Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ALLOCATING RESOURCES TO MANKIND

(a) (R. Tachlifa) One must allocate his resources with care since they are predetermined (on Rosh HaShanah), with the exception of outlays for Shabbos and YomTov which are allocated according to the amount spent.
(b) Question: What is the source for the annual allocation?
(c) Answer (R. Avahu): The Pasuk Tik'u BaChodesh... (as expounded) and Ki Chok (alluding to one's allocation, as indicated in Bereishis 47:22) l'Yisrael Hu.
(d) Answer (Mar Zutra): The Pasuk Hatrifeini Lechem Chuki.

(a) Shamai HaZaken would always allocate the best item in his possession for Shabbos, eating the second best during the week.
(b) Hillel HaZaken would eat the food he found each day, dedicating himself to HaShem (Baruch HaShem Yom Yom).
(c) This is supported by the Beraisa in which Beis Shamai advocate honoring Shabbos from the first day of the week, and Beis Hillel relying on Baruch HaShem Yom Yom.
(d) (R. Chama b.R. Chanina) One need not notify his friend of a gift which he has given him (as HaShem did not notify Moshe of the radiance which He had bestowed upon him).
(e) Question: But the Beraisa teaches that one must notify (based on HaShem notifying the People of the gift of Shabbos) e.g. a parent must be notified when bread has been given to a child!?
(f) Answer: A gift which will become known does not require notification; unlike a gift which will not become known.
(g) Question: But Shabbos will become known (when the People are commanded in its performance)!?
(h) Answer: It reward would not become known.
(i) Question: How does one notify the parent of food having been given to a child?
(j) Answer: One puts traces of oil and blue color on the child (prompting the parent to ask and the child to reveal the gift).
(k) Question: What about nowadays when such practices might alert concern for witchcraft?
(l) Answer (R. Papa): One smears some of the given food onto the child.

(a) (R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon b. Yochai) All Mitzvos were given to the People in public except Shabbos (proof text).
(b) Question: Then how can the Gentiles be held accountable for not having accepted it?
(c) Answer: The Mitzvah was publicly announced, but not its reward.
(d) Alternate Answer: The reward was also announced, but not the Neshamah Yeseirah (as taught by Resh Lakish).

(a) (Abaye) One may not fulfil the requirement of Eruv Tavshilin with bread (only with a cooked dish).
(b) Question: Why is bread insufficient?
(c) Answer: He needs the reminder of that which is Melafes.
(d) Question: But Daysa is a cooked dish which is not Melafes (as indicated by R Zeira's comment regarding the practice of eating bread with Daysa) and yet it may be used for an Eruv!?
(e) Answer: We must use something out of the ordinary for the Eruv, and bread is too common.
(f) Alternate Rendition of Above:

1. (Abaye) Cooked dish, not bread.
2. Question: Why?
3. Answer: We require something unusual.
4. Question: But Daysa is unusual yet it may *not* be used for the Eruv!?
5. Answer: We require that which is Melafes (a cooked dish and not bread), and Daysa is not Melafes (as per R. Zeira's comment).

(a) (R. Chiya) The lentils which remain at the bottom of the cooking pot suffice for the Eruv Tavshilin, provided that they combine to a KeZayis.
(b) (R. Yitzhok b.R. Yehudah) The same applies to the fats which may be scraped off the knife.

(a) (R. Asi citing Rav) Small salted fish are not under the prohibition of Bishul Akum (since they may be eaten without cooking, as they have been salted).
(b) (R. Yosef) If a Gentile fried them, a Jew may use them for Eruv Tavshilin.
(c) If the Gentile makes Kasa d'Harsena from these fish, then it becomes a Davar Chashuv and is prohibited.
(d) Question: That is obvious (since the flour in the Kasa d'Harsena cannot be eaten in its raw form)!?

(e) Answer: We might have permitted it by considering the fish as the Ikar (which it is not).

(a) (R. Aba) An Eruv Tavshilin requires a KeZayis.
(b) Question: Is that a KeZayis for the Eruv or for each person relying on that Eruv?
(c) Answer: A KeZayis for the Eruv as R. Aba taught, citing Rav.

1. Question: But the Mishnah implies that even *less* than a KeZayis may remain and the Eruv would still be valid!?
2. Answer: No, the Mishnah means that a KeZayis remains (and it is called a Kol Shehu relative to the whole dish or loaf from which this KeZayis originated).

(d) Question: But the Beraisa teaches that an Eruv may be made of many varieties, and *has no Shiur*!?
(e) Answer: It means no maximum Shiur (but R. Aba is correctly citing Rav regarding the minimum Shiur).

(a) (R. Huna citing Rav) An Eruv requires Da'as.
(b) Question: While surely the one making the Eruv must be aware; does the one benefiting from the Eruv also require Da'as!?
(c) Answer: Da'as is not needed as we find that Amoraim would make an Eruv for their entire towns.
(d) R. Yakov b. Idi would proclaim that anyone who had not made an Eruv might rely on his.

1. Question: Until what distance may one rely on it?
2. Answer (R. Nechumi b. Zechariah citing Abaye): Until the limits of the Techum Shabbos.

(e) Shmuel assured the blind man that he could rely on Shmuel's Eruv and need not be sad that he forgot to make his own.
(f) When the same omission occurred on the following year, Shmuel considered the person to be negligent and did not permit his reliance on Shmuel's Eruv.

(a) (Tana Kama) One may not make Eruvei Techumin or Chatzeros on YomTov (it appears like Tikun).
(b) (Rebbi) Eruvei Chatzeros may be made, but not Eruvei Techumin (since we prohibit him only from making that Eruv which would allow him to do on Shabbos that which he cannot do today, on YomTov).
(c) (Rav) The Halachah follows the Tana Kama.
(d) (Shmuel) The Halachah follows Rebbi.
(e) Question: Is the Halachah like Rebbi to permit Eruvei Chatzeros or to prohibit Eruvei Techumin?
(f) Answer: That is obvious, since Rebbi is coming to be lenient!?
(g) Question: The doubt arose as a result of the message sent by R. Elazar to Bavel that they should not teach that Rebbi permits and Chachamim prohibit, but the opposite, and now we wonder what Shmuel intended!
(h) Answer: We may infer from that which R. Tachlifa b. Avdimi did in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel (and about which Rav disagreed, referring to the ruling as a Kilkul).

1. Surely Rav would not have referred to the ruling as a Kilkul if it were l'Chumrah.
2. This implies that Shmuel must have understood Rebbi to be l'Kulah!
3. No, a Kilkul could be caused by the Chumrah (not permitting Eruvei Chatzeros) leading people to transgress when they carry on Shabbos.

(i) (Rava citing R. Chisda citing R. Huna) The Halachah is like Rebbi, meaning l'Chumrah!