(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 97



(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from "va'Yichar Af Hashem *Bam* va'Yelach" - that Aharon was stricken with Tzara'as, just like Miriam was.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira presents exactly the same argument as before: if the Torah made a point of covering over Aharon's punishment, then who was Rebbi Akiva to reveal it? If on the other hand, he was wrong, he was being Motzi Shem Ra on that Tzadik!

(c) The word "Bam", according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, teaches us that Aharon was placed in Nezifah (disgrace) like Miriam, but not that he was stricken with Tzara'as.

(d) "va'Yifen Aharon el Miriam ve'Hinei Metzora'as" - "va'Yifen mi'Tzarato', the Beraisa Darshens (like Rebbi Akiva).

(a) Hashem's response to Moshe's statement, in which he argued that Yisrael would not believe him anyway, was, firstly, to tell him that Yisrael *would* believe, and that, if anything, it was *he* -Moshe - who was destined to display a lack of faith (later by the rock); and secondly, by striking his hand with Tzara'as.

(b) The Torah writes with regard to Moshe's hand - "va'Yotzi'ah, ve'Hinei Yado Metzora'as ka'Shaleg" (only *after* he had withdrawn it from his bosom). Whereas when the Tzara'as was removed, the Pasuk writes "va'Yotzi'ah *me'Cheiko*, ve'Hine Shavah ki'Vesaro" (implying that it had returned to its former state already *before* he withdrew it).

(c) "Vayivla Mateh Aharon es Matosam" - it was only after Aharon's stick had turned back from a snake into a stick, that it swallowed the Egyptian wizards' sticks. That is a miracle within a miracle.

(a) If the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah (regarding throwing from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another -with a Reshus ha'Rabim in between) speaks when he threw *below* ten Tefachim, then they argue over 'Kelutah' etc. - Rebbi Akiva holds 'Kelutah Ke'mi she'Hunchah', and the Rabbanan hold 'Kelutah La'av Ke'mi she'Hunchah'.

(b) Were he to have thrown the article *above* ten Tefachim, he would be Patur - according to everybody, since no throwing above ten Tefachim was performed in the Mishkan, and we do not learn the Din of throwing from that of carrying (i.e. Moshit - handing over from one to another).

(c) Alternatively, they could argue when he threw the article above ten Tefachim, when Rebbi Akiva will say that we learn throwing from carrying, and the Rabbanan will say that we don't; but below ten Tefachim, they will both agree that one is Chayav, because of 'Kelutah Ke'mi she'Hunchah'.

(a) Rav Hamnuna proves from the word 'Atzmah' used by the Beraisa, that it must be speaking *below* ten Tefachim, when the article actually passes through the Reshus ha'Rabim, and not above ten Tefachim, which does not have the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim. Now if the Beraisa was speaking about carrying (or Moshit), then there would be no point in mentioning below ten Tefachim, since by carrying, there is no difference between below and above ten Tefachim.

(b) So it must be speaking about throwing, and we see that Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan argue in a case of below ten Tefachim.

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar, Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan argue both below (about Kelutah) and above ten Tefachim (about whether we learn Zorek from Moshit).
According to him, the Beraisa mentions 'Atzmah' to teach us that, even someone who throws *below* ten Tefachim is also Patur, according to the Chachamim.

(d) Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi holds that someone who throws below three Tefachim, is Chayav according to everybody; above ten Tefachim, is Patur according to everybody, whereas between three and ten Tefachim, he is Chayav according to Rebbi Akiva, and Patur according to the Rabbanan.

(a) It is permitted to throw from one person's domain to another's, if they made an Eiruv.

(b) One is permitted to throw from one house in his own domain to another across the street, as long as the two houses or terraces etc. are on the same level, but not when they are on different levels.

(c) It is permitted to throw from one house to another across the street per se. However, Chazal decreed an Isur, when the two houses are on two different levels, because the article being thrown is more likely to fall into the street (itself not sufficient reason to forbid it, since that will have happened unintentionally), and he will go and retrieve it from where it fell - for which he will be Chayav Chatas.

(d) Shmuel holds that Chazal never issued such a decree, and that it is therefore permitted to throw from one house to another, even if they are on two different levels.

(a) 'Levud' is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(b) If 'Levud' is based on the Sevara 'she'I Efshar li'Reshus ha'Rabim she'Tilaket bi'Melaket u'Rehitni' - then why should it not apply even to bumps that are more than three Tefachim high? And besides, why should 'Levud' then apply to a wall that descends to within three Tefachim of the ground, since the reason is not applicable?

(c) The reason that 'Levud' applies to a wall that stops within three Tefachim of the ground cannot be because kid-goats cannot crawl underneath it - because if that was the case, then why would it also apply (in certain instances) to a wall or a ceiling that is high in the air, where kid-goats do not go.

(a) When Rebbi says that someone who throws from one Reshus ha'Rabim to another, via a Reshus ha'Yachid, is Chayav, he is talking specifically about a Reshus ha'Yachid which has a ceiling. Rebbi holds Chayav because it is as if the house was filled in (and he is speaking when the article actually passes through the house, via the windows or the doors).

(b) The Rabbanan hold that he is Patur.

(c) If Rebbi is Mechayev two Chata'os for one act which incorporates Hotza'ah and Hachnasah, that means that he is Mechayev a Toldah together with its Av. Now, explaining the words "Eleh ha'Devarim" (Vayakhel - see 70a), Rebbi has already taught us that the maximum number of Chata'os that one can be Chayav (for transgressing all the Melachos on Shabbos), is thirty-nine (from which it is clear that he is not Mechayav for transgressing a Toldah together with its Av)?

(d) Rebbi Yehudah says in a Beraisa, that someone who throws from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim, and the article then traveled four Amos before landing, is Chayav. And it is Rebbi Yehudah (and not Rebbi) whom Shmuel quoted as being Mechayav not just *one* Chatas, but *two*.




(a) If Rebbi Yehudah was Mechayev only *one* Chatas, then why could the Rabbanan argue and say Patur? Since he has performed both a Hotza'ah and a Hachnasah, why should he not be Chayav at least for the Hotza'ah (which is the Av)? Consequently, Rebbi Yehudah *must* mean that he is Chayav even for the Hachnasah, as well - since, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one is Chayav for a Toldah transgressed together with its Av.

(b) And the Rabbanan will hold that he is only Chayav for the Hotza'ah, but not for the Hachnasah, since, in their opinion, one is not Chayav for a Toldah that one transgresses together with its Av.

(c) The Gemara refutes this proof, by establishing the Beraisa when he said that he wants the article to land (either factually, or Halachically - See Ramban) as soon as it leaves the Reshus ha'Yachid. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the object did indeed land, (because he holds 'Kelutah Ke'mi she'Hunchah') - so he is Chayav one Chatas (for Hotza'ah); whereas, according to the Rabbanan, who do not hold of 'Kelutah' etc., it did *not* land, so he is Patur.

(d) The reason that we learnt this way, is in order to avoid having to say that Rebbi Yehudah holds that one is Chayav for transgressing a Toldah together with its Av. But is it not clear that Rebbi Yehudah anyway holds that one *is* - from Shovet and Medakdek (see 75b [8b]) ? How is that? Rebbi Yehudah says there 'Chayav', while the Rabbanan say 'Shovet, Harei Hu Bichelal Meisach, Medekdek, Harei Hu Bichelal Oreg'. Does that not imply that in Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, one is nevertheless Chayav - even though they are both included in their respective Avos?

(a) No! retorts the Gemara. That is not Rebbi Yehudah's reason. In fact, Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is *not* Chayav for a Toldah together with its Av (in which case, Shmuel's statement - at the foot of the previous Amud - is inexplicable), and the point with which he disagrees with the Rabbanan - regarding their contention that Shovet and Medakdek are Toldos. In his opinion, they are Avos (in which case, he does not agree with Rebbi's contention that there are only thirty-nine Melachos).

(b) The Gemara proves this from the Lashon of 'Af', used by Rebbi Yehudah in connection with Shovet and Medakdek, which indicates that he is coming to add to the Avos, and not just to dispute the Rabbanan's argument.

(c) It is possible for Rebbi Yehudah might have been Mechayav *two* Chata'os - in the Gemara's initial understanding, was in a case where the man specifically said that he does not really care where it lands.

(a) The Gemara initially compared throwing an article four Amos, when he really meant to throw it eight - to someone who meant to write Shimon, but stopped after writing Shem; since the latter is Chayav, thought the Gemara, so too, is the former.

(b) The Gemara then compares the reverse case: of someone throwing eight Amos instead of the four that he intended to throw it, to the case that we mentioned earlier - when the thrower specifically stated that he does not care where the article lands, implying that otherwise, he would be Patur, since the article did not land there where he wanted it to.

(c) Having said that , why should he be Chayav even in the former case, when he meant to throw eight Amos, and threw only four? Since he did not achieve what he wanted to achieve, why should he be any more Chayav in the one case than in the other?

(d) The case is simply not comparable to writing Shem from Shimon, as we thought at first. Why not?
Because by Shem from Shimon, he could not possibly have written Shimon, without writing Shem; therefore he is Chayav the moment he writes 'Shem'. But that is not true of someone who intends to throw *eight* Amos, but only throws *four*. He never intended the article to land after four Amos (and landing is an intrinsic part of the Melachah), so we cannot say that four is included in eight, like we say by Shem mi'Shimon.

11) We learn from 'ha'Zorek me'Reshus ha'Rabim li'Reshus ha'Rabim, u'Reshus ha'Yachid be'Emtza, Arba Amos, Chayav', Pachos me'Arba Amos, Patur' - that two parts of a Reshus ha'Rabim (i.e. if the article which someone threw, traveled two Amos in one Reshus ha'Rabim, and two Amos in another - like in the Beraisa), they combine to make him Chayav.
And we also learn that we do not say Kelutah Ke'mi she'Hunchah', because if we did, he ought to be Chayav even if the article did not travel four Amos in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

Next daf


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