גִּלְגֵּל עִיסָּה מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב מַפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנָּה חַלָּתָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ גִּלְגֵּל עִיסָּה מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב אֵין מַפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנָּה חַלָּתָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב If one kneaded dough on a Festival eve, i.e., the day before the Festival, he may separate its ḥalla on the Festival. In general, one may not separate teruma and tithes on a Festival. However, since it is permitted bake bread on the Festival for the requirements of the day, and because bread may not be eaten unless ḥalla has first been separated from it, separating ḥalla is considered a necessary stage in the preparation of bread, and the Sages permitted it. Shmuel’s father said: Even if one kneaded dough on a Festival eve, he may not separate its ḥalla on the Festival, as he should have separated ḥalla then. The mitzva of separating ḥalla goes into effect at the time of the kneading of the dough.
לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַדַּאֲבוּהּ (דִּשְׁמוּאֵל) דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל חַלַּת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אוֹכֵל וְהוֹלֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַפְרִישׁ The Gemara comments: Let us say that Shmuel disagrees with his father, as Shmuel said: With regard to ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the separation of ḥalla is a rabbinic obligation, one may proceed to eat the bread and afterward separate the ḥalla from the remainder of the dough. This statement indicates that the separation of ḥalla outside of Eretz Yisrael is not required to render the bread permitted, in contrast to the separation of teruma and tithes from produce. Consequently, separating ḥalla is permitted on a Festival, as it does not involve a significant change. This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel’s father, who prohibited separating ḥalla that could have been separated before the Festival.
אָמַר רָבָא מִי לֹא מוֹדֶה שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁאִם קָרָא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים: Rava said: This is not necessarily the case. Doesn’t Shmuel concede that if one designated a piece of dough as ḥalla outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is prohibited to non-priests? This proves that even Shmuel admits that a certain measure of sanctity applies to the ḥalla. Therefore, he might also agree with his father that it is prohibited to separate ḥalla on a Festival even outside of Eretz Yisrael.
מַתְנִי׳ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין מוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַסּוּלָּם מִשּׁוֹבָךְ לְשׁוֹבָךְ אֲבָל מַטֵּהוּ מֵחַלּוֹן לְחַלּוֹן וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין: MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may not carry a ladder, which was used for reaching doves, from one dovecote to another. However, one may move it slightly so that he tilts it from one window to another in the same dovecote. And Beit Hillel permit even carrying a ladder from one dovecote to another.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי הָרוֹאֶה אוֹמֵר לְהָטִיחַ גַּגּוֹ הוּא צָרִיךְ וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי שׁוֹבָכוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר GEMARA: Rav Ḥanan bar Ami said: This dispute applies only in a case where one moves the ladder in the public domain, as Beit Shammai hold that one who sees someone carrying his ladder will say to himself: He must need the ladder to plaster his roof, to prevent rainwater from dripping into his house. In other words, an onlooker will suspect him of performing prohibited labor on the Festival. And Beit Hillel hold that his dovecote proves about him that he is not moving the ladder for the purpose of a transgression, as it is evident that he is placing the ladder alongside the second dovecote, and everyone will understand his intention. However, in the private domain, where one will not be observed by strangers, everyone agrees that it is permitted.
אִינִי וְהָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַדְרֵי חֲדָרִים אָסוּר תַּנָּאֵי הִיא דְּתַנְיָא שׁוֹטְחָן בַּחַמָּה אֲבָל לֹא כְּנֶגֶד הָעָם רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר) וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסְרִין The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: Wherever the Sages prohibited an action due to the appearance of prohibition, even if one performs the act in his innermost chamber, where no one will see it, it is prohibited. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One whose clothes fell into water on Shabbat or a Festival may spread them out to dry in the sun, but he may not do so opposite the masses, i.e., in a place where people can see him, lest they suspect him of laundering on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon prohibit doing so even in private.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב וּבֵית הִלֵּל לֵית לְהוּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר Some say a different version of this discussion. Rav Ḥanan bar Ami said: The dispute applies to the private domain, as Beit Shammai are of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and therefore Beit Shammai apply the decree to the private domain. And Beit Hillel, by contrast, are of the opinion that the halakha is not in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. However, in the public domain, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to move the ladder.
לֵימָא רַב דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי The Gemara challenges this interpretation: Should we say that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with that of Beit Shammai? According to Rav Ḥanan bar Ami, only Beit Shammai maintains that anything prohibited by the Sages due to appearances may not be performed even in private.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא דְּתַנְיָא שׁוֹטְחָן בַּחַמָּה אֲבָל לֹא כְּנֶגֶד הָעָם רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר) וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסְרִין The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If clothes fell into water on Shabbat or a Festival, one may spread them out in the sun but not opposite the masses. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon prohibit doing so. Rav Ḥanan bar Ami accepts the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, who rejects Rav’s principle. According to the opinion of that tanna, it can be claimed that Beit Hillel also rejected Rav’s principle, and they permitted moving the ladder in private but not in public. Rav, on the other hand, follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon in interpreting the opinion of Beit Hillel.