BEITZAH - 019a – ביצה – פרק שני – יום טוב, יט ע”א

And if you wish, say instead: it is the Rabbanan, and the whole Mishnah speaks of Shabbos.^[1]

And if you wish, say: it is Rebbi who taught it, and the whole Mishnah speaks of Yom Tov, as we say: one may not immerse a vessel over its own water in order to purify it on Yom Tov — immersion is what is forbidden, but hashakah in a stone vessel is quite permitted. And in our texts the first clause has been exchanged for the last and the last for the first, for in them it is written first “one may not bring into contact” and then “one may not immerse”; and on that account most of the students went astray in the explanation of this sugya, and no man can set it on its base, and out of that difficulty they read: the Mishnah’s first clause speaks of Yom Tov and its last clause of Shabbos. And they explain the first clause, which teaches “one may bring into contact”, as speaking of Yom Tov, the Tanna having taught hashakah with immersion following the same law; and the last clause, which teaches “but one may not immerse”, as dealing with Shabbos, the Tanna having taught immersion with hashakah following the same law. But it is not fitting to explain it so to the schoolchildren of the study hall, for if so, let him teach the lighter case and let us learn the stricter one from it: let him teach us that immersion is permitted on Yom Tov, and I would say all the more so hashakah. But now that he teaches us “one may bring into contact”, it can be said that he teaches it precisely, and immersion is not permitted. And so too with regard to Shabbos: since he teaches “but one may not immerse”, if he held that the same law applies to hashakah he should have taught us “one may not bring into contact”, and we would learn all the more so that one may not immerse; but now that he teaches “one may not immerse”, it can be said that hashakah is permitted. And this is a support for the words of the Tosefta, for so we have found in it in Maseches Shabbos and in Maseches Beitzah.^[2]

Our Rabbis taught: a vessel that became tamei on the eve of Yom Tov — one may not immerse it at bein hashemashos.^[3]

אין מטבילין אותו בין השמשות - because it is a doubtful night, and he turns out to be immersing on Yom Tov.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even on a weekday one may not immerse it, because it requires he’erev shemesh.^[4]

אף בחול - if we see a man immersing a vessel at bein hashemashos we must turn him back and protest against him, because it requires he’erev shemesh; and this man, who immerses a vessel at night, certainly intends to use it at once and not to wait for the setting of the sun of the next day.

And does the first Tanna not require he’erev shemesh?^[5]

ותנא קמא לא בעי כו' - this is said in astonishment.

Rava said: I found the Rabbanan of the study hall sitting and saying:

אשכחתינהו לרבנן דבי רב - the students in the beis midrash.

They disagree over whether a man’s intention is discerned from his actions.^[6]

מעשיו - that he is running in haste.

And what is the case?

Such as where he holds a vessel in his hand and goes running at bein hashemashos to immerse it.

One master holds: this man, who goes running, surely knows that he’erev shemesh is required.

מידע ידע דבעי הערב שמש - and that is why he runs — he thinks to manage before the day goes out; and when he sees that he will not manage, since he has already come to the mikvah he completes his immersion and waits before using it until his sun sets on the next day. Therefore at the bein hashemashos of Yom Tov it is forbidden, because he is immersing on Yom Tov with no need for it; but on a weekday we do not protest against him, since his intention — that he means it for the setting of the sun — is evident from his actions in running.

And one master holds: it is on account of his work that he is running.

And I said to them: that a man’s intention is discerned from his actions — in that all agree.

דכולי עלמא לא פליגי - for in an ordinary man it is certainly discerned. And this man, about whom Rabbi Shimon Shezuri disagreed and said that we do not say of him that his intention is discerned from his actions, is such as where another vessel of his became tamei through less than a lentil’s bulk of a creeping thing, and he came to ask, and so forth.

Where they disagree is such as where it became tamei through less than a lentil’s bulk, and he came before the Rabbanan to ask: did it become tamei through less than a lentil’s bulk or not?^[7]

One master holds: since he has not learned this, he has not learned about he’erev shemesh either.

And one master holds: it is this that he has not learned, but he’erev shemesh he has learned.

הא הוא דלא גמיר - for a lentil’s bulk is not written explicitly; but he’erev shemesh, which is written explicitly, he has certainly learned. And we are dealing with a kohen, who uses the vessel for terumah.

And one may immerse from one designation to another:^[8]

Our Rabbis taught: how is “from one designation to another”?

One who wishes to make his winepress upon the immersion of his jar, or his jar upon that of his winepress —^[9]

הרוצה לעשות גתו על גב כדו - one whose vessels were tamei and who immersed them with the treading of his olives in mind, and then changed his mind to make his winepress.

he may do so.

עושה - his winepress upon this immersion that he immersed for the sake of his jar, and he need not immerse again for the sake of the winepress. And that second immersion — of one who comes to be stringent with himself and immerse — is what the Mishnah teaches that he may immerse on Yom Tov, since there is no repairing of a vessel here, and it is not an immersion at all, for it is not required.

How is “from one chaburah to another”?

He was eating with this chaburah^[10]

בחבורה זו - for his Pesach offering; and he was tamei, or his vessels were tamei, and he immersed with that in mind.

and he wishes to eat with another chaburah — the choice is his.

הרשות בידו - and he need not immerse again; and the Mishnah says that if he comes to be stringent and immerse his vessels for the sake of the other chaburah, he may immerse on Yom Tov.

Mishnah

Beis Shammai say: one may bring shelamim^[11]

מביאין שלמים - on Yom Tov, since there is human consumption in them.

but one may not lay hands on them,^[12]

ואין סומכין עליהן - for semichah is forbidden as a shevus, since he would lean with all his strength and would thereby be making use of a living animal; and we learned: one may not ride upon an animal [ביצה לו, ב].

but not olos.^[13]

אבל לא עולות - one may not bring olos, apart from the tamid and the musaf offerings, which are communal offerings with a fixed time; but an individual’s olah he may not bring, since there is no ordinary person’s consumption in it, and it is written it shall be done for you [שמות יב, טז] — for you, and not for the Most High.

And Beis Hillel say: one may bring shelamim and olos, and one lays hands on them:

Gemara

Ulla said: the dispute is over the shelamim of the chagigah with respect to semichah, and over the olas re’iyah with respect to being offered at all.^[14]

מחלוקת בשלמי חגיגה לסמוך ועולת ראייה ליקרב - our Mishnah: both agree that shelamim may be brought, and they disagreed only over laying hands on them. In the shelamim of the chagigah Beis Shammai agree that they may be brought, because they are the obligation of the day, as we say in Chagigah [חגיגה ט, א] from and you shall celebrate it as a festival. And the olah over which they disagreed even as to bringing it — it was over the olas re’iyah that they disagreed, and that is what Beis Hillel permit, because it belongs to Yom Tov, as we derive from and they shall not appear before Me empty-handed [שמות כג, טו].

For Beis Shammai hold: and you shall celebrate it as a festival to Hashem [ויקרא כג, מא] — a chagigah, yes; an olas re’iyah, no.

And Beis Hillel hold: “to Hashem” — whatever is for Hashem.

But nedarim and nedavos — all agree that they are not offered on Yom Tov.^[15]

אבל נדרים ונדבות - since their time is not this day at all, all agree that they are not offered, even shelamim, and all the more so olos, since he can bring them after the festival. And although the chagigah and the re’iyah have make-up days all seven, they permitted it lest he be prevented and not offer it on the remaining days; and we learned: once the festival has passed and he has not brought the chagigah, he is not answerable for it. And so it is explained in the beraisa below, that it is for this reason that they permitted it.

And so said Rav Adda bar Ahavah: nedarim and nedavos are not offered on Yom Tov.

They raised an objection:^[16]

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel did not disagree about an olah that does not belong to Yom Tov

שאינה של יום טוב - such as a neder or a nedavah.

that it is not offered on Yom Tov,

שאינה קרבה - for it carries two grounds for prohibition: there is no human consumption in it, and it is possible after the festival.

and about shelamim that do belong to Yom Tov

ועל שלמים שהן של י"ט - such as the chagigah and the shalmei simchah.

that they are offered on Yom Tov.

שקרבין - for there are two grounds for permission: human consumption, and their time is on the festival, and if the festival passes his offering lapses.

About what did they disagree?

About an olah that belongs to Yom Tov and about shelamim that do not belong to Yom Tov,

ועל שלמים שאינן וכו' - it follows that shelamim of nedarim and nedavos are, according to Beis Hillel, offered — and that is a difficulty for Ulla.

for Beis Shammai say: he may not bring,

and Beis Hillel say: he may bring.

Emend it and say as follows:^[17]

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel did not disagree about an olah and shelamim that do not belong to Yom Tov, that they are not offered on Yom Tov, and about shelamim that do belong to Yom Tov, that they are offered on Yom Tov.

About what did they disagree?

About an olah that belongs to Yom Tov,

for Beis Shammai say: he may not bring,

and Beis Hillel say: he may bring.

Rav Yosef said: are you taking a Tanna from the open market?^[18]

תנאי שקלת מעלמא - and can you not find a Tanna who says as Ulla does, so that you could say Ulla holds like that one — that you had to distort this beraisa and emend it?

It is a dispute among Tannaim.

תנאי היא - we find another Tanna who stands with Ulla.

For it was taught: shelamim that come on account of Yom Tov, on Yom Tov —

מחמת יום טוב - the chagigah and the shalmei simchah.

Beis Shammai say: he lays hands on them on the eve of Yom Tov and slaughters them on Yom Tov,^[19]

and Beis Hillel say: he lays hands on them on Yom Tov and slaughters them on Yom Tov.

Tosafos

אמר עולא מחלוקת כו' - And if you ask: why do Beis Shammai need to give the reason as וחגותם, when we say below that it is because of לכם, and not for the Most High? One may answer: so that you should not err and read לה' as “whatever is for Hashem.” Even so it is difficult for Beis Hillel: why do they need to say “whatever is for Hashem”? Let it follow from their holding of מתוך etc.; and it would well be a need to some extent, so that people should not say “your table is full and your Master’s is empty,” as I explained above in the first perek (Beitzah 12a, end of ד"ה ה"ג). One may answer: so that you should not err and say that וחגותם means the chagigah festival-offering, but not an olah.

1. 1. The daf opens inside a resolution carried over from the previous amud. The Mishnah under discussion deals both with immersing a vessel and with hashakah — bringing drawn water that has become tamei into contact with the water of a mikvah, so that the two join and the drawn water is purified. The Gemara has been assigning the Mishnah’s two clauses to Shabbos or to Yom Tov; this is its second proposal, that the Mishnah is the Rabbanan throughout and speaks of Shabbos.
2. 2. Rashi is not explaining a word here but recording a different text. In the copies before him the Mishnah’s two clauses stood in the reverse order, and he sets out both the reading the students were driven to and why it cannot stand: a Tanna who wished to teach the stricter case by implication would have taught the lighter one. The girsa itself is in dispute, and Rashi says so.
3. 3. Bein hashemashos is the doubtful stretch between sunset and nightfall, which may belong to the day that is ending or to the one beginning. A vessel immersed then may turn out to have been immersed on Yom Tov itself, which is why the beraisa forbids it.
4. 4. He’erev shemesh: one who has immersed is not yet fit to handle terumah until the sun of that day has set. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s objection is therefore not about Yom Tov at all — on his view immersing at twilight is pointless even on a weekday, since the vessel cannot be used until the following sunset in any case.
5. 5. The question presses on the first Tanna: if he’erev shemesh is required, twilight immersion should be futile on every day of the year, and there was no need to forbid it on account of Yom Tov.
6. 6. The principle at issue, מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך מעשיו, is whether a man’s unstated intention may be read off his conduct. Rava reports the study hall’s reading of the dispute and then sets it aside for a different one.
7. 7. Rava’s own case. The man does not know that less than a lentil’s bulk of a creeping thing conveys tumah, and has come to ask about it. The dispute is whether a man shown to be ignorant of that detail is also presumed ignorant of he’erev shemesh.
8. 8. A new sugya opens here. The Gemara quotes the next clause of the Mishnah — that one may immerse a vessel a second time when moving it from one designation to another — and the beraisa that follows explains what that clause covers.
9. 9. גב here is the purpose for which the immersion was performed. A vessel immersed with one use in mind may be used for another without immersing again; the Mishnah’s point is that a man who nevertheless wishes to immerse a second time out of stringency may do so on Yom Tov, since nothing is being repaired and the immersion accomplishes nothing he needs.
10. 10. A chaburah is the group registered together to eat one Pesach offering. Having immersed for one group, a man may transfer to another without a second immersion.
11. 11. The Mishnah of the chapter. Shelamim are peace offerings, parts of which are eaten by the owner, so slaughtering them on Yom Tov can be brought under the permission to prepare food.
12. 12. Semichah: the owner leans on the animal’s head with his full weight immediately before it is slaughtered. Beis Shammai treat leaning with one’s whole strength as making use of a living animal, which is a shevus — a rabbinic restriction on Shabbos and Yom Tov.
13. 13. An olah is burned whole on the altar and none of it is eaten. The Yom Tov permission to slaughter rests on ochel nefesh, food for a person, which an olah does not supply; communal offerings with a fixed time are a separate matter.
14. 14. Two festival obligations stand behind the Mishnah: the chagigah, a shelamim the pilgrim brings and eats, and the olas re’iyah, a burnt offering brought on appearing at the Beis Hamikdash. Ulla narrows the dispute to two points only — semichah on the chagigah, and whether the olas re’iyah may be offered at all.
15. 15. Nedarim and nedavos are vow and freewill offerings, which carry no fixed date. Ulla’s addition is that these stand outside the dispute altogether, and this is the part of his statement the Gemara now challenges.
16. 16. The objection. The beraisa of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar appears to place shelamim of nedarim and nedavos inside the dispute, with Beis Hillel permitting them — against Ulla, who said all agree they are not offered.
17. 17. The Gemara does not answer the objection but re-sets the beraisa’s clauses, moving shelamim that do not belong to Yom Tov from the disputed group into the agreed one, so that it no longer contradicts Ulla.
18. 18. Rav Yosef rejects the emendation: rather than rewrite a beraisa to fit Ulla, one should find a Tanna who already holds as he does. The objection therefore falls away on different grounds.
19. 19. The beraisa that supports Ulla: both sides take for granted that the chagigah shelamim are slaughtered on Yom Tov, and they differ only over when semichah is performed — which is exactly Ulla’s reading of the Mishnah. The daf ends here.