Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Beitzah 9

9b

OPINIONS: The Gemara, in the second version of the incident, records the ruling of the sons of Rebbi Chiya who ruled that it is permitted to lean a ladder of an attic ("Sulam Shel Aliyah") from one window of a bird coop to another. This ruling was based on their understanding of Rebbi Dosa's statement in the Beraisa. Rebbi Chiya reprimanded them and told them to rescind their ruling, because when Rebbi Dosa said that a ladder may be leaned, he was not being lenient with regard to a ladder of an attic, but rather he was being stringent with regard to a ladder of a bird coop ("Sulam Shel Shovach").

[1] What is the Halachah regarding moving a ladder of a Shovach on Yom Tov?

(a) Since Rebbi Chiya ruled like Rebbi Dosa in the Beraisa, saying that one is not allowed to move a ladder, even a Sulam Shel Shovach, the Halachah should follow his view and it should be prohibited to move even a Sulam Shel Shovach from one coop to another. This is indeed how the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 26:7) rules, as well as TOSFOS (DH Mai).

(b) The ROSH (according to the understanding of the KORBAN NESANEL #30) rules not like Rebbi Dosa of the Beraisa, but like our Mishnah (9a) which permits moving a Sulam Shel Shovach from one coop to another, even in Reshus ha'Rabim where people will see him moving it. As such, the Rosh rules like the first version of the incident of the sons of Rebbi Chiya, in which Rebbi Chiya permitted moving a Sulam Shel Shovach from one coop to another.

[2] Even according to the Rosh, though, it should only by permitted to move a ladder dedicated exclusively to serving a bird coop. What is the Halachah concerning ladders that are not used for bird coops, such as ladders which are commonly found in homes today? It would seem that our ladders are not comparable to ladders of bird coops, because there is nothing about them that would indicate that they are used only for bird coops and not for tarring roofs or other Melachos. Moving the ladder of a Shovach was permitted only when "Shovcho Mochi'ach Alav," i.e. the shape of the ladder indicates that it is used only for getting birds from a bird coop. As such, our ladders would fall into the category of ladders of attics, which may not be moved at all on Yom Tov.

However, the Rishonim cite the Gemara in Eruvin (77b) which states that a person may move a ladder, implying any normal ladder, even if it is not of the type used only for bird coops. Why should it be permitted in light of our Gemara which seems to prohibit it? The Rishonim suggests two answers:

(a) The Gemara in Eruvin is referring to Shabbos, when there is no fear that when one carries the ladder people will think that he on his way to tar his roof. This is because he will not take the ladder out into Reshus ha'Rabim, because Hotza'ah is Asur on Shabbos. On Yom Tov, though, when Hotza'ah is Mutar, there is a fear that people will think that he is on his way to do a Melachah, and therefore the Rabanan prohibited moving a ladder even in the innermost chambers of one's home.

(b) The Gemara here is discussing tall ladders. Small ladders, though, may be moved on Yom Tov, because people do not use such ladders for tarring their roofs (just like they do not use ladders reserved for bird coops for tarring their roofs).

HALACHAH: One may not carry a large ladder from place to place even indoors on Yom Tov, according to both answers.

Regarding small ladders, the MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 518:28) compromises and rules that indoors, one may carry a small ladder, and we do not apply the Gezeirah to the innermost chambers of one's home, where nobody will see him and suspect that he is tarring his roof (since, in any case, many Poskim are lenient when it comes to prohibiting an act privately lest it be done publicly). Outdoors, though, one may not carry even a small ladder on Yom Tov.

QUESTION: The Gemara points out that Beis Shamai prohibits moving a ladder from one bird coop to another (Mishnah, 9a) because he does not hold that the Mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov overrides the Gezeirah d'Rabanan. The Gemara asks that Beis Shamai contradicts his ruling in the Mishnah earlier (2a), where he permits slaughtering an animal l'Chatchilah on Yom Tov and covering its blood with dirt, his reason being that Simchas Yom Tov overrides the Isur d'Rabanan that will be done when one takes the dirt from the ground, thereby digging a pit (which is Mekalkel).

The Gemara answers that Beis Shamai's reason to permit Kisuy ha'Dam l'Chatchilah on Yom Tov is not because of Simchas Yom Tov. Rather, he is lenient because there is a shovel inserted into the dirt from before Yom Tov ("Deker Na'utz"), which removes any possible Isur (RASHI, DH mi'Mai).

How can the Gemara say that "Deker Na'utz" removes any Isur that might otherwise have been committed in the act of picking up the dirt? The Gemara earlier (8a) states that even *with* the shovel inserted in the dirt, one is digging a pit when he picks up the dirt, and it should be Asur mid'Rabanan (but not mid'Oraisa, since he does not need the pit, but only the dirt, and since it is Mekalkel)! It is only permitted l'Chatchilah because of Simchas Yom Tov, as TOSFOS there states (8a, DH v'Eino Tzarich -- see Insights to 8:1:b)!

(The SHITAH MEKUBETZES on Daf 8a suggests that digging is permitted l'Chatchilah not just because of Simchas Yom Tov, but since it is an act which is a combination of both Mekalkel and "Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah." However, even according to the Shitah, an act that is both Mekalkel and Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is not normally permitted -- one who digs a pit is "Patur," implying that the act remains Asur l'Chatchilah. Only when it is being done for the sake of a Mitzvah, is it Mutar l'Chatchilah, as TOSFOS (Kesuvos 5b, DH v'Im Timze Lomar, cited by the KORBAN NESANEL #50) states clearly. Since the Mitzvah, in this case, is Simchas Yom Tov, we have again proven that Beis Shamai takes into account Simchas Yom Tov, since he permits digging l'Chatchilah due to the Mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov.)

RASHI's explanation here is also problematic for this reason. Rashi (DH Heicha) writes that as long as the dirt is soft ("Afar Tichu'ach"), the pit is considered dug already ("Chafur v'Omed"). Furthermore, Rashi earlier (7b, DH v'Ha Ka Avid) writes that when a shovel is inserted into the dirt from before Yom Tov, the pit is considered dug already. How can Rashi say that the pit is considered dug already when there is Afar Tichu'ach or when there is a Deker Na'utz? The Gemara (8a) clearly states that even with Afar Tichu'ach and with Deker Na'utz, there is still a problem of digging a pit! Even though the Gemara concludes that one is not *Chayav* for digging because he needs the dirt, not the hole, nevertheless it should remain Asur l'Chatchilah if not for Simchas Yom Tov! (TZELACH, RASHASH)

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (8a, DH b'Afar Tichu'ach) points out that Rashi here is correct when he says that Afar Tichu'ach removes the problem of digging a pit, as implied by the Gemara in Shabbos 39a. Tosfos asks, therefore, why did the Gemara (8a) say that there is still an Isur of digging a pit when there is Afar Tichu'ach? Tosfos answers that the only time that Afar Tichu'ach permits digging a pit when not only the dirt being removed is soft, but also the dirt on the sides is soft, such that the dirt on the sides caves in when the dirt in the middle is removed, leaving no signs of a hole. When the Gemara (8a) said that there is a problem of digging a pit, it was assuming that there is hard dirt around the hole, so that when the soft dirt in the middle is removed, a pit remains.

However, why should the Gemara itself make such an assumption? The Gemara should have simply answered that there is no problem of digging a pit, because the Mishnah is referring to a case when the dirt on the sides is also soft! (MAHARAM)

The RASHBA asks this question as well and explains that indeed the Gemara could have limited the Mishnah to that case (with soft dirt around the sides), but the Gemara wanted to give an answer which would explain the Mishnah even if it is talking about a case when the dirt around the sides is hard.

According to this, when our Gemara (9b) suggests that there is no Isur of digging because of the Deker Na'utz, our Gemara may be reverting to the other possible answer that it could have given earlier (8a), that there is no problem of digging a pit because the dirt around the sides is soft. If the dirt were hard, though, it would indeed be prohibited mid'Rabanan to remove it because of Chofer, and it would not be permitted if not for Simchas Yom Tov (which is not taken into consideration according to Beis Shamai). This is what the Gemara here means when it says that it is not Simchas Yom Tov that permits using the dirt, but it is the Deker Na'utz that permits it.

When the Gemara earlier (8a) said that it is permitted to dig a pit even when there is hard dirt around the sides (because of Simchas Yom Tov), the Gemara there was working with Rebbi Yochanan's "Muchlefes ha'Shitah" (that it is *Beis Hillel* who permits slaughtering and digging l'Chatchilah). As such, it is Mutar l'Chatchilah even though there is hard dirt around the sides, because Beis Hillel holds that Simchas Yom Tov permits it (just as he holds that Simchas Yom Tov permits moving a ladder to a bird coop). (This works out better according to Tosfos who says that "Muchlefes ha'Shitah" means that the opinions in the *first Mishnah* (2a) are reversed, and Beis Hillel is the one who permits it. Tosfos learns that this reversal remains true l'Maskana, and when the Gemara concludes that one Mishnah is reversed, this is the one that is reversed. Therefore, when the Gemara (8a) says that the Heter to use the dirt even when one thereby makes a pit is because of Simchas Yom Tov, it is following the conclusion of our Gemara (9b-10a), that the Heter is indeed because of Simchas Yom Tov.)

When Rashi in our Sugya says that there is no Isur of digging, he also means that the reason there is no Isur is because there is soft dirt all around the sides, whereas earlier (8a) he learned that the Gemara assumed that there was only soft dirt in the center, but around the sides was hard dirt. Similarly, when Rashi on 7b said that once there is Deker Na'utz, even without Afar Tichu'ach, digging is permitted because it is already Chafur v'Omed, he is referring to a case in which the dirt is soft all around, and caves in after being removed. The Sugya on 8a is according to the opinion of "Muchlefes ha'Shitos" that holds that there is a Heter of Simchas Yom Tov, while our Sugya on 9b is going according to the other opinion. (TZELACH)

(The Tzelach also suggests that Rashi does not argue with Tosfos, and he also maintains that it is the Mishnah at the beginning of the Perek that is reversed, and not the other Mishnayos. When he says "*here* their opinions have been reversed," he does not mean "here, in the second Mishnah," but "here, in Beitzah," as opposed to in Eduyos 4:1, where the Mishnah appears in its original, unreversed form, see Tosfos. If so, Rashi too may learn that the Sugya on 8b is based on the conclusion of our Sugya, that the Mishnah on 2a is reversed and Beis Hillel permits digging l'Chatchilah due to Simchas Yom Tov.)

(b) There is another way to resolve why our Sugya permits digging l'Chatchilah while the Sugya on 8a prohibits it (if not for Simchas Yom Tov). Again, it may be suggested that the earlier Sugya was trying to permit digging in all cases, and not limiting the case of the Mishnah. However, the case it was adding may not have been a case where the outside of the pit was hard dirt, but rather a case where the digging is being done in a *house*, rather than a *field*. We find that the Gemara in Shabbos (73b) says that if one digs or flattens dirt on the floor of a house, one is Chayav for Boneh (building), and if one digs dirt in a field, one is Chayav for Choresh (plowing). Rashi there (DH Patur Aleha) implies that digging a pit (Chofer Guma) for the sake of the dirt and not for the sake of the pit, which is Mekalkel, is only Mekalkel when done in a *house*. In a field, however, it is not Mekalkel, because one benefits from the pit being there, since one can plant in it; therefore one is Chayav for digging in a field even if he only needs the dirt (according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds Melachah she'Einah Tzericha l'Gufa is Chayav).

This is what Rashi means in our Gemara (8a, DH v'Ha ka'Avid Guma) as well, when he says that the problem of digging in our case is that one will be "Chayav Mishum *Boneh*," and the Gemara answers that it is Mekalkel (because it is being done inside of a *house*) -- the Gemara's question was only from *Boneh*, which exists only when one digs in a *house*, because if it was asking from digging in a field and doing the Melachah of *Choresh*, it would not have any answer of "Mekalkel!"

What would be if one digs the dirt for Kisuy ha'Dam in a field? In a field he would be Patur for another reason -- because it is Chafur v'Omed since he has a shovel inserted into the dirt (Deker Na'utz), or since it is soft dirt (Afar Tichu'ach). Why does this not exempt him from digging in a house as well? Because in a field, a pit is considered plantable even when filled with dirt, as long as the dirt is loose (as Rashi writes in Shabbos 73b, DH Guma). On the other hand, in a house, where one who digs is Chayav for Boneh, he is Chayav because he is going to use the *dug out* pit as a structure, and thus if it is filled even with soft dirt it is useless. That is why the Gemara asks that in a house one should be Chayav for Boneh even if there is Afar Tichu'ach. (That is, even if one removes loose dirt it is Boneh, as opposed to in a field, when it is *not* considered Choresh since the pit was already usable even with loose dirt inside of it)! Therefore, the Gemara had to answer that there is a different Petur when digging in a house: it is Mekalkel.

When Rashi sayson 7b that Deker Na'utz makes it Chafur v'Omed -- he is referring to digging in a field. Similarly, when Rashi writes here that soft dirt makes it Chafur v'Omed, he is referring to digging in a field. When the Gemara on 8a asks, "what about the fact that he is making a pit," it is referring to a case of digging in a *house*. Even though there is Afar Tichu'ach (which solves the problem of Ketishah), the soft dirt does not solve the problem of digging a pit in a house. The Gemara answers that it is Mutar because in a house it is Mekalkel, and Simchas Yom Tov permits it even l'Chatchilah. In our Sugya, when the Gemara says that there is no Heter of Simchas Yom Tov, the Gemara will have to conclude that the Heter of the Mishnah is only to dig in a field, but not to dig in a house, since there is no longer a Heter of Simchas Yom Tov, and digging will be Asur mid'Rabanan because of Mekalkel (similar to the way the Tzelach answered above). (M. Kornfeld)