Question:
One launches a catapult with the Kavanaugh, That it flies higher than ten ten tefachim and further than Four Amos. The boulder smashes into a building, however it doesn't go to the intended distance.
The Gemara states with an arrow it's bound to land in the required distance.
Even in that case, let's say the garment isn't silk, it's canvas...and the arrow falls less than daled Amos.
I'm assuming since the arrow didn't fulfill the kavanah of the shooter the actual hanacha sof Kol sof he was not mechalel Shabbos, he did not have Cavanah to tear the begged regardless of the material so that's not chilul Shabbos?
The same with the catapult 1. He did not intend to damage the building, he didn't destroy that portion of the building with the intent to renovate. In addition the boulder from the time of Akirah did not travel the required distance but did hit a reshus Hayichud. Is eino miskaven from Reshus Harabim to Reshus hayachid -Davar shelo miskavein, but he was miskaven that the boulder would violate the a toldah of the same melachs...So in chilul Shabbos "Patur Aval Asur" and nezek a case of Kum Lei B'drabah Minei?
Or the wallet/Purse thief...according to the Shitah that states the Kinyan Geneivah is not chal because he might change his mind before leaving reshus hayachid, what if he places it in his shoe b'meizid because that would be carrying shelo cdarka? Also is that Patur Aval Asur in terms of Chilul Shabbos and if so he's still mechallel Shabbos and a Ganav simultaneously but a technicality removes Misas Beis Din, so does Kum Lei B'drabah Minei not apply? And is the fact that by placing the wallet in his shoe he never did an akirah or hanacha over three tefachim...
Lastly by placing it in his shoe to be Patur Aval Asur...he's also displaying no moral conflict in stealing it, so does placing it in his shoe..even if there is Akirah and hanacha that takes place inside the reshus hayachid... can that shitah, be applied?
Avrahom Paltiel Kevelson, Brooklyn, NYC, USA
Regarding the Ganav who put the wallet in his shoe:
We learn from the Gemara here on 31b that if he did a Melachah she'Lo k'Darkah, there is no Petur of "Kim Lei bid'Rabah Minei" for paying money. This is from what the Gemara states (7 lines from the top of 31b), "Ein Derech Hotza'ah b'Kach...." We learn from this Gemara that if the Melachah is done she'Lo k'Darkah (and therefore there is no Chilul Shabbos, as Rashi DH Ein Derech writes), it follows that one must pay money for the damage done.
(See Teshuvos Avnei Nezer, OC 101, and Avnei Nezer there, 186:6.)
Regarding the moral conflict of a thief:
I would like to add a quick comment about the Ganav who seemed to be more concerned about Hilchos Shabbos than about stealing. I will just point out that Tosfos in Chulin 12a (DH Harei) writes that if someone is suspected of stealing, that does not mean that he is suspected of eating meat which has not been slaughtered properly. So, according to Tosfos, he would certainly not be suspected of Chilul Shabbos, since the latter is a more severe transgression than eating a Neveilah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom