BACKGROUND TO THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
1) [line 7] SHOR SHEL PATAM - a fattened ox [of a merchant who fattens oxen for sale]
2) [line 2] KI SALIK REBBI ABA - when Rebbi Aba when up to Eretz Yisrael [from Bavel]
3) [line 21] D'EIMA MILSA D'SISKABEL - that I should only say things that will be accepted [by the scholars of Eretz Yisrael]
*4*) [line 2] YOCHAL HALAH V'CHADI - (lit. should he eat it and rejoice?) That is, the laws of Bitul Isurim cannot be applied to the determine the Techum Shabbos of dough which is owned by two people. Techumim are not dealt with as laws of Isur v'Heter, but rather are directly dependent on the ownership of the item. Since what one person owns cannot become Batel to what another person owns, the Techum Shabbos of what one person owns cannot become Batel to the Techum Shabbos of what is owned by the other person. (TOSFOS DH Harei)
5) [line 2] ACHICHU ALEI - they laughed at (scoffed, derided) him
6a) [line 3] GOLASAICHU SHAKLI? - did I take your cloaks?
b) [line 3] GOLASA - a wrap or cloak worn beneath the Talis
7) [line 3] HADUR ACHICHU ALEI - they laughed at him again
*8*) [line 4] SHAPIR AVUD D'ACHICHU ALEI - they were correct in laughing at Rebbi Aba. That is, if Rebbi Aba wanted to bring out the point that one person's money cannot become Batel to another person's, why did he mention an example of Min b'Mino? That just confuses the issue at hand, by introducing another, irrelevant reason why one person's wheat should not become Batel when mixed into another person's! His point would have been valid, though, had he but mentioned an example of Min b'she'Eino Mino. (The Gemara does not answer this question. Apparently, Rebbi Aba did not bother to mention a case of Min b'she'Eino Mino since it was obvious to him that the Halachah is like the Rabanan, and there is absolutely no difference between Min b'Mino and Min b'she'Eino Mino.)
9) [line 9] MOSHE, SHAPIR KA'AMART?! - (a) Leader of the Generation, is what you are saying correct?! (RASHI Sukah 39a); (b) Great Sage, is what you are saying correct?! (RASHI Chulin 93a); (c) By the honor of Moshe Rabeinu (an expression for an oath), is what you are saying correct!? (RASHI here)
10) [line 10] REBBI CHIYA KETUSPA'AH - Rebbi Chiya from Akistefon, or Ctesphon, a town on the Eastern bank of the Tigris. This is identical with Resen, which is mentioned in Bereishis 10:12 (Yoma 10a). (However, according to the Targum Yerushalmi and the Midrash, Akistefon is Kalneh, which is mentioned in Bereishis 10:10)
11) [line 12] KILA CHASREI - [it is considered as if] he lessened the measure (quantity) of his wheat.
*12*) [line 12] HACHA NAMI, KILA CHASREI - that is, Rebbi Aba's logic is valid; since the laws of Techumim depend on ownership, Bitul cannot affect them. Even when the portion that one person owns in not evident in the mixture at all (such as is the case with the salt and water in the dough), the one who owns that portion is also called an "owner," since "Kila Chasrei."
*13*) [line 13] V'LO SHANI LEI L'MAR BEIN MAMON SHE'YESH LO TOV'IN... - that is, if the object that a person owns is both not evident in the mixture, and also he is not able to claim it in court, it should certainly become Batel in the mixture, and we should be able to compare it to the question of whether one person's money can be Batel to another person's money.
*14*) [line 15] UL'TA'AMEICH, HA D'AMAR RAV CHISDA... - that is, the determining factor in whether an object of Isur is Batel or not is not whether it can be claimed in court, but rather whether the Isur stems from ownership or not. If it would make a difference that it could be claimed in court, and we would disregard whether the ownership caused the Isur or the Isur is independent of ownership, then a non-kosher piece of meat should not become Batel when mixed with kosher pieces, if they have different owners, since the object of Isur can be claimed in court. (TOSFOS DH Hachi. The Ba'al ha'Me'or had another Girsa in this section which makes it easier to read. According to his Girsa, this is all part of Abaye's statement, and Abaye is still trying to prove that there is no difference who the owner of the Isur is.)
15) [line 21] KONIN SHEVISAH (ERUVEI TECHUMIN)
(a) A person is only allowed to walk a distance of 2000 Amos, approximately 960 meters (3147 feet) or 1,152 meters (3774 feet), depending upon the differing Halachic opinions, from his city or dwelling place (if he is not in a city) on Shabbos or Yom Tov. If he wants to walk another 2000 Amos, he must make an Eruv Techumin.
(b) This is accomplished by placing an amount of food that would be used for two meals nearly 2000 Amos away from his present location, in the direction in which he wishes to walk. The location where his food is placed is considered his new dwelling or place of Shevisah for that Shabbos or Yom Tov, and he may walk 2000 Amos in any direction from there. In addition to people, objects also acquire a place of Shevisah, preventing them from being removed 2000 Amos from their Makom Shevisah on Shabbos or Yom Tov. Objects that have owners receive the Techum of their owners.
(c) The Tana'im argue as to whether ownerless objects acquire a Makom Shevisah, preventing them from being removed 2000 Amos from their Makom Shevisah on Shabbos or Yom Tov, or not. If they do not acquire a Makom Shevisah, their Techum is like the Techum of the person who takes possession of them on Shabbos.
*16*) AMAR LEI, MI KA MEDAMIS ISURA L'MEMONA? - that is, Abaye replied that he certainly agrees that in matters regarding ownership, per se, one person's object become Batel to another person's object. However, the question of Bitul Techumim cannot be compared to Bitul of ownership. Even though the Isur of Techumim stems from ownership, nevertheless as far as the Isur Techumim is concerned the laws of Bitul can be applied, and as far as monetary law (i.e. who owns what), the laws of Bitul will not be applied.
Index to Background for Maseches Beitzah