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) MELACHOS DONE FOR A DESTRUCTIVE PURPOSE
QUESTION: The Mishnah (105b) states that all acts of Melachah done for a
destructive purpose ("Mekalkel") are Patur. Rebbi Avahu quotes a Tana who
states that the Melachos of Chovel (wounding) and Mav'ir (kindling) are
exceptions, for which one is Chayav even when done for destructive
purposes. Rebbi Yochanan argues and maintains that one is Chayav for Chovel
and Mav'ir only when there is a constructive element in the perpetrator's
purpose, such that only when one does Chovel in order to get blood for
feeding to one's dog, or one does Mav'ir because he needs the ashes.
The Gemara questions Rebbi Avahu's opinion from our Mishnah, which says
that *all* Melachos done for a destructive purpose are Patur. The Gemara
answers that our Mishnah is going according to the opinion of Rebbi
Yehudah, while Rebbi Avahu is going according to the opinion of Rebbi
Shimon. (From Rashi it seems that Rebbi Yochanan, who argued on Rebbi
Avahu, was following the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, like our Mishnah.)
Rashi explains that according to Rebbi Shimon it is not possible to ever do
an act of Mav'ir or Chovel she'Tzerichah l'Gufa for a constructive purpose.
If so, we may ask the following question: Even though Mekalkel is Chayav
according to Rebbi Shimon, in order to be Chayav on Shabbos for doing a
Melachah another condition must be met. The Melachah must be a Melachah
*she'Tzerichah l'Gufah* (-- even by Chaburah and Hav'arah, Sanhedrin 85a).
How can there ever be a case of "Mekalkel," doing a Melachah not for a
non-constructive purpose, which is "Tzerichah l'Gufah?" Since it is a
Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah one should be Patur according to Rebbi
Shimon even for Mekalkel b'Chaburah! (TOSFOS Sanhedrin 84b DH Man Shemat)
(a) According to Rashi, Rebbi Shimon must be Mechayev only in a situation
where a person is interested in *doing damage* (such as burning or hurting
his friend, see Rashi DH Chutz and DH u'Mav'ir). Even though it is in his
interest to do damage, the damage is still objectively called "Mekalkel,"
and therefore Rebbi Yehudah would be Poter for such an act while Rebbi
Shimon is Mechayev. (See Maharsha for another explanation; however it does
not seem from Rashi DH u'Beraisa that he would consider the Maharsha's case
(b) TOSFOS (DH Chutz) disagrees with Rashi's analysis of Rebbi Shimon'
opinion. According to Tosfos, the category of Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufa
is much broader, and cooking on a wood fire is indeed considered to be a
Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufa even according to Rebbi Shimon. (That is,
Tzerichah l'Gufa includes not only when the destruction of the wood is the
objective, but even when the cooking of the food is the objective.) If so,
according to Rebbi Avahu a situation of Mekalkel that is Tzerichah l'Gufa
can be construed, such as a who person lights a fire to cook food (=
Tzerichah l'Gufa) with wood that is -- unbeknownst to him -- Asur
b'Hana'ah, and therefore *cannot* be used to cook in truth (= Mekalkel).
Tosfos adds that Rebbi Yochanan, who says Chovel must be for a constructive
purpose such as feeding a dog, also is describing the opinion of *Rebbi
Shimon*, and not Rebbi Yehudah. According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Shimon
only is Mechayev one who is Mekalkel b'Chaburah or b'Hav'arah if there is
*some* degree of constructive outcome from the action, even though the
action is *not normally* done for such a purpose (= bruising in order to
feed blood to dogs), or even though the constructive goal is attained only
*after* the bruising has been done (= the blood is fed to dogs only *after*
it is bruised; Rabbeinu Tam). Tosfos maintains that such an act is also
considered to be Tzerichah l'Gufa, since the blood (= Neshemah that was
removed) itself is used to feed the dogs. Rebbi Yehudah, who argues with
Rebbi Shimon, requires a *fully* constructive intent and will not be
Mechayev in the above two cases.
(According to Tosfos, Rebbi Shimon's only source for saying that Mekalkel
b'Chaburah and b'Hav'arah is Chayav is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, i.e. it is
learned from Milah on Shabbos etc., as the Gemara here concludes).
2) "TZIPOR DROR"
RASHI (DH b'Tzipor Dror) explains that the reason that the bird is not
considered captured while it is in the house is because it flies from one
corner of the house to the other and one cannot catch it.
In the Mishnah, though, Rashi (DH ha'Tzad Tzipor) explains that the bird is
not considered captured because it escapes through the windows. Why does
Rashi change his explanation? (Rashi in Beitzah (24a) also changes his
explanation from the Hava Amina, in which he explains that the bird escapes
through the windows, to the conclusion, in which he explains that the bird
escapes by fleeing from one corner of the house to another.)
ANSWER: The Gemara initially suggested that the difference between being
considered captured and not considered captured is based on the type of
enclosure the bird is in; if it is roofed, the bird is considered captured,
if it is not roofed, it is not considered captured. If the Gemara at that
stage meant that the bird could dodge from one corner to the other, then it
would not matter whether the enclosure is roofed or not; the bird could
always escape. It must be that the Gemara at that stage was referring to a
regular bird that can only escape through open parts of the house (and not
by fleeing from corner to corner).
The Gemara concludes that a bird is not considered captured even in a
roofed area when that bird is a Tzipor Dror. If so, it must be that the
bird escapes by going from corner to corner, and not by flying away through
the windows. That is why a Tzipor Dror is the only bird that is not
considered captured in such a situation.