Beitzah 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

But if

he kneaded

a

dough on the eve of the Festival ,

and did not separate challah from it while it was still day,

he may separate its challah on the Festival ,

because the Sages did not impose a prohibition against separating challah on the Festival, as they did with terumot and ma'asrot, which may not be separated on the Festival [because this appears to be “repairing” the produce], 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 challah on that day. Terumot and ma'asrot, however, whose obligation had already taken effect on the eve of the Festival, can be rectified on the eve of the Festival, and there is no need to permit rectifying them by separating them on the Festival.

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

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

he may not separate its challah on the Festival,

because they permitted separating challah only from dough kneaded on the Festival .

And we raised an objection:

Shall we say that the view of

the sons of

Shmuel,

which will be explained below,

disagrees with the view of

the sons of

his father,

the father of Shmuel, whom the Gemara has just mentioned?

For Shmuel said:

The obligation to separate

challah of the Diaspora

from dough kneaded outside the Land of Israel [which is obligated in separating challah only by rabbinic ordinance] does not prohibit the dough with the prohibition of tevel, as is the case with challah of the Land of Israel.

Rather,

a person eats

and

continues,

continuing to eat the bread baked from the dough without separating challah, and leaves some of it over ;

and afterward he separates

the challah from what remains .

The Gemara understood that since one does not rectify anything through separating challah of the Diaspora—for he is permitted to eat from the dough even before separation—according to Shmuel it should follow that it is permitted to separate challah of the Diaspora even on the Festival, even from dough kneaded on the eve of the Festival, since its separation is unlike the separation of challah of the Land of Israel or the separation of terumot and ma'asrot, which the Sages prohibited separating on the Festival because it appears to be “rectification” .

And since the father of Shmuel as well, who prohibited separating challah from dough kneaded on the eve of the Festival, was speaking about challah of the Diaspora, the Gemara understood that Shmuel disagreed with his father .

Rava said:

Shmuel always held like his father, that it is prohibited to separate challah 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 ma'asrot, despite the fact that one does not rectify anything by separating it:

For

does

one not agree that Shmuel says

that,

although it is unnecessary to separate it initially,

if

it happened that he

gave it a designation

initially,

it is prohibited

for

non-kohanim,

since the designation “teruma” has taken effect upon it? Therefore, it is included in the decree prohibiting the separation of terumot and ma'asrot on the Festival .

Mishna:

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

The two ladders are distinguishable from one another by their difference.

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

B. The dovecote is built with several levels, called “ascents,” and each level contains many compartments, divided from one another by partitions.

Each compartment, called a “nest,” has an opening called a “window.” Each nest contains a pair of pigeons.

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

C. Two questions are discussed below. The first is whether there is a decree prohibiting one from moving a ladder on a Festival, lest people suspect that he is carrying the ladder in order to plaster his roof.

The second is whether something that the Sages decreed one must refrain from doing because of the suspicion of “appearance of impropriety” may be done privately, or not.

Beit Shammai say: One may not carry the ladder

designated for a dovecote

from one

dovecote

to another on a Festival, even if he wishes to take fledglings from the other dovecote for the sake of rejoicing on the Festival. Their reasoning will be explained in the Gemara.

on a Festival, even if he wishes to take fledglings from the other dovecote for the sake of rejoicing on the Festival. Their reason will be explained in the Gemara.

But

he may

tilt it

along the

window

of one nest

to the

window of another nest, within the same dovecote.

And Beit Hillel permit

moving this ladder from one dovecote to another.

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 applies only

in the public domain,

because many people see him moving it.

For Beit Shammai

prohibited moving it because they

hold that

a person

who sees

him moving his ladder from place to place

says

to himself: This man

needs to plaster

his roof

with plaster,

and this will lead to people suspecting him of desecrating the Festival by performing construction work.

And Beit Hillel

permitted moving it because they

hold: Its dovecote

the ladder’s

proves its purpose,

that is, it is apparent from this ladder that it is a dovecote ladder , and therefore people will understand that he is moving the ladder for the sake of rejoicing on the Festival, and not for construction.

But

to move it

in the private domain,

where no one will come to suspect him

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

Is this indeed the law?

But Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Wherever the Sages prohibited

doing something

because of

the suspicion of

“appearance of impropriety,”

lest people say that he is committing a transgression

even in private quarters

it is prohibited

for him to do it!

And Rav Hanan bar Ami has no power to dispute Rav, because Rav was the master of all the Jews of the Diaspora, except for Shmuel! And we answer: This law that Rav introduced depends on a dispute between

tannaim,

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

As it was taught:

One whose garments became wet from rainwater

may spread them in the sun,

and they will dry by themselves.

But he may not

spread them

in the sight of the people,

so that they will not suspect him of having laundered his garments on Shabbat. That is, the first tanna did not prohibit an act forbidden because of appearance of impropriety except in the presence of many people, but permitted doing it privately, in accordance with Rav Hanan bar Ami.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon prohibit

spreading them even in a concealed place, which accords with Rav’s statement.

There are those who say:

Rav Hanan bar Ami said: The dispute

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

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

who said in the name of Rav

that something prohibited because of appearance of impropriety may not be done even privately.

And Beit Hillel do not accept the position of Rav Yehuda who said in the name of Rav.

But in the public domain

everyone agrees that it is prohibited

because of appearance of impropriety.

And we challenge Rav Hanan:

Let us say that Rav,

who had Rav Hanan establish Beit Shammai’s statement in accordance with his view,

spoke in accordance with Beit Shammai

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

It is therefore necessary to say that Rav Hanan’s statement is not correct.

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

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 wherever the Sages prohibited something because of appearance of impropriety, it is prohibited even in private quarters, since this would contradict Beit Hillel’s ruling concerning the ladder.

It now follows that there is a difficulty for Rav Hanan bar Ami: How could he say that according to Beit Hillel it is prohibited in the public domain, whereas according to Rav it must necessarily be permitted in the public domain!?

And we answer: Rav Hanan can say to you:

It is a dispute between tannaim,

who disagree over whether something prohibited in the public domain because of appearance of impropriety is also prohibited in private quarters.

As it was taught:

One whose garments became wet from the rain

may spread them in the sun ,

but not in the sight of the people. Rabbi

Elazar and Rabbi Shimon prohibit

spreading them even when not in the sight of the people.

It follows that Rav agrees with the view of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who prohibit it, but I rely on the view of the first tanna, who permits it.

It follows that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who prohibit it, whereas I rely on the view of the first tanna, who permits it.

Therefore, Rav stated that Beit Hillel permit it even in the public domain, since they permit it 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 of impropriety applies even in a secluded place. Necessarily, in the case of carrying a ladder there is no concern that those who see him will mistakenly think that he wishes to plaster his roof, because its dovecote proves its purpose. But I, Rav Hanan, hold in accordance with the view of the first tanna, that something prohibited because of appearance of impropriety may be done privately. Therefore, I can establish Beit Hillel’s statement as permitting it only in the private domain, while prohibiting it in the public domain because of appearance of impropriety. [And Beit Shammai hold that it is prohibited to carry a ladder even in the private domain because of appearance of impropriety.]