Beitzah 10b — the Talmud in English

However,

if he did not say on the eve of the Festival that he was designating “this one and that one,” but rather intended to choose them

on the Festival

based on his statement, “I will take from here” —

it is prohibited

to handle them based on the principle of retroactive designation.

This is because

sometimes the fatter ones are found;

perhaps those that he first took in his hands, assuming that they were fat, will, upon examination, be found to be

thin, while thin ones

will be found to be

fat, and he will handle something that is unfit for him.

Thus, by examining all of them, he will have handled items set aside from use, even though he does not need them. Moreover, he had intended to designate only as many doves as he needed for the Festival. Therefore, he must designate specific doves before the Festival, the ones he will use, so that he will not examine the others.

Alternatively,

even if Beit Hillel rely on their view that retroactive designation applies, one must say, “I will take this one and that one,” because

sometimes it happens that

they will find

all of them thin, and

then

he will leave them,

because, in his great disappointment at not finding any fat ones, despite having thought that there were several fat ones in the dovecote, he will leave them all and take no fledgling for his meal.

And he may come to refrain

and thereby refrain

from the joy of the Festival.

However, if he already knows before the Festival that he may take only the ones he explicitly designated, he will not be disappointed; he will take the thin ones. Therefore, he must select before the Festival “this one and that one,” recognizing them as they are.

Mishna:

A. If he

de

signated

doves

before the Festival,

black

doves, and there were no additional doves there,

and he found

on the Festival that all the doves found there were

white,

it is clear that the designated black doves had left, and those he now found were doves that had newly arrived at the dovecote. The Gemara will explain what the novel point of this ruling is.

Or if he designated

white ones and found black ones.

Or if he designated

two and found three,

and he does not recognize which ones he designated—

in all these cases, all of them are

prohibited!

In the first two cases, those found certainly came from elsewhere and are set aside because they were not designated. In the case where he designated two, the third is set aside, and since he cannot distinguish among them, all are prohibited.

But if he designated

three and found

only

two—

they are

permitted,

because it is reasonable that one of the three left and that the two remaining ones are among those designated. We do not have to be concerned that the two designated doves also left, like the third one, and that those present are new doves; as long as no uncertainty has arisen concerning them, we assume that they remained in their place.

B. And if, when he designated them, they were

inside the nest, and

now, when he came on the Festival to take them, he

found

doves on the ledge [Rashi 11a] projecting from the dovecote

in front of the nest,

and found no doves inside the nest, since they are not in their place, he must be concerned that these are different doves. Since they were not designated, they are

prohibited.

And if there are no

other doves in the vicinity of the nest from before the Festival

apart from them—

these are permitted,

even though he found them on the ledge in front of the nest and not inside it, because, since there are no other doves in the vicinity, we may attribute them to the designated doves having gone out onto the ledge to breathe fresh air.

Gemara:

We learned at the beginning of the Mishna that if one designated black doves and found white ones, or designated white ones and found black ones, they are prohibited.

And we ask:

Is it obvious

that this is the law? Their color proves that they are not the same doves he designated for the Festival.

Rabba said:

The two cases in the Mishna occurred in one circumstance, for

here, with what are we dealing?

For example, he de

signated

black doves

in one nest

and

designated

white ones

in a second nest.

And he arose early

on the Festival and

found

the

black ones in the place

of the nest of the

white ones, and

the

white ones

he found

in the place

of the nest of the

.

Lest you say: These

doves—

they are the very same ones

that he designated,

and

only

they exchanged places

from their locations, from one nest to another.

It teaches us

that

those

he designated

went away

and

these—

are different ones.

The Gemara now leaves it understood that although we should permit them based on the principle “follow the nearby source”—since we could say that the black doves found in the white doves’ nest, and vice versa, came from the adjacent nearby nest and are the designated doves—we nevertheless do not permit them on that basis, because we have the opposing principle, “follow the majority.”

Since the majority of doves in the world are not the designated doves, we attribute these to doves that came from elsewhere.

The rule “follow the majority” therefore prevails over the rule “follow the nearby source”!

We ask about this:

Shall we say

that this law of our Mishna—that if one found the white doves where the black ones had been, and the black ones where the white ones had been, they are prohibited—

supports the

rule stated by

Rabbi Hanina?

For Rabbi Hanina said:

If two rules confront us, one saying “follow the

majority,”

and

the other saying “follow the

nearby source,”

and they conflict with one another—

follow the majority!

For had he not said this, we would follow the nearby source and should permit the doves, attributing them to the nearby nest, and they would be designated for the Festival.

And we reject this: there is no proof from here. Even if, when majority and proximity conflict, one follows proximity, it is possible to interpret our Mishna

as Abaye said

below [11a] in another matter,

on a

ledge projecting from the dovecote.

Here too,

the case

concerns a ledge.

Many doves from elsewhere come onto the projecting ledge, and they do not enter the nests inside the dovecote because the doves already in the nests prevent them from entering. But when the doves in the nests leave them, the doves from elsewhere that were on the ledge enter the nests in their place.

It follows that all the doves—the designated ones that had been in the nearby nests and the doves that came from elsewhere and are on the ledge—are all near the nest. Since the rule “follow the nearby source” provides no determination, as all the doves are equally near, we follow the rule “follow the majority.”

Therefore, we say that when the black doves left, doves from elsewhere, which constitute the majority, entered the nest, rather than the white doves from the neighboring nest, which constitute the minority.

We learned further in our Mishna: If he designated

two and found three

—they are forbidden.

And the Gemara explains the prohibition:

What is your understanding

if

all three

are others

and not the designated ones—

then they are others.

And if they are not others—

then there is one

from elsewhere

that became mixed among them,

and because of it all three are forbidden.

And the one forbidden one is not nullified among the two permitted ones, because it is a “matter that has a permitted time,” since it is possible to eat it on the evening after the Festival without resorting to the permission of nullification in a majority; and because living creatures are important, they are not nullified in a majority, by rabbinic enactment, on account of their importance. [Tosafot] We learned further in the Mishna: If he designated

three and found two

—they are permitted.

And we explain:

What is the reason?—

since it is reasonable that

these

two that remained

are they

the designated ones

indeed.

And one of them went

away

to the world.

And we raise the following question:

And we inquire:

Let us say that the Mishna,

which says that the two found in the place of the three are those two that had been there and remained, is according to the view of

Rabbi, and not

according to the view of

the Rabbis,

who disputed concerning money of second-tithe money:

For it was taught:

One who

left a maneh

of one hundred zuz of second-tithe money in a box

and found

in the place where he had left it

two hundred

—it is reasonable that he left there another maneh of non-sacred money and forgot that he had added it. Therefore, the money has the status of

non-sacred money and second-tithe money mixed with one another,

and he must take the better maneh of the two and say: “If this is second tithe, it is good; and if it is non-sacred, the other maneh shall be redeemed upon it”—

the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: It is all non-sacred money,

since it is not a person’s practice to mix second-tithe money with non-sacred money. Therefore, we must attribute it to his having taken the maneh of second-tithe money that was here and placed it elsewhere, and these two hundred are non-sacred. And likewise they disputed in a case where he

left two hundred

of second-tithe money

and found

only

a maneh

—what is its law:

A maneh

of second-tithe money remained

placed

here in its place,

and the other maneh

that had been here is

lying elsewhere

[taken from here].

The words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say:

Since this person did not ascend to Jerusalem, one cannot attribute it to his having divided his second-tithe money, leaving part here and transferring part elsewhere. Rather, it is reasonable that he took all two hundred and placed them elsewhere, and these hundred found in the place where the money had been left are

all non-sacred money

—they are.

And the same is true in the case in our Mishna: when there were three fledglings and only two were found, according to the Rabbis one must attribute it to all three having gone together, while the two found are new. According to Rabbi, the two found are the two that had been there and remained.

And this matter—that our anonymous Mishna follows Rabbi and is against the Rabbis—is difficult to say, because everywhere that Rabbi and the Sages dispute, the halakha follows the Rabbis who dispute with him; while, on the other hand, the halakha follows an anonymous Mishna.

And we answer:

Even if you say

that our Mishna can also be explained according to the reasoning of

the Rabbis.

For

this was stated concerning it:

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: Fledglings are different

from money,

since

the fledglings

are capable of hopping

from their place one by one, and the departure of one is no proof concerning the two that remained. Money, however, is not ordinarily taken by a person in part, leaving it in another place; it is reasonable that he took all of it, and the maneh that was found was subsequently brought to this place.

We still inquire:

Why do I need

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar to force the matter and

to explain concerning it

that there is a distinction between money and fledglings, and say:

“Fledglings are different, since they are capable of hopping”?

But was it not stated concerning that

dispute between the Sages and Rabbi regarding second-tithe money, when he left two hundred and found only one hundred, that the

w

ords of

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar

were stated, as they disputed in explaining the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages?

One

of them

said:

The dispute is only when the two hundred were

in two purses,

with one maneh in each purse;

the dispute

is because in this case Rabbi holds that it is possible that he took only the contents of one purse, while the other maneh remains in its place.

But

if the two hundred were

in one purse,

and now only one hundred were found in it—

according to everyone

they are

non-sacred,

and Rabbi concedes that if he took from it, he would not separate the manehs, and certainly the maneh found in it is non-sacred.

And one

of them

said

the opposite: the dispute is only when all two hundred were

in one purse.

But

if the two hundred were

in two purses,

one hundred in each separate purse, and afterward only one purse containing one hundred was found—

according to everyone

even the Sages concede

that a maneh

of second tithe is

placed

in this purse,

and the other maneh

—

is lying elsewhere

[taken] with its purse to another place.

Granted, according to the one who says: “In two purses is the dispute”—

this is why it was necessary to explain here: “Fledglings are different, since they are capable of hopping”,

in order to distinguish between second-tithe money, which according to the Rabbis is all non-sacred because we attribute it to his having taken both purses, and fledglings, which according to our Mishna are attributed to one fledgling having hopped away while the two found are the original two. Without this distinction, we would compare two coins in two purses to two fledglings, since in both cases it is probable that both were not taken together.

But according to the one who says

that the dispute is only

in one purse,

but in two purses—

according to everyone, “one maneh is placed and one maneh is lying elsewhere”,

the same distinction can be stated concerning three fledglings, which are like separate purses.

And

now

one should ask:

Why do I need to explain concerning it

“Fledglings are different, since they are capable of hopping,” when

you said: “In two purses they do not dispute”

that one remained and the other went away!

If so, also in the case of two fledglings we should assume that one went away and the two remained in their place; why is another reason needed to distinguish between them?

Rav Ashi said: Here,

in our Mishna, it is even

with fledglings tied

to one another,

and

likewise in the beraita it is

with purses tied

to one another that

we are dealing. That is, Rabbi Yohanan or Rabbi Elazar, who established the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi as concerning one purse, intended two purses tied to one another, which are like one purse. The law that “one maneh is placed and one maneh is lying elsewhere” applies only to two separate purses.

with this case. That is, when Rabbi Yohanan or Rabbi Elazar established the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi as applying to one pouch, his intention was to refer to two pouches tied to each other, which are like one pouch. The rule that “one maneh remains in place and one maneh has been removed” applies only to two separate pouches.

Correspondingly, the Mishna too speaks of fledglings tied to one another. Apparently, the law stated in the Mishna permitting those remaining in the nest fits only Rabbi’s method, for he holds that regarding money found in tied purses, one attributes it to one maneh being placed and one maneh being elsewhere.

Therefore, one must distinguish between the law of purses and the law of fledglings as follows:

Fledglings

customarily

separate from one another,

becoming separated from one another by breaking the tie between them. Therefore, one may attribute the matter leniently to one fledgling having gone away and one fledgling having remained. Whereas

purses—

do not separate from one another.

Therefore, according to the Sages, if he found one purse, it necessarily is not one of the two he left, because we attribute it to a person having come and taken both together.

And Rabbi,

who holds that here too we say that the pouch that remains is one of the two that had existed,

can say to you: Pouches too

become detached like fledglings. For

sometimes ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

their ties become digested

the connection between them becomes detached on its own, and a person comes and takes one of them, leaving the other.