## Beitzah Daf 11b

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

הָתָם לָא מוֹכְחָא מִלְּתָא, מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲזֵי לְמִזְגֵּא עֲלֵיהּ. הָכָא אָתֵי לְמֵימַר: מַאי טַעְמָא שָׁרוּ לִי רַבָּנַן — כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִסְרַח. מָה לִי לְמִשְׁטְחִינְהוּ, מָה לִי לְמִמְלְחִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of spreading out the hide, **the matter is not** so **evident** that it is spread out for tanning **because** in its current state, **it is fit to recline on,** and therefore it can be said that one placed it for this purpose. However, **here,** with regard to fats, he himself might **come to say: What is the reason** that **the Sages permitted** it **to me? So that it will not emit a foul odor.** If so, **what** is the difference **to me** if I **spread them out,** and **what** is the difference **to me** if I **salt them?** This reasoning will lead one to salt hides, which is a prohibited labor.


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מוֹלֵחַ אָדָם כַּמָּה חֲתִיכוֹת בָּשָׂר בְּבַת אַחַת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ אֶלָּא לַחֲתִיכָה אַחַת. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה מַעֲרִים וּמָלַח גַּרְמָא גַּרְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: A person may salt** on a Festival **several pieces of meat at one time, although he requires** only **one piece,** as it is all one act of salting. **Rav Adda bar Ahava** would **employ artifice and salt bone** by **bone.** After salting one bone, he would say: I prefer this one instead, and would thereby salt all the meat in his possession.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אֶת הַתְּרִיסִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין אַף לְהַחְזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Beit Shammai say: One may not remove** the **shutters [*terisin*]** of a store **on a Festival,** due to the prohibition against building and demolishing. **And Beit Hillel permit** one not only to open the shutters, but **even to replace** them.


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

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי תְּרִיסִין? אָמַר עוּלָּא: תְּרִיסֵי חֲנוּיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What** are these **shutters? Ulla said:** This is referring to **shutters of shops.** The marketplace shops or stalls were large crates or wagons, not buildings. They were closed at night with shutters. The shopkeepers would open the shutters on the Festival so that people who did not manage to finish all of their Festival preparations before the Festival could take the articles they required and settle accounts with the storekeeper later. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed whether the shutters may be opened and closed on the Festival itself.


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

וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים הִתִּירוּ סוֹפָן מִשּׁוּם תְּחִלָּתָן, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עוֹר לִפְנֵי הַדּוֹרְסָן, וּתְרִיסֵי חֲנוּיוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Ulla said:** With regard to **three matters,** the Sages **permitted** an action **whose result** is undesirable **in order** to encourage a desirable **initial** action. **And these are** the three matters: First, they permitted spreading out the **hide** of an animal slaughtered on a Festival **before those** who will **tread on it,** a stage in its tanning. This was permitted because the Sages wish to encourage slaughtering the animal to enable celebration on the Festival. **And** second, the Sages permitted the replacement of **shutters of shops** on a Festival, so that storeowners could supply the Festival requirements for those in need.


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

וַחֲזָרַת רְטִיָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the third permitted action is **the replacement of a bandage in the Temple.** If a priest had an injury on his hand, he would have to remove the bandage while performing the Temple service, as it is prohibited for any item to interpose between his hand and whatever he must handle as part of the rite. After concluding his Temple service, he was allowed to replace the bandage on Shabbat, despite the fact that this is ordinarily prohibited, so as not to discourage him from engaging in Temple service.


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

וְרַחֲבָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַף הַפּוֹתֵחַ חָבִיתוֹ, וּמַתְחִיל בְּעִיסָּתוֹ עַל גַּב הָרֶגֶל —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Raḥava** said that **Rabbi Yehuda said:** There is **also** one other matter, i.e., another instance where the Sages permitted an action whose result was undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. This concerns a *ḥaver*, a member of a group that is meticulous with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual impurity, **who opens his barrel** of wine or prepares **and begins** to sell **his dough** to pilgrims **for the sake of the Festival.**


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

וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר יִגְמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said: He may finish** selling all the bread made from that dough and all the wine in the barrel. Wine or dough sold to the general public is usually classified as ritually impure, as it might have been touched by an *am ha’aretz*, one who is not careful with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual impurity. During a Festival, however, the Sages decreed that all wine and dough sold in Jerusalem is ritually pure, so as not to embarrass ignorant people, and they may therefore be bought even by a *ḥaver*. Rabbi Yehuda adds that even if a large quantity of wine or dough remains after the Festival, it retains its status as ritually pure and one may continue to sell it to a *ḥaver*. This is a case of permitting an action whose result is undesirable for the sake of an initial action, in that the Sages maintained the wine and dough’s status as ritually pure after the Festival in order to encourage people to sell wine and dough on the Festival.


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

עוֹר לִפְנֵי הַדּוֹרְסָן, תְּנֵינָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲזֵי לְמִזְגֵּא עֲלַיְיהוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב נָמֵי — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הִתִּירוּ סוֹפָן מִשּׁוּם תְּחִלָּתָן: דְּיוֹם טוֹב — אִין, דְּעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to Ulla’s statement, the Gemara asks: **We** already **learned** the *halakha* that one may spread out an animal’s **hide before those** who will **tread on it.** Why did Ulla find it necessary to restate an explicit teaching of a mishna? The Gemara explains: **Lest you say** that **the reason of Beit Hillel** is **because** the hide **is fit for reclining on it, and** therefore **even** if the animal was slaughtered **on the eve of the Festival,** it would **also** be permitted to spread out its hide on the Festival. Ulla therefore **teaches us** that the reason for the leniency is that the Sages **permitted** an action **whose result** was undesirable **in order** to encourage a desirable **initial** action. Consequently, in the case of an animal slaughtered **on a Festival, yes,** this *halakha* applies; but with regard to one that was slaughtered **on the eve of a Festival, no,** one may not spread out its hide.


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

תְּרִיסִי חֲנוּיוֹת נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא [וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין אַף לְהַחְזִיר]! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין בִּנְיָן בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין סְתִירָה בְּכֵלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ דְּבָתִּים נָמֵי — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הִתִּירוּ סוֹפָן מִשּׁוּם תְּחִלָּתָן: דַּחֲנוּיוֹת — אִין, דְּבָתִּים — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **We** already **learned** the *halakha* of the **shutters of shops as well,** as the mishna states that **Beit Hillel permit** one **even to replace them.** The Gemara explains: This, too, is necessary. **Lest you say: Beit Hillel’s reason** for being lenient **is that there is no** prohibition of **building** with regard **to vessels and no** prohibition of **dismantling** with regard **to vessels.** Since these shops are not attached to the ground, they are vessels rather than houses, and it is therefore permitted to replace their shutters; **and** as a result, the dismantlement and replacement of shutters of large vessels, **even of** those found in **houses,** should **also** be permitted. To counter this logic, Ulla therefore **teaches us** that the reason the Sages allowed the replacement of shutters of shops on a Festival is because they **permitted** an action **whose result** is undesirable **in order** to encourage a desirable **initial** action. Consequently, in the case of the shutters **of shops, yes,** they permitted their replacement; in the case of those **of houses, no,** they did not allow it.


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

חֲזָרַת רְטִיָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: מַחְזִירִין רְטִיָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ אֲבָל לֹא בַּמְּדִינָה! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא טַעְמָא מַאי — מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין שְׁבוּת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֵן דְּלָאו בַּר עֲבוֹדָה הוּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הִתִּירוּ סוֹפָן מִשּׁוּם תְּחִלָּתָן: דְּבַר עֲבוֹדָה — אִין, דְּלָאו בַּר עֲבוֹדָה — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **We** already **learned** the *halakha* of **the replacement of a bandage in the Temple as well: One may replace a bandage in the Temple but not in** the rest of **the country.** The Gemara explains that this *halakha* is necessary. **Lest you say: What is the reason** that a bandage may be replaced? It is **because rabbinic decrees prohibiting labor** do **not** apply **in the Temple.** Since the prohibition against applying a bandage is by rabbinic law, this leniency should apply to all who are in the Temple, **even** to **a priest who is not a candidate** to perform the Temple **service.** Ulla **teaches us** that this is not the case; rather, it is an instance where the Sages **permitted a result for the sake of an initial action: If one is a candidate for service, yes,** he may replace his bandage; **if one is not a candidate for service, no,** he may not replace his bandage.


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

פּוֹתֵחַ אֶת חָבִיתוֹ נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַפּוֹתֵחַ אֶת חָבִיתוֹ, וּמַתְחִיל בְּעִיסָּתוֹ עַל גַּב הָרֶגֶל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יִגְמוֹר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִגְמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a similar question with regard to Raḥava’s addition: **We** already **learned** the *halakha* of **one who opens his barrel** of wine, **as well:** In the case of **one who opens his barrel** to sell its wine, and similarly in the case of one who **begins** selling **his dough for the sake of the Festival,** the substance is ritually pure. If some is left over, the *tanna’im* disputed whether it retains its presumed status as ritually pure after the Festival and one may continue to sell it to a *ḥaver*. **Rabbi Yehuda says: He may finish** selling the wine or dough, **and the Rabbis say: He may not finish.** What is added by including it in the list of matters where a result is permitted for the sake of an initial action?


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא טוּמְאַת עַם הָאָרֶץ בָּרֶגֶל כְּטׇהֳרָה שַׁוְּיוּהָ רַבָּנַן, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הִתְחִיל נָמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הִתִּירוּ סוֹפָן מִשּׁוּם תְּחִלָּתָן: הִתְחִיל — אִין, לֹא הִתְחִיל — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Raḥava’s statement is necessary. **Lest you say:** It is permitted to finish selling the wine or dough because **the Sages rendered the ritual impurity of an *am ha’aretz* on a Festival as ritually pure, and although one did not begin** to sell this wine or dough on the Festival but at an earlier stage, he should **likewise** be permitted to finish, as items do not contract ritual impurity on a Festival. To counter this logic, Raḥava therefore **teaches us:** In this case, too, the Sages **permitted** an action **whose result** is undesirable **in order** to encourage a desirable **initial** action. **If one had begun, yes,** he may finish selling; **if one had not begun, no,** he may not do so.


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

וְעוּלָּא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר הָא? בִּפְלוּגְתָּא לָא קָא מַיְירֵי. הָנָךְ נָמֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא נִינְהוּ! בֵּית שַׁמַּאי בִּמְקוֹם בֵּית הִלֵּל אֵינָהּ מִשְׁנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Ulla, what is the reason that he did he not state this** *halakha* alongside the other cases he listed? The Gemara answers: **He is not dealing with** a case that is a matter of **dispute.** He listed only cases where the ruling is unanimous. The Gemara challenges this: **These** other three matters **are also** subject to **dispute,** as they all involve a disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers: When **Beit Shammai** express an opinion **where Beit Hillel** disagree, Beit Shammai’s opinion is not considered a legitimate opinion in the **Mishna,** and it is completely disregarded. Since everyone knows that Beit Shammai’s opinion is entirely rejected by *halakha*, it is not taken into consideration. Therefore, those cases are not viewed as disputes at all.


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

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִי הַאי תַּנָּא דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁמְּסַלְּקִין אֶת הַתְּרִיסִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא לְהַחֲזִיר. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַחְזִירִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף מַחְזִירִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן צִיר, אֲבָל אֵין לָהֶן צִיר — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may remove shutters on a Festival. They disagree only** as to whether it is permitted **to replace** them, as well, **as Beit Shammai say: One may not replace** them, **and Beit Hillel say: One may even replace** them. **And in what** case **is this statement said? When** these shutters **have a hinge** that can be inserted into a slot in the side of the vessel. **However,** if **they do not have a hinge, everyone agrees** that **it is permitted,** as this is merely replacement of a board, and it is not similar to building.


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּשֶׁאֵין לָהֶן צִיר, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן צִיר — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן צִיר מִן הַצַּד — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. אֵין לָהֶן צִיר כׇּל עִיקָּר — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן צִיר בָּאֶמְצַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this claim: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **In what** case **is this statement said?** What is the situation in which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree? They disagree **when** the shutters **do not have a hinge; however, if they have a hinge, everyone agrees** that it is **prohibited. Abaye said** that the two sources can be reconciled: **When they have a hinge on the side, everyone agrees** that it is **prohibited,** as the placement of a hinge in the side is a complicated endeavor that resembles building. If **they have no hinge at all, everyone agrees** that **it is permitted,** as it is considered merely the replacement of a board. **When they disagree,** it is with regard to a case **where they have a hinge in the middle** rather than on the side.