Beitza 29a (2)

1- The Gemara relates that Aba Shaul ben Botnis once collected 300 barrels of wine from the “Birurei ha’Midos” of wine that he sold. Each time he would pour wine into the buyer’s jugs, the wine would foam up and prevent the full measure (for which he was paid) from being filled.

Being that he didn’t want to benefit from this accumulated wine he brought it to the treasurers of the Beis Hamikdash. They advised him to sell the wine and use the proceeds to fund public water works.

2 -Our Gemara discusses that one who steals and does not know from whom he stole should use the stolen property to provide public needs רבים  צרכי  The reason the money should go towards public projects is so that the victim should be able to benefit from the public project that was paid for with the stolen funds.

3- We mentioned the Aruch HaShulchan that explains that we expect that Hashem, through Divine Providence, will bring about the necessary circumstances to allow the victim to benefit from this project.

4- What  if there is reasonable certainty that the victim will not benefit from the project. For example, if the thief is presently in a distant country from where the original theft took place and it is unreasonable to think that the victim will ever benefit from the public need provided by the thief.

Another issue is whether one can use the funds to provide a public need that is consumable, for example, providing oil or candles for a shul. Do any public needs qualify or does the public need have to be able to exist for a long period of time to provide the opportunity for the victim to benefit from this public need? Poskim tend to rule that the obligation is for the thief to provide a lasting public need which produces a reasonable possibility for the victim to benefit from the donation.

Discussing the donor’s names one sees on Mosdos – well…..

5- Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that one who stole money from a pushka and is donating the money back to the shul must ensure that his donation will be done quietly. In other words, when giving the money back to the shul one is not allowed to give the impression that a generous donation is being made so that it will generate appreciation or honor for the thief…

5- We related a story about creating item that the public can enjoy.

Hat and Gartel gemach for public use

Found this on the Web:

On today’s daf we see from the anecdote involving Rav Abba Shaul ben Bitnis, that one who has caused a loss to an unknown person should make restitution to the public. A merchant from Porashov used to travel all over the Ukraine to peddle his wares.

Once, his business brought him to the vicinity of Shinova. When the merchant entered the town he heard from the locals that the famous Shinover Rebbe, zt”l, would be conducting a tisch that evening in honor of Rosh Chodesh. The merchant decided to take advantage of the opportunity to spend time in the Rebbe’s presence and joined the chassidim that evening. It just so happened that there were not many people at the tisch that night, so the stranger’s presence was quite noticeable.

The Rebbe greeted the newcomer and asked him a little about himself, his name and from where he had come. The merchant said, “I’m just passing through on business, but I’m from Porashov originally.” The Rebbe seemed quite pleased. “Oh, Porashov! It’s been a long while since we’ve seen someone from there!” He immediately withdrew a sum of money from his pocket and handed it to the man. “Please,” begged the Rebbe, “Do me a favor. When you return to Porashov, give this money to the people in charge of the railway depot just outside the town. I’d like it to be used to have benches made for the station.”

After the man left, the chassidim asked the Rebbe, “Is it usually the Rebbe’s practice to go around taking care of the railways’ business? And why give money specifically for the train station near Porashov?”

The Rebbe answered, “Once, I was waiting for the train at that station and a gang of goyishe ruffians threatened me. I ran off into the fields near the depot, and in my haste to hide I trampled what had been growing in them. The Gemara in Beitzah 29a says that anyone who steals without knowing from whom he stole should make restitution to the community at large. That’s why I’m paying to fix the benches there. I’ve been waiting so long for someone from Porashov to come so that I could pay my debt!” „

Mazal tov to our brother Sholom Mordechai!

 

 

Beitza 29a

1- We learned about the 6 places in Sha”s where a Halacha is stated. Some were said by Rav Malkiyo the others by Rav Malkiya.

In order to remember who said what the Gemara suggests 2 ‘memorization clues’:

שפוד שפחות וגומות

Or:

בלורית אפר מקלה וגבינה

2- The Mishnah states that a person may not ask his butcher on Yom Tov to give him a Dinar’s worth of meat. Rather, the butcher must first slaughter the animal and then divide the portions. The Gemara explains that when the animal is divided, each person who wants a share of the animal must say that he wants “one portion” or “half a portion” of meat; he should not say that he wants “one Dinar’s worth” or “half a Dinar’s worth” of meat.

In other words, the only permissible way to divide meat is by distributing standard size cuts.

The Gemara then enumerates various measurements of different localities of Bavel on how they would request meat from a butcher on Yom Tov.

סורא-תרטא

בגרש – חלקא

בפומפדיתא – אוזיא

בנהר – פקוד

מתא מחסיא – רבעא

3 – The Mishnah discusses the permissible methods of “purchasing” other products from a merchant. Two opinions of the Tanna Kamma and Reb Yehuda are stated but their wording is a bit perplexing. Thus.

4 – Clarifying the Mishnah R’ Yehudah in the name of Shmuel explains that Tanna Kamma maintains that the prohibition applies only to measuring utensils currently in use for measuring, whereas R’ Yehudah maintains that even a utensil that will eventually be used for measuring is included.

This, our gemara says, indicates that R’ Yehudah is strict regarding issues of simchas Yom Tov whereas Rabannan are lenient. A contradiction is presented against each opinion from the Mishnah on the previous page.

Both contradictions are resolved as Rava explains that Tanna Kamma maintains that the only restriction is not verbalizing the name of the measure, whereas R’ Yehudah maintains that one is not even permitted to use a measuring utensil.

5-  We spoke a bit about Chanukah.

When one lights just one candle per household on all 8 days the Mitzvah of Chanukah is done!

Mehadrin and/or Mehadrin min HaMehadrin requires one candle per person and adding an additional candle per night.

So if after lighting one candle the Mitzvah is done then many interesting questions arise:

A- Can the oil of the candles other than the first be used for non Chanukah purposes? [ I think  שו”ת כתב סופר]

פסחים ז: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל המצוות מברך עליהן עובר לעשייתן

B- The general rule is that a Brachah must be made prior to the Mitzvah. If one forgets and does the Mitzvah first, like eating Matzoh, the Brachah cannot be said following the Mitzvah.

The exception to this rule is if the Mitzvah is ongoing. Such as Sukkah. If one begins to eat in a Sukkah and forgets to make a Leishev Basukkah he may say it even after the meal since the sitting in the Sukkah is continuous.  Ditto with Tefillin as long as one has them on himself.

Now if one lights, say on the fifth night, the first candle and then realizes that he didn’t make a Brachah. He missed the saying the Brachah for the ‘Mitzvah’ which is the first one only.

Can he now say a Brachah on the remaining four which are only a הידור?

Or perhaps because there is a Mitzvah for the candles to burn עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק even the first candle is ‘ongoing’?

See here in the responsa by Reb Akiva Eiger.

6- We spoke about why we do not mention anything about Chanukah and Purim in the Brachah after eating cake and/or drinking wine.

Beitza 28b

1- שחיטה – Halacha trusts any Jew to check the knife, based upon the rule of עד אחד נאמן באיסורין. Nevertheless the  חכמים established that after checking the knife himself, a shochet must present his knife to a חכם for him to inspect it for him, as well.

The reason is to show respect for the חכם and in order to ensure that the inspection be done by an experienced person who is careful and deliberate in halachah. Another reason some add is due to the fact that the art of detecting a small defect on the blade often takes a great degree of focus and the shochet is often under pressure. Thus the requirement for the חכם.

2- We mentioned the Rosh (Chullin, Ch. 1, #24) who writes that in his day it was uncommon for individuals to do שחיטה themselves, and it was entrusted to designated professionals who were scrupulous and careful.

amateur

The חכמים deferred to these trained שוחטים and did not require the knives to be brought to them to be inspected. However, the halachah never dispensed with the need for individuals to present their knives to a חכם.

והאידנא נהיגי שאין מראין סכין לחכם כי בימיהם היו הקצבין שוחטין בעצמם כדאמרינן האי טבחא דלא סר סכינא. והשתא נהוג בכל גלות ישראל שאין מאמינים לקצבים וממנים אנשים ידועים על השחיטה ועל הבדיקה ולהם מחלו חכמים את כבודם כי הן זריזין וזהירין

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

expert

3- שחיטה ביום טוב . Our  Gemara says that one may not bring a Shochet’s knife to a Chacham to have it inspected on Yom Tov, but a Chacham may inspect his own knife – and loan it out.

Why may one not show a knife to a Chacham on Yom Tov?

(a) RASHI writes that the act of bringing the knife to the Chacham has the appearance of a weekday activity (“Uvda d’Chol”). It looks as though one intends to slaughter a lot of animals for public sale.

Accordingly, a Chacham is permitted to inspect his own knife because the inspection is not done in a public manner – Rashi: – in his own home, his own knife, low profile.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Yom Tov 4:9) writes that the prohibition is due to the concern that one might sharpen the knife if the Chacham tells him that it is not perfectly sharp. A Chacham may inspect his own knife, however, because just as he is a Chacham and knows how to inspect a knife, he also knows that one is not permitted to sharpen a knife on Yom Tov.

ומפני זה אסרו להראות סכין לחכם ביום טוב שמא תהיה פגומה ויאמר לו אסור לשחוט בה משום פגימתה וילך ויחדדנה במשחזת.

(c) The RIF writes in the name of the BEHAG that the prohibition is due to the concern that one will carry the knife outside of his permitted Techum in order to bring it to the Chacham. For that reason, a Chacham may inspect his own knife (as he does not need to carry it anywhere).

The BA’AL HA’ME’OR,  – רבינו זרחיה הלוי asks that the reason of the Rif is logical only according to the opinion that the prohibition of Techumin is mid’Oraisa. However, according to the opinion that the prohibition of Techumin is mid’Rabanan, a prohibition against taking the knife to a Chacham would be a Gezeirah l’Gezeirah (a rabbinical decree made to safeguard another decree), which the Rabanan do not enact.

The RAMBAN (in Milchamos) answers that in this case the Rabanan made an exception to the normal rule and they enacted a Gezeirah l’Gezeirah, because it is particularly common that a person goes out of his Techum to show his knife to the Chacham, since he frequently brings his knife to the Chacham on ordinary weekdays (because one may not slaughter an animal without first giving his knife to a Chacham for inspection).

(d) The BA’AL HA’ME’OR (cited by the RAN) writes that one may not show a knife to a Chacham on Yom Tov because the Chacham’s ruling about the knife is included into the category of passing judgment (“Dan Es ha’Din”) which is prohibited on Yom Tov.

פירש דראיית סכין כראיית בכור הוא שהן מעכבות השחיטה ונראה כמתקן ודן את הדין

The same reason prohibits one from showing a blemish on a  בכור to an expert on Yom Tov.

The RAMBAN asks that if the Chacham’s decision about the knife is considered a judgment, then why may he inspect his own knife?

The RAN answers that when the Chacham examines his own knife, he merely clarifies (“Giluy Milsa”) whether or not it has a blemish; he does not pass a formal ruling. In contrast, when another person brings a knife to the Chacham for inspection, he does so because the Rabanan instituted that one may not slaughter an animal without first showing the knife to a Chacham (this enactment was made in order to preserve the honor of the Chacham; see Rashi to Chulin 9a).

כדי ביקור חכם – לבדוק הסכין שהטבח צריך להראות הסכין לחכם העיר מפני כבוד החכם כדאמרינן לקמן (דף י:) אע”ג שהטבח בקי בהלכות בדיקה

Part of the enactment is that the Chacham must issue a Halachic ruling about the knife before the person may use it, and thus the Chacham’s ruling is considered passing judgment. When a Chacham inspects his own knife, he does not do so because of any enactment of the Rabanan. He merely wants to clarify whether the knife is blemished or not.

4 – We learned again the famous machlokes of  ר’ יהודה and the  חכמים  regarding מכשירין – ancillary melachos which the chachamim prohibit but R’ Yehuda allows. This lead to a discussion about opening bottles on Yom Tov, which is problematic because of various potential  איסורים – and we mentioned Rav S.Z. Auerbach who permits this on Shabbos. because מכה בפטיש does not apply to any   כלי which will be discarded after has been emptied.

He also says that מחתך   does not apply when lifting off the cover off a can, since the intention is not create a tab of a specific size.

Thank you to R Moshe Heber who mentioned the time the Rebbe opened a bottle in front of all by the farbrengen clearly indicating that it was permissible.

 

5- We began to talk about the 2 תקופות and may continue next week.

http://www.likras.org/files/2481_22874.pdf

 

22 דף 229

Beitzah 28a

 

1- We continued to discuss the story of the ‘missing fish’.

It seems that R’ Chiya took extra fish without Rebi’s or Reb Shimon’s permission. It turned out that Reb Shimon didn’t mind it. But at the time that this occurred  Reb Shimon was not aware that R’ Chiya took it.

 

So how did R’ Chiya take it?

There is a general question if one may take an object without permission when he knows that the owner does not mind.

 

Meaning that at the moment of him taking it the owner is not aware that it is being taken, but he will not make an issue of it when he finds out that it was taken.

 

We learnt the text of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch (#4), and the קונטרס אחרון.

 

The  ש”ך rules that one may take an object without permission when he knows that the owner will not mind.

 

The Alter Rebbe argues on the ש”ך and prohibits to take an object without permission even if he sure that the owner, when he finds out, will not mind.

 

2- Here is some background and how it relates to our Gemara:

 

Tosfos in Bava Metzia (22a, D”H Mar Zutra, cited by the Shach 358:1) writes that one is not permitted to take something from another person without explicit   permission, even when he knows that the other person will not object. (It is considered יאוש שלא מדעת – – which does not have the status of יאוש – לא הוי יאוש.).

Other ראשונים (and the Shach) argue on Tosfos and permit it.

Now our Gemara, where R’ Chiya took the fish, seems to side with the opinion that one is indeed permitted to take such object.

So how will Tosfos and the Alter Rebbe explain our story?

We suggested that perhaps Rashi’s words imply that Rebbi merely left the fish in a place where he normally left things for any of the Talmidim to take; he did not specifically designate the fish for Rebbi Chiya. Accordingly, Rebbi Chiya, who was one of the Talmidim, had permission to take it even though Rebbi did not give it specifically to him.

3- We continued the Alter Rebbe’s ruling (#5) on the giving of צדקה by a spouse prior to asking her husband’s permission…

Generally, as long as the sum is what is considered ‘normal’ and such is the מנהג there is no issue.

4- We continued to the next Mishna concerning the sharpening of knives on Yom Tov.

 

5- Our Gemara discusses the dispute between the Chachomim who prohibit sharpening and Rab Yuhuda who permits it.

 

This is the classic case of the מחלוקת אודות מכשירי אוכל נפש. Work performed in the preparation of the preparation of food. Such as sharpening a knife to schecht.

 

Shechting itself is the preparation. Sharpening is the preliminary work done prior to the actual preparation of the food.

[For the definition as to what constitutes מלאכת אוכל נפש versus מכשירין see here in a rather lengthy קונטרס אחרון of the Alter Rebbe which we discussed at an earlier shiur]

Although the Halacha is like Reb Yuhuda, and one is permitted to sharpen a knife (on anything but a stone), a Rov should not explicitly rule this Halocho.

הלכה ואין מורין כן

But what if he is asked what to do?

We read the words of the Alter Rebbe that brings proof from our Gemara that the Rov should rule like….the Chachomim!!!!

See here.

 

.