## Beitzah Daf 39a

###### Beitzah 39a:1
[Beitzah 39a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:1)

וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי לֵיהּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין — אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶלֶף לֹא בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Ashi said** a different explanation as to why the spices, water, and salt are not subject to nullification: It is **because** any one of these ingredients **is an object whose prohibition is temporary,** as the prohibition against their being taken out of the Shabbat limits lapses once the Festival has passed, **and** the general principle is that **anything whose prohibition is temporary cannot become nullified, even** by one part **in one thousand.**


###### Beitzah 39a:2
[Beitzah 39a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:2)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר בַּמַּיִם. מַיִם אִין, מֶלַח לָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מַיִם וָמֶלַח בְּטֵלִין בֵּין בָּעִיסָּה בֵּין בַּקְּדֵרָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּמֶלַח סְדוֹמִית, הָא — בְּמֶלַח אִסְתְּרוֹקָנִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in a mishna: **Rabbi Yehuda exempts** one from travel limitations **in** the case of **water.** The Gemara asks: Does this mean to imply that **water, yes,** it is exempted by Rabbi Yehuda, but **salt, no,** it is not? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says: Water and salt are** both **nullified, whether in a dough or in a pot** of cooked food. The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult.** In **this** case of the mishna, the reference is to **salt of Sodom,** which is quite coarse and does not blend in easily with the dough, and, being noticeable in the final product, is not nullified. In **that** case of the *baraita*, the reference is **to** a type of fine salt known as ***isterokanit* salt.** Consequently, it is not noticeable in the final product and can be nullified.


###### Beitzah 39a:3
[Beitzah 39a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:3)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מַיִם וָמֶלַח בְּטֵלִין בָּעִיסָּה, וְאֵין בְּטֵלִין בַּקְּדֵרָה מִפְּנֵי רוֹטְבָּהּ! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּעָבָה, הָא — בְּרַכָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states that according to Rabbi Yehuda water mixed into dough, and presumably into a cooked dish as well, is considered nullified. The Gemara challenges this: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says: Water and salt are nullified in dough but not in a pot, due to its sauce.** The pot, unlike bread, ends up with liquid in it, so the borrowed water is still recognizable. The Gemara replies: This is **not difficult. This** case of the mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda says that the water is nullified in the cooked food, is referring **to a thick** dish that has no liquid sauce. **That** case of the *baraita*, in which Rabbi Yehuda said the water is not nullified, is referring **to a thin** dish with liquid sauce.


###### Beitzah 39a:4
[Beitzah 39a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַגַּחֶלֶת כְּרַגְלֵי הַבְּעָלִים, וְשַׁלְהֶבֶת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ — מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, וְשַׁלְהֶבֶת — לֹא נֶהֱנִין, וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. הַמּוֹצִיא גַּחֶלֶת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — חַיָּיב, וְשַׁלְהֶבֶת — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A coal** that one borrowed from another on the Festival is **as the feet of the owner,** and it may be carried on the Festival to any place where its owner may walk. Since it has substance, it is associated with its owner. **But a flame** that one lit from another’s flame may be taken **anywhere,** as it has no substance. This essential difference between a coal and a flame has additional halakhic ramifications: If one uses **a coal of consecrated property** for a non-consecrated purpose, he is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, since it has substance. **But** if one uses a consecrated **flame,** although according to rabbinic law **one may not** derive **benefit** from it *ab initio*, if one did benefit from it, **he is not** liable for **misuse,** since it does not have substance. Similarly, **one who takes out a coal** from a private domain **to the public domain** on Shabbat is **liable** for the prohibited labor of carrying, but one who takes out **a flame is exempt.**


###### Beitzah 39a:5
[Beitzah 39a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּגַּחֶלֶת: הַגַּחֶלֶת כְּרַגְלֵי הַבְּעָלִים, וְשַׁלְהֶבֶת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ — מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, וְשַׁלְהֶבֶת — לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — אֲסוּרָה, וְשַׁלְהֶבֶת — מוּתֶּרֶת. הַמּוֹצִיא גַּחֶלֶת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — חַיָּיב, וְשַׁלְהֶבֶת — פָּטוּר. הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ — אָסוּר בְּגַחַלְתּוֹ, וּמוּתָּר בְּשַׁלְהַבְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *Tosefta* (*Beitza* 4:7): **Five things were stated with regard to a coal,** in relation to the practical halakhic differences between a coal and a flame: **(1) Coal is as the feet of the owner** with regard to its Festival resting place, **whereas a flame** may be carried **anywhere. (2) One** is liable for **misusing** property consecrated to the Temple **with a consecrated coal, whereas** with regard to **a flame,** according to rabbinic law **one may not benefit** from it, **but he is not** liable for **misusing** property consecrated to the Temple. **(3) Coal** used for **idol worship is prohibited** for one to benefit from it, **whereas** from **a flame** of this sort it **is permitted** to benefit. **(4) One who carries out a coal to the public domain is liable, whereas** one who carries out **a flame is exempt. (5) One who is prohibited by a vow** from deriving **benefit from another is prohibited from** using **his coal, but** he is **permitted** to derive benefit **from his flame.**


###### Beitzah 39a:6
[Beitzah 39a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:6)

מַאי שְׁנָא שַׁלְהֶבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּשַׁרְיָא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ דַּאֲסִירָא? עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּמְאִיסָה וּבְדִילִי אִינָשֵׁי מִינַּהּ — לָא גְּזַרוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן. הֶקְדֵּשׁ, דְּלָא מְאִיס וְלָא בְּדִילִי אִינָשֵׁי מִינֵּיהּ — גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the *halakhot* cited in the *baraita* above, the Gemara asks: **What is different** in the case of **a flame** of **idol worship, that** one is **permitted** to use it even *ab initio*, as the *baraita* uses the term permitted in that case; **and what is different** in the case of a **consecrated** flame, in **that** it is **prohibited** to be used *ab initio*, as the *baraita* states: One may not benefit from it, but he is not liable for misuse? The Gemara explains: In the case of **idol worship, which is repulsive** to Jews **and from which** Jewish **people** inherently **maintain separation, the Sages did not decree** additional restrictions **with regard to it.** However, concerning **consecrated property, which is not repulsive and from which people do not** inherently **maintain separation,** in order to prevent its misuse, **the Sages did decree with regard to it** that it is prohibited to use the flame.


###### Beitzah 39a:7
[Beitzah 39a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:7)

הַמּוֹצִיא גַּחֶלֶת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — חַיָּיב, וְשַׁלְהֶבֶת — פָּטוּר. וְהָא תַּנְיָא: הַמּוֹצִיא שַׁלְהֶבֶת כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — חַיָּיב! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּקֵיסָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the *baraita* that **one who carries out a coal to the public domain** is **liable, whereas** one who carries out **a flame is exempt.** The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** it **taught** in another *baraita*: **One who carries out a flame of any size** on Shabbat **is liable? Rav Sheshet said:** The second *baraita* is referring to a case **where one carried out** the flame along **with a wooden chip.** Since the flame is attached to a physical object, it is considered significant.


###### Beitzah 39a:8
[Beitzah 39a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:8)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם קֵיסָם! בִּדְלֵית לֵיהּ שִׁעוּרָא. דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא עֵצִים — כְּדֵי לְבַשֵּׁל בֵּיצָה קַלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But** if so, **let it derive** that one is liable for carrying out in this case **due to** the **wooden chip,** and the presence of the flame is irrelevant. The Gemara responds: That *baraita* speaks of a chip **that does not have the** minimum **measure** that determines liability for carrying out, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Shabbat* 89b): In the case of **one who carries out wood** on Shabbat, the measure that determines liability is **enough** wood **to cook an egg** of the kind that is the **easiest** to cook, which is the egg of a chicken. Because the chip is too small to cook an egg, one is not liable for carrying it out, but one is liable for carrying out the flame attached to it.


###### Beitzah 39a:9
[Beitzah 39a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:9)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁיְיפֵיהּ [לְ]מָנָא מִשְׁחָא וְאַתְלִי בֵּיהּ נוּרָא. וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם מָנָא? בְּחַסְפָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** a different scenario: The mishna is referring to a case **where one smeared a vessel with oil, and lit a fire on it,** and carried out that flame. The Gemara asks: If so, **let it derive** that one is liable for carrying out in this case **due to** the **vessel** itself, and the flame is irrelevant. The Gemara replies: The mishna is referring **to** a fire lit in **an earthenware** shard, not in a whole vessel.


###### Beitzah 39a:10
[Beitzah 39a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:10)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם חַסְפָּא! בִּדְלֵית לֵיהּ שִׁעוּרָא. דִּתְנַן: חֶרֶס — כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן בֵּין פַּצִּים לַחֲבֵירוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And** nevertheless, **let it derive** that one is liable for carrying **due to** the **earthenware** shard itself. The Gemara answers: It deals **with** a shard **that is not of** the minimum **measure** that determines liability for carrying out, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Shabbat* 82a): The measure that determines liability for carrying out **earthenware** is **enough to place between one** window **frame and another,** as small shards of earthenware were sometimes placed between window frames during construction. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Beitzah 39a:11
[Beitzah 39a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:11)

אֶלָּא הָא דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא שַׁלְהֶבֶת פָּטוּר, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כְּגוֹן דְּאַדְּיֵיהּ אַדּוֹיֵי לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, if one is liable for carrying it out whenever the flame is attached to an object of substance, **that which we learned** in the mishna here: **One who carries out a flame is exempt,** under **what circumstances** can this case **be found?** The Gemara answers: The mishna is speaking of a case **where one fanned** the fire **with his hand** so that it spread **into the public domain** without its being attached to any vessel.


###### Beitzah 39a:12
[Beitzah 39a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** בּוֹר שֶׁל יָחִיד — כְּרַגְלֵי הַיָּחִיד, וְשֶׁל אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר — כְּרַגְלֵי אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, וְשֶׁל עוֹלֵי בָבֶל — כְּרַגְלֵי הַמְמַלֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a cistern of an individual,** water drawn from it **is as the feet of the individual** who owns the cistern, and the water may be carried only to those places where its owner is permitted to walk. **And** water drawn from a cistern belonging jointly to all **the people** dwelling in **a particular town is as the feet of the people of that town. And** water drawn from a cistern **of those who come up** to Eretz Yisrael **from Babylonia,** i.e., a public cistern, is **as the feet of whoever fills** his vessel with its water; the water has no defined boundary of its own since it is made available to all.


###### Beitzah 39a:13
[Beitzah 39a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** רָמֵי לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן, תְּנַן: בּוֹר שֶׁל יָחִיד — כְּרַגְלֵי הַיָּחִיד, וּרְמִינְהוּ: נְהָרוֹת הַמּוֹשְׁכִין וּמַעֲיָנוֹת הַנּוֹבְעִין — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּרַגְלֵי כׇּל אָדָם! אָמַר (רָבָא): הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בִּמְכוּנָּסִין. וְאִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בִּמְכוּנָּסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rava raised a contradiction to Rav Naḥman: We learned** in the mishna that the water of **a cistern of an individual is as the feet of the individual; and** Rava **raised a contradiction** from the *Tosefta* (*Beitza* 4:8): Water drawn from **flowing rivers and flowing springs are as the feet of all people. Rava said: With what are we dealing here** in the mishna? **With** cisterns that contain **collected** water, not flowing water. **And it was also said** that **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said** that **Shmuel said:** The mishna applies only **to collected** water.


###### Beitzah 39a:14
[Beitzah 39a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:14)

וְשֶׁל עוֹלֵי בָבֶל — כְּרַגְלֵי הַמְמַלֵּא. אִתְּמַר: מִילֵּא וְנָתַן לַחֲבֵירוֹ, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: כְּרַגְלֵי מִי שֶׁנִּתְמַלְּאוּ לוֹ, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: כְּרַגְלֵי הַמְמַלֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **And** water drawn from a cistern **of those who come up** to Eretz Yisrael **from Babylonia,** i.e., a public cistern, is **as the feet of whoever fills** his vessel with its water. **It was stated** that *amora’im* disagreed with regard to this issue: In the case of one who **filled** a vessel with water from a public cistern on behalf of **another and gave** the water **to** him, **Rav Naḥman said:** The water is **as the feet of the one for whom they were filled; Rav Sheshet said:** It is **as the feet of the one who filled** it.


###### Beitzah 39a:15
[Beitzah 39a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:15)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: בֵּירָא דְהֶפְקֵרָא הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר: בֵּירָא דְשׁוּתָּפֵי הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do they disagree?** The Gemara explains: **One Sage,** Rav Sheshet, **holds** that a public **cistern is ownerless,** and the *halakha* is that one cannot take possession of ownerless property on behalf of someone else. Therefore, the water belongs to the one who drew it; it is as his feet, and this status does not change even if he subsequently gave it to anyone else. **And one Sage,** Rav Naḥman, **holds** that a public cistern **is** considered jointly owned **by** all its **partners,** namely, all of the Jewish people. Therefore, it is possible for one partner to draw water on behalf of another partner, and the drawn water immediately belongs to the person for whom it was drawn.


###### Beitzah 39a:16
[Beitzah 39a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/39a:16)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: הֲרֵינִי עָלֶיךָ חֵרֶם — הַמּוּדָּר אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a challenge to Rav Naḥman** from a mishna (*Nedarim* 47b): One who says to another: **I am hereby** prohibited **to you** by force of ***ḥerem*,** a kind of vow of prohibition, as objects declared as *ḥerem* are generally consecrated to the Temple, **the one prohibited by the vow,** the addressee, **is prohibited** to derive benefit from the person who made the vow or from his property, as the point of the vow was to prohibit the addressee from deriving any benefit from the one who made the vow.