Beitzah 9b — the Talmud in English

And now the Gemara brings a beraita explaining the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in another manner:

Mishna

that places the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in moving the ladder —

not like this tanna.

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

that they 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

regarding the question whether it is permitted

to return

it to the place from which they took it, for this returning is not a need of the Festival.

For Beit Shammai say: They may not return it.

And Beit Hillel say: They may also return it.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When are these words applicable

that, according to everyone, they may move the ladder —

with a dovecote ladder,

which is recognizable as one that he is moving for the purpose of taking fledglings.

But with a ladder

large

of an upper story —

according to everyone it is forbidden

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

Rabbi Dosa says: He inclines it

the head of the ladder [whose type will be explained in the Gemara]

from one window

in a dovecote

to another window

in that same dovecote.

Others say in the name of Rabbi Dosa:

If the head of the ladder does not reach the second window by inclining it,

he may also slide it along,

moving the feet of the ladder little by little, from window to window, in that 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 incident

concerning which you needed to instruct the halakha

come before you?

They said to him:

An incident involving moving a

ladder

of an upper story in order to take fledglings from the dovecote

came before us,

for they asked us what its ruling was —

and we permitted it!

He said to them: Go out

and return there,

and prohibit

for them

what you permitted

to them mistakenly.

And the Gemara explains their error.

They thought: Since Rabbi Yehuda said

in the beraita that

with an upper-story ladder they did not disagree

—Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—and according to everyone it is forbidden,

by inference, the first

tanna holds

that

they did disagree

—Beit Hillel, and permitted returning an upper-story ladder [and they agree with Beit Shammai that it is permitted to move it]—and therefore they ruled the halakha in accordance with Beit Hillel, that it is permitted to move and even to return it, even an upper-story ladder.

But it is not so!

For

Rabbi Yehuda

is not disagreeing; rather,

he is explaining the reasoning of the first tanna —

that moving an upper-story ladder may not be permitted.

And the Gemara proves it:

From where

do you learn that Rabbi Yehuda necessarily is not disagreeing with the first tanna, but rather comes to explain that the first tanna does not permit an upper-story ladder?

From the fact that he teaches

in the words of the first tanna:

They may move the ladder from one dovecote to another,

and necessarily the meaning of this ladder is a ladder designated for a dovecote.

For

if it enters your mind that they disagree concerning an upper-story ladder,

and Beit Hillel permit even that one, then

this

which the tanna stated in his wording,

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

is a puzzling wording, for its meaning is to permit only moving a dovecote ladder.

But

“They may move the ladder

of the upper story

to a dovecote” —

he should have needed

the first tanna to say this!

Rather, is it not that this is what he said:

the first tanna: Only a ladder

of a dovecote —

yes,

they may move it. But a ladder

of an upper story —

no,

they may not move it at all, even to a dovecote. And it is proved that the first tanna permits only moving a dovecote ladder, and not an upper-story ladder; therefore Rabbi Hiyya told his sons to return to the villages and prohibit it.

And the Gemara explains what the sons of Rabbi Hiyya thought:

But the other

sons of Rabbi Hiyya thought:

Does he teach

in the beraita, “They may move

a dovecote ladder”

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

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

from one dovecote to another,”

and it is possible to establish it even with an ordinary upper-story ladder.

And the fact that the tanna stated in his wording “from one dovecote to another” means to say that he may move it not only from one dovecote to another, but

even to several dovecotes

it is permitted to move it, without concern for exertion [or there is no concern that if they see him moving his ladder from the first dovecote to the second, they will come to suspect him that he is moving it to plaster his roof].

There are those who say

that this was the incident with the sons of Rabbi Hiyya:

They said to him:

An incident involving

inclining an upper-story ladder

which had been placed beside the dovecote from the eve of the Festival

came before us.

The question was whether it is permitted to incline it from window to window in that same dovecote.

And we permitted it

to them, to incline it.

He said to them

Rabbi Hiyya:

Go out and prohibit what you permitted.

And the Gemara explains their reasoning:

They thought,

for

what the first tanna prohibited

of Rabbi Dosa, namely Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibited moving an upper-story ladder,

Rabbi Dosa permits

to incline it. And therefore they ruled for them that it is permitted to incline an upper-story ladder.

But it is not so!

Rather,

what the first tanna permits

—moving a dovecote ladder—

Rabbi Dosa prohibits,

and his intention in permitting inclining is to say that only inclining it from window to window in the same dovecote is permitted, but not moving it. It follows that there is no one who permits inclining an upper-story ladder, and this was their error.

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

but he inclines it from window to window.

And Beit Hillel permit.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

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

for they prohibit moving the ladder for the purpose of bringing fledglings, even though they need them to eat them 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 should dig with a digging tool and cover [the blood],

for the Sages were lenient concerning the rabbinic prohibition of digging in loose earth, because of Festival joy,

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

And it is proved that Beit Shammai are the lenient ones for the sake of Festival joy.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The positions are reversed,

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

And we were astonished concerning 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 concerning digging with a digging tool, but rather because there it is a case in which there is no prohibition of digging at all. For:

Perhaps, Beit Shammai stated there only this far,

in the preceding Mishna, that it is permitted to dig with a digging tool and cover [the blood],

only where there is an implanted digging tool

in the ground, for then there is no prohibition in covering the blood with the earth in the digging tool, since that earth had already been dug up.

But where there is no implanted digging tool —

no,

Beit Shammai did not permit digging in order to cover [the blood], even with loose earth in which there is no prohibition of digging, and there is only a “semblance of a hint of digging” [Rashi’s wording]. Just as they are stringent in our Mishna, not to move the ladder, since there is a concern that people will suspect him that he is going to plaster his roof; and according to them there is no permission to override a rabbinic prohibition because of Festival joy.

Alternatively,

even concerning Beit Hillel there is no contradiction between the Mishnayot, for:

Beit Hillel stated only this far here,

in our Mishna, to be lenient and move the ladder,

but

because

“its dovecote”

of the ladder

demonstrates concerning it,

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

but there

with an implanted digging tool

no,

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

In light of this, Rabbi Yohanan did not need to reverse the position in our Mishna.

Rather, if there is a difficulty,

a contradiction between the Mishnayot because of which Rabbi Yohanan needed to reverse the positions,

this is the difficulty:

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

Beit Shammai say: 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 touching them, because of the concern that perhaps on the following day, on the Festival, he will take them in order to slaughter them, and afterward he will change his mind about slaughtering them, with the result that he will move them on the Festival without need.

And through designating them from the day before by touching the fledglings, his intention is fixed, and he will not come to regret it the next day after taking them.

And Beit Hillel say:

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

standing

beside the dovecote

and saying: “This one and this one I will take”

tomorrow!

Apparently:

with regard to

a rabbinic prohibition that prevents

Festival joy, Beit Shammai are stringent

in requiring that he move them,

and Beit Hillel are lenient,

for they are satisfied with designation by mouth.

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 should dig with a digging tool and cover [the blood],” while Beit Hillel say, “He should not dig!” And it implies that Beit Hillel are stringent and Beit Shammai are lenient concerning a matter relating to Festival joy.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The positions are reversed.

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

And we reject this:

But perhaps it is not so,

that there is a need to reverse the positions in the Mishna concerning the designation of fledglings.

For perhaps

Beit Shammai stated only this far

in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter, that it is permitted to dig with a digging tool and cover [the blood],

only where there is an implanted digging tool,

since there is no prohibition of labor at all in covering the blood with the dug-up earth found in the implanted digging tool.