(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
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 97


OPINIONS: RASHI on the Mishnah says that Moshit (handing an object to another person, a distance of four Amos away in Reshus ha'Rabim) is Chayav when it is done above ten Tefachim, because in the Mishkan it was done above ten Tefachim (when the pillars were passed from one wagon to another). Does that mean that Moshit is Chayav *only* above ten Tefachim, or that Moshit is Chayav *even* above ten Tefachim and below ten Tefachim as well?
(a) RASHI (DH v'Lo Yalfinan) tells us that according to the opinion that does not learn the laws of Zorek (throwing in Reshus ha'Rabim) from Moshit, then both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan agree with the law discussed at the end of the Mishnah, that one is Patur for Zorek. If that is true, why does the Mishnah say "Keitzad," which implies that the Mishnah is explaining the argument between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan that appears right before it in the Mishnah (TOSFOS)? Why did Rashi not simply explain that the Mishnah is referring to Zorek *below* ten Tefachim, which is the case in which Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan argue? The word "Keitzad" would then work out well, since it would be explaining the argument between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan!

It must be that Rashi maintains that if the Mishnah was discussing a case of throwing *below* ten Tefachim, then even Moshit would be Patur (TOSFOS, 96a, DH Moshit). We see, then, that according to Rashi Moshit below ten Tefachim is Patur. The TOTZA'OS CHAIM (#4) cites RABEINU CHANANEL (97a), who also says that Moshit does not apply below ten Tefachim.

(b) TOSFOS (4a, DH Aval) is in doubt concerning this question.

(c) The TOTZA'OS CHAIM (#4) infers from the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 13:18) that Moshit below ten Tefachim is Chayav.


QUESTION: The Gemara mentions that Rebbi Yehudah must maintain that one is Chayav for a Toldah even when he does it together with its Av, because he says that one is Chayav for doing "Shovet" and "Medakdek" together.

If Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is Chayav for doing a Toldah together with an Av, why did he specifically mention the two Melachos of Shovet and Medakdek? Furthermore, when the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Yehudah that one is not Chayav for a Toldah with its Av, why must they mention that "Shovet" and "Medakdek" are included in the Melachos of Meisach and Oreg?


(a) TOSFOS (DH Lo) answers that at this stage, when the Gemara asserts that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is Chayav for a Toldah even when he does it with its Av, the Gemara assumed that the Rabanan do not argue with Rebbi Yehudah, and they would *also* be Mechayev someone for transgressing a Toldah with its Av. They only argue in the case of "Shovet" and "Medakdek," claiming that those two Melachos are not Toldos at all, but are the actual Av Melachos of "Meisech" and "Oreg."

(b) Tosfos suggests another answer. The Rabanan mention "Shovet" and "Medakdek" only in response to Rebbi Yehudah. They mean to say that *even if* one maintains that a Toldah with its Av is Chayav, "Shovet" and "Medakdek" are different. Rebbi Yehudah mentioned "Shovet" and "Medakdek" to say that even in a case of those two Melachos, one will be Chayav for both the Toldah and the Av. (Based on the MAHARAM's understanding of Tosfos.)

QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that if a person intended to throw an object four Amos and instead threw eight Amos, he is Patur, because he did not intend for it to fall there. How do we reconcile this Gemara with the Gemara earlier (73a), where Abaye and Rava argue in a case where one intended to throw two Amos and instead threw four Amos? According to that Gemara, Abaye says that one is *Chayav* for throwing four Amos when he intended to throw only two!


(a) The Gemara there is referring to a case where the thrower wanted the object to rest "wherever it happened to fall" ("Kol Makom sh'Tirtzah, Tanu'ach"), as our Gemara described earlier. (This appears to be the proper approach according to Rashi's understanding of the Sugya on Daf 72b; see Chart #14.)

(b) The RITVA (73a) asks this question and answers (in the name of RABEINU TAM) that we must explain the Gemara there differently. It does not mean that he meant to throw the object two Amos but instead threw it four; rather, he *miscalculated the distance* and thought that the object he was throwing to was two Amos when it was really four. (This is consistent with Tosfos' understanding of that Sugya, see Chart #14.)

Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646