In another Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer considers a beehive, Karka. Why is that?
(b)
Practically, this means that one can acquire Metaltelin together with it, a creditor may write a Pruzbul if the debtor owns a beehive, and that it is not subject to Tum'ah. What fourth ramification does it have?
(c)
The reason that the Pruzbul is dependent upon the debtor owning land might be because then, it is as if the creditor has a Mashkon (thereby minimizing their divergence from Torah law, since whenever the creditor has a Mashkon, he cannot transgress 'Lo Yigos' in which case Shemitah does not cancel the debt). What else might the reason be?
(d)
If a beehive is considered Karka in other regards, why does Rebbi Eliezer need to specifically mention that it is Karka regarding Pruzbul too?
1)
(a)
In another Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer considers a beehive, Karka - because it is attached to the ground.
(b)
Practically, this means that one can acquire Metaltelin together with it, a creditor may write a Pruzbul if the debtor owns a beehive, that it is not subject to Tum'ah and that - someone who extracts honey from it on Shabbos is Chayav (for detaching from the ground, which is a Toldah of reaping).
(c)
The reason that the Pruzbul is dependent upon the debtor owning land is either because then, it is as if the creditor has a Mashkon (thereby minimizing the chances of his transgressing the Din of 'Lo Yigos' in which case Shemitah does not cancel the debt) or - because it is unusual to lend someone money unless he owns land (which is Meshubad to the creditor), and Chazal do not generally issue decrees in unusual cases.
(d)
Even though a beehive is considered Karka in other regards, Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless finds it necessary to specifically mention that it is Karka regarding Pruzbul too - because we might have otherwise thought that seeing as it is moveable, the creditor does not rely on it to issue the loan (though it is not clear how this conforms to either of the two reasons that we just gave that require the borrower to own Karka).
2)
(a)
We just explained that the beehive is not subject to Tum'ah. How about the honey inside the beehive?
(b)
What does the Tana mean when he says 've'Einah Mekabeles Tum'ah bi'Mekomah'?
(c)
Is this qualification confined to the Din of Tum'ah?
(d)
This is the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. What do the Chachamim say?
(e)
According to the Chachamim, is the honey in the beehive also subject to Tum'ah too?
2)
(a)
We just explained that the beehive is not subject to Tum'ah - Neither is the honey inside the beehive.
(b)
When the Tana says 've'Einah Mekabeles Tum'ah bi'Mekomah', he means that it is only as long as the beehive is attached that the hive and the honey are not subject to Tum'ah, but not once they have been detached (even though he did not have specifically in mind that the honey should become a food).
(c)
And this qualification applies, not only to Tum'ah, but - to all the cases in the Beraisa.
(d)
This is the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. According to the Chachamim - the fact that the beehive is attached to the ground does not remove from it the status of 'Kli' (and it therefore remains Metaltelin).
(e)
And in their opinion - the honey in the beehive is also subject to Tum'ah (even though there has been no Machshavah to render it a food).
3)
(a)
Based on this Beraisa, who do we initially assume to be the author of the Beraisa which considers Metaltelin a pipe that one carved first and fixed to the Mikvah only afterwards (to invalidate the Mikvah)?
(b)
To establish it like R. Eliezer too, we cite R. Elazar (ben P'das, the Amora). What source does Rebbi Elazar give for Rebbi Eliezer's ruling (regarding a beehive)?
(c)
How does this enable us to establish the currnt Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer?
3)
(a)
Based on this Beraisa, we initially assume the author of the Beraisa which considers Metaltelin a pipe that one carved first and fixed to the Mikvah only afterwards (to invalidate the Mikvah) to be the Chachamim.
(b)
To establish it like R. Eliezer too, we cite R. Elazar (ben P'das, the Amora), who gives Rebbi Eliezer's source for his ruling (regarding a beehive) as the Pasuk in Shmuel "Va'yitbol osah be'Ya'aros he'Devash", effectively comparing a beehive to trees in a forest (which are attached to the ground).
(c)
This has no bearing however, on a pipe that is joined to a Mikvah after having been carved, which, Rebbi Eliezer will therefore concede, has a Din of Metaltelin.
4)
(a)
So we turn to a Mishnah in Keilim (to find where Rebbi Eliezer does not hold like the Beraisa regarding a pipe in a Mikvah). According to Rebbi Eliezer there, a baker's board that one attaches to the wall is not subject to Tum'ah. What, besides a kneading-board, might this be referring to?
(b)
According to the Chachamim, the board is subject to Tum'ah. Why does neither Tana seem to hold like the Beraisa regarding a Mikvah?
4)
(a)
So we turn to a Mishnah in Keilim (to find where Rebbi Eliezer does not hold like the Beraisa regarding a pipe in a Mikvah). According to Rebbi Eliezer there, a baker's board that one attached to the wall is not subject to Tum'ah. Besides a kneading-board - this might be referring to a counter on which the baker places the bread for sale.
(b)
According to the Chachamim, the board is subject to Tum'ah. Neither Tana seems to hold like the Beraisa regarding a Mikvah - since neither of them draws a distinction between a board that is carved first and then fixed to the wall and one that is fixed first and then carved.
5)
(a)
We try to establish the author of the Beraisa of Mikvah as Rebbi Eliezer, and the case of the board is different, inasmuch as the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan. Why is that?
(b)
Are all straight wooden vessels subject to Tum'ah mid'Rabanan?
(c)
How do we now classify Mayim She'uvin (drawn water)? What does the Toras Kohanim learn from the word "Mayan", to enable us to establish the Beraisa regarding a pipe like Rebbi Eliezer?
(d)
How do we now once more try to establish the author of the Beraisa of Mikvah as Rebbi Eliezer. If he considers a pipe that is later fixed to the ground, Metaltelin, why does he not also consider a board that is later fixed to the wall Metaltelin, too?
5)
(a)
We try to establish the author of the Beraisa of Mikvah as Rebbi Eliezer, and the case of the board is different, inasmuch as the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan - since we assume that the Tana is speaking about a wooden board, and 'P'shutei K'lei Eitz' (flat wooden vessels) are not subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah.
(b)
Not all straight wooden vessels are subject to Tum'ah mid'Rabanan - only those that are subject to Tum'as Medras (i.e. which are made to bear the weight of a person, such as a bed or a chair).
(c)
To enable us to establish the Beraisa regarding a pipe like Rebbi Eliezer, - we classify Mayim She'uvin (drawn water) as a P'sul d'Oraisa, as indeed, the Toras Kohanim learns from the word "Mayan" (which is a natural source of water).
(d)
We now try once more to establish the author of the Beraisa of Mikvah as Rebbi Eliezer - since the Chachamim declared a pipe that is later fixed to the ground, Metaltelin (because the Tum'ah involved is d'Oraisa), but not a board that is later fixed to the wall, since, even before it is fixed, it is only subject to Tum'ah mi'd'Rabanan.
66b----------------------------------------66b
6)
(a)
We query this explanation however, based on the tradition that Mayim She'uvin too, is only mid'Rabanan. In light of this tradition, how will we explain the Toras Kohanim (which learns from "Mayan" that Mayim She'uvin is d'Oraisa)?
(b)
One of two reasons for the leniency in the latter case is because the Mayim She'uvin is then Bateil be'Rov. What is the other reason?
(c)
We also refute that explanation on the basis of a statement of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina? By what sort of baker's-board does he establish the Mishnah?
6)
(a)
We query this explanation however, based on the tradition that Mayim She'uvin too, is only mid'Rabanan. In light of this tradition, when the Toras Kohanim learns from "Mayan" that Mayim She'uvin is d'Oraisa - it is referring specifically to a Mikvah which consists entirely of Mayim She'uvin, but not one which is Kosher to begin with and into which Mayim She'uvin later falls, or if one took a Se'ah and added a Se'ah of Mayim She'uvin, which remains Kosher ...
(b)
... either because it is Bateil be'Rov, or because - 'Kama Kama Bateil' (as each drop falls into it, it becomes Bateil).
(c)
We also refute that explanation on the basis of a statement of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who establishes the Mishnah - by a baker's-board made of metal (whose Tum'ah is definitely d'Oraisa).
7)
(a)
We therefore finally establish the Beraisa of Mikvah like the Chachamim, who consider the baker's board, Metaltelin. On what grounds do they then consider a pipe that is carved into the ground, Karka?
(b)
Then why are they strict there where the pipe was already carved before it was attached (seeing as, when all's said and done, Mayim She'uvin is only mi'de'Rabbanan)?
7)
(a)
So we finally establish the Beraisa of Mikvah like the Chachamim, who consider the baker's board, Metaltelin. Nevertheless, in the Beraisa, they consider a pipe that is carved into the ground, Karka because Mayim She'uvin is only mid'Rabanan (by the same S'vara as we explained the baker's board earlier according to Rebbi Eliezer).
(b)
Nevertheless, they are strict there where the pipe was already carved before it was attached, because then - it was already a vessel beforehand (and if even that would be considered Karka [mi'de'Rabbanan], then the decree of Mayim She'uvin would be virtually inapplicable).
8)
(a)
If someone is pleased with the rain, because he wants to use it to wash fruit, the fruit that he washes is Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah. What will be the Din if he is pleased with the water because he wants to use it to wash ...
1.
... Metaltelin other than food (but which then falls on to food)?
2.
... something that was always Mechubar l'Karka (which then fell on to food)?
(b)
Under what category does an Itztrubal (the wooden frame encircling a millstone) fall?
(c)
Rav Yosef asks whether the rain-water will be Machshir le'Kabel Tum'ah if the owner is pleased because he intends to use it to wash the Itztrubal. Why is the She'eilah non-existent according to Rebbi Eliezer?
(d)
And what would Rebbi Eliezer say in the equivalent case, if it was not an Itztrubal that the owner had in mind to wash, but a fixed mortar?
(e)
Why is that?
8)
(a)
If someone is pleased with the rain, because he wants to use it to wash fruit, the fruit that he washes is Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah. If he is pleased with the water because he wants to use it to wash ...
1.
... Metaltelin other than food (but which then falls on to food) - it too, is Machshir the food.
2.
... something that was always Mechubar le'Karka (and which then falls on to food) - it is not.
(b)
An Itztrubal (a wooden frame encircling a millstone) falls under the category of Metaltelin that later became Mechubar le'Karka (which we have been discussing throughout the Sugya).
(c)
Rav Yosef asks whether the rain-water will be Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah if the owner is pleased because he intends to use it to wash an Itztrubal. The She'eilah is non-existent according to Rebbi Eliezer (the author of our Mishnah) - since he considers even a vessel that is first carved and then fixed, Karka (in which case the Itztrubal will not be Machshir).
(d)
And if it was not an Itztrubal that the owner had in mind to wash, but a fixed mortar - he would issue ythe same ruling ...
(e)
... because according to Rebbi Eliezer, whatever is attached to the ground is considered Karka.
9)
(a)
Rav Yosef poses his She'eilah according to the Rabanan who consider a fixed mortar Metaltelin, with regard to the sale of a house. Why might they agree with Rebbi Eliezer with regard to Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah, even though they argue with him with regard to a sale? What might be their reason in the latter case, other than that all Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro is considered Metaltelin?
(b)
These Rabanan concede however, that an Itztrubal is included in the sale of the house. If, according to the side of the She'eilah that considers a fixed mortar Metaltelin, this is not because they consider an Itztrubal, Karka, then what is the reason for the distinction?
(c)
Do we have a precedent for this (where something is considered Talush as regards Hechsher Tum'ah, but Mechubar as regards the sale of a house?
(d)
Even though the She'eilah incorporates a fixed mortar (which is the point over which they argue with Rebbi Eliezer), Rav Yosef may have preferred to ask about an Itztrubal because one would be more likely to wash an Itztrubal than a mortar. What other reason might he have had?
(e)
What is the outcome of the She'eilah?
9)
(a)
Rav Yosef poses his She'eilah according to the Rabanan who consider a fixed mortar Metaltelin, with regard to the sale of the house. They might agree with Rebbi Eliezer with regard to Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah, even though they argue with him with regard to a sale, where their reason might well be (not because all Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro is considered Metaltelin, but) - because a seller sells begrudgingly (in which case he precludes from the sale anything that was not attached from the beginning).
(b)
These Rabanan concede however, that an Itztrubal is included in the sale of the house. According to the side of the She'eilah that considers a fixed mortar Metaltelin, this might be (not because they consider an Itztrubal, Karka, but) because an Itztrubal is considered more of a permanent fixture ...
(c)
... like the wall of a house which is included in the sale of the house despite the fact that it is considered Talush as regards Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah.
(d)
Even though the She'eilah incorporates a fixed mortar (which is the point over which they argue with Rebbi Eliezer), Rav Yosef preferred to ask about an Itztrubal either because one would be more likely to wash an Itztrubal than a mortar, or - because it is a bigger Chidush (since we see that the Rabanan agree with Rebbi Eliezer regarding the former, but argue with him regarding the latter).
(e)
The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibays).
10)
(a)
Rav Nechemyah brei de'Yosef sent to Rabah brei d'Rav Huna the younger that he should permit a woman to claim 'Isur Nechasim' even from her husband's Itztrubal. What does this imply? Like which Tana does he hold?
(b)
This ruling follows a statement of Rava. What did Rava say in Kesuvos with regard to a woman's Kesuvah, Mezonos and Parnasah?
(c)
What is 'Parnasah'?
10)
(a)
Rav Nechemyah brei de'Yosef sent to Rabah brei d'Rav Huna the younger that he should permit a woman to claim 'Isur Nechasim' even from her husband's Itztrubal, implying that - he follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer (that whatever is joined to the ground is considered Karka), which is therefore Halachah (though many Poskim disagree with this).
(b)
This ruling follows a statement of Rava in Kesuvos that - a woman can claim her Kesuvah, Mezonos and Parnasah from Karka (since that is what is Meshubad to her), but not from Metaltelin.
(c)
Parnasah is 'Isur Nechasim' (the tenth of a father's property that each daughter is entitled to receive from her deceased father when she marries).
11)
(a)
What did the Ge'onim institute with regard to a woman claiming her Kesuvah nowadays?
(b)
Does it also extend to 'T'nai Kesuvah', such as Mezonos?
(c)
In that case, how is Rav Nechemyah brei d'Rav Yosef's ruling relevant even nowadays?
(d)
What did Rav Ashi mean when he quoted Rav Kahana, who used to claim Isur Nechasim even from 'Amla de'Bati'?
11)
(a)
The Ge'onim instituted that nowadays a woman may claim her Kesuvah from Metaltelin ...
(b)
... and this also extends to 'T'nai Kesuvah', such as Mezonos).
(c)
Yet Rav Nechemyah brei d'Rav Yosef's ruling is relevant even nowadays - because Isur Nechasim is not a T'nai Kesuvah, since it is not inserted in the Kesuvah.
(d)
When Rav Ashi quoted Rav Kahana, who used to claim Isur Nechasim even from 'Amla de'Bati', he meant - that he used to claim a woman's Kesuvah from house-rentals, which is considered Karka (because all rental for Karka is considered Karka).
