Beitzah 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara now brings a beraita that explains the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in a different manner:

Mishna that establishes the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to moving the ladder —

which places the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in the matter of moving the ladder—

not in accordance with this tanna.

As it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree

that one may move the ladder from one dovecote to another

on a Festival in order to take fledglings for the needs of the Festival.

They disagreed only

with regard to whether it is permitted

to return

the ladder to the place from which it was taken, as this returning is not necessary for the needs of the Festival.

As Beit Shammai say: One may not return it.

And Beit Hillel say: One may also return it.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When are these matters stated

with regard to the case where all agree that one may move the ladder? —

With a dovecote ladder,

as it is recognizable from its form that he is moving it in order to take fledglings.

But with a

large

roof ladder —

all agree that it is prohibited

to move it, because people will suspect that he is moving it in order to plaster his roof, .

Rabbi Dosa says: He inclines it

the top of the ladder [the type of ladder will be explained in the Gemara

from one window

in the dovecote

to another window

in that same dovecote.

Others say in the name of Rabbi Dosa:

If the top of the ladder cannot reach the second window by inclining it,

one may also measure with it,

moving the feet of the ladder little by little from one window to another within the same dovecote.

The sons of Rabbi Hiyya went out to the villages,

to see their fields.

When they came,

when they returned,

Rabbi Hiyya

their father

said to them: Did any case

in which you needed to issue a halakhic ruling

come before you?

They said to him:

A case involving moving a

ladder

of a roof in order to take fledglings from the dovecote

came before us,

as we were asked what its law was —

and we permitted it!

He said to them: Go out

and return there,

and prohibit

for them

what you permitted

to them mistakenly.

The Gemara explains their error.

They thought: Since Rabbi Yehuda said

in the beraita that

with regard to a roof ladder they did not disagree,

and all agree that it is prohibited,

by inference, the first

tanna holds

that

they did disagree: Beit Hillel permitted returning a roof ladder [and they agree with Beit Shammai that moving it is permitted]. Therefore, they ruled in accordance with Beit Hillel that one may move and even return a ladder, including a roof ladder.

and Beit Hillel permitted returning an attic ladder [and they agreed with Beit Shammai that moving it is permitted]. Therefore, they ruled in accordance with Beit Hillel that it is permitted to move and even to return an attic ladder.

That is not so!

For

Rabbi Yehuda

is not disagreeing; rather,

he is explaining the reasoning of the first tanna —

that moving a roof ladder may not be permitted.

The Gemara proves this:

From where

do you learn that Rabbi Yehuda is necessarily not disagreeing with the first tanna, but is coming to explain that the first tanna does not permit a roof ladder?

From the fact that he teaches

in the words of the first tanna:

“One may move the ladder from one dovecote to another,”

which necessarily means a ladder designated for a dovecote.

For

if it enters your mind that they disagreed with regard to a roof ladder,

and Beit Hillel permit even that ladder, then

this

that the tanna stated

“One may move the ladder from one dovecote to another”

is an unusual expression, since it implies that only moving a dovecote ladder is permitted.

But

“One may move the ladder

of the roof

to the dovecote” —

he should have needed

the first tanna to say this!

Rather, this is what the first tanna said:

Only a ladder

of a dovecote —

yes,

one may move it. But a ladder

of a roof —

no,

one may not move it at all, even to a dovecote. It is thus proven that the first tanna permits only moving a dovecote ladder, and not a roof ladder. Therefore Rabbi Hiyya told his sons to return to the villages and prohibit it.

The Gemara explains what Rabbi Hiyya’s sons had thought:

But the other

sons of Rabbi Hiyya thought:

Does it teach

in the beraita, “One may move

a dovecote ladder”

that you can prove that the beraita deals specifically with a dovecote ladder?

After all, it teaches only, “One may move the ladder

from one dovecote to another,”

and it can be established as referring even to an ordinary roof ladder.

And the fact that the tanna used the expression “from one dovecote to another” means not only that he may move it from one dovecote to another, but

even to several dovecotes

he may move it, without concern for the exertion [or without concern that, if people see him moving his ladder from the first dovecote to the second, they will suspect that he is moving it in order to plaster his roof] .

There are those who say

that this was the incident involving Rabbi Hiyya’s sons:

They said to him:

A case involving

inclining a roof ladder,

which had been placed beside the dovecote on the eve of the Festival,

came before us.

The question was whether it was permitted to incline it from one window to another within the same dovecote.

And we permitted it

to them, permitting them to incline it.

He said to them,

Rabbi Hiyya:

Go out and prohibit what you permitted.

The Gemara explains their reasoning:

They thought,

because

that which the first tanna prohibited

of Rabbi Dosa, namely Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibited moving a roof ladder,

Rabbi Dosa permitted

inclining it. Therefore, they ruled for them that inclining a roof ladder was permitted.

That is not so!

Rather,

that which the first tanna permitted

—moving a dovecote ladder—

Rabbi Dosa prohibited,

and his intention in permitting inclining it was to say that only inclining it from one window to another within the same dovecote is permitted, but not moving it. It follows that no one permits inclining a roof ladder, and this was their error .

We learned in our Mishna, in the words of Beit Shammai: One may not move the ladder from one dovecote to another,

but he may incline it from one window to another.

And Beit Hillel permit it.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Apparently, with regard to the joy of the Festival, Beit Shammai are stringent,

as they prohibit moving the ladder for the sake of bringing fledglings, even though he needs them to eat on the Festival,

and Beit Hillel are lenient.

And we raise a contradiction

from the preceding Mishna:

For we learned:

“One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a Festival: Beit Shammai say: He must dig with a spade and cover the blood,”

as the Sages were lenient with regard to the rabbinic prohibition of digging in loose earth for the sake of the joy of the Festival,

“and Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter unless he had earth prepared from the day before!”

This proves that Beit Shammai are the lenient ones for the sake of the joy of the Festival.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The positions are reversed,

the positions in our Mishna must be reversed, so that Beit Shammai are the ones who permit moving the ladder, while Beit Hillel are stringent, as they said in the preceding Mishna.

We challenge Rabbi Yohanan:

From where

did Rabbi Yohanan conclude that the positions in our Mishna must be reversed? Perhaps the reason Beit Shammai are lenient in the preceding Mishna is not that they are lenient about digging with a spade; rather, that case involves a situation in which digging is not prohibited at all. For:

Perhaps, Beit Shammai said there only this,

in the preceding Mishna, that one may dig with a spade and cover the blood,

only where there is a spade stuck in the ground,

so that there is no prohibition against covering the blood with the earth in the spade, since that earth had already been dug up.

But where there is no spade stuck in the ground —

no,

Beit Shammai did not permit digging in order to cover the blood, even with loose earth, in which there is no actual prohibition of digging, but only “a hint of digging” [Rashi’s expression]. And similarly, they are stringent in our Mishna and prohibit moving the ladder, since there is concern that people will suspect that he is going to plaster his roof; according to them, a rabbinic prohibition may not be permitted for the sake of the joy of the Festival.

Alternatively,

there is no contradiction between the two Mishnayot even according to Beit Hillel, for:

Beit Hillel said only this here,

in our Mishna, as a leniency, that one may move the ladder,

but

because

“its dovecote”

the ladder’s form

demonstrates its purpose,

as it is recognizable as a dovecote ladder, and therefore there is no concern at all that people will suspect that he is moving it in order to plaster his roof,

but there,

with a spade stuck in the ground,

no,

they did not permit it, because they were concerned that he might come to crush the clods of earth!

In light of this, Rabbi Yohanan should not have needed to reverse the positions in our Mishna.

Rather, if there is a difficulty,

a contradiction between the Mishnayot that necessitated Rabbi Yohanan’s reversing the positions,

this is the difficulty:

For we learned in the Mishna below [10a]:

“Beit Shammai say: One may not take

a person may not take fledglings from the dovecote on a Festival

unless

he designated them for slaughter on the Festival by

moving

them

from the day before,

and he must designate them by handling them, because of the concern that perhaps on the following day of the Festival he will take them in order to slaughter them, and then change his mind about slaughtering them, with the result that he will move them on the Festival for no need.

Through designating them on the previous day by handling the fledglings, his intention is firmly established, and he will not come to regret it on the following day after taking them.

And Beit Hillel say:

He need not move them; it is sufficient for him to designate them verbally by

standing

beside the dovecote

and saying: ‘This one and that one I will take’

tomorrow!

Apparently:

With regard to

a rabbinic prohibition that prevents

the joy of the Festival, Beit Shammai are stringent,

as they require moving the fledglings,

and Beit Hillel are lenient,

as they are satisfied with verbal designation.

And we raise a contradiction

from the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter:

“One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a Festival” —

Beit Shammai say, he must dig with a spade and cover the blood, while Beit Hillel say, he may not dig! This implies that Beit Hillel are stringent and Beit Shammai lenient in a matter relating to the joy of the Festival.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The positions are reversed.

The positions in the Mishna concerning the designation of fledglings must be reversed, so that Beit Shammai are lenient and verbal designation is sufficient, while Beit Hillel are stringent and moving the fledglings is required, just as they disagreed in the first Mishna regarding slaughtering a bird on a Festival.

And we reject this:

Perhaps that is not so,

and there is no need to reverse the positions in the Mishna concerning the designation of fledglings.

For perhaps

Beit Shammai said only this

in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter, that one may dig with a spade and cover the blood,

only where there is a spade stuck in the ground,

since there is no labor prohibition at all in covering the blood with the dug-up earth found in the spade stuck in the ground.