Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Beitzah 16

1) INFORMING THE RECIPIENT OF A GIFT GIVEN TO HIM

QUESTIONS: Rav Chama b'Rebbi Chanina states that one does not have to inform his friend when he gives him a present. This is learned from the gift that Hashem gave to Moshe Rabeinu, which he did not know about until the people told him that his face was shining. RASHI (DH Eino Tzarich) explains that Rav Chama is teaching us that we do not have to inform a person about a gift even though that person might be left wondering from whom the gift came.

The Gemara asks that the Beraisa contradicts Rav Chama. The Beraisa says that one is supposed to inform his friend when he gives him a gift. We learn this from the fact that Hashem told Moshe that he was going to give the gift of Shabbos to the Jewish people; Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that from here we learn that when a person gives a child a gift of food, the person should inform the child's mother (by smearing part of the food on the child's face, so that the mother will see and ask the child who gave him the food).

The Gemara answers that Rav Chama means that one does not have to inform the recipient of the gift if the recipient will eventually realize that he received a gift. The case of which the Beraisa states that one *should* inform the recipient, is when the recipient would not find out about the gift otherwise. In such a case the giver must inform him about the gift.

RASHI (DH Tzarich l'Hodi'o) says that the reason of the Beraisa why a person must inform a child's mother about the present that he gave the child is in order to increase love and friendship among the Jews.

There are a number of questions on the way that Rashi explains this Sugya.

(a) Rashi contradicts himself. First, Rashi explains, in Rav Chama's statement, that we might have thought that the reason for telling the recipient that he has received a gift is so that he will not sit and wonder from where it came. Rashi should have explained like he writes later, that the reason we would have thought one must tell the recipient is in order to increase love among Jews! Why does Rashi change the reason for telling someone about a gift?

(b) How can the Gemara prove from the gift that Moshe Rabeinu received that one does not have to inform one's friend about a gift, even if the recipient is going to be left wondering about it? In the case of Moshe Rabeinu, he did not know about it even after he received the gift (as the verse cited by the Gemara tells us), so certainly he was not going to wonder about it! We cannot learn from there that when a person *will* wonder about it, one still does not have to inform him! (KIKAYON D'YONAH)

(c) There is another reason why it cannot be proven from Moshe Rabeinu that one is allowed to leave a person wondering. In the case of Moshe Rabeinu, when he would find out that he received a gift he would not be left wondering. As soon as he discovered the shine with which Hashem graced him, he knew exactly where it came from -- from Hashem, the only one capable of giving such a gift! (CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM)

(d) Later, when Rashi discusses the Beraisa that learns from the gift of Shabbos that one is supposed to inform the mother of a child when one gives the child a gift, why does Rashi explain that the point of telling is in order to increase love and friendship? Perhaps the reason is so that the mother should not wonder whence the child received the gift (in case the child did not finish eating it by the time he reached his mother), as Rashi said earlier!

(e) How can Raban Shimon ben Gamliel learn from the case of Hashem telling the people that he is *going* to give them the gift of Shabbos, that one is supposed to tell the mother of a child that he *gave* the child a gift? In the case of the food that one gives to a child, one must inform the mother *after* giving the gift to the child. In the case of Shabbos, Hashem was forewarning the people that he was *going* to give them a gift -- why should a person do that?

ANSWERS:

(a) Rashi explains that when Rav Chama states that one does not have to tell his friend about a gift that he gave him, he is teaching us that it is acceptable to leave the friend wondering from where the gift came. He does not explain that Rav Chama is teaching us that it is acceptable to give a gift without increasing friendship, because in the conclusion of the Gemara, the case of Moshe's gift from Hashem (his shining face) is a case when the recipient eventually will find out about what he received and will discover who gave it to him. Therefore, it *will* increase friendship, even without the giver telling the recipient about it, and therefore Rav Chama would not be teaching us anything by telling us that the giver does not have to inform the recipient. What, then, is the reason that we would have thought that one *does* have to inform the recipient? Rashi explains that we might have thought that the giver has to inform the recipient so that the recipient will not be left wondering where the gift was from *until* he finds out who gave it to him.

(b) Even though Moshe Rabeinu did not know that his face was shining, he did find out eventually, and at that point he would wonder whence the gift came.

(c) Why would he wonder? Moshe Rabeinu would certainly know Who gave it to him! The answer is that Rashi does not say that the recipient will wonder *who* gave him the gift, but rather *whence* he received it; that is, he will wonder under what circumstances it was given to him. In the case of Moshe, he will be left wondering in the merit of what Mitzvah this reward was given him. Nevertheless, teaches Rav Chama, even though the recipient will be left wondering one does not have to inform the recipient. He may leave the recipient to figure out on his own when -- and from who -- he received the gift.

(d) When Rashi gives the reason why one must inform the mother of a gift given to her child, why does Rashi not say that it is in order that the mother not be left wondering from where the gift came?

If this would be the reason to inform the mother about the gift, it should not have been necessary for Hashem to tell the Jewish people about the gift of Shabbos. When the Jews were given the gift of Shabbos, they immediately knew that they had received it, and from Whom, and why, and thus there was no point in telling them in advance. The same is true for the reward for observing Shabbos; they would find out about it as soon as they the reward, and at that time they would have no questions Who gave it to them or why. Therefore, from the case of the gift of Shabbos, it cannot be proven that it is acceptable to let a person wonder. The reason Hashem let them know about the gift must have been in order to increase the love between Hashem and His people (see next paragraph), and if so, the requirement to tell a mother about a gift given to her child must be for the same reason.

(e) What does the case of telling a mother that one already *gave* a gift to the child have to do with Shabbos, when Hashem told the people in advance about what He was going to give them? Rashi in Shabbos (10b) explains that since the point in telling the recipient is in order to increase love and friendship, it includes two different elements. First, the giver should tell his friend that he gave him a gift at the time that he gives it to him, so that their friendship is increased. Second, to increase their friendship the giver should notify his friend in advance that he plans on giving him a gift, so that the recipient will prepare himself for receiving the gift and will not be embarrassed or shocked when he receives it. (M. Kornfeld)

16b

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that the Rav of a city may make an Eruv Tavshilin on behalf of all of the residents of his city. The Eruv Tavshilin works for anyone who resides within the city (that is, the Techum Shabbos), who forgot to make his own Eruv Tavshilin prior to Yom Tov. RASHI explains that the reason why people outside of the city may not rely on the Rav's Eruv Tavshilin is because the Rav does not have the people outside of the Techum in his mind when he is Mezakeh the Eruv Tavshilin to the people of his city.

What will be the Halachah when the Rav specifically has in mind to make the Eruv on behalf of the people outside of the Techum? In such a case, will it work for them? Although it seems that the people for whom the Eruv was made must be able to benefit from the food of the Eruv on Shabbos, and those who live far away cannot get to the food on Yom Tov, what about people who live outside of the Techum Shabbos but who made an Eruv Techumin, enabling them to come within the city's Techum Shabbos?

(a) The RE'AH, RAN and MAGID MISHNAH (Hilchos Yom Tov 6:7) write that there is no evidence that the Eruv works for the people outside of the Techum, even when the Rav has them in mind. The Gemara says unconditionally that the Eruv works "for those people within the Techum Shabbos."

If so, the people who are outside of the Techum and who did not make an Eruv Techumin (and thus are unable to come to the Rav on Yom Tov) certainly may not rely on the Rav's Eruv Tavshilin, because they cannot even get to the food of the Eruv Tavshilin. The Magid Mishnah and the Re'ah add, though, that even if a person outside the Techum made an Eruv Techumin and can come to the Rav, the Eruv Tavshilin still does not work for them.

(b) However, the RASHBA (in Chidushim, and in AVODAS HA'KODESH, Beis Mo'ed, 4:2:1) writes that those who live outside the Techum but made an Eruv Techumin, permitting them to come within the Techum, may rely on the Rav's Eruv Tavshilin when he specifically states that he has them in mind (even though the Rav normally does not have those people in mind when he makes the Eruv Tavshilin). This seems to be the intention of Rashi as well, who writes that the only reason it does not work for those outside the Techum is because the Rav does not have them in mind, implying that if he does expressly think of them when he makes the Eruv Tavshilin then it will work for them.

(c) The ME'IRI cites the CHACHMEI TZARFAS (the Ba'alei ha'Tosfos) who write that even if the Rav does not specifically state that he is including them in his Eruv, he *automatically* includes those who are in the town and those who can come into the town with an Eruv Techumin. Only those who cannot come into the town even with an Eruv Techumin are not included.

(d) The TALMID HA'RASHBA says, like the Rashba, that normally the Rav does not have in mind the people outside of the Techum who made an Eruv Techumin. However, the Talmid ha'Rashba holds that when the Rav does have in mind those outside of the Techum Shabbos, then his Eruv Tavshilin works even for those people who cannot come into the town (such as those who did not make an Eruv Techumin but who transgress the Isur of Techumin and come into the town anyway; it is not clear whether he includes even those who are too far away to arrive on Yom Tov; perhaps they still have to be physically able to partake of the food of the Eruv Tavshilin).

HALACHAH: The REMA (OC 527:8) rules like the Rashba (b, above), that when the Rav had them in mind, then the Eruv Tavshilin works for those outside the Techum who made an Eruv Techumin.

QUESTIONS: A blind man was learning before Shmuel on Yom Tov. Shmuel saw that he was sad and asked him why. The blind man answered that he forgot to make an Eruv Tavshilin. Shmuel said that the blind man could rely on his, Shmuel's, Eruv Tavshilin, since he had in mind that his Eruv Tavshilin should be on behalf of everyone who forgot to make their own. The following year, Shmuel again saw that the blind man was sad, and again the blind man told him that he did not make an Eruv Tavshilin. Shmuel responded that if so, he is a "Poshei'a" and may *not* rely on Shmuel's Eruv, while everyone else may rely on it. RASHI (DH l'Shanah) explians that when the Gemara says that the following year the blind man said that he did not make an Eruv Tavshilin, it was on Rosh Hashanah. For that reason, the blind man could not make an Eruv Tavshilin with a Tenai (saying, on the first day of Yom Tov, that if today is not really Yom Tov and tomorrow is, then he is making the Eruv today, and if today is Yom Tov and tomorrow is not, then he does not need to make an Eruv to cook tomorrow for Shabbos -- see Gemara 6a, 17a).

There are a number of obvious difficulties with the explanation of Rashi.

First, if Rashi is bothered why the blind man did not simply make an Eruv Tavshilin with a Tenai, and for that reason Rashi explains that the incident occurred on Rosh Hashanah, then why did Rashi not tell us that it was on Rosh Hashanah in the *first* incident when the blind man forgot? (MAHARSHA)

Second, Rashi should have given a much simpler explanation. Rashi should have said that the blind man remembered on Friday, the second day of Yom Tov (SHITAS RIVAV, RAN), or that it was a Yom Tov that fell on Friday and Shabbos (as opposed to Thursday and Friday) and he remembered on the first day of Yom Tov. In both of those cases, if one forgot to make an Eruv Tavshilin on Thursday, he may not make it on Friday with a Tenai!

Many Acharonim are bothered by these questions (see Maharsha, Maharam Shif, Kikayon d'Yonah, and many others). We will present some of the most straightforward answers here.

ANSWERS:

(a) From the incident the first year, the blind man learned that Shmuel always has in mind to make the Eruv Tavshilin for everyone who forgets. Why, then, was he sad the second year? It cannot be that he knew that Shmuel did not have in mind to be Mezakeh to a person who is "Poshei'a," since it seems clear from Shmuel's reaction that the blind man was unaware of this. It must be that the blind man thought that *besides* the fact that he was a "Poshei'a" the second time, there was something else different the second time due to which he would not be able to rely on Shmuel's Eruv. Shmuel corrected him and said that it is true that the Eruv does not work for him, but not because of the reason the blind man thought it would not work, but because he is a Poshei'a.

Some suggest that Rashi mentions that the second incident occurred on Rosh Hashanah in order to explain the mistaken pretense of the blind man. Because it was Rosh Hashanah the second time the blind man forgot, he (mistakenly) thought that he could not be included in Shmuel's Eruv Tavshilin and that is why he was sad. Shmuel corrected him, that had this been the first time he forgot he would have been included; however he was a "Poshei'a," since this was the second time he forgot, and he was not included in the Eruv Tavshilin for that reason. Why did the blind man think Rosh Hashanah should be different, and why was he mistaken in this assumption?

1. The CHACHAM TZVI (end of #130, cited by the GILYON HA'SHAS) suggests that the first time around, Yom Tov was indeed Friday and Shabbos. The second time, though, it was Thursday and Friday. Secondly, he posits that if a person forgot to make an Eruv Tavshilin before Yom Tov, then it is better for him to make an Eruv Tavshilin himself on the first day of Yom Tov (Thursday) with a Tenai than to rely on the Rav's Eruv. The blind man's mistake was that he thought that the two days of Rosh Hashanah are *not* one long Kedushah, but are two separate Kedushos, like every other two day Yom Tov (like the opinion of Naharda'i, 6a). Therefore, he thought that he had to make his Eruv with a Tenai on the first day of Rosh Hashanah (Thursday), and he could not rely on Shmuel's Eruv, which is why he was sad (because he preferred not to have to make a Tenai). Shmuel corrected him that Rosh Hashanah is really one long Kedushah, and an Eruv could *not* be made on a Tenai on the first day of Rosh Hashanah.

2. The PNEI YEHOSHUA suggests a similar scenario. The second time, Yom Tov was Thursday and Friday, and the blind man thought that even on Rosh Hashanah a Tenai could be made. The blind man was sad because he only remembered on the *second* day (Friday) of Rosh Hashanah, and then it was too late to make an Eruv with a Tenai. He thought that Shmuel did not include those who forgot in his Eruv before a two-day Yom Tov, since if they forgot they could make a Tenai on the first day of Yom Tov, and people certainly will not forget to make an Eruv both on Erev Yom Tov *and* on the first day of Yom Tov, two days in a row. To forget two days in a row is a very rare occurrence, and Shmuel would not take into account that possibility. Again, Shmuel corrected him that Rosh Hashanah is really one long Kedushah, and an Eruv could *not* be made on a Tenai on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, but the blind man was not included in his Eruv for another reason -- because he was a "Poshei'a."

3. The TZELACH suggests that the blind man made a slightly different mistake. He lived outside of the Techum. He made an Eruv Techumin before Yom Tov and came to Shmuel on Thursday, the first day of Rosh Hashanah. His Eruv Techumin was destroyed on that day. He thought that Rosh Hashanah is a Safek whether it is one or two Kedushos, and as such he would not be able to make an Eruv Tavshilin with a Tenai (since Rosh Hashanah might be one Kedushah), nor could he rely on the Rav's Eruv, for tomorrow he would be outside of the Techum because his Eruv Techumin was destroyed and would not work for the second day (since Rosh Hashanah might be two Kedushos). Shmuel told him that he was incorrect. Rosh Hashanah is judged as one Kedushah, and thus the blind man could come to the town on the second day of Rosh Hashanah based on the Eruv that existed on the first day, and had he not been "Poshei'ah" he could rely on Shmuel's Eruv Tavshilin. However, Shmuel told him, there is another reason why you are not included in the Eruv Tavshilin -- because you were Poshei'a.

(This explanation is difficult to understand, because even if Rosh Hashanah is two Kedushos, the blind man could have solved the problem of the lost Eruv Techumim by simply making another Eruv Techumin, mi'Safek, in the same spot as the first -- Y. Shaw)

(b) An entirely different approach may be suggested. Rashi might have been bothered why the Gemara says the words "the following year." This incident could have happened on any Yom Tov, and not necessarily the next year (for example, if the first two days of Pesach fall on Thursday and Friday, then Shavuos falls on Friday and Shabbos). The Gemara's emphasis that the blind man's mistake occurred "the following year" implies that he made a mistake that was *only able to happen* the following year. That is, it was a mistake that could occur only once a year. That is why the Gemara says that the second mistake occurred "the following year," when the time came that it was possible to make the same mistake as the year before. (ROSH YOSEF)

What Yom Tov, that occurs once a year, is so unique that it has properties that are shared with no other Yom Tov? It must be the Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah, which is one Kedushah while every other Yom Tov is two separate Kedushos. That was the only time that the blind man could have made his mistake. What was his mistake?

On Fridays, the blind man never came to Shmuel, for he was involved in preparing for Shabbos (even when Yom Tov was on Friday). He only appeared before Shmuel Sunday to Thursday. Therefore, Shmuel would not see him sad except on Thursday, when it was the first day of a two-day Yom Tov. However, on a normal two-day Yom Tov he would not be sad, since he could always make an Eruv with a Tenai. The only time Shmuel could see him sad, then, was on the first day of a two-day Rosh Hashanah, when Rosh Hashanah was Thursday and Friday. Since the two days of Rosh Hashanah are one Kedushah he could not make an Eruv with a Tenai, which is why he was sad.

Why, though, does Rashi point out that it was Rosh Hashanah only in the second incident? Because Rashi learns that the incidents occurred on Rosh Hashanah from the fact that the Gemara emphasizes that the second one occurred "the following year." This is why Rashi raises this point only in Dibur ha'Maschil "l'Shanah." (M. Kornfeld)