Previous daf

1)

(a) We deduce from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yehudah Poter be'Mayim' - that, even though Rebbi Yehudah precludes *water* from determining the dough's T'chum, he does not preclude *salt*.

(b) In another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah specifically writes that both the water *and the salt* are Bateil in the dough - he is referring to Sedomis salt, which is Bateil because it is extremely fine; whereas the previous Beraisa speaks about thicker salt, which is still recognizable.

(c) We reconcile this second Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Yehudah as saying that the water and the salt are Bateil both in a dough *and in a cooked dish*, with a third Beraisa, where he says that they are *not Bateil in a cooked dish* because of the liquid - by establishing the latter Beraisa by a more liquid dish, whereas the former Beraisa speaks by a dish where the water is not visible.

(a) A coal may go as far as its owner. When the Tana says 've'ha'Shalheves be'Chol Makom' - he means that if someone takes a flame from his friend even on Shabbos, he is not bound by his friend's Techum, but may take it wherever *he* may go.

(b) For using ...

1. ... a coal belonging to Hekdesh - one is Mo'el?
2. ... a flame belonging to Hekdesh - one is not Mo'el (though doing so is nevertheless Asur mi'd'Rabbanan).

(c) The difference between ...

1. ... carrying out a coal into the street on Shabbos and a flame - is that one is Chayav for the former, but not for the latter.
2. ... a coal of Avodah-Zarah and a flame - is that the former is forbidden, whereas the latter is permitted.

(d) It is an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan to benefit from a flame of Hekdesh but not from a flame of Avodah-Zarah - because the latter is disgusting (in which case, people will keep away from it anyway); whereas the former is not (and therefore requires a decree forbidden any usage from it).

(a) The fifth area of Halachah where a distinction is drawn between a coal and a flame - is that of Neder: someone who is Mudar Hana'ah (forbidden through a Neder to benefit from his friend), is permitted to benefit from his flame but not from his coal.

(b) We just learned that one is Patur for carrying out a flame. Rav Sheshes establishes the Beraisa which says that he is Chayav when he carried it out on a splinter of wood. He is not Chayav for carrying out the splinter - because it speaks when the splinter is smaller than the minimum Shiur for which one is Chayav on Shabbos (i.e. sufficient to roast a ki'Gerogeres of a chicken's egg).

(c) Abaye establishes the Beraisa when he rubbed a vessel with oil and carried out the flame on that. He is not Chayav for carrying out the vessel - because 'vessel' here refers to a small piece of clay which is less than the minimum Shiur for which one is Chayav on Shabbos. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the minimum Shiur to be Chayav would be the amount that one needs to place between two half-posts in a window-frame to make them the same level, or to extend the length of two half-posts.

(d) One is Chayav for carrying out a flame - but Patur if one knocks an unattached flame into the street with one's hands.

(a) The Techum of water that is drawn ...

1. ... from a private well - follows that of the owner.
2. ... from a well that belongs to the city - is two thousand Amos outside the town in all directions.
3. ... from a well of Olei Bavel - follows the Techum of whoever draws it.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri (who holds 'Cheftzei Hefker Konin Shevisah', as we saw on the previous Amud) - with regard to the latter case (that of a well of Olei Bavel), which, according to Rebbi Yochanan be Nuri, would acquire its own Techum with the advent of Shabbos.

(c) The Seifa of our Mishnah says 'ke'Raglei ha'Memalei', and not ke'Raglei Kol Adam' - because the water does in fact, follow the Techum of the person who drew it, and not anyone else, because this Tana holds 'Yesh Bereirah Lehachmir' (i.e. the person who drew the water becomes the owner retroactively, to prevent anyone else from becoming the owner).

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Eruvin that flowing water follows the Techum of whoever currently owns it.

(b) And the same applies to water from a spring, even though it does not flow horizontally - because moving water does not acquire Shevisah at all. (See Maharsha on Rashi DH 'ke'Raglei ha'Memalei'.)

(c) The Reisha of our Mishnah, which rules that water from a private well follows the Techum of whoever owns it when Shabbos enters - speaks about a collection of water that is static.

(a) The Techum of water that one person fills for himself from a well of Olei Bavel and then gives to someone else - is that of the person who fills the water, as we learned in our Mishnah.

(b) According to Rav Nachman, if someone draws water from a well of Olei Bavel on behalf of his friend, the water follows the Techum of the person on whose behalf it was drawn. Rav Sheshes says - that it follows the Techum of the person who drew it.

(c) We explain initially that - according to Rav Sheshes, the water in a well of Olei Bavel is considered Hefker (and whoever draws it becomes the owner); whereas according to Rav Nachman, the water is owned jointly by everyone. Consequently, the water that one person draws on behalf of another, is really that person's water anyway (and because of 'Yesh Bereirah').

(d) If the water is Hefker (as Rav Sheshes contends), the person on whose behalf the water is drawn cannot acquire it - because of the principle 'Tofes le'Ba'al Chov, Lo Kanah' (One person cannot acquire on behalf of another, if it causes a loss to others). Note: It is not clear however, on what grounds the person who drew the water acquires it, since he did not intend to do so (see the last Rashi in the Sugya).

7)

(a) If one man says to another ...

1. ... 'Hareini Alecha Cherem' - then the second man may derive no benefit from the one who made the Neder.
2. ... 'Harei Ata Alai Cherem' - then it is the person who made the Neder who may derive no benefit from the second man.

(b) If he says 'Hareini Alecha ve'Ata Alai (Cherem)' then each one is forbidden to benefit from the other. They are ...

1. ... permitted to benefit from things that belong to the Olei Bavel - comprising the Har ha'Bayis, the rooms in the Beis Hamikdash, the Azaros and the water of the wells dug by them along the route to Yerushalayim.
2. ... not permitted to benefit from things that belong to the town in which they live - comprising the main road, the Shul and the bathhouse.

(a) If, as Rav Nachman contends, whatever belongs to Olei Bavel is considered jointly owned - why (in light of the Mishnah in Nedarim, which forbids partners who are Mudarim Hana'ah from each other to benefit from each other's property) are they permitted to benefit from the water of the wells?

(b) We initially answer this Kashya - by restricting the concession to water that one draws (on the assumption that Rav Nachman holds 'Yesh Bereirah', as we explained earlier); but bathing in the well will be forbidden, because the water is considered jointly-owned.

(c) We are forced to retract from the current interpretation of the Machlokes - on the grounds that Rav Nachman holds 'Ein Bereirah', in which case, they draw water from the water of Olei Bavel will also be forbidden.

(a) A Kalbon - was the little bit extra that everyone had to pay Hekdesh when giving his annual half-Shekel, to compensate Hekdesh on the losses it sustained in the process of exchanging the different denominational coins that people gave to the treasurer.

(b) If two brothers who had divided their father's inheritance and then formed a partnership, gave a full Shekel between them - they had to pay *two* Kalbonos.

(c) If however, they had not yet divided the inheritance (known as Tefusas ha'Bayis) - they only needed to give *one* Kalbon between them (just as the father would have done had he given on their behalf).

(d) As far as Ma'aser Beheimah is concerned, this distinction works in the reverse - in the former case (where they entered into a regular partnership), they are Patur from Ma'aser Beheimah (just as all partners are); whereas in the latter case, (where they are sharing the property bi'Tefusas ha'Bayis) they are Chayav.

(a) According to Rav Anan, the above Din (that once they divide the property, Tefusas ha'Bayis no longer applies), is confined to where they divide goats against sheep, for example, which is only an arbitrary division, and has the Din of a sale (which becomes nullified in the Yovel year). But if the two brothers divided any one species between them (e.g. sheep against sheep, or goats against goats) - then the Din of inheritance remains intact. We consider that each brother received his due (because Rav Anan holds 'Yesh Bereirah'), and should they decide to enter into a partnership, the animals will return once again, to Tefusas ha'Bayis, to pay one Kalbon, and to be Chayav Ma'aser Beheimah.

(b) Rav Nachman holds that either way, the brothers have a Din of buyers; their division is nullified in the Yovel year, and whatever they divide does not return to Tefusas ha'Bayis - because he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

(c) The fact that Rav Nachman clearly holds 'Ein Bereirah', forces us to learn that, even *he* holds that the wells of Olei Bavel are Hefker - in which case, both Rav Sheshes and Rav Nachman will agree that the person on whose behalf he drew the water does not acquire it. When Rav Sheshes says that *he* acquires the water, he is referring, not to the one on whose behalf the water was drawn, but to the one who drew it (whose T'chum therefore, the water follows). Rav Nachman holds that the one who drew the water cannot acquire it, since he did not draw it on his own behalf. Consequently, the second man acquires it when he receives it from the hand of the first, in which case, the water follows *his* T'chum.

(d) It is possible to accept the text 'Rav Nachman Savar Kanah Chaveiro (referring to the moment that he receives the water from the hand of the man who drew it), ve'Rav Sheshes Savar Lo Kanah Chaveiro' (since the first man has already acquired it).

1. ... are permitted to take with them fruit that belongs to a resident of the town to which they are going - provided he made an Eiruv, too.
2. ... permitted to carry back with them food from their host - provided the owner handed it to a third person to acquire on their behalf before Yom-Tov.