1)

(a)The Mishnah discusses water or one of the other seven liquids [see Tos. Yom-Tov]) that render fruit be'Chi Yutan: water, wine oil and milk - honey, blood and dew.

(b)be'Chi Yutan means that - they change the status of any food that has grown from the ground (see Tos. Yom-Tov) from one that is not subject to Tum'ah to one that is.

2)

(a)The Mishnah rules that liquid about which the owner is initially pleased but at the end he is not, or vice-versa - is be'Chi Yutan.

(b)If he is initially pleased that the liquid fell on his dishes and washed them, he might later change his mind - if it fell on the fruit that he wanted dry (or vice-versa, where he is not initially pleased when it falls on his dishes, but where he wants the fruit to be washed).

(c)If the owner is not pleased at all with the liquid that fell, either on the dishes or on the fruit - then it it is not 'be'Chi Yutan'.

(d)The source for all this is the Pasuk in Shemini "ve'Chi *Yutan* Mayim al Zera, ve'Nafal mi'Nivlasam alav, Tamei Hu" - which is written without a 'Vav' (as if it had written "ve'Chi *Yitein* ... " (meaning that he actually placed the water on the seeds), but is read "ve'Chi Yutan' (meaning that the water was placed, not by him). Chazal therefore explain that on the one hand he does not need to place the water on the seeds himself, but on the other, he must be pleased that it was put there (as if he had done it himself).

3)

(a)If Tamei liquid, with which he is not at all pleased touches fruit that is not yet be'Chi Yutan - the fruit nevertheless becomes Tamei ...

(b)... because the Hechsher Lekabeil Tum'ah and the Tum'ah take effect simultaneously.

(c)We extrapolate this ruling from the above-mentioned Pasuk in Shemini - in that one only needs 'be'Chi Yutan' if they occur in that order, first "ve'Chi Yutan Mayim ... ", and then "ve'Nafal mi'Nivlasam alav ... ", but not if they occur at the same time.

4)

(a)If someone shakes a tree ...

1. ... to detach the fruit or to dislodge something Tamei (a dead Sheretz) that has fallen on to it, if water also falls from the tree on to the fruit that is lying underneath it - the fruit is not be'Chi Yutan ...

2. ... to dislodge the water from it - it is.

(b)The Tamei object might have become lodged in the tree - because a raven dropped it there.

(c)According to Beis Shamai, if, in the latter case, water that remained on the tree subsequently falls on the fruit, it is be'Chi Yutan too - because, since the owner wanted some of the water, all the water falls into the category of be'Chi Yutan.

(d)According to Beis Hillel - the water that remains on the tree is not be'Chi Yutan (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

5)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a case where someone shakes a tree or a Sochah - a branch, to detach its fruit (see Tos. Yom-Tov), which first falls on to another tree, before falling on to growing seeds or vegetables that are wet.

(b)Beis Shamei declare the fruit be'Chi Yutan on the grounds that - he knew that the fruit would eventually land on the wet seeds or vegetables.

(c)Beis Hillel rule that - the fruit does not become be'Chi Yutan.

(d)R. Yehoshua, citing Aba Yossi Chali Kufri from Tiv'on - ascribes this to the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yutan Mayim al Zera", implying that the water falls directly on to the fruit (or vice-versa), and not from place to place, as is the case in the Mishnah.

6)

(a)According to Beis Shamai, if someone shakes a bundle of wet vegetables, the water that moves from the top to the bottom is be'Chi Yutan' (see Tos. Yom-Tov). It did not become be'Chi Yutan from the time the water fell on it - because the owner did not want the vegetables to become wet.

(b)Beis Hillel holds that - the vegetables are not be'Chi Yutan (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)Beis Hillel asked Beis Shamai (rhetorically) whether they would also declare be'Chi Yutan a stalk of cabbage that one has shaken, because the water may have moved from one leaf to another. In reply - the latter drew a distinction between a single stalk (which is one entity), and a bunch of vegetables (where the dew moved from one vegetable to the other [See Tiferes Yisrael]).

7)

(a)Beis Hillel queried Beis Shamai further from a sack-full of fruit that one removed from the river and placed on the river bank - and which is obviously not considered be'Chi Yutan (see Mishnah Achronah).

(b)They concede however, that if someone who, after having removed one sack-full of fruit from the river and placed on the river bank, removes a second such sack and places it on top of the first one that - the bottom sack-full of vegetables is be'Chi Yutan.

(c)R. Yossi maintains that - it is not be'Chi Yutan (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

8)

(a)R. Yossi rules that the dew ...

1. ... that one squeezes from a leek (see Tos. Yom-Tov) or the water that one squeezes from one's hair or from one's clothes (see Tos. Yom-Tov) - is be'Chi Yutan (see Tos. Yom-Tov), but the dew ...

2. ... that remains in the leek and the water that remains in one's hair or one's clothes after having squeezed most of it out - is not ...

(b)... because he would have preferred to get rid of it all ...

(c)... like Beis Hillel in the previous Mishnah.

9)

(a)According to R. Shimon, if someone blows lentils to see if they are wormy (see Tos. Yom-Tov), they are not be'Chi Yutan - despite the fact that some spit (which is considered water) will inevitably land on them.

(b)The Chachamim disagree ...

(c)...

1. ... because even though he did not intend the lentils to become wet, he did intend to blow them, which incorporates spit leaving his mouth ...

2. ... whereas R. Shimon goes by the fact that he did not intend the lentils to become wet.

10)

(a)The same Tana'im now discuss someone who is eating sesame seeds, and who licks his finger in order to scoop up seeds from the palm of his other hand. R. Shimon - maintains that the spit which sticks to the hand that is holding the seeds is not be'Chi Yutan; whereas the Chachamim hold that it is.

(b)The Chachamim hold that - since he intended the spit to wet his finger, it subsequently falls under the category of be'Chi Yutan; whereas R. Shimon holds that - it does not, since he did not intend the spit to wet the other hand.

(c)The Chachamim's opinion is based on the principle - Kol Mashkeh she'Techilaso le'Ratzon, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Sofo le'Ratzon, Harei Zeh be'Chi Yutan.

(d)According to R. Shimon however - this is not considered Techilaso le'Ratzon, since he only wanted the spit that wetted his finger, not the excess spit that landed in the palm of his hand.

(e)The Halachah in both of the above cases - is like the Chachamim.

11)

(a)The Mishnah declares fruit that one hid from thieves by placing it in water - not 'be'Chi Yutan'.

(b)In support of this ruling, the Tana relates an incident where the men of Yerushalayim placed dried figs in water to hide them from the Sikarin - robbers (like Sikrikun, in Gitin).

(c)The Chachamim ruled that - they were not be'Chi Yutan.

(d)Others have the text Sarikin, which might simply be the Arabic word for thieves. Alternatively, it means - empty-headed men (like Ilan S'rak [a non-fruit bearing tree]).

12)

(a)A person might place fruit in a swiftly-moving stream - to transport it downstream, because he is unable to take it with him.

(b)The Mishnah declares it - not be'Chi Yutan.

(c)The reason for the current rulings is - because the owner is not interested in the fruit becoming wet.