Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) RATIONALE FOR THE PROHIBITIONS (cont'd)

(a) Question: Chalitzah and Yibum should be categorized as a Mitzvah, not a Reshus!?
(b) Answer: We are speaking where there is an older brother.
(c) Question: Why, indeed, are all of the above not permitted?
(d) Answer: Lest one come to write.
(e) Making something Hekdesh is prohibited owing to its similarity to a business transaction.

(a) Question: Is this prohibition not obvious?
(b) Answer: We might have permitted it when one intends to give them to the Kohen that day (which is indeed the case when the produce became Tevel on Shabbos or YomTov, not the day before).

(a) Question: The Reshus activities (once prohibited) are Shevus prohibitions, as are the Mitzvah activities!?
(b) Answer: The Tana is building the statement of prohibition from the obvious (Shevus) to even Mitzvah.

(a) Question: But the Mishnah (speaking of lowering fruit via a skylight) permits on YomTov but not on Shabbos!?
(b) Answer (R. Yosef): The Mishnah of Mashilin is the view of R. Eliezer (who does not permit bringing up the second animal which may not be slaughtered on that day) whereas our Mishnah is the view of R. Yehoshua (who permits a Ha'aramah to bring up both animals) [see explanations for the relationship between this Machlokes and the distinction between Shabbos and YomTov].
(c) Question (Abaye): Perhaps even R. Eliezer would permit the Ha'aramah is there were no way to sustain the other animal in the pit, or R. Yehoshua would prohibit if there were no reasonable Ha'aramah (as in our Mishnah where all would prohibit)?
(d) Answer (R. Papa): Our Mishnah (prohibiting lowering through the skylight even on YomTov) is actually the view of Beis Shamai (who prohibit carrying items not needed for Ochel Nefesh on YomTov) while the previous Mishnah is Beis Hillel (who permits such carrying, and the associated Muktzeh, making YomTov more lenient than Shabbos).
(e) Question: Perhaps Beis Shamai are only strict when it comes to carrying on YomTov (but not by Mashilin, which is only a matter of Tiltul)?
(f) Answer: Tiltul itself is prohibited because one may come to carry (so that the stringency of carrying will always be associated with an Isur Tiltul).

(a) Animals and vessels share the same Techum as their owners and handing them to a another (on YomTov) will not alter their Techum.
(b) Articles associated with one (inheriting) brother bear his Techum while those not specifically associated with one brother are restricted to the common Techum of all the brothers.
(c) If someone borrows a vessel before YomTov, its Techum is that of the borrower; whereas if he borrowed it on YomTov, then its Techum remains that of the lender.
(d) If one woman borrows spices, water or salt from another on YomTov the cooked dish will be restricted to the common Techum of both women.
(e) (R. Yehudah) We discount the water since it is not noticeable in the cooked dish.

6) THE EFFECT OF INTENT ON TECHUM

(a) Question: Our Mishnah appears to disagree with R. Dosa (or Aba Shaul) who allows the Techum of an article to follow the recipient even if received on YomTov!?
(b) Answer: Our Mishnah speaks in a town where there are two shepherds (and thus his intent is not obvious before YomTov), as indicated by the options 'shepherd or son' mentioned in the Mishnah.
(c) (Rabah b.b. Chanah citing R. Yochanan) The Halachah follows R. Dosa.
(d) Question: But R. Yochanan ruled that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah (which states that the Techum follows the owner unless it was transferred before YomTov)!?
(e) Answer: This has already been addressed above (by differentiating between one shepherd and two).

(a) (Beraisa) A coat which two people borrowed on Erev YomTov is restricted to the Techum which is common to both of them (with the given illustrations).
(b) (Rav) If two people jointly purchased a barrel of wine on Erev YomTov each one may take his share of the wine to his Techum (Yesh Bereirah) while a jointly purchased animal would be restricted to the common Techum.
(c) (Shmuel) The barrel is also restricted to their common Techum (Ein Bereirah).
(d) Question: Rav seems inconsistent to either position regarding Bereirah!?
(e) Answer: He holds Yesh Bereirah but the animal is one unit (each portion in the animal is nourished by the other) and is thus restricted to the common Techum.
(f) Question (R. Kahana and R. Asi) If this 'oneness' does not create an Isur Muktzah then it should not either create the Isur of Techumin!?
(g) Answer (Rav): No answer (see Rif and Meiri for various interpretations of Rav's silence).
(h) Question: What, in the end, is the decision?
(i) Answer: R. Hoshaya holds Yesh Bereirah; R. Yochanan holds Ein Bereirah.
(j) Question: But we find that R. Hoshaya holds *Ein* Bereirah (since he explains Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai in Ohalos as speaking from this point forward, but one's thoughts will not retroactively select the opening)!?
(k) Answer: Switch the opinions of R. Hoshaya and R. Yochanan.
(l) Question: But we can show that R. Yochanan does *not* hold of Bereirah (the divided properties are not viewed as retroactively divided)!?

1. Answer: R. Yochanan would allow Bereirah in a d'Rabanan.
2. Question: But we see (from his position regarding conditional Eruvei Techumin) that R. Yochanan does not hold of Bereirah even in a d'Rabanan!?

(m) Answer: Indeed, do not switch their positions.
(n) Question: Then what of R. Hoshaya?
(o) Answer: He does not hold of Bereirah for a d'Oreisa, but he allows Bereirah in a d'Rabanan (e.g. Techumin).
(p) (Mar Zutra) The Halachah follows R. Hoshaya.