Previous Daf

BAVA BASRA 66

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer considers a beehive, Karka because it is attached to the ground.
(b) Practically, this means that one can acquire Metaltelin together with it, a creditor may write a Pruzbul if the debtor owns a beehive, that it is not subject to Tum'ah and that someone who extracts honey from it on Shabbos is Chayav (for detaching from the ground, which is a Toldah of reaping).
(c) The reason that the Pruzbul is dependent upon the debtor owning land is either because then, it is as if the creditor has a Mashkon (thereby minimizing the chances of his transgressing the Din of 'Lo Yigos' in which case Shemitah does not cancel the debt) or because it is unusual to lend someone money unless he owns land (which is Meshubad to the creditor), and Chazal do not generally issue decrees in unusual cases.
(d) Even though a beehive is considered Karka in other regards, Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless finds it necessary to specifically mention that it is Karka regarding Pruzbul too because we might have otherwise thought that seeing as it is moveable, the creditor does not rely on it to issue the loan (though it is not clear how this conforms with either of the two reasons that we just gave that the borrower needs to have Karka).

click for question
2)
(a) We just explained that the beehive is not subject to Tum'ah neither is the honey inside the beehive.
(b) When the Tana says 've'Einah Mekabeles Tum'ah bi'Mekomah', he means that it is only as long as the beehive is fixed to its place that the hive and the honey are not subject to Tum'ah, but not once they have been moved (even though he did not have specifically in mind that the honey should become a food).
(c) And this qualification extends to all the cases in the Beraisa.
(d) According to the Chachamim the fact that the beehive is attached to the ground, does not remove from it the status 'Kli' (and it therefore remains Metaltelin).
(e) And in their opinion the honey in the beehive is subject to Tum'ah too (even though there has been no Machshavah to render it a food).

click for question
3)
(a) Based on this Beraisa, we initially assume the author of the Beraisa which considers a pipe that one carved first and fixed to the Mikvah only afterwards as Metaltelin (to invalidate the Mikvah) to be the Chachamim.
(b) To establish it like R. Eliezer too, we cite R. Elazar (ben Pedas, the Amora), who gives Rebbi Eliezer's source for his ruling (regarding a beehive) as the Pasuk in Shmuel "Va'yitbol Osah be'Ya'aros he'Devash", effectively comparing a beehive to trees in a forest (which are attached to the ground).
(c) This has no bearing however, on a pipe that is joined to a Mikvah after having been carved, which, Rebbi Eliezer will agree, has a Din of Metaltelin.

click for question
4)
(a) So we turn to a Mishnah in Kelim (to find where Rebbi Eliezer does not hold like the Beraisa regarding a pipe in a Mikvah). According to Rebbi Eliezer there, a baker's board that one attached to the wall is not subject to Tum'ah. Besides a kneading-board, this might be referring to a counter on which the baker places the bread for sale.
(b) According to the Chachamim, the board is subject to Tum'ah. Neither Tana seems to hold like the Beraisa regarding a Mikvah since neither of them draws a distinction between a board that is carved first and then fixed to the wall and one that is fixed first and then carved.

click for question
5)
(a) We try to establish the author of the Beraisa of Mikvah as Rebbi Eliezer, and the case of the board is different, inasmuch the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan since we assume that the Tana is speaking about a wooden board, and 'P'shutei Kli Eitz' (flat wooden vessels) are not subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah.
(b) Not all straight wooden vessels are subject to Tum'ah mid'Rabanan only those that are subject to Tum'as Medras (i.e. which are made to bear the weight of a person, such as a bed or a chair).
(c) To enable us to establish the Beraisa regarding a pipe like Rebbi Eliezer, we classify Mayim She'uvin, as a Psul d'Oraisa, as indeed, the Toras Kohanim learns from the word "Mayan" (which is a natural source of water).
(d) We now try to establish the author of the Beraisa of Mikvah as Rebbi Eliezer since the Chachamim declared a pipe that is later fixed to the ground, Metaltelin (because the Tum'ah involved is d'Oraisa), but not a board that is later fixed to the wall, since, even before it is fixed, it is only subject to Tum'ah mid'Rabanan.

click for question
6)
(a) We query this explanation however, based on the tradition that Mayim She'uvin too, is only mid'Rabanan. In light of this tradition, when the Toras Kohanim learns from "Mayan" that Mayim She'uvin is d'Oraisa it is referring specifically to a Mikvah which consists entirely of Mayim She'uvin, but not one which is Kosher to begin with and into which Mayim She'uvin falls, or if one took a Se'ah and added a Se'ah of Mayim She'uvin, which remains Kosher ...
(b) ... either because it is Batel b'Rov, or because as each drop falls into it, it becomes Batel.
(c) We also refute it on the basis of a statement of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, who establishes the Mishnah by a baker's-board made of metal (whose Tum'ah is definitely d'Oraisa).

click for question
7)
(a) So we finally establish the Beraisa of Mikvah like the Chachamim, who consider the baker's board, Metaltelin. Nevertheless, in the Beraisa, they consider a pipe that is carved into the ground, Karka because Mayim She'uvin is only mid'Rabanan (by the same Sevara as we explained the baker's board earlier according to Rebbi Eliezer) ...
(b) ... though not if it was carved first, since it was already a vessel it was detached because if even that would be considered Karka, then the decree of Mayim She'uvin, would be virtually inapplicable.

click for question
8)
(a) If someone is pleased with the rain, because he wants to use it to wash fruit, the fruit that he washes is Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah. If he is pleased with the water because he wants to use it to wash ...
1. ... Metaltelin other than food (but which then falls on to food) it too, is Machshir the food that he subsequently touches.
2. ... something that was always Mechubar le'Karka (which then falls on to food) it is not.
(b) An Itztrubal (a wooden frame encircling a millstone) falls under the category of Metaltelin that later became Mechubar le'Karka (which we have been discussing throughout the Sugya).
(c) Rav Yosef asks whether the rain-water will be Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah if the owner is pleased because he intends to use it to wash an Itztrubal. The She'eilah is non-existent according to Rebbi Eliezer (the author of our Mishnah) who considers even a vessel that is first carved and then fixed, Karka (in which case the Itztrubal will not be Machshir).
(d) And he would say exactly the same if it was not an Itztrubal that the owner had in mind to wash, but a fixed mortar because according to Rebbi Eliezer, whatever is attached to the ground is considered Karka.

click for question
9)
(a) Rav Yosef poses his She'eilah according to the Rabanan who consider a fixed mortar Metaltelin, with regard to the sale of the house. They might agree with Rebbi Eliezer with regard to Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah, even though they argue with him with regard to a sale where their reason might well be (not because all Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro is considered Metaltelin, but) because a seller sells begrudgingly (in which case he precludes from the sale anything that was not attached from the beginning).
(b) These Rabanan concede however, that an Itztrubal is included in the sale of the house. According to the side of the She'eilah that considers a fixed mortar Metaltelin, this might be (not because they consider an Itztrubal, Karka, but) because an Itztrubal is considered more of a permanent fixture ...
(c) ... like the wall of a house which is included in the sale of a house despite the fact that it is considered Talush as regards Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah.
(d) Even though the She'eilah incorporates a fixed mortar (which is the point over which they argue with Rebbi Eliezer), Rav Yosef preferred to ask about an Itztrubal either because one would be more likely to wash an Itztrubal than a mortar, or because it is a bigger Chidush (since we see that the Rabanan agree with Rebbi Eliezer regarding the former, but argue with regard to the latter).
(e) The outcome of the She'eilah is Teiku.

click for question
10)
(a) Rav Nechemyah brei de'Yosef sent to Rabah brei d'Rav Huna the younger that he should permit a woman to claim 'Isur Nechasim' even from her husband's Itztrubal implying that he follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer (that whatever is joined to the ground is considered Karka), which is therefore Halachah (though many Poskim disagree with this).
(b) This ruling follows a statement of Rava in Kesuvos that a woman can claim her Kesuvah, Mezonos and Parnasah from Karka (since that is what is Meshubad to her), but not from Metaltelin.
(c) Parnasah is Isur Nechasim (the tenth of a father's property that each daughter is entitled to receive from her father when she marries).

click for question
11)
(a) The Ge'onim instituted that nowadays a woman may claim her Kesuvah from Metaltelin ...
(b) ... and this also extends to 'Tenai Kesuvah', such as Mezonos).
(c) Yet Rav Nechemyah brei d'Rav Yosef's ruling is relevant nowadays, too because Isur Nechasim is not a Tenai Kesuvah, because it is not inserted in the Kesuvah.
(d) When Rav Ashi quotes Rav Kahana, who used to claim Isur Nechasim even from 'Amla de'Bati' he means that he used to claim a woman's Kesuvah from house-rentals, which is considered Karka (because all rental for Karka is considered Karka).

Next Daf