Beitzah 30a — the Talmud in English

And one may begin ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact folio location")

with the heap of straw

to take straw from it in order to fuel with it. That is, it is permitted to begin taking straw from the heap of straw on a Festival even though he did not designate it for this beforehand, and he was not accustomed to fuel with it, and there is no concern of muktze.

But one may not

begin taking

from the wood in the “muktze.”

The extension behind the house is called “muktze,” and it is a place into which people do not enter and leave regularly, and there they put wood and every object that a person does not intend to take except after a long time.

And one may not take wood from there, because it is forbidden to move it due to the prohibition of muktze, and the Gemara explains what the difference is between the heap of straw in the first clause and the wood in the muktze in the latter clause.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The one who brings wine-jars from place to place shall not bring them in a basket or a box:

And concerning this

a tanna

in a beraita

taught:

If it is impossible to make a change, such as when he invited many guests and needs to bring many together, it is

permitted

to bring them in a basket or a box, even though this is his weekday manner.

Rava instituted in Mehoza,

Rava instituted in his city, Mehoza, methods for changing the manner of carrying burdens on a Festival. And this is what he instituted:

The rule is that one should not increase the exertion through the change, but should lighten his burden, or change it in a manner that does not involve excessive exertion, even though it does not lessen the exertion. A burden

that they carry with difficulty,

a burden that a person carries on his shoulder on a weekday with exertion, if he comes to carry it on a Festival—

let them carry it with a pitchfork,

he shall carry it on a Festival with a pitchfork in order to make a change, and through this change carrying it is easier for him, and he does not exert himself more, and it is a proper change.

A burden

that they carry with a pitchfork,

a burden that even on a weekday the manner is to carry with a pitchfork—

let them carry it with a pole

on a Festival he should change, and carry it by means of two people on a pole on their shoulders, which is easier than carrying it with a pitchfork. But one person should not carry it alone on his shoulder, since he makes it heavier by doing so.

That they carry with a pole,

a burden that even on a weekday the manner is to carry on a pole on their shoulders—

let them carry it with a carrying-frame,

they shall carry it on a Festival with a pole in their hands, in order to change from their weekday manner, but they shall not carry it with a pitchfork, which involves greater exertion.

That they carry with a carrying-frame,

a burden that the manner is to carry on a pole, by two people, in their hands—

let them spread a cloth over it

they shall spread on a Festival a cloth [which is light and does not make it heavier] over the burden. Even though this is not a change in the burden itself but merely concealment, nevertheless it is a change.

And if it is impossible

to make any change without increasing exertion, such as when he does not even have a cloth—

it is permitted

even without a change.

For

behold,

the master said,

in the beraita above:

If it is impossible to make a change—

it is permitted

without a change.

He said

he wondered

to him, Rav Hanan bar Rava said to Rav Ashi:

Behold,

the Sages said: Whenever it is possible to make a change,

we make a change on a Festival.

Whenever it is possible to perform a change, we change on a Festival, in carrying burdens.

But these women, who fill their jugs with water on a Festival,

[behold, the women fill their jugs with water on a Festival] and bring them to their homes,

and they do not make a change

[and they do not change at all],

and

nevertheless

we do not say anything to them

[we do not call their attention to this], yet a change is required; why do we not admonish them concerning this?!

He said

he answered

to him

Rav Ashi said to Rav Hanan bar Rava:

Because it is impossible

to make a change, as he proceeds to explain.

We have learned: If it is impossible to make a change, it is permitted even without a change.

And why is it impossible with a change, for

how should she act

[what should she do as a change]?

If you would say:

One who fills with a large jug shall fill with a small jug

[a woman accustomed to fill with a large jug shall fill on a Festival with a small jug]?

It is impossible! For this is an addition of exertion, since

she increases her walking

[she increases her walking], because she will need to walk many more times on account of her small jug, and one does not make a change by adding exertion.

If you would say: A woman

who fills with a small jug shall fill with a large jug

[who is accustomed to fill with a small jug shall fill with a large jug]?

It is impossible! For this too is an addition of exertion, since

she increases the burden

[she adds to and makes her burden heavier].

If you would say:

Cover it with a wooden cover

[cover the jug with a wooden cover intended for jugs], and as was explained above, even such a change is a change?

It is impossible! For there is concern:

Sometimes it breaks, and she comes to bring it.

Sometimes this cover breaks, and she will come to move the fragments, which are forbidden to move.

If you would say: Cover it with a cover and

tie it

[tie it] to the jug so that it does not fall?

It is impossible! For there is concern:

Sometimes it becomes severed

and she comes to tie it

[sometimes the cord becomes severed and she will come to tie it on a Festival], and a knot intended to remain is a principal labor [Rashi according to Rashash].

If you would say:

Spread a cloth over it

[spread a cloth over the jug]?

It is impossible! For there is concern:

Sometimes it becomes soaked in water

[sometimes the cover falls into the water]

and she comes to squeezing,

she will come to squeeze it, which is forbidden on a Festival.

Therefore, it is impossible

to make a change. And since this is so, it is permitted even without a change.

He said

he wondered

to him, Rava bar Rav Hanin said to Abaye:

Behold,

we learned: One may not clap

[palm against palm],

and one may not slap

[palm against thigh],

and one may not dance

on a Festival, and the reason is that perhaps he will repair a musical instrument.

And

behold,

nowadays, when we see that they do this, and we do not

say anything to them

[behold, nowadays we see that they do this, and we do not call their attention to it]?!

He said to him

Abaye said to Rava bar Rav Hanin:

And according to your reasoning,

since you hold that it is proper to admonish them, this too should be difficult for you:

That which Rava said,

that is to say: Behold, Rava said:

A person should not sit at the entrance of the side-post

[a person should not sit on Shabbat at the head of an alley adjacent to the public domain, at the place where the side-post is placed in order to permit carrying in the alley]—

because

perhaps an object will roll away from him and he will come to bring it

[perhaps the object will roll from his hand into the adjacent public domain, and he will come to return it to the alley, which is a private domain], because since the alley is not roofed, people do not recognize that it is a private domain, and it follows that he has violated the labor of “carrying out.”

And this should be difficult for you:

But these women, who take their jugs,

and go and sit at the entrance of the alley

[behold, the women take their jugs and sit at the head of the alley],

and we do not say anything to them

[we do not call their attention to it]?!

Rather,

the reason that we do not admonish them is necessarily:

Leave Israel alone

to do a thing to which they have become accustomed through lack of knowledge, and one should assume that they will not change because of our admonition.

For

it is better that they be unwitting,

and violate the prohibition through lack of knowledge,

and not be

because of our admonition

willful transgressors!

For even if we admonish them, they will not change, and it will turn out that we have corrupted them and not corrected them.

And since this is so,

here,

concerning clapping and dancing,

also,

therefore we do not admonish them, for

leave Israel alone; it is better that they be unwitting and not be willful transgressors.

And the Gemara qualifies this rule:

And this applies

when we refrain from admonishing

with regard to

a prohibition

of the Rabbis.

But with regard to a Torah prohibition,

if we see that they are violating a Torah prohibition—

no!

We do not refrain from admonishing them, even when it is to be assumed that they will not change through our admonition.

But the Gemara concludes otherwise:

It is not so!

Rather,

it makes no difference whether it is a Torah prohibition or whether it is a rabbinic prohibition,

whenever it is to be assumed that they will not change—

we do not say anything to them.

And the proof is that even concerning a Torah prohibition, one does not admonish anyone when it is known that they will not change:

For the addition to Yom Kippur,

the obligation to add and fast before Yom Kippur begins, whose obligation

is a Torah obligation,

is derived from the verse, “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month in the evening.”

And

if, in practice, the women do not do this, but they

eat and drink until it becomes dark.

And

nevertheless,

we do not say anything to them,

because “leave Israel alone; it is better that they be unwitting and not be willful transgressors.”

And from here you learn that this is said even concerning a Torah prohibition.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may begin with the heap of straw:

Rav Kahana said: This indicates,

from this law of the Mishna, that it is permitted to fuel with a heap of straw, since presumably it is stored for an animal, and it is prepared for use on a Festival, we can learn that according to our Mishna:

one may begin

to use

a storehouse

[objects stored for a long time]

for the first time

on a Festival, and we are not concerned about the prohibition of muktze.

And if so,

whose view is it

the Mishna: necessarily

it is Rabbi Shimon’s, who does not hold of

the prohibition of

muktze

with regard to an object that is fit, but a person sets it aside in his mind.

And now this should be difficult:

Say the latter clause

of our Mishna:

But one may not

use for fueling

the wood that is in

the

muktze,

because it is forbidden on account of “muktze.”

And this law of the latter clause necessarily

comes

only

according to

the view of

Rabbi Yehuda, who holds of muktze

with regard to an object that is fit, but a person sets it aside in his mind.

And the first clause should be difficult to the latter clause?!

And we answer: Actually, our Mishna is Rabbi Shimon’s. But nevertheless, he agrees with the law stated in the latter clause, that one does not use the wood in the muktze.

For

here,

in the latter clause, where we learned that one does not use the wood in the muktze—

we are dealing with cedar and fir trees

[male cedar wood and female cedar wood]

we are dealing,

for a person does not fuel with them, since they are intended for building,

for

these woods

are muktze because of financial loss,

since their value is high.

And even Rabbi Shimon,

who does not agree with other forms of muktze that a person sets aside in his mind, because he does not set them aside decisively, but has in mind that perhaps he will be able to use them,

agrees

with regard to muktze because of financial loss, that it is forbidden, since a person sets it aside completely.

There are those who teach it

as Rav Kahana’s statement

with regard to the latter clause

of our Mishna, in which we learned:

But not with the wood in the muktze:

And concerning this

Rav Kahana said: This indicates: One may not begin with a storehouse for the first time!

And the Gemara infers: necessarily,

whose view is it

our Mishna—

it is Rabbi Yehuda’s, who holds of muktze.

And now this should be difficult:

Say the first clause

of our Mishna:

And one may begin with the heap of straw.

And this law necessarily

comes

only

according to

the view of

Rabbi Shimon, who does not hold of muktze.

And the first clause should be difficult to the latter clause?!

And we answer: Actually, our Mishna is Rabbi Yehuda’s. But nevertheless, it is permitted to begin with the heap of straw, and you cannot learn from here that one may also begin with a storehouse.

For

there,

in the first clause of our Mishna, in which we learned “And one may begin with the heap of straw,” it is dealing

with rotten straw

[rotten and foul-smelling straw] that is not fit for animal food, and ordinarily it is intended for fueling, and therefore there is no issue of muktze.

And we wonder: How can you say that our Mishna is dealing with

rotten straw

and that it is not muktze?

But

it is fit for clay

[it is fit for making mud, to form bricks from it], and if so, it is muktze?!

And we answer: The first clause of our Mishna is dealing with rotten straw

that has thorns

[there are thorns in it], and he cannot knead it with his hands and feet into clay, and therefore it is not muktze.