(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Beitzah 16

BEITZAH 16 - has been dedicated by Harav Avraham Feldman to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisroel Zev [ben Avrohom Tzvi] Gustman ZT'L, author of "Kuntresei Shi'urim", on the occasion of his Yahrzeit (28 Sivan).



(a) We know that the Pasuk in Tehilim "Tik'u ba'Chodesh Shofar, *ba'Kesse* le'Yom *Chageinu*" refers to Rosh Hashanah - because Rosh Hashanah is the only Chag on which the moon is not visible.

(b) And we learn from the continuation of the Pasuk "Ki *Chok* le'Yisrael Hu Mishpat le'Elokei Ya'akov"- that Hashem fixes one's livelihood on Rosh Hashanah.

(c) The Pasuk "ve'Achlu es Chukam Asher Nasan Lahem Par'oh" or that of "Hatrifeini Lechem Chuki" proves - that "Chok" means livelihood.

(a) Shamai ha'Zaken always ate in honor of Shabbos - by buying an animal on Sunday, say, li'Chevod Shabbos', and then, upon finding a better one on Monday, eating the first one and buying the second one li'Chevod Shabbos'.

(b) Based on the Pasuk "Baruch Hashem Yom Yom", Beis Hillel trusted that Hashem would provide for his daily needs, and that he would find what he needed for Shabbos each Friday.

(a) Rav Chama bar Chanina learns from the Pasuk "u'Moshe Lo Yada Ki Karan Or Panav" - that it is not necessary to inform one's friend that he has given him a gift.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel learns from the Pasuk "la'Da'as Ki Ani Hashem Mekadishchem" - that just as Hashem was telling Moshe to go and inform Yisrael that He was giving them a lovely gift called Shabbos from His treasury, so too, should someone who gives a gift to a child, inform the child's mother of what he did.

(c) We reconcile these two seemingly conflicting Pesukim - by pointing out that in the case of Moshe's shining face, it was not necessary to inform him, since he was bound to find out anyway; whereas by Shabbos, if they were not told about it, they would never know.

(d) It is the *reward* of Shabbos - that is referred to as a gift that does stand to be revealed, not Shabbos itself.

(a) We just learned that someone who gives a gift to a child should inform his mother (in order to spread the feeling of goodwill among the people). One does this (when it is not easy to contact the mother) - by rubbing oil and eye-paint on the child (so that when his mother asks him who did it, he will tell her adding that he also gave him some bread).

(b) At a time when doing that is considered witchcraft - one rubs a little of whatever one gave him on him.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Beini u'Vein B'nei Yisrael Os Hi le'Olam" - that Shabbos, unlike all other Mitzvos, was given to Yisrael on a low key.

(b) This does not however, absolve Nochrim from punishment for observing Shabbos - because it is not the actual *Shabbos* that was given on a low key (in fact, it was given to us publicly like all the other Mitzvos), but the *reward* (as we explained earlier), or the *extra Neshamah* that is present on Shabbos.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Shavas va'Yinafash" - that after Shabbos, when the Neshamah Yeseirah departs, the Torah declares 'Vay Avdah Nefesh', a proof that the extra Soul comes on Shabbos and departs when Shabbos terminates.

(a) According to Abaye, the Eiruv Tavshilin must consist of a cooked dish, and not of bread - because it needs to be clear that it was specially prepared for Shabbos (and not just plain bread, which one eats throughout the week).

(b) Rebbi Zeira referred to the Babylonians (who used to eat their bread with porridge) as 'those foolish Babylonians' who eat bread with bread.

(c) Abaye validates the use of porridge for Eiruv Tavshilin. In light of this, the reason that he requires a cooked dish (in a.) and not bread - must be because Eiruv Tavshilin needs to be something that is not common.

(d) In the second Lashon, Abaye disqualifies porridge from being used for Eiruv Tavshilin, in which case, he will disqualify bread for the same reason as he disqualifies porridge - because Eiruv Tavshilin must be something that one eats together with bread (as we explained in a.).

(a) Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa, says that - one may use lentils that remain inadvertently stuck to the pot from the Yom-Tov meal for Eiruv Tavshilin, provided he stated this in advance.

(b) Small salted fish not subject to 'Bishul Akum' - because they can be eaten raw.

(c) If a Nochri fries them, they may be used for Eiruv Tavshilin, but if he made them in the form of 'Kasa de'Harsena', they are forbidden. Kasa de'Harsena is the fat of the innards of small fish fried in flour.

(d) We might have thought that they are permitted - because the main part of the dish is the fat of the innards. Rav therefore teaches us that the flour is the main part of the dish.




(a) We have already learned that Eiruv Tavshilin requires at least a k'Zayis - one k'Zayis irrespective of how many people will be sharing the food.

(b) We reconcile the Shiur of a k'Zayis with our Mishnah, which writes that even if the Eiruv got eaten or lost, it is Kasher, provided a '*Kol she'Hu* remains' - by bearing in mind that *Kol she'Hu* is often relative (e.g. in this case, meaning not an entire meal); consequently, it can refer to a k'Zayis.

(c) The Beraisa incorporates in the Din of Eiruv Tavshilin a dish that is cooked, roasted or even pickled. One prepare 'Kuli'as ha'Ispanin' (a small soft, salted fish) for one's Eiruv - by just pouring hot water over it (rendering it fit to eat).

(d) When the Tana adds that the Eiruv has no Shiur - he means that it has no maximum Shiur (i.e. one *may* prepare as much as one wishes - though it is unclear why one might have thought that one may *not*) but it does have the minimum Shiur of a k'Zayis.

(a) Rav Huna definitely requires the knowledge of the person who is making it (i.e. it must be specifically prepared for the Eiruv) - but not the knowledge of the person on whose behalf the Eiruv is being prepared (seeing as Shmuel's father prepared an Eiruv for the whole of Neherda'a, and Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi for the whole of Teverya).

(b) Anyone who lives within Techum Shabbos can be included in one's Eiruv.

(c) When that blind man was sad one Yom-Tov, because he had forgotten to prepare an Eiruv Tavshilin. Mar Shmuel told him ...

1. ... that year - to rely on *his* Eiruv.
2. ... the following year when the same scenario repeated itself - that he was negligent, and that his Eiruv covered everyone in town, except for him.
(d) (Bearing in mind, that this incident occurred in Bavel where two days were kept, and it seems logical that it took place on the *first* day Yom- Tov, when the blind man remembered that he had not made an Eiruv and had not yet done anything about it), it must have taken place on the Yom-Tov of Rosh Hashanah - because otherwise, he could have made an Eiruv on the first day with a condition (See Maharshal).
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa forbids the placing of both an Eiruv Techumin and an Eiruv Chatzeiros on Yom-Tov Erev Shabbos. Rebbi permits placing an Eiruv Chatzeiros, since the Eiruv is meant to permit carrying on Shabbos, and seeing as one is permitted to carry on Yom-Tov, it is not logical that one should not be permitted to make preparations to carry on a day when carrying is permitted. He concedes however, that placing an Eiruv Techumin is forbidden, because carrying outside the Techum is forbidden on Yom-Tov, too.

(b) Rav rules like the Tana Kama, Shmuel rules like Rebbi. When they asked whether Shmuel's ruling is lenient or strict - they were uncertain whether Shmuel learned the Machlokes like we did, or whether one did not perhaps need to switch the opinions of Rebbi and the Rabbanan, like Rebbi Elazar sent to the B'nei Golah.

(c) We try to prove that Shmuel must have meant to rule leniently, because Rav, commenting on Shmuel's ruling like Rebbi, commented ruefully that 'the first time this Talmid-Chacham issues a ruling, he already causes people to stumble'. Initially, this certainly seems to imply that Shmuel ruled *leniently*. However, we conclude that - even if Shmuel had ruled *stringently*, he would have caused people to stumble, because they now had to go by his ruling, and anyone who forgot, and carried in the Chatzer without an Eiruv, would be sinning.

(d) Rava quoting Rav Chisda Amar Rav Huna, rules like Rebbi - forbidding the placing of an Eiruv Chatzeiros on Friday, like the version of Rebbi Elazar.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,