Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 7, scan section 10

shutters of movable stalls. He said again : There are three things of which the finishing was allowed (though not essential for the festival), for the reason of the beginning (which was necessary ; i.e., if it would not have been allowed to finish them, they would not have been begun). They are : The skin for the tanner, the shutters of the shops,* and the replacing of a plaster (on the priest's hand f) in the Temple. And Rhaba said in the * It means that he would not slaughter the animal at all if he would not be sure that the skin would not be spoiled ; and so he would not open the shop to take out what was necessary for the festival, if he would not be allowed to shut it again, and the festival would be without enjoyment. f As the priest is not permitted to do his work of sacrificing when there is some- thing between (Hatzitzah, intervention) his hand and the victim. TRACT BETZAH (YOM TOB). 21 name of Rabh Jehudah the Babylonian Amora : -^ The same is the case when one opens a barrel or begins to knead dough on the festival (he may stop up the barrel, or finish the kneading, be- cause he would not begin if he were not permitted to finish, and his enjoyment of the festival would not be complete), and this is according to Rabbi Jehudah the Tana, who said (in Hagigah, p. 52), he shall finish it. Our Mishna is not in accordance with the Tana of the follow- ing Boraitha : R. Simeon b. Elazar said : The schools both of Shammai and Hillel agree that the shutters may be removed on the festival ; they differ only about the replacing of them. Beth Shammai do not permit this, and Beth Hillel allow even this. But this is in case there are hinges, but if there is none all agree it is permitted. But have we not learned in another Boraitha the contrary of this? Said Abayi : It can be explained so: If the hinges are at the sides of the shutters, all agree it is pro- hibited ; t if there are no hinges at all, all agree it is permissible. They differ only on this point when the hinges are in the middle : Beth Shammai prohibit it as a precautionary measure, lest one think it permissible also even when they are at the sides, and Beth Hillel think such a precautionary measure is not to be taken. MISHNA: A child, a Lulab (a branch of a date-tree), holy scrolls, must not be carried in public ground according to Beth Shammai ; but Beth Hillel allow it. GEMARA : In the presence of R. Itz'hak bar Abdimi one Tana taught as follows : If one slaughters a voluntary offering on a festival, he is liable to the penalty of stripes. Said R. Itz'hak to him : According to whom is your teaching? That is only according to Beth Shammai, who do not hold the theory that because it is permitted to carry things for the purposes of the festival, it is permissible to carry other things, even when they are not necessary for the purposes of the festival ; but ac- cording to Beth Hillel, who hold this theory, we can say, because slaughtering for the festival is permitted, slaughtering for other * Rashi says : To some people it is doubtful if it was in the name of R. Jehudah the second, or R. Jehudah the disciple of Samuel ; but I say, he added, that Rhaba, who was from Pumbeditha, had never seen R. Jehudah the second, as we do not find that he, sometime in his life, ever went to Palestine. Moreover, it is said elsewhere that no one was so particular in his study as Rhaba of Pumbeditha, and we must assume that Rhaba was so particular that he would not leave in his words any doubt about the man in whose name he said it ; and if it was Jehudah the second, he would have certainly mentioned it. f As when the hinges are at the sides, it is very difficult to remove and replace. 22 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. purposes is also permitted, consequently he is not liable to stripes. R. Johanan's opinion is also that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differ about the acceptation of the above theory. Because a disciple has taught in the presence of R. Johanan thus : If one cooks the sinew which shrank [Gen. xxxii. 33] in milk on a festival, and eats it, he is liable to five times stripes : once for cooking the sinew, once for eating it, once for cooking meat in milk, once for eating meat with milk, and once for kin- dling a fire on the festival. And R. Johanan said to him : Go with thy teaching out of the college, because for kindling a fire and cooking on the festival he is not liable for stripes, according to the teaching of the Mishna ; and even if you would find a Mishna which is in accordance with your teaching, it could be only according to the school of Shammai, who deny the theory that, because it is permitted to kindle a fire and to cook for the purposes of the festival, it is permissible also for other purposes ; then, according to the school of Hillel, who agree with this theory, no Mishna could teach so. Now then, when kindling and cook- ing are permitted on the festival, you must remove the stripes for cooking and kindling out of the whole case. MISHNA: It is unlawful, according to Beth Shammai, to carry to the priest on a festival the first dough (Halah) or other gifts, whether they had been set apart for that purpose on that day or on the preceding day. Beth Hillel, however, allow this. Said Beth Shammai : Let us say to them : Is there not an analogy of expression in both ? First dough and other priestly dues are called gifts to the priest (Matanoth) ; and heave-offering (Terumah) is also called gifts to the priest. Now, as the last is prohibited, the same must be the case with the first? Rejoined Beth Hillel: Nay, how can the gifts be compared to heave-offer- ing ? The last one is not allowed to be set apart on the festival, whereas other gifts may. GEMARA : At the first glance, the teaching of the Mishna, "whether it had been set apart on the same day," would seem to mean that it was slaughtered and set apart on the same day, and the expression, " the preceding day," would seem to mean that it was slaughtered also on that day. If it is so, however, according to whose opinion would the Mishna be ? Not according to R. Jose, not according to R. Jehudah, but according to the anony- mous teachers. As we have learned in the following Boraitha : R. Jehudah said : Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ about the gifts that were set apart on the eve of a festival, TkACt BETZAH (VOM TOB). 23 whether they might be brought together with the gifts set apart and slaughtered on the festival. What they differ in is only whether those set apart on the eve of the festival might be brought to the priest separately. Beth Shammai do not allow this, and Beth Hillel permit it. R. Jose, however, said that the above schools do not differ about gifts at all, but only about the heave-offering ;