ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 16
BEITZAH 16 - has been dedicated by Harav Avraham Feldman to the memory of
Hagaon Rav Yisroel Zev [ben Avrohom Tzvi] Gustman ZT'L, author of "Kuntresei
Shi'urim", on the occasion of his Yahrzeit (28 Sivan).
(a) We know that the Pasuk in Tehilim "Tik'u ba'Chodesh Shofar, *ba'Kesse*
le'Yom *Chageinu*" refers to Rosh Hashanah - because Rosh Hashanah is the
only Chag on which the moon is not visible.
(b) And we learn from the continuation of the Pasuk "Ki *Chok* le'Yisrael Hu
Mishpat le'Elokei Ya'akov"- that Hashem fixes one's livelihood on Rosh
(c) The Pasuk "ve'Achlu es Chukam Asher Nasan Lahem Par'oh" or that of
"Hatrifeini Lechem Chuki" proves - that "Chok" means livelihood.
(a) Shamai ha'Zaken always ate in honor of Shabbos - by buying an animal on
Sunday, say, li'Chevod Shabbos', and then, upon finding a better one on
Monday, eating the first one and buying the second one li'Chevod Shabbos'.
(b) Based on the Pasuk "Baruch Hashem Yom Yom", Beis Hillel trusted that
Hashem would provide for his daily needs, and that he would find what he
needed for Shabbos each Friday.
(a) Rav Chama bar Chanina learns from the Pasuk "u'Moshe Lo Yada Ki Karan Or
Panav" - that it is not necessary to inform one's friend that he has given
him a gift.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel learns from the Pasuk "la'Da'as Ki Ani Hashem
Mekadishchem" - that just as Hashem was telling Moshe to go and inform
Yisrael that He was giving them a lovely gift called Shabbos from His
treasury, so too, should someone who gives a gift to a child, inform the
child's mother of what he did.
(c) We reconcile these two seemingly conflicting Pesukim - by pointing out
that in the case of Moshe's shining face, it was not necessary to inform
him, since he was bound to find out anyway; whereas by Shabbos, if they were
not told about it, they would never know.
(d) It is the *reward* of Shabbos - that is referred to as a gift that does
stand to be revealed, not Shabbos itself.
(a) We just learned that someone who gives a gift to a child should inform
his mother (in order to spread the feeling of goodwill among the people).
One does this (when it is not easy to contact the mother) - by rubbing oil
and eye-paint on the child (so that when his mother asks him who did it, he
will tell her adding that he also gave him some bread).
(b) At a time when doing that is considered witchcraft - one rubs a little
of whatever one gave him on him.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Beini u'Vein B'nei Yisrael Os Hi
le'Olam" - that Shabbos, unlike all other Mitzvos, was given to Yisrael on a
(b) This does not however, absolve Nochrim from punishment for observing
Shabbos - because it is not the actual *Shabbos* that was given on a low key
(in fact, it was given to us publicly like all the other Mitzvos), but the
*reward* (as we explained earlier), or the *extra Neshamah* that is present
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Shavas va'Yinafash" - that after Shabbos, when
the Neshamah Yeseirah departs, the Torah declares 'Vay Avdah Nefesh', a
proof that the extra Soul comes on Shabbos and departs when Shabbos
(a) According to Abaye, the Eiruv Tavshilin must consist of a cooked dish,
and not of bread - because it needs to be clear that it was specially
prepared for Shabbos (and not just plain bread, which one eats throughout
(b) Rebbi Zeira referred to the Babylonians (who used to eat their bread
with porridge) as 'those foolish Babylonians' who eat bread with bread.
(c) Abaye validates the use of porridge for Eiruv Tavshilin. In light of
this, the reason that he requires a cooked dish (in a.) and not bread - must
be because Eiruv Tavshilin needs to be something that is not common.
(d) In the second Lashon, Abaye disqualifies porridge from being used for
Eiruv Tavshilin, in which case, he will disqualify bread for the same reason
as he disqualifies porridge - because Eiruv Tavshilin must be something that
one eats together with bread (as we explained in a.).
(a) Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa, says that - one may use lentils that
remain inadvertently stuck to the pot from the Yom-Tov meal for Eiruv
Tavshilin, provided he stated this in advance.
(b) Small salted fish not subject to 'Bishul Akum' - because they can be
(c) If a Nochri fries them, they may be used for Eiruv Tavshilin, but if he
made them in the form of 'Kasa de'Harsena', they are forbidden. Kasa
de'Harsena is the fat of the innards of small fish fried in flour.
(d) We might have thought that they are permitted - because the main part of
the dish is the fat of the innards. Rav therefore teaches us that the flour
is the main part of the dish.
(a) We have already learned that Eiruv Tavshilin requires at least a k'Zayis
- one k'Zayis irrespective of how many people will be sharing the food.
(b) We reconcile the Shiur of a k'Zayis with our Mishnah, which writes that
even if the Eiruv got eaten or lost, it is Kasher, provided a '*Kol she'Hu*
remains' - by bearing in mind that *Kol she'Hu* is often relative (e.g. in
this case, meaning not an entire meal); consequently, it can refer to a
(c) The Beraisa incorporates in the Din of Eiruv Tavshilin a dish that is
cooked, roasted or even pickled. One prepare 'Kuli'as ha'Ispanin' (a small
soft, salted fish) for one's Eiruv - by just pouring hot water over it
(rendering it fit to eat).
(d) When the Tana adds that the Eiruv has no Shiur - he means that it has no
maximum Shiur (i.e. one *may* prepare as much as one wishes - though it is
unclear why one might have thought that one may *not*) but it does have the
minimum Shiur of a k'Zayis.
(a) Rav Huna definitely requires the knowledge of the person who is making
it (i.e. it must be specifically prepared for the Eiruv) - but not the
knowledge of the person on whose behalf the Eiruv is being prepared (seeing
as Shmuel's father prepared an Eiruv for the whole of Neherda'a, and Rebbi
Ami and Rebbi Asi for the whole of Teverya).
(b) Anyone who lives within Techum Shabbos can be included in one's Eiruv.
(c) When that blind man was sad one Yom-Tov, because he had forgotten to
prepare an Eiruv Tavshilin. Mar Shmuel told him ...
1. ... that year - to rely on *his* Eiruv.
(d) (Bearing in mind, that this incident occurred in Bavel where two days
were kept, and it seems logical that it took place on the *first* day Yom-
Tov, when the blind man remembered that he had not made an Eiruv and had not
yet done anything about it), it must have taken place on the Yom-Tov of Rosh
Hashanah - because otherwise, he could have made an Eiruv on the first day
with a condition (See Maharshal).
2. ... the following year when the same scenario repeated itself - that he
was negligent, and that his Eiruv covered everyone in town, except for him.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa forbids the placing of both an Eiruv
Techumin and an Eiruv Chatzeiros on Yom-Tov Erev Shabbos. Rebbi permits
placing an Eiruv Chatzeiros, since the Eiruv is meant to permit carrying on
Shabbos, and seeing as one is permitted to carry on Yom-Tov, it is not
logical that one should not be permitted to make preparations to carry on a
day when carrying is permitted. He concedes however, that placing an Eiruv
Techumin is forbidden, because carrying outside the Techum is forbidden on
(b) Rav rules like the Tana Kama, Shmuel rules like Rebbi. When they asked
whether Shmuel's ruling is lenient or strict - they were uncertain whether
Shmuel learned the Machlokes like we did, or whether one did not perhaps
need to switch the opinions of Rebbi and the Rabbanan, like Rebbi Elazar
sent to the B'nei Golah.
(c) We try to prove that Shmuel must have meant to rule leniently, because
Rav, commenting on Shmuel's ruling like Rebbi, commented ruefully that 'the
first time this Talmid-Chacham issues a ruling, he already causes people to
stumble'. Initially, this certainly seems to imply that Shmuel ruled
*leniently*. However, we conclude that - even if Shmuel had ruled
*stringently*, he would have caused people to stumble, because they now had
to go by his ruling, and anyone who forgot, and carried in the Chatzer
without an Eiruv, would be sinning.
(d) Rava quoting Rav Chisda Amar Rav Huna, rules like Rebbi - forbidding the
placing of an Eiruv Chatzeiros on Friday, like the version of Rebbi Elazar.