ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 5
(a) The thrower is Patur if the receiver moved from his place to catch it,
because the Hanachah, it now transpires, was made, not by him, but by the
receiver. One is only Chayav if the article lands in the spot where it was
due to land when it was thrown, because then the thrower will have made
both the Akirah and the Hanachah.
(b) In any event, we see that Rebbi Meir considers it to be Hotza'ah, even
if the Hanachah is done in a human hand, so *he* appears to be the author
of our Mishnah.
(c) Even as regards Hanachah, who says that Acheirim are speaking in a case
when the receiver caught the article with his hand? Perhaps it speaks when
he caught it in his spread out clothes, which are more than four Tefachim?
(a) It is all very well establishing the case of *the Ashir* by a basket,
because a large basket in a Reshus ha'Yachid is also a Reshus ha'Yachid.
But how can we establish the case of *the Ani* like that? Why not?
Because Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah has said that a basket atop a pole in
the street has the Din of a Reshus ha'Yachid, and that someone who throws
from the street onto it (even a distance of less than four Amos), is
Chayav? We will be forced to establish our Mishnah (which is Mechayev the
Ba'al ha'Bayis for transferring the bread from the basket to the Reshus
ha'Yachid) not like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah?
(b) The Gemara resolves this problem by establishing our Mishnah when the
basket is at a height of *less* than ten Tefachim (which everyone will
agree, does not become a Reshus ha'Yachid), where as Rebbi Yossi is
speaking when it is *more*.
(c) This explanation too, is doomed, because our Mishnah specifically
stated 'Yado', not 'Teraskel she'be'Yado'!
(a) Hands that are within three Tefachim of the ground, are considered as
if they were on the ground (because of 'Levud'), and are therefore Batel to
it - and the ground of course, is a Makom Chashu!
(b) The Mishnah speaks, either when they are bending down, or standing in a
hole, or about dwarfs.
(c) Why should the Tana tell us the Halachah of Hotza'ah in such strange
circumstances. He should rather have told us that they received the article
with the corner of their cloaks, in which case it could have been talking
about ordinary- sized people who are standing straight on the ground. So
why *does* he say that they were standing, and that they took the article
in their hands? Unless, concludes Rava, it is to tell us ...
(d) ... that although any location of less than four Tefachim by four
Tefachim is not considered a Makom Chashuv, the human hand is different.
The human hand, presumably on account of its dexterity, is considered
Chashuv, even though it is less than four Tefachim.
(a) The Chidush of Rebbi Yochanan's statement (that if someone throws an
object which lands by chance in someone's hands, he is Chayav) is that even
if the thrower had no specific intention that the object should land in the
hand that it did - in other words, the human hand is *intrinsically*
Chashuv, and does not require someone's intention to make it so.
(b) The Gemara initially took for granted that the person who ran and
caught the article that he threw, should be Chayav. Why on earth not?
(c) However, the Gemara concludes, he may well be Patur, since it is like
two people carrying; the one makes the Akirah and the other, the Hanachah.
Because when he threw the article, it was destined to land in a certain
place, and when he caught it, he diverted it, it is almost as if the
Hanachah was not connected with the Akirah, and maybe he should be Patur.
(a) How can someone be Chayav for carrying rain-water which he caught in
his hands, since he did not make the Akirah?
(b) Collecting the rain-water from his friend's wall will not make any
difference, because the water is not still, and someone who picks up a moving object has not made an Akirah? No matter how one tries to stop the
water or to keep it still, it well never be called an Akirah because water,
by nature, does not remain still.
(c) The case must therefore be that he collected the water from a hole in
the wall. And the Chidush is that water on top of water is considered
placed, even though it does move slightly.
(a) If someone is standing on the threshold of his house, and one end of
the scroll slips from his hand into the Reshus ha'Rabim, leaving him
holding the other end, he may re-roll it.
(b) We are speaking about a threshold which is a Karmelis, in which case he
would not be Chayav even if the scroll would have dropped from his hands
completely - and that is why it is permitted. (It would have been forbidden
to re-roll the scroll, if the threshold had been a Reshus ha'Yachid,
because then he would have been Chayav had it dropped from his hand
(c)&(d) In the same situation, where he is standing on the roof of his
house (a Reshus ha'Yachid), then he would be permitted to re-roll it,
provided it was still hanging in the air, but not if it fell onto a sloping
wall of less than ten Tefachim from the ground , which has a Din of a
Reshus ha'Rabim (see Tosfos d.h. 'be'Kosel'). However, if the top of the
wall was more than ten Tefachim high, he would still be permitted to
The principle is that, whenever he would have been Chayav if the scroll had
fallen from his hands completely, then the Rabbanan decreed even when the
one end remained in his hand, and vice-versa.
(a) Although water in a hole is considered placed (so that someone who
takes it from a hole in a wall is Chayav, a nut floating on the water is
*not*, and one will not be Chayav for taking the nut from the water and
carrying it. The reason for the difference is that, whereas for water to be
in a hole in a wall is natural, it is not natural for a nut to be floating
on the water.
(b) Rava's Sha'aleh is whether, if a nut is placed in a box which, in turn,
is floating in the water, do we go after the nut, which is placed (and the
person who carries is therefore Chayav, or after the box, which is
floating, and he will be Patur?
(c) Rebbi Yochanan holds that if a Tevul Yom touches the Terumah oil
(whilst it is floating in Terumah wine ), the wine will also become Tamei,
since the oil and the wine are considered as if they were joined, so they
both become a Shelishi le'Tum'ah through the touching of the Tevul Yom.
(d) The Tana Kama clearly holds that the wine and the oil are not
considered joined. Consequently, says Rava, the Tana Kama and Rebbi
Yochanan ben Nuri will also argue by Shabbos: According to the Tana Kama.
if someone takes the oil from the wine, he will be Patur, since the oil is
not naturally placed, whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, he will
(a) If someone carries food (that he had already picked up before Shabbos),
in and out of the house the entire Shabbos, he will not become Chayav until
he stops to rest (stopping to adjust the load is not considered a stop - to
turn the next time he picks up the object, into an Akirah). The next time
he moves with the object, that will be his first Akirah after which he will
be Chayav - if and when he subsequently makes a Hanachah.
(b) A stop to rest is a break with his previous action, in which case, when
he next moves with the object, that will be an Akirah. Whereas a stop to
adjust the load, is merely a continuation of the original act of carrying,
which, in this case, is not one for which he was punishable.
(c) Raba said that if someone stopped to rest within four Amos, whilst
carrying an object, he is Patur, but not if he merely stopped to adjust his
(d) The two Dinim in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, both of which teach us
that if someone picked up an object in a manner which would not have led to
a Chiyuv (either because he picked it up before Shabbos, or because when he
first picked it up, he did not intend to carry it out), are in fact, both
teaching the same thing; It is just that there is a dispute among his
disciples which of the two he actually said.
(a) Ben Azai holds that when someone walks from one Reshus of Chiyuv to
another through a domain of Petur (such as a Karmelis), he is Patur,
because it is as if he stops with every step. Consequently, it is as if he
stopped in the Karmelis, before carrying into the second Reshus, in which
case, he will not be Chayav.
(b) The problem with the Tana Kama's opinion is, how do we know that the
Torah is Mechayev someone who carries through a third domain? Maybe it is
only someone who carries directly from one Reshus to another, without a
third Reshus in the middle, whom the Torah is Mechayev?