THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) "KLAL GADOL"
QUESTIONS: The Gemara asks why the Mishnah at the beginning of this Perek,
as well as the Mishnah in the seventh Perek of Shevi'is, introduce their
teachings with the words "Klal Gadol?" The Gemara says that if it is
because each of these Mishnayos precedes another Mishnah relating a
less-detailed Klal than the first Mishnah, then the Mishnah in the first
Perek of Ma'aseros should also say "Klal Gadol," because it, too, precedes
a less-detailed Klal.
(2) "THE PUNISHMENT OF SHABBOS IS GREATER THAN THAT OF SHEVI'IS"
The Gemara then suggests that the Mishnayos in Shabbos and Shevi'is say
"Klal Gadol" because these two categories of Halachah include the unique
concept of Avos and Toldos. If so, asks the Gemara, then according to Bar
Kapara, why does the Mishnah in his version of Ma'aseros say "Klal Gadol?"
The Gemara concludes that it says "Klal Gadol" whenever a certain category
of Halachah is more inclusive than another category (Shabbos is more
inclusive than Shevi'is, as the Gemara explains, and Shevi'is is more
inclusive than Ma'aser, and Ma'aser is more inclusive than Pe'ah).
(a) What was the Gemara's initial question on Bar Kapara (why, according to
him, does it say "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros)? The Gemara itself suggested
that when a less-detailed Mishnah follows a more-detailed Mishnah, it says
"Klal Gadol" in the more-detailed Mishnah (which is the case in Ma'aseros)!
Although this is rejected because of the wording of a Mishnah in Ma'aseros,
there is no need to reject it according to Bar Kapara's version of that
Mishnah. Why, then, is the Gemara looking for another reason for why it
says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara?
(b) The Gemara says that the Klal of Ma'aser is more inclusive than that of
Pe'ah, and that is why it says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar
Kapara. Why, then, does it not say "Klal Gadol" in our Mishnayos of
(a) The RASHBA and RAN answer that the Gemara certainly could have remained
with its original answer, that the reason it says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros
according to Bar Kapara is because there is another, less-detailed Klal
that follows. However, the Gemara preferred to give an explanation that
fits both Bar Kapara and those who argue with him, who do not have the
words "Klal Gadol" in the Mishnah in Ma'aseros.
(b) In the Gemara's conclusion, the reason it says "Klal Gadol" in
Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara is because Ma'aser is more inclusive than
Pe'ah. Our Mishnah leaves out the word "Gadol" there because only in the
d'Rabanan laws does Ma'aser include more than Pe'ah, but in the d'Oraisa
laws, they are equal: both Ma'aser and Pe'ah include only Dagan, Tirosh,
v'Yitzhar (wheat, grapes, and olives). According to the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM's
text of the Gemara, the Gemara itself says this answer.
QUESTION: The Gemara says that "the punishment of Shabbos is greater than
that of Shevi'is," because the laws of Shabbos apply even to objects which
are detached from the ground, while Shevi'is applies only to things
attached to the ground.
If the Gemara was looking for ways in which Shabbos is more severe than
Shevi'is, it should have simply said that Shabbos is punishable with
Sekilah (stoning) while Shevi'is is only a Lav (punishable with Malkus)!
(a) The MAHARAM answers that the Gemara also wanted to explain that Ma'aser
is greater than Pe'ah, and in that case, the punishment of Ma'aser is *not*
greater than the punishment of Pe'ah. Rather, the category of Ma'aser is
broader and applies to more situations than Pe'ah. Therefore, the Gemara
gave a similar answer to differentiate between Shabbos and Shevi'is.
(b) The Gemara wanted to find a reason why the *Klal* is Gadol -- why the
rule itself is greater. The Gemara therefore explains how the rule of
Shabbos is greater, i.e. more broad, than the rule of Shevi'is, and it does
not explain how the punishment is greater. (M. Kornfeld)
(c) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) writes that it says "Klal Gadol" in
the Mishnah in Shabbos because, indeed, Shabbos is punishable with Sekilah!
The MAHARSHA explains that the Rambam understood our Gemara to be making
two different statements when it says, "Gadol Onsho Shel Shabbos Yoser
m'Shel Shevi'is, d'Ilu Shabbos Isa Bein b'Talush Bein b'Mechubar..." ("The
punishment of Shabbos is greater than that of Shevi'is, for Shabbos applies
both to detached and to attached objects...."). That is, Shabbos is greater
than Shevi'is because (a) it entails a greater punishment, Sekilah, and (b)
it is more inclusive, for it applies to both detached and attached objects.
3) THE CASES IN OUR MISHNAH ACCORDING TO RAV AND SHMUEL
QUESTION: Rav and Shmuel maintain that a Tinok sh'Nishbah is Chayav to
bring only one Korban Chatas for all of the Shabbosim that he desecrated
(case 1), and they interpret the first case in the Mishnah accordingly. As
a result, they interpret the second case in the Mishnah as saying that one
who knew about the concept of Shabbos but forgot it must bring a Chatas for
every Shabbos that he desecrated (case 2).
The Gemara asks if so -- if the person in the second case in the Mishnah,
which is referring to one who forgot the concept of Shabbos, is Chayav to
bring a Chatas for each Shabbos that he desecrated, then it follows that a
person who *knew* about the concept of Shabbos but forgot that *today* was
Shabbos (case 3) must bring a Chatas for each and every Melachah that he
performs on Shabbos.
How did the Gemara know that? RASHI (DH Chayav) explains that the Gemara
knew it from an inference. If one who knows about Shabbos but forgets that
today is Shabbos (case 3) would be Chayav to bring only one Chatas for
every Shabbos that he desecrated, then that case should have been written
in the Mishnah together with the case of one who forgot about the concept
of Shabbos (case 2), who is also Chayav to bring one Chatas for every
Shabbos that he desecrated. Since the Mishnah did *not* include case 3 with
case 2, it must be that his Chiyuv is different and he is Chayav to bring a
Chatas for every Melachah that he does.
How can the Gemara make such an inference? The Gemara just a few lines
earlier said that if the Mishnah would have taught that case 2 (one forgot
the concept of Shabbos) is Chayav to bring a Chatas for each Shabbos that
he desecrated, then *certainly* ("Kol sh'Ken") we would know that case 3
(one who knew the concept of Shabbos but forgot that today was Shabbos)
must bring a Chatas for each Shabbos that he desecrated! That is, the
Gemara implies that case 3 is included in case 2 from a Kal v'Chomer. Why,
then, does the Gemara now say that case 3 should have been listed
(a) TOSFOS (DH Aval Lo) explains that the inference is not as Rashi
explains it to be (that is, that the Mishnah should have mentioned case 3
together with case 2). Rather, the inference is that the Mishnah should
have mentioned case 3 *separately*, and said *not* that he is Chayav one
Chatas for every Shabbos (that is, in the positive sense), but rather said
that he is "*not* Chayav *more* than one Korban per Shabbos. Since it did
not say that, it implies that he *is* Chayav more than one Korban per
Shabbos -- he is Chayav one Chatas for each and every Melachah that he did.
(b) RASHI, as mentioned, says that case 3 should have indeed been included
together with case 2, therefore our question returns.
In defense of Rashi, we could say that the Gemara initially said that case
3 would have been learned from case 2 through a Kal v'Chomer, *had the
Mishnah used the words* "Tinok sh'Nishbah" in the first case, and "one who
forgot the concept of Shabbos" in the second case. But now that the Gemara
says that the words "Shochei'ach Ikar Shabbos" in the Mishnah also refer to
Tinok sh'Nishbah, the Gemara assumes that the Mishnah would *not* rely on a
Kal v'Chomer to teach case 3, because it would have been easy to include
that case in the category of someone who forgot the concept of Shabbos by
merely adding one more word (without having to add a whole new case -- cf.
Tosfos Beitzah 2b DH v'Niflog). Therefore, the Gemara is assuming now that
if the Mishnah does not explicitly mention one who forgets that today is
Shabbos (case 3), it must be because it has a different Halachah (and not
because it is learned from a Kal v'Chomer). (M. Kornfeld)