Previous daf

1)

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer considers a beehive, Karka - because it is joined to the ground.

(b) This means that one can acquire Metaltelin together with it, a creditor may write a P'ruzbul if the debtor owns a beehive, that it is not subject to Tum'ah - and that someone who extracts honey from it on Shabbos is Chayav (for detaching from the ground, a Toldah of reaping).

(c) The reason that the P'ruzbul is dependent upon the debtor owning land is either because then, it is as if the creditor has a Mashkon (thereby minimising their divergence from Torah law, since whenever the creditor has a Mashkon, he cannot transgress 'Lo Yigos' in which case Sh'mitah does not cancel the debt) - or because it is unusual to lend someone money unless he owns land (which is Meshubad to the creditor), and Chazal did not generally issue decrees in unusualy cases.

(d) Despite the fact that a beehive is considered Karka in other regards, Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless finds it necessary to specifically mention that it is Karka regarding P'ruzbul too - because we might have otherwise thought that it is not, since this sort of Karka (which can be moved) is hardly what the creditor would rely on to issue the loan.

(a) We just explained that the beehive is not subject to Tum'ah - neither is the honey inside the beehive?

(b) When the Tana says 've'Einah Mekabeles Tum'ah *bi'Mekomah*', he means - that it is only as long as the beehive is fixed to its place that the hive and the honey are not subject to Tum'ah, but not once they have been moved (even though he did not have specifically in mind that it should become a food). And this qualification extends to all the cases in the Beraisa.

(c) According to the Chachamim - the fact that th beehive is joined to the ground, does not remove from it the Din of a K'li (and it therefore remains Metaltelin).

(d) And in their opinion - the honey is subject to Tum'ah too, even though there has been no Machshavah.

(a) Based on this Beraisa, the author of the Beraisa which considers a pipe that one carved first and fixed to the Mikveh only afterwards as Metaltelin (to invalidate the Mikveh) we initially assume to be - the Chachamim.

(b) However, we cite Rebbi Elazar, who gives Rebbi Eliezer's source for this ruling as the Pasuk in Shmuel "Va'yitbol Osah be'Ya'aros he'Devash", effectively comparing a beehive to trees in a forest (which are attached to the ground), but this has no bearing on a pipe that is joined to a Mikveh after having been carved. There, Rebbi Eliezer might well agree that it has a Din of Metaltelin.

(a) So we turn to a Mishnah in Keilim (to find which Rebbi Eliezer does not hold like the Beraisa regarding a pipe in a Mikveh). According to Rebbi Eliezer there, a baker's board that one attached to the wall is not subject to Tum'ah. Besides a kneading-board, this might be referring to - a board on which the bread to seel is placed (a counter).

(b) According to the Chachamim, the board is subject to Tum'ah. Neither Tana seems to hold like the Beraisa regarding a Mikveh - since neither of them makes a distinction between whether the board was carved first and then fixed to the wall or fixed firt and then carved.

(a) We try to establish the author of the Beraisa of Mikveh as Rebbi Eliezer, and the case of the board is different, inasmuch the Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan - since we assume that the Tana is speaking about a wooden board, and 'P'shutei K'lei Eitz' (flat wooden vessels) are not subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah.

(b) All straight wooden vessels - are not subject to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan, only those that are subject to Tum'as Medras (i.e. which are made to bear the weight of a person, such as a bed or a chair).

(c) In that case, we must classify Mayim She'uvin, as a P'sul d'Oraysa, as indeed, the Toras Kohanim learns from the word "Mayan" (which is a natural source of water).

(d) We now try to establish the author of the Beraisa of Mikveh as Rebbi Eliezer. On the one hand, in his opinion, the Chachamim declared a pipe that is later fixed to the ground, Metaltelin, but not a board that is later fixed to the wall, since, even before it is fixed, it is only subject to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan.

6)

(a) We query this explanation however, based on the tradition that Mayim She'uvin too, is only mi'de'Rabbanan. In light of this tradition, when the Toras Kohanim learns from "Ma'ayan" that Mayim She'uvin is d'Oraysa - it is referring specifically to a Mikveh which is made up of Mayim She'uvin, but not one which is Kasher to begin with and into which Mayim She'uvin falls, or if one took a Sa'ah and added a Sa'ah of Mayim She'uvin, which remains Kasher ...

(b) ... either because it is Bateil be'Rov, or because as each drop falls into it, it becomes Bateil.

(c) We also refute the previous explanation on the basis of a statement of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who establishes the Mishnah by a metal board (whose Tum'ah is definitely d'Oraysa).

(a) So we finally establish the Beraisa of Mikveh like the Chachamim, who consider the baker's board, Metaltelin. Nevertheless, in the Mishnah of Mikveh, they consider a pipe that is carved into the ground, Karka - because Mayim She'uvin is only mi'de'Rabbanan (by the same S'vara as we explained the baker's board earlier according to Rebbi Eliezer) ...

(b) ... though not if it was carved first, since it was already a vessel when it was detached, and if even that was to be considered Karka, then the decree of Mayim She'uvin, would be virtually inapplicable.

(a) If someone is pleased with the rain, because he wants to use it to wash fruit, the fruit that he washes is Muchshar Le'kabel Tum'ah. If he is pleased with the water because he wants to use it to wash ...

1. ... Metaltelin other than food (but which then falls on to food) - it is Machshir the food that he subsequently touches.
2. ... something that was always Mechubar le'Karka (which then falls on to food) it is not.

(b) An Itztrubal (the wooden frame encircling the millstone) - falls under the category of Metaltelin that later became Mechubar le'Karka (which we have been discussing throughout the Sugya).

(c) Rav Yosef asks whether the rain-water will be Machshir Le'kabeil Tum'ah if the owner is pleased because he intends to use it to wash an Itztrubal. The She'eilah is non-existent according to Rebbi Eliezer (the author of our Mishnah) - who considers even a vessel that is first carved and then fixed, Karka (in which case the Itztrubal will not be Machshir).

(d) And he would say exactly the same if it was not an Itztrubal that the owner had in mind to wash, but a fixed mortar - because according to Rebbi Eliezer, whatever is attached to the ground is considered Karka.

(a) Rav Yosef poses his She'eilah according to the Rabbanan who consider a fixed mortar Metaltelin, with regard to the sale of the house. They might agree with Rebbi Eliezer with regard to Machshir Le'kabeil Tum'ah, even though they argue with him with regard to a sale where their reason might well be (not because all Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro is considered Metaltelin, but) - because a seller sells begrudgingly (in which case he precludes from the sale anything that was not attached from the beginning).

(b) These Rabbanan concede however, that an Itztrubal is included in the sale of the house. According to the side of the She'eilah (that considers a fixed mortar Metaltelin), this might be (not because they consider an Itztrubal, Karka, but) - because an Itztrubal is considered more of a permanent fixture ...

(c) ... like the wall of a house - which is included in the sale of a house despite the fact that it is considered Talush as regards Machshir Le'kabeil Tum'ah.

(d) Even though the She'eilah incorporates a fixed mortar (which is the point over which they argue with Rebbi Eliezer), Rav Yosef preferred to ask about an Itztrubal - either because one would be more likely to wash an Itztrubal than a mortar, or because it is a bigger Chidush (since we see that the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Eliezer regarding the former, but argue with regard to the latter).

(e) The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.

(a) Rav Nechemyah Brei de'Yosef ruled that woman was entitled to claim Isur Nechasim even from her husband's Itztrubal - implying that he follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer (that whatever is joined to the ground is considered Karka), which is therefore Halachah (though many Poskim disagree with this).

(b) This ruling follows a statement of Rava in Kesuvos - that a woman can claim her Kesuvah, Mezonos and Parnasah from Karka (meaning that that is what is Meshubad to her), but not from Metaltelin.

(c) Parnasah is - Isur Nechasim (the tenth of a father's property that each daughter is entitled to when she marries).

(a) The Ge'onim instituted that nowadays - a woman may claim her Kesuvah from Metaltelin ...

(b) ... and this also extends to 'T'nai Kesuvah' (e.g. Mezonos)?

(c) Yet Rav Nechemyah B'rei de'Rav Yosef's ruling is relevant nowadays, too - because Isur Nechasim is not a T'nai Kesuvah, because it is not inserted in the Kesuvah.

(d) When Rav Ashi quotes Rav Kahana, who used to claim Isur Nechasim even from 'Amla de'Bati' - he means that he used to claim a woman's Kesuvah from house-rentals, which is considered Karka (because all rental for Karka is considered Karka).