(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 68



(a) The Gemara initially explains the Mishnah's use of the term 'Klal Gadol', because later in the Masechta we will learn another Mishnah which also gives a Klal, but which consists only of two levels, as opposed to *our* Mishnah, which gives *three*; hence the term 'Klal Gadol'.

(b) The problem with this suggestion is that by Ma'aser too, the Tana lists two sets of Klalim, the one longer than the other, yet he does not refer to the longer list as *Klal Gadol*?

(c) The Gemara therefore suggests further that the Tana uses the term Klal Gadol because by Shabbos, there are both Avos and Toldos; whereas by Ma'aser, since there are no Toldos, the Tana does not use that term.

(d) The four Avos (i.e. the four Melachos mentioned specifically by the Torah) by Shevi'is are - sowing, reaping, pruning and harvesting the grapes.

(a) According to Bar Kapara, who maintains that the Tana mentions Klal Gadol also by Ma'aser, the Tana uses the term Gadol, by any subject which is more strict than another case:

(b) Namely ...

  1. Shabbos is Gadol compared to Shevi'is, because there are Melachos which apply even to what was detached before Shabbos, whereas those of Shevi'is apply only to what is still attached when Shevi'is arrives.
  2. Shevi'is is Gadol compared to Ma'aser, because it applies also to animal food, whereas Ma'aser is confined to food eaten by humans.
  3. Ma'aser is more strict than Pei'ah, because Ma'aser applies to both figs (although they are not harvested simultaneously) and vegetables (which cannot be stored - because they do not keep), whereas Pei'ah does not apply to either of these (for the reason that we mentioned).
(c) Dyes and Hefker are Patur by Ma'aser, too.

(d) mi'd'Oraysa, only corn (the five types of grain), wine and oil need to be Ma'asered. The Rabbanan added fruit and vegetables - they did not want to differentiate between one species and another; so they included *all* species in the obligation. Dyes and Hefker, which are not species, they saw fit to preclude from the Din of Ma'aser (in the same way as they are Patur by Pei'ah).

(a) Rav and Shmuel establish the first case in our Mishnah by a Tinok she'Nishbah or a Ger who converted among the gentiles - but not by someone who knows about Shabbos, but forgot it momentarily; *he* is Chayav for every Shabbos that he transgresses.

(b) They interpret 'Kol ha'Shochei'ach Ikar Shabbos' to mean that he never knew about Shabbos, as if the Tana had written 'Kol she'Haysa Shechuchah Mimenu Ikar Shabbos'.

(c) According to Rav and Shmuel, why, in the middle case of the Mishnah, does the Tana present the case of 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos' (meaning that he was conversant with Shabbos, but he forgot it for a certain period of time)? Surely, it would have done better to have presented the case of 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach' (which we just established has the same Din according to them). Why?
Because we would have then said that if by 'Hikir, ve'li'be'Sof Shachach' (where we cannot apply the principle 'Yamim she'Bentayim Havyan Yedi'ah le'Chalek' - since, having later forgotten about Shabbos, from where should he have suddenly remembered that it was Shabbos), he is Chayav for each and every Shabbos, then how much more so by 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos' (where he only forgot temporarily, and where 'Yamim she'Bentayim Havyan Yedi'ah Lechalek' *is* applicable). But now that the Tana presents the case of 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos', we can infer that, in the case of 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach', where he could not have known in the middle, he would only be Chayav *one* Chatas - for forgetting about Shabbos.

(d) When the Mishnah said 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos, according to Rav and Shmuel, it means 'Mi she'Haya Yodei'a Ikrah shel Shabbos, ve'Shachechah'.




(a) If the Tana had thought that, someone who did *not* completely forget about Shabbos brings one Chatas for each Melachah, then he should have incorporated it in the second case of the Mishnah - together with 'Mi she'Yada Ikar Shabbos ve'Shachechah'. Now that he did not, it is clear that, in his opinion, someone who did not forget Shabbos, must bring a Chatas for each and every Melachah.

(b) In that case, asks the Gemara, why does the Seifa (where he is Chayav for each Melachah that he transgresses) present the case of 'ha'Yodei'a she'Hu Shabbos' etc. (Shigegas Melachos), it should have presented the case of 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos', which is Chayav for each Melachah even though he only transgressed *one* Shogeg, and it would go without saying that by Shigegas Shabbos, where he transgressed many Shegagos, he would be Chayav many Chata'os.

(c) The Gemara therefore concludes that Rav and Shmuel do not differentiate between a 'Tinok she'Nishbah' and 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach'. In both cases, he is Chayav to bring *one* Chatas. And the Reisha of our Mishnah ('Kol ha'Shochei'ach Ikar Shabbos" etc.) also speaks in the case of 'Hikir' etc.

(d) The Tana could just have well presented the case of 'Tinok she'Nishbah'. However, it preferred to present the case of 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach', to teach us that even 'Hikir'etc., is only Chayav *One* Chatas, and not for *each* Shabbos (like we thought at first, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish).

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, a Tinok she'Nishbah is Patur from bringing a Korban, because they hold that 'Omer Mutar' is considered an Ones and not a Shogeg.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish concede that Rebbi Akiva supports Rav and Shmuel, who hold that 'Omer Mutar' is considered a Shogeg and not an Ones. However, they follow the opinion of Munbaz, who argues in the Beraisa with Rebbi Akiva.

(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, a Tinok she'Nishba will have to bring one Korban for each Chiyuv Kares that he transgressed (e.g. one for drinking blood, one for eating Chelev, one for worshipping idols); according to Munbaz, he will be Patur from bringing any Chata'os at all.

(b) A Ger she'Nisgayer le'Bein ha'Nochrim, will have the same Din as a Tinok she'Nishbah - (though it is not so clear how to define such a Ger - Who converted him, and what sort of Gerus did he undergo).

(a) Munbaz learns Shogeg (who is called 'a Chotei') from the Meizid of Shevu'as ha'Eidus (whom the Torah also calls 'a Chotei'). From there he derives that a Shogeg is Chayav a Chatas only when he had a Yedi'ah - at some stage - of his sin (to preclude a Tinok she'Nishbah from a Chatas).

(b) Rebbi Akiva queries him: if we are can learn Shogeg from Meizid, he asks, then why should we not also say that just like a Meizid has knowledge of his sin even whilst he is sinning, so too, must a Shogeg? 'But how can you call that a Shogeg', he asked Munbaz, when he replied that indeed it was?

(c) Ultimately, Munbaz learns his Din from a Hekesh (which is really a Semuchin, since it involves *two* Pesukim - in Bamidbar) of "Torah Achas Yihye Lachem, la'Oseh bi'Shegagah" and "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh be'Yad Ramah (Meizid).

(d) The Chachamim learns from the Hekesh that, in order to be Chayav a Chatas, a La'av must be similar to Avodah Zarah (the subject-matter of the second Pasuk: i.e. it must be a La'av for which one is Chayav Kares be'Meizid.

Next daf


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