QUESTION: The Mishnah enumerates four actions of transferring from one domain to another by a person standing outside (the "Ani") in Reshus ha'Rabim and four identical actions performed by a person standing inside (the "Ba'al ha'Bayis") in Reshus ha'Yachid.

The Mishnah counts the act of the Ani who puts an object into Reshus ha'Yachid and the act of the Ba'al ha'Bayis who puts an object into Reshus ha'Rabim as two separate acts of Hotza'ah. Since these actions are essentially the same, why does the Mishnah count them as two separate cases?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Pashat) explains that the Melachah of Hotza'ah is different from the other Melachos of Shabbos. It is a "Melachah Geru'ah," a "less-defined" Melachah, because its rationale is not easily understood. Why should it be permitted to carry from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid, while it is prohibited to carry from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid? Since the laws of Hotza'ah depend on fine differences that are difficult to grasp, we are not at liberty to compare one type of Hotza'ah to another and to derive one from the other. Therefore, each case of Hotza'ah must be taught in the Mishnah separately.

Tosfos says that the premise that Hotza'ah is a "Melachah Geru'ah" has additional implications.

1. The Gemara later (96b) derives from the verse, "va'Yikalei ha'Am..." (Shemos 36:6), that one may not move objects from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim. In Eruvin (17b), however, the Gemara derives the Melachah of Hotza'ah from a different verse, "Al Yetzei Ish mi'Mekomo..." (Shemos 16:29)! Why are two verses necessary?

Tosfos explains that the verses are necessary for the two types of Hotza'ah. One verse teaches the Melachah for the person in Reshus ha'Rabim who extends his empty hand into Reshus ha'Yachid, picks up an object, and brings it into Reshus ha'Rabim. The other verse teaches the Melachah for the person in Reshus ha'Yachid who extends his full hand out and transfers an object into Reshus ha'Rabim.

2. Similarly, because Hotza'ah is a Melachah Geru'ah, two sources are necessary to teach the two types of Hachnasah as well, that of the Ani and that of the Ba'al ha'Bayis.

3. Generally, the source for a Toldah of a Melachah is logic. There is no need to cite a verse as the source, or for the act to have occurred in the Mishkan. However, the Gemara later (96b) asks what the source is that Hachnasah is a Toldah of Hotza'ah. A source is necessary because Hotza'ah is a Melachah Geru'ah, and thus we would not have derived its Toldos from logic without an explicit source.

4. In fact, the very concept that Hotza'ah is prohibited on Shabbos is novel. In the act of Hotza'ah, one does not effect any physical change on the object being moved, and thus it is not a "creative act." Generally, only creative acts are prohibited on Shabbos. The fact that Hotza'ah involves no physical change on the object is another reason why it is a Melachah Geru'ah (OR ZARU'A 2:82).

Normally, if it can be shown that a Melachah was performed in the Mishkan, that is sufficient to make it an Av Melachah. However, because it is a Melachah Geru'ah Hotza'ah can only be considered an Av Melachah if support for making it an Av Melachah can be found in a verse as well (Tosfos Shabbos 96b DH Hotza'ah).

5. In addition, Tosfos in Beitzah (12a, DH Dilma) explains that the fact that Hotza'ah is a Melachah Geru'ah is the reason why, according to some Rishonim, Hotza'ah is not prohibited on Yom Tov.

QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that Hachnasah is also referred to as "Hotza'ah." Accordingly, when the Mishnah here (2a) and in Shevuos (2a) depicts four types of "Hotza'os" for which one is liable, it is referring to Hachnasah as well. The Gemara proves this from the statement of the Mishnah later (73a), "One who transfers from one domain to another is liable," which includes Hachnasah.

How does the Gemara prove from the Mishnah later that Hachnasah is included in Hotza'ah? The Mishnah there lists only the Av Melachos, and Hachnasah is not an Av but a Toldah, as the Gemara here says!

(a) RASHI explains that since we know that Hachnasah is prohibited, it is likely that it is included in the Mishnah later.

What does Rashi mean? The fact that Hachnasah is prohibited is not a reason for the Mishnah there to include it in its list of Melachos, since it is prohibited only as a Toldah! Why would we think that the Mishnah there is also referring to Hachnasah, when that Mishnah is discussing the Av Melachos (as Rashi himself says)?

The answer is that Rashi is following his own opinion as expressed elsewhere. Rashi understands that the term "Av Melachah" does not necessarily refer to an Av as opposed to a Toldah. Rather, it means "a category of Melachah which the Torah prohibits on Shabbos," whether it is an Av or a Toldah (Rashi to 68a, DH Av Melachah; see also Rashi to 18a, DH she'To'anin). Rashi here is saying that since the category of "transferring from one Reshus to another" includes both the Av and the Toldah, it presumably includes Hachnasah as well. (See also Insights to Chulin 14:6, Shevuos 5:3.)

(b) TOSFOS points out that the Gemara in Shevuos (5a) asks this question. The Gemara there answers that if the Mishnah later is referring only to the Av of Hotza'ah, then it would have said, "One who transfers from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim is liable." Since it says instead, "... from Reshus to Reshus," its intention is to include Hachnasah as well.

Why, though, is Hachnasah included in the Mishnah of Av Melachos when it is only a Toldah? The RASHBA (2b) explains that Rav Papa argues with the statement of the Gemara here (beginning of 2b) and with the opinion expressed in the Gemara later (96b). He maintains that Hachnasah is indeed an Av and not a Toldah.

Tosfos in Shevuos (5b, DH Mi) answers that Hachnasah is included in the Mishnah even though no other Toldah is included, because the Mishnah is able to include Hachnasah with a very minor emendation (which reduces the number of words it uses and does not increase the number of words).

Alternatively, the Mishnah later includes a Toldah of Hotza'ah because Hotza'ah is a "Melachah Geru'ah," a lesser form of Melachah, and we would not have known that it has Toldos had the Mishnah not said so explicitly (see previous Insight).