BS”D

Beitza 38a

1- We concluded the topic of Breira with two humorous stories.

According to the doctrine of Breira, subsequent decisions can under certain circumstances be retroactively applied to change or clarify the nature and Jewish-law consequences of prior events.

The busy Australian photographer who said “I am so busy that I’m losing my mind. As a matter of fact I’m just coming back from a wedding that I have tomorrow”…..

The Crown Heights yungerman that attends all LeChaims and weddings etc and perhaps partakes to excess. The next morning, having no recollection of what transpired, he checks COL to find out where he was the night before…..

2- We discussed the case of the Chacham scheduled to give a speech but it is unknown as to where he will actually deliver it.

3- The Gemara discussed the case of the “Patom”. A farmer that feeds animals to their max and then sells them. The question is if he sells an animal on Yom Tov can it be moved out of the Techum of the Patom.

We discussed briefly the controversy regarding animal force feeding and foie gras.

See here a recent article on the Halachik aspect of this practice. Search this blog for an October 2018 post. [Please note: not everything in this blog is Kodesh Kodoshim].

4- We began to learn an interesting and unique Sugya.

Unique in the sense that the great commentaries express a perplexity on how to understand the simple meaning of the words!

P’nei Yehoshua: The Gemara is a ‘sealed book’.

Chasam Sofer: This is a tough piece of Gemara. He who can explain it will be designated an ‘expert’.

5- For starters we presented the following 2 questions:

A- Mr. Chaim has a piece of non-Kosher meat that he purchased for $2 a lb. He enters a friend’s house and the treif piece of meat falls into a pot full of Kosher meat.

Now, there is enough Kosher meat to be מבטל the non-Kosher piece. So eating the entire pot would be permitted. (not at one time and not by one person etc). Y”D 109 ,1.

Chaim, now demands that his friend pay him for his lost non-Kosher meat. His friend agrees to pay him, but only $2, which is the amount Chaim paid for it.  

Chaim claims that his non-Kosher meat has been ‘Kosherized’, and Kosher meat is valued at, say, $8 a lb.

Who is right?

B- Chaim loses a $10 bill. His friend finds it and places it into his wallet where he has many $10 of his own.

When Chaim demands to get his $10 back his friend innocently says “your $10 was בטל in my wad of $10 bills”……

The answer to the second question is that obviously, the rules of ביטול do not apply to monetary cases.

The first question is a bit tougher. Chaim will definitely get his pound of meat – the question is at what price. See Pri Megodim 109. MZ 1.

6- Story of the fellow that purchased and  paid for 3 הדסים. When he came home he realized that he got 4. When binding his Lulav he chose 3 of the four and he used the Lulav.

Was he יוצא? If we apply ביטול, then the one Hadas, that did not belong to him, was בטל in the three.  

But if there no ביטול  is such cases, perhaps he was not יוצא !

7 – Now what about Techumin in a case of the flour belonging to one person and the water to another?

The Mishna says that a dough made from ingredients of these two people is deemed, in regard to Techumin,  to be ‘owned’ by both. Like partners.

The question is why? The water is בטל to the flour! So the supplier of the water should not be a partner.

Or maybe yes, since in regards to monetary issues we do not say ביטול?

To be continued…