THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) THROWING FROM ONE "RESHUS HA'RABIM" TO ANOTHER "RESHUS HA'RABIM" VIA
QUESTIONS: The Beraisa says that if one throws an object from one Reshus
ha'Rabim to another Reshus ha'Rabim and the object passed through a Reshus
ha'Yachid, if the object passed through a total of at least four Amos in
Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Chayav. If it passed through less than four Amos in
Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Patur.
2) "RESHUS HA'RABIM" THAT IS ROOFED
RASHI explains that in the latter case one is not Chayav for Hotza'ah
(transferring the object from Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid
through which it passed) because the Tana of this Beraisa does not ascribe
to the concept of "Kelutah k'Mi sh'Hunchah."
(1) Why did Rashi say that one is Patur because this Tana maintains that
"Kelutah" is not considered to be resting in the domain through which it
passes? In the case at hand, the thrower did not *want* the object to land
in Reshus ha'Yachid. For that reason he should be Patur, even if "Kelutah"
*is* considered to be resting!
(2) Why does Rashi say that we see from the *end* of the Beraisa that this
Tana does not ascribe to the concept of "Kelutah?" We see this from the
*beginning* of the Beraisa. If the Tana ascribes to "Kelutah," the thrower
would be Patur because it is considered to have landed in Reshus ha'Yachid
before it traveled the total four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim!
(a) Because of these problems with Rashi's explanation, the RITVA explains
that the inference that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah" is from the
*beginning* of the Beraisa which says that the thrower is Chayav; he would
not be Chayav if the object was considered to have rested in the Reshus
ha'Yachid through which it passed. In the case of the *end* of the Beraisa,
though, he would be Patur even without saying that the Tana does not
ascribe to "Kelutah," because the thrower did not have any intention for
the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid. Only from the beginning of the
Beraisa do we see that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah." (That is,
even though the thrower did *not* want the object to land in Reshus
ha'Yachid, if the Tana ascribed to "Kelutah," then the thrower would be
Patur, because it did come to rest there. In the end of the Beraisa,
though, "Kelutah" would not make a person *Chayav*, because he had no
intention for the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid.)
(b) Rashi disagrees with the Ritva (DH v'Iy l'Hacha). Rashi maintains that
if the thrower did not want the object to land in a particular Reshus, it
would not be considered "Kalut" (contained) there -- "Kelutah" does not
apply when a person does *not* want it to rest in that domain (see Rashi
97b DH ul'Mai). If so, how can the Gemara infer that the Tana of the
Beraisa under discussion does not ascribe to "Kelutah" if "Kelutah" does
not apply where he did not want it to land in that domain? It must be that
the Beraisa is discussing a case of "Kol Makom sh'Tirtzeh Tanu'ach," where
he wanted it to rest wherever it came to rest, therefore "Kelutah" *should*
work. That is why it can be learned from the fact that he is Patur for
Hotza'ah, that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah."
Question #2, however, remains. We should be able to infer from the
beginning of the Beraisa also that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah."
If the thrower wanted it to land wherever it landed, "Kelutah" should make
him Patur; from the fact that he is Chayav for carrying four Amos in Reshus
ha'Rabim, it is evident that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah!" Why,
then, does Rashi still infer this only from the end of the Beraisa?
It must be that Rashi maintains that "Kelutah" applies only as a *Chumra*,
and not as a Kula (like the TOSFOS YESHANIM writes earlier on Daf 4b). That
is, "Kelutah" cannot work to make a person Patur; it can only work to make
a person Chayav. Thus, in the first case of the Beraisa, "Kelutah" cannot
make the thrower Patur, even if the Tana normally ascribes to "Kelutah."
Consequently, it is only from the end of the Beraisa (where "Kelutah" would
serve to make him *Chayav* for Hotza'ah) that we can infer that the Tana
does not ascribe to "Kelutah." (M. Kornfeld)
QUESTION: Rav says that Reshus ha'Rabim Mekurah (roofed) is not considered
Reshus ha'Rabim. The Gemara attempts to disprove this from the wagons which
were used for transporting the pillars of the Mishkan. We see that the area
underneath, between, and to the sides of the wagons was considered Reshus
ha'Rabim even though it was roofed (the pillars on the wagons extended over
the sides of the wagons). The Gemara concludes that we cannot prove from
the wagons that Reshus ha'Rabim Mekurah is considered Reshus ha'Rabim,
because the wagons still had some areas that were not covered (such as gaps
between the pillars that extended over the sides of the wagons), and it is
those areas which are called Reshus ha'Rabim.
However, how does this answer the question of the Gemara? Granted, there
were areas that were not covered which were areas of Reshus ha'Rabim. But
the wagons also had areas that *were* covered, and they were still called
TOSFOS (DH Hanicha) answers in the name of the RI that we do not learn the
concept of Reshus ha'Rabim from the wagons (but rather from the camp of the
Levi'im, as the Gemara said earlier on 96b). The wagons merely reveal to us
the *measurements* of Reshus ha'Rabim (16 Amos wide, see Gemara 99a). As
long as there was some part of the area around the wagons that was
uncovered, that is the Reshus ha'Rabim which is referred to; the areas that
were covered, though, do not have to be Reshus ha'Rabim.
OPINIONS: The Gemara says that it is possible for there to be more than
three Tefachim separating between the pillars that were placed on the
wagons if they arranged "b'Ataba'i." What does "Ataba'i" mean?
(a) RASHI's teachers explain that it means the *rings* that were on the
pillars (on the inner side of the pillars, one on the upper section and one
one the lower section), and it refers to stacking the pillars in two pairs
of stacks (one pair in the front of the wagon and one in the back), each
pair comprised of two stacks of pillars laid back to back so that the rings
of each pillar faced the other direction. Even though the rings of the two
inner stacks of pillars (the one at the front of the wagon and the one at
the back) both faced inwards towards each other, there was enough room
between the pillars (two Amos) so that they did not rub against each other.
(b) RASHI himself explains that "Ataba'i" refers to wooden clips used to
hold paper, which were fashioned by cutting lengthwise through the middle
of a splinter of wood (much like old fashioned wooden clothespins). The
meaning of the Gemara, though, is the same as Rashi's teachers explain.
(c) TOSFOS explains that "Ataba'i" refers to supporting fences on the
wagon. The wagons were outfitted with guard rails that were attached to the
sides (or to each end of the wagon, as the Gemara concludes) to keep the
pillars from slipping off. The Gemara means that before the pillars are
loaded on to the wagons, when only the guard rails were affixed, the area
below the wagon is considered Reshus ha'Rabim.
4) THE "YERI'OS HA'IZIM" THAT COVERED THE MISHKAN
The Gemara discusses two opinions of how the forty-four Amah-long Yeri'os
ha'Izim (goat-hair coverings) were draped over the Mishkan. Everyone agrees
that two Amos hung over the eastern side (like a "Kalah Tzenu'a," a modest
bride). The question is what the back of the Mishkan looked like.
(a) In the back of the Mishkan (the western side), according to Rebbi
Nechemia, one Amah dragged along the ground. (Rebbi Nechemia maintains that
the pillars were one Amah thick on top like the were on bottom, SO an extra
Amah of the Yeri'os was used up to cover the one Amah thickness of the
pillars of the western side. The Yeri'os were thus: 30 (length of Mishkan)
+ 10 (height of pillars) + 2 (length the Yeri'os hung on eastern side) + 1
(thickness of pillars of western side + 1 (the Amah that the Yeri'os
dragged on the ground on western side)).
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, on the other hand, who maintains that the
pillars came to a point on top (and were only one Etzba thick), two Amos of
the Yeri'os dragged on the ground.
(c) Rashi in the Chumash cites a third opinion. According to the Beraisa
Meleches ha'Mishnah, the pillars on the eastern side of the Mishkan stood
*outside* of the Mishkan, and the Yeri'os hung over them as well. They
therefore added one Amah to the area which the Yeri'os covered, and thus,
according to Rebbi Nechemia's opinion that the pillars were one Amah wide
at their tops, the Yeri'ah did not drag on the ground on the western side
*at all*. (Our Gemara argues and maintains that the pillars on the eastern
side of the Mishkan stood inside the 30 Amah length of the Mishkan, and
therefore they did not add an Amah to the length of the Mishkan's roof.)