Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 16, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘住讬讜谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 102

Today’s daf is dedicated by Anoushka Adler in honor of her mother, Valerie Adler, a lover of Jewish learning and Jewish life, who has taken on studying the Daf. You are her biggest role model. And by Kay Weinberger in loving memory of her mother, Eva Redstone, Hava bat Chaim v’Sarah z”l, on her 20th Yahrzeit.

The mishna says if one threw an item four cubits Unwittingly and then remembered before it landed and a dog ate it as it fell or it fell into a fire and burned, one is not obligated. In order to be obligated to bring a sin offering, one must have begun and ended the act unwittingly. The connection between the cases in the mishna and what exactly the mishna is referring to is a subject of debate as it seems to combine two different issues. There are several different ways to read the mishna in order to understand the connection between the two cases. The twelfth chapter begins with building. Is there a requisite amount that one would be responsible for building? If not, why not? What is the significance of building something so small? And where in the building of the mishkan was there of something so small? When building with stones, the act that is considered building depends of whether it is the top, middle or bottom row of stones. Which actions are considered building and which are considered forbidden on account of striking the final blow? Which are a subject of debate?

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 讜谞讝讻专 诪讗讞专 砖讬爪转讛 诪讬讚讜 拽诇讟讛 讗讞专 拽诇讟讛 讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞砖专驻讛 驻讟讜专 讝专拽 诇注砖讜转 讞讘讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讜讘讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讜谞讝讻专 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讞讘讜专讛 驻讟讜专 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛 转讞诇转谉 砖讙讙讛 讜住讜驻谉 讝讚讜谉 转讞讬诇转谉 讝讚讜谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞讬诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛:

MISHNA: One who unwittingly throws an object from one domain to another or one who throws an object four cubits within the public domain, and after the object left his hand he remembered that he is in violation of a prohibition, if another caught it, or if a dog caught it, or if it was burned, he is exempt. Similarly, if one threw a rock on Shabbat to inflict a wound on a person or on an animal, for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and he remembered that he was in violation of a prohibition before the wound was inflicted, he is exempt. This is the principle: All who are liable to bring sin-offerings are only liable if the beginning of their action and the conclusion of their action are unwitting. However, if the beginning of one鈥檚 action was unwitting and the conclusion was intentional, as he became aware that he was in violation of a prohibition, or if the beginning of one鈥檚 action was intentional and the conclusion was unwitting, the individuals in both of these cases are exempt until both the beginning and the conclusion are unwitting.

讙诪壮 讛讗 谞讞讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诇讗 谞讝讻专 讜转谞谉 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇诇讻转讗 讜诪转谞讗

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that if one throws an object unwittingly and then remembers that he was in violation of a prohibition, he is exempt if the object did not come to rest on the ground. The Gemara infers: If the object comes to rest, he is liable. The Gemara asks: Why is he liable? Didn鈥檛 he remember the prohibition before it landed, and we learned in the mishna: All who are liable to bring sin-offerings are only liable if the beginning of their action and the conclusion of their action will be unwitting? If one remembered before the act was complete, he should be exempt. Rav Kahana said: With regard to the latter clause of the mishna, we have come to a special case of a bolt and a cord. The bolt is connected to a cord that one holds in his hand, which renders him capable of retrieving the bolt before it lands. Therefore, in a case where the beginning was unwitting and the conclusion was intentional, one is exempt because he is still capable of changing the outcome of the action. However, in the first clause of the mishna, once the object left his hand the action is irreversible, and therefore it is an action whose beginning and conclusion are unwitting.

诇讻转讗 讜诪转谞讗 讗讜讙讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞讘讜专讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讝讜专拽 诇注砖讜转 讞讘讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讘讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讜谞讝讻专 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讞讘讜专讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪注讘讬专

The Gemara asks: The case of the bolt and the cord is one where one holds it in his hand. Therefore, no act of throwing actually took place, and there is no liability to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara answers: The case of the bolt and the cord was not stated with regard to Shabbat. Rather, it was stated with regard to one who intended to inflict a wound by throwing an object tied to a rope. The Gemara asks: This was also taught explicitly in the mishna: If one threw a rock on Shabbat to inflict a wound on a person or on an animal, and he remembered before the wound was inflicted, he is exempt. Rather, Rava said: This principle was stated with regard to a case of carrying, not throwing an object. Since one is holding the object the entire time while violating the prohibition, and is capable of letting it go at any time, this is a case whose beginning and conclusion are intentional.

讜讛讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讚拽转谞讬 讗讝专讬拽讛 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转专转讬 拽转谞讬 讛讝讜专拽 讜谞讝讻专 诪讗讞专 砖讬爪转讛 诪讬讚讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讝讻专 讜拽诇讟讛 讗讞专 讗讜 拽诇讟讛 讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞砖专驻讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 this principle that was taught, taught with regard to throwing because that is the topic of the mishna? Rather, Rava said: Two separate matters were taught in the mishna. The first case is: One who unwittingly throws an object, and after the object left his hand he remembered that he was in violation of a prohibition. Alternatively, another case where one is exempt is: A case where one did not remember and another caught it, or a dog caught it, or if it was burned, he is exempt.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讝讜专拽 讜谞讝讻专 诪讗讞专 砖讬爪转讛 诪讬讚讜 拽诇讟讛 讗讞专 讗讜 拽诇讟讛 讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞砖专驻讛 驻讟讜专 讛讗 谞讞讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讞讝专 讜砖讻讞 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讝专 讜砖讻讞 驻讟讜专 砖讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛:

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is incomplete, and it teaches the following: One who throws a rock and remembers the violation after it left his hand, if another caught it, or if a dog caught it, or if it was burned, he is exempt. By inference, if the object comes to rest, he is liable. Rav Ashi adds: In what case are these matters stated? In a case where one then forgot again before the object came to rest. However, if one did not then forget again, he is exempt because all who are liable to bring sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning of their action and the conclusion of their action are unwitting.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讻讜壮: 讗讬转诪专 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘砖讜讙讙 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘诪讝讬讚 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘砖讜讙讙 专讘讛 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘

We learned in the mishna that this is the principle: All who are liable to bring sin-offerings are only liable if the beginning of their action and the conclusion of their action are unwitting. It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed this point. With regard to a case where one carried an object in the public domain two cubits unwittingly, and then became aware and carried it two more cubits intentionally, and then carried it two additional cubits unwittingly, and then placed the object, can this be characterized as a case in which the beginning of the action and the conclusion of the action are unwitting? Rabba said: One is exempt. Rava said: One is liable.

专讘讛 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 拽讗 讙诪专 砖讬注讜专讗 讘砖讜讙讙 拽讗 讙诪专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies the two positions. Rabba said: One is exempt. This is the halakha even according to Rabban Gamliel, who said: There is no awareness for half a measure, and therefore he is liable. Since one is not liable to bring a sacrifice for a half-measure, the fact that he became aware between consumption of the two halves of an olive-bulk is of no significance. One鈥檚 awareness does not demarcate between the two half-measures of two cubits with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering. He only said so there, when the measure that determines liability was completed, it was completed unwittingly. However, here, when the measure is completed, it is completed intentionally. In that case, he would say no, he is not liable. The measure that determines liability for carrying in the public domain on Shabbat is four cubits. When the object reached four cubits, he was carrying the object intentionally.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘讝讜专拽 砖讜讙讙 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘诪注讘讬专

The Gemara explains: And in what case was this stated? If it was stated with regard to a case of throwing, the entire act was unwitting because when he became aware, there was nothing he could do to prevent the object from landing. Rather, it must have been with regard to a case of carrying.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬砖 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讗 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘诪注讘讬专 讛专讬 讘讬讚讜 讜讗诇讗 讘讝讜专拽

Rava said: One is liable. Even according to the Rabbis, who said: There is awareness for half a measure, and therefore he is exempt, they only said so there, where it is still in his control to complete or terminate the action. But here, where it is not in his control to affect the outcome, they would not say so and would deem him liable. And in what case was this stated? If it was stated with regard to a case of carrying, the outcome is still in his control. Rather, it must have been with regard to a case of throwing. Apparently, Rabba and Rava do not disagree. They are discussing separate cases.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讝专拽 讜谞讞讛 讘驻讬 讛讻诇讘 讗讜 讘驻讬 讛讻讘砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 拽诇讟讛 讗讞专 讗讜 拽诇讟讛 讛讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞砖专驻讛 驻讟讜专 讛转诐 讚诇讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉

Rabba said: If one unwittingly threw an object from one domain to another or unwittingly threw an object four cubits in a public domain on Shabbat, and it came to rest in the mouth of a dog or in a furnace, he is liable. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: If another caught it, or if a dog caught it, or if it was burned, he is exempt? The Gemara answers: There, the case of the mishna where one is exempt, one did not intend to throw it into the dog鈥檚 mouth. A dog came and snatched the object, preventing it from landing at its intended destination. Since the intention of the thrower was not realized, he is exempt. However, here, where Rabba said that the thrower is liable, he intended to throw the object into the dog鈥檚 mouth. He is liable because his intention was realized.

讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗专讘注 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚 讛讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讜讗 谞讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: We also learned support for that distinction in a mishna: There is a person who performs a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food, and he is liable to bring four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering. How so? This halakha applies to one who is ritually impure who ate forbidden fat that was notar from a consecrated offering, i.e., it remained after the time when it may have been eaten expired, and this happened on Yom Kippur. The person who did this is liable to bring one sin-offering for eating consecrated food while impure, one for eating forbidden fat, one for eating notar, and one for eating on Yom Kippur. He is also liable to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 [讘驻讬讜] 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖诐 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讛讜爪讗讛 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诪讞砖讘转讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诪讞砖讘转讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐:

Rabbi Meir says: There is one more sin-offering for which he may be liable. In addition, if it was Shabbat and he carried this olive-bulk of food from one domain to another in his mouth, he is liable for carrying out on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: Liability for the sin-offering that you added is not incurred from violation of the same type of prohibition. He is liable for carrying out the food, not for eating it. However, fundamentally, the Rabbis agree that one would be liable for carrying out in that case. The Gemara asks: And why would one be liable? That carrying, which was done in one鈥檚 mouth, is not the typical manner of carrying out. Rather, it must be that since he intended to carry out the object in that manner, his thought renders his mouth a suitable place for placement of an object. Here, too, since he intends to throw the object into the dog鈥檚 mouth, his thought renders the dog鈥檚 mouth a suitable place for placement of an object, and he is liable for throwing it there.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讝讜专拽

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讜谞讛 讻诪讛 讬讘谞讛 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讛讘讜谞讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讛诪住转转 讜讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讜讘诪注爪讚 讛拽讜讚讞 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讜诪诇讗讻转讜 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 (讜讻谉) 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讻讛 讘拽讜专谞住 注诇 讛住讚谉 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪转拽谉 诪诇讗讻讛:

MISHNA: With regard to one who builds on Shabbat, thereby violating a prohibition in a primary category of prohibited labor, how much must he build to be liable to bring a sin-offering? The Sages said: One who builds is liable for building any amount. And one who chisels, or strikes with a hammer or with an adze, or one who drills a hole of any size on Shabbat, is liable. This is the principle: Anyone who performs a prohibited labor and his labor endures on Shabbat is liable. And so too, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer during his labor has performed a constructive act and is liable, because he is as one who improves the labor that he is performing.

讙诪壮 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖讻谉 注谞讬 讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 诇讛爪谞讬注 讘讛 驻专讜讟讜转讬讜 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 诪砖讻谉 砖讻谉 转讜驻专讬 讬专讬注讜转 讞讜驻专讬谉 讙讜诪讗 诇讛爪谞讬注 讘讛 诪讞讟讬讛谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖转讻讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 砖讻谉 注谞讬 注讜砖讛 驻讬讟驻讜讟讬 讻讬专讛 拽讟谞讛 诇砖驻讜转 注诇讬讛 拽讚讬专讛 拽讟谞讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 诪砖讻谉 诪讘砖诇讬 住诪谞讬谉 诇爪讘讜注 讬专讬注讜转 砖讞住专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉 注讜砖讬谉 驻讬讟驻讜讟讬 讻讬专讛 拽讟谞讛 诇砖驻讜转 注诇讬讛 讬讜专讛 拽讟谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to any small amount of building, for what use is it suited? Rabbi Yirmeya said: As a poor person digs a hole in the floor of his house in which to hide his coins. Digging a hole in the floor of a house is an act of building. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was as those who sewed curtains in the Tabernacle dug holes in which to hide their needles. Abaye said: Since needles rust in the ground, they did not do so. The Gemara seeks a different example of small-scale building that is significant. Rather, an example is that a poor person makes legs for a small stove to place a small pot on it. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was with regard to those who cooked herbs used to dye curtains, whose dyeing process was lacking a small amount for completion. At that point, it was not worth the effort to cook a large quantity of dye, and so they would make legs for a small stove upon which to place a small cauldron to cook a small bit of dye to finish the job.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 注谞讬讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 注砖讬专讜转 讗诇讗 砖讻谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讬砖 诇讜 谞拽讘 讘讘讬专转讜 讜住讜转诪讜 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 诪砖讻谉 砖讻谉 拽专砖 砖谞驻诇讛 讘讜 讚专谞讗 诪讟讬祝 诇转讜讻讛 讗讘专 讜住讜转诪讜

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: There is no poverty in a place of wealth. In the Tabernacle, as in any public project, actions are not performed on a small scale or in parsimonious quantities; they were performed generously. Those who cooked dyes in the Tabernacle had no use for small crucibles. Rather, an example of significant small-scale building is a homeowner who has a small hole in his house and seals it. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was with regard to a beam that was set upon by a worm that bore a hole into it; one pours lead into the hole and seals it.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪爪讚讚 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讟讬讟 讛谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讟讬讟 讞讬讬讘

Shmuel said: If one sets a stone in place on Shabbat, i.e., he takes a building stone and fixes it in place on the ground on Shabbat, he is liable for performing the prohibited labor of building. The Gemara raises an objection to this from that which the Sages taught with regard to building on Shabbat. In a case where one puts down a stone and another one places the mortar, the one who places the mortar is liable for building. Apparently, the prohibition of building is only violated when mortar is added. Merely setting a stone in place is not enough to establish liability.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛注诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讬诪讜住 砖诇 讗讘谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 转诇转讗 讘谞讬讬谞讬 讛讜讜 转转讗 诪爪讬注讗 讜注讬诇讗 转转讗 讘注讬 爪讚讜讚讬 讜注驻专讗 诪爪讬注讗 讘注讬 谞诪讬 讟讬谞讗 注讬诇讗讬 讘讛谞讞讛 讘注诇诪讗:

The Gemara answers: And according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of that mishna where we learn that Rabbi Yosei says: And even if one lifted the stone and placed it on a top row of stones [dimos], he is liable even without securing it with mortar. Rather, apparently, there are three different kinds of building: Bottom row, middle row, and upper row. The bottom row requires setting the stones in place and dirt to hold it in place. The middle row requires mortar as well. The upper row suffices with mere placement.

讜讛诪住转转: 诪住转转 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讛注讜砖讛 谞拽讘 讘诇讜诇 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 注讬讬诇 砖讜驻转讗 讘拽讜驻讬谞讗 讚诪专讗 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖

We learned in the mishna: One who chisels any amount is liable. The Gemara asks: With regard to one who chisels, for which primary category of prohibited labor is he liable? Rav said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of building. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel. They similarly disagreed with regard to one who makes a hole in a chicken coop. Rav said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of building. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer. And similarly, with regard to one who inserts a pin into the handle of a hoe in order to secure the handle, Rav said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of building. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讚专讱 讘谞讬谉 讘讻讱 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 谞拽讘 讘诇讜诇 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讚讗讬谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬谉 讘讻讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讚诪讬 诇讘谞讬谉 讚注讘讚讬讛 诇讗讜讬专讗

The Gemara comments: It is necessary for the Gemara to teach us that Rav and Shmuel disagreed in each of these cases because one could not be inferred from the other. As, had the Gemara told us only the first case of chiseling, I would have said that it is specifically in that case that Rav said one is liable for building because it is a typical manner of building; however, with regard to one who makes a hole in a chicken coop, which is not a typical manner of building, say that Rav agrees with Shmuel that this is not subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building. And had the Gemara told us only about this case of making a hole in a chicken coop, I would have said that it is specifically in that case that Rav said one is liable for building, because it is similar to building, as people do so for ventilation in a chicken coop, just as they place windows in buildings.

讗讘诇 砖讜驻转讗 讘拽讜驻讬谞讗 讚诪专讗 讚讗讬谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬谉 讘讻讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛谞讱 转专转讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

However, inserting a pin into the handle of a hoe, which is not a typical manner of building, say that Rav agrees with Shmuel that it is not subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building. Conversely, had the Gemara told us only about this case of inserting a pin into the handle of a hoe, I would have said that it is only in that case that Shmuel said that the action is not subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building; however, with regard to these other two cases of chiseling and making a hole in the coop, say that Shmuel agrees with Rav that they are subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building. Therefore, it was necessary to cite all three disputes.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪住转转 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛诪住转转 讜讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讗讬诪讗 讛诪住转转 讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖

Rav Natan bar Oshaya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to one who chisels, for which primary category of prohibited labor is he liable? He indicated with his hand that he is liable for striking a blow with a hammer. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One who chisels and one who strikes a blow with a hammer, indicating that they are two different prohibitions? The Gemara answers: Emend this and say: One who chisels is liable due to the prohibition of striking a blow with a hammer.

转讗 砖诪注

Come and hear a proof that will resolve this dilemma from that which we learned:

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Shabbat 102-109

This week we will learn 2.5 chapters! We will discuss the activity of building and completing items, writing, weaving, sewing,...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time 鈥 Shabbat 96-102

This week we will review Daf 96-102 and learn about different laws pertaining to throwing on Shabbat. We will also...

Shabbat 102

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 102

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 讜谞讝讻专 诪讗讞专 砖讬爪转讛 诪讬讚讜 拽诇讟讛 讗讞专 拽诇讟讛 讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞砖专驻讛 驻讟讜专 讝专拽 诇注砖讜转 讞讘讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讜讘讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讜谞讝讻专 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讞讘讜专讛 驻讟讜专 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛 转讞诇转谉 砖讙讙讛 讜住讜驻谉 讝讚讜谉 转讞讬诇转谉 讝讚讜谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞讬诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛:

MISHNA: One who unwittingly throws an object from one domain to another or one who throws an object four cubits within the public domain, and after the object left his hand he remembered that he is in violation of a prohibition, if another caught it, or if a dog caught it, or if it was burned, he is exempt. Similarly, if one threw a rock on Shabbat to inflict a wound on a person or on an animal, for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and he remembered that he was in violation of a prohibition before the wound was inflicted, he is exempt. This is the principle: All who are liable to bring sin-offerings are only liable if the beginning of their action and the conclusion of their action are unwitting. However, if the beginning of one鈥檚 action was unwitting and the conclusion was intentional, as he became aware that he was in violation of a prohibition, or if the beginning of one鈥檚 action was intentional and the conclusion was unwitting, the individuals in both of these cases are exempt until both the beginning and the conclusion are unwitting.

讙诪壮 讛讗 谞讞讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诇讗 谞讝讻专 讜转谞谉 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇诇讻转讗 讜诪转谞讗

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that if one throws an object unwittingly and then remembers that he was in violation of a prohibition, he is exempt if the object did not come to rest on the ground. The Gemara infers: If the object comes to rest, he is liable. The Gemara asks: Why is he liable? Didn鈥檛 he remember the prohibition before it landed, and we learned in the mishna: All who are liable to bring sin-offerings are only liable if the beginning of their action and the conclusion of their action will be unwitting? If one remembered before the act was complete, he should be exempt. Rav Kahana said: With regard to the latter clause of the mishna, we have come to a special case of a bolt and a cord. The bolt is connected to a cord that one holds in his hand, which renders him capable of retrieving the bolt before it lands. Therefore, in a case where the beginning was unwitting and the conclusion was intentional, one is exempt because he is still capable of changing the outcome of the action. However, in the first clause of the mishna, once the object left his hand the action is irreversible, and therefore it is an action whose beginning and conclusion are unwitting.

诇讻转讗 讜诪转谞讗 讗讜讙讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞讘讜专讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讝讜专拽 诇注砖讜转 讞讘讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讘讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讜谞讝讻专 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讞讘讜专讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪注讘讬专

The Gemara asks: The case of the bolt and the cord is one where one holds it in his hand. Therefore, no act of throwing actually took place, and there is no liability to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara answers: The case of the bolt and the cord was not stated with regard to Shabbat. Rather, it was stated with regard to one who intended to inflict a wound by throwing an object tied to a rope. The Gemara asks: This was also taught explicitly in the mishna: If one threw a rock on Shabbat to inflict a wound on a person or on an animal, and he remembered before the wound was inflicted, he is exempt. Rather, Rava said: This principle was stated with regard to a case of carrying, not throwing an object. Since one is holding the object the entire time while violating the prohibition, and is capable of letting it go at any time, this is a case whose beginning and conclusion are intentional.

讜讛讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讚拽转谞讬 讗讝专讬拽讛 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转专转讬 拽转谞讬 讛讝讜专拽 讜谞讝讻专 诪讗讞专 砖讬爪转讛 诪讬讚讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讝讻专 讜拽诇讟讛 讗讞专 讗讜 拽诇讟讛 讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞砖专驻讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 this principle that was taught, taught with regard to throwing because that is the topic of the mishna? Rather, Rava said: Two separate matters were taught in the mishna. The first case is: One who unwittingly throws an object, and after the object left his hand he remembered that he was in violation of a prohibition. Alternatively, another case where one is exempt is: A case where one did not remember and another caught it, or a dog caught it, or if it was burned, he is exempt.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讝讜专拽 讜谞讝讻专 诪讗讞专 砖讬爪转讛 诪讬讚讜 拽诇讟讛 讗讞专 讗讜 拽诇讟讛 讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞砖专驻讛 驻讟讜专 讛讗 谞讞讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讞讝专 讜砖讻讞 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讝专 讜砖讻讞 驻讟讜专 砖讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 砖讙讙讛:

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is incomplete, and it teaches the following: One who throws a rock and remembers the violation after it left his hand, if another caught it, or if a dog caught it, or if it was burned, he is exempt. By inference, if the object comes to rest, he is liable. Rav Ashi adds: In what case are these matters stated? In a case where one then forgot again before the object came to rest. However, if one did not then forget again, he is exempt because all who are liable to bring sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning of their action and the conclusion of their action are unwitting.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讻讜壮: 讗讬转诪专 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘砖讜讙讙 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘诪讝讬讚 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘砖讜讙讙 专讘讛 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘

We learned in the mishna that this is the principle: All who are liable to bring sin-offerings are only liable if the beginning of their action and the conclusion of their action are unwitting. It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed this point. With regard to a case where one carried an object in the public domain two cubits unwittingly, and then became aware and carried it two more cubits intentionally, and then carried it two additional cubits unwittingly, and then placed the object, can this be characterized as a case in which the beginning of the action and the conclusion of the action are unwitting? Rabba said: One is exempt. Rava said: One is liable.

专讘讛 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 拽讗 讙诪专 砖讬注讜专讗 讘砖讜讙讙 拽讗 讙诪专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies the two positions. Rabba said: One is exempt. This is the halakha even according to Rabban Gamliel, who said: There is no awareness for half a measure, and therefore he is liable. Since one is not liable to bring a sacrifice for a half-measure, the fact that he became aware between consumption of the two halves of an olive-bulk is of no significance. One鈥檚 awareness does not demarcate between the two half-measures of two cubits with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering. He only said so there, when the measure that determines liability was completed, it was completed unwittingly. However, here, when the measure is completed, it is completed intentionally. In that case, he would say no, he is not liable. The measure that determines liability for carrying in the public domain on Shabbat is four cubits. When the object reached four cubits, he was carrying the object intentionally.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘讝讜专拽 砖讜讙讙 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘诪注讘讬专

The Gemara explains: And in what case was this stated? If it was stated with regard to a case of throwing, the entire act was unwitting because when he became aware, there was nothing he could do to prevent the object from landing. Rather, it must have been with regard to a case of carrying.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬砖 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讗 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘诪注讘讬专 讛专讬 讘讬讚讜 讜讗诇讗 讘讝讜专拽

Rava said: One is liable. Even according to the Rabbis, who said: There is awareness for half a measure, and therefore he is exempt, they only said so there, where it is still in his control to complete or terminate the action. But here, where it is not in his control to affect the outcome, they would not say so and would deem him liable. And in what case was this stated? If it was stated with regard to a case of carrying, the outcome is still in his control. Rather, it must have been with regard to a case of throwing. Apparently, Rabba and Rava do not disagree. They are discussing separate cases.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讝专拽 讜谞讞讛 讘驻讬 讛讻诇讘 讗讜 讘驻讬 讛讻讘砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 拽诇讟讛 讗讞专 讗讜 拽诇讟讛 讛讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞砖专驻讛 驻讟讜专 讛转诐 讚诇讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉

Rabba said: If one unwittingly threw an object from one domain to another or unwittingly threw an object four cubits in a public domain on Shabbat, and it came to rest in the mouth of a dog or in a furnace, he is liable. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: If another caught it, or if a dog caught it, or if it was burned, he is exempt? The Gemara answers: There, the case of the mishna where one is exempt, one did not intend to throw it into the dog鈥檚 mouth. A dog came and snatched the object, preventing it from landing at its intended destination. Since the intention of the thrower was not realized, he is exempt. However, here, where Rabba said that the thrower is liable, he intended to throw the object into the dog鈥檚 mouth. He is liable because his intention was realized.

讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗专讘注 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚 讛讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讜讗 谞讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: We also learned support for that distinction in a mishna: There is a person who performs a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food, and he is liable to bring four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering. How so? This halakha applies to one who is ritually impure who ate forbidden fat that was notar from a consecrated offering, i.e., it remained after the time when it may have been eaten expired, and this happened on Yom Kippur. The person who did this is liable to bring one sin-offering for eating consecrated food while impure, one for eating forbidden fat, one for eating notar, and one for eating on Yom Kippur. He is also liable to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 [讘驻讬讜] 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖诐 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讛讜爪讗讛 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诪讞砖讘转讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诪讞砖讘转讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐:

Rabbi Meir says: There is one more sin-offering for which he may be liable. In addition, if it was Shabbat and he carried this olive-bulk of food from one domain to another in his mouth, he is liable for carrying out on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: Liability for the sin-offering that you added is not incurred from violation of the same type of prohibition. He is liable for carrying out the food, not for eating it. However, fundamentally, the Rabbis agree that one would be liable for carrying out in that case. The Gemara asks: And why would one be liable? That carrying, which was done in one鈥檚 mouth, is not the typical manner of carrying out. Rather, it must be that since he intended to carry out the object in that manner, his thought renders his mouth a suitable place for placement of an object. Here, too, since he intends to throw the object into the dog鈥檚 mouth, his thought renders the dog鈥檚 mouth a suitable place for placement of an object, and he is liable for throwing it there.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讝讜专拽

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讜谞讛 讻诪讛 讬讘谞讛 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讛讘讜谞讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讛诪住转转 讜讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讜讘诪注爪讚 讛拽讜讚讞 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讜诪诇讗讻转讜 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 (讜讻谉) 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讻讛 讘拽讜专谞住 注诇 讛住讚谉 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪转拽谉 诪诇讗讻讛:

MISHNA: With regard to one who builds on Shabbat, thereby violating a prohibition in a primary category of prohibited labor, how much must he build to be liable to bring a sin-offering? The Sages said: One who builds is liable for building any amount. And one who chisels, or strikes with a hammer or with an adze, or one who drills a hole of any size on Shabbat, is liable. This is the principle: Anyone who performs a prohibited labor and his labor endures on Shabbat is liable. And so too, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer during his labor has performed a constructive act and is liable, because he is as one who improves the labor that he is performing.

讙诪壮 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖讻谉 注谞讬 讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 诇讛爪谞讬注 讘讛 驻专讜讟讜转讬讜 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 诪砖讻谉 砖讻谉 转讜驻专讬 讬专讬注讜转 讞讜驻专讬谉 讙讜诪讗 诇讛爪谞讬注 讘讛 诪讞讟讬讛谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖转讻讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 砖讻谉 注谞讬 注讜砖讛 驻讬讟驻讜讟讬 讻讬专讛 拽讟谞讛 诇砖驻讜转 注诇讬讛 拽讚讬专讛 拽讟谞讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 诪砖讻谉 诪讘砖诇讬 住诪谞讬谉 诇爪讘讜注 讬专讬注讜转 砖讞住专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉 注讜砖讬谉 驻讬讟驻讜讟讬 讻讬专讛 拽讟谞讛 诇砖驻讜转 注诇讬讛 讬讜专讛 拽讟谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to any small amount of building, for what use is it suited? Rabbi Yirmeya said: As a poor person digs a hole in the floor of his house in which to hide his coins. Digging a hole in the floor of a house is an act of building. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was as those who sewed curtains in the Tabernacle dug holes in which to hide their needles. Abaye said: Since needles rust in the ground, they did not do so. The Gemara seeks a different example of small-scale building that is significant. Rather, an example is that a poor person makes legs for a small stove to place a small pot on it. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was with regard to those who cooked herbs used to dye curtains, whose dyeing process was lacking a small amount for completion. At that point, it was not worth the effort to cook a large quantity of dye, and so they would make legs for a small stove upon which to place a small cauldron to cook a small bit of dye to finish the job.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 注谞讬讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 注砖讬专讜转 讗诇讗 砖讻谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讬砖 诇讜 谞拽讘 讘讘讬专转讜 讜住讜转诪讜 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 诪砖讻谉 砖讻谉 拽专砖 砖谞驻诇讛 讘讜 讚专谞讗 诪讟讬祝 诇转讜讻讛 讗讘专 讜住讜转诪讜

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: There is no poverty in a place of wealth. In the Tabernacle, as in any public project, actions are not performed on a small scale or in parsimonious quantities; they were performed generously. Those who cooked dyes in the Tabernacle had no use for small crucibles. Rather, an example of significant small-scale building is a homeowner who has a small hole in his house and seals it. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was with regard to a beam that was set upon by a worm that bore a hole into it; one pours lead into the hole and seals it.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪爪讚讚 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讟讬讟 讛谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讟讬讟 讞讬讬讘

Shmuel said: If one sets a stone in place on Shabbat, i.e., he takes a building stone and fixes it in place on the ground on Shabbat, he is liable for performing the prohibited labor of building. The Gemara raises an objection to this from that which the Sages taught with regard to building on Shabbat. In a case where one puts down a stone and another one places the mortar, the one who places the mortar is liable for building. Apparently, the prohibition of building is only violated when mortar is added. Merely setting a stone in place is not enough to establish liability.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛注诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讬诪讜住 砖诇 讗讘谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 转诇转讗 讘谞讬讬谞讬 讛讜讜 转转讗 诪爪讬注讗 讜注讬诇讗 转转讗 讘注讬 爪讚讜讚讬 讜注驻专讗 诪爪讬注讗 讘注讬 谞诪讬 讟讬谞讗 注讬诇讗讬 讘讛谞讞讛 讘注诇诪讗:

The Gemara answers: And according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of that mishna where we learn that Rabbi Yosei says: And even if one lifted the stone and placed it on a top row of stones [dimos], he is liable even without securing it with mortar. Rather, apparently, there are three different kinds of building: Bottom row, middle row, and upper row. The bottom row requires setting the stones in place and dirt to hold it in place. The middle row requires mortar as well. The upper row suffices with mere placement.

讜讛诪住转转: 诪住转转 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讛注讜砖讛 谞拽讘 讘诇讜诇 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 注讬讬诇 砖讜驻转讗 讘拽讜驻讬谞讗 讚诪专讗 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖

We learned in the mishna: One who chisels any amount is liable. The Gemara asks: With regard to one who chisels, for which primary category of prohibited labor is he liable? Rav said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of building. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel. They similarly disagreed with regard to one who makes a hole in a chicken coop. Rav said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of building. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer. And similarly, with regard to one who inserts a pin into the handle of a hoe in order to secure the handle, Rav said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of building. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讚专讱 讘谞讬谉 讘讻讱 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 谞拽讘 讘诇讜诇 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讚讗讬谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬谉 讘讻讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讚诪讬 诇讘谞讬谉 讚注讘讚讬讛 诇讗讜讬专讗

The Gemara comments: It is necessary for the Gemara to teach us that Rav and Shmuel disagreed in each of these cases because one could not be inferred from the other. As, had the Gemara told us only the first case of chiseling, I would have said that it is specifically in that case that Rav said one is liable for building because it is a typical manner of building; however, with regard to one who makes a hole in a chicken coop, which is not a typical manner of building, say that Rav agrees with Shmuel that this is not subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building. And had the Gemara told us only about this case of making a hole in a chicken coop, I would have said that it is specifically in that case that Rav said one is liable for building, because it is similar to building, as people do so for ventilation in a chicken coop, just as they place windows in buildings.

讗讘诇 砖讜驻转讗 讘拽讜驻讬谞讗 讚诪专讗 讚讗讬谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬谉 讘讻讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛谞讱 转专转讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

However, inserting a pin into the handle of a hoe, which is not a typical manner of building, say that Rav agrees with Shmuel that it is not subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building. Conversely, had the Gemara told us only about this case of inserting a pin into the handle of a hoe, I would have said that it is only in that case that Shmuel said that the action is not subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building; however, with regard to these other two cases of chiseling and making a hole in the coop, say that Shmuel agrees with Rav that they are subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building. Therefore, it was necessary to cite all three disputes.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪住转转 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛诪住转转 讜讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讗讬诪讗 讛诪住转转 讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖

Rav Natan bar Oshaya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to one who chisels, for which primary category of prohibited labor is he liable? He indicated with his hand that he is liable for striking a blow with a hammer. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One who chisels and one who strikes a blow with a hammer, indicating that they are two different prohibitions? The Gemara answers: Emend this and say: One who chisels is liable due to the prohibition of striking a blow with a hammer.

转讗 砖诪注

Come and hear a proof that will resolve this dilemma from that which we learned:

Scroll To Top