POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafBeitzah 38
BEITZAH 36-40 (Siyum!) - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) TECHUMIN (cont'd)
(a) (Shmuel) An ox that has been fattened for sale assumes
the Techum of whomever purchases it (from whichever
town) while privately owned oxen (which are sometimes
sold to local people) assumes the Techum of the local
townspeople (the owner already placed it before YomTov
in the domain of the prospective buyer).
2) BITUL - THE COMPLEX INCIDENT OF R. ABA IN ERETZ YISRAEL
(b) (Mishnah) If someone borrows a vessel on Erev YomTov,
the vessel follows the Techum of the borrower.
1. Question: Is this not obvious?
(c) (Mishnah) Vessels borrowed on YomTov follow the lender.
2. Answer: We might have prohibited where the owner
agreed to lend him the vessels on Erev YomTov, but
he only received it on YomTov.
3. This supports the teaching of R. Yochanan.
1. Question: Without even a verbal assurance to the
borrower before YomTov, this is surely obvious!?
2. Answer: We might have placed it in the Techum of
the borrower in a case where the owner was
accustomed to lending him those vessels.
(a) (Mishnah) A woman borrowed spices, salt and water...
(b) Question (Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael): Why aren't those
ingredients Batel to the dish for the purposes of
(c) Answer (R. Aba, hoping to be favorably received): This
case is akin to a case where one Kav of Reuven's wheat
fell into ten Kabin of Shimon's wheat (and which is
obviously not Batel).
1. The Amoraim laughed at his answer and still more
at his challenge to their laughter.
(d) Question: What, then, is the real reason for the Din
that the ingredients are not Batel?
2. (R. Oshaya) Their laughter was justified.
i. The proper analogy is to wheat and barley
where even he had to admit that one kind is
Batel (even ownership) in another.
3. Question (R. Safra): But R. Aba was correct, since
the Bitul you are speaking of is only where there
is Isur, not simply any mixture (which was R.
ii. Even wheat in wheat is Batel according to the
Rabanan of R. Yehudah, who hold Min b'Mino is
4. Answer: Perhaps such tiny amounts (as the spices,
water and salt) should be Batel anyway?
5. Question: But R. Chiya taught (citing Rav) that
someone who picks stones from his friend's granary
is obligated to pay him, as if he had removed
wheat (even though the amount is small)!?
6. Answer (Abaye): The case of the dough is not
comparable to picking stones from the granary
since there, the money (i.e. the stones) has a
claimant, whereas the water and the salt (which
the owner gave her friend) do not.
7. Question (acc. to Rashi: R. Safra): But the
concept of Bitul does not hinge on ownership (We
see R. Chisda making a distinction between whether
one Min may become like the other (as in the case
of Neveilah falling into Shechutah) and he does
not distinguish between ownership)!?
8. Answer: Perhaps if the Neveilah had no owner it
would indeed not be Batel!?
9. Question: R. Yochanan b. Nuris has already taught
that objects have a certain independence even if
they have no owner who is claiming them (objects
of Hefker acquire Shevisah as if they had an
10. Answer (Abaye): Still, the differentiation must be
made between money (the pebbles in the wheat) and
(e) Answer (Abaye): It is a decree lest they make a dough
in partnership (and misapply the Din of Bitul).
(f) Additional Answer (Rava): It is because spices are made
specifically to give taste, and whatever is added for
taste, cannot become Batel.
(g) Answer (R. Ashi): The ingredients are not Batel because
they are a Davar sheYesh Lo Matirin.