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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 8, 2021 | 讘壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 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 shiurim are dedicated by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month.

A month of shiurim are sponsored 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.

Beitzah 38

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sara and Danny Berelowitz “in honor of our newest granddaughter Avigayil Yova, daughter to Meyer and Chava Sterman.”

The Gemara proves that Rabbi Yochanan does not hold by laws of breira, retroactive designation, even in rabbinic laws, by bringing a case of a condition made regarding an eruv techumim. Therefore, they revert back to saying that Rabbi Hoshaya was the one who holds by breira, but only in rabbinic laws, not Torah laws. Some questions are raised against parts of the Mishna as they seem to be obvious and therefore why would the Mishna need to state them. When Rabbi Abba went to Israel he wanted to make a good impression. However, they asked him a question about the woman who borrowed ingredients for her dough and wanted to know why the water and salt weren鈥檛鈥 nullified into the dough. Rabbi Abba gave an example of one who has 10 kav of wheat and someone else鈥檚 kav of wheat got mixed in and it was not nullified. The rabbis in Israel laughed at him as they held that also regarding the wheat they would be nullified as the rabbis hold that even when something mixes with the type of item (min b鈥檓ino) it is nullified. Rav Safra defended Rabbi Abba鈥檚 position by comparing it to a case of one who takes pebbles out of a batch of wheat. One is required to replace them, even though one would say that the pebbles are nullified as the owner could have sold the wheat with the pebbles as if they were wheat. The same can be said for the dough 鈥 that the water and salt add volume and therefore are not nullified. However, Abaye rejects the comparison. Rav Safra tries to support his claim but Abaye continues to reject it. The Gemara goes back to answering the question of the rabbis in Israel 鈥 why are the water and salt not nullified. Three answers are brought.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 诪讝专讞 讜诪注专讘 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

And we discussed the following difficulty with regard to this teaching of Ayo: What is different about the case where two rabbis are coming to the two locations, one here and the other there, and one places two eiruvin, planning to decide on Shabbat which lecture he will attend? Why did Rabbi Yehuda state that this may not be done? It is because he held that there is no retroactive designation. But if so, in the first case as well, where only one rabbi comes, but the location of his lecture was not known before Shabbat, and one placed eiruvin in the east and the west, we should say that neither is effective because the rabbi鈥檚 location will not be known until Shabbat, and there is no retroactive designation.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讘专 讘讗 讞讻诐 讗诇诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘专讬专讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said in explanation: This first case is referring to a situation in which the rabbi had already arrived before the eiruv was placed, but the one placing the eiruv does not know the rabbi鈥檚 location. Therefore, it had already been determined which of the two eiruvin would be effective, although it was not yet known to him when Shabbat began. Apparently, then, Rabbi Yo岣nan does not accept the principle of retroactive designation even in matters of rabbinic law, as he states that if the rabbi were to arrive after the eiruv was placed, it would not be effective retroactively.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘专讬专讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛

Rather, the Gemara rejects this approach and states: Actually, do not reverse the views of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Hoshaya; it is indeed Rabbi Hoshaya, also known as Rabbi Oshaya, who accepts retroactive designation, and Rabbi Yo岣nan who rejects it. As for Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 statement with regard to the entrances to a house that contains a corpse, the following answer may be offered: And when does Rabbi Oshaya not hold of the principle of retroactive designation? With regard to matters of Torah law, such as the ritual impurity of the dead. But with regard to matters of rabbinic law, such as Shabbat limits and the placement of eiruvin, he does accept this principle.

讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗

Mar Zutra taught in a public lesson: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya with regard to retroactive designation.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜专 砖诇 驻讟诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讜专 砖诇 专讜注讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讙诇讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专

Shmuel said: An ox of a fattener, one whose occupation is to fatten oxen in order to sell them for their meat, is as the feet of all people. It is as the feet of the one who acquires the animal on the Festival, even if the buyer is from another city, as the fattener鈥檚 intention when the Festival begins is that the ox belong to whoever buys it. But an ox of a shepherd, who raises oxen for himself but occasionally sells them to his neighbors or acquaintances, is as the feet of the people of that city, as his intention when the Festival begins is that he might sell the animal to someone in town, but not to someone from out of town.

讛砖讜讗诇 讻诇讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖诇讗 诪住专讜 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗讜 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讗讜拽诪讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 The mishna states: In the case of one who borrows a vessel from another on the eve of a Festival, it is as the feet of the borrower. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as the place of rest of the vessel has already been established in the possession of the borrower. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where one did not deliver the vessel to him until the Festival itself. Lest you say: Since the lender did not establish it in the borrower鈥檚 possession before the Festival began, it should remain as the feet of the lender, the mishna therefore teaches us that it is not so, but it is as the feet of the borrower.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛砖讜讗诇 讻诇讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讙诇讬 讛砖讜讗诇

The Gemara comments: Interpreted in this manner, the mishna supports a statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who borrows a vessel from another on the eve of a Festival, even if he did not give it to him until the Festival itself, it is as the feet of the borrower.

讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪砖讗讬诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚专讙讬诇 讜砖讗讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讻讞 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讜砖讗讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If one borrowed on the Festival itself, it is as the feet of the lender. The Gemara again wonders: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where this borrower is accustomed to borrowing such items from this lender. Lest you say that since it is a regular occurrence for this loan to take place, the lender establishes it in his possession ahead of time, and it should therefore be considered as though the object鈥檚 place of rest is established as the feet of the borrower, the mishna therefore teaches us that it is not so, as the lender certainly says to himself: Perhaps he will find someone else this time, and he will go and borrow from him. Consequently, the lender does not transfer possession of the object to the borrower until the latter takes it, and it may be carried only where the lender may go.

讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 砖砖讗诇讛 诪讞讘专转讛 讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚讗讬诪讗 诪诇转讗 讚转转拽讘诇 讻讬 住诇讬拽 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讗诪讗讬 讜诇讘讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 诇讙讘讬 注讬住讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讘讗

搂 It is taught in the mishna: And similarly, a woman who borrowed spices from another to put in a dish, or water and salt to put in her dough, these are as the feet of both of them. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Abba ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he said: May it be God鈥檚 will that I say a statement of halakha that will be accepted by my listeners in Eretz Yisrael, so that I will not be put to shame. When he ascended, he found Rabbi Yo岣nan, Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Zeira, and some say he found Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, and they were sitting and saying in a discussion of the mishna: Why is this the halakha with regard to dough? But let the water and salt be considered nullified in the dough, and the status of the dough should follow its flour rather than its minor ingredients, such as water and salt. Rabbi Abba said to them:

讛专讬 砖谞转注专讘 诇讜 拽讘 讞讟讬谉 讘注砖专讛 拽讘讬谉 讞讟讬谉 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讬讗讻诇 讛诇讛 讜讞讚讬 讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讜诇转讬讻讜 砖拽诇讬 讛讚讜专 讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛

If one鈥檚 single kav of wheat became mingled with ten kav of another鈥檚 wheat, shall the latter eat all eleven kav and rejoice? One does not allow his property to become nullified into someone else鈥檚 property. The same applies to water and salt in dough. The Sages laughed at him. He said to them: Did I take your cloaks from you that you are putting me to shame? They again laughed at him.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖驻讬专 注讘讜讚 讚讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讟讬谉 讘砖注讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘讟讬诇 讞讟讬谉 讘讞讟讬谉 谞诪讬 谞讛讬 讚诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诇专讘谞谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讟讬诇

Rabbi Oshaya said: They did well to laugh at him. They were correct that the two cases are dissimilar, as they reasoned as follows: What is different about a case of wheat belonging to one person that became mingled with barley of another, that Rabbi Abba did not say this case to them as an example? He specifically chose an example of wheat mingling with other wheat and not that case of barley because that is one type mingled with something that is not its same type. The principle is: A type of food mixed with a large amount of food not of its own type becomes nullified, and this principle applies even when the two foods belong to two different people. If so, the same may be said when wheat of one individual is mixed with wheat of another as well. Although, according to Rabbi Yehuda, an item mingled with another item of the same type is not nullified, according to the Rabbis it is certainly nullified.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诪砖讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 讜诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽讟讜住驻讗讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讘讜专专 爪专讜专讜转 诪讙专谞讜 砖诇 讞讘专讜 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 诇讜 讚诪讬 讞讟讬诐

Rav Safra said to Rabbi Oshaya: Moses! This is a term of reverence for the leader of the generation. Have you in fact spoken well in defending those who scoffed at Rabbi Abba? But, did those Sages who scoffed not hear of this teaching that Rabbi 岣yya of Ketosfa鈥檃 in the name of Rav: One who removes pebbles from another鈥檚 wheat granary is obligated to reimburse him for the loss he has caused and pay him the value of wheat according to the weight of those stones. The latter could have sold those pebbles along with his wheat, as there is always some refuse mixed in with the wheat that is weighed and sold along with it. Therefore, the removal of the pebbles has caused the owner of the granary a monetary loss.

讗诇诪讗 讻讬诇讗 讞住专讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬诇讗 讞住专讬讛

Apparently, he must compensate him because he has reduced his measure of wheat. Despite the fact that the pebbles themselves are worthless, we do not say that the pebbles were nullified in the wheat and that consequently there is no loss involved in their removal. Here, too, in the case of one who borrows water and salt, which are not worthless, all the more so may we say that one has reduced his measure, and he must compensate the lender; it cannot be said that they are nullified in the dough and that they are no longer taken into account regarding the Shabbat limit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讘讬谉 诪诪讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 转讜讘注讬谉 诇诪诪讜谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜讘注讬谉

Abaye objected to the comparison to the case with the pebbles in the wheat, and said to Rav Safra: And does the master not differentiate between money that has claimants, such as in the case of the pebbles removed from the granary in which the owner seeks compensation and therefore there is no nullification, and money that does not have claimants, as in the case of water and salt, where the owner lent them to the borrower and does not demand them back for now? In the latter case it is possible for these ingredients to be considered nullified.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讘诇讛 讘讟诇讛 讘砖讞讜讟讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖讞讜讟讛 砖转注砖讛 谞讘诇讛

Rav Safra said to him: And according to your reasoning, that one must distinguish between money that has claimants and money that does not, how would you account for this teaching: Rav 岣sda said: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that an item can be nullified only when mixed with an item of a different type but not of the same type, flesh of an unslaughtered animal carcass can be nullified in a larger quantity of meat of a slaughtered animal. Although carcass meat generally imparts impurity, if someone touches the mixture of the two meats he does not become ritually impure, as the carcass meat is considered a different type from the slaughtered animal, and is therefore nullified. This is because meat from a slaughtered animal cannot attain the status of carcass, and it is therefore viewed as a different type.

砖讞讜讟讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讟诇讛 讘谞讘诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗驻砖专 诇谞讘诇讛 砖转注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛

The Gemara continues to cite Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement: However, if meat of a slaughtered animal became mingled with a larger quantity of pieces of animal carcass, the meat of the slaughtered animal is not nullified by the carcass, as it is possible for a carcass to attain the status of a slaughtered animal. This means that it can lose its ability to transmit ritual impurity, as if a carcass becomes spoiled to the extent that it is no longer edible, it loses its impure status. The fact that the carcass meat has the potential ability to attain the status of slaughtered meat renders the two meats as the same type, and according to Rabbi Yehuda the smaller amount of slaughtered meat would not be nullified in the larger amount of carcass meat. The entirety of the mixture would not be considered carcass meat, but would retain its status of intermingled carcass and slaughtered meat.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讘注诇讬诐 讚讜诪讬谉 讻诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讘注诇讬诐

Here, too, will you say that if the carcass has owners other than the owner of the slaughtered meat, it is not nullified in the slaughtered meat? And if you say: Yes, it is indeed so, but isn鈥檛 it taught: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: Ownerless objects acquire residence for Shabbat in their location, and anyone who finds them on Shabbat may move them two thousand cubits in all directions but not beyond that, as although they have no owner, it is as though they have an owner? This shows that even property that has no claimants, like the salt and water in this mishna, has its own independent Shabbat limits, which do not become nullified when mixed with items that have a different Shabbat limit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 讗讬住讜专讗 诇诪诪讜谞讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讘讟讬诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

Abaye said to Rav Safra: Are you comparing a halakha involving prohibitions, i.e., ritual law, to monetary law? An object subject to a prohibition, such as a prohibited food, can be nullified, whereas one鈥檚 money cannot be nullified.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬

Therefore, the initial question remains: Why isn鈥檛 the small amount of salt and water in the dough, which is subject to the ritual restriction of Shabbat limits, nullified in the rest of the dough, in the manner of nullification of all other ritual prohibitions? And what is the reason that the water and salt are not nullified in the dough?

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讬住讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转

Abaye said: It is a decree that the Sages made, lest a woman make dough in partnership with her neighbors. Indeed, in the case of the mishna, the small amount she received from her neighbor should be nullified in the dough. However, on another occasion, several friends or neighbors might decide to pool ingredients and prepare bread in partnership, in which case the bread is certainly bound by the Shabbat limits of all the parties combined. In order to prevent confusion between making dough in partnership and making it with borrowed ingredients, the Sages made a decree that the dough in both cases be subject to the same limitations.

专讘讗 讗诪专 转讘诇讬谉 诇讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚讬 讜讟注诪讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

Rava said a different reason: Spices are made in order to add taste to food, and taste is not nullified, even if the amount of actual substance is minute. Nullification indicates that a small amount of food may be considered insignificant and therefore null and void, but if an ingredient is added with the specific intent that its taste be noticed, there can be no nullification.

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 shiurim are dedicated by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month.

  • 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: 36-40+Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we finish Masechet Beitzah, we learn various Rabbinic prohibitions that apply to the Festivals. We will also learn how...

Beitzah 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 38

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 诪讝专讞 讜诪注专讘 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

And we discussed the following difficulty with regard to this teaching of Ayo: What is different about the case where two rabbis are coming to the two locations, one here and the other there, and one places two eiruvin, planning to decide on Shabbat which lecture he will attend? Why did Rabbi Yehuda state that this may not be done? It is because he held that there is no retroactive designation. But if so, in the first case as well, where only one rabbi comes, but the location of his lecture was not known before Shabbat, and one placed eiruvin in the east and the west, we should say that neither is effective because the rabbi鈥檚 location will not be known until Shabbat, and there is no retroactive designation.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讘专 讘讗 讞讻诐 讗诇诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘专讬专讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said in explanation: This first case is referring to a situation in which the rabbi had already arrived before the eiruv was placed, but the one placing the eiruv does not know the rabbi鈥檚 location. Therefore, it had already been determined which of the two eiruvin would be effective, although it was not yet known to him when Shabbat began. Apparently, then, Rabbi Yo岣nan does not accept the principle of retroactive designation even in matters of rabbinic law, as he states that if the rabbi were to arrive after the eiruv was placed, it would not be effective retroactively.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘专讬专讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛

Rather, the Gemara rejects this approach and states: Actually, do not reverse the views of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Hoshaya; it is indeed Rabbi Hoshaya, also known as Rabbi Oshaya, who accepts retroactive designation, and Rabbi Yo岣nan who rejects it. As for Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 statement with regard to the entrances to a house that contains a corpse, the following answer may be offered: And when does Rabbi Oshaya not hold of the principle of retroactive designation? With regard to matters of Torah law, such as the ritual impurity of the dead. But with regard to matters of rabbinic law, such as Shabbat limits and the placement of eiruvin, he does accept this principle.

讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗

Mar Zutra taught in a public lesson: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya with regard to retroactive designation.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜专 砖诇 驻讟诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讜专 砖诇 专讜注讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讙诇讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专

Shmuel said: An ox of a fattener, one whose occupation is to fatten oxen in order to sell them for their meat, is as the feet of all people. It is as the feet of the one who acquires the animal on the Festival, even if the buyer is from another city, as the fattener鈥檚 intention when the Festival begins is that the ox belong to whoever buys it. But an ox of a shepherd, who raises oxen for himself but occasionally sells them to his neighbors or acquaintances, is as the feet of the people of that city, as his intention when the Festival begins is that he might sell the animal to someone in town, but not to someone from out of town.

讛砖讜讗诇 讻诇讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖诇讗 诪住专讜 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗讜 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讗讜拽诪讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 The mishna states: In the case of one who borrows a vessel from another on the eve of a Festival, it is as the feet of the borrower. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as the place of rest of the vessel has already been established in the possession of the borrower. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where one did not deliver the vessel to him until the Festival itself. Lest you say: Since the lender did not establish it in the borrower鈥檚 possession before the Festival began, it should remain as the feet of the lender, the mishna therefore teaches us that it is not so, but it is as the feet of the borrower.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛砖讜讗诇 讻诇讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讙诇讬 讛砖讜讗诇

The Gemara comments: Interpreted in this manner, the mishna supports a statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who borrows a vessel from another on the eve of a Festival, even if he did not give it to him until the Festival itself, it is as the feet of the borrower.

讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪砖讗讬诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚专讙讬诇 讜砖讗讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讻讞 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讜砖讗讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If one borrowed on the Festival itself, it is as the feet of the lender. The Gemara again wonders: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where this borrower is accustomed to borrowing such items from this lender. Lest you say that since it is a regular occurrence for this loan to take place, the lender establishes it in his possession ahead of time, and it should therefore be considered as though the object鈥檚 place of rest is established as the feet of the borrower, the mishna therefore teaches us that it is not so, as the lender certainly says to himself: Perhaps he will find someone else this time, and he will go and borrow from him. Consequently, the lender does not transfer possession of the object to the borrower until the latter takes it, and it may be carried only where the lender may go.

讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 砖砖讗诇讛 诪讞讘专转讛 讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚讗讬诪讗 诪诇转讗 讚转转拽讘诇 讻讬 住诇讬拽 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讗诪讗讬 讜诇讘讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 诇讙讘讬 注讬住讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讘讗

搂 It is taught in the mishna: And similarly, a woman who borrowed spices from another to put in a dish, or water and salt to put in her dough, these are as the feet of both of them. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Abba ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he said: May it be God鈥檚 will that I say a statement of halakha that will be accepted by my listeners in Eretz Yisrael, so that I will not be put to shame. When he ascended, he found Rabbi Yo岣nan, Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Zeira, and some say he found Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, and they were sitting and saying in a discussion of the mishna: Why is this the halakha with regard to dough? But let the water and salt be considered nullified in the dough, and the status of the dough should follow its flour rather than its minor ingredients, such as water and salt. Rabbi Abba said to them:

讛专讬 砖谞转注专讘 诇讜 拽讘 讞讟讬谉 讘注砖专讛 拽讘讬谉 讞讟讬谉 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讬讗讻诇 讛诇讛 讜讞讚讬 讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讜诇转讬讻讜 砖拽诇讬 讛讚讜专 讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛

If one鈥檚 single kav of wheat became mingled with ten kav of another鈥檚 wheat, shall the latter eat all eleven kav and rejoice? One does not allow his property to become nullified into someone else鈥檚 property. The same applies to water and salt in dough. The Sages laughed at him. He said to them: Did I take your cloaks from you that you are putting me to shame? They again laughed at him.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖驻讬专 注讘讜讚 讚讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讟讬谉 讘砖注讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘讟讬诇 讞讟讬谉 讘讞讟讬谉 谞诪讬 谞讛讬 讚诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诇专讘谞谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讟讬诇

Rabbi Oshaya said: They did well to laugh at him. They were correct that the two cases are dissimilar, as they reasoned as follows: What is different about a case of wheat belonging to one person that became mingled with barley of another, that Rabbi Abba did not say this case to them as an example? He specifically chose an example of wheat mingling with other wheat and not that case of barley because that is one type mingled with something that is not its same type. The principle is: A type of food mixed with a large amount of food not of its own type becomes nullified, and this principle applies even when the two foods belong to two different people. If so, the same may be said when wheat of one individual is mixed with wheat of another as well. Although, according to Rabbi Yehuda, an item mingled with another item of the same type is not nullified, according to the Rabbis it is certainly nullified.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诪砖讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 讜诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽讟讜住驻讗讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讘讜专专 爪专讜专讜转 诪讙专谞讜 砖诇 讞讘专讜 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 诇讜 讚诪讬 讞讟讬诐

Rav Safra said to Rabbi Oshaya: Moses! This is a term of reverence for the leader of the generation. Have you in fact spoken well in defending those who scoffed at Rabbi Abba? But, did those Sages who scoffed not hear of this teaching that Rabbi 岣yya of Ketosfa鈥檃 in the name of Rav: One who removes pebbles from another鈥檚 wheat granary is obligated to reimburse him for the loss he has caused and pay him the value of wheat according to the weight of those stones. The latter could have sold those pebbles along with his wheat, as there is always some refuse mixed in with the wheat that is weighed and sold along with it. Therefore, the removal of the pebbles has caused the owner of the granary a monetary loss.

讗诇诪讗 讻讬诇讗 讞住专讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬诇讗 讞住专讬讛

Apparently, he must compensate him because he has reduced his measure of wheat. Despite the fact that the pebbles themselves are worthless, we do not say that the pebbles were nullified in the wheat and that consequently there is no loss involved in their removal. Here, too, in the case of one who borrows water and salt, which are not worthless, all the more so may we say that one has reduced his measure, and he must compensate the lender; it cannot be said that they are nullified in the dough and that they are no longer taken into account regarding the Shabbat limit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讘讬谉 诪诪讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 转讜讘注讬谉 诇诪诪讜谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜讘注讬谉

Abaye objected to the comparison to the case with the pebbles in the wheat, and said to Rav Safra: And does the master not differentiate between money that has claimants, such as in the case of the pebbles removed from the granary in which the owner seeks compensation and therefore there is no nullification, and money that does not have claimants, as in the case of water and salt, where the owner lent them to the borrower and does not demand them back for now? In the latter case it is possible for these ingredients to be considered nullified.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讘诇讛 讘讟诇讛 讘砖讞讜讟讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖讞讜讟讛 砖转注砖讛 谞讘诇讛

Rav Safra said to him: And according to your reasoning, that one must distinguish between money that has claimants and money that does not, how would you account for this teaching: Rav 岣sda said: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that an item can be nullified only when mixed with an item of a different type but not of the same type, flesh of an unslaughtered animal carcass can be nullified in a larger quantity of meat of a slaughtered animal. Although carcass meat generally imparts impurity, if someone touches the mixture of the two meats he does not become ritually impure, as the carcass meat is considered a different type from the slaughtered animal, and is therefore nullified. This is because meat from a slaughtered animal cannot attain the status of carcass, and it is therefore viewed as a different type.

砖讞讜讟讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讟诇讛 讘谞讘诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗驻砖专 诇谞讘诇讛 砖转注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛

The Gemara continues to cite Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement: However, if meat of a slaughtered animal became mingled with a larger quantity of pieces of animal carcass, the meat of the slaughtered animal is not nullified by the carcass, as it is possible for a carcass to attain the status of a slaughtered animal. This means that it can lose its ability to transmit ritual impurity, as if a carcass becomes spoiled to the extent that it is no longer edible, it loses its impure status. The fact that the carcass meat has the potential ability to attain the status of slaughtered meat renders the two meats as the same type, and according to Rabbi Yehuda the smaller amount of slaughtered meat would not be nullified in the larger amount of carcass meat. The entirety of the mixture would not be considered carcass meat, but would retain its status of intermingled carcass and slaughtered meat.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讘注诇讬诐 讚讜诪讬谉 讻诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讘注诇讬诐

Here, too, will you say that if the carcass has owners other than the owner of the slaughtered meat, it is not nullified in the slaughtered meat? And if you say: Yes, it is indeed so, but isn鈥檛 it taught: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: Ownerless objects acquire residence for Shabbat in their location, and anyone who finds them on Shabbat may move them two thousand cubits in all directions but not beyond that, as although they have no owner, it is as though they have an owner? This shows that even property that has no claimants, like the salt and water in this mishna, has its own independent Shabbat limits, which do not become nullified when mixed with items that have a different Shabbat limit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 讗讬住讜专讗 诇诪诪讜谞讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讘讟讬诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

Abaye said to Rav Safra: Are you comparing a halakha involving prohibitions, i.e., ritual law, to monetary law? An object subject to a prohibition, such as a prohibited food, can be nullified, whereas one鈥檚 money cannot be nullified.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬

Therefore, the initial question remains: Why isn鈥檛 the small amount of salt and water in the dough, which is subject to the ritual restriction of Shabbat limits, nullified in the rest of the dough, in the manner of nullification of all other ritual prohibitions? And what is the reason that the water and salt are not nullified in the dough?

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讬住讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转

Abaye said: It is a decree that the Sages made, lest a woman make dough in partnership with her neighbors. Indeed, in the case of the mishna, the small amount she received from her neighbor should be nullified in the dough. However, on another occasion, several friends or neighbors might decide to pool ingredients and prepare bread in partnership, in which case the bread is certainly bound by the Shabbat limits of all the parties combined. In order to prevent confusion between making dough in partnership and making it with borrowed ingredients, the Sages made a decree that the dough in both cases be subject to the same limitations.

专讘讗 讗诪专 转讘诇讬谉 诇讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚讬 讜讟注诪讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

Rava said a different reason: Spices are made in order to add taste to food, and taste is not nullified, even if the amount of actual substance is minute. Nullification indicates that a small amount of food may be considered insignificant and therefore null and void, but if an ingredient is added with the specific intent that its taste be noticed, there can be no nullification.

Scroll To Top