THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
BEITZAH 36-40 (Siyum!) - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) SALT AND WATER MIXED WITH DOUGH
QUESTION: Rav Ashi says that the spices that go into a food and the salt and
water that go into dough are not Batel to the food or dough on Yom Tov.
Therefore, the Techum of their owner is not Batel to the Techum of the owner
of the food or dough. The reason is because it is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo
Matirin," since one can wait until tomorrow to bring it out of the Techum of
the owner of the dough, or one can stay within the present Techum and eat
the food on Yom Tov.
There is a general rule that the principle of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin"
applies only in the case of a mixture of two of the same type of food (Min
b'Mino). When, then, does Rav Ashi say that this principle applies in this
case, where the mixture is comprised of *different* types of food (Min
b'sh'Eino Mino), as the salt and water are different than the dough? In this
case, the salt and water should indeed be Batel to do the dough!
(a) TOSFOS (DH Mishum) answers that the laws of Techumim are more stringent
than other Isurim since there is a monetary element involved (and money, or
ownership, cannot become Batel to someone else's ownerhsip). This is because
the Techum, to a certain extent, stems from the ownership of the object (the
food item has the Techum of its owner). Even though the Gemara rejected Rav
Aba's reasoning (38b) that the reason the Techum of the salt and water is
not Batel to the Techum of the dough is because ownership cannot become
Batel, Rav Ashi accepts that reasoning when there is the additional
reasoning of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin."
(b) TOSFOS further answers that since the salt and water are so essential to
the making of the dough, and the spices are so basic to the taste of the
food, therefore they are considered to be one type of food with the dough.
(That is, we view the completed spices and salt in its new form as a
completed food item, and therefore it, too, is "a piece of dough" and not
just flour, water and salt.)
(c) The RAN in Nedarim (52a) explains the reason why Davar she'Yesh Lo
Matirin is not Batel in a novel manner, which answers why Rav Ashi applies
the rule of Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin to two different Minim as well. The
reason an item of Isur becomes Batel when mixed with items of Heter is that
when opposites combine, their contrast serves to be Mevatel each other
(whichever one is the majority is Mevatel the one which is the minority).
However, when like items combine, they cannot be Mevatel one another.
When something that is *Asur* becomes mixed with *Heter*, one is Mevatel the
other. Even though the two items are the same type of food (Min b'Mino),
they contrast because one is Asur and one is Mutar; they are opposites.
However, if something is Asur now and will become Mutar later, it is not
Batel because there is not enough opposition; it is as if the item of Isur
which will later become Mutar is Mutar, to a certain extent, right now.
In such a case, if the mixture is Min b'sh'Eino Mino (two different types of
foods), even if the Isur will later become Mutar, there is still enough
opposition to be Mevatel it, due to the different nature of the objects
themselves. Only if the mixture is Min b'Mino, and the only opposition is
the fact that one item is Asur and the others are Mutar, will a "Davar
sh'Yesh Lo Matirin" not offer enough opposition to become Batel to the other
However, in the case of Isur Techumim, not only is the Isur a Davar she'Yesh
Lo Matirin, it is even a Davar ha'*Mutar*. It is permitted to use the dough
right now, in Yom Tov, as long as one keeps it within the range of its
Techum (as opposed to a normal Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin, which only becomes
Mutar at a later time). We are trying to be Mevatel "Heter b'Heter." In this
case, the opposition between the two different types of food alone is not
enough to cause Bitul to take place. Even the objects are Min b'she'Eino
Mino, no Bitul will occur, since the objects are both Heter and cannot
cancel each other out through Bitul.
2) THE "TECHUM" OF WATER TAKEN FROM A PUBLIC PIT ON BEHALF OF SOMEBODY ELSE
OPINIONS: The Gemara says that the water in a public pit acquires the Techum
of each person who takes the water from there. Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes
argue about the water that one person fills up for his friend from the
public pit. Rav Nachman says that it has the Techum of the one for whom it
was filled. Rav Sheshes says that it has the Techum of the one who took it
from the pit. The Gemara concludes that their argument is based on whether
one who finds an object and lifts it up with intention to make an
acquisition on it on behalf of his friend is Koneh for his friend or not
("Magbi'ah Metzi'ah l'Chaveiro").
How does the question of "Magbi'ah Metzi'ah l'Chaveiro" affect which
person's Techum the water follows?
(a) RASHI explains that both Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes hold that one who
finds an object *cannot* be Koneh it for his friend. When one lifts up the
object, his friend is not Koneh it. (Indeed, this is Rav Nachman's express
opinion in Bava Metzia 10a.) The question is whether the *first* person,
i.e. the one who picks it up, is Koneh it when he picks it up for his
friend. Rav Nachman says that he is not Koneh the object, because he did not
have any intention to be Koneh it. Rav Sheshes says that since the second
person is not Koneh the object, the first person is Koneh it.
TOSFOS asks, according to Rav Sheshes, how can the first person be Koneh the
object? He had no intention to be Koneh it for himself! (We find in Bava
Metzia (10a) that even though a person can be Koneh an object with the
Kinyan of "Arba Amos," if he finds an object and falls on it with intention
to be Koneh it in that manner, since he does not intend to be Koneh it with
his "Arba Amos" but rather by falling on it -- which is not an act of Kinyan
-- he is not Koneh the object at all.)
Rashi might hold that the person who picked it up does not mind being Koneh
it himself, and knows that he is able to be Koneh it for himself. The only
reason he does not intend to be Koneh it is because he thinks that he can be
Koneh it directly for his friend. Had he known that he could not be Koneh it
for his friend, and that the object he picked up is still Hafker, he would
have been Koneh it for himself (so that nobody could take it from him) and
then he would have given it to his friend. Since he would have wanted to be
Koneh it himself had he known that he cannot be Koneh it directly for his
friend, and since he does not have specific intention *not* to be Koneh it
for himself, he therefore is Koneh it for himself. (In the case of the
person who fell on an object to be Koneh it in that manner, the person does
not know that he can be Koneh from Hefker with Arba Amos in the first place,
so he cannot be Koneh it with Arba Amos. If he does know that it is possible
to acquire an object with the Kinyan of Arba Amos, he has demonstrated that
he does *not want* that Kinyan to take effect, by falling on the object.)
(b) TOSFOS cites the RASHBAM who explains the Gemara differently. Rav
Sheshes holds "*Lo* Kanah Chaveiro," and that is why he says that the water
follows the Techum of the person who took it out of the pit. Rav Nachman,
though, holds that when he originally picked it up for his friend his friend
was Koneh it, because "ha'Magbi'ah Metzi'ah l'Chaveiro *Kanah* Chaveiro" --
one who lifts a found object for his friend *can be* Koneh it for his
How could Rav Nachman hold that "Kanah Chaveiro?" He himself maintains in
Bava Metzia 10a that *Lo Kanah Chaeiro*! The Rashbam explains that the case
of our Gemara is an exception to the rule. We are not discussing a single
lost object which, when one finds and lifts up with intention for his friend
to be Koneh, can no longer be acquired by anyone else. Rather, there is
enough water in the pit for others, even after one takes water out for his
friend. Therefore, by taking water out for his friend, he has not caused a
loss to others, and therefore his friend is Koneh.
RABEINU CHANANEL (Bava Metzia 10a) and the RASHBA here say, similarly, that
in this case Rav Nachman holds that his friend *is* Koneh -- but not because
this case is different. Rather, Rav Nachman changed his mind about the
Halachic ruling, and now holds that "ha'Magbi'ah Metzi'ah l'Chaveiro *Kanah*
(c) RABEINU TAM says that Rav Nachman is consistent with his opinion that
"ha'Magbi'ah Metzi'ah l'Chaveiro *Lo* Kanah Chaveiro." Why, then, does Rav
Nachman say that the water has the Techum of the person for whom it was
lifted? Rav Nachman means that *when it comes into the hands* of the second
person, then he is Koneh it and it acquires his Techum, because the first
person never intended to be Koneh it for himself.
Rav Sheshes, on the other hand, holds that "ha'Magbi'ah Metzi'ah l'Chaveiro
*Kanah* Chaveiro." Nevertheless, the water has the Techum of the person who
took it out of the pit. Why is that? Because the reason one can be Koneh
something on behalf of his friend is through the logical principle of a
"Migu d'Zachi l'Nafshei" -- since he could be Koneh the item for himself, he
is therefore able to be Koneh it for his friend. Since his ability to be
Koneh it for his friend stems from his ability to be Koneh it for himself,
he cannot be Koneh for his friend to give it a different Techum than had he
been Koneh it for himself, and therefore it has his Techum (even though it
belongs to his friend).