ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 39
BEITZAH 36-40 (Siyum!) - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) We deduce from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yehudah Poter be'Mayim'
- that, even though Rebbi Yehudah precludes *water* from determining the
dough's T'chum, he does not preclude *salt*.
(b) In another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah specifically writes that both
the water *and the salt* are Bateil in the dough - he is referring to
Sedomis salt, which is Bateil because it is extremely fine; whereas the
previous Beraisa speaks about thicker salt, which is still recognizable.
(c) We reconcile this second Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Yehudah as saying
that the water and the salt are Bateil both in a dough *and in a cooked
dish*, with a third Beraisa, where he says that they are *not Bateil in a
cooked dish* because of the liquid - by establishing the latter Beraisa by a
more liquid dish, whereas the former Beraisa speaks by a dish where the
water is not visible.
(a) A coal may go as far as its owner. When the Tana says 've'ha'Shalheves
be'Chol Makom' - he means that if someone takes a flame from his friend even
on Shabbos, he is not bound by his friend's Techum, but may take it wherever
*he* may go.
(b) For using ...
(c) The difference between ...
- ... a coal belonging to Hekdesh - one is Mo'el?
- ... a flame belonging to Hekdesh - one is not Mo'el (though doing so is nevertheless Asur mi'd'Rabbanan).
(d) It is an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan to benefit from a flame of Hekdesh but not
from a flame of Avodah-Zarah - because the latter is disgusting (in which
case, people will keep away from it anyway); whereas the former is not (and
therefore requires a decree forbidden any usage from it).
- ... carrying out a coal into the street on Shabbos and a flame - is that one is Chayav for the former, but not for the latter.
- ... a coal of Avodah-Zarah and a flame - is that the former is forbidden, whereas the latter is permitted.
(a) The fifth area of Halachah where a distinction is drawn between a coal
and a flame - is that of Neder: someone who is Mudar Hana'ah (forbidden
through a Neder to benefit from his friend), is permitted to benefit from
his flame but not from his coal.
(b) We just learned that one is Patur for carrying out a flame. Rav Sheshes
establishes the Beraisa which says that he is Chayav when he carried it out
on a splinter of wood. He is not Chayav for carrying out the splinter -
because it speaks when the splinter is smaller than the minimum Shiur for
which one is Chayav on Shabbos (i.e. sufficient to roast a ki'Gerogeres of a
(c) Abaye establishes the Beraisa when he rubbed a vessel with oil and
carried out the flame on that. He is not Chayav for carrying out the vessel
- because 'vessel' here refers to a small piece of clay which is less than
the minimum Shiur for which one is Chayav on Shabbos. According to Rebbi
Yehudah, the minimum Shiur to be Chayav would be the amount that one needs
to place between two half-posts in a window-frame to make them the same
level, or to extend the length of two half-posts.
(d) One is Chayav for carrying out a flame - but Patur if one knocks an
unattached flame into the street with one's hands.
(a) The Techum of water that is drawn ...
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri (who
holds 'Cheftzei Hefker Konin Shevisah', as we saw on the previous Amud) -
with regard to the latter case (that of a well of Olei Bavel), which,
according to Rebbi Yochanan be Nuri, would acquire its own Techum with the
advent of Shabbos.
- ... from a private well - follows that of the owner.
- ... from a well that belongs to the city - is two thousand Amos outside the town in all directions.
- ... from a well of Olei Bavel - follows the Techum of whoever draws it.
(c) The Seifa of our Mishnah says 'ke'Raglei ha'Memalei', and not ke'Raglei
Kol Adam' - because the water does in fact, follow the Techum of the person
who drew it, and not anyone else, because this Tana holds 'Yesh Bereirah
Lehachmir' (i.e. the person who drew the water becomes the owner
retroactively, to prevent anyone else from becoming the owner).
(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Eruvin that flowing water follows the Techum
of whoever currently owns it.
(b) And the same applies to water from a spring, even though it does not
flow horizontally - because moving water does not acquire Shevisah at all.
(See Maharsha on Rashi DH 'ke'Raglei ha'Memalei'.)
(c) The Reisha of our Mishnah, which rules that water from a private well
follows the Techum of whoever owns it when Shabbos enters - speaks about a
collection of water that is static.
(a) The Techum of water that one person fills for himself from a well of
Olei Bavel and then gives to someone else - is that of the person who fills
the water, as we learned in our Mishnah.
(b) According to Rav Nachman, if someone draws water from a well of Olei
Bavel on behalf of his friend, the water follows the Techum of the person on
whose behalf it was drawn. Rav Sheshes says - that it follows the Techum of
the person who drew it.
(c) We explain initially that - according to Rav Sheshes, the water in a
well of Olei Bavel is considered Hefker (and whoever draws it becomes the
owner); whereas according to Rav Nachman, the water is owned jointly by
everyone. Consequently, the water that one person draws on behalf of
another, is really that person's water anyway (and because of 'Yesh
(d) If the water is Hefker (as Rav Sheshes contends), the person on whose
behalf the water is drawn cannot acquire it - because of the principle
'Tofes le'Ba'al Chov, Lo Kanah' (One person cannot acquire on behalf of
another, if it causes a loss to others). Note: It is not clear however, on
what grounds the person who drew the water acquires it, since he did not
intend to do so (see the last Rashi in the Sugya).
(a) If one man says to another ...
(b) If he says 'Hareini Alecha ve'Ata Alai (Cherem)' then each one is
forbidden to benefit from the other. They are ...
- ... 'Hareini Alecha Cherem' - then the second man may derive no benefit from the one who made the Neder.
- ... 'Harei Ata Alai Cherem' - then it is the person who made the Neder who may derive no benefit from the second man.
- ... permitted to benefit from things that belong to the Olei Bavel - comprising the Har ha'Bayis, the rooms in the Beis Hamikdash, the Azaros and the water of the wells dug by them along the route to Yerushalayim.
- ... not permitted to benefit from things that belong to the town in which they live - comprising the main road, the Shul and the bathhouse.
(a) If, as Rav Nachman contends, whatever belongs to Olei Bavel is
considered jointly owned - why (in light of the Mishnah in Nedarim, which
forbids partners who are Mudarim Hana'ah from each other to benefit from
each other's property) are they permitted to benefit from the water of the
(b) We initially answer this Kashya - by restricting the concession to water
that one draws (on the assumption that Rav Nachman holds 'Yesh Bereirah', as
we explained earlier); but bathing in the well will be forbidden, because
the water is considered jointly-owned.
(c) We are forced to retract from the current interpretation of the
Machlokes - on the grounds that Rav Nachman holds 'Ein Bereirah', in which
case, they draw water from the water of Olei Bavel will also be forbidden.
(a) A Kalbon - was the little bit extra that everyone had to pay Hekdesh
when giving his annual half-Shekel, to compensate Hekdesh on the losses it
sustained in the process of exchanging the different denominational coins
that people gave to the treasurer.
(b) If two brothers who had divided their father's inheritance and then
formed a partnership, gave a full Shekel between them - they had to pay
(c) If however, they had not yet divided the inheritance (known as Tefusas
ha'Bayis) - they only needed to give *one* Kalbon between them (just as the
father would have done had he given on their behalf).
(d) As far as Ma'aser Beheimah is concerned, this distinction works in the
reverse - in the former case (where they entered into a regular
partnership), they are Patur from Ma'aser Beheimah (just as all partners
are); whereas in the latter case, (where they are sharing the property
bi'Tefusas ha'Bayis) they are Chayav.
(a) According to Rav Anan, the above Din (that once they divide the
property, Tefusas ha'Bayis no longer applies), is confined to where they
divide goats against sheep, for example, which is only an arbitrary
division, and has the Din of a sale (which becomes nullified in the Yovel
year). But if the two brothers divided any one species between them (e.g.
sheep against sheep, or goats against goats) - then the Din of inheritance
remains intact. We consider that each brother received his due (because Rav
Anan holds 'Yesh Bereirah'), and should they decide to enter into a
partnership, the animals will return once again, to Tefusas ha'Bayis, to pay
one Kalbon, and to be Chayav Ma'aser Beheimah.
The residents of a certain town (who made an Eiruv to enable them to walk to
another town that was outside the Techum) ...
(b) Rav Nachman holds that either way, the brothers have a Din of buyers;
their division is nullified in the Yovel year, and whatever they divide does
not return to Tefusas ha'Bayis - because he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.
(c) The fact that Rav Nachman clearly holds 'Ein Bereirah', forces us to
learn that, even *he* holds that the wells of Olei Bavel are Hefker - in
which case, both Rav Sheshes and Rav Nachman will agree that the person on
whose behalf he drew the water does not acquire it. When Rav Sheshes says
that *he* acquires the water, he is referring, not to the one on whose
behalf the water was drawn, but to the one who drew it (whose T'chum
therefore, the water follows). Rav Nachman holds that the one who drew the
water cannot acquire it, since he did not draw it on his own behalf.
Consequently, the second man acquires it when he receives it from the hand
of the first, in which case, the water follows *his* T'chum.
(d) It is possible to accept the text 'Rav Nachman Savar Kanah Chaveiro
(referring to the moment that he receives the water from the hand of the man
who drew it), ve'Rav Sheshes Savar Lo Kanah Chaveiro' (since the first man
has already acquired it).
- ... are permitted to take with them fruit that belongs to a resident of the town to which they are going - provided he made an Eiruv, too.
- ... permitted to carry back with them food from their host - provided the owner handed it to a third person to acquire on their behalf before Yom-Tov.