POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) WHEN IS MIS'ASEK EXEMPT?
(a) Question (R. Oshaya, against Shmuel): (If R. Yehudah discusses Ibed Melaket mi'Libo, presumably the previous clause also does!)
1. (Mishnah - R. Shimon (and R. Shimon Shezuri)): R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that if both Melachos have the same Shem, he brings a Chatas;
2. They argue about when they are different Shemos Melachah. R. Eliezer is Mechayev Chatas, and R. Yehoshua exempts.
3. Question: R. Yehudah says that they argue about one who picked figs in place of grapes, or black in place of white. This is two Shemos, just like R. Shimon!
4. Answer: They argue about Mis'asek. R. Yehudah says that both are Mechayev (in a case of one Shem), and R. Shimon says that both exempt (unlike Shmuel)!
(b) Answer #1: No, all exempt Mis'asek;
1. R. Shimon obligates in a case of one Shem, and says that they argue about two Shemos. R. Yehudah says that they argue even about one Shem (e.g. different colors. Above, we considered this two Shemos.)
(c) Answer #2 (Rava): They argue about one who did two Melachos, but not in the order he intended:
1. (Beraisa): In the following cases, Reuven is exempt:
i. Two lamps were lit. He wanted to extinguish A but extinguished B instead;
ii. Neither was lit. He wanted to light A, but lit B instead. (This is like our text. Some texts say that he is liable. R. Gershom - if he wanted to extinguish (or light) both, A before B, but did B before A, he is liable.)
2. If only one was lit, and he wanted to light the second and then extinguish the first, but he extinguished and then lit:
i. If he did so in one breath (surely, he did both simultaneously), he is liable. If he did so in two breaths, he is exempt.
3. Objection: This is obvious!
4. Answer: One might have thought that even in one breath he is exempt, for perhaps he did the opposite of his intent, i.e. he extinguished first;
i. Rava teaches that this is not so. Granted, he did not light first, but he did not light after. (He lit and extinguished at once. This does not exempt.)
(d) (Beraisa): If one took coals from a pile (Rashi - and filled a bucket; R. Gershom - and dumped them on the floor) on Shabbos, he brings a Chatas;
(e) R. Eliezer bar Tzadok says, he brings two Chata'os, for extinguishing the top coals (they are now on bottom) and igniting the lower coals (they are now on top).
(f) Question: What is the case?
1. If he intended to extinguish and ignite, why does the first Tana obligate only once?!
(g) Answer #1: He intended only to extinguish.
(h) Objection: If so, why does R. Eliezer obligate twice?!
(i) Answer #2 (R. Elazar and R. Chanina): He intended to extinguish the top coals (to make Pechamim, i.e. (something that catches fire easily), in order to (more precisely - even though this will) ignite the lower coals;
1. The first Tana exempts Mekalkel b'Hav'arah (non-constructive burning). R. Eliezer is Mechayev.
2. Support (R. Yochanan): The case is, he is a smith (who needs Pechamim. He does not want the lower coals to burn).
3. R. Yirmeyah: Only now we learned to explain this Beraisa!
(j) Answer #3 (Ami bar Avin and Rav Chanina bar Avin): He intended to extinguish and ignite;
1. The first Tana holds like R. Yosi, who says that (a verse specifically forbids burning on Shabbos, for) burning is only a Lav. (It is not a Melachah.)
2. R. Eliezer holds like R. Nasan, who says that burning was singled out Lechalek. (It teaches that one is liable for each Melachah by itself, just like he is liable for burning.)
(k) Answer #4 (Rava): They argue about one who wanted to do these Melachos in a particular order (Minchas Bikurim on Tosefta Shabbos 2:5 - but he did them at the same time. The first Tana obligates once, like above, for they were not done in the opposite order. R. Eliezer is Mechayev twice, for the order does not matter.)
(l) Answer #5 (Rav Ashi): The case is, he intended only to extinguish. The bottom coals flared up on their own;
1. The first Tana holds like R. Shimon, who exempts Davar she'Eino Miskaven (something one did not intend to do). R. Eliezer holds like R. Yehudah, who is Mechayev for a Davar she'Eino Miskaven.
(m) (Beraisa #1): If one filled a bucket of coals on Shabbos for the sake of warmth, and they flared up by themselves, he is liable;
(n) (Beraisa #2): He is exempt.
1. Tana #1 is Mechayev for a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah (he does not benefit from it, e.g. they would give warmth even without flaring up; Tosfos Shabbos 94a - the Melachah is done for a different purpose than in the Mishkan). Tana #2 exempts.
PEREK DAM SHECHITAH
2) LIABILITY FOR EATING BLOOD
(a) (Mishnah): One is Chayav (Kares or Korban) for eating Dam ha'Nefesh (blood that exudes at the time of death) of a Tamei or Tahor Behemah, Chayah or fowl, whether it came from Shechitah, Nechirah (he cut or tore the Simanim lengthwise), (Tosfos - Shechitah done after) Ikur (uprooting the Simanim from the mouth), or bloodletting;
(b) One is exempt for blood of the spleen, heart, Beitzim (eggs; alternatively - testicles), grasshoppers, and Dam Tamtzis (that exudes before or after Dam ha'Nefesh);
(c) R. Yehudah is Mechayev for Dam Tamtzis.
(d) (Gemara - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "v'Chol Dam Lo Sochlu" includes even blood of people, Beitzim, grasshoppers, and fish!
1. Rejection: The Torah forbids "la'Of vela'Behemah." Birds and Behemos have light Tum'ah (Tum'as Ochlim) and severe Tum'ah (their Nevelos can be Metamei a person and his clothes), they are (initially) forbidden but can become permitted (through Shechitah), and they are meat. The Isur of Dam applies to everything with all these qualities;
2. The following bloods are excluded;
i. Of people, for they have only severe Tum'ah; but not light Tum'ah; of Sheratzim, for they lack severe Tum'ah; of eggs, for they are not meat; of fish and grasshoppers, for they are totally permitted (even without Shechitah).