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 39
BEITZAH 36-40 (Siyum!) - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) R. YEHUDAH IS LENIENT REGARDING THE WATER
(a) Presumably, then, R. Yehudah is not lenient regarding
salt in the dough.
2) MISHNAH: FLAMES AND COALS
(b) Question: But we learned that R. Yehudah groups water
and salt together as being Beteilim both in a dough and
in a cooked dish!?
(c) Answer: That Beraisa refers to (the very fine) Sedomis
(d) Question: But we find that R. Yehudah differentiates
between a dough (where water and salt are Batel) and a
cooked dish (where water is *not* Batel)!?
(e) Answer: The latter Beraisa speaks of a more liquid
dish, whereas the former Beraisa speaks of a dish where
the liquid is not noticeable.
(a) A coal is restricted by the Techum of its owner.
3) A LENIENCY REGARDING AVODAH ZARAH
(b) A flame is not restricted.
(c) A coal of Hekdesh carries the penalties of Me'ilah,
while a flame (though one may not derive benefit from
it) would not.
(d) One would be Chayav for transporting a coal, but not a
(a) Five distinctions are taught between a coal and a
4) TRANSPORTING A FLAME IS PATUR
(b) Question: Why is the flame of Avodah Zarah permitted,
while Chazal forbade the flame of Hekdesh!?
(c) Answer: There was no need to intervene and prohibit
that which is disgusting.
(a) Question: But a Beraisa states that one is Chayav!?
5) MISHNAH: WATER IN ITS CISTERNS
(b) Answer (R. Sheshes): One is Chayav if he transports the
flame on a splinter of wood.
(c) Question: Then the *splinter* should be the cause of
(d) Answer: The splinter is too small for Chiyuv on its own
(as established in the cited Mishnah).
(e) Answer (Abaye): He is Chayav when he rubs oil on a Keli
and carries it aflame.
1. Question: Then the *Keli* should cause his
(f) Question: How, practically, could one transport a flame
without it being attached to anything!?
2. Answer: We are speaking of a pottery-shard.
3. Question: He should be Chayav for the shard!?
4. Answer: It is less than the Shiyur (as taught).
(g) Answer: He cast an unattached flame into the street.
(a) Water in a private well is restricted by the Techum of
6) WATER HAS THE SHEVISAH OF ITS OWNER
(b) Water in a communal well has the restrictions of the
residents of that city.
(c) Water in a well of Olei Bavel has the restriction of
whomever draws it.
(a) Question (Rava of R. Nachman): But we find that water
does not acquire Shevisah at all!?
7) WATER DRAWN ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON
(b) Answer (Rabah): That speaks of moving water (no
Shevisah) while our Mishnah speaks of collected,
standing water (has Shevisah) as cited in the name of
(a) (R. Nachman) Such water has the Techum of the intended
(b) (R. Sheshes) It is restricted by the Techum on the one
who drew it.
(c) Question: What is the basis of their argument?
(d) Answer: Whether we view the water as Hefker, and may
not be claimed by one on behalf of another (R. Sheshes)
or is it jointly owned and may be drawn for another
using Bereirah (R. Nachman).
(e) Question (Rava of R. Nachman): We see that these
cisterns could not be viewed as jointly owned, or those
who had taken oaths not to benefit from one another
could not draw from the wells of Olei Bavel (yet we are
taught that they would be so permitted while the
Mishnah teaches that they could not bathe in one-
(f) Answer: Indeed, they would be prohibited to bathe in
the wells of Olei Bavel, and the permission to draw
water from them is because of Bereirah (each is drawing
that which turns out to have been his own).
(g) Question: But R. Nachman holds *Ein Bereirah*!?
1. This is evidenced by his ruling that even if the
brothers divided the inheritance sheep for sheep
(not one type of animal against another) they are
viewed as buyers and not as inheritors.
(h) Answer: Rather, they are arguing whether one acquires
for himself a Metziah which he attempted to (but
cannot) acquire on behalf of another (R. Sheshes) or
whether he cannot since he never intended himself as an
owner (R. Nachman).
2. If they later rejoin they would be obligated for
the Kalbon and exempt from Ma'aser Beheimah.