ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 92
(a) One is Chayav whether one carries in one's right or left hand, in one's
bosom or on one's shoulders.
(b) Elazar ha'Kohen carried the oil for the Menorah and the anointing oil -
one in his right hand, and one in his left; the Ketores in his bosom, and
the flour for Aharon's Minchas Chavitin on his shoulder - a clear source
for all of these being called carrying on Shabbos.
(c) Also included in 'ke'le'Achar Yad', are carrying in a money-belt which
is tied upside-down, between his money-belt and his shirt, and in the hem
of his shirt.
(a) Rebbi Elazar is not speaking about carrying on of one's shoulders (like
the Mishnah is), but about carrying something above ten Tefachim which
hangs down to a point above ten Tefachim from the ground.
(b) Someone who throws above ten Tefachim is Patur, as we shall see on Daf
(c) We learn from the juxtaposition of the Mizbei'ach and the Mishkan, that
just as the Mishkan was ten Amos tall (which we know from the given height
of the planks), so was the Mizbei'ach (in spite of the fact that the Torah
gives the height of the Mizbei'ach as three Amos tall (see Rashi DH 'Af
(d) Once we know that the height of the Mizbei'ach was ten Amos, and given
the fact that the normal way to transport heavy loads is one third above
the point of carrying and two thirds below, 6.6 Amos of the Mizbei'ach must
have hung below their shoulders. If, as the Gemara currently contends, the
Levi'im were ten Amos tall, then the base of the Mizbei'ach will still have
been over three Amos (eighteen Tefachim, in fact) from the ground - proving
Rebbi Elazar's statement.
(a) Even assuming the Levi'im to have been three Amos tall, like their
contemporaries, we can prove Rebbi Elazar's contention (that the B'nei
Kehas carried above ten Tefachim) from the Aron, which was ten Tefachim
tall, and which was also carried on the shoulders. Once again, two thirds
of the Aron - 6.6 Tefachim - will have hung below thier shoulders, leaving
over eleven Tefachim between the base of the Aron and the ground (since an
average person is three Amos (eighteen Tefachim) - not including his head.
(b) Moshe may well have been considerably taller than anybody else, since
he was the greatest Navi of all times, and we have already learnt that the
Shechinah only rests on someone who is a Talmid-Chacham, strong, wealthy
and tall. So it does not necessarily follow that all the other Levi'im were
as tall as him.
(c) We know that Moshe was at least ten Amos tall, because during the eight
days of the Milu'im (inauguration), Moshe put up the Mishkan (which was ten
Amos tall) - single-handed.
(a) The men of Hutzal are hardly the majority of the world, so why should
we determine what is the norm by *their* standards?
(b) Again, if it is not the people of Hutzal who set the standard, then if
someone from Hutzal perform a Melachah in a manner not emulated by the rest
of the world, then, on account of the principle 'Batlah Da'ato Etzel B'nei
Adam' he ought to be Patur.
(c) What Rav really quoted Rebbi Chiya as saying was that someone who
carries on his head, is Patur, despite the fact that the B'nei Hutzal carry
in that way, because 'Batlah Da'ato' ...
(a) If someone intends to carry something in front of him, and it moves
round to the back, he is Patur; whereas vice-versa, he will be Chayav.
(b) Rava commented that it was entirely unnecessary to make a Machlokes
Tana'im out of this issue, because the difference between the two cases is
obvious: in the former case he is Patur, because he intended to perform a
sound Shemirah, and ended up performing an inferior one, whereas in the
latter case, he is Chayav, because the reverse is the case - he intended to
perform an inferior Shemirah, and ended up by performing a sound one.
(a) The reason that a woman is Chayeves whether the object that she
attached, moved to the front or to the back, is because she doesn't really
care how she carries it out.
(b) The Mekablei Pesakim were dispatch-officers, whose task it was to hand
the royal edicts to the runners. Sometimes, intending to give it to a
certain runner, the officer would go into the street to hand it to him,
but, not finding him, he would hand it to another runner (who was not as
ideal or reliable as the man to whom he had intended to give it). They were
nevertheless Chayav, because it was subject to the royal command, and had
to be dispatched immediately.
(See the note at the foot of the Gemara, quoting the Aruch, who explains
this case, in the light of the rest of the Mishnah - namely, that the
king's runner suspended the royal edict to his underwear, and he, like a
woman, will be Chayav, since, in a hurry to dispatch the letter, he is not
particular whether the document is attached to the front or to the back.
(c) 'the words 'be'Emes Amru' mean that the statement is Halachah, and
cannot be queried. (According to Rabeinu Chananel, it means that it is
Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.)
(a) Rebbi Elazar explains that the two opposing inferences as to what the
Din will be if someone carries behind him - is indeed a Machlokes Tana'im:
one Tana holds that someone who carries behind him is Chayav, while the
other holds, Patur.
(b) Those who say Patur, give the reason because that is not the way that
one normally transports things.
(c) Rav Ashi says that there is more reason to be Mechayev someone who
deliberately carries out behind him, than someone who intended to carry out
behind him, and ended up inadvertently carrying in front of him - because
the former at least did what he set out to do, whereas the latter did not.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah maintains that someone who carries out money in his
upside-down money-belt is Chayav, because it is no worse than carrying out
behind him (which Rebbi Yehudah holds is Chayav).
(b) The Gemara initially thought that, since Rebbi Yehudah said 'I Atem
Modim Li' ... ? we can deduce that the Rabbanan disagree with him, and hold
that someone who carries behind him is Patur.
(c) In that case, the Gemara retorts, will we also deduce from the
Rabbanan's words 've'I Ata Modeh Kele'achar Yado ve'Raglo, she'Hu Patur?',
that Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the principle of being Patur? But that
cannot be, in view of the Berasisa which says that 'Kele'achar Yado' is
(d) In fact, the Gemara concludes, everyone agrees that one is Chayav for
carrying at the back. Their Machlokes in the Beraisa is regarding carrying
money in an upside-down money-belt (as the Beraisa specifically mentions).
Rebbi Yehudah compares it to carrying it behind him, the Rabbanan to
carrying 'Kele'achar Yado'.
(a) We learn from "ba'Asosah" - 'ha'Oseh es Kulah ve'Lo ha'Oseh es
(b) Two people are Chayav for carrying out an article jointly, only if
neither of them was able to carry it on his own.
(c) Rebbi Meir rules that 'Zeh Yachol ve'Zeh Yachol' is Chayav, due to the
fact that he learns something else from "ba'Asosah", as we shall see later.
(d) No! the Mi'ut of 'ba'Asosah' is not confined to the Melachah of
carrying, but pertains to all Melachos, as we see from the Beraisa at the
foot of the page, which applies it to Me'amer and Meisach.