Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 15, 2021 | 讟壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 16 – Yom Kippur, September 16

This is Yom Kippur鈥檚 Daf. For Wednesday鈥檚 daf please click here.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Gitta Neufeld in loving memory of our honorary Zaidy, Marvin Stokar, Meir ben Aryeh Leib HaLevi a”h. Zaidy Marvin’s delight in Torah learning and particularly the daf yomi still resonate. May he be a meilitz yosher for our cherished Bubbie Fran and his entire family. We miss him so much!

A person鈥檚 livelihood for the year is allocated from Rosh Hashana until Yom Kippur except for Shabbat and Yom Tov expenses and Torah study expenses for his children. From where is this derived? What is the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding our approach to food for Shabbat 鈥 if during the week, we see something good, should we leave it for Shabbat or can we eat and assume that we will find another one like it before Shabbat? One who gives a gift to one鈥檚 friend does not need to inform him. This is derived from Moshe who did not know that his face was radiant. But the Gemara raises a difficulty for this law from other sources that show that a gift should be made known. How does the Gemara distinguish between the cases? What foods can be used for Eruv Tavshilin? What are the criteria? There are different versions of the discussion. Rabbi Abba says it should be the size of an olive. Is it an olive for everyone and an olive for each person? The Gemara cites several sources to raise difficulties on Rabbi Abba but resolves them. One needs to have intent when doing an Eruv Tavshilin. Is it the intent of the person who made the Eruv or the intent of someone who is benefitting from another鈥檚 Eruv? Cases are brought to highlight that one can make an Eruv on behalf of others without their knowledge. But a story is told in which Samuel was not willing to let one person benefit from his Eruv – why? Rebbe and Sages disagree – is it possible to make an Eruv Chatzirot 鈥(to permit carrying) on Yom Tov for Shabbat? There are two versions as to who forbids and who permits. How did Rava rule on the subject?

讻诇 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽爪讜讘讬诐 诇讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转讜转 讜讛讜爪讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗转 讘谞讬讜 诇转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 砖讗诐 驻讞转 驻讜讞转讬谉 诇讜 讜讗诐 讛讜住讬祝 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 诇讜

A person鈥檚 entire livelihood is allocated to him during the period from Rosh HaShana to Yom Kippur. During that time, as each individual is judged, it is decreed exactly how much money he will earn for all his expenditures of the coming year, except for expenditures for Shabbatot, and expenditures for Festivals, and expenditures for the school fees of his sons鈥 Torah study. In these areas, no exact amount is determined at the beginning of the year; rather, if he reduced the amount he spends for these purposes, his income is reduced and he earns that much less money in that year, and if he increased his expenditures in these areas, his income is increased to ensure that he can cover the expense. Therefore, one may borrow for these purposes, since he is guaranteed to have enough income to cover whatever he spends for them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 转拽注讜 讘讞讚砖 砖讜驻专 (讘讻住讗) 诇讬讜诐 讞讙谞讜 讗讬讝讛讜 讞讙 砖讛讞讚砖 诪转讻住讛 讘讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 讞拽 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪砖驻讟 诇讗诇讛讬 讬注拽讘

Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse from which this dictum is derived? The source is: 鈥淏low the shofar at the New Moon, at the concealed time for our Festival day鈥 (Psalms 81:4). On which Festival is the new moon concealed? You must say that it is Rosh HaShana, which occurs on the first of the month, when the moon is not yet visible, while the moon is visible during the other Festivals, which occur in the middle of the month. And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淔or it is a statute [岣k] for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob鈥 (Psalms 81:5).

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讞拽 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪讝讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转 讞拽诐 讗砖专 谞转谉 诇讛诐 驻专注讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛讟专讬驻谞讬 诇讞诐 讞拽讬

The Gemara explains: From where may it be inferred that this word 鈥渟tatute [岣k]鈥 is a term relating to food? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they ate their allotment [岣kkam], which Pharaoh gave them鈥 (Genesis 47:22). Mar Zutra said: One can learn that 岣k is referring to food from here: 鈥淔eed me with my allotted [岣kki] bread鈥 (Proverbs 30:8).

转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 砖诪讗讬 讛讝拽谉 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 诇讻讘讜讚 砖讘转 诪爪讗 讘讛诪讛 谞讗讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 诇砖讘转 诪爪讗 讗讞专转 谞讗讛 讛讬诪谞讛 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

It is taught in a baraita: They said about Shammai the Elder that all his days he would eat in honor of Shabbat. How so? If he found a choice animal, he would say: This is for Shabbat. If he subsequently found another one choicer than it, he would set aside the second for Shabbat and eat the first. He would eat the first to leave the better-quality animal for Shabbat, which continually rendered his eating an act of honoring Shabbat.

讗讘诇 讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 诪讚讛 讗讞专转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖讻诇 诪注砖讬讜 诇砖诐 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讛壮 讬讜诐 讬讜诐 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讞讚 砖讘讬讱 诇砖讘转讬讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专讜讱 讛壮 讬讜诐 讬讜诐

However, Hillel the Elder had a different trait, that all his actions, including those on a weekday, were for the sake of Heaven, as it is stated: 鈥淏lessed be the Lord, day by day; He bears our burden, our God who is our salvation; Selah鈥 (Psalms 68:20), meaning that God gives a blessing for each and every day. That is also taught in a baraita in more general terms: Beit Shammai say: From the first day of the week, Sunday, start preparing already for your Shabbat. And Beit Hillel say: 鈥淏lessed be the Lord, day by day.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪砖讛 诇讗 讬讚注 讻讬 拽专谉 注讜专 驻谞讬讜

搂 Apropos the statements about honoring Shabbat, the Gemara cites another statement on the same topic. Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: One who gives a gift to his friend need not inform him that he has given it to him, and he need not concern himself that the recipient might not realize who gave it to him. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd Moses did not know that the skin of his face was radiant鈥 (Exodus 34:29); Moses received this gift unawares.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讚注转 讻讬 讗谞讬 讛壮 诪拽讚砖讻诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 诪砖讛 诪转谞讛 讟讜讘讛 讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转 讙谞讝讬 讜砖讘转 砖诪讛 讜讗谞讬 诪讘拽砖 诇讬转谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讱 讜讛讜讚讬注 讗讜转诐 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛谞讜转谉 驻转 诇转讬谞讜拽 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诇讗诪讜

The Gemara raises an objection to this. Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淣evertheless, you must keep My Shabbatot, for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord Who sanctifies you鈥 (Exodus 31:13), which the Sages expounded as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, I have a good gift in My treasury, and its name is Shabbat, and I wish to give it to the Jewish people. Go and inform them of this intention of Mine. And from here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives a gift of a piece of bread to a child must inform his mother of his actions, so that the child鈥檚 parents will be aware of the giver鈥檚 fond feelings for them, thereby enhancing friendly relations and companionship among Jews. This appears to be in direct contradiction to Rabbi 岣ma鈥檚 statement.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪转谞讛 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙诇讜讬讬 讛讗 讘诪转谞讛 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙诇讜讬讬 砖讘转 谞诪讬 诪转谞讛 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙诇讜讬讬 诪转谉 砖讻专讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙诇讜讬讬

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, where one need not inform the recipient, is referring to a gift that is likely to be revealed, such as Moses鈥 shining face, which everyone would point out to him; that case, where one must inform the recipient, is referring to a gift that is not likely to be revealed in the natural course of events. The Gemara challenges: Isn鈥檛 Shabbat also a gift that is likely to be revealed, as the Jews would eventually be instructed with regard to the time and nature of Shabbat? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, its reward is not likely to be revealed. Therefore, God told Moses to inform the Jews of the gift of Shabbat and its reward.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛谞讜转谉 驻转 诇转讬谞讜拽 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诇讗诪讜 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 砖讬讬祝 诇讬讛 诪砖讞讗 讜诪诇讬 诇讬讛 讻讜讞诇讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讻砖驻讬诐 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讬讬祝 诇讬讛 诪讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉

The Master said earlier that from here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives a piece of bread to a child must inform his mother. The Gemara asks: What does he do to him; how does he inform the child鈥檚 mother? He rubs oil on him and paints his eyes blue, so that when the child arrives home his mother will ask him who did this to him and he will reply that it was a person who also gave him a piece of bread. The Gemara comments: And nowadays, when we are concerned about witchcraft, i.e., that painting the child鈥檚 eyes might have been performed as an act of sorcery, what should one do? Rav Pappa said: He rubs on the child a little of that same type of food that he put on the bread, such as butter or cheese, and this will cause the child鈥檚 mother to notice that he received a present.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖谞转谉 诇讛诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 谞转谉 诇讛诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讞讜抓 诪砖讘转 砖谞转谉 诇讛诐 讘爪谞注讗 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谉 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜转 讛讬讗 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara cites a further statement with regard to the gift of Shabbat to the Jewish people. Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: All the mitzvot that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave to the Jewish people, He gave to them in public [parhesya] except for Shabbat, which he gave to them in private. As it is stated: 鈥淚t is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever鈥 (Exodus 31:17), meaning that in a sense, it is a secret between God and the Jewish people.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 诇注谞砖讜 讙讜讬诐 注诇讛 砖讘转 讗讜讚讜注讬 讗讜讚注讬谞讛讜 诪转谉 砖讻专讛 诇讗 讗讜讚注讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪转谉 砖讻专讛 谞诪讬 讗讜讚注讬谞讛讜 谞砖诪讛 讬转讬专讛 诇讗 讗讜讚注讬谞讛讜

The Gemara challenges: If it is so that it was given in secret so that not everyone knew about it, the gentiles should not be punished for not wanting to accept it; they are liable to receive punishment for refusing to accept the other mitzvot of the Torah. The Gemara answers: The Holy One, Blessed be He, did inform them of the concept of Shabbat, but He did not inform them of the reward for the fulfillment of the mitzva. And if you wish, say instead that He also informed the gentiles of its reward, but about the idea of the additional soul given to each person on Shabbat He did not inform them.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞砖诪讛 讬转讬专讛 谞讜转谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讗讚诐 注专讘 砖讘转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘转 讜讬谞驻砖 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讘转 讜讜讬 讗讘讚讛 谞驻砖

As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gives a person an additional soul on Shabbat eve, and at the conclusion of Shabbat removes it from him, as it is stated: 鈥淗e ceased from work and was refreshed [vayinafash]鈥 (Exodus 31:17). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish expounds the verse as follows: Since he ceased from work, and now Shabbat has concluded and his additional soul is removed from him, woe [vai] for the additional soul [nefesh] that is lost.

注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 转讘砖讬诇 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讗讘诇 驻转 诇讗

It was taught in the mishna that a person may prepare a cooked dish on a Festival eve and rely on it for Shabbat for the joining of cooked foods. Abaye said: They taught that the joining of cooked foods allows one to cook on a Festival for Shabbat only when it is made from a cooked dish; however, if it is composed of bread alone, no, this is not sufficient.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 驻转 讚诇讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪诇驻转 讘注讬谞谉 讜驻转 诇讗 诪诇驻转讗 讜讛讗 讚讬讬住讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪诇驻转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛谞讬 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 讚讗讻诇讬 谞讛诪讗 讘谞讛诪讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讚讬讬住讗 讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讘注讬谞谉 讜驻转 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讚讬讬住讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara asks: What is different about bread that makes it not fit for this purpose? If we say that we require something that accompanies bread, and bread does not accompany itself, the following difficulty arises: Porridge also does not accompany bread, as Rabbi Zeira said: Those foolish Babylonians eat bread with bread, referring to their custom of eating bread with porridge. This shows that porridge is no better accompaniment to bread than bread itself, and yet Rav Ne岣mi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may establish an eiruv with porridge. Rather, one must say as follows: We require something that is not routine, so that it will be clear that one is setting it aside for the purpose of an eiruv, and bread is routine, whereas porridge is not routine.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讗讘诇 驻转 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讘注讬谞谉 讜驻转 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讛讗 讚讬讬住讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讚讬讬住讗 讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪诇驻转 讘注讬谞谉 讜驻转 诇讗 诪诇驻转讗 讜讚讬讬住讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪诇驻转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛谞讬 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 讚讗讻诇讬 谞讛诪讗 讘谞讛诪讗

Some say a different version of this discussion: Abaye said: They taught that a joining of cooked foods allows one to cook on a Festival for Shabbat only when it is made from a cooked dish; however, if it is composed of bread, no, that is not sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If we say that we require something that is not routine, and bread is routine, the following difficulty arises: Isn鈥檛 porridge not particularly routine? And yet Rav Ne岣mi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may not establish an eiruv with porridge. Rather, one should say as follows: We require something that accompanies bread, and bread does not accompany itself, and porridge, too, does not accompany bread, as Rabbi Zeira said: Those foolish Babylonians eat bread with bread, from which it is clear that like bread, porridge does not accompany bread and consequently cannot constitute an eiruv.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 注讚砖讬诐 砖讘砖讜诇讬 拽讚专讛 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讻讝讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪谞讜谞讬转 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛住讻讬谉 讙讜专专讜 讜住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讻讝讬转

Rabbi 岣yya taught: With regard to lentils that remain at the bottom of a pot on the eve of a Festival, one may rely on them for the joining of cooked foods. Although they were not prepared with this purpose in mind, they are nevertheless considered a cooked dish. And this applies only if there is an olive-bulk of lentils in total. Similarly, Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: With regard to fat of meat and the like that is on a knife, one may scrape it off the knife and rely on it for the joining of cooked foods; and this applies only if there is an olive-bulk of fat in total.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 诪诇讜讞讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诐 爪诇讗谉 讙讜讬 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讗讬 注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讗住讜专

Rav Asi said that Rav said: Small salted fish that a gentile then cooked are not considered the cooked food of gentiles because cooking does not prepare them to be food any more than they already were, as they can be eaten in their salted state. Rav Yosef said: And even if a gentile roasted them, a Jew may rely on them for the joining of cooked foods, as they are not considered the cooked food of a gentile and are indeed already edible. However, if the gentile made them into fish fried with oil and flour [kasa deharsena], it is prohibited to eat them. In this case they are considered the cooked food of a gentile, since his actions have made them into noteworthy food.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗

The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that this is the case; it need not be taught. The Gemara answers: The justification for teaching it is lest you say that

讛专住谞讗 注讬拽专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 拽诪讞讗 注讬拽专

the fish fat, which one is permitted to eat even if cooked by gentiles, is the essential element. Therefore, he teaches us that the flour is the essential element, and the gentile has created a new and significant dish, which is consequently prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讻讝讬转 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讝讬转 讗讞讚 诇讻诇谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讝讬转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讻讝讬转 讘讬谉 诇讗讞讚 讘讬谉 诇诪讗讛

Rabbi Abba said: A joining of cooked foods requires an olive-bulk of food. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it enough to have one olive-bulk for all of the household members who are relying on this eiruv, or perhaps must there be a separate olive-bulk for each and every one in the household? Come and hear that which Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: A joining of cooked foods requires an olive-bulk, whether it is cooked for a single person or for one hundred people.

转谞谉 讗讻诇讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 诇讗 讬讘砖诇 注诇讬讜 讘转讞诇讛 砖讬讬专 诪诪谞讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诇砖讘转 诪讗讬 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 诇讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转

The Gemara comments: We learned in the mishna: If one ate the joining of cooked foods that he prepared, or if it was lost, he may not rely on it and cook with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat; but if he left any part of the eiruv, he may rely on it to cook for Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Any part of it? Doesn鈥檛 it mean that it is valid although there is not an olive-bulk? The Gemara answers: No, the phrase: Any part of it, means that there is at least an olive-bulk left.

转讗 砖诪注 转讘砖讬诇 讝讛 爪诇讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讘讜砖 砖诇讜拽 讜诪讘讜砖诇 讜拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗住驻谞讬谉 砖谞转谉 注诇讬讜 讞诪讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转讞诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 讻诇诇 诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara attempts to bring another proof. Come and hear: The cooked dish that is required for a joining of cooked foods may be roasted, or even pickled, or well-boiled, or boiled in the regular manner, or may even be Spanish soft sea fish [koleyas ha鈥檌spenin] upon which one poured hot water on the eve of the Festival, rendering it cooked. With regard to its beginning and end, meaning its required size ab initio and after it has been reduced by being partially lost or partially eaten, the eiruv has no required measure. What, is it not that it has no required measure at all, not even a minimum one? The Gemara rejects this: No, it means it does not have a maximum measure, but it does have a minimum measure, namely an olive-bulk.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讚注转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚注转 诪谞讬讞 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 诪讬 砖讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜 讘注讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉

Rav Huna said that Rav said: A joining of cooked foods requires knowledge, meaning that one must be aware of the eiruv for it to be effective. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that we require the knowledge of the one who prepares the eiruv; the question is: Do we also require the knowledge of the one for whom the eiruv is prepared, or do we not require it?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪注专讘 讗讻讜诇讛 谞讛专讚注讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 诪注专讘讜 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讟讘专讬讗 诪讻专讬讝 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讬讘讗 讜讬住诪讜讱 注诇 砖诇讬 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 注讚 转讞讜诐 砖讘转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following testimonies: Shmuel鈥檚 father would prepare an eiruv for the entire city of Neharde鈥檃, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would prepare an eiruv for the entire city of Tiberias. Similarly, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi would announce: Anyone who did not prepare a joining of cooked foods for himself should come and rely on mine. The Gemara asks: And up to how much may one rely on it, i.e., how far may one be from such an eiruv and still rely upon it? Rav Ne岣mi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may be as far away as the Shabbat limit.

讛讛讜讗 住诪讬讗 讚讛讜讛 诪住讚专 诪转谞讬转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讗讜转讬讘讬 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住诪讜讱 讗讚讬讚讬 诇砖谞讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讗讜转讬讘讬 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜砖注 讗转 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖专讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讗住讜专

The Gemara relates: With regard to the blind person who would present mishnayot before Mar Shmuel, the latter observed that he was sad. Mar Shmuel said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not prepare a joining of cooked foods before the Festival. Mar Shmuel said to him: Then rely on mine. In the following year, he once again observed that he was sad. He said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not prepare a joining of cooked foods. Mar Shmuel said to him: If so, you are consistently negligent in this regard. Therefore, for the entire world, i.e., anyone else but you, it is permitted to rely on my eiruv if they forgot to prepare one, but for you it is prohibited to do so, as I did not intend to include such negligent people as yourself in my eiruv.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讗 注专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 注专讜讘讬 讞爪专讜转

The Sages taught: If a Festival occurs on Shabbat eve, one may not prepare an eiruv on that day, neither a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv te岣min] nor a joining of courtyards [eiruv 岣tzerot], for Shabbat. If one did not prepare these before the Festival, he may not do so on the Festival itself.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 注专讜讘讬 讞爪专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 注专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗转讛 讗讜住专讜 讘讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 诇讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜住专讜 讘讚讘专 讛诪讜转专 诇讜

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: On a Festival that occurs on a Friday, one may prepare an eiruv for a joining of courtyards, but not for a joining of Shabbat boundaries. His reasoning is as follows: There is a distinction between the two types of eiruv because you may prohibit him from a matter that is prohibited to him, e.g., venturing beyond the Shabbat limit, which is prohibited on a Festival as well as Shabbat, but you may not prohibit him from a matter that is permitted to him, e.g., carrying from one domain to another, which is permitted on a Festival. Therefore, on a Festival, one may not prepare a joining of Shabbat boundaries in order to render it permitted to venture beyond the boundary on the Shabbat following the Festival. However, one may prepare a joining of courtyards on the Festival in order to render it permitted to carry from one domain to another on the Shabbat following the Festival.

讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed as to the conclusive ruling. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who said that it is prohibited to prepare both types of eiruvin, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and it is permitted to prepare a joining of courtyards on a Festival.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讗讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讙讜诇讛 诇讗 讻砖讗转诐 砖讜谞讬谉 讘讘讘诇 专讘讬 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讜住专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讗讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is stating that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a leniency or a stringency? The Gemara wonders at this query: It is obvious that he stated it as a leniency. The Gemara explains: The question was asked because Rabbi Elazar sent a message from Eretz Yisrael to the Diaspora: This baraita is not as you teach it in Babylonia, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits one to prepare a joining of courtyards on a Festival and the Rabbis prohibit it. Rather, the opinions should be reversed, so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits it and the Rabbis permit it. Therefore, the question arose: What is the conclusive ruling for this halakha? Is it lenient or stringent?

转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇转 讛讜专讗讛 讚讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讗讬 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara attempts to cite a proof: Come and hear that Rav Ta岣ifa bar Avdimi performed an action in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rav said in anger about this: The first public ruling of this young Torah scholar is bringing about corruption of the halakha. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said it as a leniency, this explains the corruption of the halakha involved, as Rav was angered by a young scholar who relied on his own judgment to issue a lenient ruling on a disputed issue. However, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant it as a stringency, what corruption of the halakha is there in the young scholar鈥檚 ruling?

讻讬讜谉 讚诪拽诇拽诇讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐

The Gemara answers: Since it corrupts the behavior of the masses, as, if they refrain from preparing a joining of courtyards on the Festival although it is permitted to do so, they might mistakenly carry from one domain to another on Shabbat,

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah: 15-23 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we begin the second chapter of Masechet Beitza we will be learning about Eiruv Tavshilin which allows one to...

Beitzah 16 – Yom Kippur, September 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 16 – Yom Kippur, September 16

讻诇 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽爪讜讘讬诐 诇讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转讜转 讜讛讜爪讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗转 讘谞讬讜 诇转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 砖讗诐 驻讞转 驻讜讞转讬谉 诇讜 讜讗诐 讛讜住讬祝 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 诇讜

A person鈥檚 entire livelihood is allocated to him during the period from Rosh HaShana to Yom Kippur. During that time, as each individual is judged, it is decreed exactly how much money he will earn for all his expenditures of the coming year, except for expenditures for Shabbatot, and expenditures for Festivals, and expenditures for the school fees of his sons鈥 Torah study. In these areas, no exact amount is determined at the beginning of the year; rather, if he reduced the amount he spends for these purposes, his income is reduced and he earns that much less money in that year, and if he increased his expenditures in these areas, his income is increased to ensure that he can cover the expense. Therefore, one may borrow for these purposes, since he is guaranteed to have enough income to cover whatever he spends for them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 转拽注讜 讘讞讚砖 砖讜驻专 (讘讻住讗) 诇讬讜诐 讞讙谞讜 讗讬讝讛讜 讞讙 砖讛讞讚砖 诪转讻住讛 讘讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 讞拽 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪砖驻讟 诇讗诇讛讬 讬注拽讘

Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse from which this dictum is derived? The source is: 鈥淏low the shofar at the New Moon, at the concealed time for our Festival day鈥 (Psalms 81:4). On which Festival is the new moon concealed? You must say that it is Rosh HaShana, which occurs on the first of the month, when the moon is not yet visible, while the moon is visible during the other Festivals, which occur in the middle of the month. And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淔or it is a statute [岣k] for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob鈥 (Psalms 81:5).

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讞拽 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪讝讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转 讞拽诐 讗砖专 谞转谉 诇讛诐 驻专注讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛讟专讬驻谞讬 诇讞诐 讞拽讬

The Gemara explains: From where may it be inferred that this word 鈥渟tatute [岣k]鈥 is a term relating to food? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they ate their allotment [岣kkam], which Pharaoh gave them鈥 (Genesis 47:22). Mar Zutra said: One can learn that 岣k is referring to food from here: 鈥淔eed me with my allotted [岣kki] bread鈥 (Proverbs 30:8).

转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 砖诪讗讬 讛讝拽谉 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 诇讻讘讜讚 砖讘转 诪爪讗 讘讛诪讛 谞讗讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 诇砖讘转 诪爪讗 讗讞专转 谞讗讛 讛讬诪谞讛 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

It is taught in a baraita: They said about Shammai the Elder that all his days he would eat in honor of Shabbat. How so? If he found a choice animal, he would say: This is for Shabbat. If he subsequently found another one choicer than it, he would set aside the second for Shabbat and eat the first. He would eat the first to leave the better-quality animal for Shabbat, which continually rendered his eating an act of honoring Shabbat.

讗讘诇 讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 诪讚讛 讗讞专转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖讻诇 诪注砖讬讜 诇砖诐 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讛壮 讬讜诐 讬讜诐 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讞讚 砖讘讬讱 诇砖讘转讬讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专讜讱 讛壮 讬讜诐 讬讜诐

However, Hillel the Elder had a different trait, that all his actions, including those on a weekday, were for the sake of Heaven, as it is stated: 鈥淏lessed be the Lord, day by day; He bears our burden, our God who is our salvation; Selah鈥 (Psalms 68:20), meaning that God gives a blessing for each and every day. That is also taught in a baraita in more general terms: Beit Shammai say: From the first day of the week, Sunday, start preparing already for your Shabbat. And Beit Hillel say: 鈥淏lessed be the Lord, day by day.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪砖讛 诇讗 讬讚注 讻讬 拽专谉 注讜专 驻谞讬讜

搂 Apropos the statements about honoring Shabbat, the Gemara cites another statement on the same topic. Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: One who gives a gift to his friend need not inform him that he has given it to him, and he need not concern himself that the recipient might not realize who gave it to him. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd Moses did not know that the skin of his face was radiant鈥 (Exodus 34:29); Moses received this gift unawares.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讚注转 讻讬 讗谞讬 讛壮 诪拽讚砖讻诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 诪砖讛 诪转谞讛 讟讜讘讛 讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转 讙谞讝讬 讜砖讘转 砖诪讛 讜讗谞讬 诪讘拽砖 诇讬转谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讱 讜讛讜讚讬注 讗讜转诐 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛谞讜转谉 驻转 诇转讬谞讜拽 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诇讗诪讜

The Gemara raises an objection to this. Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淣evertheless, you must keep My Shabbatot, for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord Who sanctifies you鈥 (Exodus 31:13), which the Sages expounded as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, I have a good gift in My treasury, and its name is Shabbat, and I wish to give it to the Jewish people. Go and inform them of this intention of Mine. And from here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives a gift of a piece of bread to a child must inform his mother of his actions, so that the child鈥檚 parents will be aware of the giver鈥檚 fond feelings for them, thereby enhancing friendly relations and companionship among Jews. This appears to be in direct contradiction to Rabbi 岣ma鈥檚 statement.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪转谞讛 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙诇讜讬讬 讛讗 讘诪转谞讛 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙诇讜讬讬 砖讘转 谞诪讬 诪转谞讛 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙诇讜讬讬 诪转谉 砖讻专讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙诇讜讬讬

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, where one need not inform the recipient, is referring to a gift that is likely to be revealed, such as Moses鈥 shining face, which everyone would point out to him; that case, where one must inform the recipient, is referring to a gift that is not likely to be revealed in the natural course of events. The Gemara challenges: Isn鈥檛 Shabbat also a gift that is likely to be revealed, as the Jews would eventually be instructed with regard to the time and nature of Shabbat? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, its reward is not likely to be revealed. Therefore, God told Moses to inform the Jews of the gift of Shabbat and its reward.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛谞讜转谉 驻转 诇转讬谞讜拽 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诇讗诪讜 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 砖讬讬祝 诇讬讛 诪砖讞讗 讜诪诇讬 诇讬讛 讻讜讞诇讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讻砖驻讬诐 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讬讬祝 诇讬讛 诪讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉

The Master said earlier that from here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives a piece of bread to a child must inform his mother. The Gemara asks: What does he do to him; how does he inform the child鈥檚 mother? He rubs oil on him and paints his eyes blue, so that when the child arrives home his mother will ask him who did this to him and he will reply that it was a person who also gave him a piece of bread. The Gemara comments: And nowadays, when we are concerned about witchcraft, i.e., that painting the child鈥檚 eyes might have been performed as an act of sorcery, what should one do? Rav Pappa said: He rubs on the child a little of that same type of food that he put on the bread, such as butter or cheese, and this will cause the child鈥檚 mother to notice that he received a present.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖谞转谉 诇讛诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 谞转谉 诇讛诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讞讜抓 诪砖讘转 砖谞转谉 诇讛诐 讘爪谞注讗 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谉 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜转 讛讬讗 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara cites a further statement with regard to the gift of Shabbat to the Jewish people. Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: All the mitzvot that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave to the Jewish people, He gave to them in public [parhesya] except for Shabbat, which he gave to them in private. As it is stated: 鈥淚t is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever鈥 (Exodus 31:17), meaning that in a sense, it is a secret between God and the Jewish people.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 诇注谞砖讜 讙讜讬诐 注诇讛 砖讘转 讗讜讚讜注讬 讗讜讚注讬谞讛讜 诪转谉 砖讻专讛 诇讗 讗讜讚注讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪转谉 砖讻专讛 谞诪讬 讗讜讚注讬谞讛讜 谞砖诪讛 讬转讬专讛 诇讗 讗讜讚注讬谞讛讜

The Gemara challenges: If it is so that it was given in secret so that not everyone knew about it, the gentiles should not be punished for not wanting to accept it; they are liable to receive punishment for refusing to accept the other mitzvot of the Torah. The Gemara answers: The Holy One, Blessed be He, did inform them of the concept of Shabbat, but He did not inform them of the reward for the fulfillment of the mitzva. And if you wish, say instead that He also informed the gentiles of its reward, but about the idea of the additional soul given to each person on Shabbat He did not inform them.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞砖诪讛 讬转讬专讛 谞讜转谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讗讚诐 注专讘 砖讘转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘转 讜讬谞驻砖 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讘转 讜讜讬 讗讘讚讛 谞驻砖

As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gives a person an additional soul on Shabbat eve, and at the conclusion of Shabbat removes it from him, as it is stated: 鈥淗e ceased from work and was refreshed [vayinafash]鈥 (Exodus 31:17). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish expounds the verse as follows: Since he ceased from work, and now Shabbat has concluded and his additional soul is removed from him, woe [vai] for the additional soul [nefesh] that is lost.

注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 转讘砖讬诇 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讗讘诇 驻转 诇讗

It was taught in the mishna that a person may prepare a cooked dish on a Festival eve and rely on it for Shabbat for the joining of cooked foods. Abaye said: They taught that the joining of cooked foods allows one to cook on a Festival for Shabbat only when it is made from a cooked dish; however, if it is composed of bread alone, no, this is not sufficient.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 驻转 讚诇讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪诇驻转 讘注讬谞谉 讜驻转 诇讗 诪诇驻转讗 讜讛讗 讚讬讬住讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪诇驻转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛谞讬 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 讚讗讻诇讬 谞讛诪讗 讘谞讛诪讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讚讬讬住讗 讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讘注讬谞谉 讜驻转 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讚讬讬住讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara asks: What is different about bread that makes it not fit for this purpose? If we say that we require something that accompanies bread, and bread does not accompany itself, the following difficulty arises: Porridge also does not accompany bread, as Rabbi Zeira said: Those foolish Babylonians eat bread with bread, referring to their custom of eating bread with porridge. This shows that porridge is no better accompaniment to bread than bread itself, and yet Rav Ne岣mi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may establish an eiruv with porridge. Rather, one must say as follows: We require something that is not routine, so that it will be clear that one is setting it aside for the purpose of an eiruv, and bread is routine, whereas porridge is not routine.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讗讘诇 驻转 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讘注讬谞谉 讜驻转 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讛讗 讚讬讬住讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讚讬讬住讗 讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪诇驻转 讘注讬谞谉 讜驻转 诇讗 诪诇驻转讗 讜讚讬讬住讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪诇驻转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛谞讬 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 讚讗讻诇讬 谞讛诪讗 讘谞讛诪讗

Some say a different version of this discussion: Abaye said: They taught that a joining of cooked foods allows one to cook on a Festival for Shabbat only when it is made from a cooked dish; however, if it is composed of bread, no, that is not sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If we say that we require something that is not routine, and bread is routine, the following difficulty arises: Isn鈥檛 porridge not particularly routine? And yet Rav Ne岣mi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may not establish an eiruv with porridge. Rather, one should say as follows: We require something that accompanies bread, and bread does not accompany itself, and porridge, too, does not accompany bread, as Rabbi Zeira said: Those foolish Babylonians eat bread with bread, from which it is clear that like bread, porridge does not accompany bread and consequently cannot constitute an eiruv.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 注讚砖讬诐 砖讘砖讜诇讬 拽讚专讛 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讻讝讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪谞讜谞讬转 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛住讻讬谉 讙讜专专讜 讜住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讻讝讬转

Rabbi 岣yya taught: With regard to lentils that remain at the bottom of a pot on the eve of a Festival, one may rely on them for the joining of cooked foods. Although they were not prepared with this purpose in mind, they are nevertheless considered a cooked dish. And this applies only if there is an olive-bulk of lentils in total. Similarly, Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: With regard to fat of meat and the like that is on a knife, one may scrape it off the knife and rely on it for the joining of cooked foods; and this applies only if there is an olive-bulk of fat in total.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 诪诇讜讞讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诐 爪诇讗谉 讙讜讬 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讗讬 注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讗住讜专

Rav Asi said that Rav said: Small salted fish that a gentile then cooked are not considered the cooked food of gentiles because cooking does not prepare them to be food any more than they already were, as they can be eaten in their salted state. Rav Yosef said: And even if a gentile roasted them, a Jew may rely on them for the joining of cooked foods, as they are not considered the cooked food of a gentile and are indeed already edible. However, if the gentile made them into fish fried with oil and flour [kasa deharsena], it is prohibited to eat them. In this case they are considered the cooked food of a gentile, since his actions have made them into noteworthy food.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗

The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that this is the case; it need not be taught. The Gemara answers: The justification for teaching it is lest you say that

讛专住谞讗 注讬拽专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 拽诪讞讗 注讬拽专

the fish fat, which one is permitted to eat even if cooked by gentiles, is the essential element. Therefore, he teaches us that the flour is the essential element, and the gentile has created a new and significant dish, which is consequently prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讻讝讬转 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讝讬转 讗讞讚 诇讻诇谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讝讬转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讻讝讬转 讘讬谉 诇讗讞讚 讘讬谉 诇诪讗讛

Rabbi Abba said: A joining of cooked foods requires an olive-bulk of food. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it enough to have one olive-bulk for all of the household members who are relying on this eiruv, or perhaps must there be a separate olive-bulk for each and every one in the household? Come and hear that which Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: A joining of cooked foods requires an olive-bulk, whether it is cooked for a single person or for one hundred people.

转谞谉 讗讻诇讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 诇讗 讬讘砖诇 注诇讬讜 讘转讞诇讛 砖讬讬专 诪诪谞讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诇砖讘转 诪讗讬 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 诇讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转

The Gemara comments: We learned in the mishna: If one ate the joining of cooked foods that he prepared, or if it was lost, he may not rely on it and cook with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat; but if he left any part of the eiruv, he may rely on it to cook for Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Any part of it? Doesn鈥檛 it mean that it is valid although there is not an olive-bulk? The Gemara answers: No, the phrase: Any part of it, means that there is at least an olive-bulk left.

转讗 砖诪注 转讘砖讬诇 讝讛 爪诇讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讘讜砖 砖诇讜拽 讜诪讘讜砖诇 讜拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗住驻谞讬谉 砖谞转谉 注诇讬讜 讞诪讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转讞诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 讻诇诇 诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara attempts to bring another proof. Come and hear: The cooked dish that is required for a joining of cooked foods may be roasted, or even pickled, or well-boiled, or boiled in the regular manner, or may even be Spanish soft sea fish [koleyas ha鈥檌spenin] upon which one poured hot water on the eve of the Festival, rendering it cooked. With regard to its beginning and end, meaning its required size ab initio and after it has been reduced by being partially lost or partially eaten, the eiruv has no required measure. What, is it not that it has no required measure at all, not even a minimum one? The Gemara rejects this: No, it means it does not have a maximum measure, but it does have a minimum measure, namely an olive-bulk.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讚注转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚注转 诪谞讬讞 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 诪讬 砖讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜 讘注讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉

Rav Huna said that Rav said: A joining of cooked foods requires knowledge, meaning that one must be aware of the eiruv for it to be effective. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that we require the knowledge of the one who prepares the eiruv; the question is: Do we also require the knowledge of the one for whom the eiruv is prepared, or do we not require it?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪注专讘 讗讻讜诇讛 谞讛专讚注讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 诪注专讘讜 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讟讘专讬讗 诪讻专讬讝 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讬讘讗 讜讬住诪讜讱 注诇 砖诇讬 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 注讚 转讞讜诐 砖讘转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following testimonies: Shmuel鈥檚 father would prepare an eiruv for the entire city of Neharde鈥檃, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would prepare an eiruv for the entire city of Tiberias. Similarly, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi would announce: Anyone who did not prepare a joining of cooked foods for himself should come and rely on mine. The Gemara asks: And up to how much may one rely on it, i.e., how far may one be from such an eiruv and still rely upon it? Rav Ne岣mi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may be as far away as the Shabbat limit.

讛讛讜讗 住诪讬讗 讚讛讜讛 诪住讚专 诪转谞讬转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讗讜转讬讘讬 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住诪讜讱 讗讚讬讚讬 诇砖谞讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讗讜转讬讘讬 注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜砖注 讗转 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖专讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讗住讜专

The Gemara relates: With regard to the blind person who would present mishnayot before Mar Shmuel, the latter observed that he was sad. Mar Shmuel said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not prepare a joining of cooked foods before the Festival. Mar Shmuel said to him: Then rely on mine. In the following year, he once again observed that he was sad. He said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not prepare a joining of cooked foods. Mar Shmuel said to him: If so, you are consistently negligent in this regard. Therefore, for the entire world, i.e., anyone else but you, it is permitted to rely on my eiruv if they forgot to prepare one, but for you it is prohibited to do so, as I did not intend to include such negligent people as yourself in my eiruv.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讗 注专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 注专讜讘讬 讞爪专讜转

The Sages taught: If a Festival occurs on Shabbat eve, one may not prepare an eiruv on that day, neither a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv te岣min] nor a joining of courtyards [eiruv 岣tzerot], for Shabbat. If one did not prepare these before the Festival, he may not do so on the Festival itself.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 注专讜讘讬 讞爪专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 注专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗转讛 讗讜住专讜 讘讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 诇讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜住专讜 讘讚讘专 讛诪讜转专 诇讜

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: On a Festival that occurs on a Friday, one may prepare an eiruv for a joining of courtyards, but not for a joining of Shabbat boundaries. His reasoning is as follows: There is a distinction between the two types of eiruv because you may prohibit him from a matter that is prohibited to him, e.g., venturing beyond the Shabbat limit, which is prohibited on a Festival as well as Shabbat, but you may not prohibit him from a matter that is permitted to him, e.g., carrying from one domain to another, which is permitted on a Festival. Therefore, on a Festival, one may not prepare a joining of Shabbat boundaries in order to render it permitted to venture beyond the boundary on the Shabbat following the Festival. However, one may prepare a joining of courtyards on the Festival in order to render it permitted to carry from one domain to another on the Shabbat following the Festival.

讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed as to the conclusive ruling. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who said that it is prohibited to prepare both types of eiruvin, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and it is permitted to prepare a joining of courtyards on a Festival.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讗讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讙讜诇讛 诇讗 讻砖讗转诐 砖讜谞讬谉 讘讘讘诇 专讘讬 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讜住专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讗讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is stating that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a leniency or a stringency? The Gemara wonders at this query: It is obvious that he stated it as a leniency. The Gemara explains: The question was asked because Rabbi Elazar sent a message from Eretz Yisrael to the Diaspora: This baraita is not as you teach it in Babylonia, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits one to prepare a joining of courtyards on a Festival and the Rabbis prohibit it. Rather, the opinions should be reversed, so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits it and the Rabbis permit it. Therefore, the question arose: What is the conclusive ruling for this halakha? Is it lenient or stringent?

转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇转 讛讜专讗讛 讚讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讗讬 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara attempts to cite a proof: Come and hear that Rav Ta岣ifa bar Avdimi performed an action in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rav said in anger about this: The first public ruling of this young Torah scholar is bringing about corruption of the halakha. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said it as a leniency, this explains the corruption of the halakha involved, as Rav was angered by a young scholar who relied on his own judgment to issue a lenient ruling on a disputed issue. However, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant it as a stringency, what corruption of the halakha is there in the young scholar鈥檚 ruling?

讻讬讜谉 讚诪拽诇拽诇讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐

The Gemara answers: Since it corrupts the behavior of the masses, as, if they refrain from preparing a joining of courtyards on the Festival although it is permitted to do so, they might mistakenly carry from one domain to another on Shabbat,

Scroll To Top