You are on page 1of 14

‫תשובות לחזרה‬

‫משעורי האמרי ברוך‬


‫הרב ברוך חיים סיימאן‬
‫ר'י ושיבת רבינו יצחק אלחנן‬
‫חורף זמן ת'שסז‬
516)-241-0401 ‫)אם יש שאלות או תיקונים נא לקשור יונתן זאב קירשנער‬

‫גפ'ת‬
1. The ‫ גמרא‬on 62b discuses the ‫ לשון‬of ‫אין בין‬versus ‫מרובה‬. Our ‫ גמרא‬has a ‫ גרסא‬of ‫מרובה‬.
The ‫ גמרא‬says that when one uses a ‫ לשון‬of ‫ מרובה‬it is ‫ שייך‬to say ‫( תנא ושייר‬that it is not a fully
all encompassing list), however, had the ‫ גמרא‬said ‫אין בן‬, which is all encompassing, ‫תנא ושייר‬
could not be said.
2. If one takes a ‫ שבועה‬that the item he was watching, as a ‫שומר‬, was stolen and then he
himself slaughters that item according to Rav Chiya bar Abba he would be ‫חייב‬. The question
though is can we bring our ‫ משנה‬as a support to his opinion. If you say ‫ מרובה‬is all
encompassing then just since ‫ משנה‬left out the difference between an actual thief and a ‫טוען‬
‫ טענת גנב‬it must be there is no difference and a ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬would have to pay ‫ ’ד’ וה‬also.
However, if ‫ מרובה‬is ‫ שייך‬to say ‫ תנא ושייר‬then our ‫ משנה‬is no support to ‫ רב‬Chiya bar Abba.
3. ‫ תוס‬D’H: ‫ מרובה‬is bothered because our ‫ גמרא‬is ‫ משמע‬that ‫אין בין‬is an all encompassing
‫ לשון‬and it is not ‫ שייך‬to say ‫ תנא ושייר‬by ‫אין בן‬. However the ‫ גמרא‬in ‫מגלה‬lists numerous ‫אין‬
‫בין‬s and all those are not all encompassing. For example, there is no difference (‫אין בין( נדרים‬
and ‫ נדבות‬except that if one lost a ‫נדר‬, or it died prematurely, you must replace the ‫ קרבן‬with a
new one. Yet if you lose a ‫ נדבה‬you would be exempt from bring a replacement. We know
though that there is another difference and that is that a ‫ נדבה‬can even be brought from ‫מעשר‬,
but a ‫ נדר‬must be brought from ‫ חולין‬only. So how could our ‫ גמרא‬say ‫אין בין‬is all
encompassing? ‫ תוס‬answers that ‫אין בין‬is only all encompassing in the area the ‫ גמרא‬is
focusing in, and not to all areas where they apply. A second answer offered by ‫ תוס‬is that
since the ‫ משנה‬in ‫ כנים‬which discusses this ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ מגילה‬says that we are talking about a ‫נדר‬
and ‫ נדבה‬brought as an ‫עולה‬. Furthermore since an ‫ עולה‬is completely burnt and the ‫ בעל‬gets
no physical ‫ הנאה‬he could not bring the ‫ קרבן‬from maser even if it is a ‫נדבה‬. However this
answer doesn’t answer the other ‫’אין בן‬s in ‫מגילה‬. (There is no difference between ‫ שבת‬and ‫יום‬
‫ טוב‬except ‫)אכל נפש‬.
4. ‫ תוס‬D’H Yutzu ‫ קרקעות‬questions the need for the ‫ גמרא‬to bring a ‫ פסוק‬to except one
who is ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬by land to be except from ‫כפל‬. Of course they are exempt from ‫ כפל‬by
land because a ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬must take a ‫ שבועה‬to be ‫ חייב כפל‬and by land we never make you
take a ‫שבועה‬. So how could a ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬be ‫ חייב כפל‬for land if not even ‫ חייב קרן‬because no
‫ שבועה? תוס‬answers there are times where a ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬would be ‫ חייב‬a ‫ שבועה‬mainly in the
case of ‫( גלגול שבועה‬where he is swearing on something else [perhaps he was ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬by
a moveable object also] so we make him swear on the land also). Since we have case where
he will have to swear on land we need a ‫ פסוק‬to exempt him in that case from ‫כפל‬.
5. ‫ תוס‬D’H Yutzu Shtaros questions the need for the ‫ גמרא‬to bring a ‫ פסוק‬to except one
who is ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬by a ‫ שטר‬to be except from ‫כפל‬. Of course they are exempt for ‫כפל‬
because even if they burnt or lost the ‫ שטר‬they would be exempt from ‫ קרן‬because no actual
value only representative value. ‫ תוס‬answers since if the ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬didn’t burn he would
have to return it, I would think in such a case where he does have to return it he would be ‫חייב‬
to pay ‫ קמ’’ל‬.‫ כפל‬no ‫ כפל‬even when returning ‫קרן‬.
6. ‫ תוס‬D’H Yutzu ‫ קרקעות‬wonders how one actually goes about stealing land. ‫תוס‬
answers that you could move your fence over and take over some of his property (‫)מסיג גבול‬
or you could ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬on items that are ‫( מכובר לקרקע‬vines).
7. The ‫ גמרא‬on 56b has a ‫ ’מח‬as to what type of ‫ שומר‬is one who finds a lost object and
now wants to return. Rabbah says he is a ‫ חנם שומר‬because not getting paid. Rebbi Yosef
says he is a ‫שומר שכר‬. But he isn’t get paid? Either because whenever ‫ ’ה‬appoints a ‫ שומר‬he
appoints him on the highest level. Or because he is in a sense getting paid. For when is goes
to take care of the lost item (dust it, keep it fresh, etc.) and a poor person comes asking for
money the ‫ שומר‬does not have to give the poor person because of the :‫כלל עוסף במצוה פטור מן‬
‫המצוה‬, so since he is saving money like ‫ )פרוטה דר’ יוסף‬.‫)שומר שכר‬
8. 66 ‫גמרא‬a. ‫ רש”י‬D’H ‫ טלאים כמעיקרא‬and ‫ תוס‬D’H Telayim:
How much is ‫טלאים כמעיקרא‬ ‫דמים כעכשו‬
‫?כפל‬
‫רש”י‬ If want to pay in sheep then go If want to pay money then go based on
based on value when stolen. value now.
‫ר”י‬ If change was a change in the If change was solely a market value
animal (got fatter, older, etc.) then change then pay based on value now
pay based on value when stolen
‫ר”ת‬ If change caused value to go up, If change caused value to go down, like
like case of ‫ טלא ונעשה עיל‬then pay case ‫ רב‬said of 4 and goes to 1 pay based
based on value when stolen. on value now. Except if thief caused
change (‫ )בידים‬then pay based on value
when stolen.
9. ‫ גמרא‬on 65a-65b discusses the case of a ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬then he admits he lied and then
witnesses came. Since witnesses came after he admitted everyone says he is ‫ קרן‬:‫( חייב‬for the
stolen item) and ‫ אשם‬and ‫( חומש‬for swearing falsely). No ‫ כפל‬because admitted and ‫מודה בקנס‬
‫פטור‬. However if witnesses come before he admits there is a three way ‫’מח‬. Rebbe Yaakov
says ‫( חייב כפל‬which includes ‫ )קרן‬and the ‫ חומש‬is rolled into the ‫( כפל‬must be equal though)
and an ‫ חכמים‬.‫ אשם‬says :‫ חייב כפל‬and an ‫אשם‬, no ‫ חומש‬because already paying ‫כפל‬. Rebbi
Shimon bar Yochai says just pay ‫כפל‬, no ‫ אשם‬and no ‫חומש‬.
10. ‫ רש”י‬on 65a says from the ‫ לשון‬of ‫( בתוך הכפל‬which isn’t the ‫ גרסא‬of our ‫ )גמרא‬we see
that according to Rebbi Yaakov you could only be ‫ יוצא‬rolling in the ‫ חומש‬into the ‫ כפל‬if
equal. ‫ תוס‬on 66a is bothered because that doesn’t seem to mean they need to be equal, just
that the ‫ חומש‬needs to be less than the ‫כפל‬. So says ‫ תוס‬a better way to read it ‫חומש עולה בכל‬
‫כפלו‬.
11. It is odd that according to Rebbi Yaakov you are only ‫ יוצא‬the ‫ חומש‬if recognizable in
the payment. Why should you need this? Since ‫ כפרה‬so like ‫ קרבן‬and by ‫ קרבן‬there are other
requirements, so being recognizable is one of the requirements here. Do we see this
anywhere else? 110 ‫בבא קמא‬a says if steal from convert (so has no relatives) and he dies and
you want to return the stolen item you are only ‫ יוצא‬if give back to the ‫כהן‬. Furthermore if
give back to the ‫ כהן‬at night you are not ‫יוצא‬. So we see that monetary payments that are ‫כפרה‬
have rules like ‫קרבן‬.
12. ‫ תוס‬D’H Hen is bothered why do I need to ‫ פסוקים‬to teach me ‫שינוי קונה‬. We have ‫פסוק‬
by ‫אסנן שניהם לרבות שינויהם‬, and ‫ והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל כעין שגזל‬and if not just pay money. So
why do I need both? One if for the general rule of ‫ שינוי‬and one is to teach me that even a
‫ שינוי‬that has the potential to revert back to its original form is a ‫שינוי‬.
13. Our ‫ גמרא‬on 65a-66b is ‫ משמע‬that ‫ ולדות‬is more ‫ קל‬then ‫ שינוי‬because Bais Shamai
permits ‫ ולדות‬and ‫אסור‬s a ‫ שינוי‬by ‫ תוס‬.‫ אסנן‬is bothered because in 47 ‫גמרא ע’ז‬a the opposite is
true. Over there we see that if one worships wheat the flour is ‫מותר‬, yet if one has bestiality
with pregnant animal the ‫ ולדות‬is ‫ אסור‬also? ‫ תוס‬answers that in cases in ‫ ע’ז‬we look at ‫מציאות‬,
if you worshiped that item so ‫אסור‬, if not not, so flour is ‫מותר‬, and ‫ ולדות‬is ‫ אסור‬because had
relations with it. However by ‫ אסנן‬we look at her ‫ דעת‬when she accepted the payment. As ‫אסנן‬
is only ‫ אסור‬if a payment (if give gift to ‫ זונה‬not considered ‫ )אסנן‬we look at what her ‫כוונה‬
was when she received it. So when give her wheat she is obviously thinking I am taking this
wheat to make flour, so flour is ‫אסור‬. Yet when she receives the animal her ‫ דעת‬is on the
mother and not the child inside.
14. Our ‫ גמרא‬in 66a says one source that ‫ שינוי‬is ‫ קונה‬is case of dying the sheerings that are
suppose to go to the ‫)כהן )ראשית הגז‬. If one dyes all the sheerings before he gives to ‫ כהן‬the he
is ‫ קונה‬b’‫ שינוי‬and exempt from giving them to the ‫ תוס‬.‫ כהן‬D’H Lo is bothered what do I need
this case for, we know that one is exempt even if he dye after each sheep is shorn? ‫תוס‬
answers if I dye each sheep once it is shorn I don’t need to dye the whole sheep because will
never hit the ‫שיעור חיוב‬. However if wait till ‫ חיוב שיעור‬kicks in I will need to dye every piece
of wool to exempt the whole batch. Meaning if the ‫ חיוב שיעור‬was 5 pounds (anything less not
‫ חייב‬to give) and each sheep has one pound and I have 5 sheep. So once I dye part of sheep 1
through 4 I will never reach the ‫שיעור חיוב‬. However if I wait till all 5 sheep are shorn then I
have 5 pounds of sheering so the ‫ שם חיוב‬settles in on these sheerings and I will only be
exempt from the wool I dye, all the wool I don’t dye will be ‫ חייב‬because had ‫שם חיוב‬.
15. ‫ תוס‬D’H ‫ מוציא‬tells us source for ‫ יאוש‬is ‫סימלה‬- shirt- just like a shirt has ‫ סימנים‬and you
won’t have ‫ יאוש‬so to anything with ‫ סימנים‬on you wont have ‫יאוש‬. But according to the ones
that hold ‫ סימנים‬are ‫( לאו דאורייתא‬so biblically I don’t have to return it to you unless there are
witnesses) what do I need ‫ פסוק‬of ‫ סימנים‬for? Aren’t you going to have ‫ יאוש‬either way? Even
if ‫ סימנים‬are ‫ לאו דאורייתא‬I won’t have ‫ יאוש‬if there is a ‫ סימן‬because will ask around hoping to
find it myself, as opposed to if no ‫ סימנים‬at all I won’t be able to even ask around and will
definitely have ‫יאוש‬.

‫עיון‬
1. When one steals an item usually he will make a ‫( קנין גזילה‬through ‫משיכה‬, or ‫)הגבהה‬.
This ‫ קנין גזילה‬while not allowing him to be completely the owner will give him certain
responsibilities and privileges. Three examples of this are found in our ‫’מס‬.
a. 79 ‫בבא קמא‬a: if steal a cow and slaughter it but never left owners field you are ‫פטור‬.
But didn’t you steal? Since never made a ‫ קנין‬you are viewed as a thief, even
though clearly that was your intent.
b. 66 ‫בבא קמא‬a: ‫ שינוי‬is only ‫ קונה‬if stole first. If I just go and dye your wool
without a ‫ קנין‬so not ‫ קונה‬because I am just a ‫ מזיק‬not a thief, even though that was
my intent.
c. 97 ‫בבא קמא‬a: Once I make a ‫ קנין גזילה‬I am exempt for paying rent on the item
stolen. I am allowed to drive around the boat I steal and if caught I have to pay
‫ כפל‬but not ‫ חייב‬to pay for rent.
2. 57 ‫סנהדרין‬a records a ‫ ’מח‬Abaya and ‫רב‬a who is ‫ פסול‬to we a witness. Abaya says both
a ‫ רשע‬and a ‫ רב‬,‫רשע דחמס‬a says only a ‫ רשע דחמס‬and not a ‫ רשע‬. Rambam says we ‫ פסקין‬like
Abaya and anyone who is a ‫ רשע )מלקות‬or worse) or a ‫( רשע דחמס‬even though not ‫מלקות‬, just
steals). The Rivash ‫פסקין‬s that one who steals from a thief isn’t ‫ פסול‬to be a witness. The
Tumin says this is difficult because Rambam says if steal you are ‫ פסול‬and this guy definitely
took someone’s money? Furthermore the Rama ‫פסקין‬s like this Rivash but isn’t it against the
Rambam? The Ketsos says that a one who steals from a thief is a ‫ מזיק‬not a ‫גנב‬, since not a ‫גנב‬
not ‫ פסול‬as a witness. Nesivos says one who steals from a thief is a thief but only if he adds to
it, since he never added to this not a thief. The Yeshuas Yisroel says might not call him a ‫גנב‬
but still took someone’s money so ‫ פסול‬as a witness. Ohr Sameach says that one who steals
from a thief is still called a ‫ גנב‬just might not have to pay ‫כפל‬.
3. Nesivos writes that our ‫ גמרא‬which says that a ‫ גונב‬min ‫ הגנב‬is ‫ פטור‬from ‫ כפל‬is only if
he isn’t ‫מוסף‬, but if second thief adds to the ‫ גנבה‬by breaking it, or doing a ‫ שינוי‬then ‫חייב כפל‬.
4. Rambam says that one who was entrusted to watch an item and then physically steals
it and then is ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬is ‫ פטור‬from ‫ כפל‬because the physical stealing wasn’t from the
house of the owner and ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬is only ‫ מחייב‬if wasn’t stolen yet. Raavad says you are
‫ חייב‬in that case only ‫ פטור‬if first ‫ טוען טענת אבד‬then ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬but if steal first ‫חייב‬.
5. Rambam says if ‫ שומר‬is appointed in charge of large number of sheep and steal one
and owner will never realize because didn’t know how many he gave you, you are ‫חייב כפל‬
because ‫ שומר‬can steal with ‫ קנין גזילה‬and not just ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬Raavad says ‫ פטור‬because
‫שומר‬s only way to steal is through ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬What’s reasoning of Raavad? Because ‫’שומר‬s
hand likes owner’s hand so how could you take out of owner's ‫ רשות‬if your hand is like
owners.
6. 107 ‫גמרא בבא קמא‬b says one who is ‫ טוען טענת אבד‬the ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬is ‫ פטור‬because ‫טוען‬
‫ טענת אבד‬got him off the hook already so ‫ טוען טענת גנב‬doesn’t make him ‫חייב‬. Rambam quotes
this din.
7. ‫ רב‬on 65a says ‫ קרן‬is ‫ תוס‬.‫ כעין שגנב‬points out that ‫ רב‬is only talking about a case
where it goes from 4 to 1 because if pay back 1 the guy could buy the same item so comes ‫רב‬
and says we bump you up to pay 4 even if 1 would bring back the item. Yet if goes from 1-4
and break of course pay 4 because need to ‫משלם‬.
8. ‫ גמרא‬Kesubos 33b discusses if have a ‫ שליח‬slaughter on ‫שבת‬. He gets killed you have
to pay ‫’ד’ וה‬. If you slaughtered don’t pay ‫ ’ד’ וה‬because of ‫ תוס‬.‫ קים ליה‬is bothered why
doesn’t ‫ גמרא‬ask what if guy wants to pay ‫ ?לצאת ידיה שמים‬Furthermore we know you can
usually pay ‫ לצאת ידיה שמים‬by ‫ אסנן‬in 91 ‫בבא מציעא גמרא‬a? So ‫ תוס‬writes only say ‫לצאת ידיה‬
‫ שמים‬by ‫ ממון‬but not ‫קנס‬. This is supported by a story in the Yerushalmi that Rebbi Akiva hit
Tevi his slave(who he liked a lot) and was so happy because if knock out slaves tooth get to
let him go. So went to Rebbi Yishmael to free him, Rebbi Yishmael said can’t free him
because ‫ קנס‬and ‫ מודה בקנס פטור‬and no ‫ ענין‬of ‫לצאת ידיה שמים‬
9. The ‫ גמרא‬in Makkos 5a discusses a case of false witness (Yaakov and Yitzchak) who
claim and say Reuven killed Shimon on Sunday and real witnesses (Menashe and Efraim)
came and say Yaakov and Yitzchak were with us on Sunday they couldn’t possible have seen
the murder. However, Reuven really did kill Shimon it was just on Friday or Monday. Do
we kill Yitzchak and Yaakov because they were false witnesses or do we say since in the end
they were right we don’t kill them? So the ‫ גמרא‬says that if the false witnesses were testifying
in a case of death or ‫ קנס‬we give them what they tried to give. Yet by ‫גמר דין‬, since the guy
was ‫ חייב‬already the false witnesses are exempt. ‫ תוס‬asks what’s the deal if they false
witnesses were testifying in a case of ‫ ממון? תוס‬answers that by ‫ ממון‬the false witnesses are
exempt. This is because the interrogation process by ‫ ממון‬isn’t intense and long, so once the
guy commits the act almost assured he will be convicted, so already viewed as convicted now
(like ‫גמר דין‬: he was already ‫)חייב‬. However by death the interrogation process is very long so
it is highly possible that even with witnesses Reuven will walk because the witnesses will get
tripped up in the questioning, and by ‫ קנס‬we say ‫ מודה בקנס פטור‬so not ‫ חייב‬yet. ‫ רב‬Akiva Eiger
in the Gilyon is bothered why did ‫ תוס‬say reasoning is dependent in how intense the
interrogation process is, ‫ תוס‬should be constant and say like he does in Kesubos (see question
8) that by ‫ קנס‬not ‫ חייב‬till ‫ ב’ד‬assesses it, but by ‫ ממון חייב‬right away? ‫ רב‬Simon offered a
possible answer that by ‫ עדים זומימין‬even though ‫ ממון‬is ‫ חייב‬right away, in reality he isn’t
going to pay till convicted so ‫ עדים‬made him pay. The ‫ חילוק‬between was he ‫ חייב‬or not yet
doesn’t apply here, because either way the ‫ עדים‬are making him pay.
10. The Rosh in 2 ‫ סימן‬holds that ‫ כפל‬is paid at ‫ העמדת בדין‬but if slaughter or sell the ‫’ד’ וה‬
is ‫ חייב‬at the value when you slaughtered or sold and not at ‫העמדת בדין‬. What is the reasoning
behind this Rosh? The Pelpulley Charifta offers two explanations. First we only say M.B.P
when you stick out your head and admit you are ‫ חייב‬for something else. For example if
admit you stole you are exempt from ‫ כפל‬only because you are admitting the ‫קנס‬. However in
case where Reuven stole and was convicted with ‫ עדים‬and now he sells, since ‫ חייב‬in ‫קרן‬
already he isn’t sticking his head out on anything and ‫ חייב‬to pay ‫’ד’ וה‬. Says the Pelpulley
Charifta since we have a case where by ‫ ’ד’ וה‬we don’t ‫ מודה בקנס פטור‬so don’t say ‫’ד’ וה‬
should be assessed at ‫ העמדת בדין‬because ‫ חייב‬already. This is weak though because if true we
should say that if ‫ חייב‬already then assess ‫ ’ד’ וה‬at ‫ שעת מכירה‬and if wasn’t ‫ חייב‬yet assess it at
‫שעת העמדת בדין‬. Why say Lo plug? The second answered offered is that its all based on logic.
‫ קרן‬has to be ‫ שעת גזלה‬because ‫ כפל‬.‫ אחייה לקרן‬has to be at ‫ שעת העמדה בדין‬because no other
choice. ‫ ’ד’ וה‬is at ‫ שעת מכירה‬because that’s when you brought the potential ‫ חיוב‬on yourself.
11. Our 65 ‫גמרא‬a says that if you broke or drank a stolen barrel you pay ‫ קרן‬at the new
value because we view like you stole again. So if goes from 1 to 4 you pay 4. The Ketsos
says that a one who steals from a thief is a ‫ מזיק‬not a ‫גנב‬. Since we view him as a ‫ מזיק‬this
payment of 4 is a payment for damaging the item and no ‫קרן‬. It is for this reason you
wouldn’t have to pay ‫כפל‬. Nesivos says one who steals from a thief is a thief but only if he
adds to it. This ‫ גנב‬added to it so we view it as a new ‫ גזלה‬and now ‫ חייב‬a ‫ קרן‬of 4 and ‫ כפל‬of 4.
But ‫ גונב‬min ‫ הגנב‬is exempt from ‫ ?כפל‬That’s only if he isn’t ‫ מוסף‬but if ‫מוסף חייב כפל‬. The
Rambam says if steal vessel at 4 and goes to 2, ‫ קרן‬is 4 and ‫ כפל‬is 2. If worth 2 and goes to 4,
if break at 4 ‫ כפל‬is 4, if broke by itself ‫ כפל‬is 2. But Rambam doesn’t mention how much ‫קרן‬
is? Rambam is like the ‫( ר”ת‬see part 1 question 8). The Afikei Yam learnt that ‫ כפל‬must
always be less than or equal to ‫קרן‬. So if Rambam held ‫ כפל‬is 4 the ‫ קרן‬must be 4 also.
Furthermore the Afikei Yam heard that the Grach (‫ רב‬Chaim) brought this Rambam as a
proof to the Nesivos because new ‫מעשה גזלה‬.
12. The ‫ גמרא‬in Temura 4b-6a discusses the ‫סוגיה‬of ‫ אי עביד מהני‬or not. One of the cases is
‫שינוי‬. This is difficult because ‫ שינוי‬isn’t something ‫ אסור‬so why is it listed here? Nesivos says
because when you do a ‫ שינוי‬it a new ‫ גזלה‬and that’s the ‫גמרא‬s question if you do a ‫ שינוי‬which
is a new ‫ מעשה גזלה‬do we say it works and you are ‫ קונה‬or not. Ketsos, in his response to the
Nesivos, the Mesovev Nesivos, has to learn the ‫ גמרא‬differently and says that ‫ גמרא‬is talking
about iF the original ‫ מעשה גנבה‬is ‫ מהני‬or not. Once you do a ‫ שינוי‬does it make your original
‫( גזלה‬which was ‫ אסור( קונה‬or not. But in no ways is a ‫ שינוי‬a separate new ‫גזלה‬.
13. ‫ משנה‬on 62b says if Reuven steals and comes Shimon and slaughters so Shimon is
exempt from ‫’ד’ וה‬. But according to the Nesivos who holds that a ‫ שינוי‬is a new ‫ גזלה‬why is
shimon exempt? Shimon is a ‫ גונב‬min ‫ הגנב‬and is ‫ מוסף‬so he should be ‫ ?’חייב ד’ וה‬The Ohr
Sameach says can only be called a ‫ גונב‬min ‫ הגנב‬if the second ‫ גנב‬does a ‫ מעשה קנין‬but if just
slaughters not ‫ ’חייב ד’ וה‬because not a ‫ גנב‬just a ‫ רב‬.‫ מזיק‬Elchonon adds in the Kobetz ‫שיעור‬im
that while the second ‫ גנב‬needs a ‫ קנין‬to be m ‫ חייב‬him, if the original ‫ גנב‬is ‫ מוסף‬through a
‫ שינוי‬that is enough and he doesn’t need a new ‫ קנין‬because already had one.
14. Our ‫ גמרא‬on 66a says ‫ שינוי‬is ‫קונה‬. The Rosh in 3 ‫ סימן‬9 ‫ פרק‬adds that once you change
it you get all the proceeds and sheerings from the moment you stole it. The Oneg Yumtov
uses this as proof that once you change the item you retroactively own it from the moment
you stole it. This gets us out of the issue of ‫(כלתא קנינו‬that there was no ‫ קנין‬when you
changed it, only ‫ קנין‬was when you stole it). Another proof to Oneg ‫ יום טוב‬is the ‫ גמרא‬in
Temura (see question 12). ‫ תוס‬there is bothered why does the ‫ גמרא‬not discuss a case of
causing a blemish to a ‫ בכור‬which now you are exempt from giving to the ‫ כהן? תוס‬answers
that even if hold ‫אי עביד לא מהני‬. we view it as it happened by itself and a blemish by itself is
still a blemish and would exempt you from giving to the ‫כהן‬. The Oneg Yumtov says if that’s
true then why discuss ‫( שינוי‬many cases where happens by itself and ‫ ?)קונה‬The Oneg Yumtov
answers that since once ‫ שינוי‬occurs you are retroactively ‫ קונה‬from ‫שעת גזלה‬, and ‫ גזלה‬needs
to be done by you and ‫ ממלא‬isn’t ‫ גזלה‬that’s what the ‫ גמרא‬is talking about. ‫ רב‬Shimon Schkup
argued and said really ‫ שינוי‬is only ‫ קונה‬from when you change it. His proof is that if broke or
drank you pay ‫ קרן‬of 4. Yet according to Oneg Yumtov why pay 4, is ‫ שינוי‬is ‫ קונה למפרא‬then
pay 1. ‫ רב‬Shimon Schkup admits that if did ‫ שינוי‬and didn’t destroy it ‫ קרן‬would be 1 because
item is still in world (like the Rosh), but if broke then pay 4. But according to ‫ רב‬Schkup how
do you explain ‫ גמרא‬in Temura? Same as Oneg Yumtov just that ‫ קנין‬you made when you
stole is only ‫ חל‬from the ‫ שעת שינוי‬and on. ‫ רב‬Schkup is also forced to answer up for the Rosh
and ‫ כלתא קנינו‬by saying that when stolen you get certain rights. Two of those rights are the
right to collect the ‫ שבח‬if you do a ‫ שינוי‬and the right to be ‫ קונה‬with a ‫שינוי‬, but only at the
time of the ‫שינוי‬.
15. There is a ‫ ’מח‬as to what is the source for ‫ יאוש‬by a lost object. ‫ רש”י‬in our 66 ‫גמרא‬a
says the source is the ‫ גמרא‬in 22 ‫בבא מציעא‬b which says that “‫ ”תאבד ממנו אשר‬that which is lost
from just the owner you must return, but if lost from everyone (i.e. falls in a ocean) you are
exempt from returning. The Yerusalmi quotes this ‫ פסוק‬as the source for ‫ יאוש‬also. However
the Bavli quotes this ‫ דרשה‬but leaves off that this is the source for ‫יאוש‬. The Ramban says the
reason why the Bavli left it out was because that isn’t the source for ‫ יאוש‬that is a separate
din. If it falls into an ocean and you are screaming “I don’t have ‫ ”יאוש‬the torah tells you that
you do. However, the source that ‫ יאוש‬is ‫ קונה‬is like ‫ תוס‬in our 66 ‫גמרא‬a which says “‫ ”סימלה‬is
extra. This teaches me that you only have to return something with a ‫סימן‬, for without a ‫סימן‬
the owner will have ‫יאוש‬.
16. ‫ גמרא‬in 26 ‫בבא מציעא‬b discusses three cases: 1. find lost object and you have intent to
steal. You are over on three ‫( עברות‬Lo tuchal, Hashev, and Lo tzigzol) and no point in
returning. 2. if see and have intent to return and hear he had ‫ יאוש‬so you decide to keep, over
one ‫( עברה‬hashev). 3. If see and don’t pick up over one ‫( עברה‬Lo tchal). ‫ תוס‬and the Ramban
are troubles why can’t you return the lost object that you intent to steal in the first case? ‫תוס‬
says really you can but it is ‫דוחק‬. Ramban says the reason why you can’t return is because
you were ‫ קונה‬once the ‫ בעל‬had ‫יאוש‬. But is that ‫ ?אוםורא אתי לידיה‬One can only have ‫ יאוש‬if
not in his ‫רשות‬. If it is in his ‫ רשות‬that is ‫ יאוש מדעת‬and that is worthless. So if pick up with
intent to return and ‫ בעל‬has ‫ יאוש‬so you aren’t ‫ קונה‬because as a ‫ שומר‬of the lost object you are
a ‫ שליח‬of the ‫ בעל‬and that is ‫ יאוש‬b’‫ רשות‬so still need to return because ‫ יאוש‬was worthless.
Yet if picked up to steal not a ‫ שומר‬of the ‫ בעל‬so once the ‫ בעל‬has ‫ יאוש‬the thief can steal it.
Why? Because ‫ אבידה‬has ‫ גזלה‬,‫ יאוש דאורייתא‬is only ‫ דרבנן‬because of ‫תקנת השבים‬. So if steal
‫ אבידה‬then ‫ קונה‬because ‫ דאורייתא‬playing field and don’t have to even pay back anything
because like find ‫ אבידה‬after ‫יאוש‬.
17. ‫ תוס‬on 66a says that ‫ יאוש‬and ‫ הפקר‬are not identical. What is the difference?
a. Nesivos/ Ketsos- by ‫ הפקר‬it is ownerless once the ‫ בעל‬declares it to be so. ‫יאוש‬
is only ownerless to the extent that the ‫ בעל‬allows someone to take it, but if no
one takes it the ‫ בעל‬never loses ownership. ‫ נ’’מ‬is if the ‫ בעל‬decides he wants it
back does he need to make a new ‫קנין‬.
i. Proof: 116 ‫בבא קמא גמרא‬a : story of ‫ רב‬Safra and the lion caravan. ‫רב‬
Safra didn’t need a new ‫קנין‬. Yet by 24 ‫מציעא בבא‬a where you have ‫יאוש‬
because your animal is about to eat it and some guy sweeps in and
takes your animal. He is ‫ קונה‬through your ‫יאוש‬. So we see that by ‫יאוש‬
not totally out of your ‫ רשות‬because ‫ רב‬Safra didn’t need a new ‫קנין‬,
yet once guy sweeps in and takes it you lose it. (‫ תוס‬answers the ‫סתירה‬
in ‫’גמרא‬s by saying that ‫ רב‬Safra’s case wasn’t a real ‫יאוש‬.
b. The Zechar Yitzchak argues and says the difference is that by ‫ יאוש‬your arm is
twisted, as opposed to ‫ הפקר‬which is open hearted. So in a theoretical case
where you could have ‫ הפקר‬after the ‫ מעשה‬the guy would be able to keep it.
For you could only keep and object if don’t have ‫ חיוב‬to return. If took before
‫ יאוש‬,‫ יאוש‬isn’t enough to remove you from the ‫ חיוב‬because it is against his
will. However, ‫ הפקר‬can remove the ‫ חיוב‬to return even if took before the ‫הפקר‬.
18. The Grid (‫ רב‬Yosef Dov Soloveitchik) explained ‫ יאוש‬like this: ‫ הפקר‬is a present to the
world. If you lose something, so it is lost but still belongs to ‫בעל‬, once you have the ‫ יאוש‬it is
like it is in the sea. So ‫ יאוש‬is ‫ משלם‬the ‫שם אבוד‬, so like ‫ אבוד ממנו‬and everyone.
19. The ‫ גמרא‬on 66a-6b discusses a case of a guy who stole ‫ חמץ‬before ‫ פסח‬and now after
‫ פסח‬he is allowed to return it, even though the ‫ חמץ‬is ‫ אסור‬b’‫ הנאה‬and has zero value. The ‫גמרא‬
questions but since the owner for sure had ‫ יאוש‬why is the thief able to return it. The ‫גמרא‬
answers that ‫ יאוש‬is only ‫ קונה‬if the ‫ גנב‬wants it to be, but here the ‫ גנב‬didn’t want it. (The
ketsos and nesivos you this as a proof to there concept of ‫ יאוש‬See question 17).The ‫ גמרא‬in
Gittin 53a learns from this that an damage that is not physically visible (‫ )הזק שאינו ניקר‬is not
considered a damaged, for if it was how could the ‫ גנב‬return the stolen ‫חמץ‬, isn’t the damage
a ‫שינוי‬. Do we say the same thing by and ‫ אתרוג‬after ‫ ?סכות‬The Piskei Teshuva in 363 ‫סימן‬
debates this issue and in the end says it is dependent on how you learn in the ‫ סוגיה‬in ‫בבא קמא‬
96b : where you steal a coin and the next day the king says this type of coin is worthless. ‫רב‬
Yehuda says you can’t ‫ הדי שלך לפניך‬in this case, and the Shulchan Aruch and Rambam ‫פסקין‬
like that- so to you can’t say ‫ הדי שלך לפניך‬by an ‫אתרוג‬. Yet if you ‫ פסקין‬like ‫ רב‬Huna (Tur,
Rosh, Rama) who says you can say ‫ הדי שלך לפניך‬in a case of the coin you can say it in a case
of ‫ רב‬.‫ לולב‬Berger points out that the cases aren’t exactly parallel because in the coin case the
‫ בעל‬would have lost anyways because the decree by the king was on the whole nation, yet by
‫ לולב‬he would have used it and been ‫ יוצא‬his mitzvah. Although you could answer that had
the ‫ בעל‬known of the decree he would have traded it in or spent it and now that it is stolen he
couldn’t. Another way to learn is that ‫ אתרוג‬is different because it is a ‫ הזק‬that is ‫ניקר‬, because
everyone knows that the value changes drastically after ‫סכות‬, as oppose to ‫ חמץ‬that know one
knows if you stole before ‫ פסח‬or after. Yet this is weak also because just like by ‫ חמץ‬we say
not ‫ ניקר‬because no one knows you stole before ‫פסח‬, so too could say who knows you stole
‫ אתרוג‬before ‫סכות‬, maybe stole after ‫סכות‬.
20. Our ‫ גמרא‬on 66a says the fact ‫ שינוי‬is ‫ קונה‬is a ‫ פסוק‬and a ‫ רש”י‬.‫ ברייתא‬says only when
you do a ‫ שינוי‬with your hands is it for sure ‫קונה‬. The Ketsos is bothered why did ‫ רש”י‬have to
say only with your hands are you ‫ קונה‬by ‫ ?שינוי‬Furthermore we have a case on 96b that says
if you steal an animal and it gets old you pay ‫ שעת הגזלה‬. We see from this that a ‫ שינוי‬that is
‫ ממלא‬you are ‫קונה‬, for you can’t say ‫ הדי שלך לפניך‬So why did ‫ רש”י‬only say with hands? The
Metzpei Etan answers and says there are two types of ‫ שינוי‬and the ‫ הלכות‬by each one are
different. If you do a ‫ שינוי‬with you hands then you are ‫קונה‬. However, if the ‫ שינוי‬is only ‫ממלא‬
then you can no longer say ‫ הדי שלך לפניך‬and you are no ‫ ’חייב ד’ וה‬if you slaughter, but you
are not ‫קונה‬. Rav Issur Zalman points out in Even HaEzel that ‫ רש”י‬is consistent for on 65b he
says in the case of ‫ טלה‬that becomes an ‫ עיל‬that you can no longer say ‫ הדי שלך לפניך‬and ‫רש”י‬
points out ‫להי מילתא‬- only to this matter (no longer being able to say ‫ )הדי שלך לפניך‬are you
‫ קונה‬but not a full owner.
21. Our ‫ גמרא‬on 11a says that if a ‫ גנב‬steals and breaks the item he is not allowed to return
the shards and the difference in value. Rather he must give the ‫ בעל‬the money to buy a new
item. ‫ תוס‬says the reason you can’t give back shards is because you were ‫קונה‬. The Rambam
adds that if the ‫ בעל‬wants the shards, though, we force the ‫ גנב‬to give it to him. The Magid
‫ משנה‬is bothered if ‫ גנב‬was ‫ קונה‬through ‫ שינוי‬how could we force him to give shards to ‫בעל‬.
He answers that what we are dealing with here is a small ‫( שינוי‬you dented the pot). In the
case of a small ‫ שינוי‬you aren’t fully ‫ קונה‬just not allowed to say ‫ הדי שלך לפניך‬but if ‫ בעל‬wants
the dented pot we force you to give it back. ‫ רב‬Chaim says we see from here this ‫ הלכה‬of a
quasi/semi ‫ שינוי‬which isn’t fully ‫קונה‬, so too by ‫ שינוי‬that is ‫ממלא‬. The Griz is troubled that if
we say there are two types of ‫שינוי‬, we need two ‫פסוקים‬, but we only have one? Griz answers
that ‫ שניהם ולא שינויהם‬teaches me it belong to someone else. Asher Gazel just teaches me that
you can no longer say ‫ הדי שלך לפניך‬but not fully ‫קונה‬. (See question 12 in part 1 for ‫ תוס‬who
uses these two ‫ פסוקים‬for something else)
22. The Rosh says if one is ‫ מקדש‬a woman with a stolen ring albeit ‫ יאוש‬kicked in he
needs to give her a get because at worst they were married ‫מדרבנן‬. The Pulpulley Charifta is
bothered because while the ‫ גנב‬was never the full owner, only m ‫דרבנן‬, the girl is the full
owner even ‫ מדאורייתא‬because you have ‫ יאוש‬and ‫שינוי רשות‬. So what’s the problem? Either
because the ‫ גנב‬needs to be a full owner for the ‫ קידושין‬to be ‫ חל‬and it is not enough for the
girl to be a full owner. Or perhaps not a real ‫ רשות שינוי‬.
23. Omit
24. Our 67 ‫גמרא‬a says if a ‫ כלי‬has a ‫כלי שם‬before you put into ground it stays a ‫ כלי‬even
though now attached to ground and still considered ‫שאובין‬.
The ‫ משנה‬in 4:2) ‫ )מקוות‬says ‫ כלים‬that aren’t ‫( מקבל טומא‬stone vessels) can still be
considered ‫ כלים‬in regards to ‫ משנה‬.‫ מים שאובין‬in 12:2) ‫ )כלים‬says any metal ‫ כלי‬that is called
anything besides metal (pot, spoon) is ‫ מקבל טומא‬except for ‫ כלים‬that are going to put into
ground (door, pipe) for since these are ‫ נעשה להקרקע‬they are like ‫קרקע‬. The ‫ משנה‬in ) ‫כלים‬
15:2) if one takes a metal sheet (blech) and attach to ground it is a ‫ ’מח‬as to whether they are
‫ מקבל טומא‬Rebbe Elazar says ‫ טהור‬and Chachamin say ‫טמא‬. The ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ בבא‬Basra 66a says
that our ‫ גמרא‬is only according to Rebbe Elazar. This is big news because that is saying that
there is no ‫ חילוק‬between ‫ טומא‬and ‫ שאובין‬because had there been a ‫ חילוק‬then say our ‫ משנה‬is
like both Rebbe Elazar and the Chachamin, and they only argue by ‫ טומא‬but by ‫ שאובין‬they
would both say still considered ‫שאובין‬. So from fact we see that the ‫ בבא‬Basra says our ‫ גמרא‬is
only according to Rebbe Elazar we see that there is no ‫ חילוק‬between ‫ טומא‬and ‫שאובין‬. But
that is against the ‫ משנה‬in ‫מקוה‬os(4:2) which says there is a ‫ ?חילוק‬Answers the Gedulei
Tahara that the ‫ משנה‬in ‫ מקוות‬and our ‫ גמרא‬are talking about two different things. Our ‫( גמרא‬as
well as he ‫ משנה‬in 15:2 ‫ )כלים‬is talking about a case where it was not created to be attached to
ground, so now you decide to attach it in such a case we say that the attaching to ‫ קרקע‬rids
you of the chance to be ‫מקבל טומא‬, so too it rids you of the ‫ חיוב‬of ‫שאובין‬. However in the case
of 12:2) ‫ )כלים‬the reason why it isn’t ‫ מקבל טומא‬isn’t because its ‫ קרקע‬rather because it
happens to be a ‫ כלי‬that’s not not ‫מקבל טומא‬. In such a case since the exemption from ‫ טומא‬is
not cause of ‫קרקע‬, so still ‫שאובין‬. So our water meters are like the case of door in 12:2) ‫)כלים‬
and since the ‫ פטור‬for that is ‫ נעשה לשמש את הקרקע‬so lose the din of ‫ שאובין‬and ‫ מותר‬to use to
feed water through for ‫מקוה‬.
Noda B’Yehuda and Chasam Sofer argue and say that are water meters are like the stone
pots. So while not ‫ מקבל טומא‬that ‫ פטור‬doesn’t extend to ‫שאובין‬. But how does that fit with
‫ גמרא‬in ‫ בבא‬Basra which says our ‫ גמרא‬and ‫ גמרא‬of metal baker sheet are parallel? Answers ‫רב‬
Aharon Kutler that the case of Rebbe Elizar is a case where the item wasn’t built to put into
ground and you decide to put it in so it’s the putting into the ‫ קרקע‬that loses the status of ‫טומא‬
and ‫שאובין‬. But the case of our ‫ גמרא‬is discussing a pipe that was not susceptible to ‫ טומא‬even
before hand because ‫נעשה לשמש את הקרקע‬. Since the ‫ פטור‬of ‫ טומא‬doesn’t come from the
actual attaching to land it doesn’t get the ‫ פטור‬of ‫שאובין‬. So more similar to stone vessel
because exemption came before and has nothing to do with the insertion in ‫קרקע‬.

‫הלכה‬
1. All ‫ ברכות‬are ‫ דרבנן‬except Birkas Hatorah and Birkas Hamzon. 35 ‫ברכות גמרא‬a source
for ‫ ברכות הנהנין‬is a ‫סברא‬- can’t get benefit in this world without thanking 46 ‫ בבא קמא‬.’‫ה‬b
says ‫ סברא‬though is ‫ דאורייתא‬learnt from ‫המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה‬. which is same status as a
‫פסוק‬. Because ‫ גמרא‬asks why do I need ‫ פסוק‬if have ‫המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה‬. must be they are
equal. Pnei Yehosua says all ‫ ברכות הנהנין‬are, but even though still ‫ ספק ברכות להקל‬because
because ‫ ברכה לבטלה‬is a ‫ תוס‬.‫ דאורייתא‬in ‫ ברכות‬says ‫ פסוק‬is only an ‫אסמכתא‬. Rambam says ‫ספק‬
‫ ברכות להקל‬because they are ‫דרבנן‬. Shulchan Aruch ‫פסקין‬s like Rambam.
2. 40 ‫גמרא ברכות‬a says need to repeat ‫ ברכה‬if spoke about something in between ‫ ברכה‬and
eating if talking wasn’t crucial to the eating (pass the salt). Shulchan Aruch brings down.
Magen Avraham quotes Shla if started chewing and didn’t swallow yet bdeivad if speak its
ok.
3. Rama quotes Rokeach that if eat before guy who made ‫ ברכה‬eats it is ok and don’t
need to make new ‫ברכה‬, because you were ‫ יוצא‬with him and he didn’t talk. Ritva in sefer
Hilchos ‫ ברכות‬says that when one is ‫ מוציא‬others its like one body so the ‫’בעל‬s ‫ ברכה‬is like
everyone’s ‫ ברכה‬and ‫’בעל‬s eating is like everyone eating, so if he doesn’t talk its ok.
4. 37 ‫גמרא ברכות‬a: eat raw wheat make an ‫אדמה‬. If cook then ‫מזונות‬. What is cut off
point? Needs to be processed and ‫ תבשיל‬into flour, if just cooked no good. Rabbenu Yona
writes that need to become a unit (dough, batter) to lose ‫ברכה‬, if just cooked by itself stays
‫אדמה‬. Magen Avraham writes that by rice if shell came off considered process. ‫ רב‬Abadie
said if cooked well that’s ‫ תבשיל‬as opposed to rice cake which isn’t fully cooked just pressed
together.
5. There are three rishonim who explain what is ‫פת הבא בכסנין‬:
a. Rambam- add to the flour itself (eggs, juice) enough to taste
b. ‫רש”י‬- add to the flour on top (apricots, chocolate) enough to taste.
c. ‫ רב‬Hai Gaon- you cooked in a way that’s brittle (pretzel, breadstick)
Shulchan Aruch says you make ‫ המוציא‬on pasdita (pizza). But isn’t that ‫ ?פת הבא בכסנין‬Taz
says reason for ‫ המוציא‬is because you were ‫קובע סעודה‬. Magen Avrohom says the rishonim
were only giving examples of what considered snacks but if find ‫ פת הבא בכסנין‬that is meal-
type food make ‫המוציא‬. (Nesivos in his hagada writes this)
If Pas Haba how much is Kvias 3-4 ?‫ סעודה‬Beitzim= 2 slices
Chaya Adam quotes the Gra that 3-4 beitzim isn’t enough need to fill you up.
6. 44 ‫גמרא ברכות‬a says ‫ עיקר‬and ‫ טפל‬apply even if not eaten at same time, and bread
could be ‫ טפל‬if eatin with sharp fish. If no ‫ טפל‬then Pri Migadim says make ‫ ברכה‬on ‫רוב‬
because neither ‫טפל‬. Chaya Adam says if can discern between two and no ‫ טפל‬make two
‫ברכות‬, only one brocho if can’t discern. Aruch Hashulchan says if going to eat ‫ טפל‬separately
it needs its own ‫ משנה ברורה‬.‫ ברכה‬adds that there is and exception and that is ‫מזונות‬: even if not
‫ רוב‬still make ‫ מזונות‬p ‫רוב‬ided significant because ‫חשיב‬. Madaney Asher adds that if you by
accident made a ‫ שהכל‬you don’t need to make a ‫ מזונות‬because ‫ שהכל‬was the ‫רוב‬.
7. 39 ‫ברכות‬a- vegetable soup is an ‫אדמה‬ .
38 ‫ברכות‬a- fruit juice is a ‫שהכל‬. What’s the difference?
a. Rosh- cook has more ‫ טעם‬of original item than squeezing
b. Rashba- Depends on what was ‫ כוונה‬when planted, if ‫ כוונה‬was to make into
soup, then that’s called ‫ הפרי עיקר‬and it keeps the ‫ברכה‬. Yet by fruits ‫ כוונה‬is
to eat not to make into juice, since juice isn’t ‫ עיקר הפרי‬gets ‫שהכל‬.
i. Chazon Ish- if ‫ עיקר דעת‬for fruit becomes juice then one should make
a ‫ העץ‬on juice.
ii. Why don’t we do that? 38 ‫תוס‬a- All liquids get ‫שהכל‬, and that’s why
beer is ‫ שהכל‬and not ‫מזונות‬.
iii. Shulchan Aruch- ‫פסקין‬s like Rashba.

8. ‫ גמרא‬in 38 ‫ברכות‬a discusses case of Treemah- crushed up fruits. ‫ רש”י‬says crushed


and not fully crushed so maintains ‫ברכה‬. Rambam says fully crushed into batter. Trumas
Hadeshen wants to learn according to ‫’רש”י‬s opinion if fully crushed it into mush then it gets
a ‫שהכל‬. Shulchan Aruch- Mchabar like Rambam, Rama like ‫ רש”י‬but ‫ יוצא‬if said a ‫העץ‬.
9. ‫ גמרא‬in 145 ‫שבת‬a- three categories of fruits. Olives and Grapes- ‫מדאורייתא חייב‬
because that is there normal way. Pomegranates and Berries- only ‫ מדרבן חייב‬because not its
normal way but some people do. Rest of the fruits- permitted because never done.
a. What about today? Does it change?
b. Chaya Adam- it changes and therefore if squeeze orange today that is an ‫איסור‬
‫דאורייתא‬, even though in times of ‫ גמרא‬it was totally ok.
c. Tzemach Tzedek- Rashba says that only ‫ דאורייתא‬if majority of people
squeeze that item, So as long as don’t have ‫ רוב‬even though very common still
‫דרבנן‬.
10. Rosh- no one squeezes lemons so ‫מותר‬. Bais Yosef- people used to squeeze lemons
into sugar water and would drink. It is only ‫ אסור‬to squeeze juice into its own ‫ כלי‬but not into
a ‫ כלי‬with something else in it. Or it is only ‫ אסור‬if you want it alone, if want it with
something else (water) than ‫מותר‬. Chaya Adam and ‫ משנה ברורה‬don’t hold of the ‫’קולא‬s of the
Bais Yosef. Aruch Hashulchan says lemons are ok because not used as its own drink.
Shulchan Aruch and Aruch Hashulchan quote this Bais Yosef. ‫ ברורה משנה‬gives an advice to
squeeze lemon onto sugar (so solid onto solid) and then put into water. Chazon Ish doesn’t
like this because what is the difference if put lemon juice into water first, or putting it into
sugar knowing its going to go into water in a minute.
11. ‫ ר”ת‬in his Sefer HaYasher and quoted in ‫ תוס‬Kesubos 6a says two potential issues
with squeezing. ‫( דש‬want stuff coming out) and ‫( מלבן‬want to clean). Rambam says the only
issuing with squeezing is ‫ מלבן‬and not ‫דש‬. Why? Maybe ‫ דש‬is only if naturally exists two
items together. Minchas Chinuch says Rambam holds like ‫ רש”י‬in 145 ‫ שבת‬that squeezing it
allowed if not naturally present.
12. Source for this is 145 ‫גמרא שבת‬a can you squeeze pickles? If just want to soften then
‫מותר‬. If interested in vinegar than ‫ אסור‬only ‫מדרבנן‬. Why? Because no ‫ דש‬if not natural and
this is brine not natural (‫ תוס‬.(‫ רש”י‬says because like strawberries and pomegranates (see
question 9).
13. Or could say not ‫ חייב‬of ‫ דש‬because not 75 ‫ גמרא שבת‬.‫גדולי קרקע‬a squeezing fish is ‫צד‬
and it is a ‫ ’מח‬if also ‫ חכמים‬.‫ דש‬says no ‫ דש‬because not ‫גדולי קרקע‬. Rambam lists ‫ דש‬by causing
someone to bleed and milking a cow (because people and animals are ‫)גדולי קרקע‬, possible he
left it out here, in case of fish, because not ‫גדולי קרקע‬. Ritva quotes case of plugging hole with
a sponge anything not ‫ גדולי קרקע‬is only m’‫ רב‬.‫ דרבנן‬Gutman in Tal Melachos says that if
something from ‫ קרקע‬is ‫ נשתנה‬then no longer considered ‫ גדולי קרקע‬and that’s why Rambam
says no ‫ דישה‬by clothing because no longer viewed as cotton but shirt.
14. Ohr Sameach discusses ‫ ’מח‬in ‫ גמרא‬krisos whether milk of woman is food or ‫משקה‬. If
food no problem, if ‫ משקה‬only allowed because danger to kid if don’t give. So if hold its
‫ משקה‬can’t milk into bottle for later. Menuchas Ahava says even if milk is viewed as food
still problem because food usually allowed because comes from food, but woman isn’t a food
so even if hold milk is food it’s a problem. So allowed only ‫דרך אכילה‬. Tosefta writes that a
woman can’t pump into a cup on ‫שבת‬. What if she needs to because in pain? Taz says so milk
into cup with something disgusting already in it. ‫ פשטות‬is against the Taz and allowed to milk
into normal cup just make sure to spill out right after. This is all because ‫ דש‬is an issue if you
want the squeezed out item but if going to spill out right away then no issue.
15. ‫ גמרא‬in 147 ‫שבת‬a discuses case of shaking out dusty shirt (‫ )רש”י‬you are ‫חייב‬. Only
‫ חייב‬if new, dark, etc. ‫ רב‬Gutman says all garments today are considered new even if years
old because still no rags. This is all said without water. For with water the ‫ גמרא‬in Zevachim
94a says water is the way to wash and that’s a separate ‫ איסור‬of ‫ חידוש‬.‫ כיבוס‬here is that it is
just dust and no need for water but still ‫ תוס‬.‫ אסור‬says case isn’t with dust but with dew on
your shirt you can’t shake off. Yet if dust ok to shake off. Rambam says sometimes new
shirts have strings left on it. So to take those off is makah b’patish, this is totally against ‫רש”י‬
and ‫ תוס‬who say its an ‫ איסור‬of ‫כיבוס‬. Mchabar ‫פסקין‬s like ‫ תוס‬and Rambam. And Rama ‫פסקין‬s
like ‫רש”י‬. Tefillas L’Moshe is only if shake out, if just rub with hand even ‫ רש”י‬would allow
it because not normal ‫ דרך‬of ‫מלבן‬. Normal ‫ דרך‬is to shake out and not rub.
16. For with water the ‫ גמרא‬in Zevachim 94a says water is the way to wash and that’s a
separate ‫ איסור‬of ‫כיבוס‬. But only said if not ‫דרך לכלוך‬. This is an automatic ‫איסור‬. Even if you
don’t scrub or rub the mere contact of water on a garment on ‫ שבת‬is ‫כיבוס‬.
17. 75 ‫ שבת‬says cant slaughter animal on ‫ שבת‬perhaps because tzoveya. 85 ‫ גמרא שבת‬if
permanent ‫דאורייתא‬, if temporary ‫דרבנן‬, if doesn’t stay at all then permitted. ‫ רב‬Ovadia says
all are make-up is temporary. Rambam says if temporary drababan. Semag implies that
lipstick is ‫דאורייתא‬. Chaya Adam says Rambam is L’shitoso because needs ‫ קיימא‬and this
isn’t ‫ קיימא‬so only ‫דרבנן‬. Shulchan Aruch says dough on face is ‫ משנה ברורה‬.‫ איסור‬says
anything that is normally done to dye is an ‫ רב‬.‫ איסור דאורייתא‬Moshe said lipstick is for sure
‫אסור‬, and blush is ‫ אסור‬if with stick on face because has oil in it.
18. If paper napkin not a problem. If cloth napkin Yerayim says still ‫ אסור‬m’‫דרבנן‬.
Mchaber quotes Yerayim twice and once as ‫סתם‬. Radvaz disagrees and if ‫ דרך לכלוך‬then
totally ‫ רב‬.‫ מותר‬Abadie agreed to this. Chasam Sofer says ‫ צובע‬is only ‫ חייב‬if want the item
dyed, here you don’t care and would prefer to keep napkin clean if could and by ‫ביאה ראשונה‬
is ok on Friday night because don’t want dyed sheets. Chacham Zvi says if say ‫ צובע‬applies
‫ לכלוך דרך‬is ‫ אסור‬then can’t use utensils and plates on ‫ שבת‬because dying them with food,
must be ‫ דרך לכלוך‬is ‫מותר‬.
Is there ‫ צובע‬by food? Darchei Moshe says ‫ אסור‬to mix red wine with white wine because
‫צובע‬. Chacham Zvi says oil in water is ok because ‫ אין צביעה‬by food. Furthermore even if not
going to eat, just suitable to eat there is no ‫צביעה‬.

‫עניני דיומא‬
1. The ‫ גמרא‬in Rosh Hashana 29b makes a ‫ חילוק‬between two different ‫ זכרון‬,‫פסוקים‬
‫ =תרועה‬if falls on ‫ שבת‬so remember ‫ שופר‬but don’t actually blow. ‫ =יום תרועה‬actually blow
when not a ‫שבת‬. So that’s ‫ משמע‬that is it a ‫דאורייתא‬. But we know you can blow in ‫ מקדש‬on
‫שבת‬, but if ‫ דאורייתא‬how is that allowed? ‫ גמרא‬rejects the ‫ פסוקים‬and says reason why we don’t
blow on ‫ שבת‬is Gezara D’Rabbah that you’ll come to carry. Yerushalmi doesn’t reject the
‫ פסוקים‬and answers that even though ‫ דאורייתא‬allowed in ‫ מקדש‬because ‫ שופר‬is like ‫קרבנות‬
(because both in parshas Pinchas), and just like ‫ קרבן‬brought on ‫ שבת‬so to blow on ‫שבת‬
because in the place of ‫ מקדש‬it is always a ‫יום תרועה‬. Rashi says ‫ מקדש‬is just the ‫בית המקדש‬.
Rambam says ‫ מקדש‬is all Yerusalayim. Rav Charlop says Rashi must be learning like Bavli
because only say ‫ אין שבות במקדש‬by the actual ‫בית המקדש‬. Rambam learns like Yerushalmi and
says whole Yerusalayim is the place for ‫ קרבנות‬so always a ‫יום תרועה‬. Turei Even asks on
Rashi: We only say ‫ אין שבות במקדש‬by ‫קרבנות‬, the proof is we don’t shake ‫ לולב‬on ‫ שבת‬in
‫ ?מקדש‬So how according to Rashi can you blow ‫שופר‬, it isn’t a ‫ ?קרבן‬The Netziv answers
‫ שופר‬is like ‫ קרבנות‬because only say ‫ קטיגור נעשה סניגור‬by ‫קרבנות‬, and we say it by ‫ שופר‬so
much be ‫ שופר‬is like a ‫ קרבן‬and can say ‫ אין שבות במקדש‬.
2. Rif says can blow on ‫ שבת‬in a ‫ב’ד‬. Why did the Rif quote that, Rif only quotes things
that are ‫למעשה‬, and we don’t have ‫ סמיכה‬today? Ran says Rif meant you could blow even in a
‫ ב’ד‬of non ‫ סמוכין‬like we have today. Rif actually blew on ‫ שבת‬in his shul with a ‫ב’ד‬.
3. ‫ גמרא‬in 28 ‫סוכה‬b says one is exempt from ‫ סוכה‬when it is raining enough to ruin your
oatmeal. Isn’t that more than ‫ ?מצטער‬Ran says ‫ מצטער‬is less than spoiling the oatmeal. So
what do I need to ‫שיעור‬s for? We say spoiling the oatmeal is the ‫ שיעור‬if already eating in ‫סוכה‬
how much you need to come inside. We say ‫ מצטער‬is the ‫ שיעור‬if haven’t gone in yet. Greater
‫ שיעור‬once already in the ‫ סוכה‬because it’s a disgrace to leave. Shulchan Aruch doesn’t quote
this Ran. Rather Shulchan Aruch quotes Maharil that can leave ‫ סוכה‬if amount raining in ‫סוכה‬
would bother you if you were inside and there was a leak and the same amount of water was
coming through would you move.
4. ‫ גמרא‬in 29 ‫סוכה‬a says if start to rain and move meal inside and now the rain stops you
are not m ‫ חייב‬to go move outside to ‫סוכה‬. However the Ritva says even if you didn’t start
eating yet and it was eminent its going to rain you can start eating inside and don’t have to go
in to the ‫ סוכה‬in the first, since know you are leaving in a minute. Chavos Yair in the Makor
Chayim and the Pri Migadim say one doesn’t have to push off his meal if raining now so that
he would be able to eat in ‫ סוכה‬later. This is all said not on first night, for first night is more
‫מחמיר‬.
5. Shulchan Aruch quotes Maharil that can leave ‫ סוכה‬if amount raining in ‫ סוכה‬would
bother you if you were inside and there was a leak and the same amount of water was coming
through would you move. (see question 3 also)
6. 27 ‫גמרא סוכה‬a says first night of ‫ סוכת‬is a ‫ חיוב‬to eat in ‫סוכה‬. Learnt from ‫ ט’’ו ט’’ו‬from
Pesach. Why do I need separate ‫ לימוד‬of ‫ט’’ו ט’’ו‬, even without that I know I have to eat in
‫ סוכה‬on first night because need to have ‫ סעודה‬because ‫ י’ט‬and ‫ סעודה‬must be eaten in ‫?סוכה‬
Ran offers three answers
a. ‫סעודה‬h is ‫ יוצא‬with ‫כזית‬. So ‫ ג’ש‬teaches me ‫ כזית‬must be eatin in ‫סוכה‬. But isn’t
‫ כזית‬considered temporary? Since ‫ חיוב‬so ‫קבע‬.
b. Can eat ‫ כזית‬outside ‫סוכה‬, but need to eat an ‫ =אכילת קבע‬a ‫כביצה‬. So ‫ ג’ש‬teaches
me need to eat ‫ כביצה‬and that must be done in ‫ סוכה‬because ‫קבע‬.
c. Or because even if raining you might think you are exempt, so ‫ ט’’ו ט’’ו‬teaches
me absolute and even if raining must eat in ‫סוכה‬.
Rashba argues with last ‫ פשט‬and says if raining you are exempt. Rama is ‫ מחמיר‬for the
third ‫ פשט‬and must brave the elements to eat a ‫ כזית‬bread in ‫ סוכה‬on night one. Maharil
says you have to wait till midnight for rain to stop on night one. The Bekurey Yaakov
says that doesn’t make sense. If ‫ הלכה‬is like Ran then can go right away in the rain, and if
‫ הלכה‬is like Rashba then exempt even on night one. So don’t need to wait and if hold like
Rashba should still try to eat ‫ כזית‬in ‫ סוכה‬on night one if rain stops. The Trumas Hadeshen
adds that this whole discussion is on first night, but on night two even in ‫ חו’ל‬can make
Kiddush in house because shehechiyanu is not on ‫ סוכה‬and just eat ‫ כזית‬in ‫ סוכה‬later.
7. Yerushalmi says who ever does something when they are exempt is called a ‫הדיות‬.
Mahari Vile says ‫ סוכה‬is exempt if raining because Deracheha Darchei Noam. Ritva wonders
why we don’t call woman idiots when they do M.A.S.G. and answers that since someone is
‫ חיוב‬in it (men) so if they do it they aren’t ‫הדיות‬s, but if do something that everyone is exempt
from is a ‫הדיות‬. Eretz Zvi is ‫ לימד זכות‬to those that do eat in ‫ סוכה‬when its pouring rain. Since
the first night is a ‫חיוב‬, so just GRA said by ‫ מצה‬on Pesach, rest of nights are a mitzvah, and
you are a ‫ הדיות‬if you don’t fulfill this mitzvah.
8. Rambam and Rif say every time you enter ‫סוכה‬. Magid Mishnah adds that this is
provided only if there was a ‫ הפסק גדול‬in between. This is known as the GRA’s ‫שיטה‬.
Rabbenu Tam argues and says you make ‫ ברכה‬on ‫ סוכה‬only if you are eating because that is
ikar ‫סוכה‬. But what if just going to sleep or schmooze and no eating? Mamar Mordechai took
Rabbenu Tam literal and if just sleeping or schmoozing no ‫ברכה‬. Chaya Adam says that
Rabbenu Tam only said make ‫ ברכה‬on eating and it will ‫ פטור‬the sleeping, but if just sleeping
of course you make ‫ברכה‬. Ritva has the most extreme ‫ פשט‬that every activity in ‫ סוכה‬even if
never left gets its own ‫ברכה‬. This is quoted by Taz and Bach. But Magen Avraham and
Levush disagree and say don’t make new ‫ ברכה‬if never left. Shulchan Aruch quotes Rabbenu
Tam. Rama says like Mamar Mordechai. Rav Hai Gaon says you only make ‫ ברכה‬in your
own ‫ סוכה‬for eating, but friend’s ‫ סוכה‬make ‫ ברכה‬even if not eating.
9. The Mordechai writes that if afraid or not large enough of a ‫ סוכה‬to sleep in then you
are not ‫ יוצא‬eating in the ‫ סוכה‬either. The Rama ‫ פסקין‬like this Mordechai. However the
Chacham Zvi says if fit for eating than can kosher ‫ סוכה‬for eating, and if fit for only sleeping
than kosher for sleeping just because not fit for sleeping, doesn’t ‫ פסול‬the eating. Chacham
Zvi gets support from ‫ גמרא סוכה‬which discusses a minimum ‫ שיעור‬for a ‫ סוכה‬which he figures
out is to small to sleep in yet ‫ גמרא‬says it is kosher. Trumas Hadeshen though learns that ‫גמרא‬
as only kosher for eating if you squish and sleep in it.

Related Interests