Beitzah 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

the

The Gemara raises an objection to the ruling that Ulla innovated, that the permission to place the hide before those who trample it is because they permitted the end for the sake of the beginning:

The hide before those who trample it -

but

we already learned

this ruling in the Mishna on the previous amud, that Beit Hillel permit it!

And we explain: Ulla needed to inform us of the reason for the permission to spread out the hide, because without his reason,

it might enter your mind: The reason of Beit Hillel

who permit it is

because it is fit to recline upon

and sit and lean

upon it, and

if so,

even

if the animal was slaughtered and its hide was removed

from the eve of the Festival as well,

it would be permitted to place the hide before those who trample it.

Ulla teaches us

that only when the hide was removed on Yom Tov is it permitted to spread it out, because

they permitted the end -

for the sake of the beginning.

Therefore, only a hide

from Yom Tov -

yes,

they permitted spreading it out, but a hide

from the eve of Yom Tov -

no,

they did not permit spreading it, since he would not refrain from slaughtering it on the eve of Yom Tov for this reason, as he could spread the hide out on the eve of Yom Tov and it would not be lost.

The Gemara further raises an objection:

The shutters of shops,

but

we likewise already learned

in our Mishna:

And Beit Hillel permit even replacing them!

What, then, did Ulla innovate by stating this ruling?

The Gemara explains:

It might enter your mind that their reason

of Beit Hillel

is

because there is no

category of

building with regard to keilim, and there is no

category of

demolishing with regard to keilim,

but only with regard to something attached to the ground.

And

for this reason,

even

the shutters of house chests

as well

may be replaced, and there is no need for the reason of “the rejoicing of Yom Tov” in order to permit replacing them.

Ulla teaches us

that although there is no Torah prohibition of building and demolishing with regard to keilim, nevertheless, it is prohibited by rabbinic ordinance. And the permission to replace the shutters of chests applies only to the chests of shops in which spices are sold to the public, because the entire permission is due to

“they permitted the end for the sake of the beginning.”

Since this is so, only the shutters of chests

of shops—yes,

only those did they permit to replace, because if the merchants open their shop chests and cannot close them, the merchants will refrain from opening their shop chests on Yom Tov, and the rejoicing of Yom Tov will be withheld from the public.

But replacing shutters in chests

of houses—no,

they did not permit it, since building and demolishing with regard to keilim are prohibited by rabbinic ordinance, and there is no concern that one will refrain from the rejoicing of Yom Tov if he does not open the chests in his home.

And we raise another objection:

the matter of replacing a bandage in the Temple

we also learned it [in tractate Eruvin 102b]:

One may replace a bandage in the Temple, but not in the rest of the country!

And we answer:

Lest you say: What is the reason

that one may replace a bandage in the Temple?

Because there is no

decree of

shevut

in force

in the Temple,

whereas a bandage involves only the prohibition of shevut that the Sages decreed concerning it, lest one grind medicinal ingredients; and since that is so,

even a priest who is not qualified for

Temple service

should be permitted to replace it if he removed it, even though he did not remove it for the sake of the service.

This teaches us

that Ulla’s permission to replace a bandage in the Temple applies only because

“they permitted the conclusion because of

the beginning” [that is, they did not permit all prohibitions of shevut in the Temple].

Therefore, only a priest who is not blemished,

for whom service

is possible,

yes,

he alone is permitted to replace the bandage. But a blemished priest,

who is not qualified for the service,

is one whom

no,

they did not permit him to replace a bandage, for replacing the bandage was permitted only for the sake of service in the Temple.

We raise another objection:

One opens his barrel

during the festival—

we also learned: One who opens his barrel and begins his dough during the festival—

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may finish

selling it to ḥaverim, who eat in a state of ritual purity, even after the festival.

And the Sages say: He may not finish!

If so, what did Rahava add and teach concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s position?

And we answer:

Lest you say

that

the ritual impurity of an ignoramus during the festival

was rendered equivalent by the Sages to purity,

and if an ignoramus touched the barrel or the dough during the festival,

even though he had not begun

selling wine from the barrel during the festival,

also

the wine would not become impure, and it would be permitted to sell it after the festival.

This teaches us

that Rahava teaches that even according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is not ritual purity during the festival; rather, it is only because

“they permitted the conclusion because of the beginning,”

that they permitted him to continue selling the wine after the festival, so that he would begin selling it during the festival and would not fear losing the wine that would remain in the barrel.

Therefore, only if

he began, yes,

he may continue selling it after the festival even if an ignoramus touched the food. But if he

did not begin

selling it during the festival and an ignoramus touched the food, even during the festival—

no,

he may not sell it after the festival to ḥaverim, who eat in a state of ritual purity.

We inquire concerning this:

And Ulla,

who stated three matters—

what is the reason he did not also say

also

this

—the law of “one who began selling during the festival”?

And we answer:

He does not discuss a matter that is subject to dispute.

And we challenge: If so,

those as well,

which Ulla mentioned—

are matters of dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—

are they not!

And we answer:

When Beit Shammai’s view is opposed by Beit Hillel,

it is not considered a Mishna!

The Gemara brings a discussion concerning the circumstance in which the dispute cited in our Mishna was stated:

Our Mishna,

which states that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also dispute the removal of the shutters, maintains

not in accordance with this tanna:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may remove the shutters on a Festival. They disagreed only with regard to replacing

them in their place.

As Beit Shammai say: One may not replace them, and Beit Hillel say: One may even replace them.

When are these words stated,

when Beit Shammai disputed and prohibited replacing

shutters

shutters

that have hinges,

with a protrusion on each side of the shutter that fits into a hole in the side of the shop, thereby making them resemble a structure: the shutter rotates on its two hinges like a window or a door of a house. Therefore, Beit Shammai prohibited replacing them, because in their view the concept of building applies even to utensils.

But if they do not have hinges,

and one merely places them over the opening, so that they do not resemble a structure at all—

according to everyone

it is permitted.

And we challenge:

But was it not taught

in a beraita the opposite of the previous beraita:

When are these words stated,

when Beit Hillel permitted replacing the shutters—

when they do not have hinges.

But if they have hinges—

according to everyone it is prohibited!

And we answer:

Abaye said

to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot:

The two tannaim in the two beraitot do not disagree at all. Rather, they both maintain that:

With regard to

shutters

that have a hinge on the side—

according to everyone,

both according to Beit Shammai and according to Beit Hillel, it is

prohibited

to replace the shutter [for Beit Shammai, by Torah law, because building applies to utensils; and for Beit Hillel, because it resembles building].

If

they have no hinge whatsoever,

this does not resemble building at all, and

according to everyone it is permitted

to replace them.

They disagree—

when they have a central hinge

in the shutter, and one inserts it into the hole in the middle of the side of the chest’s opening [Rashi’s wording], which does not resemble a complete structure.