ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 4
(a) If it is the first man (the one who actually placed the bread in the
oven), whom we are permitting to remove it before it bakes, we have the
following problem: Since we are speaking be'Shogeg (to prevent him from
bringing a Chatas), there are two possibilities: Either he is aware what he
has done, or he is not.
If he is *not* aware that he is on the verge of breaking Shabbos, then what
point is there in permiting him to remove the bread?
If, on the other hand, he *is* aware of what he has done, then that is not
called Shogeg (and he will not be Chayav a Chatas anyway). Why not?
Because he is not called a Shogeg unless he is unaware of his sin from the
beginning of the transgression until the end (in this case, after the bread
(b) Nor does the Gemara want to establish the Sha'aleh in a case of Meizid,
since Rav Bibi expressly said 'Kodem she'Yavo li'Yedei Isur *Chatas*'.
(c) The Gemara then goes on to reject the contentionthat it is another man
whom we are permitting to remove the bread from the oven, because of the
principle 've'Chi Omrim Lo le'Adam Chatei (even an Isur de'Rabbanan) Kedei
she'Yizkeh Chaveiro' (to be spared from transgressing even an Isur
According to Tosfos (d.h. ve'Chi') this principle only applies if the first
person transgressed on purpose.
(d) The Gemara concludes that Rav Bibi's Sha'aleh speaks in a case of
Meizid, and his statement must be re-worded, to read 'Kodem she'Yavo
li'Yedei Isur *Sekilah*.
(a) How can one be Chayav for taking out of, or putting into, someone's
hands on Shabbos, when both the Akirah and the Hanachah of an object must
be from a 'Makom Chashuv, or into it (respectively)?
(b) We are assuming that when Rebbi Akiva is Mechayev someone who throws
from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another, via a Reshus ha'Rabim, he is speaking
at a height of below ten Tefachim, and that the thrower is Chayav because
of the principle of 'Kelutah ke'Mi she'Hunchah Dami' - meaning that as soon
as the object reaches the airspace of a certain domain it is as if it is
resting on the floor of that domain. Consequently, in this case, the
object, which is passing through the Reshus ha'Rabim, is considered to have
rested on the street, and the thrower will be Chayav.
(c) The Rabbanan hold that 'Kelutah La'av Ke'mi she'Hunchah Dami'.
(Incidentally, according to this interpretation), they will both agree
that, *above* ten Tefachim, the thrower will be Patur).
(a) One could also establish the Machlokes at above ten Tefachim, in which
case they would be arguing over whether we learn the Din of Zorek from
Moshit (i.e. throwing from that of handing over): Rebbi Akiva holds that,
just as when someone *hands over* an object to his friend (from one Reshus
ha'Yachid to another via a Reshus ha'Rabim) at a height of above ten
Tefachim, he is Chayav (as we shall see in Perek ha'Zorek), so too, will
the same apply to someone who *throws* it above ten Tefachim (under the
same circumstances); the Rabbanan do not learn Zorek from Moshit.
(b) We have only proved that Rebbi Akiva does not require the *Hanachah* to
be on to a Makom Chashuv, but who says that the *Akirah* does not need to
be from a Makom Chashuv? (After all, Rebbi Akiva says nothing about being
Chayav *two* Chata'os, only *one*?)
(a) The Gemara establishes the Beraisa of someone who throws something on
to a tiny 'Ziz', by a tree which is standing in a Reshus ha'Yachid, with
its branches protruding into the Reshus ha'Rabim - when someone threw less
than four Amos in the street, and it landed on the tip of a branch. The
Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim in that case, concerns whether we
consider the branches as being in the same Reshus as the tree (Rebbi), in
which case, he will be Chayav; or not (the Chachamim), and he will be
This of course, has nothing to do with our problem of Makom Chashuv.
(b) According to Rebbi, someone who throws from one Reshus ha'Rabim to
another via a Reshus ha'Yachid, will have to bring *two* Chata'os, one for
throwing from the Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid, and the other
for throwing from the Reshus ha'Yachid into the Reshus ha'Rabim.
So we see that Rebbi requires a Makom Chashuv neither for the Akirah nor
for the Hanachah. Consequently, the author of our Mishnah would appear to
(c) He is only Chayav, according to Rebbi, for putting into, or from taking
from a Makom which is not Chashuv in a Reshus ha'Yachid, when the Reshus
ha'Yachid has a roof, and where Rebbi then maintains 'Beisa Ke'ma'an
de'Malya Dami' (we reckon the house as if it was solid) - which in effect
means that it really *is*, a Makom Chashuv.
(d) On the other hand, it will not help to establish our Mishnah of Ashir
and Ani by a roofed Reshus, since Rebbi's Chidush is confined to a Reshus
ha'Yachid, but not not pertain to a Reshus ha'Rabim (and our Mishnah speaks
about both). How do we know this? Because Rav is quoted as saying that
someone who carries an object four Amos in a covered street is Patur, since
it is not similar to the camp of Yisrael in the desert - from which we can
see, that a covered street is considered, not a Reshus ha'Yachid, but a