(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Beitzah 9

BEITZAH 6-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael



(a) Beis Shamai forbids carrying a ladder from one dove-cot to another on Yom-Tov. They concede however (in our Mishnah) that one may move the top of the ladder from one window to another (in the same dove-cot).

(b) Beis Hillel permit even carrying it from one dove-cot to another.

(c) Rav Chanan bar Ami confines the prohibition of Beis Shamai to carrying the ladder through the street - which Beis Shamai forbids because of Mar'is ha'Ayin (because people will think that he is going to repair his roof). But as long as he remains in his own domain, they do not see him, and there is nothing to worry about if he carries his ladder there.

(d) However, we have a problem with this from Rav (the leading Torah authority of his time in Bavel) - who maintains that whatever is Asur because of Mar'is ha'Ayin, is forbidden even if one is inside an inner room?

(a) We reconcile Rav Chanan bar Ami with Rav - by establishing Rav's contention as a Machlokes Tana'im, as we shall now see.

(b) Rav holds like Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa; Rav Chanan bar Ami, like the Tana Kama - who says that someone whose clothes became drenched in the rain, may hang them up to dry, provided they are in a location which does not face the street.

(c) In the second Lashon - Rav Chanan bar Ami establish the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in one's private domain, where Beis Shamai forbids carrying the ladder (like Rav), and Beis Hillel permit it, because they do not hold like Rav.

(d) Rav maintains that Rav Chanan bar Ami's interpretation of our Mishnah conforms with the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, but that he follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who forbid Mar'is ha'Ayin even inside a locked room (even according to Beis Hillel).




(a) Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in our Mishnah argue over taking a ladder from one dove-cot to another. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa, they agree that this is permitted - their Machlokes in his opinion, is confined to returning the ladder to its original location (which is no longer for the needs of Simchas Yom-Tov).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah on the other hand, is strict (though it is unclear whether he refers even to the Reshus ha'Yachid, or specifically to the Reshus ha'Rabim - see Rosh, Si'man 14). He restricts the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel to a type of ladder that is specifically made for dove-cots - but even Beis Hillel will agree that one may not carry a ladder that is made to climb to the attic.

(c) Rebbi Dosa permits moving the *top* of the ladder from one window of the dove-cot to another. Acheirim quote him as saying that one may even move the *foot* of the ladder, if the top does not quite reach the other window.

(a) When Rebbi Chiya's sons went to inspect their fields one Yom-Tov - they permitted someone to carry a ladder made to climb to the attic to his dove- cot (see Maharsha).

(b) When they returned and told their father of this ruling, he instructed them to go back and rescind it.

(c) Their mistake was based on a misunderstanding of Rebbi Yehudah's statement in the Beraisa - they thought that when he categorically forbade a ladder that is made to climb to the attic, he was *disputing* the Tana Kama, who established the Machlokes by such a ladder (which Beis Hillel permit). In fact, Rebbi Yehudah was coming to *explain and to qualify* the Tana Kama, in which case, a ladder that leads to the attic is forbidden according to all opinions.

(d) Rebbi Chiya proved this from the wording of the Tana Kama: 'Molichin es ha'Sulam *mi'Shuvach le'Shuvach*' - and not just *'le'Shuvach'*, implying that he is referring to a ladder of a dove-cot, and not one of an attic.

5) The sons of Rebbi Chiya however, explained that the Tana Kama did not refer to 'Sulam shel Shuvach', but to a 'Sulam' S'tam, implying that one may carry any ladder (even of an attic) to use by as many dove-cots as one wishes.


(a) In the second Lashon, they permitted moving the top of a ladder that was designated for roofs, from one window to another. Their mistake this time, was based on their understanding of Rebbi Dosa, who permits moving the top of a ladder from one window to another - whom they thought was referring to the same ladder as Rebbi Yehudah (and was coming to permit what Rebbi Yehudah forbade - and they ruled like him).

(b) In fact, Rebbi Dosa came to be more stringent than Rebbi Yehudah, to restrict even the ladder of a *dove-cot* to moving its top from window to window only (but he too agrees that the ladder of an *attic* is completely forbidden).

(a) In our Mishnah, Beis Shamai are strict, and Beis Hillel, lenient. In the first Mishnah, on the other hand, Beis Shamai are lenient, and Beis Hillel, strict. But how can either Tana be lenient with regard to Simchas Yom-Tov here, and strict there? This appears to be inconsistent?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan answers that we have to invert the opinions in our Mishnah, and that here too, Beis Shamai will permit carrying the ladder, whereas Beis Hillel will permit only inclining it.

(c) We conclude however, that switching the opinions of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is not necessary ...

1. ... Beis Shamai are only lenient in the first Mishnah because of the prepared peg, which eliminates Mar'is ha'Ayin, without which Chazal forbade Shechting, either because of the Isur de'Rabbanan of digging a hole or because people may think that it is permitted to dig even in hard earth (see Sugya end of 7b. and 8a.), but not on the basis of Simchas Yom-Tov, which does not over-ride any Isur (even de'Rabbanan) in their opinion.
2. ... Beis Hillel are lenient here only - because when people see him placing the ladder beside his dove-cot, they will know that he is not interested in repairing his roof; whereas by the earth Chazal decreed because, if not this time, perhaps next time, there will be some hard earth there, and (even with a prepared peg), he might come to grind the earth.
8) So we ask the same discrepancy from the next Mishnah, where Beis Shamai forbid taking a bird from the dove-cot unless one actually *moves* it before Yom-Tov, whereas Beis Hillel consider *verbal designation* sufficient. Here too (as by all subsequent cases) we reject Rebbi Yochanan's contention that the opinions in the latter Mishnah be switched.
In fact ...
1. ... Beis Shamai are more stringent by the birds than in the first Mishnah with the peg - because (unlike the peg, which will remind him not to grind or to dig a hole) here, there is nothing to remind him not to take a bird that he did not designate (which is Muktzah). 2. ... Beis Hillel are more stringent in the first Mishnah than by the birds - due to the fact that by the birds, it is only a question of *Muktzah* (and not a *Melachah*, as is the case in the first Mishnah). Consequently, they hold that *verbal designation* will suffice.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,