POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafBeitzah 37
BEITZAH 36-40 (Siyum!) - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) RATIONALE FOR THE PROHIBITIONS (cont'd)
(a) Question: Chalitzah and Yibum should be categorized as
a Mitzvah, not a Reshus!?
2) THE PROHIBITION OF RAISING TERUMOS AND MA'ASEROS
(b) Answer: We are speaking where there is an older
(c) Question: Why, indeed, are all of the above not
(d) Answer: Lest one come to write.
(e) Making something Hekdesh is prohibited owing to its
similarity to a business transaction.
(a) Question: Is this prohibition not obvious?
3) THE SEPARATE CATEGORIES OF SHEVUS, RESHUS AND MITZVAH
(b) Answer: We might have permitted it when one intends to
give them to the Kohen that day (which is indeed the
case when the produce became Tevel on Shabbos or
YomTov, not the day before).
(a) Question: The Reshus activities (once prohibited) are
Shevus prohibitions, as are the Mitzvah activities!?
4) THE PROHIBITIONS OF SHABBOS ARE IDENTICAL TO YOMTOV
(b) Answer: The Tana is building the statement of
prohibition from the obvious (Shevus) to even Mitzvah.
(a) Question: But the Mishnah (speaking of lowering fruit
via a skylight) permits on YomTov but not on Shabbos!?
5) MISHNAH: TECHUM SHABBOS
(b) Answer (R. Yosef): The Mishnah of Mashilin is the view
of R. Eliezer (who does not permit bringing up the
second animal which may not be slaughtered on that day)
whereas our Mishnah is the view of R. Yehoshua (who
permits a Ha'aramah to bring up both animals) [see
explanations for the relationship between this
Machlokes and the distinction between Shabbos and
(c) Question (Abaye): Perhaps even R. Eliezer would permit
the Ha'aramah is there were no way to sustain the other
animal in the pit, or R. Yehoshua would prohibit if
there were no reasonable Ha'aramah (as in our Mishnah
where all would prohibit)?
(d) Answer (R. Papa): Our Mishnah (prohibiting lowering
through the skylight even on YomTov) is actually the
view of Beis Shamai (who prohibit carrying items not
needed for Ochel Nefesh on YomTov) while the previous
Mishnah is Beis Hillel (who permits such carrying, and
the associated Muktzeh, making YomTov more lenient than
(e) Question: Perhaps Beis Shamai are only strict when it
comes to carrying on YomTov (but not by Mashilin, which
is only a matter of Tiltul)?
(f) Answer: Tiltul itself is prohibited because one may
come to carry (so that the stringency of carrying will
always be associated with an Isur Tiltul).
(a) Animals and vessels share the same Techum as their
owners and handing them to a another (on YomTov) will
not alter their Techum.
(b) Articles associated with one (inheriting) brother bear
his Techum while those not specifically associated with
one brother are restricted to the common Techum of all
(c) If someone borrows a vessel before YomTov, its Techum
is that of the borrower; whereas if he borrowed it on
YomTov, then its Techum remains that of the lender.
(d) If one woman borrows spices, water or salt from another
on YomTov the cooked dish will be restricted to the
common Techum of both women.
(e) (R. Yehudah) We discount the water since it is not
noticeable in the cooked dish.
6) THE EFFECT OF INTENT ON TECHUM
(a) Question: Our Mishnah appears to disagree with R. Dosa
(or Aba Shaul) who allows the Techum of an article to
follow the recipient even if received on YomTov!?
7) COMMON TECHUM
(b) Answer: Our Mishnah speaks in a town where there are
two shepherds (and thus his intent is not obvious
before YomTov), as indicated by the options 'shepherd
or son' mentioned in the Mishnah.
(c) (Rabah b.b. Chanah citing R. Yochanan) The Halachah
follows R. Dosa.
(d) Question: But R. Yochanan ruled that the Halachah
follows a Stam Mishnah (which states that the Techum
follows the owner unless it was transferred before
(e) Answer: This has already been addressed above (by
differentiating between one shepherd and two).
(a) (Beraisa) A coat which two people borrowed on Erev
YomTov is restricted to the Techum which is common to
both of them (with the given illustrations).
(b) (Rav) If two people jointly purchased a barrel of wine
on Erev YomTov each one may take his share of the wine
to his Techum (Yesh Bereirah) while a jointly purchased
animal would be restricted to the common Techum.
(c) (Shmuel) The barrel is also restricted to their common
Techum (Ein Bereirah).
(d) Question: Rav seems inconsistent to either position
(e) Answer: He holds Yesh Bereirah but the animal is one
unit (each portion in the animal is nourished by the
other) and is thus restricted to the common Techum.
(f) Question (R. Kahana and R. Asi) If this 'oneness' does
not create an Isur Muktzah then it should not either
create the Isur of Techumin!?
(g) Answer (Rav): No answer (see Rif and Meiri for various
interpretations of Rav's silence).
(h) Question: What, in the end, is the decision?
(i) Answer: R. Hoshaya holds Yesh Bereirah; R. Yochanan
holds Ein Bereirah.
(j) Question: But we find that R. Hoshaya holds *Ein*
Bereirah (since he explains Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai
in Ohalos as speaking from this point forward, but
one's thoughts will not retroactively select the
(k) Answer: Switch the opinions of R. Hoshaya and R.
(l) Question: But we can show that R. Yochanan does *not*
hold of Bereirah (the divided properties are not viewed
as retroactively divided)!?
1. Answer: R. Yochanan would allow Bereirah in a
(m) Answer: Indeed, do not switch their positions.
2. Question: But we see (from his position regarding
conditional Eruvei Techumin) that R. Yochanan does
not hold of Bereirah even in a d'Rabanan!?
(n) Question: Then what of R. Hoshaya?
(o) Answer: He does not hold of Bereirah for a d'Oreisa,
but he allows Bereirah in a d'Rabanan (e.g. Techumin).
(p) (Mar Zutra) The Halachah follows R. Hoshaya.