Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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 מרובה
is 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 לשון
and 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 ( נדרים )אין ביןand
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 כפלbecause 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 חייבto pay .כפל
קמ’’לno כפלeven when returning קרן.
6. תוסD’H Yutzu קרקעותwonders how one actually goes about stealing land. תוסanswers that
you could move your fence over and take over some of his property ( )מסיג גבולor 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 פסוקby 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 רשע
and a רב,רשע דחמסa says only a רשע דחמסand not a רשע. Rambam says we פסקיןlike Abaya
and anyone who is a מלקות( רשעor 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 אבד
got 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 רבand 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 ממון
but 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 קנס
and 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’ והis חייב
at 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 קרןalready 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’ והshould 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 גנב
added to it so we view it as a new גזלהand now חייבa קרןof 4 and כפלof 4. But גונבmin הגנב
is 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 קרןis? 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 קונה )אסורor 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 קנין
was 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 בכור
which 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. רב
Shimon 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 עברה
(hashev). 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? תוסsays
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 שליח
of 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 אבידה
then 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 ממלא
you 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 mדרבנן, 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 טפל
if eatin with sharp fish. If no טפלthen Pri Migadim says make ברכהon רובbecause 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
מזונותpרובided 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 חייבbecause 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 כלי
with 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 ()רש”י. תוסsays because like strawberries and pomegranates (see question
9).
13. Or could say not חייבof דשbecause not 75 גמרא שבת.גדולי קרקעa squeezing fish is צדand 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”יand
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 .מותר
רבAbadie 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 ראשונהis ok on Friday
night because don’t want dyed sheets. Chacham Zvi says if say צובעapplies לכלוך דרךis אסור
then 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 תרועה, =פסוקיםif
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 ( קרבנותbecause both
in parshas Pinchas), and just like קרבןbrought on שבתso to blow on שבתbecause 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 קרבנות
because 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 סוכהhow
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 ?סוכהRan 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’’ו
teaches 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 גמראas only
kosher for eating if you squish and sleep in it.