## Beitzah Daf 10a

###### Beitzah 10a:1
[Beitzah 10a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:1)

אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ — לָא. אִי נָמֵי: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל הָכָא, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּמוּקְצֶה הוּא, בְּעוֹמֵד וְאוֹמֵר זֶה וְזֶה אֲנִי נוֹטֵל סַגִּי. אֲבָל הָתָם — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, where there is no embedded shovel,** even Beit Shammai did **not** permit it. **Alternatively,** it is possible that **Beit Hillel say** their opinion **only here, since** a dove **is *muktze*,** which is prohibited by rabbinic law, and therefore **when he stands and says: I will take this and that,** it is **enough. However there,** where the prohibition applies by Torah law, they did **not** say so.


###### Beitzah 10a:2
[Beitzah 10a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:2)

אֶלָּא, אִי קַשְׁיָא — הָא קַשְׁיָא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נוֹטְלִין אֶת הָעֱלִי, לְקַצֵּב עָלָיו בָּשָׂר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. אַלְמָא גַּבֵּי שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְקוּלָּא, וּרְמִינְהִי הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְכוּ׳! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if there is a difficulty** involving a contradiction, **this is the difficulty,** from a different mishna (11a): **Beit Shammai say: One may not take a large pestle** from a mortar, which is normally used for crushing wheat in the preparation of porridge, for any other purpose on a Festival, e.g., **to cut meat on it; and Beit Hillel permit** it. **Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival,** the opinion of **Beit Shammai is stringent, and** that of **Beit Hillel is lenient. And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction:** With regard to **one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai** say: He may dig earth with a shovel and cover the blood, and Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter an undomesticated animal or a fowl, unless he had earth prepared for that purpose while it was still day. It was in this regard that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The** attribution of the **opinions is reversed.**


###### Beitzah 10a:3
[Beitzah 10a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:3)

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא לָא הִיא: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָתָם אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ — לָא, אִי נָמֵי: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל הָכָא אֶלָּא, דְּאִיכָּא תּוֹרַת כְּלִי עָלָיו, אֲבָל הָתָם לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **From where** do you know this? **Perhaps it is not so.** Rather, **Beit Shammai say** their opinion **only there, where there is a shovel embedded** and prepared the day before, **but where there is no embedded shovel,** they did **not** rule leniently. **Alternatively,** one can say that **Beit Hillel say** their opinion **only here,** with regard to a pestle, **which** at least **has the status of a vessel,** and therefore it is not completely *muktze*. **However, there,** in the case of slaughtering, Beit Hillel did **not** issue a lenient ruling.


###### Beitzah 10a:4
[Beitzah 10a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:4)

אֶלָּא, אִי קַשְׁיָא — הָא קַשְׁיָא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הָעוֹר לִפְנֵי הַדּוֹרְסָן, וְלֹא יַגְבִּיהֶנּוּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty:** It is taught in a mishna (11a): **Beit Shammai say: One may not place** an unprocessed **hide before those who** will **tread on it,** as this is an instance of the prohibited labor of tanning on a Festival. **And one may not lift** the hide from its spot, as it is considered *muktze*, **unless there is an olive-bulk of meat on it,** in which case it may be carried on account of its meat. **And Beit Hillel permit** one to place a hide before those who will tread upon it.


###### Beitzah 10a:5
[Beitzah 10a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:5)

אַלְמָא, גַּבֵּי שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְקוּלָּא, וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וְעוֹף בְּיוֹם טוֹב וְכוּ׳, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Once again the Gemara states: **Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival,** the opinion of **Beit Shammai is stringent, and** that of **Beit Hillel is lenient. And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction:** With regard to **one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival,** Beit Shammai say, **etc.** Concerning this case, **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The** attribution of the **opinions is reversed.**


###### Beitzah 10a:6
[Beitzah 10a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:6)

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא לָא הִיא: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָתָם אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ — לָא. אִי נָמֵי: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל הָכָא, אֶלָּא דַּחֲזֵי לְמִזְגֵּא עִלָּוֵיהּ, אֲבָל הָתָם לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Here too, the Gemara rejects this: **From where** do you know this? **Perhaps that is not so.** Rather, **Beit Shammai say** their opinion **only there, where there is a shovel embedded** and prepared the day before, **but where there is no embedded shovel,** they did **not** rule leniently. **Alternatively, Beit Hillel say** their opinion **only here,** with regard to a hide, **which is suitable** for people **to recline upon,** and therefore it is not completely *muktze*. **However, there,** in the case of slaughtering, they were **not** lenient.


###### Beitzah 10a:7
[Beitzah 10a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:7)

אֶלָּא, אִי קַשְׁיָא — הָא קַשְׁיָא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אֶת הַתְּרִיסִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין אַף לְהַחְזִיר. אַלְמָא, גַּבֵּי שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְקוּלָּא, וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וְעוֹף בְּיוֹם טוֹב וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty,** as it is taught (11a): **Beit Shammai say: One may not remove** the **shutters** of a store **on a Festival,** to open the store by raising them, due to the prohibition against building and demolishing on a Festival; **and Beit Hillel permit** not only to open the shutters, but **even to replace** them. **Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival,** the opinion of **Beit Shammai is stringent, and** that of **Beit Hillel is lenient. And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction:** With regard to **one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival,** Beit Shammai say, **etc.**


###### Beitzah 10a:8
[Beitzah 10a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:8)

בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אַבֵּית שַׁמַּאי לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָתָם דְּאִיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ, הָכָא לֵיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ. אֶלָּא בֵּית הִלֵּל אַבֵּית הִלֵּל קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted,** the contradiction between one statement of **Beit Shammai** and the other statement of **Beit Shammai** is **not difficult,** as it can be explained as follows: **There,** in the slaughtering case, it is referring to a situation **where there is a shovel embedded** and prepared the day before; **here, there is no embedded shovel,** and therefore Beit Shammai are stringent. **However,** the contradiction between one statement of **Beit Hillel** and the other statement of **Beit Hillel** is **difficult.**


###### Beitzah 10a:9
[Beitzah 10a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה. (אִי נָמֵי:) עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל הָכָא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין בִּנְיָן בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין סְתִירָה בְּכֵלִים. אֲבָל הָתָם — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is with regard to this contradiction that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The** attribution of **the opinions is reversed.** The Gemara comments: **Alternatively,** one can suggest a different answer without reversing the opinions: **Beit Hillel say** their lenient opinion **only here,** in the case of the shutters, **because** they maintain **that there is no** prohibition against **building with regard to vessels and there is no** prohibition against **dismantling with regard to vessels,** which means that no Torah prohibition is violated in removing the shutters. **However, there,** in the case of slaughtering, where there are no extenuating circumstances, Beit Hillel did **not** permit it. Consequently, there is no contradiction that necessitates a reversal of the opinions.


###### Beitzah 10a:10
[Beitzah 10a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִטּוֹל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִעְנַע מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עוֹמֵד וְאוֹמֵר ״זֶה וָזֶה אֲנִי נוֹטֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Beit Shammai say: One may not take** fledgling doves from a dovecote on a Festival, **unless he shook** the ones he wished to take **while it was still day,** thereby preparing them. **And Beit Hillel say:** It is not necessary to shake; rather, it is sufficient if one **stands** the day before **and says: I** will **take this** fledgling **and that** one.


###### Beitzah 10a:11
[Beitzah 10a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּבְרִיכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: גָּזְרִינַן דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִמְּלוֹכֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Ḥanan bar Ami said:** The **dispute** between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies **to** the **first brood,** the first pair of fledglings hatched in the first month of the year from a pair of doves. Those fledglings are usually left in the nest and are not used for food. **As Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree** prohibiting taking them, as **perhaps** on the Festival **he will come to reconsider** after handling them and decide to leave them in their place, in which case he has moved them unnecessarily. However, once he has already shaken them, there is no further concern that he might change his mind on the Festival itself.


###### Beitzah 10a:12
[Beitzah 10a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:12)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: לָא גָּזְרִינַן. אֲבָל בִּבְרִיכָה שְׁנִיָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּעוֹמֵד וְאוֹמֵר ״זֶה וָזֶה אֲנִי נוֹטֵל״ סַגִּיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree,** as there is no concern that one might change his mind, and therefore a verbal commitment is sufficient. **However, with regard to the second brood,** the fledglings born on the second cycle in the following month, **everyone agrees** that it is **enough** for one **to stand and say: I** will **take this** one **and that** one.


###### Beitzah 10a:13
[Beitzah 10a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:13)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל — לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״זֶה וָזֶה אֲנִי נוֹטֵל״? לֵימָא: ״מִכָּאן אֲנִי נוֹטֵל לְמָחָר״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **Beit Hillel, why does one need to say: I** will **take this** one **and that** one? **Let him say: From here,** this dovecote, **I will take tomorrow.** Why does one have to specify exactly which fledglings he plans to remove from the dovecote?


###### Beitzah 10a:14
[Beitzah 10a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:14)

וְכִי תֵּימָא בֵּית הִלֵּל לֵית לְהוּ בְּרֵירָה, וְהָתְנַן: הַמֵּת בַּבַּיִת וְלוֹ פְּתָחִים הַרְבֵּה — כּוּלָּן טְמֵאִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **Beit Hillel do not accept** the principle of retroactive **designation,** i.e., they reject the idea that a person’s original intention can be clarified retroactively, and therefore it cannot be said that the fledglings one takes on the Festival were the ones he had in mind beforehand, **but didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Ohalot* 7:3): If **a corpse** is located **in a house, and** the house **has many entrances,** whether they are open or closed, not only is the inside of the house ritually impure as a tent of the dead, but **all** the entrances **are** likewise **ritually impure** and impart impurity to the vessels they contain? The reason is that the corpse might be removed via any of the entrances, and therefore they all contract impurity.


###### Beitzah 10a:15
[Beitzah 10a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:15)

נִפְתַּח אֶחָד מֵהֶן, הוּא טָמֵא, וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרִין. חִשֵּׁב לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, אוֹ בְּחַלּוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה — מַצֶּלֶת עַל כׇּל הַפְּתָחִים כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If only **one of** the entrances **was open** after the person died, that entrance alone **is ritually impure,** as the corpse will certainly be removed through it, **and all** the other entrances remain **ritually pure.** The same applies if **one decided** from the outset **to remove** the corpse **through one of** the entrances, **or** to carry it out **through a window that is four by four** handbreadths in size, which is large enough for a corpse. This intention **spares all the** other **entrances** from ritual impurity, as it is clear that the corpse will not be removed through them.


###### Beitzah 10a:16
[Beitzah 10a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:16)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: וְהוּא שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לְהוֹצִיאוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּת הַמֵּת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף מִשֶּׁיָּמוּת הַמֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this case, **Beit Shammai say: This** *halakha* applies only **if one had decided to remove** the corpse by a particular entrance **before the person died,** so that the entrance through which the body would be removed was already determined at the time of death. **And Beit Hillel say:** This *halakha* applies **even after the person died,** as the principle of retroactive designation is invoked, which means that the entrance through which the deceased will be removed is retroactively designated. This indicates that Beit Hillel do accept the principle of retroactive designation.


###### Beitzah 10a:17
[Beitzah 10a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:17)

הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבָּה: לְטַהֵר אֶת הַפְּתָחִים מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: לְטַהֵר אֶת הַפְּתָחִים מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא. מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא — אִין, לְמַפְרֵעַ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this proof: **Wasn’t it stated** by *amora’im* **with regard to this** mishna that **Rabba said:** In this case, Beit Hillel referred only **to purifying the entrances from that point forward.** In other words, after one has decided on an entrance that he will use to remove the dead, any vessels in the space of the other entrances do not become ritually impure. However, vessels that were located inside the space of the other entrances before the decision was made remain impure. According to these *amora’im*, Beit Hillel do not accept the principle of retroactive designation. **And, so too, Rav Oshaya said:** This *halakha* is referring **to purifying the entrances from that point forward,** which indicates: **From here onward, yes,** the entrances are ritually pure; **retroactively, no,** they are not considered pure.


###### Beitzah 10a:18
[Beitzah 10a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:18)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לְמַפְרֵעַ, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: דִּלְמָא מְטַלְטֵל וְשָׁבֵיק, מְטַלְטֵל וְשָׁבֵיק, וְקָא מְטַלְטֵל מִידֵּי דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** that there is a different way to resolve the conflicting rulings of Beit Hillel: **Actually,** in the case of ritual impurity, Beit Hillel maintain that all the entrances are ritually pure **retroactively. And here,** with regard to fledglings, **this is the reason** why Beit Hillel insist that one designate which particular fledglings one plans to take on the Festival: **Perhaps one will move** fledglings, **and put** them **down,** and again **move** them, **and put** them **down** until he finds the pair he wants, thereby **moving an object that is not suitable for him,** i.e., which is *muktze*.


###### Beitzah 10a:19
[Beitzah 10a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/10a:19)

וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ — בְּעוֹמֵד וְאוֹמֵר ״זֶה וָזֶה אֲנִי נוֹטֵל״ סַגִּיא! הָנֵי מִילֵּי מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But** if this is indeed the concern, **didn’t you say** that **it is enough** if **one stands and says: I** will **take this** one **and that** one. In this case, too, he does not touch them. It is therefore possible that he may reconsider his choice of fledglings on the Festival after he handles them. The Gemara answers: **This applies only** when one made his choice **on the eve of the Festival.** Since he knows that he may not alter his decision on the Festival itself even if he does not like the ones he chose, he definitively decides to take those fledglings and will not handle others.