Bava Basra 146: Pearls in drink

[Kollel Iyun Hadaf]

x-mailing-list: daf-disc...@shemayisrael.com
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________

                 THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST

      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
             Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
                     d...@dafyomi.co.il

 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________

Bava Basra 146: Pearls in drink

jonathan levene asked:

two questions on todays daf

1. are pearls kosher - if not why does the gemara say that the groom would 
drink a pearl dissolved in a hot drink?

2. in berachos it said a man and a women can not go into a ruin together- how 
does that work with the case of the lady who couldn't smell.

thank you
jonathan levene, philadelphia usa
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
 
Question 1: Unlike an egg, which is an intrinsic part of the chicken, a pearl 
is not an intinsic part of the oyster, just like honey is not an intrinsic part 
of the bee, and is therefore Kosher.

Question 2: What the Gemara says in Berachos says is that a man may not enter a 
ruin because of 'Chashad', meaning that people may suspect him of having a 
prostitute waiting for him there. The Mishnah Berurah (Siman 90, SK 13) rules 
that this does not apply if he goes in accompanied by his wife. Consequently, 
according to the Rashbam, who maintains that the woman in the Gemara was in 
fact his wife, your question is automativally answered.

It remains intact however, according to Tosfos, who maintains that the woman 
was his betrothed - though it seems to me that this is not then a question of 
'Chashad', but rather one of 'Yichud' (being secluded with a woman to whom one 
is forbidden). Now Tosfos points out that the ruin must have been his, in which 
case, had he not been out to test her, she would have been married, and he 
would have inherited her, because taking one's betrothed into one's private 
domain constitutes marriage. In that case, there must have been two witnesses 
present. Consequently, your question is answered according to Tosfos too, since 
it is obvious that, where there are witnesses, there is no problem of Yichud.

be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler


>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

Write to us at d...@dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 


_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il
http://shemayisrael.co.il/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il