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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 9, 2021 | 讙壮 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 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 39 – Shabbat October 9

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Rav Ovadia Yosef, Ovadia Yosef ben Yaakov

According to Rabbi Yehuda, if one borrows water for one鈥檚 dough, one does not need to limit carrying one鈥檚 dough within the techum of the owner of the water. However, salt would limit it. How does this work with other tannaitic sources 鈥 one says that salt is nullified and therefore wouldn鈥檛 limit and another says that water is not nullified, and both are said in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 name. The Gemara resolves these contradictions by explaining that the salt in each source is referring to different kinds of salts and the cooked dish with water is referring to different types of sauces (more/less liquidy). There are five laws that differentiate between coals and a flame because a coal is something with substance and a flame is not. The laws relate to carrying them within techum, ones that are sanctified or used for idol worship, carrying to the public domain on Shabbat, and one who vowed not to benefit from someone. The law of carrying to the public domain contradicts a source that says one is liable for carrying out a flame. The response is that one is liable if the flame is attached to a wood chip or vessel. If one takes water from a cistern, how far can the water be taken? The law is different for different types of cisterns 鈥 private, public for the city, ones built on the road from Babylonia to Israel for those traveling that route to get to Israel. The Gemara concludes it must be dealing with water that is collected, not moving, as water that is moving, as in a stream, has no limitations. If one drew water from cisterns on the way to Israel from Babylonia for someone else, Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree about whether it would be limited by the person who drew the water or the person for whom it was drawn. The Gemara first suggests that the debate is based on whether one holds that this type of cistern was hefker, ownerless, or owned collectively. However, this is rejected by other tannaitic sources from which it seems clear that these cisterns were not viewed as being owned collectively. Therefore, the debate is understood differently 鈥 if one picks up a lost item for another, since one cannot acquire it for the other person, does one acquire it for oneself or not. If one鈥檚 fruits were in a different city, under what circumstances would one be able to get them into his city?

讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

And Rav Ashi said a different explanation as to why the spices, water, and salt are not subject to nullification: It is because any one of these ingredients is an object whose prohibition is temporary, as the prohibition against their being taken out of the Shabbat limits lapses once the Festival has passed, and the general principle is that anything whose prohibition is temporary cannot become nullified, even by one part in one thousand.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 讘诪讬诐 诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪诇讞 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讘讟诇讬谉 讘讬谉 讘注讬住讛 讘讬谉 讘拽讚专讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪诇讞 住讚讜诪讬转 讛讗 讘诪诇讞 讗住转专讜拽谞讬转

搂 It is taught in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda exempts one from travel limitations in the case of water. The Gemara asks: Does this mean to imply that water, yes, it is exempted by Rabbi Yehuda, but salt, no, it is not? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Water and salt are both nullified, whether in a dough or in a pot of cooked food. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this case of the mishna, the reference is to salt of Sodom, which is quite coarse and does not blend in easily with the dough, and, being noticeable in the final product, is not nullified. In that case of the baraita, the reference is to a type of fine salt known as isterokanit salt. Consequently, it is not noticeable in the final product and can be nullified.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讘讟诇讬谉 讘注讬住讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讟诇讬谉 讘拽讚专讛 诪驻谞讬 专讜讟讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘注讘讛 讛讗 讘专讻讛

The mishna states that according to Rabbi Yehuda water mixed into dough, and presumably into a cooked dish as well, is considered nullified. The Gemara challenges this: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Water and salt are nullified in dough but not in a pot, due to its sauce. The pot, unlike bread, ends up with liquid in it, so the borrowed water is still recognizable. The Gemara replies: This is not difficult. This case of the mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda says that the water is nullified in the cooked food, is referring to a thick dish that has no liquid sauce. That case of the baraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda said the water is not nullified, is referring to a thin dish with liquid sauce.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讞诇转 讻专讙诇讬 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜砖诇讛讘转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讙讞诇转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讜砖诇讛讘转 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讙讞诇转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: A coal that one borrowed from another on the Festival is as the feet of the owner, and it may be carried on the Festival to any place where its owner may walk. Since it has substance, it is associated with its owner. But a flame that one lit from another鈥檚 flame may be taken anywhere, as it has no substance. This essential difference between a coal and a flame has additional halakhic ramifications: If one uses a coal of consecrated property for a non-consecrated purpose, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property, since it has substance. But if one uses a consecrated flame, although according to rabbinic law one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, if one did benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse, since it does not have substance. Similarly, one who takes out a coal from a private domain to the public domain on Shabbat is liable for the prohibited labor of carrying, but one who takes out a flame is exempt.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讙讞诇转 讛讙讞诇转 讻专讙诇讬 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜砖诇讛讘转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讙讞诇转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讜砖诇讛讘转 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讙讞诇转 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讛 讜砖诇讛讘转 诪讜转专转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讙讞诇转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讗住讜专 讘讙讞诇转讜 讜诪讜转专 讘砖诇讛讘转讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a Tosefta (Beitza 4:7): Five things were stated with regard to a coal, in relation to the practical halakhic differences between a coal and a flame: (1) Coal is as the feet of the owner with regard to its Festival resting place, whereas a flame may be carried anywhere. (2) One is liable for misusing property consecrated to the Temple with a consecrated coal, whereas with regard to a flame, according to rabbinic law one may not benefit from it, but he is not liable for misusing property consecrated to the Temple. (3) Coal used for idol worship is prohibited for one to benefit from it, whereas from a flame of this sort it is permitted to benefit. (4) One who carries out a coal to the public domain is liable, whereas one who carries out a flame is exempt. (5) One who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another is prohibited from using his coal, but he is permitted to derive benefit from his flame.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇讛讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚砖专讬讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讛拽讚砖 讚讗住讬专讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诪讗讬住讛 讜讘讚讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讛拽讚砖 讚诇讗 诪讗讬住 讜诇讗 讘讚讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

With regard to the halakhot cited in the baraita above, the Gemara asks: What is different in in the case of a flame of idol worship, that one is permitted to use it even ab initio, as the baraita uses the term permitted in that case; and what is different in the case of a consecrated flame, in that it is prohibited to be used ab initio, as the baraita states: One may not benefit from it, but he is not liable for misuse? The Gemara explains: In the case of idol worship, which is repulsive to Jews and from which Jewish people inherently maintain separation, the Sages did not decree additional restrictions with regard to it. However, concerning consecrated property, which is not repulsive and from which people do not inherently maintain separation, in order to prevent its misuse, the Sages did decree with regard to it that it is prohibited to use the flame.

讛诪讜爪讬讗 讙讞诇转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诇讛讘转 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘拽讬住诐

搂 It is taught in the baraita that one who carries out a coal to the public domain is liable, whereas one who carries out a flame is exempt. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: One who carries out a flame of any size on Shabbat is liable? Rav Sheshet said: The second baraita is referring to a case where one carried out the flame along with a wooden chip. Since the flame is attached to a physical object, it is considered significant.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 拽讬住诐 讘讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖注讜专讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 注爪讬诐 讻讚讬 诇讘砖诇 讘讬爪讛 拽诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection: But if so, let it derive that one is liable for carrying out in this case due to the wooden chip, and the presence of the flame is irrelevant. The Gemara responds: That baraita speaks of a chip that does not have the minimum measure that determines liability for carrying out, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 89b): In the case of one who carries out wood on Shabbat, the measure that determines liability is enough wood to cook an egg of the kind that is the easiest to cook, which is the egg of a chicken. Because the chip is too small to cook an egg, one is not liable for carrying it out, but one is liable for carrying out the flame attached to it.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讬讬驻讬讛 诪谞讗 诪砖讞讗 讜讗转诇讬 讘讬讛 谞讜专讗 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诪谞讗 讘讞住驻讗

Abaye said a different scenario: The mishna is referring to a case where one smeared a vessel with oil, and lit a fire on it, and carried out that flame. The Gemara asks: If so, let it derive that one is liable for carrying out in this case due to the vessel itself, and the flame is irrelevant. The Gemara replies: The mishna is referring to a fire lit in an earthenware shard, not in a whole vessel.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞住驻讗 讘讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖注讜专讗 讚转谞谉 讞专住 讻讚讬 诇讬转谉 讘讬谉 驻爪讬诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara challenges: And nevertheless, let it derive that one is liable for carrying due to the earthenware shard itself. The Gemara answers: It deals with a shard that is not of the minimum measure that determines liability for carrying out, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 82a): The measure that determines liability for carrying out earthenware is enough to place between one window frame and another, as small shards of earthenware were sometimes placed between window frames during construction. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讚讬讬讛 讗讚讜讬讬 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: But if so, if one is liable for carrying it out whenever the flame is attached to an object of substance, that which we learned in the mishna here: One who carries out a flame is exempt, under what circumstances can this case be found? The Gemara answers: The mishna is speaking of a case where one fanned the fire with his hand so that it spread into the public domain without its being attached to any vessel.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讜专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻专讙诇讬 讛讬讞讬讚 讜砖诇 讗谞砖讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讻专讙诇讬 讗谞砖讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讜砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪诪诇讗

MISHNA: With regard to a cistern of an individual, water drawn from it is as the feet of the individual who owns the cistern, and the water may be carried only to those places where its owner is permitted to walk. And water drawn from a cistern belonging jointly to all the people dwelling in a particular town is as the feet of the people of that town. And water drawn from a cistern of those who come up to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, i.e., a public cistern, is as the feet of whoever fills his vessel with its water; the water has no defined boundary of its own since it is made available to all.

讙诪壮 专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞谉 讘讜专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻专讙诇讬 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 讜诪注讬谞讜转 讛谞讜讘注讬谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 (专讘讗) 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讻讜谞住讬谉 讜讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讻讜谞住讬谉

GEMARA: Rava raised a contradiction to Rav Na岣an: We learned in the mishna that the water of a cistern of an individual is as the feet of the individual; and Rava raised a contradiction from the Tosefta (Beitza 4:8): Water drawn from flowing rivers and flowing springs are as the feet of all people. Rava said: With what are we dealing here in the mishna? With cisterns that contain collected water, not flowing water. And it was also said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: The mishna applies only to collected water.

讜砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪诪诇讗 讗转诪专 诪讬诇讗 讜谞转谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖谞转诪诇讗讜 诇讜 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪诪诇讗

搂 The mishna states: And water drawn from a cistern of those who come up to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, i.e., a public cistern, is as the feet of whoever fills his vessel with its water. It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to this issue: In the case of one who filled a vessel with water from a public cistern on behalf of another and gave the water to him, Rav Na岣an said: The water is as the feet of the one for whom they were filled; Rav Sheshet said: It is as the feet of the one who filled it.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讬专讗 讚讛驻拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讬专讗 讚砖讜转驻讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Rav Sheshet, holds that a public cistern is ownerless, and the halakha is that one cannot take possession of ownerless property on behalf of someone else. Therefore, the water belongs to the one who drew it; it is as his feet, and this status does not change even if he subsequently gave it to anyone else. And one Sage, Rav Na岣an, holds that a public cistern is considered jointly owned by all its partners, namely, all of the Jewish people. Therefore, it is possible for one partner to draw water on behalf of another partner, and the drawn water immediately belongs to the person for whom it was drawn.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讞专诐 讛诪讜讚专 讗住讜专

Rava raised a challenge to Rav Na岣an from a mishna (Nedarim 47b): One who says to another: I am hereby prohibited to you by force of 岣rem, a kind of vow of prohibition, as objects declared as 岣rem are generally consecrated to the Temple, the one prohibited by the vow, the addressee, is prohibited to derive benefit from the person who made the vow or from his property, as the point of the vow was to prohibit the addressee from deriving any benefit from the one who made the vow.

讛专讬 讗转讛 注诇讬 讞专诐 讛谞讜讚专 讗住讜专 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讜讗转讛 注诇讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专

If he said to him: You are hereby prohibited to me by force of 岣rem, the one making the vow is himself prohibited to derive benefit from the addressee or from his property. If he said to him: I am hereby prohibited to you and you to me by force of 岣rem, they are both prohibited to benefit from one another. And they are permitted to benefit from anything belonging to those who come up from Babylonia, i.e., public property that is not owned by any person or group, but they are prohibited to benefit from property that is jointly owned by the inhabitants of that city, as both parties have a share in such items.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讛专 讛讘讬转 讛诇砖讻讜转 讜讛注讝专讜转 讜讘讜专 砖诇 讗诪爪注 讛讚专讱 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讛专讞讜讘 讜讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓

That mishna provides examples: And the following are items of those coming up from Babylonia, i.e., publicly owned items: The Temple Mount, the chambers, and the courtyards on the Temple Mount, and a cistern situated in the middle of the road. And these are items jointly owned by the inhabitants of that city: The street, and the synagogue, and the bathhouse.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬专讗 讚砖讜转驻讬 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专 讜讛转谞谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖谞讚专讜 讛谞讗讛 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗住讜专讬诐 诇讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 诇专讞讜抓 讘讘讜专

Rava, having cited the mishna in full, concludes his challenge to the opinion of Rav Na岣an: And if you say that a cistern of those who come up from Babylonia, a public cistern, is owned jointly by partners, i.e., by all Jews, why should it be permitted for the one who made the vow and the addressee to use it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 45b): Two partners who took a vow not to derive benefit from one another are prohibited to enter a joint courtyard in which they both have a share to wash themselves in a cistern. According to you, the same should apply to a cistern in which the two of them have a share, such as the cisterns of those who come up from Babylonia.

诇专讞讜抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 诪专 诪讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪诪诇讗 讜诪专 诪讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪诪诇讗

Rav Na岣an answered: Indeed that is the case. So too, they are prohibited to wash themselves in a cistern because when bathing one uses of all the water of the cistern, part of which belongs to the forbidden partner. But when the baraita says that a cistern of those who come up from Babylonia is permitted to both parties, with what are we dealing here? The baraita is referring only to filling water from the cistern. This is permitted because it is considered that this one fills from his portion, and that one fills from his portion. The water that each of them draws is considered retroactively designated exclusively for him, so that the partner has no share in it at all.

讜住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讻砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rav Na岣an hold that there is retroactive designation? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 1:7): If brothers divided up inherited property among themselves and subsequently joined their property again and became partners, they are obligated to add a kalbon, a small coin, to the obligatory half-shekel yearly Temple donation. The kalbon covered both the cost to the Temple of exchanging half-shekels into larger coins and the depreciation of the donated coin. Although a whole shekel given by two partners does not need to be changed into a larger coin, the Sages imposed the same kalbon fee on the partners as on everyone else. However, these partners are exempt from the animal tithe, in accordance with the standard halakha that people who own animals in partnership are exempt from the animal tithe.

讜讻砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽诇讘讜谉

The quote from the mishna continues: And in a situation in which the brothers are liable for the animal tithe, as when they have not yet divided up their inheritance, and all the deceased鈥檚 estate is therefore still considered a single unit and not a partnership, they are exempt from the kalbon, in accordance with the halakha that a father who contributes a single shekel for his two dependent sons does not need to add the kalbon.

讜讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讟诇讗讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬诐

And Rav Anan said: The Sages taught that the inherited property is no longer considered a single unit after the brothers divided it and then rejoined in a partnership only when they divided kids against lambs or lambs against kids, i.e., if one brother took kids and the other took a corresponding value of lambs. This kind of division is considered a commercial transaction, with one brother purchasing goats and paying for them with lambs and vice versa. Therefore, when they join their animals again as partners, it is considered an entirely new partnership.

讗讘诇 讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讟诇讗讬诐 讗讜诪专 讝讛讜 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

However, if they divided kids against kids and lambs against lambs, meaning that each brother took an equal portion of each of the items they inherited, one can say of each brother鈥檚 portion: This is his portion destined to reach him from the first moment, from the time of the death of the deceased. If the brothers form their partnership again, the inheritance becomes a single unit again, and they are therefore obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the kalbon.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讟诇讗讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

But Rav Na岣an said: Even if they divided kids against kids and lambs against lambs, one does not say that this is his portion destined to reach him from the first moment. This is because Rav Na岣an does not accept the principle of retroactive designation. Consequently, the resolution proposed previously for the issue of filling water from the cistern of those who come up from Babylonia is invalid.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讬专讗 讚讛驻拽专讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讙讘讬讛 诪爪讬讗讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 拽谞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛

The Gemara retracts its previous explanation of the disagreement between Rava and Rav Na岣an: Rather, everyone agrees that a cistern of those who come up from Babylonia, i.e., a public cistern, is an ownerless cistern, but here they disagree over a different issue: One who picks up a found article intending to acquire it on behalf of his friend. One Sage, Rav Na岣an, holds that if one picks up a found object on behalf of his friend, his friend acquires it through this act as though he had picked it up himself. The water of the ownerless cistern is like a found object. Therefore, if one draws water on behalf of another, the latter acquires it, and consequently the water is as his feet. And one Sage, Rav Sheshet, holds that when one picks up a found object for another, the latter does not acquire it. Rather, it belongs to the one who actually picked it up, and consequently the water is as the feet of the one who draws it.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讘注讬专 讗讞专转 讜注专讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 诇讛讘讬讗 讗爪诇讜 诪驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讗 讬讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讜讗诐 注专讘 讛讜讗 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讻诪讜讛讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who had produce in a different city beyond the Shabbat limit, and the residents of that city where the produce was located joined the Shabbat boundaries, enabling them to reach the owner鈥檚 home on the Festival,and they wish to bring him some of his produce, they may not bring it to him. His produce is as his feet; since it is outside of his Shabbat limit, it may not be taken from its place. However, if the owner placed an eiruv to enable travel to that city, the legal status of his produce is like his status with regard to the Shabbat limit. People from that city who also placed an eiruv may bring the produce to him, since he himself may walk to the produce and take it.

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 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 39 – Shabbat October 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 39 – Shabbat October 9

讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

And Rav Ashi said a different explanation as to why the spices, water, and salt are not subject to nullification: It is because any one of these ingredients is an object whose prohibition is temporary, as the prohibition against their being taken out of the Shabbat limits lapses once the Festival has passed, and the general principle is that anything whose prohibition is temporary cannot become nullified, even by one part in one thousand.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 讘诪讬诐 诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪诇讞 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讘讟诇讬谉 讘讬谉 讘注讬住讛 讘讬谉 讘拽讚专讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪诇讞 住讚讜诪讬转 讛讗 讘诪诇讞 讗住转专讜拽谞讬转

搂 It is taught in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda exempts one from travel limitations in the case of water. The Gemara asks: Does this mean to imply that water, yes, it is exempted by Rabbi Yehuda, but salt, no, it is not? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Water and salt are both nullified, whether in a dough or in a pot of cooked food. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this case of the mishna, the reference is to salt of Sodom, which is quite coarse and does not blend in easily with the dough, and, being noticeable in the final product, is not nullified. In that case of the baraita, the reference is to a type of fine salt known as isterokanit salt. Consequently, it is not noticeable in the final product and can be nullified.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讘讟诇讬谉 讘注讬住讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讟诇讬谉 讘拽讚专讛 诪驻谞讬 专讜讟讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘注讘讛 讛讗 讘专讻讛

The mishna states that according to Rabbi Yehuda water mixed into dough, and presumably into a cooked dish as well, is considered nullified. The Gemara challenges this: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Water and salt are nullified in dough but not in a pot, due to its sauce. The pot, unlike bread, ends up with liquid in it, so the borrowed water is still recognizable. The Gemara replies: This is not difficult. This case of the mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda says that the water is nullified in the cooked food, is referring to a thick dish that has no liquid sauce. That case of the baraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda said the water is not nullified, is referring to a thin dish with liquid sauce.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讞诇转 讻专讙诇讬 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜砖诇讛讘转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讙讞诇转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讜砖诇讛讘转 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讙讞诇转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: A coal that one borrowed from another on the Festival is as the feet of the owner, and it may be carried on the Festival to any place where its owner may walk. Since it has substance, it is associated with its owner. But a flame that one lit from another鈥檚 flame may be taken anywhere, as it has no substance. This essential difference between a coal and a flame has additional halakhic ramifications: If one uses a coal of consecrated property for a non-consecrated purpose, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property, since it has substance. But if one uses a consecrated flame, although according to rabbinic law one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, if one did benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse, since it does not have substance. Similarly, one who takes out a coal from a private domain to the public domain on Shabbat is liable for the prohibited labor of carrying, but one who takes out a flame is exempt.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讙讞诇转 讛讙讞诇转 讻专讙诇讬 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜砖诇讛讘转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讙讞诇转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讜砖诇讛讘转 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讙讞诇转 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讛 讜砖诇讛讘转 诪讜转专转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讙讞诇转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讗住讜专 讘讙讞诇转讜 讜诪讜转专 讘砖诇讛讘转讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a Tosefta (Beitza 4:7): Five things were stated with regard to a coal, in relation to the practical halakhic differences between a coal and a flame: (1) Coal is as the feet of the owner with regard to its Festival resting place, whereas a flame may be carried anywhere. (2) One is liable for misusing property consecrated to the Temple with a consecrated coal, whereas with regard to a flame, according to rabbinic law one may not benefit from it, but he is not liable for misusing property consecrated to the Temple. (3) Coal used for idol worship is prohibited for one to benefit from it, whereas from a flame of this sort it is permitted to benefit. (4) One who carries out a coal to the public domain is liable, whereas one who carries out a flame is exempt. (5) One who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another is prohibited from using his coal, but he is permitted to derive benefit from his flame.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇讛讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚砖专讬讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讛拽讚砖 讚讗住讬专讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诪讗讬住讛 讜讘讚讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讛拽讚砖 讚诇讗 诪讗讬住 讜诇讗 讘讚讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

With regard to the halakhot cited in the baraita above, the Gemara asks: What is different in in the case of a flame of idol worship, that one is permitted to use it even ab initio, as the baraita uses the term permitted in that case; and what is different in the case of a consecrated flame, in that it is prohibited to be used ab initio, as the baraita states: One may not benefit from it, but he is not liable for misuse? The Gemara explains: In the case of idol worship, which is repulsive to Jews and from which Jewish people inherently maintain separation, the Sages did not decree additional restrictions with regard to it. However, concerning consecrated property, which is not repulsive and from which people do not inherently maintain separation, in order to prevent its misuse, the Sages did decree with regard to it that it is prohibited to use the flame.

讛诪讜爪讬讗 讙讞诇转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诇讛讘转 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘拽讬住诐

搂 It is taught in the baraita that one who carries out a coal to the public domain is liable, whereas one who carries out a flame is exempt. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: One who carries out a flame of any size on Shabbat is liable? Rav Sheshet said: The second baraita is referring to a case where one carried out the flame along with a wooden chip. Since the flame is attached to a physical object, it is considered significant.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 拽讬住诐 讘讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖注讜专讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 注爪讬诐 讻讚讬 诇讘砖诇 讘讬爪讛 拽诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection: But if so, let it derive that one is liable for carrying out in this case due to the wooden chip, and the presence of the flame is irrelevant. The Gemara responds: That baraita speaks of a chip that does not have the minimum measure that determines liability for carrying out, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 89b): In the case of one who carries out wood on Shabbat, the measure that determines liability is enough wood to cook an egg of the kind that is the easiest to cook, which is the egg of a chicken. Because the chip is too small to cook an egg, one is not liable for carrying it out, but one is liable for carrying out the flame attached to it.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讬讬驻讬讛 诪谞讗 诪砖讞讗 讜讗转诇讬 讘讬讛 谞讜专讗 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诪谞讗 讘讞住驻讗

Abaye said a different scenario: The mishna is referring to a case where one smeared a vessel with oil, and lit a fire on it, and carried out that flame. The Gemara asks: If so, let it derive that one is liable for carrying out in this case due to the vessel itself, and the flame is irrelevant. The Gemara replies: The mishna is referring to a fire lit in an earthenware shard, not in a whole vessel.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞住驻讗 讘讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖注讜专讗 讚转谞谉 讞专住 讻讚讬 诇讬转谉 讘讬谉 驻爪讬诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara challenges: And nevertheless, let it derive that one is liable for carrying due to the earthenware shard itself. The Gemara answers: It deals with a shard that is not of the minimum measure that determines liability for carrying out, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 82a): The measure that determines liability for carrying out earthenware is enough to place between one window frame and another, as small shards of earthenware were sometimes placed between window frames during construction. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讚讬讬讛 讗讚讜讬讬 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: But if so, if one is liable for carrying it out whenever the flame is attached to an object of substance, that which we learned in the mishna here: One who carries out a flame is exempt, under what circumstances can this case be found? The Gemara answers: The mishna is speaking of a case where one fanned the fire with his hand so that it spread into the public domain without its being attached to any vessel.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讜专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻专讙诇讬 讛讬讞讬讚 讜砖诇 讗谞砖讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讻专讙诇讬 讗谞砖讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讜砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪诪诇讗

MISHNA: With regard to a cistern of an individual, water drawn from it is as the feet of the individual who owns the cistern, and the water may be carried only to those places where its owner is permitted to walk. And water drawn from a cistern belonging jointly to all the people dwelling in a particular town is as the feet of the people of that town. And water drawn from a cistern of those who come up to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, i.e., a public cistern, is as the feet of whoever fills his vessel with its water; the water has no defined boundary of its own since it is made available to all.

讙诪壮 专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞谉 讘讜专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻专讙诇讬 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 讜诪注讬谞讜转 讛谞讜讘注讬谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 (专讘讗) 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讻讜谞住讬谉 讜讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讻讜谞住讬谉

GEMARA: Rava raised a contradiction to Rav Na岣an: We learned in the mishna that the water of a cistern of an individual is as the feet of the individual; and Rava raised a contradiction from the Tosefta (Beitza 4:8): Water drawn from flowing rivers and flowing springs are as the feet of all people. Rava said: With what are we dealing here in the mishna? With cisterns that contain collected water, not flowing water. And it was also said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: The mishna applies only to collected water.

讜砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪诪诇讗 讗转诪专 诪讬诇讗 讜谞转谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讻专讙诇讬 诪讬 砖谞转诪诇讗讜 诇讜 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪诪诇讗

搂 The mishna states: And water drawn from a cistern of those who come up to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, i.e., a public cistern, is as the feet of whoever fills his vessel with its water. It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to this issue: In the case of one who filled a vessel with water from a public cistern on behalf of another and gave the water to him, Rav Na岣an said: The water is as the feet of the one for whom they were filled; Rav Sheshet said: It is as the feet of the one who filled it.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讬专讗 讚讛驻拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讬专讗 讚砖讜转驻讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Rav Sheshet, holds that a public cistern is ownerless, and the halakha is that one cannot take possession of ownerless property on behalf of someone else. Therefore, the water belongs to the one who drew it; it is as his feet, and this status does not change even if he subsequently gave it to anyone else. And one Sage, Rav Na岣an, holds that a public cistern is considered jointly owned by all its partners, namely, all of the Jewish people. Therefore, it is possible for one partner to draw water on behalf of another partner, and the drawn water immediately belongs to the person for whom it was drawn.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讞专诐 讛诪讜讚专 讗住讜专

Rava raised a challenge to Rav Na岣an from a mishna (Nedarim 47b): One who says to another: I am hereby prohibited to you by force of 岣rem, a kind of vow of prohibition, as objects declared as 岣rem are generally consecrated to the Temple, the one prohibited by the vow, the addressee, is prohibited to derive benefit from the person who made the vow or from his property, as the point of the vow was to prohibit the addressee from deriving any benefit from the one who made the vow.

讛专讬 讗转讛 注诇讬 讞专诐 讛谞讜讚专 讗住讜专 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讜讗转讛 注诇讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专

If he said to him: You are hereby prohibited to me by force of 岣rem, the one making the vow is himself prohibited to derive benefit from the addressee or from his property. If he said to him: I am hereby prohibited to you and you to me by force of 岣rem, they are both prohibited to benefit from one another. And they are permitted to benefit from anything belonging to those who come up from Babylonia, i.e., public property that is not owned by any person or group, but they are prohibited to benefit from property that is jointly owned by the inhabitants of that city, as both parties have a share in such items.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讛专 讛讘讬转 讛诇砖讻讜转 讜讛注讝专讜转 讜讘讜专 砖诇 讗诪爪注 讛讚专讱 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讛专讞讜讘 讜讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓

That mishna provides examples: And the following are items of those coming up from Babylonia, i.e., publicly owned items: The Temple Mount, the chambers, and the courtyards on the Temple Mount, and a cistern situated in the middle of the road. And these are items jointly owned by the inhabitants of that city: The street, and the synagogue, and the bathhouse.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬专讗 讚砖讜转驻讬 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专 讜讛转谞谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖谞讚专讜 讛谞讗讛 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗住讜专讬诐 诇讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 诇专讞讜抓 讘讘讜专

Rava, having cited the mishna in full, concludes his challenge to the opinion of Rav Na岣an: And if you say that a cistern of those who come up from Babylonia, a public cistern, is owned jointly by partners, i.e., by all Jews, why should it be permitted for the one who made the vow and the addressee to use it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 45b): Two partners who took a vow not to derive benefit from one another are prohibited to enter a joint courtyard in which they both have a share to wash themselves in a cistern. According to you, the same should apply to a cistern in which the two of them have a share, such as the cisterns of those who come up from Babylonia.

诇专讞讜抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 诪专 诪讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪诪诇讗 讜诪专 诪讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪诪诇讗

Rav Na岣an answered: Indeed that is the case. So too, they are prohibited to wash themselves in a cistern because when bathing one uses of all the water of the cistern, part of which belongs to the forbidden partner. But when the baraita says that a cistern of those who come up from Babylonia is permitted to both parties, with what are we dealing here? The baraita is referring only to filling water from the cistern. This is permitted because it is considered that this one fills from his portion, and that one fills from his portion. The water that each of them draws is considered retroactively designated exclusively for him, so that the partner has no share in it at all.

讜住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讻砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rav Na岣an hold that there is retroactive designation? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 1:7): If brothers divided up inherited property among themselves and subsequently joined their property again and became partners, they are obligated to add a kalbon, a small coin, to the obligatory half-shekel yearly Temple donation. The kalbon covered both the cost to the Temple of exchanging half-shekels into larger coins and the depreciation of the donated coin. Although a whole shekel given by two partners does not need to be changed into a larger coin, the Sages imposed the same kalbon fee on the partners as on everyone else. However, these partners are exempt from the animal tithe, in accordance with the standard halakha that people who own animals in partnership are exempt from the animal tithe.

讜讻砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽诇讘讜谉

The quote from the mishna continues: And in a situation in which the brothers are liable for the animal tithe, as when they have not yet divided up their inheritance, and all the deceased鈥檚 estate is therefore still considered a single unit and not a partnership, they are exempt from the kalbon, in accordance with the halakha that a father who contributes a single shekel for his two dependent sons does not need to add the kalbon.

讜讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讟诇讗讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬诐

And Rav Anan said: The Sages taught that the inherited property is no longer considered a single unit after the brothers divided it and then rejoined in a partnership only when they divided kids against lambs or lambs against kids, i.e., if one brother took kids and the other took a corresponding value of lambs. This kind of division is considered a commercial transaction, with one brother purchasing goats and paying for them with lambs and vice versa. Therefore, when they join their animals again as partners, it is considered an entirely new partnership.

讗讘诇 讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讟诇讗讬诐 讗讜诪专 讝讛讜 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

However, if they divided kids against kids and lambs against lambs, meaning that each brother took an equal portion of each of the items they inherited, one can say of each brother鈥檚 portion: This is his portion destined to reach him from the first moment, from the time of the death of the deceased. If the brothers form their partnership again, the inheritance becomes a single unit again, and they are therefore obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the kalbon.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讟诇讗讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

But Rav Na岣an said: Even if they divided kids against kids and lambs against lambs, one does not say that this is his portion destined to reach him from the first moment. This is because Rav Na岣an does not accept the principle of retroactive designation. Consequently, the resolution proposed previously for the issue of filling water from the cistern of those who come up from Babylonia is invalid.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讬专讗 讚讛驻拽专讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讙讘讬讛 诪爪讬讗讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 拽谞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛

The Gemara retracts its previous explanation of the disagreement between Rava and Rav Na岣an: Rather, everyone agrees that a cistern of those who come up from Babylonia, i.e., a public cistern, is an ownerless cistern, but here they disagree over a different issue: One who picks up a found article intending to acquire it on behalf of his friend. One Sage, Rav Na岣an, holds that if one picks up a found object on behalf of his friend, his friend acquires it through this act as though he had picked it up himself. The water of the ownerless cistern is like a found object. Therefore, if one draws water on behalf of another, the latter acquires it, and consequently the water is as his feet. And one Sage, Rav Sheshet, holds that when one picks up a found object for another, the latter does not acquire it. Rather, it belongs to the one who actually picked it up, and consequently the water is as the feet of the one who draws it.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讘注讬专 讗讞专转 讜注专讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 诇讛讘讬讗 讗爪诇讜 诪驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讗 讬讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讜讗诐 注专讘 讛讜讗 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讻诪讜讛讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who had produce in a different city beyond the Shabbat limit, and the residents of that city where the produce was located joined the Shabbat boundaries, enabling them to reach the owner鈥檚 home on the Festival,and they wish to bring him some of his produce, they may not bring it to him. His produce is as his feet; since it is outside of his Shabbat limit, it may not be taken from its place. However, if the owner placed an eiruv to enable travel to that city, the legal status of his produce is like his status with regard to the Shabbat limit. People from that city who also placed an eiruv may bring the produce to him, since he himself may walk to the produce and take it.

Scroll To Top