Mesechta Baytzah
Baytzah SheNoldah
Monday, January 31, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 40a - Class 3
Giving food to someone to watch, whose legs does it have? Meat left hanging in the door by the butcher.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 40a - Class 2
Who is responsible for damage as well as "Techum legs" for produce deposited in someone else's property.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 40a - Class 1
The need for Eruv Techumim in order to transport produce from one town to another on Yom Tov. Transferring ownership of food prior to Yom Tov so guests can take it home. Techum rules for produce being stored on another person's property. Analogies between that and responsibility for an object which you permitted someone to leave on your property.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 39b - Class 2
Introduction to concepts of Half-Shekel מחצית השקל and Maaser of Animals מעשר בהמה. Conclusion of Sugya of drawing water and handing it to someone else.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 39b - Class 1
If someone fills up water for someone else from a pit of water made by pilgrims from Babylonia, whose "legs" does it have with regards to the laws of Techum.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 39a - Class 4
Water that was filled from a pit or stream, where may it be taken on Yom Tov?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 39a - Class 3
Fire and coals with regards to Techum.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 39a - Class 2
Coals and flames; may they be taken out of the techum. What about general usage prohibitions on coals and flames either consecrated to the Bais HaMikdosh or used in idol worship?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 39a - Class 1
Discussion of when water and salt are ignored according to Rebbe Yehuda.
Mesechta Baytzah 38b - Class 5
Review of conclusion of Sugya of Bitul.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 38b - Class 4
Conclusion of Sugya of Bitul.
Mesechta Baytzah 38b - Class 3
In depth discussion of issues of Bitul when it comes to properly slaughtered meat falling into meat slaughtered improperly, and vice versa. In depth review of entire sugya.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 38b - Class 2
A comprehensive review of the Sugya of ביטול thus far, with in depth explanations of the major points of the Sugya. Continuing on with a discussion of bitul according to Rebbe Yehudah involving meat that was properly shechted שחוטה and meat that was not נבילה.
Rav Chisda is explaining the position of Rebbe Yehudah who holds that מין בשאינו מינו is batel, whereas מין במינו is not. The reason for the position of רבי יהודה is that when something is mixed within another מין the small amount of the foreign substance is not readily discernible and is therefore בטל to the greater amount of the other מין that is present. However, in a case of מין במינו, since it is all the same material, when you look at it you even see the smaller foreign substance, as it is all the same material, and there is therefore no place for ביטול.
רב חסדא is explaining that according to רבי יהודה the determination of whether something is mixed with its own מין or not, can depend on the Halachic relationship between the two items.
Therefore, in a case where נבלה has fallen into שחוטה we say that the שחוטה can never take on itself the טומאה which is present on the נבילה, therefore they remain two distinct מינים and the נבילה is בטל to the שחוטה. By contrast, where the שחוטה has fallen into נבלה it is possible for the נבלה to taken on the no טומאה characteristic of the שחוטה and we therefore view the שחוטה as having fallen into its own מין and it cannot be בטל according to רבי יהודה.
Rav Chisda is explaining the position of Rebbe Yehudah who holds that מין בשאינו מינו is batel, whereas מין במינו is not. The reason for the position of רבי יהודה is that when something is mixed within another מין the small amount of the foreign substance is not readily discernible and is therefore בטל to the greater amount of the other מין that is present. However, in a case of מין במינו, since it is all the same material, when you look at it you even see the smaller foreign substance, as it is all the same material, and there is therefore no place for ביטול.
רב חסדא is explaining that according to רבי יהודה the determination of whether something is mixed with its own מין or not, can depend on the Halachic relationship between the two items.
Therefore, in a case where נבלה has fallen into שחוטה we say that the שחוטה can never take on itself the טומאה which is present on the נבילה, therefore they remain two distinct מינים and the נבילה is בטל to the שחוטה. By contrast, where the שחוטה has fallen into נבלה it is possible for the נבלה to taken on the no טומאה characteristic of the שחוטה and we therefore view the שחוטה as having fallen into its own מין and it cannot be בטל according to רבי יהודה.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 38a - Class 3
Why aren't the borrowed ingredients of the dough considered to be insignificant as they relate to the rest of the dough? Some understanding of what seem to be insensitive comments in the Gemara. Some understadning of the concept of "bitul" nullication in mixtures.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 38a - Class 2
Understanding the transfer of the Techum "legs' from buyer to seller or lender to borrower on Yom Tov.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 38a - Class 1
Review of conclusion of Braira. Whose legs does an anmal have it is owned by a butcher or a shepherd. What is the Chidush of the Mishnah in the cases of borrwoing something and taking possession before Yom Tov or first borriwing it on Yom Tov.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Mesechta Baytzah 37b - Class 7
Conclusion of Sugya of Braira. How to handle a case if one is unsure prior to the onset of Shabbos as to which direction he would like his Eruv to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)