QUESTION: The Mishnah says that if a person forgot that it was Shabbos and
threw or carried an object from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, and
before the object landed he remembered that it was Shabbos, he is Patur. He
did not begin and end the Melachah unaware that it was Shabbos (rather, he
merely began the Melachah unaware that it was Shabbos; when the Melachah
was completed, though, he was aware that it was Shabbos).
In the Gemara, Rava explains that the Mishnah is presenting two cases.
First, if a person *throws* an object from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus
ha'Rabim and he remembers in mid-flight that it is Shabbos, he is Patur.
Second, if a person *carries* from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim and
remembers that it is Shabbos before coming to a stop in Reshus ha'Rabim, he
is Patur (this is the case that is expressed in the Mishnah by the words,
RASHI (DH Ela Amar Rava) explains that according to Rava, the Mishnah is
saying that one is Patur in a case of throwing an object (when he
remembered in mid-flight), and the Mishnah is adding that one is also Patur
in a case of *carrying*. We would not have known that one is Patur in the
second case (carrying), and that is why the Mishnah needed to add it.
This is difficult to understand. If anything, the opposite is true! Once we
are informed that one is exempt from bringing a Korban Chatas when he
*throws* an object and remembers in mid-flight that it is Shabbos, then
certainly we know that he is Patur when he *carries* the object and then
remembers that it is Shabbos. Since he was able to stop the action and
avoid committing the Melachah when he remembered that it was Shabbos, but
he continued and did the Melachah anyway, his action is considered
intentional and thus he is certainly Patur from a Korban Chatas, as the
Gemara explains. In contrast, when he *throws* an object into Reshus
ha'Rabim, he is unable to retract his action and thus we might have thought
that even though he remembered that it was Shabbos, his action is still
considered to have been done fully unknowingly. Why, then, did the Mishnah
need to add that one is Patur for remembering in middle of carrying if it
already explained that one is Patur for remembering in middle of throwing?
The MAHARSHA (on Tosfos DH Ela) asks this question and offers an answer.
Had the Mishnah not added, "Zeh ha'Klal," we might have thought that one
who throws an object inadvertently and then, before the object lands,
remembers that it is Shabbos is really *Chayav*. When the first case of the
Mishnah says that he is Patur, we might have thought that it was referring
to a case where, after throwing the object, he remembered that it was
Shabbos *and* the object was caught by a dog (that is, we would have read
the Mishnah as describing *one* case and not several different cases). The
reason why he is Patur is because the dog caught the object and it never
came to rest where the thrower intended.
The second case in the Mishnah, where one threw an object with an intention
to inflict a wound, is referring to an object that was attached to a rope,
one end of which the thrower is still holding. Since he is able to pull
back the object in mid-flight, if he remembers that it is Shabbos he is
Patur because it is in his hands to prevent the Melachah from occurring.
If so, we would still not have known that someone who throws something on
Shabbos which *cannot* be retracted is Patur if he remembers before the
object lands. We would have assumed that he is Chayav to bring a Chatas
like any act of Shogeg. If so, once the end of the Mishnah ("Zeh ha'Klal")
reiterates that one is Patur when he remembers that it is Shabbos while
walking with an object, we must rethink our interpretation of the Mishnah.
Why does the Mishnah have to repeat this Halachah? It must be that the
beginning of the Mishnah is indeed discussing a case when he threw an
object and remembered the prohibition while it was in mid-flight, and he is
Patur *without* the object being caught by a dog. (That is, the first part
of the Mishnah is discussing *two* distinct cases, and not one case). The
additional teaching of the "Zeh ka'Klal" is referring to a case of
*carrying*, which was not discussed separately in the Mishnah.
In summation, without the "Zeh ha'Klal" we might have thought that one who
*throws* is Chayav, and is not discussed in the Mishnah. With the "Zeh
ha'Klal" we know that one who throws is Patur; the first case of the
Mishnah is referring to a regular case of throwing and remembering while
the "Zeh ha'Klal" is referring to walking with an object and rememebring
the prohibition while walking.
QUESTION: RASHI on the Mishnah here explains that "Makeh b'Patish" refers
to the final blow which a person gives to a rock which he is chiseling out
of a mountain, in order to break it off of the mountain. Rashi earlier
(73a), however, explains "Makeh b'Patish" to be referring to when the
artisan strikes the hammer against the anvil after flattening a metal
strip, in order to smooth the surface of the hammer. Why does Rashi give
two different explanations?
ANSWER: In the Mishnah on 73a, Rashi described the Melachos as they were
applied in the Mishkan. Therefore, Rashi explains "Makeh b'Patish" there to
mean the strike of the artisan's hammer on the anvil when his work is
completed. There were no rocks that were chiseled for the construction of
Here, though, Rashi could not give the other explanation of "Makeh
b'Patish," because that is the explanation which Raban Shimon ben Gamliel
gives in the end of the Mishnah. The Makeh b'Patish of the beginning of the
Mishnah must be a different form of "Makeh b'Patish" (which the Mishnah
mentions in order to teach the present-day applications of the Melachah).