Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 7, scan section 9

all reasons : Either all are strange pigeons, or at least one. ''If three birds,'' etc. Why so? Because two are the same, though one is gone. Shall we assume our Mishna is only accord- ing to Rabbi, and not the sages of the following Boraitha ? If one had left at a certain place one hundred zuz of second tithe, and he found afterwards two hundred zuz, the ordinary and the second tithe money are mixed together. Such is the decree of Rabbi. But the sages said that the whole is considered as or- dinary money (considering the first hundred as having been stolen, and this to be other money). But if he left two hundred zuz, and found only one hundred, it is considered that one hundred has been stolen, and the other hundred remains. So is the de- cree of Rabbi. But the sages said that the remainder becomes ordinary. Hence we see that the case of the doves in our Mishna is according to Rabbi ? Nay, the Mishna can be explained even in accordance with the sages, for it was taught in addition to this Boraitha, that R. Johanan and R. Elazar both said that in the case of pigeons the law is different because pigeons have the habit of leaving their nest for short whiles. " But if they had been prepared ijt the nest," etc. Shall we say this part of the Mishna is in support of the above decree of R. Hanina? Here it can also be explained as the former according to Abayi (that the board before the nest is meant where strange pigeons come to roost). Rabha, however, said : The Mishna re- fers to a case where there were two nests, one on the top of the other ; and not only is one prohibited to use pigeons found be- fore the lower nest, when he had prepared same in the lower, and found both nests empty, because it is considered that from only the lower nest they are gone, and those from the upper nest have come down ; but if he had prepared them in the upper one, and found them in front of it, while both nests are empty, the case is the same ; though usually pigeons do not go up, it is con- sidered that the upper pigeons are gone, and those of the lower nest came up in front of the upper nest. '' Unless there were no other birds," etc. How was the case? Shall we say flying pigeons are meant ? Then it may be assumed that those that had been in the nest had flown away, and these are strangers. And if pigeons too young for flying are meant, then if there is a nest within fifty ells, we may say that those TRACT BETZAH (YOM TOB). 19 that were here bounded away, and these are strangers ; but if no strange nest is near, is it not self-evident that they are the same and may be used, as Mar Uqba bar Hamma said : A pigeon that cannot fly yet is not able to bound away more than fifty ells? Nay, it can be explained thus : There is a nest within fifty ells, but it is situated in a corner so that the pigeons could not see it. They are in their own nest, and the Mishna comes to teach us, that the fear of their bounding away is only when there is another nest within fifty ells, which is visible to them when they are in their own nest ; but if not visible, they do not bound away at all. MISHNA: Beth Shammai say: The (large wooden) pestle may not be moved for the purpose of using it as a block to cut meat upon ; but Beth Hillel allow it. Beth Shammai teach : It is unlawful to lay down a skin to be trodden on (as a preparation for its being tanned) or to raise it from the ground unless the {7m?iimum) quantity of meat of the size of an olive be thereon ; Beth Hillel, however, allow it. GEMARA : We have learned in a Boraitha (an addition to this Mishna) that all agree that if one has already cut meat on this pestle, it may not be handled more (because the occasion on which it was necessary for the festival is over). Said Abayi : Even if the pestle mentioned in the Mishna was a new one, made only for breaking bones, the case is the same ; (and Abayi found this necessary to explain) lest one say, that because it is a new one, it shall be feared that he will change his mind and will not use it for this purpose, and so it will be handled unnecessarily, and therefore the Mishna comes to teach us that this fear is not entertained. From this we see that Beth Shammai have not such fear. But did we not learn in a Boraitha : Beth Shammai said the slaughterer and the knife must not be brought to the animal, nor, vice versa, it to them (for fear of his changing his mind, and not slaughtering at all, and being troubled for nothing) ? And the same is the case with spices and the pestle, which must not be carried to the mortar, nor vice versa. But Beth Hillel allow both (hence we see that the school of Shammai fear his changing his mind). What comparison is it? He can reject on second consideration an animal because he wants a fatter one, or spices because he resolves to have a dish without spices, but in this case the animal is already slaughtered and the meat is for cooking; hence he must cut it and prepare it for eating. 20 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. " Beth Shammai teach it is unlawful to lay down a skin,'' etc. We have learned in a Boraitha : Both schools agree that meat for roasting may be salted on the skin. Said Abayi : Only for roasting is it permitted to salt meat on it, but not for boiling (because for roasting much salt is not necessary, but for boiling more is needed). Is not this self-evident ? It is plainly stated, " for roasting." Abayi comes to teach us that even for roasting, if more salt is needed than ordinarily, it is not permitted. The rabbis taught : Tallow must not be salted and must not be turned over. In the name of R. Joshuah, however, it was said that one may spread it out upon nails for being aired. Said R. Mathna : The Halakha does not prevail according to R. Joshuah ; but wherein differs this case from the case of the skin in our Mishna ? (The cases are not identical.) When one sees him spread- ing out the skin, he may think because it is fit for sitting on, it is spread out for such purposes ; but when one will be allowed to salt the tallow, he may say : For what purpose have the sages allowed it ? Only that it shall not become spoiled. Then what is the difference between spreading and salting, and he will also salt it ? R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said : One may salt several pieces of meat at one time, though only one of them is needed. R. Adda bar A'hbah had recourse to ingenuity, and used to salt meat for a festival meal (salting one piece with the pretext that he will use it, and then rejecting it, and choosing another, and so on). MISHNA: The shutters of stalls must not be removed on a festival according to Beth Shammai ; but Beth Hillel allow even to replace them. GEMARA : What kind of shutters is meant ? Said Ula : The