1)

HOW ONE IS LIABLE FOR HOTZA'AH (Yerushalmi Perek 1 Halachah 1 Daf 2b)

א"ר ינאי [דף ג עמוד א] בלע חצי זית והקיאו וחזר ובלע חייב. הכניס חצי גרוגרת וחזר והוציאו פטור

(a)

(R. Yanai): If one swallowed a half-k'Zayis, vomited it out, and swallowed it again, he is liable. If one entered a half-Grogeres [from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid], and was Motzi it, he is exempt.

מה בינה לבין קדמייתא.

(b)

Question: What is the difference between this and the first law?

תמן נהנה חיכו בכזית. ברם הכא לא נתעסק בכגרוגרת שלימה.

(c)

Answer: There, his palate benefited from swallowing a k'Zayis. Here, he did not engage with a full Grogeres.

א"ר יוסי פעמים שהוא מתעסק בגרוגרת שלימה והוא פטור.

(d)

(R. Yosi): Sometimes he engages with a full Grogeres, and he is exempt!

היך עבידא הוציא חצי גרוגרת והניחה וחזר והוציא חצי גרוגרת ולא הספיק להניחה עד שנשרפה הראשונה. והרי נתעסק בגרוגרת שלימה והוא פטור.

1.

What is the case? He was Motzi a half-Grogeres, rested it, and was Motzi another half-Grogeres, and before he did Hanachah, the first was burned. He engaged with a full Grogeres, and he is exempt!

i.

Note: There is an implied question. Why did R. Yanai discuss a half-Grogeres? In such a case, that there was never a full Shi'ur together, he is exempt even if there was a full Grogeres!

בגין (מדמייתה לחלבין והוא עביד) [צ"ל מדמיתה לחלבין הוא אמר - שערי תורת ארץ ישראל] כן.

(e)

Answer: Because he compares [Hotza'ah] to Chelev, he says so. (Regarding Chelev he taught about the same half-k'Zayis twice, for it is a Chidush that he is liable for this. We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)

אמר רבי יוחנן המוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים דרך כרמלית חייב

(f)

(R. Yochanan): If one was Motzi from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim via a Karmelis, he is liable.

מן (המוציא לאחריו. מן הדא - שערי תורת ארץ ישראל מוחקו) המתכוין להוציא לפניו ובא לו לאחריו פטור. (לאחריו ובא לו לפניו) [צ"ל הא לאחריו ובא לו לאחריו - שערי תורת ארץ ישראל] חייב.

(g)

Source #1: We learn from one who intended to be Motzi [carrying an item] in front of him, and it came in back of him, he is exempt. This implies that if he intended to be Motzi in back of him, and it came in back of him, he is liable;

ואפשר שלא יעשה בינו לבין הכותל כרמלית.

1.

Is it possible that [when he leaves, and the object is in back of him,] it will not make between him and the wall of the house a Karmelis?! (We say below (4b) that if there are less than four Amos between him and the wall, it is a Karmelis. Even though the object passed through Karmelis, he is liable!)

אמר רבי יוסי תיפתר שהיו פניו הפוכות לכותל ומשואו לאחריו ובכך יצא משואו תחילה.

(h)

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): We can say that he was facing the wall (walking backwards), and his load was in back of him, so it left first (it was never in Karmelis. Once it left the house, it was in Reshus ha'Rabim.)

ר' חייה בר אבא בעא קומי רבי מנא וזו לא דרך הוצאה היא.

1.

Question (R. Chiya bar Aba, to R. Mana): This is not the normal way of Hotza'ah! (He should be exempt!)

אמר ליה שכן כתפייא אומנא עבדין כן

2.

Answer (R. Mana): (It is normal.) Professional burden carriers do so (when they must leave through a narrow opening, and fear lest the load get caught in the opening).

ויידא אמרה דא

(i)

Question: [Since Source #1 was rejected,] what is the source [that if one was Motzi via a Karmelis, he is liable]?

דמר רבי אחא רבי מיישא בשם רבי יוחנן המוציא אוכלים ונתנן על אסקופה [דף ג עמוד ב] והא אסקופה לאו כרמלית היא.

(j)

Answer - Source #2 (R. Acha citing Rav Maisha citing R. Yochanan - Mishnah): One who is Motzi food and put it on the threshold [if he later took it out to Reshus ha'Rabim, he is exempt, for the Melachah was not done at once. This implies that had he done so at once, he would be liable.] Is not the threshold a Karmelis? (If it were Reshus ha'Yachid or Reshus ha'Rabim, he would be liable even if he did not do so at once!)

ובאיש לרבי יוסי דלא אמרה מן גרמיה

(k)

R. Yosi was upset that he did not say this himself.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF