Gemara Clarity

Beitzah 39b

ביצה ל״ט ע״ב

Learn Beitzah 39b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Beitzah 39b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Whether a public well of עולי בבל is shared or ownerless, whether רב נחמן holds of בְּרֵירָה, and a new משנה that produce follows its owner's תחום.

Overview

The amud opens by finishing a משנה from מסכת נדרים. Two people who forbade each other with a vow may still use public property of עולי בבל, like a well in the middle of the road, but not property of their own city. רבא uses this to challenge רב נחמן: if a public well were shared by all Jews, another משנה says partners under such a vow may not wash in their shared well. The first answer is that washing is forbidden but drawing water is allowed, because each person draws only from his own share. The גמרא then objects that this answer needs בְּרֵירָה. It shows from a משנה about brothers who are partners, as explained by רב ענן, that רב נחמן rejects בְּרֵירָה even when brothers split their animals evenly. So the גמרא gives a new explanation: everyone agrees the public well is ownerless, and the dispute is whether picking up a found object for a friend makes the friend the owner. Finally, a new משנה teaches that produce in another city follows its owner's תחום. Others may bring it to him only if he himself made an עירוב that reaches it.

Opening lines

הֲרֵי אַתָּה עָלַי חֵרֶם —

[If he said:] 'You are hereby forbidden to me as a חרם' —

הַנּוֹדֵר אָסוּר.

the one who made the vow is forbidden.

הֲרֵינִי עָלֶיךָ וְאַתָּה עָלַי —

[If he said:] 'I am forbidden to you, and you to me' —

שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִים זֶה בָּזֶה,

both of them are forbidden to benefit from each other,

The steps (9)

  1. ProofThe vow rules: both forbidden to each other, but public property of עולי בבל is allowed
  2. ProofExamples: what counts as property of עולי בבל and what belongs to the city
  3. ChallengeIf a public well is shared property, why may the two people use it?
  4. ResolutionWashing is forbidden, but drawing water is allowed because each draws from his own share
  5. ChallengeDoes רב נחמן really hold of retroactive designation?
  6. Proofרב ענן limits the משנה to dividing kids against lambs
  7. Challengeרב נחמן rejects retroactive shares even in an even split
  8. ResolutionNew explanation: the dispute is about acquiring a found object for a friend
  9. StatementNew משנה: produce kept in another city