(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 102


(a) How does the Reisha of the Mishnah, which reads 'ha'Zorek, ve'Nizkar me'Achar she'Yatzesah mi'Yado, Kaltah Acher, ... Patur' - clash with the Seifa: 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol Chayvei Chata'os, Einan Chayavin ad she'Tehei Techilasan ve'Sofan Shegagah'?

(b) The Gemara initially believes that the Reisha of the Mishnah is speaking in *one* case, and that it does not require amending. To resolve the above discrepancy, it establishes the Seifa by 'Lachsa u'Misna'. What does this mean, and how does it answer the Kashya?

(c) The Gemara rejects this solution because of 'Ogdo be'Yado' and establishes the Seifa of the Mishnah when he throws them in order to cause a wound.
What is 'Ogdo be'Yado'?

(d) How does the contention that he throws it in order to make a wound, dispense with the problem of Ogdo be'Yado?

(e) How does the Gemara finally reject the answer of 'Lachsa u'Misna', even if his intention is to wound someone?

(a) Rava finally answers 'Tarti Katani'.
What does he mean? How does that answer the question?

(b) Rav Ashi answers 'Chasuri Mechsera' ...
What does *he* mean, and how does that answer the question?

(c) Why does the Mishnah need to establish the case of Chiyuv when he later forgot?

(d) Why then, does the Tana find it necessary to mention 've'Nizkar' at all?

(a) Rava initially tries to answer our Kashya by saying that the Seifa is referring, not to throwing, but to carrying.
How does this solve our problem?

(b) What is wrong with that contention?

(a) If someone carries two Amos be'Shogeg, two Amos be'Meizid (i.e. he remembers that it is Shabbos), and then two Amos be'Shogeg, Rabah holds that, even according to Rabban Gamliel, he will be Patur from a Korban.
What does Rabban Gamliel say, and why is he Patur even according to him?

(b) Why must we be speaking about carrying and not throwing?

(c) Rava holds that he is Chayav even according to the Rabbanan (of Rabban Gamliel).
How does Rava explain the case, and why is he Chayav even according to the Rabbanan?

(a) How can Rava rule, that if someone throws an object into the mouth of a dog or a furnace, he is Chayav, when we have learnt in our Mishnah that he is Patur?

(b) If someone walks into the street eating, Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan agree that he is Chayav for carrying on Shabbos.
What does the Gemara prove from there?

Answers to questions



(a) What is the Shiur for Binyan, Mesates, Makeh ba'Patish and Kode'ach?

(b) What is Mesates?

(c) How does Rashi here, describe Makeh ba'Patish?

(d) Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel adds, that a worker who bangs his hammer on the anvil whilst working, is also Chayav because of Makeh ba'Patish.
What is his Chidush?

(a) How does the Gemara initially explain the function of a Binyan Kol Shehu, and where was it performed in the process of constructing the Mishkan?

(b) Abaye objects to this on the grounds that the needles would rust if placed in the ground.
How does *he* explain the Shiur of Kol Shehu, and where was it performed in the construction of the Mishkan?

(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov objects to Abaye's explanation on the grounds that 'Ein Aniyus be'Makom Ashirus'.
What does this mean?

(d) So how does Rav Acha bar Ya'akov finally explain the small Shiur of Kol Shehu, and where was it performed in the Mishkan?

(a) Shmuel says that ha'Metzaded es ha'Even, Chayav'.
What is 'Metzaded'?

(b) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa says that someone who places the stone is Patur, and that only the person who cements it in place is Chayav; whereas Rebbi Yossi adds that the one who just puts the top stone in place is Chayav.
How do we reconcile these two statements, as well as that of Shmuel?

(a) Rav holds that Mesates, someone who makes a hole in a chicken-coop, or a wedge in the handle of a spade, is Chayav because of Boneh.
What is the purpose of the hole in the chicken-coop?

(b) What does Shmuel hold in all of these cases?

(c) Why do they need to argue in all three cases?

(d) How will Shmuel explain our Mishnah, which writes 've'ha'Mesates, ve'ha'Makeh ba'Patish' ... Chayav?

(a) What is the Kashya on Shmuel from the statement in out Mishnah: 'ha'Kode'ach Kol she'Hu Chayav'?

(b) Why is this not a Kashya on Rav?

(c) What does the Gemara answer?

(a) Our Mishnah writes 'Zeh ha'Klal: Kol she'Hu Melachah, u'Melachto Miskayemes be'Shabbos, Chayav'.
What does 'Zeh ha'Klal' (which always comes to include something that is not evident from the Mishnah itself), come to include?

(b) Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel adds 'Makeh be'Kurnas al ha'Sadan'.
What does that mean?

(c) The Gemara at first thought that the Chiyuv is for training one's hand to strike the right spot with the correct force.
What problem does the Gemara have with that?

(d) What is the source for 'Makeh be'Kurnas al ha'Sadan', and what is its function?

Answers to questions
Next daf

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