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 35
1) SUPPORTING R. NACHMAN'S TEACHING FROM THE TANA'IM (cont'd)
(a) Question: But we can demonstrate that, according to R.
Eliezer, speech alone is *not* Kove'a!?
2) ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO FIND SUPPORT FOR R. NACHMAN
1. R. Eliezer holds that whatever may be returned to
the storage bin is not Kavu'a.
(b) Answer: Our Mishnah is dealing with a Muktzah Tahor and
a Tamei person, such that he cannot return them, and
they are Nikbah.
i. One may dip olives in salt (an act which is
Kove'a) yet still snack them one at a time
(and they are not Nikba for Ma'aseros).
2. Thus, even the *action* of removing the olives is
not Kove'a according to R. Eliezer; is there even
a question about mere speech!?
ii. If one takes ten olives from a Ma'atan, the
Tana Kama (in Ma'aseros) obligates separating
Ma'aseros while R. Eliezer distinguishes
between when the Ma'atan is Tahor or not.
(1) If the Ma'atan from which he removed the
olives was Tahor then he is obligated.
iii. Question: Why the distinction?
(2) If it was Tamei then he is Patur from
iv. Answer: We are dealing with a Tamei person
(who cannot return the olives to a Ma'atan
which is Tahor, but may return them to a
(c) Question: But they are already "returned" in our
Mishnah (since he only spoke regarding them; he did not
take any out at all and, seemingly, our Mishnah cannot
regard speech as a Kove'a, and the factor which creates
Kevi'us in our Mishnah must be Shabbos, thus supporting
(d) Answer (R. Simi b. Ashi): R. Nachman cannot be
supported by our Mishnah because that is the unique,
position of R. Eliezer that removing Terumah from food
is Kove'a (all the more so Shabbos, whose meals are
Chashuv [v'Karasa laShabos Oneg]).
1. The Chachamim (in the cited Mishnah hold that
Terumah is not Kove'a.
2. Rava asked his original question of R. Nachman
according to the Chachamim.
(a) The Seifa of our Mishnah (where the Chachamim permit
him to mark the fruit in the Muktzah during Shemitah)
implies that, in other years of the cycle, the fruit
would be forbidden, presumably because Shabbos is
Kove'a, like R. Nachman!
3) R. YOCHANAN DIFFERS WITH R. NACHMAN
(b) No, it is not Shabbos which is Kove'a according to the
Chachamim, but the fact that he both designated and
marked the fruit.
(c) Question: Then why speak of Shabbos?
(d) Answer: To teach that Tevel is Muchan on Shabbos.
(e) Question: But R. Eliezer seems to contradict himself!?
1. In Terumos, R. Eliezer (against R. Yehoshua) holds
that if someone enters a Chatzer eating a cluster
of grapes, he may continue to eat and the same
applies to someone who is eating a cluster of
grapes and Shabbos enters.
(f) Answer: The Mishnah in Terumos must be understood as
explained by R. Nasan (that he must exit the Chatzer
and wait until after Shabbos).
2. Yet earlier we understood R. Eliezer to teach that
Shabbos is Kove'a for Ma'aseros!?
(a) (Ravin citing R. Yochanan) Shabbos, Terumah, Chatzer
and Mekach each are Kove'a only that which is ready to
1. He specified Shabbos, in order to differ with
Hillel; he mentioned Chatzer to disagree with R.
Ya'akov and Terumah to disagree with R. Eliezer.
i. Hillel forbade fruit that was put out to dry
and Shabbos arrived.
***** Hadran Alach haMeivi *****
ii. R. Ya'akov forbade the family of someone who
put out fruit to dry in his Chatzer to eat of
it without separating Ma'aseros.
2. He specified Mekach conforming with the Beraisa
which is lenient regarding the figs of an Am
haAretz if figs are generally pressed (and fresh
figs are thus not at Gemar Melachah), thus
teaching us three Halachos:
iii. R. Eliezer forbade someone who separated
Terumah before the Gemar Melachah to eat from
it, even casually.
i. Mekach is only Kove'a after Gemar Melachah.
3. He specified Mekach to (side with R. Yehudah and)
argue with the Tana Kama in Ma'aseros who says
that if two friends exchange fruit, they are both
obligated to separate Ma'aseros, irrespective of
whether they both intended to eat the fruit, to
put it out to dry (which renders it not ready to
eat) or if one of them intends to eat it, and the
other, to put it out to dry.
ii. The majority of Amei haAretz tend to separate
iii. The obligation to separate D'mai from the
produce of an Am haAretz extends even to
something that has not yet reached the stage
when it is ready to eat (since the Tana says
Me'asran D'mai (which implies a leniency),
and not just Me'asran).
4. R. Yehudah holds that only if the person who
exchanged fruit intends to eat it must separate
Ma'aseros, but not if he intends to put it out to
dry (Mekach is only Kove'a once it is ready to
***** PEREK MASHILIN *****
1) THE THRESHOLD OF PERMITTED EXERTION ON YOMTOV
(a) One may throw grain down through a skylight (but not
through a window) to the floor below on Yomtov (not on
Shabbos) to protect it from the coming rain.
2) THE WORDING OF THE MISHNAH
(b) If rain threatens to spoil one's fruit, jars of wine or
oil, one may cover them with overturned vessels.
(c) If water is dripping into one's house one is permitted
to place a vessel underneath the leak (even on Shabbos)
in order to keep one's house clean.
(a) R. Yehudah and R. Nasan argue whether the first word of
our Mishnah is Mashilin or Mashchilin.
3) THE VOLUME OF GRAIN HE MAY PUSH THROUGH THE SKYLIGHT
(b) (Mar Zutra) There is a Pasuk to support one and a
reference in a Mishnah to support the other.
(c) (R. Nachman b. Yitzhok) Other wordings are also
correct, and each mean casting something down as we
find support in various Mishnayos.
(a) Question: At what point will the pushing constitute
(b) Answer (R. Zeira citing R. Asi): Until (the amount
refereed to in Shabbos) four or five boxes of straw
(which the Mishnah permits clearing either out of
deference to the guests or because of Bitul Beis
(c) Question: But perhaps the limit there is higher owing
to the good reasons cited for the permission!?
(d) Question: Perhaps the higher limit is due to Shabbos
(where we are confident that no Zilzul will result) but
would not apply to YomTov!?
(e) Question: Perhaps that is a *lower* limit since no
monetary loss is involved, but a higher limit would
apply where the potential loss of grain is at stake!?