(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 97

***************GIRSA SECTION********************
We recommend using the textual changes suggested by the Bach, Rav B. Rensburg and the parenthetical marginal notes of the Vilna Shas. This section is devoted to any *OTHER* changes that we feel ought to be made in Gemara, Rashi or Tosfos.)

[1] Gemara 97a [at the bottom of the page]:
"Amar Rav *Chana* Amar Rav Yehudah ... Yasiv Rav *Chana* v'Ka Kashya Lei
... Amar Lei Rav *Yosef*"

(a) The Girsa of our Gemaros is Rashi's Girsa, as is apparent from Rashi DH
v'Ka Kashya Lei and DH Amar Lei Rav Yosef (97b).

(b) Tosfos 4b DH Zarak, however, is Gores Rav *Chisda* as the first *two*
names, and consequently the Maharshal emended the Girsa in our Sugya to
comply with Tosfos. (This is also the Girsa of Dikdukei Sofrim #10.)

(c) Tosfos ibid. cites the opinion of Rabeinu Tam, who is Gores Rav *Yosef*
as the first two names and Rav *Chisda* as the third (the exact opposite of
the Girsa of Tosfos - see there)

[2] Gemara 97b [line 44]:
"*ude'Ka'amart* Harei Kasav Shem mi'Shimon"
(a) This is the Girsa in our Gemaros and it is also the Girsa of Rashi.
Accordingly, the Gemara is challenging the earlier Gemara which stated that
it is "obvious" ("Peshita") that one who intended to throw an object eight
Amos and only threw four Amos is Chayav. The Gemara now questions that, and
indeed concludes that one is Patur for such an action.

(b) Some texts have the Girsa, "*v'Amai* Harei Kasav...," the meaning of
which is the same as the Girsa that we have (see (a); Tosfos DH Hachi

(c) The Rishonim record another Girsa which reads, "*Amar Mar* Harei
Kasav...." Rashi cites this Girsa and says that it is the same as the Girsa
that we have. However, Tosfos and the Rashba, in the name of Rav Hai Ga'on,
explain that according to this Girsa the Gemara is not retracting its
initial ruling, that one who intended to throw eight Amos and threw only
four Amos is certainly Chayav, and this ruling stands according to the
conclusion of the Gemara.

[3] Rashi 97b DH v'Iy l'Hacha:
"d'Ba'inan Akirah... v'Hacha Im Yetzi'as ha'Pesach Ha Lo Nach... u'Mihu
a'Hotza'ah Hu d'Mischayev... d'Ha Nach bi'Rshus ha'Rabim"
(a) The words of Rashi are very difficult to understand, because he should
have written "d'Nach" ("it rested") and not "Lo Nach" ("it did not rest"),
because at this point it is assumed that the thrower intended for it to
land immediately upon exiting Reshus ha'Yachid, as Rashi writes at the
beginning of his comments here. If so, the object indeed rested when it
exited Reshus ha'Yachid through the mechanism of "Kelutah" as our Sugya
describes. How, then, could Rashi write that the object did *not* come to
rest? (See the Maharsha, who was also bothered by this problem.)

(b) For this reason the Maharam deletes the text of Rashi from the word
"v'Hacha" until "u'Mihu." However, the words of Rashi, "u'Mihu...," at the
end of Rashi's comments do not fit well with the emendation suggested by
the Maharam. It appears more likely that the words from "d'Ba'inan" until
the end of Rashi's comment belong earlier, in the end of DH ule'Mai. (A
similar approach is suggested in Hagahos Rav Elazar Moshe Horowitz.)


1) [line 2] MI"VA'YA'APILU" HAVA
According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, Tzelafchad was among the people of Benei Yisrael who resolved to wage the war of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael on their own, after Moshe informed them that they were destined to wander in the desert for forty years and die there due to the sin of the spies. They were told that HaSh-m would not be with them in their military attempt, and as a result they were massacred by the Amalekim and the Kena'anim. (Bamidbar 14:40-45)

2) [line 3] "VA'YICHAR ..." - "HaSh-m displayed anger against them (Miriam and Aharon, for speaking about Moshe) and departed." (Bamidbar 12:9) - The following Pasuk states explicitly that *Miriam* became afflicted with Tzara'as. Rebbi Akiva learns that the anger of HaSh-m also caused Aharon to be afflicted with Tzara'as, although there are only hints to this effect.

3) [line 8] BI'NEZIFAH B'ALMA - with mere rebuke

4) [line 10] D'MEHEMNEI YISRAEL - that Benei Yisrael would believe him
*5*) [line 17] VA'YIVLA MATEH AHARON - This is apparently brought into the Gemara's discussion simply because it has to do with the signs that Hashem showed Moshe and Moshe showed Pharaoh. (CHASAM SOFER suggests a more decisive connection between the Sugyos.)

A person who throws an object from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid through an intervening Reshus ha'Rabim is guilty of violating Shabbos mid'Oraisa, according to Rebbi Akiva. One explanation of his opinion is that the object is "caught" by the air of Reshus ha'Rabim below ten Tefachim and is considered Halachically at rest on the ground. The person has done an Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid and a Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim, and is guilty of Hotza'ah.

7) [line 37] D'MIDLI CHAD, U'METASEI CHAD - one house is higher than the other

8) [line 39] KI'LEVUD DAMI
(a) The Torah requires Mechitzos (partitions) for various Halachos (e.g. for Reshus ha'Yachid of Shabbos and Sukah). A Mechitzah must be ten Tefachim high and enclose an area of four by four Tefachim.

(b) A Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai states that even though the Mechitzah is not complete, there are times when we may consider it complete for Halachic purposes (Sukah 5b).

(c) One of these cases is Lavud (lit. a branch or connection). This Halachah states that when there are not three full Tefachim between the Mechitzah and the surface (or object)next to, above or below it, we consider it to be a complete Mechitzah in which the surfaces or objects are connected without any gaps. (The space that is provided by the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai of Lavud is measured along with and as a part of the existing segment of the partition.)

9) [line 40] SHE'TILAKET - to be picked clean and smoothed
10) [line 40] MELAKET - a plane or file used for metal surfaces (RASHI Kidushin 35b)
11) [line 40] REHITNI - a plane used for wooden surfaces
12) [line 41] HA'MESHALSHEL DEFANOS MILE'MA'ALAH LA'MATAH - one who weaves curtains as the walls of a Sukah, from the top downward

13) [line 43] SHEHA'GEDIYIM BOK'IN BO - [a partition] through which kid-goats can get through easily

14) [line 44] HILCHESA GEMIRI LAH - [that all cases where a space smaller than three Tefachim is considered Lavud] is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai

15) [line 46] MEKORAH - covered
16) [line 46] K'MAN D'MALYA DAMI - as if it is filled up with material (so that whatever is thrown inside is considered as if it has landed even though it is in midair)


*17*) [line 15] AD D'NAFKA LEI LI'RSHUS HA'RABIM, TANU'ACH - that is, he intended to throw it such that *Halachically* it should be considered to have "come to rest" as soon as it reaches Reshus ha'Rabim. He did not intend for it to *fall to the ground*, however, until it reached 4 Amos into Reshus ha'Rabim. (Had he intended for it to *fall to the ground* as soon as it entered Reshus ha'Rabim, even Rebbi Yehudah would exempt him from a Korban since his intentions were not fulfilled.) RAMBAN, RITVA

18) [line 21] HA'SHOVET - separating the warp (longitudinal) threads with a Kirkar (O.F. raiol), a pointed wooden tool

19) [line 21] HA'MEDAKDEK - to even the woof thread by hitting it with the Kirkar so that it should not be too taut

20) [line 22] MEISACH - threading a loom; tying the thread from the front to the back roller

21) [line 36] KA'BA'I LAH - he wants it [to land]

22) [line 39] KASAV SHEM MI'SHIMON
(a) A person must bring a Korban Chatas for desecrating Shabbos only when he does a Melachah b'Shogeg, that is, mistakenly not knowing that the day is Shabbos or not knowing that the action that he did is a Melachah that is prohibited on Shabbos. However, a person who is Mis'asek, i.e. who does a completely different action from that which he intended to do, incurs no punishment whatsoever. (See Shabbos Chart #14, where the differences between Shogeg and Mis'asek are explained.)

(b) When a person intends to do an larger action that will desecrate Shabbos, but only does a part of that action, the Torah informs us that he is Chayav a Korban Chatas, since it is considered Shogeg and not Mis'asek. (See Shabbos Chart #16 where the different opinions of the Tana'im with regard to this Halachah are explained.)

(c) EXAMPLES: A person who intends to write the name "Shimon" and stops after writing "Shem" (the first two letters) is Chayav. Similarly, a person who intends to weave a large garment and stops in the middle is Chayav.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,