Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Beitzah 34

1) HEATING AN EMPTY POT

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which says that everyone is Chayav in a case where, on Shabbos, one person brings the fire, another person brings the wood, another places the pot on the fire, another brings the water to put in the pot, another places the spices into the pot, and another person mixes it all. The Gemara asks why the person who places the pot on the fire is Chayav, if the pot is empty and he did not cook anything. The Gemara answers that the Beraisa means that he brought a new pot, and by placing it on the fire he makes it stronger, thus completing the utensil.

RASHI (DH u'Mishum) explains that the Gemara means that the person who places the empty pot on the fire transgresses an Isur *d'Rabanan* -- the Gezeirah not to heat up shingles. Rashi seems to learn that placing a pot on a fire is an Isur d'Rabanan. However, the Beraisa clearly states that one is *Chayav* for doing it, implying that it is an Isur d'Oraisa. Although it is possible to say that "Chayav" here means that one is Chayav for Malkus mid'Rabanan (as the Gemara says in Shabbos 40b), why should Rashi interpret the Beraisa in a manner other than its simple meaning when there is nothing wrong with saying that it is talking about a Chiyuv d'Oraisa? (ROSH YOSEF, BIGDEI YOM TOV)

ANSWER: The Gemara earlier records a Machlokes regarding the reason why the Mishnah prohibits heating up shingles in order to roast meat upon them on Yom Tov. The Gemara explains that the Mishnah is discussing new shingles. One opinion says that heating new shingles is prohibited because by heating the shingles, one reinforces them and it is considered as though one is completing the making of the item (Tikun Kli). Another opinion says that it is prohibited to heat new shingles because when one heats the shingles, they might crack from the heat, and thus one will have done a Tircha she'Lo l'Tzorech, an unnecessary exertion on Yom Tov.

Rashi here was bothered by a question. Both opinions agree that the shingles which the Mishnah prohibits heating are newly made ones. If heating a new clay object completes it, and constitutes an Isur d'Oraisa (Libun Re'afim), then why did the other opinion find it necessary to explain that the prohibition of heating the shingles is not because of Libun Re'afim, but because of an *Isur d'Rabanan*, that it might crack? Surely the two opinions are not arguing over the practical question of whether or not one heats shingles to strengthen them and make them usable. Such a question could be easily resolved by asking a potter! In fact, it is obvious that before firing it an earthenware shingle -- or pot -- is useless, and firing it "completes" it (see the Gemara on 32a).

To answer this question, Rashi explained that the "new" shingles of our Gemara are not shingles which have not yet been fired. Rather, they are shingles which have been fired, but are still new. The Isur of heating these shingles is only an Isur d'Rabanan. They are certainly fit to be used without heating, and therefore they are considered to be finished already, and one is not completing them by heating them. What remains is only a problem of Tikun Kli d'Rabanan (like the cases in the Mishnah on 32b), since re-firing the shingles *somewhat* strengthens them. The other opinion, which holds that it is Asur because the shingle might break, holds that there is no problem of Tikun Kli d'Rabanan, since no physical change in the shingle is evident after it is re-fired. Since the Gemara compares heating the new pot to heating shingles, Rashi felt it necessary to explain that heating the new pot is also Asur only d'Rabanan.

(The RAMBAM (Hil. Yom Tov 3:11) and RIF also seem to have been bothered by Rashi's question of how Amora'im can argue whether there is an Isur of heating new, unfired, shingles on Yom Tov. To resolve this question, they explain that according to the opinion that the Mishnah's Isur of heating shingles is because it reinforces them, the Mishnah is not discussing new shingles at all (for it would not be necessary for the Mishnah to tell us that firing not-yet-fired shingles is prohibited mid'Oraisa). Rather, the Mishnah is discussing *old* shingles (MAGID MISHNAH, based on inference from the fact that the Rambam and Rif do not mention that the Mishnah is discussing new shingles). The Gemara which prohibits heating a new pot because of "Libun Re'afim," is referring to the Isur of "Tzarich *l'Badkan*," i.e. that the pot may crack from the heat and one will have done a Tircha she'Lo l'Tzorech. (LECHEM MISHNAH, ibid.). According to Rambam and Rif, too, the Beraisa must be punishing the one who heats the pot with Malkus d'Rabanan, and not Malkus d'Oraisa, as Rashi explained.)

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that one may shatter a nut inside of a cloth on Yom Tov, and we are not concerned that the cloth will tear. RASHI (DH v'Ein Chosheshin) explains that the reason we are not concerned about the cloth tearing is because even if it does tear one has not performed an Isur d'Oraisa (since he is not tearing it in order to sew it up again differently -- it is not "Kore'a Al Menas Litfor") and therefore it is Mutar l'Chatchilah to shatter the nut.

Why does Rashi explain that there is no problem of tearing the cloth because even if it tears it is not "Kore'a Al Menas Litfor?" He should give a much more basic reason -- it is a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven (since it is not a Pesik Reshei, an unavoidable outcome, that the cloth will tear), and therefore it is Mutar l'Chatchilah, as Rashi himself ruled earlier (33a, DH v'Hilchasa), in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon! The Petur of Davar sh'Eino Miskaven applies to all Melachos and not just to Kore'a, while the reason of "Kore'a Al Menas Litfor" is unique to the Melachah of Kore'a. Why does Rashi explain that here there is a special Petur in the Halachos of Kore'a, and not the general Petur of Davar sh'Eino Miskaven? (REBBI AKIVA EIGER in GILYON HA'SHAS)

ANSWER: The CHILUFEI GIRSA'OS (in the back of the Vilna printing of the Gemara) answers that Rashi is consistent with his opinion elsewhere. In Yoma (34b, DH b'Chol ha'Torah), Rashi says that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who prohibits a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven, it is Asur only in the case of an Isur d'Oraisa. Rebbi Yehudah permits doing an Isur d'Rabanan in a manner that is Eino Miskaven (see Tosfos there who argues). Rashi is saying that one may shatter the nut *even according to Rebbi Yehudah* because there is no Isur d'Oraisa involved. That is, Rashi indeed permits shattering the nut because, like Rebbi Akiva Eiger says, it is a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven. Rashi says that it is not "Kore'a Al Menas Litfor" merely to show that even Rebbi Yehudah permits this case of Davar sh'Eino Miskaven, because it is an Isur d'Rabanan. (See also the Chafetz Chayim in SHA'AR HA'TZIYON to OC 508:8.)

Why, though, did Rashi find it necessary to explain this Beraisa even according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah?

The Chilufei Girsa'os suggests that Rashi was bothered by the fact that the Beraisa specifically permits tearing a cloth b'Eino Miskaven, which is an Isur d'Rabanan since it is not done "Al Menas Litfor." If the Beraisa wanted to teach that it is permitted to do a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven, it should have discussed a case that is an Isur d'Oraisa! It must be that the Beraisa is following the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven is Asur, and it is nevertheless Mutar because there is only an Isur d'Rabanan involved, and therefore the Davar sh'Eino Miskaven in this case is Mutar. Rashi means that it is Mutar because, like Rebbi Akiva Eiger asks, it *is* a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven. Rashi says that it is not "Kore'a Al Menas Litfor" merely to show that even Rebbi Yehudah permits this case of Davar sh'Eino Miskaven, because it is an Isur d'Rabanan.

Rav Yehudah Landy suggests an even simpler reason to explain why Rashi wants this Beraisa to conform to the non-Halachic opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. This Beraisa is actually a Tosefta; it is the conclusion of the Tosefta cited a line earlier which prohibits fixing a broken spit. Rashi (DH v'Ein Metaknin) was bothered by the fact that we rule that it is normally permitted to fix a broken spit, like Rebbi Yehudah who permits Machshirei Ochel Nefesh (on Daf 28b); why then does the Beraisa prohibit fixing a spit? Rashi offers two solutions. Either the Tosefta is expressing the opinion of the Chachamim who disagree with Rebbi Yehudah and prohibit Machshirei Ochel Nefesh on Yom Tov, or else it is expressing the *Halachic* opinion, that of Rebbi Yehudah, but it is discussing a spit that was broken before Yom Tov. Machshirei Ochel Nefesh that could have been done before Yom Tov are not permitted on Yom Tov.

Rashi wanted the beginning of the Tosefta to comply with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah regarding Machshirin since his is the *Halachic* opinion in this regard. However, he could not explain that the beginning of the Tosefta follows Rebbi Yehudah's opinion if the end of the Tosefta does not. Therefore, when explaining the end of the Tosefta (shattering a nut inside a cloth) Rashi found it necessary to explain it according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah regarding Davar she'Eino Miskaven even though his is *not* the Halachic opinion in that respect!

34b