## Beitzah Daf 11a

###### Beitzah 11a:1
[Beitzah 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:1)

דְּמִתְעַכַּל קִטְרַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**their knot becomes worn** and untied. Consequently, it is possible that someone took only one of the two pouches.


###### Beitzah 11a:2
[Beitzah 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:2)

בְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּן וּמָצָא לִפְנֵי הַקֵּן — אֲסוּרִין. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רוֹב וְקָרוֹב — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that if one designated fledglings **inside the nest and found** them **before the nest, they are prohibited.** The Gemara comments: **Let us say that this supports** the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said:** In a case involving **a majority and** an item that is **near,** one **follows the majority.** Since doves from the outside world are more numerous than those that one designated, the assumption is that these fledglings are from the majority, and therefore they are prohibited.


###### Beitzah 11a:3
[Beitzah 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:3)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּדַף. רָבָא אָמַר: בִּשְׁנֵי קִנִּין זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ עָסְקִינַן. וְלָא מִבַּעְיָא זִמֵּן בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה וְלֹא זִמֵּן בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה, וּמָצָא בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה וְלֹא מָצָא בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה — דַּאֲסִירָן, דְּאָמְרִינַן: הָנָךְ אֲזַלוּ לְעָלְמָא, וְהָנָךְ אִשְׁתְּרַבּוֹבֵי אִשְׁתַּרְבּוּב וּנְחוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said,** in refutation of this claim: Here we are dealing **with a ledge** affixed to the front of the nest, where all the doves gather. Therefore, the principle pertaining to a majority and an item that is near does not apply to this case. **Rava said:** Here **we are dealing with two nests, one above the other,** i.e., adjacent nests rather than any two nests. **And it is not necessary** to state that in the case of **one** who **designated** the fledglings in **the lower** nest **and did not designate** those **in the upper one, and he found** fledglings **in the lower one and he did not find** fledglings **in the upper one, that** the fledglings **are** all **prohibited.** The reason is **that we say: These** that were in the lower nest **went to the** outside **world, while these** still present **have dragged themselves and come down.**


###### Beitzah 11a:4
[Beitzah 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:4)

אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ זִמֵּן בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה וְלֹא זִמֵּן בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה, וּבָא וּמָצָא בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה וְלֹא מָצָא בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה — הָנָךְ נָמֵי אֲסִירִי, דְּאָמְרִינַן: הָנָךְ אֲזַלוּ לְעָלְמָא, וְהָנָךְ סָרוֹכֵי סָרוּךְ וּסְלִיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, even if one designated** fledglings **in the upper** nest **and did not designate** fledglings **in the lower** one, **and he came and found** fledglings **in the upper one and did not find** fledglings **in the lower one, those** in the upper nest **are also prohibited, as we say: Those** that he originally designated **went to the** outside **world, and those** in the lower nest **have clutched and climbed.** Therefore, there is cause for concern in both of these cases.


###### Beitzah 11a:5
[Beitzah 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:5)

וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הֵן — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בִּמְפוֹרָחִין, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: הָנָךְ אֲזַלוּ לְעָלְמָא, וְהָנֵי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states that **if there are no** others **there apart from them, they are permitted.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If we say** that the mishna is dealing **with** fledglings that **are** already **able** to **fly, it** is possible **to say** that **those** that he designated **went to the** outside **world, and the ones** that are present **are other ones.**


###### Beitzah 11a:6
[Beitzah 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:6)

אֶלָּא בְּמִדַּדִּין. אִי דְּאִיכָּא קֵן בְּתוֹךְ חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה — אִדַּדּוֹיֵי אִדַּדּוֹ, וְאִי דְּלֵיכָּא קֵן בְּתוֹךְ חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה — פְּשִׁיטָא דְּמוּתָּרִין, דְּאָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: כׇּל הַמְדַדֶּה — אֵין מְדַדֶּה יוֹתֵר מֵחֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna must be referring **to** fledglings that can only **hop** from one place to another. However, **if** it deals with a case **where there is** another dove **nest within fifty cubits,** the fledglings might have **jumped** and come from that nest; **and if there is no nest within fifty cubits,** it is **obvious** that **they are permitted,** for from where could they have come? **As Mar Ukva bar Ḥama said:** With regard to **any** creature **that hops,** it **does not hop more than fifty cubits.**


###### Beitzah 11a:7
[Beitzah 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:7)

לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיכָּא קֵן בְּתוֹךְ חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה, וּכְגוֹן דְּקָיְימָא בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִדַּדּוֹיֵי אִדַּדּוֹ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּמִדַּדֵּה וַהֲדַר חָזֵי לְקִנֵּיהּ — מִדַּדֵּה, וְאִי לָא — לָא מִדַּדֵּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** it is referring to a case **where there is** another **nest within fifty cubits, and** it deals with a situation **where** the additional nest **is situated around a corner** from the first nest, rather than in a straight line from it. **Lest you say:** The fledglings **jumped** from one nest to the other, the mishna therefore **teaches us** that **anywhere that** a fledgling **hops and turns and sees its nest, it will** continue to **hop. But if** it can **no** longer see its original nest, **it will not hop** any farther.


###### Beitzah 11a:8
[Beitzah 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נוֹטְלִים אֶת הָעֱלִי לְקַצֵּב עָלָיו בָּשָׂר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הָעוֹר לִפְנֵי הַדּוֹרְסָן. וְלֹא יַגְבִּיהֶנּוּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ עִמּוֹ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **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. Likewise, **Beit Shammai say: One may not place** an unprocessed **hide before those who** will **tread on it,** as this constitutes the prohibited labor of tanning on a Festival. **And one may not lift** the hide from its place, 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** it in both cases.


###### Beitzah 11a:9
[Beitzah 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם קִצֵּב עָלָיו בָּשָׂר — שֶׁאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Sage **taught** in a *baraita*: **And** Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel **agree that if one** already **cut** the **meat** he needs for the Festival **on** the pestle, **it is prohibited to move** the pestle farther on the Festival. The reason is that the vessel is *muktze* as a utensil whose primary function is a prohibited use, and therefore it is permitted to handle it only when one requires it.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בֶּעֱלִי, אֲבָל בְּתָבְרָא גַּרְמֵי — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. פְּשִׁיטָא, עֱלִי תְּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This **dispute** applies specifically **in** the case of **a pestle; however, in** the case of a wooden anvil used **for breaking bones, everyone agrees** that **it is permitted.** The Gemara asks: This is **obvious; we learned** in the mishna: **A pestle.** Why would one think that an object not even mentioned in the mishna is prohibited?


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ תָּבְרָא גַּרְמֵי נָמֵי. וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי עֱלִי, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל, דַּאֲפִילּוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמְּלַאכְתּוֹ לֶאֱסוֹר נָמֵי שָׁרוּ — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Abaye’s statement is necessary, **lest you say: The same is true,** i.e., Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree, **even** with regard to a wooden anvil used **for breaking bones; and that which** the mishna specifically **teaches: A pestle,** is **to convey the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **Beit Hillel,** that **they permitted** moving **even an object whose** primary **function** is **for a prohibited** use. Abaye therefore **teaches us** that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to a wooden anvil used for breaking bones.


###### Beitzah 11a:12
[Beitzah 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:12)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ תָּבְרָא גַּרְמֵי חַדְתִּי, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִמְּלֵךְ וְלָא תָּבַר עֲלַהּ — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a different version of the previous discussion. **Abaye said: It is necessary** to say **only: Even a new** wooden anvil used **for breaking bones** is also permitted. **Lest you say:** Perhaps **one will reconsider and not break** bones **on it,** but rather set it aside for a different purpose, Abaye therefore **teaches us** that this is not a concern.


###### Beitzah 11a:13
[Beitzah 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:13)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי לָא חָיְישִׁי לְאִמְּלוֹכֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מוֹלִיכִין טַבָּח וְסַכִּין אֵצֶל בְּהֵמָה, וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה אֵצֶל טַבָּח וְסַכִּין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מוֹלִיכִין זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is that so? **Are Beit Shammai not concerned** about the possibility **that** one might **reconsider? But isn’t it taught** (*Tosefta*, *Beitza* 1:13): **Beit Shammai say:** On a Festival, **one may not lead a butcher with a knife** in hand **to an animal** located far from him, so that he can slaughter it; **nor** may one lead **an animal to a butcher with a knife,** lest he reconsider, in which case he will have handled the knife unnecessarily, which is prohibited; **and Beit Hillel say: One may lead** them **from one to the other,** as they are not concerned about unnecessary use of the knife.


###### Beitzah 11a:14
[Beitzah 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:14)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מוֹלִיכִין תַּבְלִין וּמָדוֹךְ אֵצֶל מְדוֹכָה, וְלֹא מְדוֹכָה אֵצֶל תַּבְלִין וּמָדוֹךְ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מוֹלִיכִין זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By the same reasoning, **Beit Shammai say: One may not bring spices or a pestle to a mortar, nor a mortar to spices and a pestle,** as he might change his mind and will have handled these utensils on the Festival for no purpose. **And Beit Hillel say: One may bring one to the other,** as there is no concern that he may reconsider. This shows that Beit Shammai are, in general, concerned that one might reconsider, as they prohibit one to handle items for this reason.


###### Beitzah 11a:15
[Beitzah 11a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:15)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּהֵמָה אָתֵי לְאִמְּלוֹכֵי, דְּאָמַר: נִשְׁבֹּק הַאי בְּהֵמָה כְּחוּשָׁה, וּמַיְיתֵינָא בְּהֵמָה אַחֲרִיתִי דְּשַׁמִּינָה מִינַּהּ. קְדֵרָה נָמֵי אָתֵי לְאִימְּלוֹכֵי, דְּאָמַר: נִשְׁבֹּק הַאי קְדֵרָה דְּבָעֲיָא תַּבְלִין, וּמַיְיתֵינָא אַחֲרִיתִי דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא תַּבְלִין. הָכָא מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מִמְּלֵךְ וְלָא תָּבַר? כֵּיוָן דְּשַׁחְטַהּ — לִתְבִירָא קָיְימָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this: **How can** these cases **be compared? Granted,** in the case of **an animal, one** is liable to **come to reconsider, as** he might **say: Let us leave** aside **this animal,** as it is **thin, and we will bring a different animal, fatter than it.** With regard to **a pot, too, one** is liable **to come to reconsider, as** he might **say: Let us leave** aside **this pot** of cooked food, **as** it **requires spices** and would take great effort to prepare, **and I will bring a different one that does not require spices** and can be cooked as it is. However, **here,** with regard to a wooden anvil used for breaking bones, **what is there to say?** Will one **reconsider and not break** the bones? **Since he has slaughtered** an animal, it **stands** ready for its bones **to be broken,** as it cannot be eaten in any other way.


###### Beitzah 11a:16
[Beitzah 11a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:16)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הָעוֹר. תָּנָא: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁמּוֹלְחִין עָלָיו בָּשָׂר לְצָלִי. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְצָלִי, אֲבָל לִקְדֵרָה — לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that **Beit Shammai say: One may not place** an unprocessed **hide** before the one who will tread on it. The Sage **taught** (*Tosefta*, *Beitza* 1:13): **And** Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel **agree that one may salt meat for roasting on** this hide, and there is no concern that some of the salt will fall on the hide, which would be similar to tanning the hide by salting. **Abaye said: They taught** that one may salt meat **only for roasting,** in which case it is not salted a great deal. **However,** in the case of meat **for a pot,** i.e., for cooking, the Sages did **not** say that one may salt it on the hide, as meat must be well-salted on all sides before cooking, and a large amount of salt will inevitably spill onto the hide.


###### Beitzah 11a:17
[Beitzah 11a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:17)

פְּשִׁיטָא — לְצָלִי תְּנַן! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְצָלִי, כְּעֵין קְדֵרָה — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: It is **obvious** the one may not salt meat **for** cooking in a pot, as **we** explicitly **learned** in the *Tosefta* just cited: **For roasting,** and not for cooking. The Gemara answers: **This** comes to **teach us that even** the permission to salt meat **for roasting** applies only if one does so in the usual manner. However, if one salts it **in a manner of** meat salted to be cooked in **a pot,** which requires more salt than is necessary for roasting, it is **prohibited.**


###### Beitzah 11a:18
[Beitzah 11a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:18)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מוֹלְחִין אֶת הַחֲלָבִים וְאֵין מְהַפְּכִין בָּהֶן. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲמַרוּ: שׁוֹטְחָן בָּרוּחַ עַל גַּבֵּי יְתֵדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** On a Festival, **one may not salt the fats** of an animal, which is done so that they will not decompose and emit a foul odor. This is true even if the animal was slaughtered on the Festival. **And one may not turn them over.** The fats are unfit for use on the Festival, and therefore they are *muktze*. **They said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: One may spread** the fats **out in the wind on pegs** to prevent them from decaying.


###### Beitzah 11a:19
[Beitzah 11a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:19)

אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה כְּיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mattana said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua. Some say** that **Rav Mattana said: The *halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua.** The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to the one who said** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua,** this statement **is necessary.** Otherwise, **it might enter your mind to say** that since this is a dispute between **an individual and** the **many,** one should apply the principal that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of the **many.** Rav Mattana therefore **teaches us** that, in this case, the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **the individual.**


###### Beitzah 11a:20
[Beitzah 11a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:20)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין הֲלָכָה — פְּשִׁיטָא, יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִסְתַּבַּר טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּאִי לָא שָׁרֵית לֵיהּ מִמְּנַע וְלָא שָׁחֵיט, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, according to the one who said** that the ***halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this is **obvious.** In a case involving **an individual and** the **many, the *halakha* is in accordance with** the **many.** The Gemara answers: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, **lest you say: Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion is** more **reasonable, for if you do not permit him** to air out the fats, **he will refrain and not slaughter** an animal at all. Rav Mattana therefore **teaches us** that this factor is not taken into consideration.


###### Beitzah 11a:21
[Beitzah 11a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/11a:21)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵעוֹר לִפְנֵי הַדּוֹרְסָן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way **is** this case **different from** placing **a hide before those who will tread on it,** which Beit Hillel, whose ruling is accepted as *halakha*, permit for the very reason that, if one is not allowed to do so, he will refrain from slaughtering animals?