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 40
BEITZAH 36-40 (Siyum!) - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) MISHNAH: TECHUMIN OF FOODS
(a) If one's food is outside of his Techum, those who made
an Eiruv to come to his Techum may not transport his
food on his behalf.
2) TECHUMIM IN CASES OF SHEMIRAH
(b) If he had made an Eiruv to go to his food, they may
bring his food to him.
(c) One may not send back food with guests whose arrival
was made possible by their having made an Eiruv, unless
the host made them the owner of the food before YomTov.
(a) (Rav) The food being watched has the Techum of the
3) A SEEMINGLY RELATED INCIDENT
(b) (Shmuel) It has the Techum of its owner.
(c) Question: Are Rav and Shmuel here being consistent with
their positions regarding the case of one who brings
his animal into the Chatzer of another, with his
1. R. Huna cites Rav as ruling like the Chachamim,
who obligate the owner of the Chatzer in damages
done by the animal (and likewise the Techum
follows the Shomer).
(d) Answer: Each could maintain his position regarding the
Shomer according to both positions in Bava Kama.
2. Shmuel rules like Rebbi who exempts the owner of
the Chatzer until he explicitly indicates that he
is accepting liability (and likewise the Techum
remains that of the owner).
1. (Rav) Even Rebbi will agree that the fruit follows
the Techum of the trustee since he explicitly
(e) Question (on Rav): Then why, in our Mishnah, should the
Eiruv made by the owner of the fruit affect its Techum
when it is in the home of the Shomer!?
2. (Shmuel) Even Rabanan will hold that the fruit
follows the Techum of the depositor since it
depends on whether the owner desires that the
liability (and the consequent Techum) should pass
to the Shomer.
(f) Answer (R. Huna): The corner of the house where the
food was stored had been designated as the property of
its owner (and the food thus remains bound by its
(g) Question (on Rav): Why should it help to give the food
to the guests (via a third party) before YomTov since
it remains in his trusteeship when YomTov begins!?
(h) Answer: Here, too, it is as if he designated the place
where the food is stored as the property of the guests.
(i) Alternate Answer: The procedure of transferring it to
their ownership (entirely so that they may take it
home) changes the picture.
(a) R. Huna only permitted R. Chana to take the meat home
if he himself had hung it on the door.
4) MISHNAH: GIVING WATER AND SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS
(b) Question: But R. Huna, a student of Rav, surely held
that in any case it would be restricted to the Techum
of the Shomer (his hosts)!?
(c) Answer: The hosts merely gave him a place to hang his
meat, like those who had designated the place above.
(d) Question: But why, if they hung it, should he not be
able to take it!?
1. (R. Hillel of R. Ashi) What about the implication
of the Halachah of Shmuel that the Techum follows
the one for whom the food is to be designated.
(e) Answer: Rather, the issue was unrelated to Techum, but
to the rule of Basar sheNis'alem (and had R. Chana not
hung the meat himself he would not have a Siman that it
2. (Ravina of R. Ashi) We were taught that the
Halachah follows R. Dosa (where we allow for
assumptions about whose Techum should prevail).
3. (R. Ashi of R. Kehana) The Mishnah taught that
animals and utensils follow the owner.
(a) One may not water and slaughter Midbarios, only Baysos.
5) THE REFERENCE TO WATERING
(b) Baysos overnight in the town while Midbarios remain in
the pasture overnight.
(a) Question: Why is the watering spoken of here?
6) REBBI'S VIEW ON MIDBARIOS AND BAYSOS
(b) Answer: For the incidental teaching that such pre-
Shechitah drinking eases the flaying.
(a) (Tana of the Beraisa) Midbarios are those which leave
after Pesach and return only with the first rains while
Baysos return each night to the Techum of the city.
(b) (Rebbi) The above are both Baysos since Midbarios are
those which never return from their grazing grounds.
(c) Question (R. Shimon b. Rebbi of his father): This seems
to be a Muktzah issue, Rebbi does not hold of Muktzah!?
1. This is evidenced by Rebbi's answer employing the
opinion of R. Shimon who does not hold of Muktzah.
2. The question pertained to dates which must be
placed in palm baskets to ripen.
3. Rebbi had replied that, in Rebbi Shimon's opinion,
they are not Muktzah, because only figs and grapes
that one placed on the roof to dry to become dried
figs and raisins are Muktzah (while these dates
were never fit to eat and cannot be considered
pushed out of one's mind).
(d) There are three possible answers to this question:
**** Hadran Alach Mashilin Peiros, uSelika Maseches Beitzah ****
1. Midbarios are like the figs and grapes and should
be considered pushed away given that they are
unfit (since he has sent them away).
2. Rebbi said to his son only the opinion of R.
Shimon, not his own ruling.
3. He holds like R. Shimon but in the Beraisa he was
speaking to the Rabanan who disagreed with him and
he was asking them to concede that those animals
that come in from their grazing grounds when the
first rains arrive, would not be Muktzah (even
according to R. Yehudah).
On to Ta'anis