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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 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. Why?
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 completely.)

(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 re-roll it.
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 be Chayav.

(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 load.

(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?

Next daf


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