Beitzah 39 - Shabbat October 9, 3 Cheshvan

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Rav Ovadia Yosef, Ovadia Yosef ben Yaakov According to Rabbi Yehuda, if one borrows water for one’s dough, one does not need to limit carrying one’s dough within the techum of the owner of the water. However, salt would limit it. How does this work with other tannaitic sources – one says that salt is nullified and therefore wouldn’t limit and another says that water is not nullified, and both are said in Rabbi Yehuda’s name. The Gemara resolves these contradictions by explaining that the salt in each source is referring to different kinds of salts and the cooked dish with water is referring to different types of sauces (more/less liquidy). There are five laws that differentiate between coals and a flame because a coal is something with substance and a flame is not. The laws relate to carrying them within techum, ones that are sanctified or used for idol worship, carrying to the public domain on Shabbat, and one who vowed not to benefit from someone. The law of carrying to the public domain contradicts a source that says one is liable for carrying out a flame. The response is that one is liable if the flame is attached to a wood chip or vessel. If one takes water from a cistern, how far can the water be taken? The law is different for different types of cisterns – private, public for the city, ones built on the road from Babylonia to Israel for those traveling that route to get to Israel. The Gemara concludes it must be dealing with water that is collected, not moving, as water that is moving, as in a stream, has no limitations. If one drew water from cisterns on the way to Israel from Babylonia for someone else, Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree about whether it would be limited by the person who drew the water or the person for whom it was drawn. The Gemara first suggests that the debate is based on whether one holds that this type of cistern was hefker, ownerless, or owned collectively. However, this is rejected by other tannaitic sources from which it seems clear that these cisterns were not viewed as being owned collectively. Therefore, the debate is understood differently – if one picks up a lost item for another, since one cannot acquire it for the other person, does one acquire it for oneself or not. If one’s fruits were in a different city, under what circumstances would one be able to get them into his city?