(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 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 100a.

(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 Mizbei'ach').

(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 unanimously Patur?

(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 Miktzasah'.

(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.

Next daf


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