Resources for Beitzah daf 37

Daf A Week
PDF

Rabbi Yitzchok Gutterman

  1. The גמרא says that the reason one can’t be מקדיש something on שבת isגזרה משום מקח וממכר. רש"י in ד"ה משום מקח gives two explanations as to what is wrong with מקח וממכר on שבת. In his second פּשט, רש"י says חז"ל forbade it lest you come to write. However, in רש"י’s first פּשט, he says that doing business is אסור because of a פּסוק in ישעיה that says ממצוא חפצך ודבר דבר. Interestingly, רש"י earlier on דף כ"ז: ד"ה אין פּוסקין quotes a פּסוק in נחמיה where נחמיה says that he would not let people sell on שבת and doing so would be a חילול שבת. While the פּסוק in ישעיה is certainly only דרבנן, the פּסוק in נחמיה sounds more like it was a known דין דאורייתא. See רש"י on the רי"ף where it actually says that it is a דין דאורייתא. See the רמב"ן על התורה in ויקרא פּרק כ"ג פּסוק כ"ד who understands that the עשה of שבתון is to tell you that you must actually rest and not do business on שבת. This would make many שבותין דרבנן into each an דאורייתא עשה. See also the רמב"ם in הלכות שבת פּרק כ"א, הל' א who sounds exactly like theרמב"ן ‘s שיטה that the שבותין of שבת are really דאורייתא.However, see the רמב"ם in הלכות שבת פּרק כ"ד הל' א who quotes the פּסוק from ישעיה which would make it only דרבנן.
  2. The גמרא says that the איסור of טלטול on שבת comes from the איסור of הוצאה. While the רמב"ם does not quote this reason in his list of reason חז"ל forbade מוקצה, it is quoted by the ראב"ד there in הלכות שבת פּרק כ"ד הל' י"ג. See the מגיד משנה there who explains that the רמב"ם was not arguing with the reason of הוצאה but just wanted to list reasons that he himself (the רמב"ם) had been מחדש. In any event, this concept helps answer a question from the beginning of the פּרק.  The גמרא says that one can move up to 4 or 5 boxes of fruit on Shabbos to make room for people (to learn or for guests), and that perhaps this should be the amount of fruit we should allow one to drop through the skylight on יו"ט. The גמרא counters that perhaps we are more מקיל on שבת since שבת is so stringent that people will not come to be מזלזל in it as opposed to יו"ט which is more קל and if we are too lenient people will come to be מזלזל in יו"ט. See the מהרש"א there who asks that we obviously don’t hold of that theory since our משנה explicitly states that we only allow one to drop fruit through the skylight on יו"ט and not on שבת! He answers that our משנה’s issue of moving the fruit through the skylight is an issue of טלטול שלא לצורך. If so, we are certainly going to be more lenient in that regard on יו"ט since טלטול is only forbidden משום הוצאה and הוצאה is allowed on יו"ט!
  3. The גמרא says that כלים that are מיוחדין לאחד מן האחים can only be carried where that brother can walk. The גמרא doesn’t say “owned” by one of the brothers--it just needs to be מיוחד to one of them. How do you define מיוחד? See the מאירי here who says that it goes by השתמשות. If only one brother uses it, even if all the brothers own it, the תחום follows the person who uses
  4. The גמרא says that if there is one shepherd in the city, it is קונה שביתה by the shepherd. If there are two shepherds in the city, then the animal is קונה שביתה by the owner since we don’t know who he will give it to. The גמרא’s proof is that it says in our משנה that the animal is קונה שביתה by the owner if he gives it  “לבנו או לרועה” which sounds like there were two shepherds (his son and another man). See the רמב"ם in הלכות יו"ט, פּרקה הל' י"א who paskens the following: if one gives the sheep to his son, it is כרגלי הבעלים. If one gives it to a shepherd, it is כרגלי הרועה. If there are two shepherds, it is כרגלי הבעלים. The רמב"ם seems to understand that a son is different from a normal shepherd. See the מגיד משנה there who says that the רמב"ם must have read the גמרא‘s proof as follows: בשלמא if you hold that the word רועה in our משנה refers to two shepherds, then we understand that there is a חידוש in writing בנו since even if your  son is a יחיד, you don’t consider giving to your son to be leaving your רשות. However, if the משנה meant one רועה when it said רועה, then what’s the חידוש of writing בנו? If even a רועה is כרגלי הבעילים, certainly a son would not be less than a shepherd in terms of רשות.

-------------------------------------------------------

 Click below to download daf summary by Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz (in PDF)