(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 72



(a) There are three cases of Asham Vaday that come to atone for a sin: an Asham Me'ilos, an Asham Gezeilos and an Asham Shifchah Charufah. When dealing with any of them , the Gemara will refer to it as an Asham Vaday, to preclude from an Asham Taluy.

(b) According to those who hold ...

1. ... that an Asham Vaday *does* need a Yedi'ah, then he will be Chayav as many Ashamos as there were Yedi'os.
2. ... that an Asham Vaday does *not* need a Yedi'ah, someone who is Bo'el a Shifchah Charufah five times will always be Chayav only one Asham, even in a case of Shogeg - and even if he had a Yedi'ah in between each one (even according to Rebbi Yochanan, who learnt above that Yedi'os Mechalkos - according to the first opinion on 71b). Why is that?
Because since this Asham does not require a Yedi'ah, Yedi'ah is not Chashuv, and does not divide).
(c) Five Be'ilos *without* a Yedi'ah simply means that he did not have a Yedi'ah until afterwards. Whereas *with* a Yedi'ah means that he was aware at the time of each Bi'ah, that he was contravening a sin.

(d) It is obvious, Ula answered Rav Hamnuna, that even if a Yedi'ah does *not* divide, Hafrashah *does*, as we learnt earlier in the Sugya.

(a) According to our initial understanding of Rav Dimi, the Mishnah, which expressly states that he only needs to bring *one* Asham, speaks either be'Meizid - or be'Shogeg, but when he did *not* have a Yedi'ah between the Bi'os.

(b) No! Rav Dimi does not come to argue with Ula - Ula speaks according to those who hold that an Asham does *not* need a Yedi'ah to be Chayav, and Rav Dimi, according to those who hold that it *does*.

(c) How can Rav Dimi say, that according to those who hold that a Yedi'ah is Chashuv, everybody will agree that Yedi'os divide by a Shifchah Charufah. Then why, in the case of two pieces of Chelev, does Resh Lakish hold that a Yedi'ah (after eating the two Kezeisim in one Ha'alamah) does *not* divide, even though a Yedi'ah is Chashuv, as we see from the fact that a Yedi'ah *before* eating the second Kezayis, *does*.
(It is important to realize that we are comparing the Yedi'ah *in between* the Bi'os of a Shifchah Charufah to a Yedi'ah *after* eating the two Kezeisei Chelev.)

(d) The Gemara therefore establishes Rav Dimi's Din, not by a Yedi'ah in between the Bi'os, but by someone who actually separated his Asham between the Bi'os - and, as we already pointed out in the previous Sugya, even Resh Lakish agrees that Hafrashah divides (according to the first opinion there).

(a) The reason that a Yedi'ah in between two Kezeisei Chelev divides - according to everybody, is because by Chelev, the Chiyuv Korban comes for the number of Shegagos, and if one became aware in between, that one had sinned, then he has transgressed two Shegagos, and is Chayav two Chata'os. Whereas by a Shifchah Charufah, for whom one is Chayav even be'Meizid, the Yedi'ah has nothing to do with the number of Shegagos.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that a Yedi'ah divides after eating the second Kezayis of Chelev, it will also divide in between the two Bi'os of the Shifchah Charufah.

(a) Both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree that, according to Rebbi Tarfon, who does not require a Yedi'ah by an Asham Vaday, a Yedi'ah in between the two Bi'os of a Shifchah Charufah does not divide, and the Bo'el is only Chayav one Asham.

(b) Both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree (in the above case), that the Bo'el's designation of his Asham before the second Bi'ah divides, and he will be Chayav two Ashamos.

(c) And according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that an Asham Vaday requires Yedi'ah, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish follow their respective opinions quoted in the previous Sugya: according to Rebbi Yochanan, just like the Yedi'ah there (after the second Kezayis) divides, so too, does the Yedi'ah (in between the Bi'os) divide, and he will be Chayav two Ashamos; whereas according to Resh Lakish, the Yedi'ah *there* does not divide, and neither does the Yedi'ah *here*.




(a) A Shogeg on Shabbos is someone who meant to do what he did (a Melachah on Shabbos) but who forgot, either that it was Shabbos, or that the Melachah that he transgressed, was forbidden on Shabbos.

(b) From "Asher Chata Bah" (written by the Chatas of a Nasi) we learn that someone who intends to do an act that is permitted (e.g. to pick a knife), but inadvertently performs one that is forbidden (e.g. to cut a vegetable with it as he is picking it up), is not even called a Shogeg (in fact, he is termed an 'Ones'), and is Patur from a Korban. He is described as 'Misasek' (According to Tosfos, we are speaking even if he means to pick up a vegetable thinking that is detached, but, after picking it up, he discovers that in reality, it was attached, and that he has detached it from the ground.

(c) According to Rava, someone who intends to cut something which is detached, but by mistake, he cuts something which was really attached, he is also termed 'Misasek' and is Patur from a Korban - since he did not intend to do something which is forbidden. But Abaye maintains that he is Chayav, because he *did* after all, intend to cut, and the action of cutting, is sometimes forbidden (so it is still closer to Shogeg than it is to Ones).

(a) How does the Beraisa of 'Chomer Shabbos mi'be'She'ar Mitzvos' etc., speak?
If it speaks about someone who reaped and ground (be'Shigegas Melachos), and who is therefore Chayav two Chata'os, the equivalent case of other 'Mitzvos' would be if he ate, for example, Chelev and blood - then why should he not be Chayav two Chata'os there, as well?
If, on the other hand, it speaks when he ate Chelev twice in one Ha'alamah, then the equivalent case by Shabbos would be when he reaped twice in one Ha'alamah - then why would he be Chayav two Chata'os more than by other 'Mitzvos'?

(b) The four Chiyuvim comprising Avodah-Zarah are Shechitah, bringing incense, pouring wine and prostrating oneself before the idol. For performing all of these in one Ha'alamah, one would only be obligated to bring one Chatas.

(c) Certainly not! Idolatry is rooted in the heart, so if someone prostrates himself before an idol believing it to be a Shul, he has in his heart, prostrated himself before Hashem, so why should he be Chayav?

(d) Nor can the Seifa of the Beraisa (which obligates 'she'Lo be'Kavanah' by Avodah-Zarah) be speaking about someone who prostrates himself before the bust of a king. Why not?
Because, if he does this in order to worship him as a god, then he is a Meizid, and not Shogeg? Whereas if he does it merely in deference to the king, then what is wrong with it?

7) Rava cannot explain the Beraisa by an Omer Mutar, which will mean that an Omer Mutar is Chayav by other sins, but Patur by Shabbos, because Rava himself asked Rav Nachman (above on Daf 70b), whether an Omer Mutar is Chayav *one* Chatas (for many Melachos on many Shabbasos) or *many*, but certainly not Patur altogether?


(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa, according to Rava, speaks by Chelev, when someone eats Chelev, believing it to be Shuman (Kasher fat). Although he is Patur by Shabbos and by other sins which do not involve direct physical pleasure, this is not the case by Chelev. Why not?

(b) Because Shmuel has already taught us that Mis'asek is Chayav (a Korban) by Chalavim and Arayos, since he had direct physical pleasure - and the Korban there comes to atone for the pleasure, not for the intention, as it does by Shabbos, and other sins that do not involve direct physical pleasure.

(c) The equivalent case by Shabbos is when someone meant to cut something which was detached, and then found that it had been attached - the point currently under debate (and Rava has proved his opinion from this Beraisa).

(d) Abaye counters that the Beraisa speaks, not about someone who ate Chelev, thinking that it was Shuman (in which case the equivalent case by Shabbos is that cited by Rava), but about someone who swallowed melted Chelev - which *is* called eating - believing it to be spittle, which is *not*. And the equivalent case by Shabbos will be someone who intended to pick up something that was detached, and then discovered that is was attached (that is when he is Patur, but not when he meant to cut the one, and cut the other).

Next daf


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