ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
SHABBOS 97 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the thirteenth Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Vayihyu B'nei Yisrael ba'Midbar, va'Yimtze'u Ish" and "Avinu Mes ba'Midbar" - that the Mekoshesh was Tzelofchad.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira maintains that if the Torah made a point of hiding the name of the Mekoshesh, even assuming that it was Tzelofchad - then how could Rebbi Akiva reveal it? If on the other hand, he was wrong, then he was being Motzi Shem Ra on that Tzadik!
(c) A 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is only valid if a person received it from his Rebbes, and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira did not receive this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from his Rebbes.
(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, Tzelofchad was one of the Ma'apilim - those who rebelled following the episode of the Meraglim, who insisted on going forward to fight, after Moshe had warned them not to go.
(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk "va'Yichar Af Hash-m Bam va'Yeilach" - that Aharon was stricken with Tzara'as, just like Miriam was.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira objects like he did in the previous case (that if the Torah has made a point of covering over Aharon's punishment, then what right did Rebbi Akiva have to reveal it? If on the other hand, he was wrong, then he was being Motzi Shem Ra on that Tzadik).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira extrapolates from "Bam" - that Aharon was placed in Nezifah (disgrace) like Miriam, but not that he was stricken with Tzara'as.
(d) The Beraisa, which holds like Rebbi Akiva, interpret the Pasuk there "va'Yifen Aharon el Miriam ve'Hinei Metzora'as" to mean - "va'Yifen mi'Tzara'ato" (that he turned from his Tzara'as).
(a) Resh Lakish learns from the fact that, following Moshe's doubts that Yisrael would accept his initial message of salvation, he was stricken with Tzara'as - that someone who suspects his fellow-Jew of doing (or even thinking) something forbidden, will be stricken on his body.
(b) Hash-m's response to Moshe's statement, "ve'Hein Lo Ya'aminu Li" (besides striking his hand with Tzara'as) was - firstly, to inform him that a. they were 'Ma'aminim b'nei Ma'aminim', and b. that, if anything, it was he (Moshe) - who was destined to display a lack of faith (later by the rock).
(c) Rava (or Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina) proves that Hash-m's measure of goodness works quicker than His measure of punishment - from the fact that with regard to Moshe's hand, the Torah writes "va'Yotzi'ah, ve'Hinei Yado Metzora'as ka'Shaleg" (implying only after he had withdrawn it from his bosom); whereas when it returned to normal, it writes "va'Yotzi'ah me'Cheiko, ve'Hinei Shavah ki'Vesaro" (implying that it had returned to its former state already before he withdrew it).
(d) Rebbi Elazar describes "Vayivla Mateh Aharon es Matosam" - implying that it was only after Aharon's stick had turned back from a snake into a stick, that it swallowed the Egyptian wizards' sticks. That is a 'Nes Besoch Nes' (a miracle within a miracle).
(a) Assuming that the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah (regarding throwing from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another via a Reshus ha'Rabim) speaks when one throws the article below ten Tefachim, then the basis of their Machlokes is - whether we say 'Kelutah K'mi she'Hunchah Dami' (meaning that once it reaches the air of a particular domain, it is as if the article is resting on the ground (Rebbi Akiva), or not (the Rabbanan)
(b) Where one throws the article above ten Tefachim, however - they will both exempt him from a Chatas. (c) The basis of their Machlokes according to the latter side of the She'eilah, will then be - whether we learn Zorek (which did not take place in the Mishkan) from Moshit (handing over from one to another, which did, as we learned earlier [Rebbi Akiva]), or not (the Chachamim).
(c) According to the latter side of the She'eilah (which speaks when one throws it above ten Tefachim, they are arguing over whether we learn 'Zorek' from 'Moshit' (Rebbi Akiva), or not (the Rabbanan).
(d) Both will hold however - that somebody who throws below ten Tefachim is Chayav, due to the principle of 'Kelutah ... '.
(a) According to Rav Yosef, Rav Chisda asked the same She'eilah. Rav Hamnuna resolves it from the word 've'Avar bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Atzmah' used by the Beraisa - which implies that it is below ten Tefachim (since above that is not part of the Reshus ha'Rabim).
(b) And he knows that the Beraisa is referring to throwing, and not handing over, thanks to a statement by Rebbi Elazar, who ruled - that someone who carries above ten Tefachim in the Reshus ha'Rabim is Chayav (because that is how the B'nei Kehas carried the Holy Vessels in the desert.
(c) In that case, Rav Hamnuna concludes, the Beraisa must be speaking about Zorek, because if it was speaking about Moshit, then why does the Tana confine Rebbi Akiva's ruling to below ten Tefachim? Why does he not extend his ruling even to above ten Tefachim (like Rebbi Elazar).
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar (ben Pedas, the Amora), Rebbi Akiva and the Chachamim argue even above ten Tefachim. The basis of their Machlokes ...
1. ... above ten Tefachim is - whether we learn Zorek from Moshit.
2. ... below ten Tefachim is - whether 'Kelutah K'mi she'Hunchah Dami' or not.
(b) And the Tana mentions the word "Atzmah" to teach us - that the Chachamim also argue below ten Tefachim and hold Patur).
(c) Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi disagrees with Rebbi Elazar. In his opinion, someone who throws below three Tefachim, is Chayav according to everybody (because of 'Kelutah ... '); above ten Tefachim, is Patur according to everybody (because we do not learn Zorek from Moshit). And it is for throwing between three and ten Tefachim that one is Chayav according to Rebbi Akiva, and Patur according to the Rabbanan.
(d) The basis of their Machlokes, according to Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi is - whether we say 'Kelutah ... ' between three and ten Tefachim or not.
(a) We learned a Beraisa in support of Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi - where the Tana rules - that throwing from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another via a Reshus ha'Rabim higher than ten Tefachim is prohibited mi'de'Rabbanan ...
(b) ... even if there is no Reshus ha'Rabim in between them.
(c) The Rabbanan permit doing this Lechatchilah - in a case where both domains belong to the thrower.
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav one forbids throwing from one house in one's own domain to another house across the street - whilst Shmuel permits it.
(b) We reconcile Rav with the Beraisa that we just learned which permits it - by establishing the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel where the two houses are on different levels, and we are afraid that he might miss his aim, the article will fall in the Reshus ha'Rabim and he will go and fetch it, carrying it from the street into the house.
(a) Any bumps in the ground of the street are considered part of the street, because of the principle of 'Levud'. Rav Chisda asked Rav Hamnuna (or vice-versa) for the source of Levud. Ultimately he answered - that it is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
(b) His initial response was 'she'i Efshar li'Reshus ha'Rabim she'Tilaket bi'Melaket u'Rehitni', meaning - that it is simply impractical to expect the municipality to flatten every bump in the road.
(c) One of the objections to this S'vara is that what is then the difference between less than three Tefachim and three Tefachim. The other is - based on the Mishnah in Succah, which applies the principle to walls which stop within three Tefachim of the ground, where the above S'vara does not apply.
(d) We disapprove of the suggestion that the reason there is because a Mechitzah that allows kid goats to pass underneath it, is not a Mechitzah - because this would not justify Levud regarding a Mechitzah going upwards (which we say on various occasions).
(a) According to Rav and Shmuel. when Rebbi says that someone who throws from one Reshus ha'Rabim to another, via a Reshus ha'Yachid, is Chayav, he is talking specifically - about a Reshus ha'Yachid which has a ceiling, and he holds Chayav - because it is as if the house was filled in ('Beisa ke'Ma'an de'Malya Damya' [and he is speaking when the article actually passes through the house, via the windows or the doors]).
(b) The Rabbanan hold - that he is Patur.
(c) Rav Chisda ... Amar Shmuel states that Rebbi is in fact, Mechayev not just one Chatas, but two (one for Hotza'ah and one for Hachnasah). Rav Chana however, queries this from a Beraisa, where based on the Pasuk in Vayakhel "Eileh ha'Devarim" Rebbi comments - that the maximum number of Chata'os that one can be Chayav (for transgressing all the Melachos on Shabbos), is thirty-nine (from which it is clear that he is not Mechayev for transgressing a Toldah together with its Av [as we learned in K'lal Gadol]), in which case one cannot be Chayav for Hachnasah and Hotza'ah at the same time.
(a) Rav Yosef avoids this problem by establishing Shmuel's statement (not like Rebbi, but) like Rebbi Yehudah in another Beraisa - where they argue over someone who throws from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim, and the article then travels four Amos in the Reshus ha'Rabim before landing.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah says there - that he is Chayav.
(c) And Rav Yosef now claims - that it is in connection with this ruling that Rav Chisda ... Amar Shmuel said 'Chayav Shetayim, Achas Mishum Hotza'ah, ve'Achas Mishum Hachnasah'.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel tries to prove that Rebbi Yehudah must hold that one is Chayav two Chata'os, one for Hotza'ah and one for Ha'avarah (meaning Zerikah), and not just one - because if that is so, then on what grounds do the Rabbanan argue and say Patur? Since he has performed both a Hotza'ah and a Hachnasah, why should he not be Chayav at least for the Hotza'ah (which is the Av)? And that being the case, Rebbi Yehudah must mean that he is Chayav even for the Hachnasah, as well (and Rebbi Yehudah, unlike Rebbi, will hold that one is Chayav for a Toldah that one transgresses together with its Av).
(b) We refute this proof however, restricting Rebbi Yehudah to one Chatas, after all. To explain why the Rabbanan exempt the thrower from even one Chatas we establish the Beraisa - in a case where the thrower declared that the object should be considered as having rested as soon as it enters the airspace of the Reshus ha'Rabim ...
(c) ... in which case the Rabbanan will hold that he is Patur - because they hold 'Kelutah La'av K'mi she'Hunchah Damya', whereas Rebbi Yehudah holds ' ... K'mi she'Hunchah Damya'.
(d) Both Tana'im will now hold - that 'Toldah be'Makom Av' is Patur.
(a) We try to reject this supposition from Rebbi Yehudah's ruling regarding Shovet (arranging the threads of the warp onto the reel of the spinning-loom), and Medakdek (striking the threads of the woof as one stretches them (to prevent them from becoming too taut [or straightens them]) - which he includes in the thirty-nine Melachos of Shabbos.
(b) The Rabbanan object to that however - on the grounds that 'Shovet' is included in 'Meisach', and Medakdek, in 'Oreg' (meaning that they are their Toldos) ...
(c) ... a proof that Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that one is Chayav for both, is Mechayev on a Toldah be'Makom Av.
(d) We ...
1. ... reject this suggestion however - by agreeing that they argue when the transgressor performed all four Melachos, and Rebbi Yehudah argues with the Chachamim in that he considers Shovet and Medakdek Avos and not Toldos (see also Tosfos DH 'Mai La'av').
2. ... prove that Rebbi Yehudah must learn this way, because from the Lashon of the Beraisa 'Rebbi Yehudah Mosif Af ha'Shovet ve'ha'Medakdek' - because since the Mishnah has listed only Avos, it is only possible to add Avos, not Toldos.
(a) We have now proved - that Rebbi Yehudah is only Mechayev one Chatas because, like Rebbi, he holds that 'Toldah be'Makom Av' is Patur, and that Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel must have erred when he said 'Chayav Shetayim'.
(b) Rabah and Rav Yosef too - agree that when Rebbi Yehudah said 'Chayav', he meant one, and not two.
(c) Ravina queries our initial interpretation of Rebbi Yehudah in that, even if Toldah be'Makom Av is Chayav, it is not possible to be Chayav for both Hozta'ah and Ha'avarah at the same time - because either the thrower wants the article to land as soon as it enters the air space of the Reshus ha'Rabim or he wants it to land at the end (in which case, either way, he will only be Chayav for Hotza'ah), but not both.
(d) Rav Ashi replies however - that Rebbi Yehudah could have been speaking when he specifically said that he did not mind where it landed, or even if it landed in two places.
(a) We initially take for granted that someone who means to throw an object eight Amos, but it lands after it has traveled only four, is Chayav - because it is similar to writing 'Shem' in the course of writing Shimon, for which one is Chayav.
(b) We ask what the Din will be in the reverse case, where he meant to throw four Amos but it landed after four - where he might be Patur even though he did perform a Hotza'ah - because, seeing as the article did not land where he intended it to, he did not achieve what he set out to (in which case he did not perform a 'Meleches Machsheves').
(c) We resolve the She'eilah from Rav Ashi's reply to Ravina's previous answer - which clearly holds that unless he specifies 'Kol Makom she'Tirtzeh Tanu'ach', he is only Chayav if it lands there where he intended it too ...
(d) ... even where it lands after four Amos, when he intended it to land only after eight.
(e) And we counter the proof from 'Shem mi'Shimon' - by arguing that when one writes Shimon, one knows that one is bound to write Shem first; whereas someone who means to throw eight Amos, does not mean to throw four (because even though the thrown article must pass the four Amos mark, there is no Hanachah at that point).