ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 97
(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from "va'Yichar Af Hashem *Bam* va'Yelach" - that
Aharon was stricken with Tzara'as, just like Miriam was.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira presents exactly the same argument as before:
if the Torah made a point of covering over Aharon's punishment, then who
was Rebbi Akiva to reveal it? If on the other hand, he was wrong, he was
being Motzi Shem Ra on that Tzadik!
(c) The word "Bam", according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, teaches us that
Aharon was placed in Nezifah (disgrace) like Miriam, but not that he was
stricken with Tzara'as.
(d) "va'Yifen Aharon el Miriam ve'Hinei Metzora'as" - "va'Yifen
mi'Tzarato', the Beraisa Darshens (like Rebbi Akiva).
(a) Hashem's response to Moshe's statement, in which he argued that Yisrael
would not believe him anyway, was, firstly, to tell him that Yisrael
*would* believe, and that, if anything, it was *he* -Moshe - who was
destined to display a lack of faith (later by the rock); and secondly, by
striking his hand with Tzara'as.
(b) The Torah writes with regard to Moshe's hand - "va'Yotzi'ah, ve'Hinei
Yado Metzora'as ka'Shaleg" (only *after* he had withdrawn it from his
bosom). Whereas when the Tzara'as was removed, the Pasuk writes
"va'Yotzi'ah *me'Cheiko*, ve'Hine Shavah ki'Vesaro" (implying that it had
returned to its former state already *before* he withdrew it).
(c) "Vayivla Mateh Aharon es Matosam" - it was only after Aharon's stick
had turned back from a snake into a stick, that it swallowed the Egyptian
wizards' sticks. That is a miracle within a miracle.
(a) If the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah (regarding throwing
from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another -with a Reshus ha'Rabim in between)
speaks when he threw *below* ten Tefachim, then they argue over 'Kelutah'
etc. - Rebbi Akiva holds 'Kelutah Ke'mi she'Hunchah', and the Rabbanan hold
'Kelutah La'av Ke'mi she'Hunchah'.
(b) Were he to have thrown the article *above* ten Tefachim, he would be
Patur - according to everybody, since no throwing above ten Tefachim was
performed in the Mishkan, and we do not learn the Din of throwing from that
of carrying (i.e. Moshit - handing over from one to another).
(c) Alternatively, they could argue when he threw the article above ten
Tefachim, when Rebbi Akiva will say that we learn throwing from carrying,
and the Rabbanan will say that we don't; but below ten Tefachim, they will
both agree that one is Chayav, because of 'Kelutah Ke'mi she'Hunchah'.
(a) Rav Hamnuna proves from the word 'Atzmah' used by the Beraisa, that it
must be speaking *below* ten Tefachim, when the article actually passes
through the Reshus ha'Rabim, and not above ten Tefachim, which does not
have the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim. Now if the Beraisa was speaking about
carrying (or Moshit), then there would be no point in mentioning below ten
Tefachim, since by carrying, there is no difference between below and above
(b) So it must be speaking about throwing, and we see that Rebbi Akiva and the
Rabbanan argue in a case of below ten Tefachim.
(c) According to Rebbi Elazar, Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan argue both
below (about Kelutah) and above ten Tefachim (about whether we learn Zorek
According to him, the Beraisa mentions 'Atzmah' to teach us that, even
someone who throws *below* ten Tefachim is also Patur, according to the
(d) Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi holds that someone who throws below three
Tefachim, is Chayav according to everybody; above ten Tefachim, is Patur
according to everybody, whereas between three and ten Tefachim, he is
Chayav according to Rebbi Akiva, and Patur according to the Rabbanan.
(a) It is permitted to throw from one person's domain to another's, if
they made an Eiruv.
(b) One is permitted to throw from one house in his own domain to another
across the street, as long as the two houses or terraces etc. are on the same level, but not when they are on different levels.
(c) It is permitted to throw from one house to another across the street
per se. However, Chazal decreed an Isur, when the two houses are on two
different levels, because the article being thrown is more likely to fall
into the street (itself not sufficient reason to forbid it, since that will
have happened unintentionally), and he will go and retrieve it from where
it fell - for which he will be Chayav Chatas.
(d) Shmuel holds that Chazal never issued such a decree, and that it is
therefore permitted to throw from one house to another, even if they are on
two different levels.
(a) 'Levud' is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
(b) If 'Levud' is based on the Sevara 'she'I Efshar li'Reshus ha'Rabim
she'Tilaket bi'Melaket u'Rehitni' - then why should it not apply even to
bumps that are more than three Tefachim high? And besides, why should
'Levud' then apply to a wall that descends to within three Tefachim of the
ground, since the reason is not applicable?
(c) The reason that 'Levud' applies to a wall that stops within three
Tefachim of the ground cannot be because kid-goats cannot crawl underneath
it - because if that was the case, then why would it also apply (in certain
instances) to a wall or a ceiling that is high in the air, where kid-goats
do not go.
(a) When Rebbi says that someone who throws from one Reshus ha'Rabim to
another, via a Reshus ha'Yachid, is Chayav, he is talking specifically
about a Reshus ha'Yachid which has a ceiling. Rebbi holds Chayav because it
is as if the house was filled in (and he is speaking when the article
actually passes through the house, via the windows or the doors).
(b) The Rabbanan hold that he is Patur.
(c) If Rebbi is Mechayev two Chata'os for one act which incorporates
Hotza'ah and Hachnasah, that means that he is Mechayev a Toldah together
with its Av. Now, explaining the words "Eleh ha'Devarim" (Vayakhel - see
70a), Rebbi has already taught us that the maximum number of Chata'os that
one can be Chayav (for transgressing all the Melachos on Shabbos), is
thirty-nine (from which it is clear that he is not Mechayav for
transgressing a Toldah together with its Av)?
(d) Rebbi Yehudah says in a Beraisa, that someone who throws from a Reshus
ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim, and the article then traveled four Amos
before landing, is Chayav. And it is Rebbi Yehudah (and not Rebbi) whom
Shmuel quoted as being Mechayav not just *one* Chatas, but *two*.
(a) If Rebbi Yehudah was Mechayev only *one* Chatas, then why could the
Rabbanan argue and say Patur? Since he has performed both a Hotza'ah and a
Hachnasah, why should he not be Chayav at least for the Hotza'ah (which is
the Av)? Consequently, Rebbi Yehudah *must* mean that he is Chayav even for
the Hachnasah, as well - since, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one is Chayav
for a Toldah transgressed together with its Av.
(b) And the Rabbanan will hold that he is only Chayav for the Hotza'ah, but
not for the Hachnasah, since, in their opinion, one is not Chayav for a
Toldah that one transgresses together with its Av.
(c) The Gemara refutes this proof, by establishing the Beraisa when he said
that he wants the article to land (either factually, or Halachically - See
Ramban) as soon as it leaves the Reshus ha'Yachid. According to Rebbi
Yehudah, the object did indeed land, (because he holds 'Kelutah Ke'mi
she'Hunchah') - so he is Chayav one Chatas (for Hotza'ah); whereas,
according to the Rabbanan, who do not hold of 'Kelutah' etc., it did *not*
land, so he is Patur.
(d) The reason that we learnt this way, is in order to avoid having to say
that Rebbi Yehudah holds that one is Chayav for transgressing a Toldah
together with its Av. But is it not clear that Rebbi Yehudah anyway holds
that one *is* - from Shovet and Medakdek (see 75b [8b]) ? How is that?
Rebbi Yehudah says there 'Chayav', while the Rabbanan say 'Shovet, Harei Hu
Bichelal Meisach, Medekdek, Harei Hu Bichelal Oreg'. Does that not imply
that in Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, one is nevertheless Chayav - even though
they are both included in their respective Avos?
(a) No! retorts the Gemara. That is not Rebbi Yehudah's reason. In fact,
Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is *not* Chayav for a Toldah together
with its Av (in which case, Shmuel's statement - at the foot of the
previous Amud - is inexplicable), and the point with which he disagrees
with the Rabbanan - regarding their contention that Shovet and Medakdek are
Toldos. In his opinion, they are Avos (in which case, he does not agree
with Rebbi's contention that there are only thirty-nine Melachos).
(b) The Gemara proves this from the Lashon of 'Af', used by Rebbi Yehudah
in connection with Shovet and Medakdek, which indicates that he is coming
to add to the Avos, and not just to dispute the Rabbanan's argument.
(c) It is possible for Rebbi Yehudah might have been Mechayav *two*
Chata'os - in the Gemara's initial understanding, was in a case where the
man specifically said that he does not really care where it lands.
(a) The Gemara initially compared throwing an article four Amos, when he
really meant to throw it eight - to someone who meant to write Shimon, but
stopped after writing Shem; since the latter is Chayav, thought the Gemara,
so too, is the former.
We learn from 'ha'Zorek me'Reshus ha'Rabim li'Reshus ha'Rabim, u'Reshus
ha'Yachid be'Emtza, Arba Amos, Chayav', Pachos me'Arba Amos, Patur' - that
two parts of a Reshus ha'Rabim (i.e. if the article which someone threw,
traveled two Amos in one Reshus ha'Rabim, and two Amos in another - like in
the Beraisa), they combine to make him Chayav.
(b) The Gemara then compares the reverse case: of someone throwing eight
Amos instead of the four that he intended to throw it, to the case that we
mentioned earlier - when the thrower specifically stated that he does not
care where the article lands, implying that otherwise, he would be Patur,
since the article did not land there where he wanted it to.
(c) Having said that , why should he be Chayav even in the former case,
when he meant to throw eight Amos, and threw only four? Since he did not
achieve what he wanted to achieve, why should he be any more Chayav in the
one case than in the other?
(d) The case is simply not comparable to writing Shem from Shimon, as we
thought at first. Why not?
Because by Shem from Shimon, he could not possibly have written Shimon,
without writing Shem; therefore he is Chayav the moment he writes 'Shem'.
But that is not true of someone who intends to throw *eight* Amos, but only
throws *four*. He never intended the article to land after four Amos (and
landing is an intrinsic part of the Melachah), so we cannot say that four
is included in eight, like we say by Shem mi'Shimon.
And we also learn that we do not say Kelutah Ke'mi she'Hunchah', because if
we did, he ought to be Chayav even if the article did not travel four Amos
in the Reshus ha'Rabim.