ד
ד וכן <(ד)> מותר להתחמם כנגדןלג ולהשתמש לאורןלד אף על פי שהוא נהנה מגוף האיסור שהוא בעין לפי שעצים שנתלשו ביום טוב דינם כעצי מוקצה שמותר להנות מהם הנאה הבאה מאליהלה שאינו עושה מעשה בגוף המוקצה בהנאתו ממנה כמ"ש בסי' תק"טלו ע"ש ואינו אסור אלא להסיקן שעושה מעשה בגוף המוקצה ועצים הללו שנפלו לתוך התנור כיון שבשעה שרוצה להסיק אינן עומדין להנאת חימום כנגדן ולהשתמש לאורן שהנאה זו היא מגוף האיסור שהוא בעין אלא כבר הן עומדין להנאת אפייה ובישול שהנאה זו היא לאחר שהאיסור אינו בעיןלז לפיכך הן בטלים ברוב אע"פ שעכשיו בשעת הסקה עדיין האיסור בעין מכל מקום כיון שעיקר הנאתן שלכך הן עומדים ולכך הוא מסיקןלח אינה באה לו אלא עד לאחר שהאיסור אינו בעין לא החמירו חכמים כל כך באיסור מוקצה שאין לו עיקר מן התורהלט וגם עיקר הנאתו אינו נהנה ממנו בשעה שהאיסור הוא בעין:
הערות
- לג. אף שמבואר בב"ק קא, ב שזה נקרא איסור בעין (אף לענין שביעית) - לפירוש הר"ח בתוס' שם ד"ה והאיכא.
- לד. שזה נקרא שם איסור בעין – אף לפרש"י שם ד"ה והא איכא.
- לה. מ"א סוף סק"ג. ונתבאר בקו"א ס"ק ד (שאף בגזירה שמא יתלוש לא אסרו הנאה הבאה מאליה).
- לו. סעיף טז.
- לז. ראה ב"ק שם (סתם עצים להסקה הן עומדין). ובתוס' שם (הלכך לענין שביעית אפילו להתחמם מותר). וכ"ה בריטב"א סוכה שם.
- לח. שלכן אינו דומה לנר שעשוי להנות ממנו כשהוא בעין (ראה טור ושו"ע סי' תרעז ס"ד. מ"א שם ס"ק יב).
- לט. ראה תוס' ד, ב ד"ה ותנן. פסחים ל, א ד"ה לשהינו.
בבא קמא ק״א ב - הטקסט מספריא
רָבָא רָמֵי, תְּנַן: בֶּגֶד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי עׇרְלָה – יִדָּלֵק; אַלְמָא חֲזוּתָא מִילְּתָא הִיא. וּרְמִינְהִי: רְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁנִּבְלְעָה בַּבַּיִת – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, הָא בְּכֵלִים דַּהֲווֹ מֵעִיקָּרָא, הָא בְּכֵלִים דַּאֲתוֹ לְבַסּוֹף.
נִבְלְעָה בִּכְסוּת – רוֹאִין; אִם מִתְכַּבֶּסֶת הַכְּסוּת וְיוֹצָא מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית דָּם – טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו – טְהוֹרָה!
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִקּוּלֵּי רְבִיעִיּוֹת שָׁנוּ כָּאן; בְּדַם תְּבוּסָה דְּרַבָּנַן.
רָבָא רָמֵי, תְּנַן: מִמִּין הַצּוֹבְעִין – סְפִיחֵי סְטִיס וְקוֹצָה, יֵשׁ לָהֶן שְׁבִיעִית וְלִדְמֵיהֶן שְׁבִיעִית, יֵשׁ לָהֶן בִּיעוּר וְלִדְמֵיהֶן בִּיעוּר. אַלְמָא עֵצִים יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית.
וּרְמִינְהִי: עֲלֵי קָנִים וַעֲלֵי גְפָנִים שֶׁגִּיבְּבָן בְּחֵבֶא עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה, לִקְּטָן לַאֲכִילָה – יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית, לְעֵצִים – אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית!
וּמְשַׁנֵּי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְאׇכְלָה״ – בְּמִי שֶׁהֲנָאָתוֹ וּבִיעוּרוֹ שָׁוִין, יָצְאוּ עֵצִים שֶׁהֲנָאָתָן אַחַר בִּיעוּרָן.
וְהָא אִיכָּא עֵצִים דְּמִשְׁחָן, דַּהֲנָאָתָן וּבִיעוּרָן שָׁוִין!
אָמַר רָבָא:
The Gemara states that Rava raises a contradiction: We learned in a mishna (Orla 3:1): A garment that one dyed with dye extracted from peels of orla must be burned. Apparently, the change in appearance precipitated by the orla peels is considered a significant matter, and the dye retains its status as orla. And raise a contradiction from another mishna (Oholot 3:2): With regard to a quarter-log of blood from a corpse that was absorbed in the floor of a house, every vessel in the house is ritually impure by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. And some say that any vessel in the house is ritually pure. And these two statements do not disagree, as this first statement was in reference to vessels that were in the house at the outset, before the blood was absorbed; and this second statement was in reference to vessels that came into the house at the end, after the blood had already been absorbed.
The mishna continues: If the blood was absorbed in a garment, it is examined, and if the garment is washed and a quarter-log of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure, and the garment imparts ritual impurity to the vessels in the house as well. But if not, i.e., if less than a quarter-log of blood emerges, then it is pure, and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only the blood that can be removed from the garment is considered blood, while the blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. If this is the case, the change in appearance precipitated by the blood is not considered a significant matter, and the blood absorbed in the garment does not remain an independent substance.
The Gemara presents an answer. Rav Kahana said: A halakha from among the leniencies applied to the measurements of a quarter-log was taught here, as the mishna is written in reference to the blood of submission that is discharged from a body at the time of death, and such blood is ritually impure by rabbinic law, but in general, a change in appearance precipitated by blood is significant.
§ Having cited a contradiction raised by Rava, the Gemara proceeds to cite another. Rava raises another contradiction. We learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 7:1): Concerning plants from among the species that are used as dyes, for example the sefiḥin, i.e., produce that grew without being intentionally planted, of woad and safflower; they have sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and money exchanged for them has sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Additionally, they are subject to the halakha of eradication, and money exchanged for them is subject to the halakha of eradication. Apparently, wood, a type of inedible growth, is subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year despite the fact that it is not edible.
And raise a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to reed leaves and vine leaves that one piled for storage upon the field, if he gathered them for eating, they are subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year; if he gathered them for use as wood, e.g., for kindling a fire, they are not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Apparently, wood or any other non-food product is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.
And Rava answers the contradiction, as the verse states: “And the Sabbath produce of the land shall be for food for you” (Leviticus 25:6), indicating that the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect only with regard to those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide, as is the case with regard to food. Wood is excluded, as its benefit follows its consumption. The primary purpose of kindling wood is not accomplished with the burning of the wood; rather, it is with the charcoal that heats the oven. Therefore, wood is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.
The Gemara objects: But isn’t there wood that is used to provide heat, whose benefit coincides with its consumption, as one enjoys the warmth provided by the fire while the wood is burned?
Rava said:
פסחים ל׳ א - הטקסט מספריא
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא חָמֵץ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — אָסוּר בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, כְּרַב. שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — מוּתָּר, כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קְנָסָא קָנֵיס, הוֹאִיל וְעָבַר עָלָיו בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״!
הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּעֵינֵיהּ, אֲבָל עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת — לָא. וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב נַחְמָן, כִּי הֲווֹ נָפְקִי שִׁבְעָה יוֹמֵי דְפִסְחָא אֲמַר לַן: פּוּקוּ וּזְבִינוּ חֲמִירָא דִּבְנֵי חֵילָא.
אָמַר רַב: קְדֵירוֹת בַּפֶּסַח יִשָּׁבְרוּ. וְאַמַּאי? לַשְׁהִינְהוּ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח, וְלֶיעְבַּד בְּהוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן! גְּזֵירָה דִּילְמָא אָתוּ לְמֶיעְבַּד בְּהוּ בְּמִינוֹ.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא יִשָּׁבְרוּ, אֲבָל מַשְׁהֵי לְהוּ לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ, וְעָבֵיד בְּהוּ בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ.
וְאַזְדָּא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל לְהָנְהוּ דִּמְזַבְּנֵי כַּנְדֵי: אַשְׁווֹ זְבִינֵי אַכַּנְדַיְכִי, וְאִי לָא — דָּרְשִׁינָא לְכוּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
וְלִידְרוֹשׁ לְהוּ, דְּהָא שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ! אַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב הֲוָה.
הָהוּא תַּנּוּרָא דִּטְחוֹ בֵּיהּ טִיחְיָא. אַסְרֵהּ רָבָא בַּר אֲהִילַאי לְמֵיכְלֵיהּ לְרִיפְתָּא אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִילְחָא לְעוֹלָם, דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכְלֵיהּ בְּכוּתָּחָא.
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין לָשִׁין אֶת הָעִיסָּה בְּחָלָב, וְאִם לָשׁ — כׇּל הַפַּת כּוּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵירָה. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ,
Rava said: The halakha is that with regard to the prohibition against eating a mixture of leavened bread during its time of prohibition, i.e., during Passover, regardless of whether it is mixed with its own type or with another type, it is forbidden, even if any amount becomes mixed in, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. Not during its time of prohibition, but rather after the conclusion of Passover, regardless of whether the leavened bread was mixed with its own type or with another type, it is permitted, even when it gives flavor to the mixture. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who states that leavened bread owned by a Jew during Passover is permitted after Passover.
The Gemara asks: Did Rava actually say this, that according to Rabbi Shimon, leavened bread owned by a Jew on Passover is permitted after Passover? But didn’t Rava himself say that Rabbi Shimon imposed a penalty forbidding one from deriving benefit from leavened bread owned by a Jew during Passover, since he transgressed the prohibition it shall not be seen and the prohibition it shall not be found?
The Gemara resolves this challenge: This penalty applies only to leavened bread that is in its pure unadulterated form, but with regard to a mixture, no, one does not impose a penalty, even though the leavened bread is still extant. The Gemara adds: And Rava follows his line of reasoning, stated elsewhere, that indicates that he rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rava said: While we were studying in Rav Naḥman’s house, on the evening when the seven days of Passover had passed, he said to us: Go and buy leavened bread from the gentiles who baked it on that day, the last day of Passover. Based on this story, it is clear that he maintained that one may eat leavened bread that was owned by a gentile during Passover.
Rav said: Earthenware pots in which leavened bread was cooked during Passover should be broken, as some small quantity of the flavor of the leavened bread was absorbed into the pot. It is therefore prohibited to cook in them again, as the forbidden flavor of this leavened bread would be transmitted to the new food. The Gemara asks: And why was Rav so stringent with regard to these pots? Let him retain the pots until after the conclusion of Passover and prepare mixtures of another type of food in them. Even Rav maintains that when a small bit of leavened bread is mixed with another type of food after Passover, the mixture is permitted. The Gemara explains that he did not allow this due to a rabbinic decree that perhaps one will come to prepare a mixture of the same type in these pots, causing their contents to become prohibited. He therefore instructed that one destroy these pots in order to avoid this pitfall.
And Shmuel said: They need not be broken. Rather, he should retain them until after its time, i.e., the conclusion of Passover, and then he may prepare food of either the same type or another type in them.
And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, stated elsewhere, as Shmuel said to the pot merchants, who would dramatically raise their prices after Passover: Level the prices for your pots. And if you do not bring your prices down, I will teach you that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that one is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread after Passover. This ruling would lead people to retain their vessels and desist from purchasing new vessels after Passover, and consequently the merchants would lose business.
The Gemara asks: Let him indeed teach this ruling to them, for Shmuel holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as was previously mentioned. As such, why did he not publicize his opinion on the matter? The Gemara answers: It was Rav’s locale, and therefore it would not be appropriate for Shmuel to publicly present a position with which Rav did not agree. However, when he saw the merchants raising their prices in an unfair manner, he nevertheless threatened to make his opinion on the matter public.
The Gemara recounts: There was a certain oven that they smeared with grease from meat, and consequently the flavor of meat was absorbed into it, and then they used it to bake bread. Rava bar Ahilai prohibited eating this bread even with salt, and not just with milk. This status would apply forever to bread baked in this oven, even during subsequent baking, lest one eat such bread with kutaḥ, a dairy-based seasoning, which would be a violation of the prohibition against eating meat with milk.
The Gemara raises an objection to this statement: It was taught that one may not knead the dough with milk, and if he did knead the dough with milk, then all of the bread is prohibited due to concern that he will commit a habitual transgression. As one habitually eats bread with meat, there is a concern that one will come to eat this bread with meat as well, unwittingly transgressing the prohibition against eating meat with milk. Similarly,
עמודים המצטטים את אותם מקורות
הקישור נקבע לפי ציטוטי הגמרא המשותפים בלבד - קישור ביבליוגרפי, לא נושאי. 7 עמודים.
- לקוטי שיחות כרך י לך לך שיחה ב ב"ק קא, ב
- שולחן ערוך אורח חיים חלק ד הלכות יום טוב תקז דיני אפייה ביום טוב ג מאותו ספר ב"ק קא, ב
- שולחן ערוך קו"א אורח חיים חלק ב סימן שב והנה מאותו ספר בבא קמא קא, א
- שולחן ערוך קו"א אורח חיים חלק ד סימן תקז (ד) מאותו ספר ב"ק קא, ב
- שוע"ר עם ביאור דברי שלום הלכות שבת - ח"ג (סי' רסז-ש) רחצ דין נר הבדלה ב"ק קא, ב
- שוע"ר עם ביאור דברי שלום הלכות שבת - ח"ד (סי' שא-שז) שב דיני ניקוי וקיפול הבגדים בשבת בבא קמא קא, א
- שוע"ר עם ביאור דברי שלום הלכות יום טוב (סי' תצה-תקכט) הלכות יום טוב (סי' תצה-תקכט) תקז דיני אפייה ביום טוב ב"ק קא, ב