Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Beitzah 15

1) "KIL'AYIM" MADE FROM A HARD MATERIAL

OPINIONS: The Mishnah (14b) states that it is permitted to send a gift of clothing to one's friend on Yom Tov, even when that clothing contains Kil'ayim. Considering that a gift sent on Yom Tov must be fit for use, the Gemara asks what use does a garment of Kil'ayim provide, since it is forbidden to be worn? The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah is referring to Kil'ayim made from a hard material. Since it is made of a hard material, there is no prohibition of Kil'ayim. When exactly is it Mutar to use Kil'ayim made from a hard material?

(a) The RA'AVAD (on the Rif) explains that mid'Oraisa, there is no prohibition of Kil'ayim made from a hard material, and mid'Oraisa it is permissible even to wear such Kil'ayim. The Rabanan, though, made a Gezeirah not to wear it, but they permitted sitting or lying on it. A soft material of Kil'ayim, of course, is prohibited to wear mid'Oraisa, and is prohibited to sit on or lie on mid'Rabanan. If the material is somewhat soft and somewhat hard, then it is still prohibited to *wear* mid'Oraisa, but it remains completely permissible to *sit on*. The Rabanan did not enact the Gezeirah for such material because it is not common ("Lo Shachi'ach").

(b) RASHI in Yoma (69a, DH Shari) says that placing Kil'ayim of a hard material on one's body ("Ha'ala'ah") is permitted even though it is normally Asur mid'Oraisa to place Kil'ayim on one's body. The reason is because Ha'ala'ah is only forbidden if it is done in a manner similar to *wearing* it. It must give a person "Hana'ah", or pleasure (e.g. through providing warmth), like wearing it always does.

We can infer from Rashi that *wearing* Kil'ayim ("Levishah") is *always* forbidden, even when the material is hard, because, as the TOSFOS RID here in Beitzah says, when one wears an item, he derives benefit not only from the warmth that it provides, but from the protection that it affords him or from the Kavod that it brings him. That is not so when it comes to Ha'ala'ah, in which case the only benefit that one derives from the cloth is the warmth.

(c) TOSFOS here and TOSFOS YESHANIM (Yoma 69a) explain in the name of RABEINU TAM that whenever there is an Isur *d'Rabanan* of Kil'ayim (such as lying down on a normal garment of Kil'ayim), the Rabanan permitted using that Kil'ayim if it is from a hard material. However, any form of Kil'ayim which is Asur mid'Oraisa remains Asur mid'Oraisa even when it is a hard material. Therefore, with regard to sitting on Kil'ayim which is Asur mid'Rabanan, or wearing Kil'ayim which has threads that were pressed but not woven (which is Asur mid'Rabanan), the Rabanan permitted it if it is a hard material.

The RA'AVAD in Tamid (27b) permits Kil'ayim of a hard material only when one is sitting or lying on top of it. That is, only "Hatza'ah" is permitted when the material is hard. Any other Isur d'Rabanan remains Asur even if the material is hard (such as wearing a garment of pressed threads which were not woven). He says in the name of Rabeinu Efraim that the threads of a hard cloth do not have a tendency to wrap up around the person, and therefore the Gezeirah against lying on Kil'ayim does not apply to hard material.

(d) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:13) rules that there is an Isur d'Oraisa for wearing Kil'ayim of a hard material. It is only permitted to sit or lie on hard Kil'ayim (Hatza'ah), but not to wear it (Levishah) or to place it on top of one's body (Ha'ala'ah), like the Ra'avad in Tamid. Furthermore, the Heter to sit or lie on hard Kil'ayim applies only when the material is not touching the person's skin. If one is sitting directly on top of the Kil'ayim, then according to the Rambam it is forbidden. (The Ra'avad in Tamid suggests that the reason for this is because the Rambam maintains that Ha'ala'ah applies whenever the Kil'ayim is in direct contact with the person's skin, whether the garment is on the person or the person is on the garment. Ha'ala'ah is Asur mid'Oraisa, and therefore it remains Asur even when the Kil'ayim is a hard material.)

15b

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that the Rabanan instituted the Takanah of Eruv Tavshilin in order to permit cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbos. However, Rabah states (2b), that it is Asur mid'Oraisa to prepare on Yom Tov for Shabbos ("Hachanah d'Rabah"). If so, how can the rabbinical enactment of Eruv Tavshilin remove the Isur d'Oraisa of preparing on Yom Tov for Shabbos? (TOSFOS 2b, DH v'Hayah)

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS answers that although it is Asur mid'Oraisa to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos, the principle of "Ho'il" removes that Isur. "Ho'il" states that since guests might come on Yom Tov who will need the food, it is permitted to cook on Yom Tov even though guests do not end up coming. Thus, it is considered as though one is cooking for Yom Tov and it is not considered Hachanah. We find that Rabah himself holds of the principle of "Ho'il" in Pesachim (46b). However, since it is the principle of "Ho'il" which removes the Isur d'Oraisa, it should not be permitted to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos close to the end of Yom Tov, when there is not enough time for guests to come to partake of the food; in such a case the Isur d'Oraisa will remain, and an Eruv Tavshilin will not be able to permit it.

(b) TOSFOS (here, and in Eruvin 38a in the name of the RITZBA) answers further that just cooking a food that already exists is not called Hachanah. It is only called Hachanah if a new product is created on Yom Tov that will be used on Shabbos (such as an egg that was laid on Yom Tov). Otherwise, it is only Asur mid'Rabanan, and thus the Eruv Tavshilin permits it.

(This conforms to Rashi's interpretation of Hachanah (Daf 2b). Rashi always emphasizes that Hachanah prohibits an item that was prepared *b'Yedei Shamayim* from Yom Tov for Shabbos. If it already existed, but it was processed by man on Yom Tov for Shabbos, it will not be prohibited because of Hachanah.)

QUESTION: Rebbi Eliezer was upset with his Talmidim who left the Shi'ur early on Yom Tov to go and eat. He referred to the first group that left as those who have big vats set aside that they must eat. He said that the second group that left had barrels, and the third group had jugs, the fourth had flasks, and the fifth had cups (that is, successively smaller vessels which hold smaller amounts of food). When the sixth group left, he said, "Those people are cursed!"

If Rebbi Eliezer was *less* upset with each group that left, as it seems from the appellation which he ascribed to each one, then why did he curse the last group that left, implying that he was upset with them the most?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH Halalu) explains that aside from the Bitul Torah that the last group caused themselves, they were also slighting the honor of the Torah by leaving. Until that point, there still remained a respectable number of Talmidim in Rebbi Eliezer's Shi'ur. After the sixth group left, though, the numbers decreased so much that the Shi'ur became noticeably small.

(b) The ARUCH (Erech Pat) takes a different approach. We find that Rebbi Eliezer is the source of the opinion quoted later in the Gemara that Yom Tov is time for either one's own personal pleasure, or for dedicating the time to Hashem. The simple understanding is that one has a choice what to do on Yom Tov, and one does not have to split the day between the two, as Rebbi Yehoshua holds. The reason Rebbi Eliezer was upset with the Talmidim is that since they were students of the Torah, for them it was a greater Mitzvah to learn Torah on Yom Tov. Leaving the Shi'ur to partake in the Se'udah would constitute Bitul Torah for them, because they were able to fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov through learning. They did not need to eat in order to experience Simchas Yom Tov.

The Aruch says that that is not exactly the intention of Rebbi Eliezer. Rather, Rebbi Eliezer holds that one must focus on one particular form of Simchas Yom Tov to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, one must either learn Torah *all day*, or eat and drink *all day*. (That is, he should not minimize the size of his meal in any way in order to do other things, like learning Torah, and vice versa. When he finishes his meal, or his studying, it is of course permitted for him to indulge in other pursuits.) One cannot do both, because then neither one is fully achieved.

When the first group left, Rebbi Eliezer commented that they must have big vats ready and waiting for them, meaning that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing by leaving the Shi'ur early in order to partake in their Se'udas Yom Tov. Those Talmidim chose not to spend the time learning Torah, because they want to fully focus their energies on partaking of a large Se'udah for Simchas Yom Tov. As each successive group left, Rebbi Eliezer judged them favorably, assuming each group only had a certain amount to eat, and they left the Shi'ur in order to utilize the remaining time on Yom Tov to focus on experiencing Simchas Yom Tov with the amount of food that they had.

In contrast, when the sixth group left, Rebbi Eliezer reasoned that they will not have time to eat a proper Se'udah for Yom Tov because it was so late, and thus they will not be experiencing Simchas Yom Tov through the Se'udah. On the other hand, they were leaving the Shi'ur early, and thus they were losing out by not hearing the rest of the Shi'ur. Since they did not have Simchas Yom Tov, nor did they have Talmud Torah, Rebbi Eliezer said that they were cursed.