Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 98

1) THROWING FROM ONE "RESHUS HA'RABIM" TO ANOTHER "RESHUS HA'RABIM" VIA "RESHUS HA'YACHID"

QUESTIONS: The Beraisa says that if one throws an object from one Reshus ha'Rabim to another Reshus ha'Rabim and the object passed through a Reshus ha'Yachid, if the object passed through a total of at least four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Chayav. If it passed through less than four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Patur.

RASHI explains that in the latter case one is not Chayav for Hotza'ah (transferring the object from Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid through which it passed) because the Tana of this Beraisa does not ascribe to the concept of "Kelutah k'Mi sh'Hunchah."

(1) Why did Rashi say that one is Patur because this Tana maintains that "Kelutah" is not considered to be resting in the domain through which it passes? In the case at hand, the thrower did not *want* the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid. For that reason he should be Patur, even if "Kelutah" *is* considered to be resting!

(2) Why does Rashi say that we see from the *end* of the Beraisa that this Tana does not ascribe to the concept of "Kelutah?" We see this from the *beginning* of the Beraisa. If the Tana ascribes to "Kelutah," the thrower would be Patur because it is considered to have landed in Reshus ha'Yachid before it traveled the total four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim!

ANSWERS:

(a) Because of these problems with Rashi's explanation, the RITVA explains that the inference that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah" is from the *beginning* of the Beraisa which says that the thrower is Chayav; he would not be Chayav if the object was considered to have rested in the Reshus ha'Yachid through which it passed. In the case of the *end* of the Beraisa, though, he would be Patur even without saying that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah," because the thrower did not have any intention for the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid. Only from the beginning of the Beraisa do we see that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah." (That is, even though the thrower did *not* want the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid, if the Tana ascribed to "Kelutah," then the thrower would be Patur, because it did come to rest there. In the end of the Beraisa, though, "Kelutah" would not make a person *Chayav*, because he had no intention for the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid.)

(b) Rashi disagrees with the Ritva (DH v'Iy l'Hacha). Rashi maintains that if the thrower did not want the object to land in a particular Reshus, it would not be considered "Kalut" (contained) there -- "Kelutah" does not apply when a person does *not* want it to rest in that domain (see Rashi 97b DH ul'Mai). If so, how can the Gemara infer that the Tana of the Beraisa under discussion does not ascribe to "Kelutah" if "Kelutah" does not apply where he did not want it to land in that domain? It must be that the Beraisa is discussing a case of "Kol Makom sh'Tirtzeh Tanu'ach," where he wanted it to rest wherever it came to rest, therefore "Kelutah" *should* work. That is why it can be learned from the fact that he is Patur for Hotza'ah, that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah."

Question #2, however, remains. We should be able to infer from the beginning of the Beraisa also that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah." If the thrower wanted it to land wherever it landed, "Kelutah" should make him Patur; from the fact that he is Chayav for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is evident that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah!" Why, then, does Rashi still infer this only from the end of the Beraisa?

It must be that Rashi maintains that "Kelutah" applies only as a *Chumra*, and not as a Kula (like the TOSFOS YESHANIM writes earlier on Daf 4b). That is, "Kelutah" cannot work to make a person Patur; it can only work to make a person Chayav. Thus, in the first case of the Beraisa, "Kelutah" cannot make the thrower Patur, even if the Tana normally ascribes to "Kelutah." Consequently, it is only from the end of the Beraisa (where "Kelutah" would serve to make him *Chayav* for Hotza'ah) that we can infer that the Tana does not ascribe to "Kelutah." (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: Rav says that Reshus ha'Rabim Mekurah (roofed) is not considered Reshus ha'Rabim. The Gemara attempts to disprove this from the wagons which were used for transporting the pillars of the Mishkan. We see that the area underneath, between, and to the sides of the wagons was considered Reshus ha'Rabim even though it was roofed (the pillars on the wagons extended over the sides of the wagons). The Gemara concludes that we cannot prove from the wagons that Reshus ha'Rabim Mekurah is considered Reshus ha'Rabim, because the wagons still had some areas that were not covered (such as gaps between the pillars that extended over the sides of the wagons), and it is those areas which are called Reshus ha'Rabim.

However, how does this answer the question of the Gemara? Granted, there were areas that were not covered which were areas of Reshus ha'Rabim. But the wagons also had areas that *were* covered, and they were still called Reshus ha'Rabim!

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Hanicha) answers in the name of the RI that we do not learn the concept of Reshus ha'Rabim from the wagons (but rather from the camp of the Levi'im, as the Gemara said earlier on 96b). The wagons merely reveal to us the *measurements* of Reshus ha'Rabim (16 Amos wide, see Gemara 99a). As long as there was some part of the area around the wagons that was uncovered, that is the Reshus ha'Rabim which is referred to; the areas that were covered, though, do not have to be Reshus ha'Rabim.

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that it is possible for there to be more than three Tefachim separating between the pillars that were placed on the wagons if they arranged "b'Ataba'i." What does "Ataba'i" mean?

(a) RASHI's teachers explain that it means the *rings* that were on the pillars (on the inner side of the pillars, one on the upper section and one one the lower section), and it refers to stacking the pillars in two pairs of stacks (one pair in the front of the wagon and one in the back), each pair comprised of two stacks of pillars laid back to back so that the rings of each pillar faced the other direction. Even though the rings of the two inner stacks of pillars (the one at the front of the wagon and the one at the back) both faced inwards towards each other, there was enough room between the pillars (two Amos) so that they did not rub against each other.

(b) RASHI himself explains that "Ataba'i" refers to wooden clips used to hold paper, which were fashioned by cutting lengthwise through the middle of a splinter of wood (much like old fashioned wooden clothespins). The meaning of the Gemara, though, is the same as Rashi's teachers explain.

(c) TOSFOS explains that "Ataba'i" refers to supporting fences on the wagon. The wagons were outfitted with guard rails that were attached to the sides (or to each end of the wagon, as the Gemara concludes) to keep the pillars from slipping off. The Gemara means that before the pillars are loaded on to the wagons, when only the guard rails were affixed, the area below the wagon is considered Reshus ha'Rabim.

98b

(a) In the back of the Mishkan (the western side), according to Rebbi Nechemia, one Amah dragged along the ground. (Rebbi Nechemia maintains that the pillars were one Amah thick on top like the were on bottom, SO an extra Amah of the Yeri'os was used up to cover the one Amah thickness of the pillars of the western side. The Yeri'os were thus: 30 (length of Mishkan) + 10 (height of pillars) + 2 (length the Yeri'os hung on eastern side) + 1 (thickness of pillars of western side + 1 (the Amah that the Yeri'os dragged on the ground on western side)).

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, on the other hand, who maintains that the pillars came to a point on top (and were only one Etzba thick), two Amos of the Yeri'os dragged on the ground.

(c) Rashi in the Chumash cites a third opinion. According to the Beraisa Meleches ha'Mishnah, the pillars on the eastern side of the Mishkan stood *outside* of the Mishkan, and the Yeri'os hung over them as well. They therefore added one Amah to the area which the Yeri'os covered, and thus, according to Rebbi Nechemia's opinion that the pillars were one Amah wide at their tops, the Yeri'ah did not drag on the ground on the western side *at all*. (Our Gemara argues and maintains that the pillars on the eastern side of the Mishkan stood inside the 30 Amah length of the Mishkan, and therefore they did not add an Amah to the length of the Mishkan's roof.)