ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 154
(a) At first, the Gemara tries to infer from the words (of the Beraisa
'ha'Mechalel es ha'Shabbos be'Davar she'Chayavin al Shigegaso Chatas, ve'al
Zedono Sekilah') 'Ha, Ein Chayavin al Shigegaso Chatas, Ein Chayavin al
We know that the father of Rav Mari bar Rachel (Shmuel's daughter) was
called Isur Giyora (who had been her captor at the time and who later
converted). Consequently, Rav Mari's father cannot have been Rava, so the
text 'Rava, Avuha de'Rav Mari bar Rachel', must be a mistake.
(b) The Gemara rejects this inference however - because it is illogical
(just like one cannot infer from the statement 'every herring is a fish',
that whatever is not a herring is not a fish).
(c) The Gemara ultimately makes the following inference: 'but there are
some things for which one is Chayav Sekilah, even though there is no Chatas
be'Shogeg - and that is Mechamer!
(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns that Mechamer is not Chayav Sekilah if he does it
be'Mezid - from the Beraisa that we quoted earlier: 'ha'Mechalel es
ha'Shabbos be'Davar she'Chayavin al Shigegaso Chatas, ve'al Zedono
Sekilah', from which he infers 'Ha Ein Chayavin al Shigegaso Chatas, Ein
Chayavin al Zedono Sekilah' (despite the objection to this inference cited
above in 1b).
(b) Nor can one be Chayav Malkus for Mechamer ( for transgressing the La'av
of "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah") - since it is a La'av she'Nitan la'Azharas
Misas Beis-Din' meaning that there are cases when the same La'av leads to
Sekilah (if there were witnesses and warning), and a La'av that carries the
death-penalty, cannot also lead to Malkus.
(c) But in any event - even according to those who hold that, under normal
circumstances, one *does* receive Malkus for a La'av she'Nitan la'Azharas
Misas Beis-Din', this would not be the case here, since the Torah writes
"Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah, *Ata* ... u'Vehemtecha". Now the word "Ata" is
superfluous; the Torah only inserts it to teach us that 'Ata' - you are
only punishable (at the hands of Beis-Din) when *you* perform a Melachah,
but not when your animal performs it.
(a) If the animal is carrying glass vessels, Rav Huna suggests that one
brings cushions and sheets, and places them underneath the sacks, before
letting them fall.
(b) Glass vessels are (were) not usually Muktzah, unless they were
blood-letters' implements, which is what Rav Huna is referring to.
(c) This is not a matter of 'Mevatel K'li Mehechano' - since we are
speaking about small vessels, and it is possible to pull the cushion and
cloths out from under them.
(d) The Beraisa which rules that by Ashashi'os, one must open the straps
and allow them to break - because the Ashashi'os referred to in the
Beraisa, are large panes of glass which would anyway be broken later into
smaller pieces to use as panes made of fragmented glass. Consequently,
allowing them to fall and break, does not really constitute a loss, and
there is no Heter to place cushions etc. underneath, even on very
(e) Even though there is no *major* loss involved in allowing the
Ashashi'os to break, it does however, entail a *small* loss (since, when
one breaks the pane into very small pieces, some of the pieces are so tiny,
as to be of no value at all - That is why the Beraisa writes 'Af Al Pi
she'Mishtabrin', to teach us that Chazal did not contend with the small
loss involved, to permit placing cushions underneath.
(a) One gets a double-sack of corn which hangs down on either side of the
donkey (and which is Muktzah) to fall on the ground - by pushing one side
over the donkey's back with one's head, and letting both sacks drop
(b) Honey is not normally Muktzah, but the honey in Raban Gamliel's story
had gone bad, in which case it *was*, which explains why he forbade them
to off-load it from the camels' backs on Shabbos.
(c) He did not ...
l. ... untie the ropes and let the jars of honey fall to the ground -
because they would have cracked;
(d) Nor did 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim' come into consideration (to over-ride
Muktzah), since, in the opinion of Raban Gamliel, 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim'
is only de'Rabbanan.
2. ... bring cushions and sheets, and place them underneath the jars when
they fell - because the honey which spilt would have dirtied the cushions
(a) When Abaye saw Rabah playing with his son one Shabbos, by sliding him
along a donkey's back - he asked him how it was permitted to use an animal
in this way - by leaning against it, when Chazal forbade riding or using an
(b) Chazal only forbade using the back of the animal, answered Rabah, since
that is the way the animal is normally used (but not the sides, which was
unusual, and which Chazal did decree).
(c) Rabah tried to prove his point from our Mishnah, which permits untying
the sacks from the donkey's back: Does it not speak when there are two
sacks, one on either side of the donkey's back, tied together by ropes in
such a way that they can only be separated and opened by leaning against
the donkey (which entails leaning against the side of the animal)?
(d) No! Answers the Gemara. It speaks when the straps of the sacks are
joined by means of a ring and a pin, which one removes by pulling out the
pin; or when the two rings (one on either sack) are joined by means of a
bent pin, which one simply pulls out to separate the sacks - either way,
the pin can be removed without having to lean against the animal at all.
So Rabah has no proof from that Beraisa.
(a) The Mishnah in Sucah, which forbids one to use a Sucah which consists
of two walls of a tree and one of a wall that is man-made - could be
speaking about a Sucah that was made on top of two branches that were bent
over, which would entail using the tree itself, and not just the sides.
Consequently, this would not be a Kashya on Rabah.
(b) The Seifa of the Mishnah permits entering the Sucah if only *one* of
the walls is made in this fashion. But if the Reisha is speaking when he
bent the tops of two trees towards each other and tied them to make two
walls of a Sucah, then why should even *one* wall arranged in this fashion
be permitted ? For when all's said and done, part of the Sechach is resting
on a tree, so how can the Mishnah permit him to enter the Sucah and make
use of the tree? (Note: using the Succah, means placing one's objects on
top of the Sechach, which was common practice in those days.)
(c) The Seifa, answers the Gemara, is speaking in a completely different
case than the Reisha . The Seifa speaks by 'Gav'aza Parsachna' - when the
tree has many branches which are simply used to fill the space left on the
fourth side of a regular Sucah whose three walls are standing on the
(d) The reason that the Tana learnt the Seifa so differently than the
Seifa, is due to the fact that a Sucah is Kasher with three walls, and that
consequently, one would not normally take the trouble to arrange the fourth
wall in the above manner.
(a) According to Abaye, the Machlokes Tana'im is not whether Tzedadim are
forbidden or permitted - but concerns Tzidedei Tzedadim; since the Sechach
is placed on the canes, which are placed in niches in the tree. Everyone
would agree, according to him, that the Sucah would be forbidden, if the
Sechach was placed directly on the tree.
(b) Rava holds - that the Tana who forbids Tzedadin also forbids Tzidedei
Tzedadin, and the Tana who permits Tzidedei Tzedadin also permits Tzedadin.
In short, there is no difference, according to him, between Tzedadin and
(c) For an Eruv to be valid, it needs to be in the same domain as the
person himself. Consequently, if someone places his Eruv above ten Tefachim
in a Reshus ha'Rabim, it transpires that he is in the Reshus ha'Rabim,
whereas his Eruv is in a Reshus ha'Yachid - in which case, his Eruv is not
(d) According to Rava, this Beraisa permits both Tzedadim and Tzidedei
Tzedadim on principle. He explains the inference, which validates the Eiruv
if it is in a basket hanging from a peg, but not if it is hanging from the
tree itself, by establishing the Beraisa by a basket with a narrow neck,
from which it is difficult to extract the food. Had it been placed on the
side of the tree itself, one would have inevitably moved the tree when
taking food out - which is why the Beraisa forbids taking from the basket
when it is hanging on the tree itself.
(a) The Gemara rules that Tzedadim is Asur, Tzidedei Tzedadim, is Mutar
(b) Now that we have learned that Tzidedei Tzedadim is permitted, but not
Tzedadim - someone who wishes to climb up to the loft via a ladder which is
leaning against a tree, should take care to lean the ladder against a peg
that is jutting out from the tree, but not against the tree directly.
(c) One should also be careful, when climbing the ladder - not to place his
foot on the peg, but only on the rungs of the ladder, or on canes that jut
out from the poles of the ladder.