(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 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 Zedono Sekilah.'

(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!

2) 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.


(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 short-term.

(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 simultaneously.

(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;
2. ... bring cushions and sheets, and place them underneath the jars when they fell - because the honey which spilt would have dirtied the cushions and sheets.
(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.
(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 animal.

(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 ground.

(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 Tzidedei Tzedadin.

(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 valid.

(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 (like Abaye).

(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.

Next daf


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