ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 35
(a) One may dip olives in salt and still eat them without having to separate
Ma'asros - because salting does not fix for Ma'asros?
(b) If one takes ten olives from a Ma'atan, the Tana Kama in a Mishnah in
Ma'asros obligates separating Ma'asros. A Ma'atan - is a large vat into
which one places the olives before pressing, to become hot. This in turn,
causes the oil to boil inside them, to be ready to emerge when they are
subsequently placed in the oil-press.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer obligates the olives to be Ma'asered - if the Ma'atan from
which he took out the olives was Tahor (since then he can no longer re-place
them - as we shall now see), but not, if it was Tamei.
(d) We are speaking about a Tamei person - which explains why he cannot
return the olives to a Tahor Ma'atan.
(a) In light of Rebbi Eliezer's opinion in the Mishnah in Ma'asros (that as
long as one is able to return the fruit, it is not considered fixed) - how
can we ascribe Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah to the verbal designation (and
not because of Shabbos, as Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Nachman contends), seeing
as there too, one can return the remainder of the figs to the Muktzah?
(b) To answer this Kashya, we establish our Mishnah too, by a Muktzah which
is Tahor and a person who is Tamei (proving our rebuttal of Mar Zutra's
proof for his father to be correct)?
(c) This explanation however, is unacceptable - because technically, the
figs have in fact, already been returned (irrespective of whether the
Muktzah is Tamei or Tahor), seeing as he did not even take them out, but
only designated them verbally. Consequently, our Kashya in a. remains
unanswered (and Mar Zutra's proof for his father's statement, acceptable).
(d) Rav Shimi bar Ashi refutes Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Nachman's proof from
our Mishnah by pointing out that the author is *Rebbi Eliezer*, who says in
a Mishnah in Ma'asros that Terumah fixes - and if Terumah fixes, then Kal
va'Chomer Shabbos (whose eating is Chashuv - from the Pasuk "ve'Karasa
la'Shabbos Oneg"). Rava asked his original She'eilah from Rav Nachman
according to the *Rabbanan*, in whose opinion Terumah does *not* fix.
(a) We try to prove from the Seifa of our Mishnah, where the Rabbanan permit
the fruit in the Muktzah in the Sh'mitah-year, when one designated it
specifically and said 'mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Ka'an', implying that, in other years
of the cycle, the fruit would be forbidden. Is this not because Shabbos
fixes - the resolution to Rava's She'eilah?
(b) This proof, too, is refuted however - on the grounds that it is not
Shabbos which fixes, according to the Chachamim, but the fact that he both
designated and marked the fruit.
(c) In a Mishnah in Terumos, Rebbi Eliezer 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.
(d) We reconcile this statement with his earlier one that Shabbos fixes for
Ma'asros by establishing *this* Mishnah according to Rebbi Nasan - who
explains that Rebbi Eliezer does not permit him to continue eating in the
Chatzer (in the Reisha) or on Shabbos (in the Seifa), but only to leave the
Chatzer or to wait for Motza'ei Shabbos and continue eating. (This is
because he did not fix the grapes for Se'udas Shabbos, like the children did
in the case that we cited at the beginning of the Sugya - where the fruit
was forbidden, even on Motza'ei Shabbos. See also Tosfos DH 've'Lo').
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua, in the Mishnah in Terumos, holds that if someone enters
a courtyard eating a cluster of grapes, he must stop eating until he has
Ma'asered them - because, in his opinion, a Chatzer fixes for Ma'asros, even
fruit that has not yet reached the stage where it is ready to eat.
(b) And he holds the same with regard to eating from a cluster of grapes
where he has to stop with the entry of Shabbos - for the same reason (Note:
This seems to resolve Rava's She'eilah, and it is not clear as to why the
Gemara does not say so.)
(a) When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying
that Shabbos, Terumah, Chatzer and Mekach, all have the same Din regarding
fixing for Ma'asros - inasmuch as they only fix something that has reached
the stage where it is ready to eat.
(b) He said this with regard to Shabbos, in order to preclude from Hillel,
with regard to Chatzer, from Rebbi Ya'akov, and with regard to Terumah, from
Rebbi Eliezer (with regard to Mekach, we shall see later).
1. Hillel - forbade fruit that was put out to dry and Shabbos arrived.
2. Rebbi Ya'akov - forbade the family of someone who put out fruit to dry in
his courtyard to eat of it without separating Ma'asros.
3. Rebbi Eliezer - forbade someone who separated Terumah before the G'mar
Melachah (the final stage that causes them to become subject to Ma'asros) to
eat from it, even casually.
(a) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement with regard to Mekach conforms
with the Beraisa of 'ha'Lokei'ach Te'einim me'Am ha'Aretz, be'Makom she'Rov
B'nei Adam Dorsin, Ochel Meihen Ara'i, u'Me'asran D'mai'.
(b) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan is lenient in this case as well as in all the
other cases - provided the fruit was not taken into the house or the Chatzer
(because if it was, then one is immediately forbidden to eat from it until
Ma'asros have been separated.
(c) Besides the current Chidush (that Mekach does not fix fruit for Ma'asros
before it reaches the stage of G'mar Melachah), the Beraisa also teaches us
- that the majority of Amei ha'Aretz tend to separate Ma'asros and that the
obligation to separate D'mai from the produce of an Am-ha'Aretz extends even
to something that has not yet reached the stage when it is ready to eat.
(d) We derive from this Beraisa that most Amei ha'Aretz separate Ma'asros -
since the Tana says 'Me'asran *D'mai* (which implies a leniency), and not
(a) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement with regard to Mekach comes to
preclude from Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Ma'asros - which says that if two
friends exchange fruit, they are both obligated to separate Ma'asros,
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.
***** Hadran Alach, 'ha'Meivi' *****
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - it is only if the person who exchanged
fruit intends to *eat* it, that he needs to separate Ma'asros, but not if he
intends to put it out to dry.
(c) According to The Tana Kama, Mekach fixes for Ma'asros even by something
that is *not* yet ready to eat; whereas Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it only
fixes something that *is* ready to eat (which is how Ravin Amar Rebbi
***** Perek Mashilin *****
(a) 'Mashilin Peiros Derech Arubah' - speaks about grain that the owner has
placed on the roof to dry, and he then sees that a thunder-storm is brewing
- Chazal permitted him to throw the grain through a skylight to the floor
below, in spite of the trouble that one is taking on Yom-Tov.
(b) This concession is restricted to Yom-Tov - and does not extend to
(c) Even on Yom-Tov however - this concession is restricted to throwing the
grain through a skylight that is set horizontally in the floor of the roof
(since that entails a minimal exertion); it does not extend to throwing it
through a window, since it needs to be picked up before throwing it.
(a) If rain threatens to spoil one's fruit, jars of wine or of oil - one may
cover them with overturned vessels.
(b) Even though none of these things constitute excessive bother, they
require a special dispensation in order to be permitted - because they are
not being performed for the needs of Yom-Tov.
(c) If water is dripping into one's house - one is permitted to place a
vessel underneath the leak, in order to keep one's house clean. Note: The
water must be drinkable, or at least usable; otherwise, this would be
forbidden because of the prohibition of 'Bitul K'li me'Heichano' (rendering
a vessel unusable by making it a base for Muktzah to fall into) see Tosfos
(a) One opinion proves from the Pasuk "Ki Yishal Zeisecha" - that those who
have the text in our Mishnah of '*Mashilin* Peiros' have not erred; and
another from the Mishnah in Bechoros '*ha'Shechol* ve'ha'Kesul' (both
blemishes of an animal) - that those who have the text 'Mashchilin' have not
erred. 'Shechol' - means that one of the animal's thighs became dislocated
1. A third opinion learns that 'Masirin' would be appropriate - from the
Mishnah in Nazir - where Rebbi Yishmael forbids a Nazir to rub his head with
clay - 'Mipnei she'*Meisir* es ha'Se'ar' (because it removes - *takes down*
- the hair).
(c) We might also learn this latter Lashon from the Mishnah in Pei'ah -
'Eizehu Leket, *ha'Nosher* be'Sha'as Ketzirah'.
2. A fourth, from the Mishnah in Keilim '*ha'Shechor* ve'ha'Zug shel Saparim
... Temei'im', that 'Mashchirin' is appropriate. A Shechor - is a razor (so-
called because it removes (*takes down*) the hair.
3. A fifth, from the Mishnah in Shabbos 'Mi she'*Nashru* Keilav ba'Mayim'
that 'Manshirin' is appropriate - because 'Nashru' means - *fell down* into
(a) The Mishnah in Shabbos permits clearing away four or five boxes of straw
to make room to sit - either because of the guests ('Kavod Orchim'), or
because of 'Bitul Beis-Hamedrash' (the Talmidim do not have sufficient room
(b) The Gemara tries to compare our Mishnah to the Mishnah in Shabbos, to
permit lowering four or five boxes down a skylight on Yom-Tov. We decline to
apply the leniency from the Mishnah in Shabbos to our Mishnah for one of two
reasons, one of them because the reason of Bitul Beis Hamedrash does not
apply here. The other reason is - because people tend to treat Shabbos more
seriously than Yom-Tov (where the Torah permits Ochel Nefesh). Consequently,
there are occasions where Chazal can afford to be lenient with regard to
Shabbos (in the knowledge, that people will not take advantage of the
leniency), whereas by Yom-Tov, they are afraid to make the same concession.
(c) On the other hand, we suggest that perhaps in our case, even more than
four or five boxes will be permitted - because of Hefsed Mamon (a loss of
money), which applies here on Yom-Tov, but not in the case of Shabbos.