Daf Ditty Beitza 35: ‫ִבּטּוּל ֵבּית ַהִמְּד ָרשׁ‬

An ultra-Orthodox Jewish man wears a face mask during a morning prayer next to his house
as synagogues are limited to twenty people due to the coronavirus pandemic, in Bnei Brak,
Israel, Thursday, Sept 24, 2020. For Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jews, coronavirus restrictions have
raised numerous questions about how to maintain their religious lifestyle during the outbreak.
A religious publisher in Jerusalem released a book in July with over 600 pages of guidance from
46 different rabbis. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)

1
2
MISHNA: One may lower produce, which had been laid out on a roof to dry, into the house
through a skylight on a Festival, in order to prevent it from becoming ruined in the rain. Although
it is a strenuous activity, it is permitted do to so on a Festival in order to prevent a financial loss;
however, one may not do so on Shabbat. And one may cover produce inside a building with
cloths to prevent damage due to a leak in the ceiling over it, and similarly one may cover jugs
of wine and jugs of oil for the same reason. And one may place a vessel beneath a leak in order
to catch the water on Shabbat, to prevent it from dirtying the house.

3
One may put a bucket under a drip to protect the house.

4
GEMARA: The Gemara discusses the first word of the mishna from a linguistic standpoint. It
was said: Rav Yehuda and Rav Natan recited differing versions of the mishna’s opening word,
which is in all versions a verb meaning to lower. One of them taught mashilin, as in the text of
this mishna, and the other one taught mashḥilin.

Jastrow

5
Mar Zutra said: The one who teaches mashilin is not mistaken, and the one who teaches
mashḥilin is not mistaken, as support can be found for both versions. He elaborates: The one
who teaches mashilin is not mistaken, as it is written:

6
 ;V‫ְגּבוֶּל‬-‫ ְבָּכל‬,V‫מ ֵזיִתים ִיְהיוּ ְל‬ 40 Thou shalt have olive-trees throughout all thy borders, but
.V‫ ִכּי ִיַשּׁל ֵזיֶת‬,e‫ְוֶשֶׁמן ל ֹא ָתסוּ‬ thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olives shall
drop off.
Deut 29:40

“For your olives will fall [yishal]” Mashilin would therefore mean: To cause to fall.

And he who teaches mashḥilin is not mistaken, as we learned the following cases in a mishna
that lists blemishes that invalidate an animal for sacrifice: The shaḥul and the kasul.

The mishna explains these terms: Shaḥul is referring to an animal whose thigh is dislocated, i.e.,
it has slipped out of place; kasul is referring to an animal one of whose thighs is higher than the
other. This shows that the root sh-ḥ-l- is referring to something that has slipped down from its
place.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that there are other possible variations of this word as well. One
who teaches mashirin is not mistaken, and one who teaches mashḥirin is not mistaken, and
one who teaches manshirin is not mistaken.

He elaborates: One who teaches mashirin is not mistaken, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi
Yishmael says: A nazirite may not wash the hair of his head with clay as a kind of shampoo,
because it causes hair to fall off [mashir], and a nazirite is prohibited to remove the hairs of his
head. This shows that mashir indicates causing something to fall. And one who teaches mashḥirin
is also not mistaken, as we learned in a mishna: The sheḥor, a type of razor, and a barber’s
scissors, even if their blades are detached, are subject to ritual impurity. The fact that a razor
is called sheḥor implies that the root sh-ḥ-r indicates causing to fall down.

7
And one who teaches manshirin is not mistaken either, as we learned in a mishna: One whose
clothes fell down [nashru] into water on Shabbat may continue to walk in them while they dry
of their own accord, and he need not be concerned that people might suspect him of having
washed them on Shabbat. Alternatively, another support can be found from that which we
learned in the following mishna: What is gleaning [leket], which must be left for the poor as
commanded in Leviticus 19:9?

‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ְקִציר ַא ְרְצֶכם‬-‫ט וְּבֻקְצ ְרֶכם ֶאת‬ 9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not
,b‫ ִלְקֹצר; ְוֶלֶקט ְקִצי ְר‬b‫ְתַכֶלּה ְפַּאת ָשְׂד‬ wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather
.‫ל ֹא ְתַלֵקּט‬ the gleaning of thy harvest.
Lev 19:9

That which falls [nosher] during reaping. These sources show that the root n-sh-r means: To
fall down, and manshirin would consequently mean: To cause to fall down.

The Gemara raises an objection to the comparison of the two cases. But perhaps there it is
different, since there is the matter of preventing suspension of study in the study hall or of
providing hospitality to guests, i.e., moving those items is permitted in order to facilitate a mitzva.
But here, where there is no suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., no facilitation of any
mitzva, they did not permit one to move such a large amount. Alternatively: There, this is the
reasoning that four or five sacks are permitted: Because Shabbat is severe in people’s eyes
and they will not come to belittle it; but on a Festival, which is regarded more lightly and
which people might come to belittle, one may not move the items at all.

Alternatively, a claim can be made from the other perspective: There, this is the reasoning
that it is permitted to carry only four or five sacks: Because there is no monetary loss involved.
But here, where there is monetary loss if the produce is not moved, one may carry even a larger
amount than four or five sacks.

8
Summary

Introduction

This mishnah continues to deal with laws concerning fruit set out to dry and things that one may
and may not do with this fruit on Yom Tov. 1

One may let down fruit through a trap-door on Yom Tov but not on Shabbat.

This section deals with a person who has put his fruit up onto his roof to dry out on Yom Tov and
then he sees that it is going to rain. The mishnah allows him to drop the fruit down through a trap-
door in the roof because this is not considered to be a lot of work. He would not be allowed to take
them down through a window or through the door because this is a greater amount of work.
Furthermore, they only allowed this on Yom Tov on Shabbat it was prohibited.

And one may cover up fruit with vessels on account of the rain, and likewise jars of wine and
jars of oil.

One also may cover up fruit, jars of wine and jars of oil if rain is leaking down on them. Covering
up fruit or bringing it into the house so it doesn’t get wet are activities done not in order to eat the
fruit on Yom Tov, but they are nevertheless permitted in order to prevent the financial loss.

And one may place a vessel beneath the drops of rain [even] on Shabbat.

On Shabbat one can even put a vessel underneath drops of rain coming down from a leaky roof.

Today's daf begins with an exploration of exceptions to tithing.2 Through examples, our rabbis
seek to establish halacha. Are we permitted to remove olives from a vat and immediately salt them

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Beitzah.35b.7?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Beitzah.5.1&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%20
Mishnah&lang3=en
2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/05/

9
and eat them without tithing? Well, that depends. Is the vat ritually pure? Is the person ritually
impure (for s/he may return an olive to the vat and impart ritual impurity on all of its contents)?

The rabbis look at the notion of 'fixed'. We learn in a note that six things define fruits as fixed;

fixed fruits must be tithed before we eat them. These are fire, ie. cooking the fruit; salting the fruit;
taking from the fruit on Shabbat; already taking teruma from the fruit; taking from the fruit in a
courtyard; the act of buying the fruit from its owners. At this point, I do not know why these
particular items are thought of as fixed - why a courtyard and not a kitchen, for example - but
further reasoning will be shared, I'm sure.

Beyond salting olives, other examples include clusters of grapes, the coming of evening/darkness
on Shabbat, and whether or not labour has been completed. We learn that Hillel believes that fruit
is completed by the arrival of Shabbat, while other rabbis disagree. In this unusual case, the
halacha is against Hillel. Because I am not fully clear as to the meaning of "completed" (ie. ripe?
prepared to consume? all parts are ripe? etc.), it is difficult to understand the significance of this
position - beyond the fact that the halacha goes against Hillel.

Amud (b) ends in Perek IV. Our first conversation discusses figs that are collected and are ready
to be dried in the courtyard. Perhaps this is the meaning of completed; the fruit is ready to consume
but we have not completed the task that we designated ourselves? The rabbis' conversations about
this issue is complicated. It is clear that tithing can happen a different times, and so the importance
of tithing before food is consumed is a particularly challenging question. We learn that if two
people exchange foods with the intention of eating those foods - which is a transaction, like buying
- then both must tithe their food. If one is taking the food to dry it for later consumption, that
person is not obligated to separate tithes. This confirms the words of Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance
with the previous baraita as stated by Rabbi Yochanan.

One more Mishna to end Perek IV. We are taught that one may lower produce [left on a roof to
dry] through a skylight on a Festival to protect them from rain -- but not on Shabbat. Similarly we
can cover produce, jugs of wine/oil with cloths to protect them from leaks indoors. On Shabbat,
we are allowed to catch the water from a leak in a vessel to keep the house from becoming dirty.

First, the rabbis discuss the language used in this Mishna. The consider the spelling and meaning
of words used to describe what is done to produce. Of course, the rabbis raise the question of
whether we can cover produce, wine, and oil on Shabbat and not only on Festivals. Finally, they
look at how much produce can be lowered through a skylight. It is suggested that since up to five
sacks of hay or grain. can be removed from a room to create space for study or for a guest, the
same amount should be permitted to be lowered on a Festival. Of course, different opinions are
debated.

10
What is most interesting to me is the fact that people stored hay and grain in their homes! I cannot
imagine the state of the homes we are discussing. Dirt floors were 'cleaned' for Shabbat? Huge
amounts of semi-perishable items were stored inside peoples'
homes? Skylights? Courtyards? Rooftops used for drying fruit?

Just the idea of this as a 'welcome sign' for insects and animals is enough to make me itchy. I
continue to wonder how our ancestors managed these conditions while maintaining their
dedication to the observance of
halacha.

HOW MUCH FRUIT MAY ONE LOWER FROM THE ROOF INTO HIS HOME ON
YOM TOV

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Mishnah states that one is permitted to lower fruit from his roof into his home through a skylight
on Yom Tov. The Gemara asks how much fruit may he lower into the house. The Gemara derives from
the Mishnah in Shabbos (126b) that one may lower four or five boxes of fruit into his home on Yom
Tov. The Mishnah there says that one may move up to four or five boxes of straw or grain in order to
make room for guests or to make room for students who have come to learn Torah.

The Gemara rejects the proof from the Mishnah in Shabbos and says that perhaps only on Shabbos is
one permitted to move four or five boxes, but not on Yom Tov. There is no fear that one might become
lax in the observance of the laws of Shabbos because the laws of Shabbos are more stringent than the
laws of Yom Tov. Since the laws of Yom Tov are less stringent, there is a fear that if one is permitted
to move any amount of fruit he will become lax in the observance of the laws of Yom Tov. Therefore,
perhaps on Yom Tov one may not move any amount of fruit ("Klal Klal Lo").

(a) Why does the Gemara suggest that on Yom Tov no amount of fruit may be moved? The Mishnah
states explicitly that one is permitted to lower fruit into his home on Yom Tov. (MAHARAM SHIF)
Why does the Gemara say that since additional safeguards must be made to protect the sanctity of Yom
Tov, the Rabanan prohibited moving any amount of fruit? The Mishnah itself says the opposite: on
Yom Tov one is allowed to lower fruit into his home but not on Shabbos! (RASHBA)

The RE'AH and RABEINU DAVID explain that the Gemara does not mean literally that one may not
move any amount of fruit on Yom Tov. Rather, it means that based on the Mishnah in Shabbos there
is no basis to permit moving any fruit at all.

The TZELACH and PNEI YEHOSHUA add that the Gemara does not mean that one may not lower
any amount of fruit in order to protect it from the rain. Rather, the Gemara means that on Yom Tov
even the reason of Bitul Beis ha'Midrash does not permit moving four or five boxes of fruit, and
certainly the need to protect them from the rain does not permit moving so many boxes. However, one

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/beitzah/insites/bt-dt-035.htm

11
is permitted to move smaller amounts even to protect them from the rain. "Klal Klal Lo" does not mean
that no fruit at all may be moved, but that there is no reason to permit moving four or give boxes of
fruit on Yom Tov. One may move less than four or five boxes in order to protect them, as the Mishnah
says.

The ME'IRI omits the words "Klal Klal Lo" from the text of the Gemara to avoid the question of the
Maharam Shif. This is also the Girsa of the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM.

The RASHBA answers the second question as follows. With regard to permitting an action in the first
place on Yom Tov (such as saving fruit from becoming damaged by rain), the Rabanan were lenient,
just as the Torah is lenient with regard to Melachah for food preparation (Ochel Nefesh) on Yom Tov.
In contrast, with regard to an action which they already permitted on Shabbos or Yom Tov and the
only question is how much is permitted, the law requires that one conduct himself stringently on Yom
Tov because of the reason which the Gemara gives (so that one not become lax in the observance of
Yom Tov). (The MAHARSHA gives a similar answer.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

The last chapter of Masechet Beitzah, perek mashilin, begins on our daf. This concluding chapter
focuses mainly on two topics:

1. Actions that are not true creative activities that would be forbidden on Yom Tov, but are,
nevertheless, issues that involve a lack of sensitivity to the holiness of the day,

And

2. Questions regarding techumin (boundaries) – that is travel outside the city boundaries,
which is ordinarily limited to a 2000 cubit perimeter around the city.

The first Mishna describes a situation that was commonplace in the time of the Talmud, although
it is unusual today. In those days, it was customary practice for a person to put fruits on his roof to
dry. Such fruits were considered to be muktzah – that is to say, they were set aside as fruit that was
not to be eaten now, as it was being processed to be saved for future use.

Obviously, if rains came and those fruits were on the roof, they would be ruined. In such a
circumstance, the Mishnah permits the fruits to be tossed down the chimney on Yom Tov. In his
commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that the loss of money brings the Rabbis to
permit what would ordinarily be considered a “weekday activity” but only in this specific way,
where the chimney goes directly to the ground floor and throwing the fruit down does not involve
excessive labor.

To understand the situation described in the Mishnah, it is important to recognize what a

contemporary Roman house looked like. Such houses, which apparently were built in Israel, had
an internal courtyard that included a chimney where fires were built below in an oven or fireplace.

4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_beitzah_3540/

12
The roof had flat areas where fruits were commonly laid out to dry. It would have been fairly easy
to toss the fruits down into the house by way of that chimney.

Sue Parker Gerson writes:5

Long before our current concern with the environmental ravages of climate change, unexpected
rainfall — particularly during the harvest season — could result in lasting damage to produce and
property. This was even more concerning when, as we’ll see on today’s daf, one’s largest storage
area was likely to be on the roof.

Most roofs in biblical and talmudic times were flat. The Torah (Deuteronomy 22:8) sets out the
requirement for a parapet — a fence around the roof — to prevent people from falling off. We’ll
see more about parapet rules and regulations in Tractates Bava Kamma and Bava Batra, about two
years from now, including creative ways of extending these rules to prevent other forms of harm.
Flat roofs also feature in several biblical accounts, one of which provides a useful example for our
discussion today.

In the second chapter of the Book of Joshua, we learn about the spies sent by Joshua to scout out
the land of Israel following the death of Moses. A woman named Rahab, who was either an
innkeeper or a prostitute (or maybe both), hid the spies on the roof of her inn, which was set into
the city wall of Jericho, in exchange for protection for herself and her family during the upcoming
military incursion. In Joshua 2:6, we read about how Rahab put her flax on the roof to dry, and
there was enough of it to provide cover to hide two grown men from their pursuers.

Keep this image in mind as you read the mishnah on our daf:

One may lower produce, (which had been laid out on a roof to dry, into the house) through a
skylight on a festival (in order to prevent it from becoming ruined in the rain. Although it is a
strenuous activity, it is permitted to do so on a festival in order to prevent a financial loss).
However, one may not do so on Shabbat.

According to the mishnah, it’s acceptable to save produce from destruction by moving it from a
roof into a house through a window on a festival. In the Gemara, the rabbis want to know how
much produce can be lowered and still stay within the boundaries of strenuous activity on a
holiday. The concern with financial loss is curious, though. After all, that’s not a reason to be
lenient with halakhah — or is it?

With regard to the first question, the Gemara compares this scenario with a ruling we have seen
before, on Shabbat 126b, about the permissibility of moving four or five sacks of hay or grain to
clear space for more people to fit in the study hall on Shabbat. Just as only a few sacks were
allowed to be moved to make more room, only a comparable amount of produce should be
permitted to be lowered.

5
Myjewishlearning.com

13
We then hear a threefold challenge to this comparison. First, the Gemara suggests that in the case
of the study hall, there’s a mitzvah opportunity that the items prevent: allowing more people to
study Torah. As a result, maybe fewer than four or five sacks of produce should be permitted to
be moved to prevent water damage.

Second, the Gemara says that because people are typically more careful about Shabbat observance
than festivals, allowing one leniency on a festival may lead to other prohibited activities. This kind
of thinking — that we disallow one act in order to forestall others — is referred to as building a
fence (maybe a parapet?) around the Torah. In this case, the fence is limiting the amount of produce
that can be saved from rainfall.

And third, the Gemara suggests that four or five sacks could be moved on Shabbat to make room
for students because there was no monetary loss involved. But here, where there is monetary loss
if the produce is not moved, one may carry an even larger amount than four or five sacks.

Ultimately, the Gemara does not reach a resolution on this matter. The dilemma stands unresolved
— teyku, in the language of the Talmud. In modern Hebrew, that word can mean a draw, as in a
sporting match that ends in a tie. Which will just have to suffice … as long as nobody falls off the
roof.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

The Mishna (Beitzah 5:1) in our daf (Beitzah 35b) informs us that “We may put a vessel under
dripping water on Shabbat [and then move that vessel as and when the vessel is filled]”.

Significantly, the halachic concern which the Mishna seeks to clarify relates to the rain or drain
water that has dripped into the vessel which may have been considered ‘mukzeh’. However, as the
Gemara (see 36a) and later commentaries clarify, since the water could be used for drinking or
bathing, or even to water animals, it is not considered ‘mukzeh’. Still, if this is not the case, and if
the water is particularly dirty, one should not move the vessel filled with dirty water on Shabbat.

Of course, the ideal would be to have a house without a dripping roof or drain. And if it does drip,
the ideal would be that it only drips the smallest amounts of clean water. But the way of things is
that sometimes roofs leak, and sometimes they bring the types of water that we’d rather avoid.

And when that occurs what do we do? We put a vessel under the drip, knowing – on occasion –
that the vessel will be filled with dirty water, and knowing – on occasion – that we cannot move
the vessel for a while. Yet also knowing that while we can’t always control if, where, and when
water will drip, we can be there to catch the water when it falls.

6
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

14
 Mitzvah or Money?
With great metaphysical creativity, Talmudic rabbis probe the exact limits of
comparison and analogy

ADAM KIRSCH WRITES:7

This week’s Daf Yomi reading brought us to the fifth and final chapter of Tractate Beitzah, a
relatively brief tractate that has dealt with rules and restrictions that apply on festivals other than
Shabbat. The general principle that the rabbis establish is that festivals are subject to all the same
prohibitions as Shabbat. The one exception has to do with food preparation: Processes directly
related to the preparation of meals on the festival are allowed, whereas the same processes would
be forbidden on Shabbat.

Still, the exact differences between festival behavior and Shabbat behavior can be more
complicated than that principle suggests. Take the example offered at the beginning of chapter 5,
in Beitzah 35b. Evidently, in Talmudic times it was common for houses to have a skylight and for
people to set out produce to dry on the roof surrounding the opening. What if you have your dates
spread out to dry on a festival, and suddenly a storm cloud blows in—are you allowed to rescue
the fruit, or would carrying it down through the skylight be considered a forbidden labor? On

7
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/daf-yomi-81

15
Shabbat, carrying the fruit inside would clearly be prohibited; but on a festival, the Mishna says,
this is allowed.

But exactly how much fruit, the Gemara wonders, can be moved in this way? For an answer, the
rabbis employ their favorite strategy of analogy with another area of law. On Shabbat, there is a
rule that states that if it’s necessary to clear space in the study hall in order to facilitate Torah study,
one may move a small amount—four or five sacks’ worth of material—but not everything in the
building. This seems to offer a rule of thumb that can be applied to the question of bringing fruit
in through the skylight: Four or five sacks would be the maximum that you can save in this way.

Analogies, however, are never perfect, and one of the commonest activities in the Talmud, as I
have come to recognize, is probing the exact limits of a comparison. After all, the two situations—
the study hall and the roof—involve different motives; you clear out the study hall to facilitate a
mitzvah, while you clear the roof in order to avoid property damage and financial loss. Which of
these is a more pressing excuse for violating the festival? If you say that facilitating a mitzvah is
more pressing, then perhaps you should not be able to clear four or five sacks of fruit from the
roof, but only a lesser amount. On the other hand, if you say that financial loss is more important,
then you should be able to carry even more than five sacks.

Or perhaps there is still another difference at play here—the difference between a festival and
Shabbat. This, too, is a distinction that can cut both ways, depending on which rabbi you listen to.
On the one hand, Shabbat is more sacred than a festival, so the prohibitions on any given labor
should be stricter on Shabbat than on the holiday. At the same time, the rabbi’s reason, the very
fact that the Jews are so mindful of that distinction might lead them to legislate more strictly on a
festival. That is, the Jews can be trusted not to violate Shabbat, but they need extra pressure to
keep them in line on a holiday. In this particular case, the various factors are so evenly balanced
that the rabbis themselves can’t come to a decision, and so they resort to the formula “Let it stand.”
We don’t learn whether you can carry five sacks of fruit on a holiday, or more or less. Yet it is
highly characteristic of the Talmud that it reproduces the whole intricate debate leading up to this
impasse: The intellectual process is more significant than the legal result.

Later, in Beitzah 36b, the rabbis introduce a new category of restriction. We already know that
some labors are prohibited by Torah law and some by rabbinic law. Now we meet a third
type: shevut, or “rest,” activities that are banned because they violate the restful spirit of the
holiday. These include potentially rowdy behaviors such as climbing a tree, swimming, clapping,
and dancing. The Talmud doesn’t explicitly say as much, but these all strike me as the kind of
thing children would like to get up to on a holiday, and perhaps it is children in particular who
have to be reminded of the need for shevut. Adults are usually glad to have a day of rest, to escape
from work and other responsibilities; for children, imposed rest is more like a torment.

It is when the rabbis reach the subject of boundaries that the discussion becomes most interesting
and complex. In Tractate Eruvin, we learned in enormous detail the laws governing how far a
person can walk on Shabbat; and the same 2,000-cubit boundary (about 3,000 feet) applies on a
festival. Now in Beitzah the Talmud takes up the theoretically difficult question of whether objects,
too, have boundaries. Ordinarily, any object can only be moved as far as its owner can walk: “The
status of animals and vessels on festivals is as the feet of their owner,” to use the Talmud’s idiom.

16
But what if an item is borrowed on a festival: Does it follow the “feet” of the lender or the
borrower? The mishna says that an item is restricted by the boundary of the person who owned it
when the holiday began. If the lender agreed to loan the item before the holiday begins but only
actually delivered to the borrower on the holiday, then the borrower is the legal owner and the item
follows his feet—it can go anywhere he goes on the holiday. If, however, the loan is not agreed on
until after the holiday has begun, then even after the item is delivered to the borrower, it must
follow the lender’s feet, since he was the official owner when the holiday started.

Things become trickier—and, for the rabbis, more interesting—when it comes to joint ownership.
Say that two people form a partnership to buy a barrel of wine together, and then they decide to
divide up the wine on a festival. Does the wine have to remain within 2,000 cubits of its original
starting place on the holiday, or does it “follow the feet” of each of the owners, so that one partner
could take his share to the north and the other to the south? And what if the item bought in
partnership was an animal, and the joint owners want to slaughter it and share out the meat: What
is the rule in that case?

One obvious response to such questions is that it would be a lot easier to simply wait until the
festival was over. How often, one might ask, did the wine-barrel problem actually come up in daily
life? But here, as often, what interests the rabbis is not a practical question but a theoretical one.
In this case, it is the question of “retroactive designation.” If something is jointly owned, and then
it is divided up among the owners, does the law hold that each owner is considered retroactively
to have owned the part that became his share? Or do the shares not take effect until the division is
actually made? And what if the item at issue is something like a liquid, which has no separate
parts, or a living animal, which can’t be divided into parts without killing it?

Different rabbis have different views on retroactive designation. According to Rabbi Oshaya, it is
valid: If two people divide up the contents of a wine barrel, each person’s share then “follows his
feet,” because the wine is considered to have been his even when it was mixed up in the barrel.
Rabbi Yochanan disagrees: He doesn’t believe in retroactive designation, so from his point of view
the wine must remain within the limits shared by both owners on the holiday.

To illustrate the concept, the Gemara turns to another, related area of law: the ritual impurity of
corpses. “If there is a corpse in a house that has many entrances,” the law holds, “all the entrances
are ritually impure.” This is because the corpse might pass through any of the entrances on its way
out of the house, and so they are all considered potentially tamei. Once the corpse is actually taken
out, however, the tumah only affects the actual entrance used, and the others go back to being
ritually pure. Indeed, it’s enough simply to mentally designate one of the entrances as the one that
will be used to transport the corpse, in order to remove impurity from all the others. (I’m reminded,
as I have been before in the Talmud, of Schrodinger’s Cat: As in quantum mechanics, potentialities
don’t turn into actualities until they are observed.)

Now imagine that one of the doorways of the house had a bowl sitting in it. During the time that
the doorway was potentially a means of egress for a corpse, it was tamei, and so the bowl in it also
became tamei. Then the corpse actually passes out through a different doorway, and this doorway
becomes tahor, ritually pure, again. What now is the status of the bowl? Is it still tamei, or does it
become tahor along with the doorway? This is another way of stating the problem of retroactive

17
designation. Does the doorway’s ritual purity get reinstated retroactively, or do we hold that it was
actually impure for a time, and so the bowl in it remains impure too? Here, again, the answer is a
matter of dispute: Rabbi Oshaya holds one way, Rabbi Yochanan the other.

Finally, the rabbis take up another theoretical problem, this one having to do with the ontological
status of fire. A piece of coal, we learn on Beitzah 39a, “is as the feet of its owner”: Whoever owns
it when the festival begins, it must remain in that person’s boundary until the holiday ends. But
say that someone has a piece of fiery coal and you light your candle from it. Does the flame of
your candle have to remain within the same boundaries as the piece of coal? That is, is a fire an
attribute of its fuel, or is it an independent entity? The answer, the Gemara explains, is that fire is
considered its own category, not an ordinary object but a kind of bodiless quality that cannot
actually belong to anyone. Indeed, you could even light a candle at a fire used for pagan idol
worship, since the flame is not considered as the property of the idol-worshipper. What we see
here is an acknowledgment that fire is not quite a substance, in the Aristotelian system of
substances-and-accidents that governed the rabbis’ scientific understanding. It is at the points
where that system comes under strain that the rabbis’ metaphysical and legal creativity reaches its
heights.

‫ִבּטּוּל ֵבּית ַהִמְּד ָרשׁ‬

When our Commitment to Mitzvot Clashes with Our Commitment to Community.

Bracha Rutner writes:8

https://download.yutorah.org/2020/1053/963968/priorities-when-our-commitment-to-mitzvot-clashes-with-our-
commitment-to-community.mp3

8
https://www.yutorah.org/live/sources/rutner_sources_071920.pdf

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
 ‫ִבּטּוּל ֵבּית ַהִמְּד ָרשׁ‬
Halacha vs. health

Rabbis ponder covid-19 queries of ultra-Orthodox Jewish life

ILAN BEN ZION writes:9

Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Bnei Brak, Israel, keep social distancing and wear face masks during
a morning prayer next to their houses as synagogues are limited to 20 people due to the
coronavirus pandemic. (AP/Oded Balilty)

JERUSALEM -- Must an observant Jew who has lost his sense of taste and smell because of covid-
19 recite blessings for food and drink? Can one bend the metal nose piece of a surgical face mask
on the Sabbath? May one participate in communal prayers held in a courtyard from a nearby
balcony?

Months into the coronavirus pandemic, ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Israel are addressing questions
like these as their legions of followers seek advice on how to maintain proper Jewish observance
under the restrictions of the outbreak.

Social distancing and nationwide lockdowns have become a reality around the globe in 2020, but
for religious Jews they can further complicate rites and customs that form the fabric of daily life
in Orthodox communities. Many of these customs are performed in groups and public gatherings,
making it especially challenging for the religious public to maintain its lifestyle.

9
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/oct/03/halacha-vs-health/

25
One religious publisher in Jerusalem released a book in July with more than 600 pages of guidance
from 46 prominent rabbis. Topics range from socially distanced circumcisions (allowed) and
Passover Seders over Zoom (forbidden) to praying with a quorum from a balcony (it's
complicated).

One rabbi responded to a query about blessings on food for those who lost their sense of taste and
smell due to the coronavirus. His ruling? Prayers are still required, for "even though one does not
sense the flavor of the food, his intestines nonetheless benefit and are satisfied by the food and its
nutrition." He then launched into a two-page legal argument citing rabbinic sources from the
Talmud on down.

The collection -- titled "Havieni Hadarav," Hebrew for "Bring me to his chambers" -- is one of
many pamphlets, books, radio, and social media Q&As published in recent months addressing
matters of halacha, or Jewish religious law, during the pandemic.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews comprise slightly more than 10% of Israel's 9 million citizens and adhere to
a close observance of Jewish law. The foundations of halacha are built on the Torah's
commandments and prohibitions, and the Talmud, a codification of Jewish law written down over
the course of the early centuries of the first millennium.

Orthodox Jewish practice is the byproduct of generations of rabbis issuing legal arguments and
rulings. Their decisions, known as responsa, can sometimes be lenient and other times strict.

"Every time a rabbi is asked a question, he has to essentially do what a judge would do, and bring
up previous cases which he builds upon to come to his decision in this particular case," said Issamar
Ginzberg, a Jerusalem-based Hassidic rabbi. The method of questions and responses has
underpinned centuries of the Jewish legal code.

There's no way to say for sure how many people will follow this particular book's rulings. But
there are hundreds of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews, and opinions by prominent rabbis often
carry great significance in daily life within the community.

"It's more like a law textbook than a novel on the best-seller list," said Ginzberg.

Rabbi Natan Feldman, head of the Tzuf Publishing House and editor of "Havieni Hadarav," said
the company has sold around 3,000 copies of the book, which meets "the need of the hour."

"If people didn't have it, they would err in all kinds of ways," Feldman said. "It's something with
a lot of utility."

Israel's ultra-Orthodox minority has been disproportionately affected by the coronavirus pandemic,
with cities and neighborhoods where they live among the country's current hot zones. Overall,
Israel has recorded around 200,000 cases of the novel coronavirus and more than 1,300 deaths.
The Health Ministry does not break down those numbers by population groups.

26
Religious areas have been hard hit in part because they tend to be poorer and crowded, but also
because of the tight-knit communal lifestyles, in which synagogues and seminaries play a central
role. Some ultra-Orthodox schools have remained open in defiance of a nationwide lockdown
imposed last month to help clamp down on the country's surge in new cases. While some rabbis
have resisted orders to limit crowd sizes at prayers, especially during the recent High Holiday
season and the gatherings earlier this week for Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement, the
government has tried to work with religious leaders to spread the word on promoting public health
regulations and restricting the sizes of prayer gatherings.

Many of the responsa contend with the complications of holding prayers -- which traditionally
require a quorum of 10 adult men -- outdoors and in a manner that complies with social distance
regulations. The rabbis offered differing opinions on what the law allows regarding participating
in a minyan held in a communal courtyard from a balcony above.

Innovation has helped overcome some of the challenges of the lockdown, but has also raised
additional concerns for observant Jews. For example, can one enter a hospital on the Jewish
Sabbath if there is a thermal camera at the entrance that takes visitors' temperatures?

Activating such an electronic device could violate multiple prohibitions, so Rabbi Asher Weiss --
a prominent ultra-Orthodox legal scholar involved in "Havieni Hadarav" -- advised refraining from
entering if only visiting a patient, but those in need of medical care ought not "avoid entering the
hospital and endanger their lives."

But the bottom line, written by Weiss in the book's introduction, is that people must "take extra
care to adhere to the instructions of qualified medical officials and the regulations of the Health
Ministry and not violate them."

Weiss did not respond to interview requests.

For Feldman, the publishing head, the tome of coronavirus laws not only helps those who desire
to adhere to halacha, it's a reminder for the future of the tribulations Jews faced during this
outbreak.

"If there should be, God forbid, another pandemic in the century to come, there will at least be a
memory, some kind of necessity for the coming generations," he said.

27
Social distancing and the wearing of face masks are among the measures Ultra-Orthodox Jews
are taking during a morning prayer next to their houses, as synagogues are limited to 20 people
due to the coronavirus pandemic, in Bnei Brak, Israel. (AP/Oded Balilty)

With social distancing barrier, ultra-Orthodox Jewish men pray ahead of Yom Kippur, the
holiest day in the Jewish year, at the Western Wall, the holiest site where Jews can pray in
Jerusalem's Old City, Sunday, Sept. 27, 2020. For Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jews, coronavirus
restrictions have raised numerous questions about how to maintain their religious lifestyle

28
during the outbreak. A religious publisher in Jerusalem released a book in July with over 600
pages of guidance from 46 different rabbis. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

Ultra-Orthodox Jews keep social distancing and wear face masks during a morning prayer next
to their houses as synagogues are limited to twenty people due to the coronavirus pandemic, in
Bnei Brak, Israel, Thursday, Sept 24, 2020. For Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jews, coronavirus
restrictions have raised numerous questions about how to maintain their religious lifestyle
during the outbreak. A religious publisher in Jerusalem released a book in July with over 600
pages of guidance from 46 different rabbis. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)

29
With social distancing barrier, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish man prays ahead of Yom Kippur, the
holiest day in the Jewish year, at the Western Wall, in Jerusalem's Old City, Sunday, Sept. 27,
2020. For Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jews, coronavirus restrictions have raised numerous questions
about how to maintain their religious lifestyle during the outbreak. A religious publisher in
Jerusalem released a book in July with over 600 pages of guidance from 46 different rabbis. (AP
Photo/Ariel Schalit)

30