on a Festival] is permitted for what is necessary2 it is also permitted for what is not necessary’, likewise [they maintain] here that we do not say, ‘Since the kindling of fire is permitted [on a Festival] for what Is necessary, it is also permitted for what is not necessary’. For according to Beth Hillel, since they maintain [that we do say] ‘Since carrying out is permitted for what is necessary, it is also permitted for what is not necessary’, so also they would maintain here [that we say], ‘Since the kindling of fire is permitted for what is necessary. it is also permitted for what is not necessary’.3
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: YOU MAY NOT TAKE TO THE PRIEST HALLAH4 OR PRIESTLY DUES5 ON A FESTIVAL WHETHER THEY WERE SEPARATED ON THE DAY BEFORE OR ON THE SAME DAY. BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT. SAID BETH SHAMMAI TO THEM: AN ANALOGY [SUPPORTS OUR VIEW]: HALLAH AND PRIESTLY DUES ARE A GIFT TO THE PRIEST AND TERUMAH6 IS [LIKEWISE] A GIFT TO THE PRIEST; JUST AS ONE MAY NOT TAKE [TO THE PRIEST] TERUMAH7 SO ONE MAY NOT TAKE [TO HIM] PRIESTLY DUES. BETH HILLEL, REPLIED TO THEM: NO! IF YOU SAY8 IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH WHICH HE HAS NOT THE RIGHT TO SEPARATE,9 WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] WITH RESPECT TO PRIESTLY DUES WHICH HE IS PERMITTED TO SEPARATE?10
GEMARA. Now it was assumed that [the Mishnah means where] they were [both] separated on that day and slaughtered on that day, and [where] they were [both] separated the day before and slaughtered the day before. Who is [the authority for] our Mishnah: It is neither R. Jose nor R. Judah but the ‘Others’!11 For it was taught: R. Judah said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ concerning the dues which were separated on the eve of the Festival, [both agreeing] that you may take them together with the dues which were separated and killed on the same day [viz., the Festival]!12 They differ only whether one may take them13 by themselves, when Beth Shammai say: You may not take [them], and Beth Hillel maintain: You may take [them]. And this is how Beth Shammai argued: Hallah and Priestly Dues are a gift to the priest and terumah is a gift to the priest; just as you may not take terumah, so may you not take Priestly Dues. Beth Hillel replied to them: No! If you say [thus] of terumah which he has not the right to set apart [on a Festival], would you say [the same] of Priestly Dues which he has the right to set apart! R. Jose said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ about the Priestly Dues, [both agreeing] that you may take [them];14 they dispute only with respect to terumah when Beth Shammai say: You may not take [it],15 and Beth Hillel maintain: You may take [it]. And this is how Beth Hillel argued: Hallah and Priestly Dues are a gift to the priest and terumah is a git to the priest; just as you may take the Priestly Dues [to the priest] so may you take terumah [to him]. Beth Shammai replied to them: No! If you say [thus] of Priestly Dues which he has the right to separate [on a Festival], would you say [the same] of terumah which he has not the right to separate! Others say: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ about terumah, [both agreeing] that you may not take [it]; they dispute only with respect to the Priestly Dues, when Beth Shammai say: You may not take [them] and Beth Hillel maintain: You may take [them]. Now shall it be said that it [the Mishnah] is [the ruling of] ‘Others’ and not [the ruling of] R. Judah?16 — Said Raba: Does it then say, ‘Which were separated that day and killed that day’? It [only] says, ‘WHICH WERE SEPARATED [etc.’] but in reality they were slaughtered the day before. [Accordingly] shall it be said that it [the Mishnah] is according to R. Judah and not according to the ‘Others’?17 — You can even say, [It agrees with] the ‘Others’, for [they speak of Priestly Dues separated on a Festival] from those [animals] slaughtered the day before. If so they are identical with R. Judah! — They differ in respect of being brought together with other Priestly Dues.18
Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The halachah is as R. Jose.19 R. Tobi the son of R. Nehemiah had a jug of wine of terumah. He came to R. Joseph asking him: May I carry it now [on the Festival] to the priest? He answered him: Thus did Rab Judah say in the name of Samuel: The halachah is as R. Jose.
The host20 of Rab, son of R. Hanan had bundles of mustard-stalks [and] he asked him: Is it permissible to crush it on the Festival and eat of it?21 He could not answer.22 He went to Raba who replied: You may rub ears of corn together23 and crumble pods24 on a Festival.25 Abaye raised an objection: He who rubs ears of corn on the eve of the Sabbath may winnow them on the following day [Sabbath] from hand to hand and eat, but [he may] not [winnow them] with a reed-basket nor with a dish. He who rubs ears of corn on the eve of a Festival may winnow them on the following day [the Festival] little by little26 and eat, even with a reed-basket and even with a dish, but not with a tray nor with a winnowing fan nor in a sieve.27 [Now] only ‘on the eve of the Festival’ [is rubbing of corn stated to be permitted] but not on the Festival [itself]!28 — You may even say [that it may be done] on the Festival [itself], but because he states in the first part [of the passage] ‘on the eve of the Sabbath’, he also states in the concluding part ‘on the eve of a Festival’. If so,29 we find that one has the right to separate [on a Festival]30 and we have learnt: NO! IF YOU SAY THAT WITH RESPECT TO TERUMAH WHICH HE HAS NO RIGHT TO SEPARATE etc.! — This is no difficulty:
(1) V. Ex. XII, 16 and cf. n. 4.
(2) As in the preparation of food.
(3) This proves that R. Johanan is also of the opinion that the dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel is whether we say, ‘Since carrying out is permitted etc.
(4) Dough-offering. V. Num. XV, 17-21. Although hallah may be taken from the dough in order to enable the dough to be eaten, it may not be carried to the priest.
(5) For the different parts of a slaughtered animal which fall to the share of the priest, v. Deut. XVIII, 3.
(6) Heave-offering. V. Num. XVIII, 11ff and Glos.
(7) To the priest on a Festival, since it could have been taken to the priest before the Festival when it was separated.
(8) That one nay not bring to the priest on a Festival.
(9) On a Festival; cf. infra 36b.
(10) Since slaughtering is permitted on a Festival. Surely not!
(11) ‘ Others’ usually refers to R. Meir; Hor. 13b.
(12) He regards the latter as axiomatic, and permits the former because no extra work is involved.
(13) The Priestly Dues separated before the Festival.
(14) The same holds good with respect to hallah.
(15) To the priest on a Festival.
(16) The Mishnah can certainly not agree with R. Jose; but can it agree with R. Judah?
(17) For according to the present explanation, even Beth Shammai permit taking to the priest the Priestly Dues of animals slaughtered on the Festival. Put the ‘Others’ represent Beth Shammai as prohibiting the bringing of Priestly Dues from both an animal slaughtered before or on the day of the Festival.
(18) Which were separated on the Festival itself. In R. Judah's opinion Beth Shammai permit them to be taken in conjunction with similar gifts separated on the day of the Festival.
(19) Who hold that Beth Hillel permits even terumah to be taken to the priest on a Festival.
(20) I.e., Innkeeper.
(21) Is crushing prohibited since it is possible to do this before the Festival?
(22) Lit., ‘it was not in his hand’.
(23) To separate the grain from the chaff; v. infra 13b.
(24) To get the seeds out.
(25) Since rubbing ears of corn is different from the usual manner of threshing and does not involve culpability on a Sabbath it is altogether permitted in the case of a Festival.
(26) Lit., ‘upon the hand’, v. fast. s.v. יד
(27) Such vessels are used for large quantities and it would appear as if he was preparing for the following day.
(28) Which contradicts Rab b. R. Hanan.
(29) That one may rub ears of corn on a Festival.
(30) Corn is liable for tithing only after it has been threshed, winnowed and piled up in a heap, after which nothing may be eaten until terumah is taken. But before it is subject to tithe a light meal is permitted. By allowing a man on a Festival to rub ears of corn and eat the grain it follows that he must also be permitted to take terumah which he would not have done before, as terumah is generally not separated in the ears of corn until they have been turned into grain.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 13a
One1 is [according to] Rabbi and the other2 is [according to] R. Jose son of R. Judah.3 For it was taught: If he brought in ears of corn4 to make dough therefrom, he may eat a slender repast5 thereof and it is exempt [from terumah]; [if however he brought in the ears of corn] in order to rub the in together,6 Rabbi declares them liable [to terumah]7 and R. Jose son of R. Judah exempts them.8 But [even] according to R. Jose son of R. Judah, it9 may also occur when, for example, one has brought in ears of corn to make dough therefrom10 and on the Festival changed his mind [deciding] to rub them,11 so that they become tebel12 on the day [of the Festival]!13 — Rather what does terumah [mentioned in the Mishnah] mean? Terumah [as separated] in most cases.14
Abaye said: The dispute15 is only with respect to ears of corn,16 but in the case of grain of pulse all agree that when in bundles they are tebel.17 Shall it be said that the following supports him? [For we have learnt]: He who had bundles of fenugreek of tebel, must beat out [the seeds] and estimate how much seed there is in them and separate [terumah] on the seed, but he does not separate [terumah] on the stalks.18 Is not the author of this R. Jose son of R. Judah who says there19 that it is not tebel, yet here20 it is tebel?21 — No, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi.22 If it is in accordance with Rabbi, [then] why state fenugreek; even ears of corn too [are liable to be tithed]? — What then: [it is according to] R. Jose son of R. Judah? Let [the text] inform us of other kinds of pulse23 and [I would infer] how much more [is it true of] fenugreek? But he [the Tanna] needs [to teach it about] fenugreek; for I might have thought that since the stalks have the same taste as the fruit, he should also give tithe on the stalks,24 so he informs us [that it is not so].
Others state: Abaye said: The dispute is only with respect to ears of corn,25 but as for grain of pulse all agree that when in bundles they are not tebel.26 An objection is raised: He who had bundles of fenugreek of tebel, he must beat out [the seeds] and estimate how much seed there is in them and separate [terumah] on the seed but not on the stalks. Does not tebel connote that it is tebel in respect of terumah?27 — No, [it means] tebel in respect of the terumah of the tithe,28 and it is in accordance with R. Abbahu's dictum in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish. For R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: The first tithe [levitical] which one anticipated while the corn was yet in the ears,29 its designation renders it tebel in respect of the terumah of the tithe.30 Why must he [the Levite] beat out [the seeds]? Let him say [to the priest]: Just as they have given them to me so will I give them to you!31 — Said Raba: This is a penalty.32 Likewise has it been taught: A Levite to whom his tithes were given while the corn was still in the ear, must33 make it [fit for] a barn;34 [if it is] grapes, he must make them into wine; if olives, he must turn them into oil; [only] then does he separate the terumah of [the] tithe and give same to the priest. For just as the great terumah is taken
(1) The Baraitha allowing the corn to be rubbed and eaten on the Festival.
(2) Our Mishnah.
(3) Both agree that rubbing ears of corn on a Festival is allowed. They only dispute whether terumah must then be separated. Rabbi maintains that it is required; consequently terumah may in such a case be separated on a Festival. R. Jose, however, holds that it is unnecessary; hence terumah may never be separated on a Festival. (Rashi). Tosaf: This, i.e., the Mishnah, is according to Rabbi, for since Rabbi holds that the bringing in of the ears for eating raw constitutes the final stage for tithing, terumah could and should have been separated before the Festival; and it is a general rule that whatever could be done before the Festival may not be done on the Festival. But the Baraitha is according to R. Jose b. R. Judah: for since he holds that the bringing in of the ears for eating raw does not constitute the final stage for tithing, there was no obligation to tithe them before the Festival; hence if he decides on the Festival to make a full meal of them, he must first separate terumah; since there was no obligation before, it is regarded as something which could not be done earlier, and therefore it is permitted on a Festival.
(4) Not yet ready for tithing.
(5) V. p. 62, n. 13.
(6) And to eat the grain raw little by little.
(7) According to Rabbi, the bringing in of corn into the house for the purpose of eating raw grain corresponds to the finishing touch of the corn brought into the barn and makes it liable for tithing even for a light meal.
(8) He draws a distinction between the two purposes. For the Biblical expression דגן (Num. XVIII, 27) signifies corn which has been threshed and levelled out in a heap, and as this corn was brought in the ears, it has not had the finishing touch making it ready for tithing.
(9) The taking of terumah on a Festival.
(10) After the usual threshing and winnowing.
(11) And eat them raw. On the interpretation of Tosaf. (v. supra p. 63 n. 3) the question should read, ‘But even according to Rabbi . . . therefrom’ (when no obligation rested upon him to title before the Festival), ‘and on the Festivals . . . to rub them’, when he may not eat of these except after tithing, so that we find terumah being authorized to be set apart on a Festival.
(12) Grain from which the priestly and Levitical dues have not been taken. V. Glos.
(13) The fact that he brought in the ears of corn to make dough therefrom after the normal threshing and winnowing made them liable for terumah, and by changing his mind to rub the ears together to eat them raw not only cannot remove the liability for tithing, but, on the contrary, takes the place of the finishing touch in the barn so that not even a light meal may be had without first taking terumah.
(14) Viz., when the corn is levelled out in heaps in a barn, as above. But the case which is now discussed is exceptional and therefore generally disregarded. The Mishnah can therefore agree both with Rabbi and R. Jose.
(15) Between Rabbi and R. Jose b. Judah.
(16) It is then that R. Jose exempts from tithing.
(17) V. Glos. Because pulse is frequently tied up in bundles to be threshed in small quantities as required, and consequently the bringing in of a bundle of pulse in the house corresponds to the finishing touch of grain in a barn. (Rashi).
(18) Ter. X, 6.
(19) In the case of ears of corn.
(20) In the case of pulse.
(21) The statement ‘bundles of fenugreek of tebel’ presupposes a liability for tithing, because the tying up into bundles is the finishing preparation for tithing.
(22) Who maintains that even ears of corn are also liable for tithing when brought into the house for use.
(23) Which are not tied up into bundles, like peas or beans.
(24) For the stalks together with its fruit are used for seasoning. The Baraitha can therefore on this argument be in accordance with Rabbi, so that it affords no support to Abaye.
(25) It is then that Rabbi says that they are liable to be tithed, because many take bundles of corn into the house to eat them raw or roasted without having been stored and prepared for tithing in a barn.
(26) Because pulse becomes liable for tithing only after it has been made into a stack.
(27) Consequently we see that although yet in bundles they are already liable for tithing.
(28) The proper order of tithing, after the corn has first been levelled out in the barn, is this: First terumah is separated for the priest (called the great terumah) and one-tenth of the remainder (called tithe) for the Levite, who in turn, separates one-tenth of his tithe for the priest which is designated terumah of the tithe. The great terumah, or simply terumah as it is generally referred to, varies from one-fortieth to one-sixtieth. It is also called the ‘great terumah’ because this portion is greater than that received from the Levite.
(29) I.e. , the Israelite separated it before separating the great terumah.
(30) Although had he not separated tithe it would not be regarded as tebel, and a light meal would be permissible. Similarly in the Baraitha, although pulse does not become liable to terumah before it has been made into a stack, once the Levite anticipated and received his share when in bundles, it becomes liable also to terumah of the tithe.
(31) If it referred to the terumah of an Israelite he would have to beat out the grain because the expression דגן (Num. XVIII, 27) signifies that the priest is to be given tithe only when the corn is threshed; V. Rashi.
(32) For taking the tithe before the great terumah was rendered, against the prescribed order.
(33) Before giving his terumah to the priest.
(34) When it would have received the last preparation for tithing.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 13b
only from the threshing-floor and from the wine-press,1 so also is the terumah of the tithe to be taken only from the threshing-floor and from the wine-press.
[It is stated above]: ‘He estimates!’ Surely it requires [exact] measuring!2 — The author of this is Abba Eleazar b. Gimal. For it was taught: Abba Eleazar b. Gimal says: ‘And your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you’.3 Scripture speaks of two heave-offerings,4 one [being] the great terumah and the other the terumah from the [Levite's] tithe; just as the great terumah may be separated by estimation5 and by mental determination6 so may the terumah from the [Levite's] tithe be separated by estimation and by mental determination.
The text [above stated]: R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: The first tithe which one anticipated while the corn was yet in the ears,its designation renders it tebel in respect of the terumah from the [Levite's] tithe. What is the reason? Said Raba: Because it already bears the name tithe.
R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The First Tithe which was anticipated while the corn was yet in the ears is exempt from the great terumah, for Scripture Says: Then ye shall offer up an heave-offering of it for the Lord, a tithe of the tithe;7 a tithe of the tithe have I commanded you, but not ‘the great terumah and a tithe of the tithe’. Said R. Papa to Abaye: If so, even if he anticipated it8 at the barn too? — He replied to him: It is for your sake that Scripture states: Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave-offering of the Lord.9 What [reason] do you see?10 — In the one case,11 it is already corn;12 in the other, it is not already corn.
We have learnt elsewhere:13 He who hulls barley,14 may hull it grain by grain and eat it;15 but if he hulls [it] and lays [the grains] in his hand, he is liable [to give tithe].16 Said R. Eleazar: And it is likewise with respect to the Sabbath.17 But this is not so! For Rab's wife hulled for him cupfuls, and likewise R. Hiyya's wife hulled cupfuls for him! Rather if this [statement of R. Eleazar] has been said, It was said with respect to the second clause: He who rubs ears of wheat may winnow them from one hand to the other and eat them [without tithing]; but if he winnows them and lays them on his lap he is liable. Said R. Eleazar: And it is likewise with respect to the Sabbath. R. Abba b. Mamel demurred to this: And [in] the first clause, [is he liable] in respect to tithe but not in respect to Sabbath? Is there then any action which with respect to the Sabbath does not rank as the final act,18 whereas with respect to tithe it is regarded as the final act?19 To this R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi demurred: Is there not? Surely there is [the case of what constitutes] their threshing-floor in respect of tithing;20 for we have learnt,21 When is their harvesting time for tithing?22 In the case of cucumbers and gourds after their coils of blossom have dropped,23 and if they have not dropped, then as soon as they have been made a heap. And we learnt likewise of onions:24 [They are liable for tithing] as soon as he [their owner] sets up a heap. Yet with respect to the Sabbath the setting up of a heap does not involve culpability? Therefore you must needs say that [with respect to the Sabbath] the Torah forbade work of craftsmanship;25 so also here26 [say] the Torah forbade work of craftsmanship.
How should one rub them?27 — Abaye in the name of R. Joseph says: One [finger] against one [finger].28 But R. ‘Awia in the name of R. Joseph says: One [finger] against two [fingers].29 Raba [however] says: So long as he does it in an unusual way it is permitted even between the thumb and all the fingers.
How should one winnow [them on a Sabbath]? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah in the name of Rab: He should winnow
(1) V. Num. XVIII, 27.
(2) If the text referred to the great terumah, the expression ‘estimate’ would be correct, since according to Scripture no definite percentage is required, for even a single grain can exempt the whole of the crop, while the giving of one-fortieth — one-sixtieth is only a Rabbinical enactment. But now that we explain that it means the terumah from the Levite's tithe, it definitely says (Num. XVIII, 27) that this must be one-tenth.
(3) Num. XVIII, 27.
(4) The Massoretic text has תרומתכם in the singular, but many MSS. including the Samaritan Version read תרומותיכם in the plural.
(5) It was not necessary to measure out the fiftieth part usually given for the terumah.
(6) One can mentally determine to take terumah from one side of the heap of corn and may then eat from the other side before the terumah had been actually set apart.
(7) Num. XVIII, 26.
(8) I.e., if he tithed it before separating the great terumah.
(9) Num. XVIII, 29, indicating that even the great terumah has to be given by the Levite to the priest if it was not already given by the Israelite.
(10) To make this distinction between the corn in the ear and the corn in the barn.
(11) When the corn is already in the barn.
(12) And the great terumah is due to the priest. Therefore he is entitled to recover the great terumah from the Levite.
(13) Ma'as. IV, 5.
(14) In order to eat it raw.
(15) For this is regarded as a scanty meal and he is exempt from tithing.
(16) For this is regarded as a full meal.
(17) If he hulls it into the hand it is regarded in the in the nature of threshing and he is guilty of desecrating the Sabbath.
(18) To make one guilty of a breach of the Sabbath. The finishing touch to a work on a Sabbath involves culpability.
(19) To make him liable for tithing.
(20) The word גרן ‘threshing-floor’ is used as a technical term meaning harvesting time or the final act making cereals or vegetables liable to tithe.
(21) Ma'as I, 5.
(22) So that it may be regarded as tebel and a light meal would not be permissible.
(23) I.e., after they have been trimmed up and made neat.
(24) Ma'as I, 6.
(25) מלאכת מחשבת Ex. XXXI, 4-5 speaks of the work of craftsmanship of the Tabernacle and is immediately followed by the laws respecting the Sabbath, indicating that the work forbidden on the Sabbath is similar to the craftsmanship there referred to. But the placing of the vegetables in a heap is not considered a work of craftsmanship. But v. R. Hananel a.l.
(26) In the case of the laying of the grains in his hand.
(27) On a Festival to distinguish from the rubbing on any other day, which was to rub with the finger of one hand on the palm of the other.
(28) I.e., between the thumb and the first finger.
(29) I.e., between the thumb and the two fingers.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 14a
from the joints of the fingers upwards.1 They Iaughed at it in the West:2 so long as he does it in an unusual manner [it is permitted to be done] even with the whole palm! But said R. Eleazar: He should winnow vigorously with one hand.3
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: SPICES MAY BE POUNDED WITH A WOODEN PESTLE4 AND SALT IN A SMALL CRUSE OR WITH A WOODEN LADLE;5 BUT BETH HILLEL MAINTAIN: SPICES MAY BE POUNDED AFTER THEIR USUAL FASHION WITH A STONE PESTLE AND SALT WITH A WOODEN PESTLE.6
GEMARA. All agree at any rate that [the pounding of] salt must be done in an unusual manner; what is the reason? — R. Huna and R. Hisda [differ]. One says: [Because] all dishes require salt,7 but not all dishes require spices; and the other says: [Because] all spices lose their flavour,8 but salt does not lose its flavour. Wherein do they differ? — The difference between them is when he knew [on the eve of the Festival] what dish he will cook [on the morrow],9 or in the case of saffron.10
Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Everything which is pounded may be pounded in the usual way, even salt.11 But Surely you have said that salt must be [pounded] in an unusual way! He rules as the following Tanna, for it was taught: R. Meir says: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ over [commodities] which are pounded, [agreeing] that they may be pounded in the usual way, and salt with them;12 they differ only with respect to pounding it [salt] alone, when Beth Shammai say: Salt [may be pounded] in a small cruse and with a wooden ladle only for roasting13 but not for boiling, and Beth Hillel maintain: [It may be pounded] with everything. ‘With everything’! — Can you think so?14 — Say rather, for everything.15
R. Aha Bardela said to his son: ‘When you pound [salt], incline [the mortar] sideways and pound. R. Shesheth heard16 the sound of a mortar and pestle; [then] said he: This is not [coming] from my house. Perhaps it was done sideways?17 — He heard a shrill noise.18 Perhaps it was spices?19 — Spices produce a dull sound.
Our Rabbis taught: One may not prepare pearl-barley20 nor pound anything in a mortar. [You state] two [contradictory rulings]?21 — This is what it means to say: ‘What is the reason that you may not prepare pearl-barley? Because you may not pound [anything] in a mortar. Then it should have [only] stated: ‘One may not pound [anything] in a mortar’! — If it stated [only], ‘One may not pound anything in a mortar’, I would say, that is only in a big mortar; but in the case of a small mortar [I would say], It is well; so it informs us [that this is not so]. But it was taught: One may not pound in a big mortar but one may pound in a small mortar! — Said Abaye: ‘When the teaching22 was taught, it too was taught of a large mortar.23
(1) But not in his palm.
(2) I.e., the scholars of Palestine. V. Sanh. 17b, Sonc. ed. p. 89.
(3) Not just throw it up a little.
(4) Although the pounding of spices is permitted on a Festival it should be done in a somewhat different way from ordinary days.
(5) The pounding of salt must be done in all entirely unusual way, both with regard to the vessel in which, and also with regard to the vessel with which, it is pounded.
(6) According to Beth Hillel it is sufficient if the vessel with which it is pounded is different.
(7) He should therefore have prepared the salt before the Festival.
(8) Therefore it must be prepared on the day it is required.
(9) According to the first reason, even the pounding of spices must be done in an unusual manner since it could have been prepared on the day it is required.
(10) According to not lose its flavour, so that according to the second reason it is the same as salt.
(11) Or, Even salt! But etc.
(12) I.e. , pounding them both on the same occasion, by preparing the salt in immediately after the spices Rashi as explained by Rashal).
(13) When a small quantity only is required.
(14) Even with a utensil which may not be handled at all on the Sabbath?
(15) I.e., for every purpose, whether for roasting or boiling — and that in the usual way Rab Judah thus has a Tanna in support for his ruling.
(16) On a Festival.
(17) In which case it is permissible.
(18) Whereas if the mortar were inclined there would be a heavy, dull noise.
(19) Which may be pounded in the usual way.
(20) On a Festival, because it requires toilsome pounding.
(21) The first ruling forbids toilsome pounding only, whereas the second for bids all pounding.
(22) Introduced by, Our Rabbis taught’.
(23) The two statements are not contradictory. The first statement forbidding the pounding of pearl-barley refers even to a small mortar, and the second statement refers to a big mortar. Only pearl-barley is forbidden to be pounded in a small mortar but other things may be.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 14b
Raba says: There is no difficulty: this [Baraitha1 refers] to us,2 and the other [Baraitha3 refers] to them.4
R. Papa visited Mar Samuel.5 They set before him pearl-barley broth and he did not eat of it. Perhaps they prepared it in a small mortar?6 — He noticed that it was very fine.7 Perhaps they prepared it the day before [the Festival]? — He saw that it [the pearl-barley] was still bearing the polish from the husking.8 Or you can say: It is different in the case of the house of Mar Samuel, on account of the laxity of the servants.9
MISHNAH. IF ONE SELECTS PULSE ON A FESTIVAL, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: HE MUST SELECT THE EDIBLE PARTS AND EAT [THEM FORTHWITH]; BUT BETH HILLEL SAY: HE MAY PICK OUT AS USUAL10 [FROM A SMALL QUANTITY] IN HIS LAP OR IN A BASKET OR IN A DISH; BUT NOT ON TO A BOARD OR IN A SIFTER OR IN A SIEVE.11 RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS: HE MAY EVEN RINSE THEM [IN WATER] AND SKIM OFF [THE REFUSE].
GEMARA. It was taught: Rabban Gamaliel said: This was [only] stated when the edible part is more than the refuse;12 but if the refuse is more than the edible part, all agree that he must pick out the edible part and leave the refuse. If the refuse is more than the edible part, is there anyone who permits it [to be picked]?13 — This refers to a case where the work [of picking out the refuse] is great though the quantity [of the refuse] is small.14
RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS: HE MAY EVEN RINSE THEM AND SKIM OFF [THE REFUSE]: It was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: This was the practice in the house of Rabban Gamaliel; they brought a bucket-full of lentils and poured water over them with the result that that which was edible remained below and the refuse [floated] on top. But has not the opposite been taught?15 — There is no contradiction: The one applies to sand, the other applies to chaff.16
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY SEND [GIFTS TO A NEIGHBOUR] ON A FESTIVAL ONLY PORTIONS [READY FOR EATING],17 BUT BETH HILLEL SAY: ONE MAY SEND CATTLE, GAME AND POULTRY WHETHER ALIVE OR SLAUGHTERED. ONE MAY [ALSO] SEND WINE, OIL, FLOUR OR PULSE BUT NOT GRAIN.18 BUT R. SIMEON PERMITS [ALSO] GRAIN.19
GEMARA. R. Jehiel taught: Provided that he does not send it [the present] by a company [of men].20 A Tanna taught: A company consists of not less than three persons. R. Ashi put the question: What [is the law] with respect to three persons with three varieties [of gifts]?21 This question is undecided.
R. SIMEON PERMITS [ALSO] GRAIN. It was taught: R. Simeon allows grain: e.g., wheat, to prepare thereof food for gladiators;22 barley, to give to his cattle; [and] lentils to prepare thereof groats.23
MISHNAH. ONE MAY SEND CLOTHES, WHETHER SEWN UP OR NOT YET SEWN UP EVEN THOUGH THERE IS KIL'AYIM24 IN THEM, PROVIDED THEY ARE NECESSARY25 FOR THE FES TIVAL; BUT [ONE MAY] NOT [SEND] HOB-NAILED SANDALS26 NOR UNSTITCHED SHOES. R. JUDAH SAYS: NOT EVEN WHITE SHOES BECAUSE THEY [STILL] REQUIRE AN ARTISAN [TO BLACKEN THEM]. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER MAY BE USED ON A FESTIVAL MAY [ALSO] BE SENT [ON A FESTIVAL].
GEMARA. As for sewn [articles] it is well: they are fit for garments; [likewise] unsewn [articles] too, [as] they are fit for a covering. But for what are kil'ayim fit? And if you say they can be used to fold under him,27 surely it was taught: Neither shall there come upon thee [a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together],28 but you may spread it beneath you. But the Sages said: It is forbidden to do so lest a thread might cling to his body! And if you say [that it is permissible] if there is anything interposing between them,29 surely R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, who said in the name of R Jose b. Saul, who said in the name of Rabbi in the name of the Holy Community at Jerusalem:30 Even if ten mattresses lie one on top of the other and [some material of] kil'ayim is beneath them, it is forbidden to sleep thereon! And if [you say] it refers to a curtain, surely ‘Ulla said: Why did [the Sages] say a curtain is unclean31 because the attendant warms himself beside it!32
(1) Permitting the pounding in a small mortar.
(2) Babylonians, who have no domestics.
(3) Forbidding pounding even in a small mortar.
(4) Palestinians, who have domestics who are inclined to laxity; these might pound in a large mortar and say they have used a small one; hence small ones too were forbidden.
(5) On a Festival.
(6) Which is permitted in Babylon.
(7) This cannot be attained in a small mortar.
(8) Its sheen was too fresh for it to have been prepared the day before.
(9) Mar Samuel, although in Babylon, had servants who might disregard the observance of the rules.
(10) I.e., pick out the refuse and the bad ones that are not edible.
(11) Because it might seen he was preparing for the next day.
(12) It is then that Beth Hillel permit to pick out the refuse.
(13) Since the lesser part is lost in the greater it is forbidden even to be handled on the Festival.
(14) By the expression ‘if the refuse is more’ is to be understood not that the refuse is greater in quantity but rather that the trouble of picking out the refuse was greater.
(15) That the edible parts float on top and the refuse sinks to the bottom.
(16) Sand sinks to the bottom and chaff floats on top.
(17) Which will be eaten at once and not kept.
(18) Which must be ground, and consequently may not be used.
(19) For they can be cooked as they are or may be ground in a small mortar.
(20) Lest it should appear as if the food were being sent to a public sale.
(21) Are they regarded as individuals or does the variety of gifts make no difference.
(22) The wheat was not ground but prepared whole for their special diet.
(23) Which may be done on a festival.
(24) V. Glos. So that one may not wear them. V. Lev. XIX, 19, Deut. XXII, 11; cf. Shab. 60b.
(25) [Var. lec. ‘Although they are not necessary’].
(26) V. infra.
(27) To be used cushion or mat.
(28) Lev. XIX, 19.
(29) Between the garment of kil'ayim and the body.
(30) V. R. H., Sonc. ed. p. 80, n. 9.
(31) I.e. it can become unclean.
(32) All ordinary partition does not receive defilement, being regarded as part of the house, but a curtain can become defiled, because it is also used as a wrap for warming; and since a curtain may be used as a wrap it may not be made of kil'ayim.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 15a
— Rather, [this refers] to hard material;1 just as R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: The coarse felt-mattresses [coming] from Naresh2 are permitted [to sit on].3 R. Papa said: Slippers4 are not [forbidden] on account of kil'ayim. Raba said: These money-bags do not come under [the law of] kil'ayim,5 but seed-bags do come under [the law of] kil'ayim.6 R. Ashi said: Neither money-purses nor seed-bags are subject to [the law of] kil'ayim, because it is not the usual practice to warm oneself with these.
BUT NOT HOB-NAILED SANDALS: What is the reason that hob-nailed sandals may not [be sent]? Because of the incident that occurred.7 Abaye said: Hob-nailed sandals may not be worn [during a Festival] but they may be handled. ‘They may not be worn on account of the incident that happened; ‘but they may be handled’, since it teaches ONE MAY NOT SEND; for if you maintain that it is forbidden to handle, now if it is forbidden to handle, need sending [be taught]?8
NOR UNSTITCHED SHOES. This is obvious! — It is necessary even when it is fastened with wooden pins.9
R. JUDAH SAYS: NOT EVEN WHITE SHOES. It was taught: R. Judah permits black [sandals] and forbids white because they [still] require a clod containing silicate of iron.10 R. Jose forbids black [sandals] because they [still] require to be smoothed. And they do not differ, the one Master [ruling] according to his district and the other Master according to his district. In the district of the one Master [the sandal was finished] with the flesh [side of the leather] inside, [and] in the district of the other Master [they finished the sandals] with the flesh [side] outwards.11
THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER MAY BE USED ON A FESTIVAL R. Shesheth permitted scholars to send tefillin12 on a Festival. Abaye said to him: But we have learnt: WHATEVER MAY BE USED ON A FESTIVAL MAY HE SENT:13 — This is what he means to say: ‘Whatever one uses on a weekday14 may be sent on a Festival.
Abaye said: Since we are now dealing with tefillin, we would say something thereon. If one was on his way [home],15 wearing tefillin on his head,16 and the sun was setting upon him, he should place his hand upon them17 until he reaches his house. If he was sitting in the Academy18 with tefillin on his head and the holiness of the day [the Sabbath] came in, [then] he must place his hand upon then, until he reaches his house.19 R. Huna the son of R. Ika raised an objection: If one was on his way [home] with tefillin on his head and the holiness of the day [the Sabbath] came in, [then] he must place his hand upon them until he reaches a house situated near the wall [of the city].20 If he was sitting in the Academy [with tefillin on his head] and the holiness of the day came in, he must place his hand upon them until he reaches the house nearest to the Academy.21 There is no contradiction. The one treats of a case when it [the house] is guarded,22 the other when it is not guarded. If it is not guarded, [then] why particularly ‘on his head’; even if they [the tefillin] were [found] lying on the ground he should also [be allowed to carry them to this house]: For we have learnt: He who finds tefillin [on a Sabbath] may bring them in in pairs!23 — This is no difficulty: The one24 treats of a case when it is guarded against thieves and against dogs, the other25 when it is guarded against dogs but it is not guarded against thieves.26 You might think that the majority of robbers [in that district] are Israelites27 who would not handle them disrespectfully; hence he informs us [that it is not so]. [
(1) Which does not warm and upon which it is permitted to sit.
(2) Identical with Nahras or Nalr-sar, on the canal of the same name, on the east bank of the Euphrates, Obermeyer p. 307. Cf. B.M., Sonc. ed. pp. 468 n. 3;539 n. 7.
(3) Although they are manufactured from kil'ayim.
(4) Home-shoes or a kind of socks.
(5) Because the purses become hard through the coins they contain and therefore do not warm.
(6) And therefore may not be placed on one's lap.
(7) The event is recorded in Shab. 60a. This particular sandal could be worn with the heel in front, giving the appearance that the one who had entered had gone out. When men hiding in a cave from the Romans saw what appeared as Signs of someone having left they became panic-stricken lest the Romans should by this means find them in their hiding-place, and in their attempt to escape more were killed through the panic than might have been killed by the Romans.
(8) Surely not!
(9) Or even in the case when only a few stitches were put in, Rashi.
(10) Used for blacking leather.
(11) It had therefore to be smoothed and polished.
(12) Phylacteries. v. Glos.
(13) But tefillin are not used on a Festival. V. ‘Er. 96a.
(14) I.e. a thing that is properly finished, which includes tefillin.
(15) On the eve of the Sabbath.
(16) In Talmudic times tefillin were worn all day and in the street not merely at the morning service as now.
(17) The Sages allowed him to carry the tefillin into the city after the manner of a garment and not to leave them unguarded, out of respect for the tefillin.
(18) Which was in the field, and therefore an unguarded place.
(19) The tefillin could not be left in the Academy for fear of being lost.
(20) And leave the tefillin there, but he may not carry them into the city.
(21) But he may not carry them to his own house.
(22) And therefore the tefillin must be left in the house nearest the city wall or the Academy.
(23) In the manner they are worn on weekdays, one on the arm and one on the forehead. V. Shab. 62a; ‘Er. 95a.
(24) The Baraitha that states they must be left in the house nearest the city wall.
(26) [MS.M. adds, ‘and one when it is guarded neither against dogs nor thieves’, the reference being to the Mishnah in ‘Er. 95a that he may bring them in in pairs].
(27) Cf. A.Z. 70b; Tosaf. B.B. 55b, s.v. רבי אליעזר. This refers to large Jewish settlements. The Rabbis were broad-minded enough to realize that in a town containing an overwhelming Jewish population the majority of thieves would be Jewish.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 15b
MISHNAH. [IF] A FESTIVAL FELL ON THE EVE OF SABBATH, ONE MAY NOT AT THE OUTSET COOK ON THE FESTIVAL FOR THE SABBATH, BUT HE MAY COOK FOR THE FESTIVAL, AND IF ANY IS LEFT OVER IT REMAINS FOR THE SABBATH; AND HE MAY PREPARE A DISH ON THE EVE OF THE FESTIVAL1 AND RELY UPON IT [TO PREPARE FOOD] FOR THE SABBATH.2 BETH SHAMMAI SAY: TWO DISHES [ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PURPOSE], WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY: ONE DISH. YET THEY [BOTH] AGREE THAT A FISH AND AN EGG UPON IT ARE [CONSIDERED AS] TWO DISHES. [IF] HE ATE IT3 OR IT WAS LOST, HE MAY NOT IN THE FIRST PLACE COOK [IN RELIANCE] ON IT, BUT IF HE LEFT OVER ANY [SMALL] PORTION OF IT, HE MAY RELY ON IT [TO COOK] FOR THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. Whence do we know this?4 — Said Samuel: Because the Scripture Says: Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,5 remember it in view of another6 Festival which comes to make it forgotten.7 What is the reason [for the institution of the ‘erub]?8 — Said Raba: In order that he may choose a fine portion for the Sabbath and a fine portion for the Festival.9 R. Ashi said: In order that people might say, ‘You may not bake on a Festival for the Sabbath, how much the more [is it forbidden] on a Festival for a weekday’.10
We have learnt: HE MAY PREPARE A DISH ON THE EVE OF THE FESTIVAL AND RELY UPON IT [TO PREPARE FOOD] FOR THE SABBATH. It is well according to R. Ashi who says, ‘In order that people might say you may not bake on a Festival for the Sabbath [etc.]’: hence it is only ON THE EVE OF THE FESTIVAL but not on the Festival. But according to Raba, why particularly on the eve of the Festival; even on the Festival [itself] too [let it be permitted]?11 — It is even so, but it is a preventive decree lest he be negligent.12 Now a Tanna deduces it from the following: Bake that which ye will bake, and seethe that which ye will seethe;13 from this R. Eliezer concluded [that] you may bake only [in dependence] upon what is [already] baked and you may cook only [in dependence] upon what is [already] cooked.14 Herein the Sages found a Biblical support for ‘erub tabshilin.15
Our Rabbis taught: It happened that R. Eliezer was once sitting and lecturing the whole day [of the Festival] on Festival laws. [When] the first group left [the lecture hall] he said: These are people of butts;16 [when] the second group [left] he said: These are people of casks; [when] the third group [left] he said: These are people of pitchers;17 [when] the fourth group [left] he said: These are people of flasks: [when] the fifth group [left] he said: These are people of beakers.18 [When] the sixth group began to go out he said: These are the people of the curse.19 He cast his eyes at his disciples20 and their faces began to change,21 [whereupon] he said to them: My sons, not of you said I this, but of those who have gone out, who put aside life eternal and occupy themselves with the life temporal [or ephemeral]. When they were taking their leave22 he said to them: Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto him for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye grieved; for the joy of the Lord is your [strength] stronghold.23 The Master said: ‘Who put aside life eternal and occupy themselves with the life temporal’. But the enjoyment of the Festival is a religious duty! — R. Eliezer is consistent with his [own] view, for he said: Rejoicing on the Festival is optional. For it was taught: R. Eliezer says: On a Festival a man has nought [to do] save either eat and drink or sit and learn. R. Joshua says: Divide it, half of it for the Lord, [and] half of it for yourselves. R. Johanan said: Both drew their inference from the same Scripture verse[s]. One verse states: A solemn assembly to the Lord thy God,24 and another verse reads: Ye shall have a solemn assembly.25 How is this [to be reconciled]? R. Eliezer is of the opinion: Either the whole of it is for the Lord or the whole of it is for yourselves; while R. Joshua is of the opinion: Divide it; half of it is for the Lord and half of it is for yourselves. What means ‘for whom nothing is prepared’? — R. Hisda said: For him who did not set [i.e., prepare] an ‘erub tabshilin. Others say: He who had not the opportunity to set an ‘erub tabshilin; but he who had the opportunity to set an ‘erub tabshilin and did not set is a transgressor. What means ‘for the joy of the Lord is your strength’? — R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: The Holy One, blessed be He, said unto Israel: My children, borrow on My account and celebrate the holiness of the day, and trust in Me and I will pay. R. Johanan [further] said in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: He who desires his property to be preserved for him, should plant therein an adar,26 for it says: The Lord on high is mighty;27 alternatively, adara,28 [implies] what its name [indicates]; for people say: Why [is it called] adara? Because it lasts from generation to generation.29 It was similarly taught: A field in which there is an adar can neither be robbed nor forcibly purchased and its fruits are protected.30
R. Tahlifa, the brother of Rabinai of [Be] Hozae31 learnt:
(1) V. supra p. 23, n. 1.
(2) The dish prepared on the eve of the Festival is regarded as the basis upon which the right to cook on the Festival for the Sabbath depends.
(3) The dish intended for the ‘erub.
(4) That he may cook for the Sabbath in virtue of a special dish (‘erub).
(5) Ex. XX, 8.
(6) Lit., ‘from another’.
(7) The interest in the Festival preceding the Sabbath might cause one to forget about the Sabbath. The ‘erub counteracts this possibility. [Aliter: ‘Remember it since one might forget it’ (v. Rashi) — a rendering supported by MS.M. which reads לאחר for מאחר cf. cur. edd.]
(8) Actually it is not based upon any Biblical verse, but is only a Rabbinical enactment, the verse being a mere support.
(9) He will not consume all the good things on the Festival, but will leave some for the Sabbath.
(10) The ‘erub is instituted not in honour of Sabbath but in honour of the Festival.
(11) For on the Festival itself he can still choose a fine portion for the Sabbath.
(12) And omit to prepare it altogether.
(13) Ex. XVI, 23.
(14) On the Friday which is a Festival, you may bake and cook only in virtue of the baking and cooking of the previous day.
(15) This phrase indicates that the present deduction too is merely in support, not the actual source of the law, which is Rabbinical only.
(16) I.e., very rich, counting their wine by butts. They have left thus early because of the large quantities of food and drink waiting for them. These are gluttons.
(17) I.e., less rich than the second but wealthier than the next group.
(18) Less keen on their pleasures.
(19) The emptiness of the Lecture Hall roused his ire.
(20) Who had remained behind.
(21) I.e., to turn pale, because they thought he was angry with them for not leaving earlier — apparently they thought that he considered himself bound to go on as long as he had hearers.
(22) At the close of the lecture.
(23) Neh. VIII, 10.
(24) Deut. XVI, 8.
(25) Num. XXIX, 35. The first verse implies that it may be devoted to God's service, whereas the second intimates that it is meant for man.
(26) A kind of cedar, high and majestic. Such a tree is known, and in case of his having to go abroad, he will be remembered as possessor, for his name will be coupled with the adar tree.
(27) Ps. XCIII, 4. The word אדיר is linked with the אדר tree. The planting of the adar tree will strengthen his claim to the property.
(28) The Aramaic form of adar.
(29) Dora dora; a play on words
(30) The pollen of this tree is a vermicide, Rashi.
(31) The modern Khuzistan province S.W. Persia, Obermeyer, op. cit. pp, 204ff. cf. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 508, n. 2.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 16a
The entire sustenance of man [for the year] is fixed for him from New Year's [Festival] to the Day of Atonement,1 except the expenditure for Sabbaths and the expenditure for Festivals and the expenditure for the instruction of his children in the Law; if he [spent] less [for any of these] he is given less and if he [spent] more he is given more. Said R. Abbahu:2 What verse of Scripture [supports this]? ‘Blow the horn at the new moon at the full moon for our feast-day’.3 Which is the Festival on which the moon is concealed? Say, it is New Year;4 and it is written [with respect to this Festival]: ‘For it is a statute [hok] for Israel, an ordinance of the God of Jacob’.5 How is it implied that [the word] hok connotes sustenance? For it is written: ‘And did eat their portion [hukkam] which Pharaoh gave them’.6 Mar Zutra says, [It is inferred] from here: ‘Feed me with mine allotted [hukki]7 bread’. It was taught: They related concerning Shammai, the Elder [that] all his life he ate in honour of the Sabbath. [Thus] if he found a well-favoured animal he said, Let this be for the Sabbath. [If afterwards] he found one better favoured he put aside the second [for the Sabbath] and ate the first.8 But Hillel the Elder had a different trait, for all his works were for the sake of heaven,9 for it is said: Blessed be the Lord, day by day.10 It was likewise taught: Beth Shammai say: From the first day of the week [prepare] for the Sabbath;11 but Beth Hillel say: Blessed be the Lord, day by day.10
R. Hama b. Hanina said: He who makes a gift to his neighbour need not inform him, for it says, ‘And Moses knew not that the skin of his face sent forth beams’.12 An objection was raised: ‘That ye may know I am the Lord who sanctify you’,13 The Holy One, blessed be He, said unto Moses: Moses, I have a precious gift in my treasury and its name is Sabbath and I wish to give it to Israel; go and tell them. Hence R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He who gives a child [a piece of] bread must inform its mother! — There is no difficulty. The one treats of a gift which will naturally become known, and the other treats of a gift which does not naturally become known. But the Sabbath too is a gift which would have naturally become known! — Its reward14 would not naturally be known.15 The Master said: ‘Hence R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He who gives a child [a piece of] bread must inform its mother’. What should he do to it [the child]?16 — He smears it with oil or puts rouge on it. But now that we are afraid of witchcraft, what [is to be done]?17 — R. Papa said: He must smear it [the child] with some of that very substance [he put on the bread].18 R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Every commandment which the Holy One, blessed be He, gave unto Israel, He gave to them publicly, except the Sabbath which He bestowed upon them in secret, for it is said: ‘It is a sign between Me and the children, of Israel for ever’.19 If so, idolators should not be punished on its account!20 — The Sabbath He indeed made known to them [the idolator] but its reward He did not make known to them. Or you can say: Its reward too He made known to them [but] the enlarged soul,21 He did not make known to them; for R. Simeon b. Lakish said: On the eve of the Sabbath the Holy One, blessed be He, gives to man an enlarged soul and at the close of the Sabbath He withdraws it from him, for it says: He ceased from work and rested:22 once it [the Sabbath] has ceased23 woe that the [additional] soul is lost!24
A MAN MAY PREPARE A DISH ON THE EYE OF THE FESTIVAL. Abaye said: They taught this only of a dish25 but not of bread.26 Why is bread different that it is not [fit for an ‘erub]? If I were to say something used as a relish is required then what of pearl-barley which is also not a relish — for R. Zera said: These Babylonians are fools for they eat bread with bread27 — and [yet] R. Nahumi b. Zecharaiah said in the name of Abaye: One may set an ‘erub of pearl-barley broth! — Rather, we require [for an ‘erub dish] something which is not common, and bread is common, whereas pearl-barley broth is not common.28 Others teach: Abaye said: They taught this only of a dish but not of bread. What is the reason? If I were to say something which is not common is required whereas bread is common, then what of pearl-barley broth, which is also not common and [yet] R. Nahumi b. Zecharaiah said in the name of Abaye: One may not set an ‘erub with pearl-barley broth! — Rather, something used as a relish is required and bread is not used as a relish and pearl-barley broth too is not used as a relish for R. Zera said: These Babylonians are fools for they eat bread with bread.
R. Hiyya taught: The lentils at the bottom of the pot29 can be relied upon as an ‘erub tabshilin, providing that they amount to as much as an olive. R. Isaac son of Rab Judah said: One may scrape off the fat which is upon the knife and rely upon it as an ‘erub tabshilin, providing that it amounts to as much as an olive.
R. Assi said in the name of Rab: Small salted fish are not subject to [the interdict against] the cooking of a heathen.30 R. Joseph said: And if a heathen grilled them one may rely upon them as [or for] an ‘erub tabshilin,31 but if a heathen made them into a pie of fish-hash it is prohibited.32 This is obvious! You might think
(1) Between the first and the tenth of Tishri. These days are known as the ten days of Penitence.
(2) In Sanh. 11b, R. Abba.
(3) Ps. LXXXI, 4; he connects כסה (E. V. full moon) with the same root meaning to cater, and translates: ‘at the concealed (moon)’.
(4) The remaining Festivals fall during the middle of the month near full moon.
(5) Ps. LXXXI, 5. The word חק (E.V. statute) is taken to mean sustenance which is allotted to Israel on New Year.
(6) Gen. XLVII, 22.
(7) Prov. XXX, 8.
(8) So that he was always eating in honour of the Sabbath.
(9) He trusted in God that he would obtain something worthy for the Sabbath.
(10) Ps. LXVIII, 20.
(11) In Aramaic the saying rhymes and is a cue to prompt people to think of the coming Sabbath.
(12) Ex. XXXIV, 29.
(13) Ex. XXXI, 13.
(14) Lit., ‘the gift of its reward’.
(15) God informed Israel, through Moses, the reward for keeping the Sabbath.
(16) In order to let the mother know.
(17) Sorcerers or witches used these in the practice of their occult arts.
(18) Whether butter, jam or fat (dripping). These do not suggest witchcraft.
(19) Ex. XXXI, 17. The word לעלם is written defectively as if derived from עלם to hide, conceal.
(20) V. A.Z. 2b, where it is implied that the idolator will be punished for rejecting the Torah when it was offered to him. But in respect of the Sabbath, at least, there should he no punishment, seeing that it was offered even to Israel in secret only.
(21) Lit., ‘additional soul’, by this term the Talmud indicates the spiritual ennoblement conferred by the Sabbath.
(22) Ex. XXXI, 17.
(23) The verb שבת ‘he ceased from work’ is translated: He ceased keeping the Sabbath (because of its expiration). Malter, Ta'anit, 27a.
(24) This is a play on the word וינפש which is taken to stand for וי אבדה נפש (Goldschmidt suggests the reading וי אבדה נפש ‘the soul is no longer (here)’, which is nearer the Hebrew word וינפש.)
(25) A cooked meal.
(26) Bread cannot be an ‘erub.
(27) Concerning the Babylonians who eat pearl-barley broth with bread, v. Ned. 49b.
(28) Bread is eaten at every meal, whereas pearl-barley is not.
(29) Left over unintentionally on the eve of the festival.
(30) The Rabbis forbade food cooked by heathens, to prevent over-familiarity leading to intermarriage. But things which can be eaten raw do not come under this prohibition even if they are cooked, been use the cooking of such things could hardly be considered a favour. These salted small fish can be eaten raw.
(31) Since they can be eaten raw.
(32) Because the dough could not be eaten unbaked (i.e. uncooked).
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 16b
[that] the fish-hash is the principal element;1 hence he informs us that the flour is the principal element.
R. Abba said: An ‘erub tabshilin2 must be the size of all olive.3 The Scholars asked: [Does that mean] one olive for all [the participants together] or an olive for each one separately? — Come and hear: For R. Abba said in the name of Rab: An ‘erub tabshilin requires to be the size of an olive whether for one or for one hundred.
We have learnt: [IF] HE ATE IT OR IT WAS LOST, HE MAY NOT IN THE FIRST PLACE COOK [IN RELIANCE] ON IT, BUT IF HE LEFT OVER ANY [SMALL] PORTION OF IT, HE MAY RELY ON IT [TO COOK] FOR THE SABBATH. What does ‘ANY’ [SMALL] PORTION mean? Does it not mean although it is not as much as an olive?4 — No, when it is as much as an olive.
Come and hear: This dish5 [can be] grilled or pickled or stewed6 or boiled; and the Spanish colias7 [can be used] when he had poured hot water over it8 on the eve of the Festival; [for] its commencement and its end9 there is no standard [in quantity]. Does it not [surely] mean there is no standard [fixed] at all? No, there is no upper [i.e., maximum] standard,10 but there is a downwards [i.e., minimum] standard.11
R. Huna said in the name of Rab: The ‘erub tabshilin requires cognizance.12 It is certain that the cognizance of him who deposits [the dish] is required but do we require the cognizance of him for whom it is deposited, or do we not require [it]? — Come and hear: For the father of Samuel used to set the ‘erub for the whole of Nehardea; R. Ammi and R. Assi used to set the ‘erub for the whole of Tiberias.13 R. Jacob b. Idi proclaimed: He who has not set an ‘erub tabshilin, let him come and rely upon mine. And how far?14 — R. Nahumi b. Zecharaiah said in the name of Abaye: As far as the Sabbath limit.15
There was a certain blind man who used to recite Baraithas in the presence of Mar Samuel. When he noticed that he was gloomy he asked him: Why are you gloomy? Because I have not set an ‘erub tabshilin,16 replied he. Then rely upon mine, he rejoined. The following year he [again] noticed that he was gloomy. Said he to him: Why are you gloomy? He answered him: Because I have not set all ‘erub tabshilin. [Then] said he to him: You are a transgressor: to everybody else it is permitted,17 but to you it is forbidden.18
Our Rabbis taught: If a Festival falls on the eve of Sabbath one may neither set [on the Festival] a boundary ‘erub19 nor an ‘erub of courts.20 Rabbi Says: One may set a court ‘erub but not a boundary ‘erub, for you can forbid him21 what is forbidden to him [on a Festival]22 but you cannot forbid him what is allowed to him [on a Festival].23 It was stated: Rab says: The halachah is as the first Tanna, and Samuel says: The halachah is as Rabbi.
The Scholars asked: Is the halachah as Rabbi [meant] leniently or stringently?- Of course he [Samuel] meant it leniently!24 — [The question was raised] because R. Eleazar sent word to the Diaspora [to wit]; Not as you teach in Babylon that Rabbi permits and the Sages forbid, but [rather] Rabbi forbids and the Sages permit. How is it now?25 — Come and hear: For R. Tahlifa b. Abdimi decided a case according to Samuel, and Rab remarked [thereon:] The first decision of this young scholar is harmful.26 [Now] if you say that he [Samuel] meant [his teaching] to be lenient it is well, hence this is harmful. But if you say [he meant] stringently, what harmful [teaching] is there! — Since many come to error27
(1) And therefore the dough is disregarded altogether.
(2) The Hebrew employs the plural.
(3) But not less.
(4) Which contradicts Rab.
(5) Of the ‘erub.
(6) Shaluk, translated ‘stewed’, means very much boiled.
(7) A very small fish of the tunny type. V. Krauss TA II, pp. 91 and 506.
(8) The pouring of hot water on the tunny fish is its preparation for eating.
(9) I.e., both when it is first made for an ‘erub and when part has been eaten or lost.
(10) I.e., as regards its greatness.
(11) Below which it cannot constitute an ‘erub.
(12) That it has been set for the purpose of ‘erub.
(13) It is evident from this that the cognizance of all the Jewish residents of Nehardea and Tiberias was not required.
(14) I.e. within what area.
(15) Tehum, v. Glos.
(16) The Festival referred to here was New Year when in ‘erub cannot be set conditionally.
(17) To rely upon my ‘erub.
(18) I only had intended those who had unwittingly forgotten to rely on my ‘erub, but not where the forgetfulness is through sheer negligence.
(19) Enabling him to go on the Sabbath from one township to another.
(20) Enabling him to carry on the Sabbath from one court to another, because he would thereby join the courts in a legal sense, making them ali as one. This ranks as the repairing of an object and constitutes work.
(21) To effect on a Festival that a certain action should be permitted on the Sabbath.
(22) The prohibition of going from one township to another applies both to Sabbaths and Festivals.
(23) Carrying out from one private court to another is permitted on a Festival, without an ‘erub.
(24) For Rabbi allows a court ‘erub to be set on a Festival.
(25) Did Samuel mean that the halachah is as Rabbi taught in Babylon or as taught in Palestine.
(26) I.e. leading to a breach of the law.
(27) By forgetfully carrying on the Sabbath following the Festival from one court to another though no ‘erub could be set on the Festival.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 17a
this is harm.1 Raba said in R. Hisda's name who said in the name of R. Huna: The halachah is as Rabbi, viz., that it is forbidden.2
Our Rabbis taught: If a Festival fell on a Sabbath, Beth Shammai Say: He must pray eight [benedictions]3 and recite [the benediction] of the Sabbath separately and of the Festival separately; but Beth Hillel say: He must pray seven [benedictions]4 beginning with the Sabbath [formula] and ending with the Sabbath [formula],5 and he makes mention of the holiness of the day in the middle.6 Rabbi says: He should also conclude it [the benediction] ‘Who sanctifieth the Sabbath, Israel and the Seasons.’ A tanna recited in the presence of Rabina: ‘Who sanctifieth Israel and the Sabbath7 and the Seasons.’ He said to him: Does then Israel sanctify the Sabbath?8 The Sabbath has already been sanctified [from the creation] and so continues! Say rather: ‘Who sanctifieth the Sabbath, Israel and the Seasons.’ R. Joseph said: The halachah is as Rabbi and as Rabina explained it.
Our Rabbis taught: If a Sabbath falls on a New Moon or on the intermediate days of a Festival,9 at the evening, morning and afternoon services he prays seven [benedictions]10 and makes mention of the nature of the day11 in the ‘Abodah,12 and if he did not recite [it], he is made to turn back;13 R. Eliezer says: [He alludes to the day] in the Thanksgiving [benediction],14 while in the Additional Services15 he begins with the Sabbath [formula] and closes with the Sabbath [formula], and makes mention of the holiness of the day in the middle.16 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka say: Whenever one is obliged to say seven benedictions17 he begins with the Sabbath [formula] and closes with the Sabbath [formula] and mentions the holiness of the day in the middle. Said R. Huna: The halachah is not as that pair [of scholars].18
R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Rab's name said: A man may prepare a boundary ‘erub on the first day of a Festival19 for the second and stipulate.20 Raba said: A man may prepare an ‘erub tabshilin on the first day of a Festival for the second and stipulate.21 He who states a boundary ‘erub, all the more an ‘erub tabshilin’ while he who states an ‘erub tabshilin, but not a boundary ‘erub. What is the reason? Because one may not acquire a [Sabbath] residence on a ‘Sabbath’.22
Our Rabbis taught: One may not bake on the first day of a Festival for the second. In truth they said:23 A woman may fill the whole pot with meat although she only needs one portion; a baker may fill a barrel with water although he only needs one handful,24 but as for baking he may bake only what he needs. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: A housewife may fill the entire oven with loaves, because bread is baked better in a full oven. Said Raba: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
The scholars asked: He who did not set an ‘erub tabshilin is he forbidden [to bake for the Sabbath] and [likewise] his flour is forbidden,25 or perhaps only he is forbidden, but his flour is not forbidden? What is the practical difference? — Whether he must give up his flour to others.26 If you say that [both] he is forbidden and [likewise] his flour is forbidden, then he must give his flour to others,27 but if you say, he is forbidden but his flour is not forbidden, [then] he need not give up his flour to others. What [is the law]? — Come and hear: He who has not set an ‘erub tabshilin may neither bake nor cook nor store [food] away28 neither for himself nor for others; nor may others bake or cook for him. What should he do? He gives up his flour to others [and these] bake and cook for him — Conclude therefrom that he is forbidden and [likewise] his flour is forbidden. It is thus concluded.
The scholars asked: What if he transgressed and baked?29 Come and hear: He who has not set an ‘erub tabshilin what is he to do? He gives up his flour to others and [these] others bake and cook for him.
(1) Had he permitted the ‘erub to be set on the Festival they could have carried without transgressing the law.
(2) To set on a Festival either a boundary ‘erub or a court ‘erub.
(3) The first three and the last three are the same as that of the ordinary ‘Amidah (v. Glos).
(4) One middle benediction sufficing for both the Sabbath and the Festival, but must commence and end with the Sabbath formula.
(5) And no more, not as we end with the additional words ‘Israel and the Seasons’ cf. P.B. p. 229.
(6) The middle benediction is from אתה בחרתונ to מקדש ישראל and the allusion to the specific prayer is found in ותתן לנו v. P.B. p. 228.
(7) Mentioning Israel before Sabbath.
(8) Festivals are consecrated by Israel in accordance with the fixing of the New Moon, but the sanctity of the Sabbath is independent and absolute.
(9) Lit., ‘the nonsacred portion of the Festival’. In the case of Passover and Tabernacles the first and last days only are holy, the intermediate days enjoying a semi-sanctity.
(10) As on an ordinary Sabbath.
(11) Whether it be New Moon "ran intermediary day of a Festival.
(12) ‘Abodah (lit., ‘service’) is the designation of the benediction commencing with רצה, so called because it is a prayer for the restoration of the sacrificial service. A passage commencing with יעלה ויבא in which specific mention of New Moon or of the Intermediate Days is made, is inserted in the middle of this benediction. Cf. P.B. p. 50.
(13) I.e., start again at רצה
(14) Viz., in the benediction commencing with מודים (‘we give thanks’). P.B. p. 51.
(15) On Sabbaths, Festivals, and New Moons an additional services read after the morning service, corresponding to the additional sacrifices when were offered in the Temple on those days. V. J.E. IX, p. 116.
(16) In the passage ותתן לנו cf. P.B. p. 233.
(17) Even in the first-named prayers.
(18) But as the first Tanna in so far as the nature of day at the evening, morning and afternoon services is to he mentioned in the ‘Abodah. His ruling, however, that the close at the Additional Service is only with the Sabbath formula, is not adopted as halachah, for in that respect the halachah is as Rabbi that the conclusion is, ‘Who sanctifieth the Sabbath, Israel and the seasons (or the New Moon)’ — Rashi.]
(19) If he forgot to set the ‘erub on the eve of the Festival which fell on Thursday and Friday.
(20) For the Sabbath immediately following the second day. For the condition v. supra p. 23, n. 2.
(21) V. supra 6a.
(22) The term שבתא here means Festival. An ‘erub tabshilin, however, was allowed in honour of the Sabbath.
(23) For this expression v. B.M. 60a.
(24) With the same labour he can fill the entire vessel as well as partly fill it, but with respect to bread every loaf requires extra labour.
(25) To be baked on the Sabbath, even by others.
(26) Before they may bake it.
(27) By giving it to them as a present.
(28) In such a manner that it retains its heat.
(29) May he eat it on the Sabbath or not?
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 17b
Now if there is [this possibility],1 let him state: If he transgressed and baked it is permissible! — Said R. Adda b. Matena: [The Tanna] teaches a legal remedy; an illegal remedy he does not teach.
Come and hear: He who has set an ‘erub tabshilin may bake and cook and store, and if he wishes to eat his ‘erub he is at liberty to do so. If he ate it [the ‘erub] before he had baked [or] before he had stored, then he may not bake nor cook nor store away neither for himself nor for others, nor may others bake or cook for him; but he may cook for the Festival and if he leaves [any thing] he has left it for the Sabbath, provided that he does not [intentionally] resort to an artifice;2 and if he has resorted to all artifice it is forbidden!3 — Said R. Ashi: You speak of all artifice? An artifice is different, for the Rabbis have treated it more rigorously than an intentional transgression.4
R. Nahman b. Isaac says: This5 represents the opinion of Hananiah and according to Beth Shammai. For it was taught:6 Hananiah says that Beth Shammai maintain: One may bake only if he set an ‘erub of bread, and one may cook only if he set an ‘erub of cooked food, and one may store only if he had already warm water stored on the eve of the Festival; but Beth Hillel affirm: One may set an ‘erub with one dish and prepare all his requirement [in reliance] thereon.7
Come and hear: He who tithed his fruits on the Sabbath,8 if [he acted] in error he may eat [of them], if deliberately, he may not eat [of them].9 This treats of a case where he has other fruits.10
Come and hear: If one purified his [unclean] vessels on the Sabbath,11 if in error he may use them, if deliberately he may not use them!12 — This treats of a case where he has other vessels, or [the reason may he because] it is possible to borrow [vessels from others].
Come and hear: He who has cooked on the Sabbath, if in error he may eat [of it], if deliberately, he may not eat [of it]!13 — The prohibition with respect to Sabbath is different.14
BETH SHAMMAI SAY TWO DISHES. Our Mishnah is not in accordance with the following Tanna; for it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that two dishes are necessary;15 they differ only about a fish and the egg thereon,16 when Beth Shammai say: Two [separate] dishes [are necessary] and Beth Hillel maintain: [This] one dish [is sufficient]. But they agree that if one crumbles a [hardboiled] egg and puts it inside the fish or if he shreds a head of leek17 and puts it inside the fish, they [count as] two dishes. Rab said: The halachah is according to our Tanna18 [in his representation] of the view of Beth Hillel.19
IF HE ATE IT OR IF IT WERE LOST, HE MAY NOT . . . Abaye said: We have a tradition; if his ‘erub was eaten up after he had begun to prepare the dough he may finish it.20
MISHNAH. IF IT [THE FESTIVAL] FELL ON THE DAY AFTER THE SABBATH, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MUST IMMERSE EVERYTHING [UNCLEAN] BEFORE THE SABBATH;21 BUT BETH HILLEL MAINTAIN; VESSELS [MUST BE IMMERSED] BEFORE THE SABBATH BUT MEN ON THE SABBATH. THEY AGREE [HOW EVER] THAT ONE MAY EFFECT SURFACE CONTACT FOR [UNCLEAN] WATER IN A STONE VESSEL,22 BUT ONE MAY NOT IMMERSE [IT];23 AND ONE MAY IMMERSE24 [TO CHANGE] FROM ONE INTENTION TO ANOTHER25 OR FROM ONE COMPANY TO ANOTHER.26
GEMARA. All incidentally agree that a vessel may not [be immersed] on a Sabbath: What is the reason? — Said Rabba: It is a preventative measure
(1) Of being able to eat, viz., by transgressing.
(2) Evasion of the law by purposely cooking much more than he requires.
(3) And presumably the same is true if he transgressed and cooked!
(4) Deliberate transgression is recognized as such and will not entice others whereas all evasion may be regarded as wholly permitted and set an evil example for others too.
(5) The teaching if he has resorted to an artifice it is forbidden. R. Nahman does not admit the possibility that an artifice may be treated more stringently than deliberate transgression, for the latter is certainly a graver fault intrinsically.
(6) Supra 22b.
(7) Consequently we see that Hananiah is very stringent with reference to an ‘erub tabshilin, and therefore the same applies to an artifice, but our problem is based on Beth Hillel's more lenient ruling.
(8) This is forbidden by the Rabbis. V. infra 36b.
(9) Ter. II, 3. Hence we may infer that if he deliberately baked without an ‘erub, he may not eat of it.
(10) To eat on the Sabbath, so that there is no hindering of the enjoyment of the Sabbath. The problem here is when he has no other provision.
(11) In order to cleanse them, which is forbidden by the Rabbis since it is equivalent to repairing a utensil. V. infra 18a.
(13) V. infra 18a.
(14) Cooking on the Sabbath is Biblically forbidden, the penalty for which may be stoning. Therefore the Rabbis have been rigorous in the treatment of such intentional breach. But with respect to cooking on a Festival without an ‘erub, where the prohibition is mere Rabbinical, it is possible that the Rabbis are more lenient and would allow him to eat on the Sabbath.
(15) As an ‘erub.
(16) I.e., the egg in which the fish is smeared before cooking.
(17) קפלוטות GR. ** == a head of leek. V. Krauss T.A. II, pp. 560-561.
(19) In Mishnah. (7) Viz., that an ‘erub may consist of one dish only.
(20) Even to baking it.
(21) But not on the Sabbath, because it is equivalent to repairing or reconditioning the vessel, and the same applies to man.
(22) Which cannot be defiled. The stone vessel containing the unclean water is placed in a mikweh (ritual bath) and immersed until the two waters make contact. Other liquids and foods once unclean cannot be made ritually clean. V. Mik. VI, 8.
(23) Viz., the unclean water in a defiled vessel in order to cleanse the vessel at the same time.
(24) On a Festival.
(25) I.e., if the vessels were immersed before the Festival to be put to a particular use and on the Festival he decided to use them for another purpose which requires higher sanctity, he may immerse the in on the Festival, for the second immersion is not regarded as reconditioning the vessels. V. Hag. II, 6, 7.
(26) If he performed an immersion before Passover with the intention of eating the Paschal Lamb with one company, and then determined to join another company which required a higher degree of sanctity, he may immerse again on the Festival itself.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 18a
lest he take it in his hand and carry it four cubits in a public ground.1 Abaye said to him: How is it to be explained when there is a pit2 in his courtyard?3 He answered him: A pit in his courtyard is preventively forbidden on account of a pit in public ground. This is well with respect to Sabbath, but with respect to Festivals4 how is it to be explained? — They forbade [it on] Festivals on account of [the] Sabbath. Do we then preventively forbid?5 Surely we have learnt: THEY AGREE THAT [ON A FESTIVAL] ONE MAY EFFECT SURFACE CONTACT FOR [UNCLEAN] WATER IN A STONE VESSEL BUT ONE MAY NOT IMMERSE [IT]; and if this is so, let us forbid surface contact on account of immersion! — Now is that logical? If he has [other] clean water, then why effect surface contact for this [water]? Therefore [this treats of a case] where he has no [other clean water], and since he has no [other clean water] he will be very careful with it.6
He raised an objection to him: One may draw [water] with a [ritually] unclean bucket and it [the bucket] becomes clean;7 Now if it is so, let us preventively forbid lest he come to immerse it by itself! It is different there; since he is permitted [to immerse it] by means of drawing water only he will remember.8 He raised an objection to him: A vessel which became defiled on the eve of a Festival, one may not immerse it on the Festival; [if it became defiled] on the Festival one may immerse it on the Festival: Now if it is so, let us forbid [that which became defiled] on the Festival on account of [that which became defiled] on the eve of the Festival? — Defilement on a Festival is a rare occurrence and [with regard to] a thing of rare occurrence the Rabbis did not enact a preventative measure.9
He raised an objection to him: A vessel which became defiled10 through a father of uncleanness,11 one may not immerse it on a Festival;12 [but if it became defiled] through a derivative uncleanness,13 one may immerse it on a Festival.14 Now if it is so, let us forbid one because of the other! — How is a derivative uncleanness possible?15 [Only] in the case of priests,16 [and] priests are careful.17
Come and hear: For R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: A niddah,18 who has no [ritually clean] clothes,19 may use guile and immerse herself in her clothes.20 Now if it is so, let us forbid this lest she come to immerse [her clothes] by themselves! — It is different there; since it is permitted to her only in her clothes, she will remember .21
R. Joseph says: It22 is a preventive measure on account of wringing [the clothes].23 Said Abaye to him: This is well [with respect to] apparel, which can be wrung; [but with respect to] vessels, which cannot be wrung, what is there to be said? — He replied to hini: These have been forbidden on account of those. He raised all the above mentioned objections and he answered him [the said] as we have answered.
R. Bibi says: It22 is a preventive measure, lest he delay.24 It was taught as R. Bibi: A vessel which became defiled on the eve of the Festival, one may not immerse it on the Festival lest he delay.
Raba Says: [The immersion of vessels is forbidden] because it looks like repairing the vessel.25 If it is so, a man too [should likewise] be forbidden?26 — [In the case of] a man it looks as if he were cooling himself.27 This is well in the case of clear water;28 but what will you say with respect to turbid water? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: It happens that one comes [home]
(1) The minimum distance involving culpability.
(2) I.e., a mikweh.
(3) When there is no need to carry the vessel out of private ground at all.
(4) When carrying is permitted.
(5) I.e., enact one preventative measure lest another preventative measure be violated.
(6) Not to allow it to become defiled. Accordingly the water becoming defiled is a rare occurrence and such is disregarded; cf. infra.
(7) Because the real purpose of the immersion is not patent, for people would think that his purpose was to draw water.
(8) That immersion itself is forbidden on a Festival.
(9) V. ‘Er. 63a.
(10) On the eve of the Festival.
(11) I.e., a primary uncleanness, a person or object that touched a dead body. For the various degrees of defilement v. Pes. 14a.
(12) For a father of uncleanness defiles the vessel by Biblical law, hence the immersion of the vessel would be regarded as reconditioning it on a Festival.
(13) I.e., anything which itself became unclean through contact with a ‘father of uncleanness’; which Biblically is incapable of transmitting uncleanness to the vessel.
(14) Since by Biblical law the vessel is still clean, the immersion is not regarded as reconditioning it.
(15) That it should defile a vessel
(16) Who eat consecrated food which would be contaminated by this vessel.
(17) To distinguish between a vessel that became defiled through a primary cause or through a secondary cause. Or, they are careful not to permit their vessels to become unclean, which makes such defilement rare: v. supra.
(18) V. Glos.
(19) To put off after performing tebillah, while, on account of the Festival, she is unable to immerse the clothes she wears.
(20) Which cleanses both herself and her clothes. This is permitted for the same reason that you may draw water in an unclean bucket, as people will think that she is performing it for herself.
(21) As above.
(22) The prohibition of immersing vessels and clothes on Sabbath and Festivals.
(23) Wringing is prohibited both on Sabbath and Festivals.
(24) Their immersion until the Festival when he has more time and in the meantime uses the defiled vessels for consecrated food.
(25) Since this makes it useable.
(26) Since tebillah makes hin fit to eat sacred food, such as flesh of sacrifices.
(27) And that he was not taking a ritual bath.
(28) Where one may wash oneself.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 18b
in hot weather and bathes even in water used for soaking [dirty linen]. This is well in summer;1 what will you say of winter? R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: A man sometimes returns [home] from the field besmeared with mud and filth and bathes even in winter. This is well on a Sabbath;2 but on the Day of Atonement3 what is there to be said? — Said Raba: Is there then any[thing] which on a Sabbath is permitted4 and on the Day of Atonement is forbidden?5 But since it [bathing] is permitted on the Sabbath,it is also permitted on the Day of Atonement. Does then Raba accept the argument of ‘Since’?6 Surely we have learnt: He who has toothache must not rinse them with vinegar7 [On the Sabbath],8 but he may dip [his food] in vinegar in his usual manner, and if it becomes better, it becomes better.9 And we pointed out a contradiction: He must not rinse and expectorate10 but he may rinse and swallow? And Abaye answered: When we learnt our Mishnah,11 we learnt it also [as referring to] rinsing and expectorating. Raba however answered: You may even say [the Mishnah refers to] rinsing and swallowing, and [still] there is no contradiction: in the one case [it means] before the dipping [of the food into the vinegar]12 and in the other case [it means] after the dipping [of the food in the vinegar]. Now if it is so13 let us say, Since it is permitted before the meal, it is also permitted after the meal! — Raba retracted from that [statement].14 How do you know that he retracted from that [statement]; perhaps he changed his mind with respect to the present one?15 — You cannot suppose this, for it was taught: Everyone who is required to take a ritual bath16 may bathe in the usual way, both on the [fast of the] Ninth of Ab and on the Day of Atonement.7 BUT THEY BOTH AGREE THAT [ON A FESTIVAL] YOU MAY EFFECT SURFACE CONTACT FOR [UNCLEAN] WATER IN A STONE VESSEL etc. What does BUT ONE MAY NOT IMMERSE [IT] mean? — Said Samuel: One may not on a Festival immerse the [unclean] vessel on account of its water in order to cleanse it!17
Who is the author of our Mishnah? It is neither Rabbi nor the Sages! For it was taught: One may not immerse the [unclean] vessel on account of its water in order to cleanse it, nor may one effect surface contact or [unclean] water in a stone vessel in order to cleanse it; this is the opinion of Rabbi. But the Sages say: One may immerse the vessel on account of its water in order to cleanse it, and one may effect surface contact for [unclean] water in a stone vessel in order to cleanse it.18 Who now is [the author of our Mishnah]? If Rabbi, [the ruling on] surface contact is a difficulty;19 if the Sages, [the ruling on] immersion20 is a difficulty? — If you like I can say [the author of the Mishnah is] Rabbi; alternatively, it is the Sages. If you like I can say it is Rabbi; the first clause of the Baraitha21 concerns Festivals and the concluding clause22 concerns the Sabbath, whereas the whole of our Mishnah23 deals with Festivals.
(1) When one may bathe to cool oneself.
(2) When it is permissible to wash.
(3) When it is forbidden to wash oneself
(4) On the score of work.
(5) Surely not!
(6) As stated, even where there may be a reason for prohibiting it on the Day of Atonement which does not apply to the Sabbath, as in the present instance.
(7) Lit., ‘suck vinegar into them’.
(8) Healing, except in the case of danger, is forbidden, lest he crush the ingredients on the Sabbath. V. Shab. 111a; A.Z. 28a.
(9) I.e. , there is no harm done; he has not broken the law.
(10) Because it is then evident that he is taking it as medicine.
(11) On toothache.
(12) Then he may rinse and swallow for it is regarded as a part of the meal, being his first meal, the aperitif, the hors d'oeuvre.
(13) That Rab accepts the argument of ‘Since’.
(14) Concerning toothache, and his statement about bathing on the Day of Atonement was made subsequently.
(15) Viz., re bathing on the Day of Atonement.
(16) E.g., a woman after menstruation or confinement. (16) When washing oneself is forbidden. V. Ta'an. 13a; Shab. 111a.
(17) One may not put unclean water [for surface contact in an unclean wooden vessel which itself requires immersion, so that through the surface contact the vessel is automatically immersed.
(18) For var. lec. v. D.S.
(19) Whereas Rabbi forbids it our Mishnah permits it.
(20) Which the Sages allow, while our Mishnah forbids.
(21) In which Rabbi forbids immersion, implying that surface contact is permitted.
(22) In which Rabbi forbids even surface contact.
(23) Which forbids immersion and permits surface contact. For var. lec. v. Rashi and D.S.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 19a
Alternatively, I can say it is the Sages and the whole of our Mishnah deals with the Sabbath.
Our Rabbis taught: A vessel which became defiled on the eve of a Festival one may not immerse at twilight.1 R. Simeon Shezuri says: Even on a weekday one may not immerse it [then], because it requires [waiting until] sunset.2 And does not the first Tanna require [waiting until] sunset?3 Said Raba: I found the disciples of the Academy who sat and said: They differ whether his intention is to be recognized from his acts. How so? If, for example, he is holding a vessel in his hand and running along [about] twilight [time]4 to immerse it; one Master is of the opinion that the reason he is running along is that he indeed knows that he requires [to wait until] sunset;5 and the other Master is of the opinion that he is running on account of his work.6 Then said I to them: None dispute that his intention is recognized from his acts;7 they differ [only] when [another] vessel8 became defiled through [part of a reptile] less than the size of a lentil,9 and he10 came before the Rabbis to ask whether [having come into contact with part of a reptile] less than the size of a lentil it has become defiled or not.11 One Master is of the opinion: Since he does not know this he also does not know that;12 and the other Master is of the opinion: This [only] he does not know,13 but [with the requirement of] sunset he is well acquainted.14 AND ONE MAY IMMERSE [TO CHANGE] FROM ONE INTENTION TO ANOTHER. Our Rabbis taught: How is, FROM ONE INTENTION TO ANOTHER, meant? He who wishes to make his wine press out of his olive press15 or his olive press out of his wine press may do so.16 What means ‘FROM ONE COMPANY TO ANOTHER’? If he intended to eat with one company,17 and [now] wishes to eat with another company,18 he may do so.19
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY BRING PEACE-OFFERINGS20 [ON FESTIVALS] BUT MAY NOT LAY [HANDS] THEREON;21 BUT ONE MAY NOT BRING BURNT-OFFERINGS22 [ON A FESTIVAL]; BUT BETH HILLEL MAINTAIN: ONE MAY BRING PEACE-OFFERINGS AND BURNT-OFFERINGS AND ALSO LAY HANDS THEREON.
GEMARA. ‘Ulla said: ‘The dispute is only with respect to the laying on [of hands] on Festival peace-offerings23 and the sacrificing of the pilgrimage burnt-offerings,24 when Beth Shammai hold: ‘And ye shall keep [wehagothem] it a Feast [hag] unto to the Lord’,25 implies only Festival peace-offerings [hagigah]26 but not the pilgrimage burnt-offerings; and Beth Hillel maintain: ‘unto the Lord’ [implies] all [sacrifices offered] unto the Lord;27 but all agree that vows and freewill-offerings28 may not be offered on a Festival.29 And thus did R. Adda b. Ahabah say: Vows and freewill-offerings may not be offered on a Festival.
An objection was raised: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ concerning a burnt-offering which is not for the Festival,30 [both agreeing] that it may not be offered on a Festival,31 and concerning peace-offerings of the Festival32 that they may be offered on the Festival;33 they only differ concerning a burnt-offering which is for the Festival and concerning peace-offerings which are not for the Festival, when Beth Shammai say: He may not bring [them]34 and Beth Hillel maintain: He may bring [them]! — Reconcile it by saying thus: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ concerning a burnt-offering or peace-offering which are not connected with the Festival that they may not be offered on the Festival and concerning peace-offerings connected with the Festival that they may be offered on the Festival; they differ only concerning a burnt-offering connected with the Festival, when Beth Shammai say: He may not bring [it], and Beth Hillel maintain: He may bring [it]. R. Joseph said:35 You quote Tannaim at random.36 There is a dispute of Tannaim. For it was taught: [As to] peace-offerings which are offered37 on account of the Festival, Beth Shammai say: He lays [hands] on them on the eve of the Festival and slaughters them on the Festival; but Beth Hillel maintain: He lays [hands] on them on the Festival and slaughters their on the Festival,
(1) Because it may already be the Festival. Twilight is a period after sunset which it cannot exactly be determined whether it is day or night.
(2) I.e., if a person is seen to attempt to immerse a vessel at twilight he is stopped: the person immersing the vessel at twilight evidently intends to use it immediately after immersion. But the vessel immersed at twilight would still be unclean until sunset of the following day; cf. Lev. XI, 32.
(3) Before it is ritually clean. Surely a person who has ritually cleansed all unclean vessel by immersion must wait until the sun sets before he may use it.
(4) [I.e., before sunset. The bracketed words must be added if the word ‘twilight’ which MS.M. omits is retained with cur. edd.]
(5) Before he can use it. Therefore on a weekday he is allowed to proceed because when, on reaching the ritual bath, he finds that the sun has already set, he will immerse it and wait until the following sunset before using it. But on the eve of a Festival he may not immerse it in case it is already the Festival. But v. Goldschmidt, n. a.l.
(6) I.e., he is in a hurry to get on with his work. Such action does not show intention and it is therefore to be apprehended lest he will come to use it after immersing it.
(7) We may certainly deduce his intention from his acts.
(8) In addition to the one already defiled, Rashi. V. n. 9.
(9) The minimum size to cause defilement.
(10) This man who was seen running before sunset to immerse the vessel.
(11) R. Hananel reads: ‘Became defiled through (a part of a reptile) of the size of a lentil, and he came before the Rabbis to ask whether a reptile of the size of a lentil defiles’ (he not knowing the law that it does). On this reading the vessel which he was rushing to immerse was the very vessel about which he enquired of the Rabbis and which he was told that it required immersion; v. n. 6.]
(12) Viz., that sunset is required.
(13) For it is not specifically written in Scripture that it must be of the size of a lentil. [On the reading of R. Hananel (note 9): For it is not specifically stated in Scripture that a reptile (or part of it) bigger than a lentil defiles.]
(14) Scripture distinctly states that sunset is required cf. Lev. XI, 32.
(15) If one immersed his defiled vessel in order to use it for his olive press and then changed his mind and wished to use it for his wine press. sf is the smaller vessel for oil. [MS.M. reads sc ‘Olive press’.]
(16) Without requiring further immersion. If therefore the owner takes it upon himself to immerse again the vessel, such immersion may be performed on a Festival, for he is not thereby reconditioning the vessel.
(17) And performed immersion with this intention.
(18) He can only change his mind before the animal is sacrificed.
(19) Without requiring further immersion. The extra immersion is therefore permissible on a Festival.
(20) Because part thereof is eaten by their owners.
(21) Beth Shammai forbid this as a shebuth (v. Glos.), as it was performed with all one's strength and is regarded as being in the nature of riding an animal which is expressly forbidden by the Rabbis (Rashi). [V. however, infra 20a where Beth Shammai are said to hold that the law of laying on of hands does not apply at all to obligatory offerings. Rashi's explanation follows, however, that of R. Johanan, Hag. 16b; v. Tosaf. infra 20a s.v. דלא]
(22) I.e., private voluntary burnt-offerings.
(23) Which are obligatory. V. Lev. XXIII, 41, and the eating of meat was considered an essential part of the festival enjoyment.
(24) V. Ex. XXIII, 15. Lit., ‘the appearance (in the Temple before the Lord)’.
(25) Lev. XXIII, 41.
(26) We-hagothem being grammatically connected with hag and hagigah.
(27) Which includes the pilgrimage burnt-offering.
(28) I.e., private sacrifices.
(29) Since they do not belong to the Festival and can be offered on any other day.
(30) E.g., a burnt-offering as a vow or a freewill-offering.
(31) Because (a) none of the sacrifice is eaten by the owners; and (b) it can be brought after the Festival.
(32) I.e., the Festival peace-offerings.
(33) Because (a) They are eaten by the owners, thus increasing the joy of the Festival; (b) They belong to the Festival and cannot be brought after the Festival.
(34) Thus Beth Shammai maintain that peace-offerings not connected with the Festival may not be brought on the Festival, which contradicts ‘Ulla.
(35) There is no need to amend the Baraitha
(36) You quote the view of one Tanna (viz., R. Simeon b. Eleazar) while disregarding the possibility that another Tanna may have a different opinion.
(37) Lit., ‘come’.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 19b
but all agree that vows and freewill-offerings may not be offered on a Festival.1
And the following Tannaim [are engaged in the same controversy]2 as these [aforementioned] Tannaim. For it was taught: One may not bring a thank-offering3 on the Feast of Unleavened Bread on account of the leaven which it contains;4 nor on Pentecost, because it is a Festival;5 but one may bring his thank-offering on the Feast of Tabernacles.6 R. Simeon says: Lo, Scripture says, on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Tabernacles,7 [teaching] whatever may be brought on the Feast of Unleavened Bread may [also] be brought on the Feast of Weeks and on the Feast of Tabernacles, and whatever may not be brought on the Feast of Unleavened Bread may not be brought on the Feast of Weeks and on the Feast of Tabernacles [either]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says: A man may bring his thank-offering8 on the Feast of Tabernacles and may therewith fulfil his obligation in respect of the joy [of the Festival],9 but does not fulfil his obligation therewith in respect of the Festival sacrifices.10 The Master said:11 ‘One may not bring a thank-offering on the Feast of Unleavened Bread on account of the leaven which it contains. This is obvious! — Said R. Adda son of R. Isaac, some say R. Samuel b. Abba: We are treating here of the fourteenth [of Nisan] and he holds: You must not bring consecrated meat to the place of disqualification.12 ‘Nor on Pentecost, because it is a Festival’; he is of the opinion [that] vows and freewill-offerings may not be offered on a Festival.13
‘But a man may bring his thank-offering on the Feast of Tabernacles’. When? If it should mean on the Festival itself, but you say, ‘Nor on Pentecost because it is a Festival’. — Therefore [it must mean] on the intermediary days of the Festival.
R. Simeon says: Lo, Scripture says: ‘on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Tabernacles’, [teaching] whatever may be brought on the Feast of Unleavened Bread may [also] be brought on the Feast of Weeks and on the Feast of Tabernacles, and what may not be brought on the Feast of Unleavened Bread may [also] not be brought on the Feast of Weeks and on the Feast of Tabernacles.14 To this R. Zera demurred: Seeing that we may [even] gather firewood can there be a question about vows and freewill-offerings!15 — Said Abaye: None dispute that the offering [of the thank-offering] is permitted:16 they differ only as to whether he is subject to ‘Thou shalt not delay’17 on its account. The first Tanna holds: The Divine Law said ‘Three Festivals’,18 even not in their order of sequence;19 while R. Simeon is of the opinion; only in their order of sequence [he transgresses] but not when they are not in order of sequence.
‘R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says: One may bring the thank-offering on the Feast of Tabernacles’ — When? If [it means] on the Intermediary days of the Festival, then it is the same as the first Tanna. Therefore [it means] on the Festival [itself], and he is of the opinion that vows or freewill-offerings may be offered on Festivals.20 And why does he teach this particularly of the Feast of Tabernacles? — R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon follows his view [expressed elsewhere]. For it was taught: R. Simeon Says: Scripture21 need not have mentioned ‘the Feast of Tabernacles’ for the passage is dealing with it.22 Why [then] is it mentioned? To teach that this is the last.23 R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon Says: To teach that this [Festival of Tabernacles alone] brings it about.24
‘And may therewith fulfil his obligation concerning the joy [of the Festival], but does not fulfil his obligation therewith con cerning the Festival sacrifices.’ This is obvious; for this is indeed an obligatory sacrifice25 and any obligatory sacrifice can only be brought of unconsecrated [animals or money]!26 — It is necessary to teach this even if he explicitly stipulated.27 As R. Simeon b. Lakish asked R. Johanan: What if one said, ‘I vow a thank-offering that I may therewith fulfil my obligation of hagigah;’ [or] ‘I take upon myself to become a Nazirite
(1) This Tanna corroborates the statement of ‘Ulla.
(2) With respect to vows and freewill-offerings
(3) V. Lev. VII, 12-15.
(4) The thank-offering requires leaven (V. Lev. VII, 13) and naturally cannot be offered on Passover.
(5) And a thank-offering like vows and freewill-offerings may not be offered on a Festival.
(6) I. e., during the Intermediary days of the Festival.
(7) Deut. XVI, 16.
(8) I.e., one which he had previously vowed.
(9) It is obligatory to rejoice on the Festivals (v. Deut. XVI, 14), and this rejoicing requires meat (v. supra p. 97, n. 9). The thank-offering can be brought for this purpose.
(10) These are obligatory and such must be brought from unconsecrated animals (i.e., animals which are not due on account of a previous vow); hence the thank-offering is ineligible for this purpose.
(11) The Talmid proceeds to a discussion of the Baraitha in the course of which there emerges the Tannaitic controversy referred to.
(12) For the ten loaves of leaven which accompany the thank-offering could hardly be eaten by about 10 a.m. when leaven becomes forbidden, and the rest would have to be burnt as nothar (v. Glos.).
(13) This is the statement referred to above of the Tanna who differs and maintains that vows and freewill-offerings may not be offered on Festivals.
(14) It was wrongly assumed that the statement forbids the bringing of the thank-offering even on the Intermediary days of the Festival, hence the following objection.
(15) This certainly may be brought.
(16) On the Intermediary Days of the Festival of Tabernacles.
(17) Deut. XXIII, 22.
(18) Ex. XXIII, 14. In R.H. 4b it is deduced that one violates this if three festivals pass without his fulfilling his vow.
(19) If the vow to bring the thank-offering is made before Tabernacles, the first Tanna counsels the vower to bring it at the immediately following Feast of Tabernacles. Because, according to him, the three Festivals just mentioned need not be in order of sequence commencing with Passover. Therefore unless he brings it on the immediately following Tabernacles he will have to make a special journey to Jerusalem to offer it, since he cannot bring it either on Passover or the Pentecost, whilst he must not delay beyond them. R. Simeon, however, maintains that he transgresses only if three Festivals, taken in order of sequence starting from Passover, pass without his fulfilling the vow. Hence this is what he means: Whatever comes ‘on the Feast of Unleavened Bread’, i.e., whatever was vowed before the Feast of Passover, so that there was already an obligation by Passover, must be brought either at Pentecost or Tabernacles immediately following: but ‘Whatever does not come on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, ‘i.e., if there was no obligation then, as he vowed after Passover, need not be brought on the immediately following Festivals of Pentecost or Tabernacles, since he will still have till the Tabernacles of the following year without transgressing the prohibition of ‘delaying’.
(20) V. supra p. 100, n. 3.
(21) Deut. XVI, 16.
(22) Viz., Tabernacles. V. verse 13.
(23) I.e., that the three Festivals must, for the transgression of ‘delaying’ follow in that order — Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles.
(24) The transgression of the Command. If he vowed before Tabernacles and did not fulfil the vow until Tabernacles elapsed he has transgressed. Cf. R.H. 4a.
(25) V. p. 99, n. 11.
(26) But not of second tithe money which is already consecrated, nor of animals already dedicated as vows and freewill-offerings. V. Pes. 71a.
(27) When he vowed the thank-offering he stipulated that it should take the place of the Festival sacrifice.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 20a
[on condition] that I shave with the second tithe money?1 He replied to him: He is under a vow, but he cannot discharge [his hagigah obligation therewith]: he is a Nazirite, but he cannot shave [as he stipulated].2
A certain man declared,3 Give four hundred zuz to So-and-so and let him marry my daughter. R. Papa said: The four hundred zuz he receives, and as for the daughter, if he wishes he may marry [her] [and] if he wishes he need not marry [her].4 The reason is because he said: ‘Give him and he shall marry;5 but if he had said, ‘Let him marry and give him’, [then] if he marries her, he receives [the money]; but if he does not marry [her], he does not receive [it].
Meremar was sitting and stated this ruling6 in his own name. Said Rabina to Meremar: You are teaching this thus,7 [but] we teach it as a question directed by Resh Lakish to R. Johanan.
A tanna recited before R. Isaac b. Abba: ‘And he presented the burnt-offering; and offered it according to the ordinance’,8 [i.e.,] according to the ordinance of a freewill burnt-offering;9 this teaches that the obligatory burnt-offering requires laying on of hands.10 Said he to him: He who told you this did so in accordance with Beth Shammai11 who do not learn obligatory peace-offerings from freewill peace-offerings;12 for it is according to Beth Hillel, since they learn obligatory peace-offerings from freewill peace-offerings, the obligatory burnt-offering too does not require a Scripture text, for they infer it from the freewill burnt-offering.13 But whence do you know that Beth Hillel14 learn obligatory peace-offerings from freewill peace-offerings; perhaps they learn it from the obligatory burnt-offering,15 while the obligatory burnt-offering itself requires a Scripture text?16 — Why [would you say that] they do not infer it from freewill peace-offerings: because they are frequent?17 Then they could not infer it from an obligatory burnt-offering either, since it is wholly consumed!18 — It is inferred from both of them.19 But does Beth Shammai maintain that obligatory peace-offerings do not require the laying on of hands. Surely it was taught: R. Joseph said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ about the laying on of hands itself, [both agreeing] that it is necessary;20 they dispute only whether the [act of] slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands, when Beth Shammai hold: It is not necessary,21 and Beth Hillel maintain: It is necessary! — He22 teaches according to the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ that the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands, they dispute only about the laying on of hands itself,23 Beth Shammai ruling: It is not necessary, while Beth Hillel maintain: It is necessary.
Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that Hillel the Elder brought his burnt-offering into the Temple Court on a Festival for the purpose of laying hands thereon. The disciples of Shammai the Elder gathered around him and asked: What is the nature of this animal? He replied to them: It is a female24 and I brought it as a peace-offering. [Thereupon] he swung its tail for them25 and they went away. On that day Beth Shammai got the upper hand over Beth Hillel26 and wished to fix the halachah according to their ruling.27 But an old man of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there named Baba b. Buta, who knew that the halachah is as Beth Hillel28 and he sent
(1) I.e. , that I purchase the sacrifice due on the day that I cut my hair (v. Num. VI, 13ff) with second tithe money.
(2) Although the condition on which he made his vow is invalid, he is still bound to fulfil his vow.
(3) As his last will and testament.
(4) This decision of R. Papa has some analogy with that ruling of the Baraitha that precedes, hence its inclusion here.
(5) In this order.
(6) Supra 19b bottom and the ruling on same.
(7) In your own name.
(8) Lev. IX, 16. This verse refers, according to Rashi, to the obligatory burnt-offering brought by Aaron on the eighth day of his consecration (v. Lev. IX, 2), and according to Tosaf. to the communal burnt-offering (v. Lev. IX, 15).
(9) For the Bible does not state a rule about the obligatory burnt-offering. Hence this verse must mean that the same rules that apply to a freewill burnt-offering apply to an obligatory burnt-offering. V. Lev. I, 3ff.
(10) The law of laying on of hands is prescribed only for freewill-offerings v. Lev. I, 3ff (burnt-offerings), III, 2
(11) In our Mishnah 19a.
(12) In regard to the necessity of laying on of hands (v. supra note 1). Similarly with respect to burnt-offerings Beth Shammai will not infer obligatory burnt-offerings from freewill burnt-offerings; hence a special Scripture text is required that obligatory burnt-offerings require laying on of hands. V. Lev. III, 2.
(13) The inference is as follows: Just as we find that a freewill burnt-offering, because it is a burnt-offering, requires laying on of hands, so also an obligatory burnt-offering, since it is likewise a burnt-offering. This principle of exegesis is called Binyan Ab, v. Glos. Beth Shammai, however, does not admit this difference as there is no analogy between freewill burnt-offerings that can be brought at any time and obligatory burnt-offerings which are only brought at stated times.
(14) Who permit the laying of hands on obligatory offerings on a Festival.
(15) Perhaps Beth Hillel too reject this inference (v. n. 4) of obligatory from freewill offerings.
(16) [I.e., Lev. IX, 16 from which is derived the law that the obligatory burnt-offering requires laying on of hands, so that the cited Baraitha can be in accord with Beth Hillel as well as Beth Shammai.]
(17) I.e., they can be brought at any time.
(18) V. Lev. I, 9.
(19) So that if an objection is raised with regard to one that the rule of laying on hands applies there because of a certain characteristic which is not found in the case of obligatory peace-offerings, reference can be made to the other where the same characteristic is lacking and yet the rule of laying on hands is not dependent on the presence of that characteristic.
(20) Save that Beth Shammai maintain that the laying on of hands in the case of obligatory peace-offerings must be performed before the Festival and not on the Festival itself.
(21) Hence it can be done before the Festival, and therefore it may not be done on the Festival.
(22) The author of our Mishnah.
(23) In the case of obligatory peace-offerings.
(24) And such is not offered as a burnt-offering. V. Lev. I, 3. He wanted to avoid a quarrel and told them what was not true for the sake of peace.
(25) In order to make them believe it was a female.
(26) I.e., they forced the majority.
(27) Viz., that obligatory burnt-offerings do not require laying on of hands.
(28) I.e., that Beth Shammai's ruling is only a stringency, but not based on Biblical law.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 20b
and fetched all the sheep of Kedar1 that were in Jerusalem and put them Into the Temple Court and said: Whoever wishes to lay on hands let him come and lay on hands; and on that day Beth Hillel got the upper hand and established the halachah according to their opinion and there was no one there who disputed it.2
It happened again with a certain disciple of the disciples of Beth Hillel who brought his burnt-offering into the Temple Court for the purpose of laying hands thereon. A certain disciple of the disciples of Beth Shammai found him and said to him: Why the laying on of hands?3 He replied: Why [not keep] silence? He silenced him with a rebuke and he went away. Said Abaye: Therefore a young scholar to whom his colleague says anything should not answer back more than the former had spoken to him; for the one said to the other, Why the laying on of hands? and the other replied, [correspondingly] Why [not keep] silence?
It was taught; Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: If, when it is forbidden [to slaughter to provide food] for a layman,4 it is permitted [to slaughter] for the Most High,5 then where it is permitted on behalf of a layman,6 it is surely logical that it is permitted for the Most High.7 Beth Shammai replied to them: Let vows and freewill-offerings prove [the contrary], for they are permitted for a layman and yet forbidden for the Most High.8 Beth Hillel said to them: As for vows and freewill-offerings, that is because there is no fixed time for them; will you say [the same] with respect to a pilgrimage burnt-offering seeing that it has a fixed time!9 Beth Shammai replied to them: Even [for] this [sacrifice] there is no [strictly] fixed time. For we have learnt:10 He who did not bring his Festival offering on the first day of the Festival, may bring it during the whole of the remaining days of the Festival, even on the last day. Beth Hillel replied to them: Even [for] this there is indeed a time fixed, for we have learnt:10 If the Festival passes and he has not brought his Festival offering, he bears no [further] liability [on its account].11 Beth Shammai said to them: Surely it is said ‘[That only may be done] for you,12 [implying] but not for the most High God? Beth Hillel replied to them: Surely it is said: ‘[And ye shall keep it as a feast] unto the Lord’,13 [implying] whatever is for the Lord! If so, why then does the text say: ‘For you’? for you but not for heathens,14 for you, but not for dogs.
Abba Saul taught the same in another form: If when thy hearth is closed,15 the hearth16 of the Master is open,17 how much the more must the hearth of thy Master be open when thy hearth is open.18 And that is logical that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. In what do they differ?19 — One Master20 holds: Vows and freewill-offerings may be offered on a Festival and the other Master holds they may not be offered on a Festival.
R. Huna said: On the view that vows and freewill-offerings may not be offered on a Festival, say not, Biblically they are indeed permitted21 and only the Rabbis preventively forbade them lest one delay,22 but even Biblically they are not permitted; for the two loaves of bread23 which are obligatory for that day24 so that we need not apprehend delay, yet [their preparation] does not override either the Sabbath or a Festival.25
The scholars asked: On the view that vows and freewill-offerings may not be offered on a Festival what is the law if one transgressed and did slaughter?26 Raba says: He sprinkles the blood in order to permit the flesh to be eaten for food.27 Rabbah son of R. Huna says: He sprinkles the blood in order to burn their inwards at eventide.28 What [difference] is there between them? — They differ when the flesh was defiled or lost; according to Raba he must not sprinkle [the blood],29 according to Rabbah son of R. Huna he does sprinkle.
An objection was raised: If one slaughters the lambs of the Feast of Weeks30 for another purpose31 or if one slaughters them before or after their [fixed] time, the blood is to be sprinkled and the flesh is to be eaten; but if it was the Sabbath, he may not sprinkle32 and if he did sprinkle33
(1) I.e., the best, cf. Isa. LX, 7.
(2) Cf. Buchler, Types, p. 74.
(3) Seeing that we forbid it.
(4) Viz., on the Sabbath.
(5) Public sacrifices being offered on that day.
(6) Viz., on a Festival.
(7) Whatever is required for the altar, even the pilgrimage burnt-offering.
(8) I.e., vows and freewill-offerings may not be offered on a Festival, yet animals may be killed for ordinary foot, then.
(9) Surely not!
(10) Hag. 9a, 17a; R.H. 4b; Meg. 5a.
(11) Therefore he should be allowed to bring it on the first day of the Festival lest, by postponing, he be prevented from bringing it at all.
(12) Ex. XII, 16.
(13) Lev. XXIII, 41.
(14) Lit., ‘kuthim’, but this is probably a censor's substitute for heathen. For these no food may be cooked on Festivals.
(15) I.e., when you may not prepare food, viz., Sabbath.
(16) The altar.
(17) For sacrifice.
(18) Viz., on a Festival.
(19) Abba Saul and the first Tanna.
(20) Abba Saul who does not quote in his version the reply of Beth Shammai that vows and freewill-offerings prove the contrary.
(21) For Beth Hillel's interpretation ‘unto the Lord’ whatever is for the Lord is the correct one.
(22) To offer them until the Festival when he may be prevented from offering them at all.
(23) V. Lev. XXIII, 17.
(24) I.e., The Feast of Weeks.
(25) They may not be baked on the Festival, since that can be done prior thereto.
(26) May the blood be sprinkled?
(27) On the day of the Festival.
(28) Sprinkling may only be performed during the day but the burning of the inwards takes place at night.
(29) Though sprinkling is no labour, it is forbidden as shebuth
(30) V. Lev. XXIII, 19.
(31) I.e., as burnt-offerings instead of peace-offerings.
(32) For the flesh cannot be eaten on the Sabbath since cooking is prohibited.
(33) Without consulting.
Directory of Sedarim and Tractates