Beitzah 9a — the Talmud in English

But if

he rolled

the

dough on the eve of the Festival ,

and did not separate challa from it while it was still daytime—

he separates its challa on the Festival ,

because the Sages did not decree a prohibition against separating challa on the Festival, as they decreed regarding terumot and tithes, that they may not be separated on the Festival [because it appears as “making fit,” since it is permitted to knead dough on the Festival and bake it in order to enjoy eating hot bread. And since its obligation takes effect on the Festival, they permitted separating it then. But with terumot and tithes, whose obligation already took effect on the eve of the Festival, it is possible to make them fit on the eve of the Festival, and there is no need to permit the rectification of their separation on the Festival]].

And since they did not prohibit separating challa from dough kneaded on the Festival, it is also permitted to separate challa even from dough kneaded on the eve of the Festival.

Shmuel’s father said: Even if he rolled dough on the eve of the Festival—

he may not separate its challa on the Festival,

for they permitted separating challa only from dough kneaded on the Festival .

And we raised an objection to it:

Let us say that the

statements

of Shmuel,

which will be explained below,

disagree with the

statements

of his father,

Shmuel’s father, whom the Gemara mentioned just now?

For Shmuel said:

The obligation to separate

the challa of outside the Land

from dough kneaded outside the Land [which is obligated in the separation of challa only by rabbinic law] does not prohibit it as tevel, like the challa of the Land of Israel.

Rather—

a person eats

and

continues,

continuing to eat the bread baked from the dough without separating challa, and leaving some of it ,

and afterward separates

the challa upon what remains .

And the Gemara understood that since he does not rectify anything through separating the challa of outside the Land—for he is permitted to eat from the dough even before separation—if so, according to Shmuel it ought to be permitted to separate the challa of outside the Land even on the Festival, even from dough kneaded on the eve of the Festival, since its separation is not similar to the separation of the challa of the Land of Israel or to the separation of terumot and tithes, which the Sages prohibited separating on the Festival because it appears as “making fit” .

And since Shmuel’s father too, who prohibited separating challa from dough kneaded on the eve of the Festival, was speaking about the challa of outside the Land, it appeared to the Gemara that Shmuel disagreed with his father .

Rava said:

Shmuel always holds like his father, that it is prohibited to separate challa on the Festival from dough kneaded on the eve of the Festival, since it too is included in the general prohibition against separating terumot and tithes, even though he rectifies nothing through its separation:

For

does

he not—

admit that Shmuel,

although he did not need to separate it initially,

if

it did happen that

he designated it

initially—

it is prohibited

the challa

to non-kohein,

because the designation “teruma” took effect upon it? Therefore, it is included in the decree not to separate terumot and tithes on the Festival .

Mishna:

a. There are two ladders: one, a large ladder, called an “ascent ladder.” And the other, a “dovecote ladder,” designated for taking pigeons from the dovecote.

The two ladders are recognizable in their distinctiveness, by the difference between them.

In the Mishna and Gemara below, the laws of moving these two ladders will be explained, both moving them near the dovecote and moving them from one dovecote to another dovecote.

b. The dovecote of the pigeons is built of several stories called “ascents,” and in every ascent there are many compartments, divided from one another by partitions.

Every compartment, called a “nest,” has an opening called a “window.” In every compartment [“nest”] there is a pair of pigeons.

There is also a board projecting from the dovecote, on which the pigeons emerge and stand in order to draw breath. Pigeons arriving from other places also sit on this board, because they are afraid to enter the nest on account of the resident pigeons, which drive them away.

c. Two questions are discussed below: the first, whether there is a decree not to move a ladder on a Festival, lest people suspect him that he is carrying the ladder in order to plaster his roof.

And the second, whether something that the Sages decreed one must refrain from doing because of suspicion of “appearance to the eye” is permitted to be done in private, or not.

Beit Shammai say: One may not carry the ladder

designated for a dovecote

from one dovecote

one

to a dovecote

another on a Festival, even if he wishes to take fledglings from the other dovecote for the purpose of the joy of the Festival. And their reason will be explained in the Gemara.

But

he is permitted to be

tilting it

the ladder

from the window

of one nest

to the window

of another nest, in that same dovecote.

And Beit Hillel permit

moving this ladder from one dovecote to another dovecote.

Gemara:

Rav Hanan bar Ami said: The dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in our Mishna concerning moving the ladder from one dovecote to another is only

in the public domain,

because many people see its being moved.

For Beit Shammai

prohibited moving it because

they hold:

a person

who sees

him moving his ladder from place to place

says

in his heart: This person

needs to plaster

with plaster

his roof,

and he will come to the point that they will suspect him of desecrating the Festival through building labor.

And Beit Hillel

permitted moving it because

they hold: His dovecote

of the ladder

proves concerning him,

that is, it is recognizable concerning this ladder that it is a dovecote ladder, and therefore people will understand that he is moving the ladder for the purpose of the joy of the Festival and not for the purpose of building.

But

to move it

in the private domain,

where no one will be there to suspect him

everyone agrees it is permitted.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so!

Is this indeed the law?

But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Everywhere that the Sages prohibited

doing something

because of

suspicion of

“appearance to the eye,”

that people will say that he is committing a transgression

even in the innermost rooms

it is prohibited

for him to do it!

And Rav Hanan bar Ami has no power to disagree with Rav, since Rav was the master of all the Jews of the Exile, except for Shmuel! And we resolve: This law that Rav innovated depends upon a dispute

among tannaim,

and Rav Hanan bar Ami has a tanna who supports him, namely, the first tanna in the following beraita:

For it was taught:

One whose garments became wet from rainwater

spreads them in the sun

and they dry on their own.

But he may not

spread them

opposite the people,

so that they will not suspect him that he laundered his garments on Shabbat. That is, the first tanna did not prohibit a matter prohibited because of appearance to the eye except in the presence of many, but permitted doing it in private, in accordance with Rav Hanan bar Ami.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon prohibit

spreading them even in a concealed place, and this is in accordance with the words of Rav.

There are those who say:

Rav Hanan bar Ami said: The dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning moving the ladder is only

in the private domain. For Beit Shammai hold the position of Rav Yehuda

said Rav

that a matter prohibited because of appearance to the eye may not be done even in private.

And Beit Hillel do not hold the position of Rav Yehuda said Rav.

But in the public domain

everyone agrees it is prohibited

because of appearance to the eye.

And we raise an objection to Rav Hanan:

Let us say that Rav,

who established the words of Beit Shammai in accordance with his own position

spoke in accordance with Beit Shammai

and not in accordance with Beit Hillel, whose opinion is the halakha!?

It is necessarily necessary to say not in accordance with the words of Rav Hanan.

Rather, Beit Hillel hold that even in the public domain it is permitted to move the ladder, since his dovecote proves concerning him.

For if according to Beit Hillel it were prohibited to move the ladder in the public domain but permitted to move it in the private domain, Rav would not have stated his law that everywhere the Sages prohibited because of appearance to the eye it is prohibited even in the innermost rooms, since this contradicts the words of Beit Hillel concerning the ladder.

And now it is difficult concerning Rav Hanan bar Ami: how did he say that according to Beit Hillel it is prohibited in the public domain, whereas according to Rav it is necessarily permitted in the public domain!?

And we resolve: Rav Hanan can say

It is a dispute among tannaim,

who disputed the question whether a matter that is prohibited to do in the public domain because of appearance to the eye is also prohibited to do in the innermost rooms.

For it was taught:

One whose garments became wet from the rain

spreads them in the sun,

but not opposite the people. Rabbi

Elazar and Rabbi Shimon prohibit

spreading them even not opposite the people.

And it follows that Rav holds the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who prohibit, but I rely upon the opinion of the first tanna, who permits.

Therefore Rav maintained that Beit Hillel permit even in the public domain, since they permit in the private domain; it is impossible that it should be prohibited in the public domain and permitted in the private domain, since the prohibition of appearance to the eye applies even in a concealed place. And necessarily, when carrying a ladder there is no concern that those who see him will mistakenly think that he wishes to plaster his roof, because his dovecote proves concerning him.

But I, Rav Hanan, hold the opinion of the first tanna, that a matter prohibited because of appearance to the eye is permitted to be done in private. Therefore I can establish the words of Beit Hillel as permitting only in the private domain, but prohibiting in the public domain because of appearance to the eye, [while Beit Shammai hold that it is prohibited to carry a ladder even in the private domain because of appearance to the eye].