Beitzah 11a — the Talmud in English

We learned in our Mishna: If one designated pigeons from the eve of Yom Tov

inside the nest, and

on Yom Tov

found

pigeons

before the nest—

on a small ledge that protrudes before every nest and is a continuation of the floor of the nest—

they are forbidden.

And we raised it as a problem:

Shall we say that our Mishna supports

the statement of

Rabbi Hanina?

For Rabbi Hanina said: With regard to a majority and a nearer one—

follow the majority. [

As explained on the previous page.]

And from here as well there is proof for his statement, for the pigeons of the designated nest are the nearest ones to the small ledge before it, and nevertheless the pigeons found on the ledge are forbidden, because one follows the majority of forbidden pigeons that came from elsewhere.

Abaye said:

Here we are dealing with a dovecote in which there are pigeons sitting

on the ledge

that is large and before the dovecote, and they come to it from other places. Therefore, it is impossible to attribute the pigeons found on the small ledge to the nearer nest and permit them, since all of them are equally near, and among them are the forbidden pigeons of the large ledge.

It follows that there is no proof from our Mishna for Rabbi Hanina, because all of them are considered equally near, and in such a case everyone agrees that one follows the majority.

Rava said:

Here it is impossible to explain, as Abaye did, that there were forbidden pigeons on the large ledge, because in such a case it is obvious that they are forbidden either way: both the majority and the nearer one indicate prohibition, and the Mishna need not teach us that one does not follow the nearer pigeons of the permitted nest against the forbidden pigeons of the large ledge, since they are both the majority and the nearer ones.

Rather,

with two nests,

which were

one above the other, are we dealing.

And he designated the ones in one of the two nests. When he came on Yom Tov to take them, he found nothing in the nest that he had designated, but only before it; and in the second nest he found nothing.

The reason for forbidding the pigeons found before the nest is not because of the majority of pigeons in the world, but because of the concern that perhaps those that he found before the prepared nest came from the set-aside nest: for he found nothing in the prepared nest, and he also found nothing in the set-aside nest, and there is concern that these came from the set-aside nest, while the pigeons of the nest that he designated went elsewhere.

And it is not necessary

for the Mishna to teach us this concern

in the case

that he

d

e

signated the l

ower

nest and did not d

e

signate the upper one, and found in the lower one but did not find in the upper one

that they are forbidden,

because

we say: These

designated fledglings

went elsewhere, and these

found before the nest

crawled and shifted,

crawling downward,

and descended

and went down below, [and the case concerns fledglings that were newly born], for in such a case it is obvious that they are forbidden, because we attribute that the pigeons of the lower nest went away, and the forbidden pigeons of the upper nest came to the ledge before the lower nest.

Rather,

the Mishna comes to teach us that

even

if he

d

e

signated the upper one and did not d

e

signate the lower one, and came and found in the upper one but did not find in the lower one—

these too are forbidden,

because

we say: These

designated in the upper nest

went elsewhere, and these

that were found

climbed by clinging,

they climbed by crawling from the lower nest upward,

and rose

and went up, and they are those found before the upper nest; and they are forbidden because they were not designated.

We learned in the Mishna: And

if there are only they

around the nest on the eve of Yom Tov,

but these

are the ones that he designated—even though on Yom Tov he found pigeons only before the nest—

they are permitted.

And we raised it as a problem:

What are the circumstances,

with which fledglings is the Mishna dealing?

If you say it is with fledglings that have flown,

which can already fly a distance.

Why are they permitted on Yom Tov when there are no other fledglings around them? Surely

it is possible to say: These

designated ones

went

by flying

elsewhere, and these

found before the nest

are other ones?

Rather,

necessarily the Mishna deals

with

fledglings

that walk,

which cannot fly except a little, and therefore the matter depends on whether there is another nest in the vicinity or not.

For if there is no other nest in the vicinity, these fledglings could not walk here from far away, and it is clear that these fledglings are the designated fledglings.

And we raised it as a problem, from either side:

If there is a nest

additional

within fifty cubits [

which is the boundary to which they can walk]—

they walked

fifty cubits, and it is possible that these are not the designated ones!

And if there is no nest

additional

within fifty cubits—

then

it is obvious that they are permitted!

For Mar Ukva bar Hama said: Every

fledgling

that walks

and cannot fly

does not walk more than fifty cubits!

And we answer:

Actually,

it is speaking of a case

where there is a nest within fifty cubits, and for example it stands

the other nest

in a corner,

beyond the corner of the house, so that if the fledgling wishes to pass from one nest to the other, when it reaches the corner of the house it must turn right or left, and it can no longer see its nest.

Lest you say,

since the distance between the nests is within fifty cubits,

they walked.

It teaches us

that the fledgling’s way is:

Wherever it walks and then,

as long as, while walking, it can turn its head and

see its nest,

it continues and

walks.

But if not,

if it cannot see its nest when it turns its head backward, it

does not walk

any farther. Therefore, when the other nest is beyond the corner, the fledgling does not walk toward it.

And in this manner the Mishna teaches us that the fledglings that were in the nest are permitted, even though they left it and were found before it, since there is no concern that fledglings from the second dovecote within fifty cubits came, for they do not pass the corner of the house between the dovecotes.

Mishna:

a.

Beit Shammai say: One may not take

on Yom Tov

the pestle,

which is a heavy and thick wooden log with which one pounds wheat in a mortar, in order

to cut meat upon it,

since it is a utensil whose designated use is for a prohibited labor, for it is intended for pounding wheat, which can be done from the eve of Yom Tov.

And Beit Hillel permit.

b.

Beit Shammai say: One may not place the hide

before those who tread on it.

One may not spread it out in a place where people will tread upon it as they walk, because this is the beginning of the process of tanning the hide, and it is forbidden to do so on Yom Tov.

And

so

he may not lift it

the flayed hide—in order to place it in a guarded place or move it from its place so that it will not be ruined—for it is muktzeh,

unless there is an olive-sized piece of meat with it,

and it is considered attached to the meat and is not muktzeh; [but even in this manner he may not place it before those who tread on it].

And Beit Hillel permit.

Gemara:

The tanna taught: And they agree

Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai,

that if

already

he cut meat on it

he is prohibited from moving it

with another movement not for the needs of the Festival day.

Abaye said: The dispute

of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is only

with regard to the pestle,

which is not designated for cutting meat on it.

But with regard to a “tavra garmi,”

which is a surface designated for cutting meat on it and breaking bones on it,

everyone agrees that it is permitted

because this labor is permitted on the Festival day.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious,

for regarding the

“pestle”

which is a utensil whose designated labor is prohibited,

we learned

that they dispute concerning it, and not concerning a tavra garmi, which is a utensil specially designated for cutting meat on it, an act that is permitted to perform on the Festival day; it is obvious that it is permitted to move it!

And we explain:

You might have said

that

the same law applies, that even a tavra garmi as well

Beit Shammai were stringent and prohibited it, because perhaps he will trouble himself to move it and afterward change his mind about cutting, and it will turn out that he troubled himself to move it on the Festival day without need.

And the fact that it teaches

in our Mishna

“pestle,”

was in order

to inform you of the power of Beit Hillel, that even

a utensil that is

an object whose labor is prohibited

they likewise permit

moving it for the sake of the joy of the Festival day.

It teaches us

that a tavra garmi is permitted.

There are those who say:

Abaye said: It was necessary only

to permit

even a new tavra garmi

that is new.

For

you might have said:

since it is new,

he will change his mind

he is likely to regret it

and not break on it

and he will not break bones on it, and there is concern that he will move it without need.

It teaches us

that it is permitted to move it, and they were not concerned that he would regret it.

And we examine this:

And

for

does Beit Shammai not fear that he will change his mind?

But

surely

it was taught in a beraita: Beit Shammai say: One may not lead

on the Festival day the

slaughterer

[the one who slaughters]

and

the

knife to the animal

that is located in a distant place.

And

likewise

one may not

lead the

animal

from a distant place

to the slaughterer and the knife.

For perhaps he will change his mind, and it will turn out that he troubled himself on the Festival day without need.

And Beit Hillel say: They may lead

them

one to the other,

and they did not fear that he would change his mind.

Beit Shammai say: One may not lead spices and a pestle

the handle with which one pounds in the mortar—

to the mortar, nor the mortar to the spices and the pestle

lest he change his mind, and it will turn out that he troubled himself without need for the Festival day.

And Beit Hillel say: They may lead one to the other.

This proves that Beit Shammai fear lest he change his mind, whereas Abaye said that they do not fear this.

And we answer:

Is it really so!?

What is the comparison!?

Granted

with regard to leading the

animal,

there is a concern that

he may come to change his mind,

because

he says

to himself:

Let us leave

I will leave

this lean animal, and let us bring

and I will bring

another animal, which is fatter than it.

And with regard to leading spices in order to grind them for the

pot

as well

there is a concern that

he may come to change his mind

about the pounding, because

he says: Let us leave

I will abandon the preparation of

this pot that requires spices, and let us bring

and I will bring another pot

that does not require spices.

But

here,

with regard to a tavra garmi—

what is there to say,

why should there be concern lest

he change his mind and not break

on it!?

For

once he has slaughtered

the animal,

to break

to break its bones on a tavra garmi

it stands,

and it is clear that he will do so!

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: One may not place the hide

before those who tread on it.

The tanna taught: And they agree,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

that one salts on it

on the hide that he flayed on the Festival day

meat for roasting.

He salts the meat on it before roasting it, and a little salt becomes scattered on the hide, thereby preserving the hide. They permitted such processing because it is performed in an unusual manner, and because of the joy of the Festival day, for if he knows that the animal’s hide will be ruined, he will refrain from slaughtering it.

Abaye said: They taught

that it is permitted to salt meat on the hide

only

salting

for roasting,

which is a small amount of salting.

But

salting

for

cooking in a

pot,

which is extensive salting—

not

did they permit performing it on the hide.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious,

for in the beraita it explicitly says, salting

“for roasting,” we learned!

And we explain:

This teaches us

Abaye, by saying “but for cooking, no”—

that even

if he salts meat

for roasting,

but does so with extensive salting

like that for a pot, it is prohibited

to salt it on the hide.

The Sages taught: One may not salt

on the Festival day

the suet

of an animal so that it will not putrefy, because by doing so he processes it.

And they do not turn them over,

so that they may air out, since this too is something akin to the rectification of the work of processing.

In the name of Rabbi Yehoshua they said: One spreads them out

the fats

in the wind upon stakes

so that they will not become foul, so that he will not refrain from slaughtering.

Rav Mattana said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

Some say:

Rav Mattana said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

And we raised it as a difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

it is well that it

was necessary

to inform us of this.

For

it might enter your mind to say: When there is an individual and a majority, the halakha is in accordance with the majority,

therefore

it informs us

that here

the halakha is in accordance with the individual.

But according to the one who says that the halakha is not in accordance

with Rabbi Yehoshua—

it is obvious;

what need was there to inform us of this, since the rule always is that when there are

an individual and a majority—

the halakha is in accordance with the majority!?

And we answer:

It might have entered your mind to say

that

Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning is compelling, for if you do not permit him, he will refrain and will not slaughter,

and therefore the halakha should be in accordance with him.

It informs us,

that nevertheless the halakha is not in accordance with him.

And we raised it as a difficulty:

And what is different

that they prohibited spreading out the fats in the wind

from

spreading out

a hide before those who tread on it,

which Beit Hillel permitted!?