ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 14
BEITZAH 11-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
(a) To grind spices and salt - one normally uses a stone pestle.
(b) Beis Shamai require changing to a wooden pestle to grind spices, and to
an earthenware jar or a wooden ladle to grind salt - Beis Hillel require no
change at all, to grind spices, whereas for salt, they require the use of a
(c) Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue as to why everyone agrees that salt
requires a change. According to one of them, it is because everyone knows in
advance that his pot requires salt (so he should have ground it in advance);
whereas not everyone knows which spices he will decide to use on Yom-Tov
(therefore it is not possible to grind them in advance) - the other says
that it is because, whereas spices tend to *deteriorate* when they are
ground in advance, salt does *not*.
(d) One of the differences between the two opinions is with regard to a
spice that one knew in advance one was going to use - the other difference
is with regard to saffron, which, unlike most spices, does not deteriorate:
Consequently, according to the second opinion, one will not be permitted to
grind saffron on Yom-Tov, whereas it will be permitted, according to the
(a) Rav Yehudah quoting Shmuel, permits grinding even salt without a change,
like Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa. According to Rebbi Meir however, Beis Shamai
require two Chumros over Beis Hillel - one, that it requires a Shinuy (to
grind it using an earthenware jar or a wooden ladle; the other, that one may
only grind salt if it is for roasting (when only small quantities are
required), but not for cooking.
(b) Beis Shamai agree that no change is necessary - if one wishes to grind
salt together with spices.
(c) According to the initial text in the Beraisa, Beis Hillel permit
grinding salt with everything - implying that one may use even objects that
are Muktzah in order to grind salt - which is obviously incorrect. We
therefore amend it to read, not '*be*'Chol Davar', but '*le'Chol Davar',
meaning that one may salt *for* anything, even for cooking.
(d) It would be incorrect to say that Shmuel does not require any change at
all - because the Amora'im agree that even Shmuel requires a slight change,
such as tilting the mortar on its side.
(a) When Rav Sheshes heard the sound of grinding in his vicinity - he
declared that it did emanate from his house.
(b) He was certain that whoever was grinding ...
1. ... was not holding the mortar on its side - because there was a ring to
the grinding tone, which would not have been present had it been lying flat
on the table.
2. ... was grinding salt and not spices - because of the barking sound that
was typical of salt but not of spices.
(a) 'Tisni' means grinding wheat into four.
(b) The Beraisa forbids grinding Tisni (because it is undue exertion),
implying that using a mortar to break wheat into two or three (which require
less exertion than Tisni) are permitted. In that cases, how can the Tana go
on to forbid using a mortar at all?
(c) Initially, we attempt to reconcile the two statements - by establishing
that the prohibition by Tisni (which is obviously completely forbidden)
comes to demonstrate that the prohibition in the Seifa is also absolute
(otherwise, we would have established the Seifa by a small mortar, which is
considered a change, seeing as it is only fit for spices).
(d) But when we discover a second Beraisa which permits a small mortar -
Abaye explains the Beraisa to mean that - one may not grind Tisni at all,
(even using a small grinder - because of the exertion involved); otherwise,
one may not use a *large* grinder, but a small one is permitted.
(a) Rava reestablishes the initial interpretation forbidding even the use of
a small mortar (as we learned above, in 4c.), which Chazal forbade in Eretz
Yisrael, because they had slaves, who would grind using a large grinder and
say then say that they had used a small one - whereas the Beraisa which
permits a small mortar, refers to the B'nei Bavel, who did not have slaves.
(b) Rav Papi refused to eat porridge in Mar Shmuel's house, presuming that
had been ground in a large mortar on Yom-Tov.
Rav Papi knew that ...
1. ... it had been ground in a large mortar - because it was too well ground
to have been ground in a small one.
(c) Alternatively, Rav Papi was strict in Mar Shmuel's house, even as
concerns a small mortar - because Mar Shmuel had slaves like they did in
2. ... it had been ground on Yom-Tov, and not on the day before - because it
looked peeled and white, which it would not have done had it been ground
(a) Beis Hillel permit selecting in the regular way. According to Beis
Shamai - one may only select the food from the waste, and not the waste from
(b) Beis Hillel permit selecting in one's lap, or using a cone-shaped funnel
(some say, a reed-basket) or a dish - but not on a table, a sifter or a
(c) Raban Gamliel permits selecting by placing in water, and allowing the
waste to float to the top.
(a) Beis Hillel permit even removing the waste - Raban Gamliel restricts
this to where the food is more than the waste, but when the waste is more
than the food, one is only permitted to take the food, and not the waste.
Raban Gamliel used to pour water on to a bucket-full of lentils. The Beraisa
which says that the food was underneath the waste - is referring to chaff,
which floats to the top of the water; the Beraisa which describes the food
as being on top - is referring to dust, which tends to sink to the bottom.
(b) If Raban Gamliel really meant what he said, then even taking the *food*
would be prohibited - because it would be Muktzah.
(c) What Raban Gamliel is really referring to therefore - is not when the
waste is quantitatively in excess of the food, but when (due to its small
size) it is more difficult to remove it than it is to remove the food.
(d) The basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is when
it is more difficult to remove the food - Beis Shamai holds that one must
always take the food and not the waste; whereas according to Beis Hillel,
one should rather minimize the bother and take the waste.
(a) Beis Shamai *permit* sending food that is ready to eat now (such as
pieces of meat that one tends to eat immediately and not leave over until
tomorrow) on Yom-Tov.
(b) Beis Hillel are far more liberal - they permit all foods except raw
grain which cannot be prepared at all on Yom-Tov, since it is forbidden to
grind it into flour on Yom-Tov.
(c) Rebbi Shimon is more lenient still - he permits even to send raw grain -
because it is possible to make a dish which entails cooking the grains first
and grinding them in a small grinder afterwards.
(d) The Tana Kama disagrees with him - on the grounds that most do not eat
grain that way.
(a) Rav Yechiel quotes a Beraisa forbidding the sending of a gift
'be'Shurah' - meaning together with a delegation of three people, because it
looks as if they are taking it to market to sell.
(b) The Gemara is in doubt whether three people carrying three gifts has the
Din of *one* person carrying *one* gift, which is permitted, or whether it
is like *three* people carrying *one* gift, which is permitted - and remains
(c) Rebbi Shimon's concession extends to barley - from which one can prepare
animal food, and lentils - from which can prepare a type of food called
Resisin (both of them in a small grinder).
(a) The Mishnah permits sending garments that have not yet been stitched -
which are fit to cover oneself (like a blanket).
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah forbids sending 1. a Sandal ha'Mesumar (a wooden
shoe covered with leather, into which many nails have been hammered), and
2. a shoe that has not yet been stitched together.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah adds a white shoe - meaning one that has not yet been
painted black (a job which requires an expert craftsmen). One is not
permitted to send it, because it was not fit to be worn in that unfinished
(d) The Tana permits sending on Yom-Tov - any category of article which is
fit to be used on Yom-Tov.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "u'Veged Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo
Ya'aleh Alecha" - that even articles of clothing that are forbidden to wear
because they are Sha'atnez, are permitted to spread out underneath oneself
(b) Nevertheless, one may not lie ...
1. ... directly on top of Sha'atnez garments - because we have learned in a
Beraisa that Chazal prohibited doing so in case a thread inadvertently wraps
itself around one's finger or around another part of his body.
(c) Nor is one permitted to use a curtain that contains Sha'atnez - because,
due to the fact that the servant would sometimes warm himself by wrapping it
round himself, Chazal gave it the Din of a garment (with regard to its
susceptibility to receive Tum'ah), and not of the wall of a house, which is
not subject to Tum'ah. By the same token - it has the Din of a garment
regarding Sha'atnez, and is forbidden.
2. ... on top of Sha'atnez garments, even if one places other sheets in
between the Sha'atnez and oneself - because the Kehila Kadisha of
Yerushalayim are quoted as saying that one may not even sleep on top of ten
sheets, of which the bottom one is Sha'atnez.
(d) The Tana of our Mishnah, who permits sending even garments that contain
Sha'atnez - are speaking about hard materials, which one may sit on, and are