Beitzah 11b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

there,

when he spreads the hide before the treader,

the matter is not evident

that his intention is to tan the hide,

because it is fit

that this hide is suitable

to recline upon it

to sit and lean upon it, and people will not come to err and permit tanning it ממש, because they will know that the permission that the Sages permitted to spread the hide before the treader is because of the need of the Festival, for it is now possible to sit upon it, and only for this reason did they permit it.

But

here,

if you permit spreading the fats,

people will come

to err and

say: For what reason did the Rabbis permit me

to spread the fats? Is it not

so that they should not spoil,

the fats, and it is not for the need of the Festival.

And they will err and say:

What difference is there for me if I spread them

in the air,

what difference is there for me if I salt them,

for these two labors are performed for the purpose of preserving the fats and are permitted; therefore they also prohibited spreading the fats in the wind.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A person may salt

on the Festival

several pieces of meat at one time,

because all the salting is one exertion,

even though he does not need

it for the Festival meal

except for one piece.

Thus, the remaining meat is preserved in salt; nevertheless, there is no prohibition in this, because he does not exert himself especially for salting the portion that he will leave until after the Festival.

Rav Adda bar Ahava

was

crafty ,

and salted

piece by piece,

he would salt one piece, and afterward say that another piece was more pleasing to his palate, and salt it, and so he did with all the meat remaining from the slaughter. And he held that they permitted employing a stratagem and salting everything, so that he would not come to suffer loss of the remaining meat and refrain from slaughtering for the need of the Festival .

Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: One may not remove the shutters on the Festival,

even for the purpose of taking spices for the needs of the joy of the Festival. And in the Gemara it will be explained what these shutters are and what the prohibition against removing them is.

And Beit Hillel permit

removing them, and

even

permit

returning

them to their place after they have been removed for the needs of the Festival.

Gemara:

And we consider it:

What are shutters?

Which shutters did Beit Hillel permit even to return, and did not fear the prohibition of building?

Ulla said: The shutters of

the

shops,

and these are the doors of the merchants' boxes, called “shops” [and the intention is not to a built shop].

And Ulla said: Three things they permitted

the Sages to do on the Festival,

their end, because of

so that people would perform

their beginning,

and would not refrain from performing their beginning because of the prohibition involved in their end .

And these are they:

Placing

a hide before the treader.

For ultimately, after the slaughter, they permitted him to spread out the hide, so that he would not be concerned about the loss of the hide and refrain at the outset from slaughtering the animal, thereby losing the joy of the Festival.

And the shutters of shops,

for they permitted the spice merchants to return the doors of their stalls at the end of the day, because if we prohibit them from returning them at the end, they will not open their shops at the outset, and spices will be lacking for the joy of the Festival.

And returning a dressing in the Temple,

for they permitted the koen serving in the Temple on Shabbat or the Festival to return, at the end, after his service, the dressing that was upon his wound, which he removed before his service so that it would not constitute an interposition in the service of the offerings. For if we prohibit him from returning it, he will not remove it at the outset and will refrain from the Temple service, which must be performed without a dressing that constitutes an interposition in the service.

And outside the Temple it is prohibited to return a dressing, because the Sages decreed a prohibition upon all medical treatments on Shabbat, lest one grind medicinal substances and violate a Torah prohibition.

And Rachava said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Also, one who opens his wine jar and begins with his dough during the pilgrimage Festival, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says: He may finish.

And this means that the Sages decreed ritual impurity upon every contact of an am ha-aretz, except during the pilgrimage Festival, so as not to embarrass them at that time.

And the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed concerning the status of foods touched by amei ha-aretz during the pilgrimage Festival [when they entered to buy bread or wine from chaverim, who are careful in the observance of purity], and that remained after the pilgrimage Festival.

According to the Sages, amei ha-aretz impart impurity through their contact even during the pilgrimage Festival; rather, so as not to embarrass them during the pilgrimage Festival, the Sages were lenient not to be concerned about this impurity during the pilgrimage Festival. But once the pilgrimage Festival has passed, the impurity takes effect retroactively, without any basis for permission.

But according to Rabbi Yehuda, their impurity does not render impure retroactively אצל the sellers who sold to the amei ha-aretz. Rachava explained that Rabbi Yehuda's reason is that they permitted their end, to purify the merchandise remaining after the pilgrimage Festival, because of their beginning, so that they would open their merchandise during the pilgrimage Festival and allow the amei ha-aretz to handle it.

Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda said that a seller who opened his wine jar for sale during the pilgrimage Festival, and amei ha-aretz touched the wine, does not have impure wine, and may continue selling it as pure wine even after the pilgrimage Festival. Likewise, one who made dough to sell during the pilgrimage Festival, and amei ha-aretz touched the dough, may sell it in a state of purity even after the pilgrimage Festival.

And the Gemara raises an objection against the law that Ulla innovated, that the permission to place a hide before those who trample it is because they permitted the end on account of the beginning:

Hide before those who trample it -

behold,

we already learned

this law in the Mishna on the previous page, that Beit Hillel permit it!

And we explain: Ulla needed to make known the reason for the permission to spread out the hide, because were it not for his reason,

what might you have said: The reason of Beit Hillel

who permit it is

because it is fit for reclining

to sit and lean

upon them, 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.

It comes to teach us

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

they permitted the end -

on account of the beginning.

And therefore only the hide

of the Festival -

yes,

they permitted spreading it out, but a hide

from the eve of the Festival -

no,

they did not permit spreading it out, since because of this he would not refrain from slaughtering it on the eve of the Festival, as he can spread out the hide from the eve of the Festival, and it will not be lost.

And the Gemara further raises an objection:

shop shutters,

behold,

we also learned

in our Mishna:

and Beit Hillel permit even returning them!

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

And the Gemara explains:

what might you have said, their reason

of Beit Hillel

is

because there is no

rule of

building in utensils, and there is no

rule of

demolishing in utensils,

but only in something attached to the ground.

And

for this reason,

even

the shutters of boxes

of houses, also,

would be permitted to return, and there would be no need for the reason of “the joy of the Festival” in order to permit returning them.

It comes to teach us

Ulla that although there is no prohibition of building and demolishing in utensils by Torah law, nevertheless, by rabbinic law it is forbidden. And the permission to return the shutters of the boxes applies only to the boxes of shops in which spices are sold to the public, because the entire permission is due to

“they permitted the end on account of the beginning.”

And since this is so, only the shutters of boxes

of shops, yes,

those alone did they permit to return. For if the merchants open the shop box and are unable to close it, the merchants will refrain from opening their shop boxes on the Festival, and the joy of the Festival will be prevented from the public.

But returning shutters in boxes

of houses, no,

they did not permit, since building and demolishing in utensils are prohibited rabbinically, and there is no concern that he will refrain from the joy of the Festival if he does not open the boxes in his house.

And we further challenge:

the returning of a bandage in the Temple —

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

“One may return a bandage in the Temple, but not in the country!”

And we answer:

One might have said: What is the reason

for returning a bandage in the Temple?

Because there is no

decree of

shevut

that applies

in the Temple,

and a bandage involves only the prohibition of shevut that the Rabbis decreed concerning it, lest one grind medicinal substances; and since this is so, even

a priest who is not fit for

service

would be permitted to return it if he had removed it, even though he had not removed it for the sake of service.

It informs us

Ulla that the permission to return a bandage in the Temple is only because

“they permitted the end because of the

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

And therefore, only a priest who is not blemished,

fit for service

he is,

yes,

he alone is permitted to return the bandage; but a blemished priest,

who is not fit for service

he is,

no,

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

We further challenge:

“He opens his barrel”

during the festival —

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

Rabbi Judah says: He may finish

selling it to chaverim, who eat in purity, even after the festival.

And the Sages say: He may not finish!

If so, what did Rachba add and innovate regarding Rabbi Judah’s view?

And we answer:

One might have said

that

the ritual impurity of an am ha-aretz during the festival

the Rabbis rendered like purity,

and if an am ha-aretz 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.

It informs us

Rachba that even according to Rabbi Judah this is not purity during the festival, but only because

“they permitted the end because of the beginning,”

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

Therefore, only if

he began, yes,

he may continue selling after the festival even if an am ha-aretz touched the food; but if

he did not begin

selling during the festival, and an am ha-aretz touched the food, even during the festival —

not

may he sell it after the festival to chaverim who eat in purity.

And we inquire concerning it:

And Ulla,

who stated three things —

for what reason did he not also say

also

this

— the law of “he began selling during the festival”?

And we answer:

He does not speak concerning a dispute.

And we challenge: If so,

these too,

which Ulla mentioned —

are a dispute

between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel

they are!

And we answer:

The School of Shammai in a place where the School of Hillel

exists is not a Mishna!

The Gemara brings a discussion concerning the manner in which the dispute brought in our Mishna was stated:

Our Mishna,

our Mishna, which says that the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel also disputed concerning removing the shutters, maintains

not in accordance with this tanna:

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree that one removes the shutters on a festival. They disputed only concerning returning

them to their place.

For the School of Shammai says: One may not return them, and the School of Hillel says: One may also return them.

In what case are these words stated,

that the School of Shammai disputed and prohibited returning them?

With

shutters

that have a hinge,

where on both sides of the shutter there is a protrusion that enters a hole in the wall of the shop, and through this they resemble construction, for the shutter revolves on its two hinges like a window or a door of a house; therefore the School of Shammai prohibited it, because according to their view there is the category of construction also in utensils.

But if they do not have a hinge,

but rather one places them upon the opening, so that they do not resemble construction at all —

according to everyone

it is permitted.

And we challenge:

But was it not taught

in a beraita the opposite of the preceding beraita:

In what case are these words stated

that the School of Hillel permitted returning the shutters?

When they do not have a hinge.

But if they have a hinge —

according to everyone it is prohibited!

And we answer:

Abaye said

to reconcile the contradiction between the beraitot:

The two tannaim in the two beraitot do not dispute at all; rather, both maintain that:

With

shutters

that have a hinge on the side —

according to everyone,

both according to the School of Shammai and according to the School of Hillel,

it is prohibited

to return the shutter, [for the School of Shammai, by Torah law, since there is construction in utensils, and for the School of Hillel, because this resembles construction].

If

they have no hinge whatsoever,

it does not resemble construction at all, and

according to everyone it is permitted

to return them.

Where they dispute is

when the shutter has a hinge in the middle

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 complete construction.