(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 8


SUMMARY: Rav Chisda (7b) says that Hanachah on an area of four by four Tefachim is not necessary. The Gemara suggests that Rebbi is in agreement with Rav Chisda and does not require Hanachah on an area of four by four. Rebbi and Rabanan argue concerning the case of a person who throws an object from Reshus ha'Rabim into Reshus ha'Yachid and it lands on a small protrusion ("Ziz"). Rebbi says that he is Chayav, and Rabanan say that he is Patur. The Gemara presumes that Rebbi does not require Hanachah on an area of four by four, and that is why he says that one is Chayav even though the object landed on a protrusion which is less than four by four.

Abaye responds to the Gemara's suggestion and says that it is not necessarily true that Rav Chisda is consistent with Rebbi's opinion, because Rebbi and Rabanan are referring to a case of a tree whose branch was in Reshus ha'Rabim and whose trunk was in Reshus ha'Yachid, and a person threw an object from Reshus ha'Rabim onto the branch.

RASHI (DH Shadi Nofo) gives two explanations for the Gemara. According to the first explanation, Abaye is saying that Rebbi does *not* agree with Rav Chisda, and *both* Rebbi and Rabanan contradict Rav Chisda's opinion and require Hanachah on an area of four by four Tefachim. The only reason Rebbi says that the person is Chayav when the object lands on a branch that is less than 4x4 is because he maintains that the branch takes on the properties of the tree-trunk. It is therefore considered to have an area of four by four Tefachim.

According to Rashi's second explanation of the Gemara, *neither* Rebbi nor Rabanan contradict Rav Chisda's opinion. They both agree with Rav Chisda that in Reshus *ha'Yachid* one does not need Hanachah on an area of four by four (because the inside of a Reshus ha'Yachid is considered to be totally filled, Tosfos). In Reshus ha'Rabim they both require Hanachah on an area of four by four. Their argument is whether the branch in Reshus ha'Rabim is considered to be an area of four by four by virtue of its connection to the tree-trunk.

QUESTION: According to both explanations that Rashi offers, the argument between Rebbi and Rabanan is whether the branch is considered to be a place with an area of four by four Tefachim. If so, why did Abaye set up the case with the tree-trunk in Reshus ha'Yachid and the branch in Reshus ha'Rabim? The same argument will apply when the *entire tree* (branch and trunk included) is in Reshus ha'Rabim (according to Rashi's second explanation, or even when both are in Reshus ha'Yachid according to his first explanation)! Why does Abaye insist that the trunk is in Reshus ha'Yachid and the branch is in Reshus ha'Rabim?

(That is, the only thing that changed between the Gemara's initial suggestion and the conclusion is that initially, the Gemara assumed Rebbi and Rabanan were arguing over whether it is necessary to have a Hanachah on an area of four by four. In the conclusion, they are arguing about whether the branch follows the properties of the trunk or not. If so, what Reshus each one is in is irrelevant!)


(a) TOSFOS (4b, DH b'Ilan) explains that the argument between Rebbi and Rabanan is not whether the branch follows the trunk *to have an area of four by four* (when someone threw an object on it from a distance of four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim), but rather whether the branch follows the trunk to *put the branch into Reshus ha'Yachid* (and they argue whether he is Chayav for transferring an object from Reshus ha'Rabim into Reshus ha'Yachid). If so, the Gemara had no choice but to split the branch and the tree into two different domains, because that is the whole subject of their argument -- whether the branch in one Reshus follows the tree in another Reshus! (This is also the MAHARSHA's understanding of the second explanation in Rashi -- but it is certainly not the way the *first* explanation in Rashi understood, see also Rashi 4b.)

(b) Granted, the Gemara could have said that both the tree and the branch are in Reshus ha'Rabim (or Reshus ha'Yachid). But since the Beraisa refers to a "protrusion" and the normal manner of a protrusion is to project into Reshus ha'Rabim from a Reshus ha'Yachid, the Gemara described the case as such. (Based on MAHARSHAL)

(c) It may be suggested that the Gemara takes for granted that if the tree and the branch both in Reshus ha'Rabim, the branch would certainly be considered to take on the properties of the trunk and have an area of four by four, because it is just a part of a very large tree. The argument between Rebbi and the Rabanan must therefore be established when the different parts of the tree are in *different domains*. (M. Kornfeld)

2) THROWING A BASKET INTO RESHUS HA'RABIM OPINIONS: The Gemara says that if one throws a basket into Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Patur. Why?
(a) RASHI (DH Rechavah) explains that one is only Chayav for throwing *objects* from one domain into another, and not for throwing *domains*. The basket, because it is ten Tefachim high with a diameter of six Tefachim, is considered a domain and not an object. We learn this from the Melachah as it was performed in the Mishkan, in which only objects (needles) were thrown from one domain to another but not domains. (TOSFOS YESHANIM points out that although they did not *throw* domains, they did *carry* domains from one domain to another, as we see that they carried the Aron and the Mizbei'ach. Apparently, Rashi maintains that one is only Patur for *throwing* a basket. If he *carried* it into another Reshus, he would indeed be Chayav.)

(b) TOSFOS (DH Rechavah) explains that one is Patur because when he picks up the basket, it is a Reshus ha'Yachid, and when it comes to rest -- wherever it comes to rest -- it is a Reshus ha'Yachid. It is therefore viewed as if one threw the basket from one Reshus ha'Yachid into another. Therefore, one is Patur. According to this explanation, if the basket was originally lying *on its side* in Reshus ha'Rabim, one is liable for Hotza'ah if he throws it into a Reshus ha'Yachid.

(c) The RASHBA (and perhaps the RIF as well) explains that one is Patur because wherever the basket is, it is a Reshus ha'Yachid -- that is, even at the moment that it is hurtling through the air. This differs from Tosfos who says that it is a Reshus ha'Yachid only when it *lands*. Accordingly, even if one moves a basket four Amos along the length of Reshus ha'Rabim, according to Rashba he will not be Chayav, because it is considered to have remained in its original Reshus. According to Tosfos, (b) above, however, it should be considered carrying from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid through Reshus ha'Rabim, for which one is Chayav (the Halachah of "Moshit"; TOSFOS, 2a, DH Pashat).


QUESTION: Rav Yehudah says that if someone pushes a bundle of sticks (Zirza d'Kani) in Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Patur. What does this have to do with our Sugya, which is discussing the definitions of the different domains?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Lo Mechayev) answers that since a person normally lifts up one side of the bundle of sticks and pushes it over the other side in order to move it, one might have thought that it is not considered Hanachah when it rests, the same way that it is not considered a Hanachah when a person puts down his load in order re-arrange it on his back (Gemara, 8a). Therefore, after one has traveled four Amos and stops moving the bundle, he should be Chayav. Rav Yehudah teaches that he is Patur. Rav Yehudah's statement, then, is loosely related to the Sugya (8a) that discusses a pole which is nine Tefachim tall upon which people *re-arrange loads*.

QUESTION: RASHI (DH Iskupas Reshus ha'Rabim) says that the Gemara is talking about a doorstep in front of a Mavuy that does not have a roof beam above it or a Lechi on its outer side to make it part of the Mavuy.

Why does Rashi say that this doorstep is that of a Mavuy, when he could have simply explained that it is the doorstep of a house?

ANSWER: The P'NEI YEHOSHUA answers that since the Gemara on 9a will explain (in the first answer there) that the doorstep is in front of a Mavuy, Rashi already introduces the concept to us here, since it is needed for the answer of the Gemara later in the Sugya.

Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646