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) "YACHOL/EINO YACHOL"
QUESTION: The Gemara inquires, who is Chayav in a case of "Yachol/Eino
Yachol" (where one person is able to do the Melachah by himself and the
other person is unable to do it by himself)? The Gemara suggests that
perhaps the "Yachol" is Chayav.
RASHI (DH Ein Bo) implies that one possibility is that the "Yachol" is
Patur and the "Eino Yachol" is Chayav. How can that be? Since the Melachah
is being done primarily by the "Yachol," why should he not be Chayav?
(a) TOSFOS therefore learns differently. The Gemara is asking whether the
"Yachol" *alone* is Chayav, or whether *both* of them are Chayav.
(b) RASHI, however, is consistent with his reasoning earlier (92b). Rashi
explained that when the Melachah is performed by two people who are able to
do the Melachah alone, they are Patur, because it is not the normal manner
to do a Melachah with someone else. Here, too, it stands to reason that the
Yachol is Patur because he is doing the Melachah in an abnormal manner
(that is, with someone else).
Alternatively, the Ritva understands the reasoning of Rashi based on what
he quoted earlier from Rav Moshe ben Rav Yitzchak (see Insights to 92:2:c);
the "Yachol" is Patur because he could have done it with all of his
strength had he done the Melachah alone, and now he did it with only part
of his strength. Since he did not use all of the strength that he could
have, he is Patur.
QUESTION: The Gemara says that when the horse stands upon four garments
with one garment under each leg, each garment is Tahor because the horse
could stand on three legs and the fourth leg is only Mesayei'a. RASHI (DH
Mip'nei sh'Yecholah) says that this is in accordance with the view of Rebbi
Yehudah who says that in a case of "Yachol/Yachol," where both individuals
are able to do the Melachah alone, they are Patur because of Mesayei'a.
Why does Rashi say that this is like Rebbi Yehudah, and equate "Yachol/Eino
Yachol" to "Yachol/Yachol?" After all, even Rebbi Meir agrees that in the
case of "Yachol/Eino Yachol," the "Eino Yachol" is Patur, and thus we see
that Rebbi Meir also agrees that Mesayei'a is Patur!
Second, why does Rashi say that according to Rebbi Yehudah, "Yachol/Yachol"
are Patur because they are both *Mesayei'a*? Earlier (92b), Rashi explained
that the reason why "Yachol/Yachol" are Patur is because when two capable
people perform one Melachah together, it is not the *normal manner* of
doing the Melachah!
Third, if Rebbi Yehudah holds that they are Patur because "Mesayei'a Ein Bo
Mamash" (one who is unable to do the Melachah by himself and merely assists
someone else who is able to do it by himself is not considered as doing any
Melachah), then why does the Gemara have to search for proofs from cases of
Zavim to show that "Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash?" The Gemara should simply
prove it from Rebbi Yehudah's opinion!
The CHASAM SOFER explains that the Gemara was in doubt whether Mesayei'a is
considered to be performing the Melachah or not. The Gemara initially
questioned which participant in the Melachah, in a case of "Yachol/Eino
Yachol," is Patur. One option, according to Rashi, was to say that the
"Yachol" is Patur, and the "Eino Yachol" is Chayav. But what is the logic
to say such a thing? The logic is that since a "Yachol" who does a Melachah
with someone else is not the normal way for him to perform the Melachah, he
is Patur, while the "Eino Yachol" who performs the Melachah with someone
else *is* doing the Melachah in the normal fashion (see previous Insight).
If that is true, then what is the logic to say the other possibility --
that the "Eino Yachol" is Patur and the "Yachol" is Chayav? The logic is
that "Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash," and thus the "Eino Yachol" is Patur.
It follows that the question of whether Mesayei'a is considered to be doing
a significant act or not depends on Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning for exempting
the two parties in the case of "Yachol/Yachol." That is, if his reasoning
is because, as Rashi initially explained, they are doing a Melachah in an
abnormal fashion, then in the case of "Yachol/Eino Yachol" the "Eino
Yachol" will be Chayav, because he is doing the Melachah in his normal
fashion (i.e. with someone else). But if Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning to
exempt "Yachol/Yachol" is because they are both considered Mesayei'a, then
the "Eino Yachol" will be Patur because of Mesayei'a.
Rashi earlier explained the first way (that the Petur is based on the fact
that the two are doing the Melachah in an abnormal fashion), because he was
explaining according to the initial assumption of the Gemara, before it was
ever proposed that Mesayei'a is not significant. In the conclusion, when
the Gemara teaches that Mesayei'a is not significant, Rashi points out that
that indeed is also the reasoning of Rebbi Yehudah. (See also MAHARSHA)
3) "MELACHAH SHE'EINAH TZERICHAH L'GUFAH"
OPINIONS: A fundamental argument concerning the liability for performing
Melachah on Shabbos concerns a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, a
Melachah "that is not needed for itself." Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon
argue whether one is Chayav for performing such a Melachah that is "not
needed for itself." Rebbi Yehudah says that one is Chayav, and Rebbi Shimon
says that one is Patur. What exactly defines a Melachah "that is not needed
(a) TOSFOS (94a, DH Rebbi Shimon Poter) understood Rashi to be saying that
a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is any Melachah that one did in
order to *prevent* something else from happening, or in order to *rectify*
something that was already done wrong. For example, a person who carries a
dead body out of a house is interested in correcting an uncomfortable
situation (the dead body being in his house), and would have preferred that
the dead body were never brought *into* the house in the first place.
However, Tosfos refutes this explanation. When a curtain has a wormhole and
one tears some more above and below the hole in order to later mend it
neatly, he is Chayav (this is Meleches Kore'a, Shabbos 75a). Rashi, asks
Tosfos, should maintain that one is Patur. The person tore the curtain only
in order to prevent further damage, and would have preferred that the
wormhole not be there in the first place!
(b) TOSFOS himself (94a, DH Rebbi Shimon) defines a Melachah she'Einah
Tzerichah l'Gufah as any Melachah not performed for the same reason that
that Melachah was performed *in the Mishkan*.
(c) The RAMBAN (94b) and BA'AL HA'ME'OR (106a) write that a Melachah must
be performed with the objective for which that activity is *normally
performed*. If one is doing the Melachah for a purpose other than its
normal objective, it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. For
example, digging a pit in order to use the dirt is a Melachah that is not
needed for itself, because, normally, the objective of digging is in order
to have a pit, and not to use the dirt, which is a secondary outcome of the
digging. Also, a Melachah performed in order to prevent damage from
happening, such as capturing a snake, is considered a Melachah that is not
needed for itself because the normal objective of capturing is to use the
animal. The same is true of carrying an object to Reshus ha'Rabim in order
to keep oneself from becoming soiled.
This may be RASHI's opinion as well, unlike TOSFOS' understanding of Rashi
(see (b)). This is why ripping the garment to repair a wormhole is
considered a true Melachah, for the person ripping the garment is presently
interested in having the garment ripped apart (the primary effect of the
Melachah) and not in a secondary outcome of the ripping.