ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) We deduce from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yehudah Poter b'Mayim' - that, even though Rebbi Yehudah precludes water from determining the dough's Techum, he does not preclude salt.
(b) In another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah specifically writes that both the water and the salt are Batel in the dough - he is referring to Sedomis salt, which is Batel because it is extremely fine; whereas the previous Beraisa speaks about regular salt, which is thicker is therefore discernable.
(c) And we reconcile this second Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Yehudah as saying that the water and the salt are Batel both in a dough and in a cooked dish, with a third Beraisa, where he says that they are not Batel due to the liquid - by establishing the latter Beraisa by a dish which contains more liquid, whereas the former Beraisa speaks by a dish that is more solid.
(a) A coal, says our Mishnah, shares the Techum of its owner. When the Tana says 've'ha'Shalheves b'Chol Makom' - he means that if someone takes a flame from his friend, even on Shabbos, he is not bound by the latter's Techum, but may take it wherever he is permitted to go.
(b) The Beraisa presents five differences between a coal and a flame, two of which we already learned in the Mishnah. The Tana rules that ...
1. ... for using a of Hekdesh - one is Mo'el, but not for using a flame.
2. ... one may not use a flame belonging to Avodah-Zarah, but that a flame is permitted.
3. ... a coal of a Mudar Hana'ah is forbidden, whereas a flame is permitted.
(c) The reason for this distinction is - because whereas a coal is concrete, a flame is abstract.
(d) Even though the Chachamim forbade (deriving Hana'ah from) a flame of Hekdesh, they permitted a flame of Avodah-Zarah - because it is disgusting, and people are unlikely to take advantage of the leniency.
(e) We learn from the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Lo Yidbak b'Yadcha min ha'Cheirem" - that one may not derive benefit from coal of Avodah-Zarah min ha'Torah.
(a) Rav Sheishes reconciles the Beraisa which declares Chayav someone who carries a flame into the street with our Mishnah, which declares him Patur - by establishing it in a case where he carried it out by means of a splinter of wood (which enhances the Chashivus of the flame).
(b) He is not Chayav for carrying out the splinter - because it speaks when the splinter is smaller than the minimum Shi'ur for which one is Chayav on Shabbos ...
(c) ... (i.e. sufficient to roast a ki'Grogeres of a chicken's egg).
(a) Abaye establishes the Beraisa when he rubbed a vessel with oil and carried out the flame on that. To explain why he is not Chayav for carrying out the vessel - we interpret 'vessel' here as a small piece of clay, which did not comprise the minimum Shi'ur for which one is Chayav on Shabbos.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah (in the Mishnah in Shabbos), the minimum Shi'ur to be Chayav would be - the amount that one needs to place between two half-posts in a window-frame to bring them to the same level, or to extend the length of two half-posts.
(c) One is indeed Chayav for carrying out a flame in all the above cases - but Patur, if one flicks an unattached flame into the street with one's hands.
(a) Our Mishnah now discusses the Techum of water in a water-pit. The Techum that the Tana ascribes to water that is drawn ...
1. ... from a private well - is 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 learned on the previous Amud) - with regard to the latter case (that of a well of Olei Bavel), which, according to the latter, will acquire its own Techum with the advent of Shabbos.
(c) The Seifa of our Mishnah says 'ke'Raglei ha'Memalei', and not k'Raglei Kol Adam' - because the water does in fact, follow the Techum of the person who draws it, and not anyone else ...
(d) ... because this Tana holds 'Yesh Bereirah Lehachmir' (i.e. the person who draws the water becomes the owner retroactively, and prevents anyone else from subsequently becoming the owner).
(a) Rava queries the Reisha of our Mishnah from a Beraisa, which discusses the Techum of moving water. The latter rules that water of ...
1. ... rivers that flow and of ...
2. ... springs that emerge from underground - both share the Techum of whoever currently owns it.
(b) And the same applies to water from a spring, even though it does not flow horizontally ...
(c) ... because moving water does not acquire Shevisah at all. (See Maharsha on Rashi DH 'ke'Raglei ha'Memalei'.)
(d) And the Reisha of our Mishnah, which rules that water from a private well follows the Techum of whoever owns it when Shabbos enters - is speaking about a collection of water that is static.
(e) Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Shmuel - substantiates the answer that we just gave.
(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 shares the Techum of the person on whose behalf it was drawn. Rav Sheishes rules - that it shares the Techum of the person who drew it.
(c) Initially, we explain that - according to Rav Sheishes, 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 we currently hold 'Yesh Bereirah').
(d) According to Rav Sheishes, we do not apply the principle "Migo d'Zachi la'Nafshei, Zachi Nami l'Chavrei (whatever one can acquire oneself one can also acquire on behalf of somebody else) - because of a second principle 'Tofes l'Ba'al Chov' b'Makom she'Chav l'Achrini', 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).
(a) Rava queries Rav Nachman from a Beraisa, however. The Tana rules in a case where one man says to another ...
1. ... 'Hareini Alecha Cherem' - that the latter may derive no benefit from the former.
2. ... 'Harei Ata Alai Cherem' - then it is the former who may derive no benefit from the latter.
(b) If he were to say 'Hareini Alecha v'Ata Alai (Cherem)' then each one would be forbidden to benefit from the other. They are ...
1. ... permitted however, to benefit from things that belong to the Olei Bavel.
2. ... not permitted to benefit from things that belong to the town in which they live.
(c) 'Things that belong to Olei Bavel' comprise - Har ha'Bayis, the rooms there, the Azaros and water pits that have been dug along the way; whereas 'things that belong to the town in which they live' comprise - the main road, the Shul and the bathhouse.
(a) Rava query Rav Nachman from the above Beraisa in that 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) And he supports his Kashya from a Mishnah in Nedarim, which forbids Shutfim (partners) who made a Neder not to derive benefit from one another from entering their shared Chatzer and bathing in the well.
(c) We initially answer this Kashya - by restricting the concession to water that one draws from the well and bathing in the water that remains, which is forbidden, because the water is considered jointly-owned.
(d) To permit each partner to take water and drink it - Rav Nachman must hold 'Yesh Bereirah', as we explained earlier.
(a) We now query Rav Nachman from a Mishnah in Shekalim, which discusses various aspects of brothers who divide their father's property. When giving one's half-Shekel, everyone has to give a Kalbon - the little bit extra that everyone had to pay Hekdesh when giving one's 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) Two partners who give a full Shekel between them - are obligated to give two Kalbonos.
(c) Brothers who have not yet divided their father's property and who still share it jointly (known as 'Tefusas ha'Bayis') give only one Kalbon (just like their father would have done, had he continued to give a half-Shekel on their behalf).
(d) The equivalent Din regarding ...
1. ... a case of brothers who divided their father's property and then entered into a partnership - will require them to give two Kalbonos.
2. ... Ma'asar Behemah from animals that their father left them - will be the reverse of that of Kalbon; Chayav in the earlier case (since they are not considered Shutfim), but Patur in the latter (since partners are Patur from Ma'asar Behemah).
(a) Rav Anan establishes the above Beraisa (of brothers who enter into a Shutfus), by where the brothers divide one species against another (by assessing the respective values and swapping them). But if the two brothers divide one species between them (e.g. sheep against sheep, or goats against goats) - then the Din of inheritance remains intact, and they return to the Din of Tefusas ha'Bayis ...
(b) ... because Rav Anan holds 'Yesh Bereirah' and we consider as if each brother has received his due (rather than as a Shutfus). Consequently, 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'asar Behemah.
(c) Rav Nachman holds 'Ein Bereirah'. Consequently, either way, the brothers have a Din of buyers, in which case their division becomes nullified in the Yovel year, and whatever they divide does not return to Tefusas ha'Bayis, and should they enter into a partnership, they have the Din of Shutfim.
(d) The problem with Rav Nachman is - we now see that he holds 'Ein Bereirah', so how can we ascribe his earlier ruling (regarding if someone who draws water from a public well on behalf of his friend) to the fact that he holds 'Yesh Bereirah'?
(a) We are therefore forced to explain that even according to Rav Nachman, the wells of Olei Bavel are Hefker - in which case, both Rav Sheshes and Rav Nachman will agree that the person on whose behalf the one draws the water does not acquire it. And 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 Techum therefore, the water now shares). Rav Nachman on the other hand, 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 ...
(b) ... and the water shares his Techum.
(c) It is possible to accept the text 'Rav Nachman Savar Kanah Chavero, v'Rav Sheshes Savar Lo Kanah Chavero' - if we explain Rav Nachman to mean that the second person acquires the water when he receives it from the hand of the man who drew it), whereas Rav Sheishes means - that he does acquire it at all, since the first person already acquired it.
(a) Our Mishnah permits the residents of a town (who made an Eruv to enable them to walk to another town that is outside the Techum) ...
1. ... to take with them fruit that belongs to a resident of the town to which they are going - provided he made an Eruv, too.
2. ... 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.