ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 37
BEITZAH 36-40 (Siyum!) - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Chazal forbid declaring something Hekdesh on Shabbos and Yom-Tov -
because it is resembles a business transaction (which in turn is forbidden,
either because of the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Mim'tzo Cheftzecha", or because one
may come to write - and they included Hekdesh, because of the similarity
(b) They forbade separating Terumos and Ma'asros on Shabbos and Yom-Tov -
even if it is one's intention to give it to the Kohen on the same day, in
which case, it is not at all evident that he is separating the Ma'asros in
order to rectify his own crops; maybe he is doing it in order to give it to
the Kohen (Consequently, Tikun Mana will not necessarily apply).
(c) One is permitted to separate tithes on Shabbos and Yom-Tov - from fruit
which only became obligated on Yom-Tov (such as a dough which was kneaded on
Yom-Tov), and which could therefore be tithed earlier.
(a) Our Mishnah refers to the first group as 'Shevus', the second as
'Reshus' and the third, as' Mitzvah'. But surely - all three groups are
called 'Sh'vus (since that is the term by which all Rabbinical decrees
connected with Shabbos and Yom-Tov are called)?
(b) We answer that the Tana means to say here - that not only plain
'Sh'vus' is forbidden, but even 'Sh'vus' that pertains to 'Reshus', too; and
not only 'Sh'vus' that pertains to 'Reshus', but even 'Sh'vus' that pertains
(c) How can the Tana of our Mishnah write that whichever prohibitions apply
to Shabbos, also apply to Yom-Tov - when we learned above in the Mishnah of
Mashilin, that one may lower fruit via a skylight on Yom-Tov, but not on
(a) Rav Yosef initially reconciles the two Mishnahs by establishing the
Mishnah of 'Mashilin' like Rebbi Eliezer, who rules that if an animal and
its baby fell into a pit on Yom-Tov - one may bring up one of them, and feed
the other one still in the pit; whereas the author of *our* Mishnah, is
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua permits bringing up the one animal (to Shecht and eat),
and then deciding that the other one is probably better, and bringing that
one up, too.
(c) Rav Yosef maintains that Rebbi Eliezer, who is strict regarding the
animals that fell in the pit (in spite of the loss involved), is the author
of our Mishnah, which forbids Yom-Tov no less than Shabbos (and he will
consequently hold that they forbade lowering the fruit through the skylight
even on Yom-Tov); whereas Rebbi Yehoshua, who permits bringing up both
animals due to the loss that the owner will sustain, is the author of the
Mishnah of Mashilin, which differentiates between them.
(d) Abaye queries Rav Yosef's comparison, however. In his opinion ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer (who is strict in the case of 'Oso ve'es Be'no') may
well concede that lowering fruit via the skylight will be permitted on Yom-
Tov - because one does not have any alternative there, in the way that one
has of feeding the second animal in the pit.
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua (who is lenient by 'Oso ve'es Be'no') may well concede
that lowering fruit will be forbidden - because one does not have the
loophole of 'cheating', of making out that the second animal is better than
the first (since everyone knows that he has no intention of eating the fruit
that he threw down the skylight).
(a) Rav Papa finally connects our Mishnah and the Mishnah of Mashilin Peiros
with the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding carrying a
child etc. - Beis Shamai, he maintains, who forbids 'Mitoch' on Yom-Tov, is
the author of our Mitzvah, which permits only Ochel Nefesh on Yom-Tov, but
nothing else; whereas, according to Beis Hillel, Yom-Tov is more lenient
than Shabbos, both with regard 'Mitoch' and with regard to 'Mashilin
(b) We overrule the objection that Beis Shamai are only strict when it comes
to *carrying* on Yom-Tov, but maybe in the case of Mashilin, which is only a
matter of *Tiltul*, they will concede that Chazal were lenient - on the
grounds that 'Tiltul' is a decree because one may come to carry.
Consequently, whenever Chazal are stringent with regard to carrying, they
will also be stringent with regard to Tiltul.
(a) Animals or vessels share the same Techum as their owners?
(b) The fact that the owner hands them to a shepherd or to his son on Yom-
Tov will not make any difference.
(c) If the father dies - the animals or objects that currently belong to all
the brothers, may go only up the furthest point that all they are permitted
(d) Vessels (or clothes) that are being used by one of the brothers may go
wherever he may go.
(a) If someone borrows a vessel *before* Yom-Tov, then it may go wherever
the borrower may go; whereas if he borrowed it *on* Yom-Tov, then it follows
(b) If a woman borrows spices, water or salt from her friend on Yom-Tov -
the cooked dish will be permitted to go only where both women are permitted
(c) Rebbi Yehudah says that we ignore the water - because it is not visible
in the dish.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah is speaking about a thick stew, as we shall see in the
(a) Rebbi Dosa (according to others, Aba Shaul) says that if someone buys an
animal *before* Yom-Tov, the animal follows its new owner, even though he
only received it *on* Yom-Tov - likewise, if someone gives his animal to a
shepherd (even) on Yom-Tov, it follows the shepherd.
(b) It is possible to reconcile Rebbi Dosa with our Mishnah, which holds
that, if one gave the animal to the shepherd *on* Yom-Tov, then it will
follow the owner and not the shepherd - by establishing our Mishnah in a
town where there are *two* shepherds, and it is not obvious before Yom-Tov
as to which of the two the owner intends to give it.
(c) We prove that our Mishnah must be speaking in such a case - because the
Tana says that he gave the animal to his son or to a shepherd (clearly
indicating that he had two options).
(d) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Dosa.
(a) The Techum of a coat which two people borrowed on Erev Yom-Tov (one to
go to Shul in the morning, the other to go to a Se'udah in the evening) ...
1. ... if *one of them* made an Eiruv fifteen hundred Amos to the north, and
the *other*, fifteen hundred Amos to the south - is the thousand Amos (five
hundred Amos to the north and five hundred Amos to the south) that is common
to both of them (not counting the town itself).
(b) If two people bought a barrel of wine on Erev Yom-Tov, Rav permits each
one, to take his share of the wine to wherever *he* is allowed to go,
because he holds 'Yesh Bereirah'. According to Shmuel - each one may take it
only within the area that is common to both of them, because he holds 'Ein
2. ... if *one of them* made an Eiruv two thousand Amos to the north, and
the *other*, two thousand Amos to the south - is confined to the town
itself, and not even one Amah in either direction?
(c) Rav concedes however, that if they bought an animal (to Shecht and
divide the meat), that they may only take their respective portions to
whichever area they are *both* permitted to go - on the grounds that each
one's portion in the animal feeds from the other's (and therefore forbids
the other one to carry beyond that owner's borders.
(d) Rav's disciples Rav Kahana and Rav Asi query his distinction between a
barrel of wine and an animal ('le'Isur Muktzah Lo Chasheshu ... ') - on the
grounds that if that argument is insufficient to render the animal Muktzah
(to say that each one was Maktzeh (withheld) his portion from the other
one's use), then why should we apply it with regard to the Isur of Techumin?
(a) Rav Hoshaya holds 'Yesh Bereirah' (like Rav - after Rav Kahana and Rav
Asi's objection). Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ein Bereirah'.
We try to establish that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ein Bereirah' by matters that
are d'Oraysa, and 'Yesh Bereirah' by matters that are de'Rabbanan. We
conclude however, that that cannot be correct, because of what Rebbi
Yochanan himself said with regard to the Mishnah in Eiruvin, which permits
one of two possible Eiruvin that a person makes (to the east or to the
west), because he is uncertain whether the Chacham 'will arrive' in the east
or in the west. Rebbi Yochanan said there - that the Mishnah can only be
speaking when the Chacham had already arrived before Yom-Tov. Otherwise, we
would have to say 'Yesh Bereirah', implying that he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.
(b) We query the opinion of Rav Hoshaya however, on the basis of a Mishnah
in Ohalos (which we already quoted on Daf 10a, and) which he explains in the
light of 'Ein Bereirah'. To answer this, we initially switch the opinions of
Rav Hoshaya and Rebbi Yochanan, so that Rav Hoshaya now holds 'Ein
Bereirah', to conform with his opinion regarding the Mishnah in Ohalos.
(c) The Mishnah in Ohalos states that a corpse in the house renders all the
doorways (together with any vessels that are lying there) Tamei. If however,
they decided (according to Beis Hillel, even *after* the man died), that
they would carry him out through a specific doorway, then *that* doorway is
Tamei, but not the others. This applies exclusively, to vessels that are
placed there from now on, says to Rav Hoshaya, but vessels that where there
beforehand remain Tamei - because Rav Hoshaya holds 'Ein Bereirah'.
(d) But that leaves us with a problem in Rebbi Yochanan - who now holds
'Yesh Bereirah' - clashing with what he himself says with regard to brothers
who divided the property that they inherited from their father. Rebbi
Yochanan says there that they have the Din of buyers (as if they had bought
from one another whichever section each one owned), and the property returns
to the kitty in the Yovel year (which it would not do if they had they had
the Din of heirs). This indicates that he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.