מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַסּוּלָּם מִשּׁוֹבָךְ לְשׁוֹבָךְ. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא לְהַחְזִיר, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַחְזִירִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף מַחְזִירִין. § With regard to the mishna itself, the Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another to take doves; they disagree only after one has finished at the second dovecote, whether it is permitted to replace the ladder to its original spot at the first dovecote, as Beit Shammai say: One may not replace the ladder, and Beit Hillel say: One may even replace it.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּסוּלָּם שֶׁל שׁוֹבָךְ, אֲבָל בְּסוּלָּם שֶׁל עֲלִיָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: מַטֵּהוּ מֵחַלּוֹן לְחַלּוֹן. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי דּוֹסָא: אַף מְדַדִּין בּוֹ. Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? With regard to a dovecote ladder, which clearly serves the purpose of taking doves. However, in the case of an attic ladder, which has a variety of uses, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as this will raise suspicions. Rabbi Dosa says: One may tilt it from one window to another in the same dovecote. Aḥerim say in the name of Rabbi Dosa: One may even shift the ladder from one place to another by shuffling its legs.
בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא נְפוּק לְקִרְיָיתָא. כִּי אֲתוֹ, אֲמַר לְהוּ אֲבוּהוֹן: כְּלוּם מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לְיֶדְכֶם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: סוּלָּם בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ, וְהִתַּרְנוּהוּ. אָמַר לָהֶם: צְאוּ וְאִסְרוּ מַה שֶּׁהִתַּרְתֶּם. The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya went out to the villages to attend to their business. When they came back, their father said to them: Did any incident requiring a ruling of halakha come to your notice? They said to him: The issue of carrying an attic ladder to a dovecote came to our notice, and we permitted it. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to them: Go out and prohibit that which you permitted.
אִינְהוּ סְבוּר: מִדְּקָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּסוּלָּם שֶׁל עֲלִיָּה לָא פְּלִיגִי, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר פְּלִיגִי. וְלָא הִיא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה טַעְמֵיהּ דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא קָא מְפָרֵשׁ. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons thought that from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to an attic ladder, this proves by inference that the first tanna holds that they do disagree. Consequently, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons thought that according to the first tanna, Beit Hillel permit even the use of a loft ladder, and they ruled in accordance with this opinion. But that is not so, as Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree with him, but rather he explains the reason of the first tanna.
מִמַּאי, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: מוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַסּוּלָּם מִשּׁוֹבָךְ לְשׁוֹבָךְ, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּסוּלָּם שֶׁל עֲלִיָּה פְּלִיגִי, הַאי ״מוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַסּוּלָּם מִשּׁוֹבָךְ לְשׁוֹבָךְ״, ״מוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַסּוּלָּם לְשׁוֹבָךְ״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: שֶׁל שׁוֹבָךְ — אִין, שֶׁל עֲלִיָּה — לָא. From where can this be inferred? From the fact that the first tanna teaches: One may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another. And if it enters your mind to say that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to an attic ladder, if so, this phrase: One may carry a ladder from one dovecote to another, is inexact, as he should have said: One may carry a ladder to a dovecote. Rather, isn’t this what the tanna said: With regard to a dovecote ladder, yes, it is permitted to move it; however, in the case of an attic ladder, no, one may not use it.
וְאִידַּךְ: מִי קָתָנֵי ״סוּלָּם שֶׁל שׁוֹבָךְ״? ״מִשּׁוֹבָךְ לְשׁוֹבָךְ״ קָתָנֵי, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְכַמָּה שׁוֹבָכִין. The Gemara asks: And the others, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons, what is their reasoning? The Gemara answers that they would reply: Is it taught in the baraita: A dovecote ladder? It teaches: From one dovecote to another, and this simply means that it is permitted to do so even with regard to several dovecotes.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הִטּוּי סוּלָּם שֶׁל עֲלִיָּה בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ וְהִתַּרְנוּהוּ. אָמַר לָהֶם: צְאוּ וְאִסְרוּ מַה שֶּׁהִתַּרְתֶּם. אִינְהוּ סְבוּר: מַאי דְּקָא אָסַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא, קָא שָׁרֵי רַבִּי דּוֹסָא. וְלָא הִיא, מַאי דְּקָא שָׁרֵי תַּנָּא קַמָּא, קָא אָסַר רַבִּי דּוֹסָא. Some say a slightly different version of this incident. Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons said to him: The tilting of an attic ladder came to our notice, and we permitted it. We were asked whether an attic ladder positioned near a dovecote before the Festival may be moved from one window to another in the same dovecote, and we allowed it. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to them: Go out and prohibit that which you permitted. The Gemara explains that they thought: That which the first tanna prohibits, i.e., moving an attic ladder, Rabbi Dosa permits, i.e. Rabbi Dosa is more lenient than the first tanna and permits moving even an attic ladder from one window to another. And that is not so. Rather, that which the first tanna permits, moving a dovecote ladder, Rabbi Dosa prohibits. He is more stringent and maintains that even a dovecote ladder may be moved only by tilting rather than in the usual manner.
אֲבָל מַטֵּהוּ מֵחַלּוֹן לְחַלּוֹן וְכוּ׳. אַלְמָא, גַּבֵּי שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְקוּלָּא. § The mishna taught: However, everyone agrees that one may tilt a dovecote ladder from one window to another in the same dovecote. The Gemara infers: Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient.
וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וָעוֹף בְּיוֹם טוֹב, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יַחְפּוֹר בַּדָּקָר וִיכַסֶּה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לוֹ עָפָר מוּכָן מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the first mishna of the tractate (2a): With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai say: He may dig earth with a shovel and cover the blood, and Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter an undomesticated animal or a fowl, unless he had earth prepared for that purpose while it was still day. This indicates that it is Beit Shammai who are concerned for the honor and joy of the Festival, and they are therefore lenient with regard to covering the blood; whereas Beit Hillel do not share the same concern and are stringent about covering the blood, despite the fact that their ruling might adversely affect the joy of the Festival.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה. מִמַּאי: דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָתָם, אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ — לָא. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The attribution of the opinions of the tanna’im is reversed. The opinion attributed to Beit Hillel is actually that of Beit Shammai, and vice versa. The Gemara rejects Rabbi Yoḥanan’s answer: From where do you infer that this extreme conclusion is necessarily the case? A different explanation is possible: Perhaps Beit Shammai say their opinion, that it is permitted to cover the blood, only there, where there is already a shovel embedded in the earth ready for this purpose, and therefore there are grounds for a lenient ruling. However, where there is no embedded shovel, they did not permit it.
וְאִי נָמֵי: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל הָכָא, אֶלָּא דְּשׁוֹבָכוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו, אֲבָל הָתָם — לָא. Alternatively, it is possible to say that Beit Hillel say their opinion, that an act is permitted for the sake of the joy of the Festival, only here, where his dovecote, the place where he ultimately positions the ladder, proves with regard to him that he intended to use his ladder for a permitted purpose; but there, where there is no equivalent proof, they were not lenient. This shows that there is no clear contradiction between the rulings in the two cases.
אֶלָּא, אִי קַשְׁיָא — הָא קַשְׁיָא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִטּוֹל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִעְנַע מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עוֹמֵד וְאוֹמֵר זֶה וְזֶה אֲנִי נוֹטֵל. Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous version and suggests that Rabbi Yoḥanan issued his statement with regard to a different issue: If the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is difficult, this is what is difficult: It was taught in a different mishna (10a): Beit Shammai say: One may not take fledgling doves on a Festival unless he shook them, as an act of preparation, while it was still day. And Beit Hillel say: It is indeed necessary to perform some act of preparation to permit the taking of fledglings on a Festival, but this does not have to be done by shaking them. Rather, it is enough if one stands the day before and says: I will take this dove and that one.
אַלְמָא, גַּבֵּי שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְקוּלָּא, וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וָעוֹף בְּיוֹם טוֹב, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה. Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent and that of Beit Hillel is lenient. And the Gemara raises a contradiction as above: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai are lenient and allow one to dig with a shovel to cover the blood, due to the joy of the Festival, whereas Beit Hillel do not permit one to slaughter at all, unless there was a shovel ready from the day before. It was with regard to this contradiction that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed.
וְדִלְמָא לָא הִיא: עַד כָּאן לָא אָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דָּקָר נָעוּץ The Gemara challenges this explanation: But perhaps that is not so, as a different explanation is possible: Beit Shammai only state their lenient opinion, that it is permitted to cover the blood, where there is an embedded shovel.