## Beitzah Daf 37a

###### Beitzah 37a:1
[Beitzah 37a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:1)

דְּאִית לֵיהּ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**because** it is dealing with a case in which **he** already **has a wife and children,** so that he has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, and his betrothal of another woman is only an optional act.


###### Beitzah 37a:2
[Beitzah 37a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:2)

לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין. וְהָא מִצְוָה קָא עָבֵיד! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא גָּדוֹל, וּמִצְוָה בַּגָּדוֹל לְיַבֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Nor perform *ḥalitza*, nor perform levirate marriage:** The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t one perform a mitzva** through these acts? Why are they categorized as optional? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** for the mishna to categorize them as optional, as it is speaking of a case **when there is an older** brother. Since the general principle is that **the** preferable way to carry out the **mitzva is for the oldest** brother **to perform levirate marriage,** the performance of levirate marriage by a younger brother is classified as optional.


###### Beitzah 37a:3
[Beitzah 37a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:3)

וְכֻלְּהוּ טַעְמָא מַאי — גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִכְתּוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the reason for the prohibition against judging, betrothing, etc., on Shabbat and Festivals: **And** in **all these** cases, **what is the reason** they may not be performed? It is **a decree lest one write** down the proceedings of these acts in a document, such as the verdict of a judgment, the document of betrothal, a document testifying to the *ḥalitza*, or a marriage contract in the case of levirate marriage.


###### Beitzah 37a:4
[Beitzah 37a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:4)

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה: לֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין וְלֹא מַעֲרִיכִין וְלֹא מַחֲרִימִין — גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: **And the following** are notable **because of the** full-fledged **mitzva** involved in them, yet are prohibited on Shabbat: **One may not consecrate, nor take a valuation vow, nor consecrate** objects for use by the priests or the Temple. The Gemara explains: All these cases are prohibited because of **a decree due to** their similarity to **commerce.** These acts, which all involve the transfer of ownership to the Temple treasury, resemble commerce, which is prohibited on a Festival.


###### Beitzah 37a:5
[Beitzah 37a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:5)

וְלֹא מַגְבִּיהִין תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת. פְּשִׁיטָא! תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִיתְּנָהּ לְכֹהֵן בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: **And one may not separate *terumot* and tithes.** The Gemara asks: Is it not **obvious** that this is so? In doing so one makes forbidden food usable, a form of repairing, which is a prohibited labor. **Rav Yosef taught: It is necessary** for the mishna to teach this **only** to state that it is prohibited even to separate *teruma* in order **to give it to a priest on the same day.** One could have thought that since he is separating the produce in order to give it to a priest it should be permitted like any other preparation of food; the mishna therefore states explicitly that it is prohibited.


###### Beitzah 37a:6
[Beitzah 37a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:6)

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי פֵּירֵי דִּטְבִילִי מֵאֶתְמוֹל, אֲבָל פֵּירֵי דִּטְבִילִי הָאִידָּנָא, כְּגוֹן עִיסָּה לְאַפְרוֹשֵׁי מִינַּהּ חַלָּה — מַפְרְשִׁינַן וְיָהֲבִינַן לְכֹהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And this applies only to produce that** had the status of **untithed produce,** and therefore was required to be tithed, **the day before** the Festival. **However, produce that became untithed now** on the Festival itself, **such as dough** prepared on the Festival, which becomes untithed and requires *ḥalla* to be taken from it only after the dough is made: With regard to **separating *ḥalla* from it, one may separate** the *ḥalla* **and give** it **to a priest** even on a Festival.


###### Beitzah 37a:7
[Beitzah 37a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:7)

וְהָנֵי, מִשּׁוּם רְשׁוּת אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת לֵיכָּא? וְהָנֵי, מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת לֵיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question. When the mishna describes **those** cases as notable **because they are optional,** is this to say that their prohibition is **not because** of a **rabbinic decree** to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of **rest [*shevut*]?** Likewise, with regard to **those** cases described as notable **because they are mitzvot,** is this to say that their prohibition is **not because of *shevut*?** The mishna, by referring only to the first of its three categories as *shevut*, implies that the acts listed in the following categories do not involve *shevut*. But this is not so; as the Gemara stated above, all these acts are prohibited by rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat and the Festival as days of rest.


###### Beitzah 37a:8
[Beitzah 37a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, לָא מִבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִבַּעְיָא שְׁבוּת גְּרֵידְתָּא דְּאָסוּר, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שְׁבוּת דִּרְשׁוּת נָמֵי אָסוּר. וְלָא מִבַּעְיָא שְׁבוּת דִּרְשׁוּת דְּאָסוּר, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שְׁבוּת דְּמִצְוָה נָמֵי אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yitzḥak said:** They are indeed all prohibited as *shevut*. The mishna lists three types of *shevut*: Those that involve no mitzva whatsoever, those that have a mitzva aspect to them, and those that constitute a full-fledged mitzva. And the *tanna* **is speaking** and arranges his list employing the style of: **There is no need,** i.e., he arranges the cases in order of increasing notability. First, **there is no need** to state, i.e., it is most obvious, that **plain *shevut*,** which involves no mitzva at all, **is prohibited, but even *shevut* of an optional act,** i.e., an act that is a minor mitzva, **is also prohibited. And there is no need** to state, i.e., it is obvious, that ***shevut* of an optional act is prohibited, but even *shevut* of** a full-fledged **mitzva is also prohibited.**


###### Beitzah 37a:9
[Beitzah 37a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:9)

כׇּל אֵלּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אָמְרוּ, וּרְמִינְהוּ: מַשִּׁילִין דֶּרֶךְ אֲרוּבָּה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, אֲבָל לֹא בְּשַׁבָּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: The Sages **spoke** of **all these** acts being prohibited even **with regard to a Festival;** all the more so are they prohibited on Shabbat. There is no difference between a Festival and Shabbat except for work involving food. The Gemara **raises a contradiction** against this from an earlier mishna: **One may lower** produce from the roof into the house **through a skylight** to prevent it from being spoiled by the rain **on a Festival, but not on Shabbat.** This shows that there is another difference between a Festival and Shabbat besides food preparation: Doing a strenuous activity to prevent a loss is permitted on a Festival but prohibited on Shabbat.


###### Beitzah 37a:10
[Beitzah 37a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:10)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** This is **not difficult,** as **this** mishna here, which does not include the *halakha* of lowering produce as an example of a difference between Shabbat and a Festival, is in accordance with **Rabbi Eliezer,** whereas **that** previous mishna that does cite it as a difference is in accordance with **Rabbi Yehoshua.**


###### Beitzah 37a:11
[Beitzah 37a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְבוֹר — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל מְנָת לְשׁוֹחְטוֹ וְשׁוֹחֲטוֹ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה לוֹ פַּרְנָסָה בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef elaborates on his statement: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If a cow and her calf, which may not be slaughtered on the same day because of the biblical prohibition: “You shall not kill **it and its offspring** both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), **fell into a pit** on a Festival, and their owner wishes to take them out, **Rabbi Eliezer says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it and** then **slaughter it, and** as for **the second, he provides it sustenance in its place so that it will not die** in the pit. It is prohibited to undertake the strenuous task of raising an animal out of a pit except for the purpose of eating it on the Festival. Therefore, since one cannot slaughter both animals on the Festival, only one can be raised, while the other should be sustained in its place until after the Festival.


###### Beitzah 37a:12
[Beitzah 37a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:12)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל מְנָת לְשׁוֹחְטוֹ וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹחֲטוֹ, וְחוֹזֵר וּמַעֲרִים וּמַעֲלֶה הַשֵּׁנִי. רָצָה — זֶה שׁוֹחֵט, רָצָה — זֶה שׁוֹחֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua,** however, **says: One may raise the first with the intent of slaughtering it and** then change his mind and **not slaughter it. Then he may go back and employ artifice** by deciding that he prefers to slaughter the second one, **and he raises the second.** Having raised both animals, **if he** so **desires he may slaughter this** one; **if he** so **desires he may slaughter that** one. Rav Yosef understands the argument between the two Sages as follows: Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that it is permitted to perform a strenuous activity on a Festival in order to prevent a loss, and therefore he may raise both animals, lest the one left behind die in the pit. Rabbi Eliezer, on the other hand, holds that one may not perform a strenuous activity to prevent a loss, so the second animal must be left in the pit even though it may die there. It may therefore be posited that the mishna that permits lowering produce on a Festival to prevent loss is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion. Rabbi Eliezer would disagree with this leniency, and the principle that there is no difference between Shabbat and a Festival other than food preparation would remain intact.


###### Beitzah 37a:13
[Beitzah 37a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּאֶפְשָׁר בְּפַרְנָסָה, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר בְּפַרְנָסָה — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **From where** do you know that this analysis of these Sages’ opinions is correct? **Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer stated** his opinion that a strenuous activity to prevent monetary loss is prohibited on a Festival **only thus far, there** in the case of the animals in the pit, **where it is possible to sustain** the second animal in the pit and keep it from dying. **But here,** in the case of the produce on the roof, where there is **no possibility** of preventing the loss **through providing sustenance,** he would **not** prohibit lowering the produce to save it from loss.


###### Beitzah 37a:14
[Beitzah 37a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:14)

אִי נָמֵי: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְאַעֲרוֹמֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לְאַעֲרוֹמֵי — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** one can propose an opposite argument: **Rabbi Yehoshua stated** his opinion that a strenuous activity to prevent loss is permitted **only thus far, there** in the case of the two animals, **because it is possible to employ artifice** to raise the second animal, so that an observer might assume that that he was not acting to preserve his property, but wished to eat the first animal and subsequently changed his mind. **But here,** in the case of the produce on the roof, **where it is not possible to employ artifice,** as it is clear that he is acting to salvage his produce, Rabbi Yehoshua would **not** be lenient. Therefore, Rav Yosef’s approach to resolving the contradiction has no support from this *baraita*.


###### Beitzah 37a:15
[Beitzah 37a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, הָא בֵּית הִלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Pappa said:** This resolution of the contradiction is to be rejected in favor of the following: This is **not difficult,** as **this** case is in accordance with **Beit Shammai,** whereas **that** case follows the approach of **Beit Hillel.**


###### Beitzah 37a:16
[Beitzah 37a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:16)

דִּתְנַן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לֹא אֶת הַקָּטָן וְלֹא אֶת הַלּוּלָב וְלֹא אֶת סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna: **Beit Shammai say:** On a Festival **one may not take out a child** who cannot walk, **nor a *lulav*, nor a Torah scroll** into the public domain, as none of these are required for the preparation of food, **and Beit Hillel permit** it. It is certainly prohibited to carry out any item into the public domain on Shabbat, yet Beit Hillel permit it on a Festival. Therefore, it may be posited that just as Beit Hillel allow carrying out items on a Festival but not on Shabbat, so would they permit moving the produce off the roof on a Festival but not on Shabbat. According to Beit Shammai, who forbid carrying items out on a Festival and on Shabbat equally, moving the produce from the roof would also be equally prohibited, and the principle that there is no difference between Shabbat and a Festival other than food preparation would remain intact.


###### Beitzah 37a:17
[Beitzah 37a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:17)

דִּלְמָא לָא הִיא, עַד כָּאן לָא קָא אָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָתָם, אֶלָּא אַהוֹצָאָה, אֲבָל אַטִּלְטוּל — לָא. אַטּוּ טִלְטוּל לָאו צוֹרֶךְ הוֹצָאָה הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara at first refutes this explanation: **Perhaps that is not so,** as it is possible that **Beit Shammai stated** their opinion **only thus far, there** with regard to the prohibition against **transferring** objects from one domain to another, **but not** with regard to **moving** objects, such as produce, from place to place in the house. The Gemara rejects this claim: **Is that to say** that **moving is not** performed **for the sake of taking out** to the public domain? The decree against moving items unnecessarily, i.e., not for use on Shabbat or a Festival, was enacted due to a concern that one might take objects into the public domain. Rav Pappa’s explanation that it is only Beit Shammai who would prohibit lowering the produce from the roof therefore stands.


###### Beitzah 37a:18
[Beitzah 37a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַבְּהֵמָה וְהַכֵּלִים כְּרַגְלֵי הַבְּעָלִים. הַמּוֹסֵר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לִבְנוֹ אוֹ לָרוֹעֶה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּרַגְלֵי הַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The status of **animals and vessels** on Festivals **is as the feet of** their **owner,** meaning that one’s animals and vessels are governed by his own travel limitations on Shabbat and Festivals. In the case of **one who delivers his animal to his son or to a shepherd** before the Festival to care for it, **these are as the feet of the owner,** rather than those of the son or the shepherd.


###### Beitzah 37a:19
[Beitzah 37a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:19)

כֵּלִים הַמְיוּחָדִין לְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁבַּבַּיִת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּרַגְלָיו. וְשֶׁאֵין מְיוּחָדִין — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹלְכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Vessels that** have been inherited by several brothers and have not been divided among them but are still owned jointly, if they **are designated for** the use of **one of the brothers in the house** and the other brothers have no part in them, **these are as his feet,** and they are subject to his travel limitations. **And** as for those **that are not designated** for any particular brother, **these are as a place where** they **may** all **go.** They are limited by the travel limitations of every one of the brothers, as when one brother made a joining of Shabbat boundaries [*eiruv teḥumin*] and the others did not.


###### Beitzah 37a:20
[Beitzah 37a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:20)

הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב — כְּרַגְלֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל. בְּיוֹם טוֹב — כְּרַגְלֵי הַמַּשְׁאִיל. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ תַּבְלִין וּמַיִם וָמֶלַח לְעִיסָּתָהּ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר בַּמַּיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who borrows a vessel from another on the eve of a Festival,** it is **as the feet of the borrower** rather than the owner, as when the Festival began the vessel established its place of rest in possession of the borrower. However, if he borrowed it **on the Festival** itself, it is **as the feet of the lender,** since at the start of the Festival its place of rest was established in the possession of its owner. **And similarly, a woman who borrowed spices from another** to put in a dish, **or water and salt** to put in **her dough, these** foods, i.e., the dish and the dough, which contain ingredients belonging to both parties, **are as the feet of both of them;** they are limited by the travel limitations of both parties. **Rabbi Yehuda exempts** one from travel limitations **in the** case of **water, because it** has **no substance** in the mixture and therefore is not considered connected to the original owner.


###### Beitzah 37a:21
[Beitzah 37a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/37a:21)

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asserts: **The mishna**