SANHEDRIN 62 (25 Elul) - Dedicated in memory of Yechiel Avraham Avigdor ben Eliyahu Glaser z'l, by his brother Yisrael and family. May Avigdor's children continue to grow in Torah and Yiras Shamayim, and become sources of pride and Nachas to their father in Gan Eden.


תוספות ד"ה ורבא אמר [לך] לא באומר מותר

ובריש הגולין (מכות דף ז. ושם) דממעט רבא מ"בשגגה" - 'פרט לאומר מותר'?

(a) Implied Question: At the beginning of Perek ha'Golin, where Rava learns from "bi'Shegagah to preclude 'Omer Mutar' ...

התם גרס 'רבה', דעני אביי בתריה.

(b) Answer #1: There the correct text is Rava, seeing as Abaye explains after him.

אי נמי, גבי גלות טובא "בשגגה" כתיבי.

(c) Answer #2: Alternatively, with regard to Galus, the Torah writes "bi'Shegagah" a number of times (in which case, it could even be Rava).


תוספות ד"ה מאי טעמא דר' יוסי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos refute Rashi's interpretation of the question [to know what the 'Mem' of "me'Achas" and the 'Mem' of "me'Heinah" are coming to teach us] and present their own).

בפ' כלל גדול (שבת ד' ע.) פ"ה דאכתי 'מ"ם' דמאחת ו'מ"ם' דמהנה למאי אתו?

(a) Explanation #1: In Perek K'lal Gadol, Rashi explains that what the Gemara is asking is what the 'Mem' of "me'Achas" and the 'Mem' of "me'Heinah" come to teach us (according to R. Yossi).

ולשון 'מ"ט' לא משמע כן.

(b) Question: However, the wording 'Mai Ta'ama' does not imply this.

ויש לפרש 'מ"ט דר' יוסי', הא לשמעון ולשם משמעון לאבות ולתולדות איצטריך?

(c) Explanation #2 (Part 1): The explanation of the question is that we need it for ‘Shimon’ and ‘Shem mi’Shimon’, and for Avos and Toldos.

ומפרש - משום דאסמכינהו אהדדי דרשינן נמי 'אחת שהיא הנה, ו'הנה שהיא אחת'.

(d) Explanation #2 (Part 2): And the Gemara answers that R. Yossi learns 'Achas she'Hi Heinah' and 'Heinah she'Hi Achas' from the fact that the two words are juxtaposed.


3) TOSFOS DH HE'ELAM ZEH VEZEH BE'YADO (The first two Tosfos pertain to Amud Alef).

תוספות ד"ה העלם זה וזה בידו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos prove from the Gemar in 'K'lal Gadol' that the case is where the perpetrator does not know of any Melachah that is forbidden on Shabbos, and differentiate between this case and a Tinok she'Nishba, where he completely forgot about Shabbos. They then query the Gemara's outcome with regard to Rava's She'eilah 'He'elam Zeh va'Zeh be'Yado' - 've'Tifshot!', seeing as the Gemara could refuted the proof in a variety of ways, some of them actually cited at the beginning of Kerisus, and they answer).

פי' - דלא ידע לשבת בשום מלאכה.

(a) Clarification: This means that he did not about Shabbos with regard to any Melachah ...

כדמוכח בפ' כלל גדול (שבת דף ע. ושם) דמייתי עלה מתני' ארבעים מלאכות חסר אחת 'וא"ר יוחנן, שאם עשה כולם בהעלם אחד ... '.

(b) Proof: As is evident in Perek K'lal Gadol, where, regarding this very case, the Gemara cites the Mishnah of 'Arba'im Melachos Chaser Achas Achas', in connection with which R. Yochanan explains 'that he performed them all in one He'elam ('forgetting').

ולא דמי ל'שכח עיקר שבת', דתנן התם 'אינו חייב אלא אחת', דשכח לגמרי כגון תינוק שנשבה לבין הנכרים, אבל הכא כי מדכרו ליה מדכר.

(c) Distinction: It is not comparable to where one forgot that Shabbos exists, in which case the Mishnah there obligates him to bring one Chatas (like in our case), since whereas there he forgot completely, such as where he was captured among Nochrim; whereas here we are speaking where, had someone reminded him, he would have remembered.

וא"ת, מאי קאמר הכא 'תפשוט ... !', דילמא הכא דאינו חייב אלא אחד דשכח לגמרי כגון תינוק שנשבה לבין הנכרים?

(d) Question: How can the Gemara then conclude 've'Tifshot'? Perhaps the reason that he is only Chayav one Chatas in this case is because the Tana is speaking where the perpetrator forgot Shabbos completely, such as someone who was captured as a child?

ויש לומר, דה"מ לשנויי הכי.

(e) Answer: The Gemara could in fact have answered like that.

ובפ"ק דכריתות (דף ג:) משני רב פפא 'משכחת לה בתינוק שנשבה לבין הנכרים' ...

(f) Alternative Answer #1: In fact, the Gemara in the beginning of Kerisus actually does answer that the case (of Shigegas Avodas-Kochavim ve'Zadon Melachos) is speaking with regard to a child who was captured ....

אי נמי, 'דטעו בהאי קרא (שמות כ) "אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב" אסירי, דמיני אחרינא לא!'

(g) Alternative Answer #2: Alternative, even to grown-up, who, based on the Pasuk in Yisro "Elohei Kesef v'Elokei Zahav", believes that the Isur pertaining to Avodah-Zarah is confined to idols made of silver and gold, but not to those made of any other materials.

וה"נ, הוה מצי לאוקמי במגפף לעבודת כוכבים, שדרכה בגיפוף והוא סבור שאין דרכה בכך.

(h) Alternative Answer #3 (Question): Similarly, the Gemara could have established it in a case where he embraced an idol just like its adherents used to do, only he thought that this was not the way that one formally worshipped it.

אלא כיון דלא קאי הכי, לא חשש לדקדק.

(i) Answer: Only since the answer ('ve'Yifshot') does not remain anyway, the Gemara did not bother to present these answers.


תוס' ד"ה הא לא קשיא תיפשוט

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses a discrepancy in Rav Nachman regarding ''Zeh ve'Zeh be'Yado', who rules in Shabbos, that, with regard to Shabbos, that one is Chayav only one Chatas [le'Kula]; Whereas, in Shevu'os, with regard to both Tum'ah and Shevu'ah, he rules le'Chumra).

בפרק כלל גדול (שבת דף ע: ושם) אהדר ליה רב נחמן לרבא - 'הרי העלם שבת בידו ואינו חייב אלא אחת'.

(a) Statement: In Perek K'lal Gadol, Rav Nachman answers Rava that, when all's said and done, he did forget Shabbos, in which case he is only Chayav one Chatas.

ותימה, דבפרק ב' דשבועות (דף יט. ושם) לענין טומאה, ובפ"ג (דף כו.) לענין שבועה בעי כה"ג, וקא פשיט רב נחמן לחומרא; והכא לקולא?

(b) Question: However, in the second Perek of Shevu'os regarding Tum'ah, and in the third Perek regarding Shevu'ah, Rav Nachman himself resolves the same She'eilah stringently, whilst in Shabbos, he resolves it leniently.

וי"ל הכא שאני, דשכח עיקר המצוה.

(c) Answer: It is different here, because the main part of the Mitzvah is Shabbos (of which the Melachos are but a detail).


תוספות ד"ה רישא בעבודת כוכבים וסיפא בשאר מצות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos ask why we cannot establish the entire Beraisa by 'Sha'ar Mitzvos', and the Seifa speaks by someone who Shechts and sprinkles outside the Azarah [even according to R. Avahu, who maintains that he is Chayav two Chata'os in that case]. Next they explain why, due to the corresponding case of Shabbos, it is not possible to learn like that. Finally they explain why we cannot establish the case by other Mitzvos, such as homosexuality and bestiality in one Ha'alamah, and then as why despite their answer, the Gemara does establish the Seifa by Chalavim. They have a problem though, as to why the Gemara would have been happy to establish the Reisha by Chalavim, too).

תימה, הא איכא לאוקמי כולה בשאר מצות, ומאי 'משא"כ בשאר מצות', כגון שחט וזרק בחוץ, דאינו חייב אלא אחת, כדאמר אביי בפרק אחד דיני ממונות (לעיל דף לד.)?

(a) Question (Part 1): It is possible to establish the entire Beraisa by other Mitzvos, and when the Tana says 'which is not the case by other Mitzvos, he is referring to someone who Shechts and sprinkles outside (the Azarah), where he is only Chayav one Chatas, as Abaye stated in Perek Echad Dinei Manonos ...

ולרבי אבהו דפליג עליה, משכחת ליה לר' ישמעאל בשחט וזרק, ולר' עקיבא העלאה וזרק שגג בלא מתכוין ...

(b) Question (Part 2): And even according to R. Avahu, who disagrees, one can establish it according to R. Yishmael, where he both Shechted it and sprinkled the blood, or according to R. Akiva, where he offerered it up and sprinkled the blood unintentionally ...

כגון שהיה צריך לשחוט בהמה של חולין ונתכוין לשוחטה, ונמצאת אחרת והיא של קדשים

(c) Question (Part 3): For example, where he needs to Shecht Chulin, which he does intentionally, but the animal then turns out to be Kodshim.

וכנגדו בשבת שהיה צריך לחתוך תלוש ומתכוין לחתוך אותו, ונמצא שהוא מחובר אחר, פטור ד'מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה'?

(d) Question (Part 4): And correspondingly on Shabbos, where he needs to cut up something that is detached, which he does intentionally, only it then turns out to have been attached, where he is Patur because it the Torah only forbids 'Meleches Machsheves' (where one intended to perform a Melachah on Shabbos).

וי"ל, דלא מ"ל הכי, דמשמע דפטור בשבת לפי ששגג בלא מתכוין, וכה"ג אפילו צריך למחובר ונתכוין לחותכו, ונמצא מחובר אחר, פטור, דאין זה 'מלאכת מחשבת'.

(e) Answer: It would not have been possible for the Tana to have learned this case, since it implies that that he is Patur on Shabbos since he was Shogeg without Kavanah. But if that were so, then he will be Patur even if he means to cut up what is attached and it turns to be another attached article, seeing as it is not 'Meleches Machsheves'.

מיהו קשה, לוקמה בשאר מצות כמו בנרבע לזכור ולבהמה דאמר לעיל (דף נד:) ד'אינו חייב אלא אחת'?

(f) Question: Why do we not establish the case by other Mitzvos, such as homosexuality and bestiality in one Ha'alamah?'

וי"ל דעבודת כוכבים שייך לקרות 'שאר מצות' - ששקולה כנגד כל המצות, אבל רביעה, לא;

(g) Answer: It is appropriate to refer to Avodah-Zarah as 'other Mitzvos', seeing as it is compared to all the Mitzvos; but not to raping, which is not!

אע"ג דמוקמינן סיפא בחלבים?

(h) Implied Question: Why do we then establish the Seifa by Chalavim, since it is not compared to all the Mitzvos any more than raping is?

איידי דנקט רישא שער מצוות, נקט נמי סיפא שער מצוות.

(i) Answer: Since the Reisha mentions 'Other Mitzvos' with regard to Avodah-Zarah, the Seifa mentions it too.

וק"ק, דמשמע דאי הוה מתוקמה רישא בחלבים, הוה ניחא.

(j) Question: The problem is however, that the Gemara implies that if the Reisha as well as the Seifa was speaking about Chalavim, everything would be fine (even though Chalavim are not compared to the entire Torah


תוספות ד"ה להגביה את התלוש וחתך את המחובר

(SUMMARY: After citing Rashi, who learns this Din from "Asher Chata Bah", Tosfos discuss at length why Shmuel then needs to learn Mis'asek from "Meleches Machsheves" [i.e. what he learns from "Meleches Machsheves", and Abaye and Rava, respectively, learn from "Bah").

פ"ה, דכתיב "אשר חטא בה", כדדרשינן בפרק ספק אכל (כריתות דף יט.) 'פרט למתעסק'.

(a) Clarification: Rashi explains that we learn it from "Asher Chata Bah", as the Gemara explains in Kerisus.

וקשה, למה ליה לשמואל במתעסק בשבת טעמא ד'מלאכת מחשבת', ת"ל מ"בה"?

(b) Question: The question then arises however, why Shmuel finds it necessary to learn Mis'asek on Shabbos from 'Meleches Machsheves', and not from "Bah"?

וי"ל, דה"ק 'בשבת פטור', אף על פי שנהנה, משום 'מלאכת מחשבת'.

(c) Answer #1: Shmuel learns from 'Meleches Machsheves' that one is Patur even though he derived benefit from his act (which is Chayav by other Isurim, despite "Bah").

ועי"ל, מתעסק דפטר הכתוב מ"בה" התם, היינו כדמפרש התם - לרבא משכחת לה כגון שנתכוין לחתוך את התלוש וחתך את המחובר, דהיינו 'ונמצא שהוא מחובר' - דנעשית מחשבתו.

(d) Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, the Mis'asek that the Torah exempts from "Bah", according to Rava refers to where one intends to cut Talush and inadvertently cuts Mechubar (meaning that he subsequently discovered that it was Mechubar), in which case his intention has been carried out.

דאי מחובר אחר, אפילו היכא דנתכוין למחובר פטור, דומיא ד'נתכוין לכבות זה וכבה זה', דפטרינן התם בההיא פירקא (דף כ.).

(e) Answer #2 (Part 2): Because if he meant to cut a different Mechubar, he would be Patur even if he initially intended to cut Mechubar, like the Din regarding somebody who means to extinguish one lamp and inadvertently extinguishes another lamp, which the Gemara in the same Perek exempts from a Chatas.

ולאביי משכחת לה כגון ד'נתכוין להגביה את התלוש וחתך את המחובר' - כלומר, ונמצא שהוא מחובר, דכל כה"ג מלאכת מחשבת היא, ולא מיפטר אלא מ"בה".

(f) Answer #2 (Part 3): And according to Abaye, the case of Mis'asek refers to where he intends to pick up an object that is Talush and inadvertently cuts what is Mechubar (meaning that he subsequently discovered that it was Mechubar). All of these cases fall under the category of 'Meleches Machsheves' (seeing as achieved what he intended to), and he is only Patur because of "Bah".

אבל מתעסק דשמואל, דפטר משום 'מלאכת מחשבת' היינו במתכוין לחתוך מחובר זה וחתך מחובר אחר, דלא נעשית מחשבתו.

(g) Answer #2 (Part 4): Whereas the 'Mis'asek' of Shmuel, which he exempts because it is not Meleches Machsheves', speaks where the perpetrator means to cut one Mechubar, and inadvertently cuts a different Mechubar, where he does not achieve what he intended to.

הא דקאמר התם אהא דמוקי "אשר חטא בה", 'פרט למתעסק - מתעסק דמאי, אי דחלבים ועריות חייב, שכן נהנה! אלא דשבת, פטור דאמר שמואל "המתעסק ... " ?'

(h) Implied Question (Part 1): When the Gemara in Kerisus, with reference to the D'rashah "Asher Chata Bah", 'P'rat le'Mis'asek', asks 'Mis'asek de'Mai, I de'Chalavim va'Arayos - Chayav, she'Kein Neheneh; Ela de'Shabbos - Patur, de'Amar Shmuel "ha'Mis'asaek ... " ?'

משמע דשמואל איירי כהאי גוונא במתעסק

(i) Implied Question (Part 2): This implies that Shmuel is speaking about thr same case of Mis'asek as the D'rashah of "Asher Chata Bah"?

לא מייתי דשמואל אלא משום חלבים ועריות, דלא מיתוקם ביה קרא.

(j) Answer: The Gemara cites Shmuel to counter Chalavim va'Arayos (to which the Pasuk "Asher Chata Bah" does not pertain).