ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 68
(a) The Gemara initially explains the Mishnah's use of the term 'Klal
Gadol', because later in the Masechta we will learn another Mishnah which
also gives a Klal, but which consists only of two levels, as opposed to
*our* Mishnah, which gives *three*; hence the term 'Klal Gadol'.
(b) The problem with this suggestion is that by Ma'aser too, the Tana lists
two sets of Klalim, the one longer than the other, yet he does not refer to
the longer list as *Klal Gadol*?
(c) The Gemara therefore suggests further that the Tana uses the term Klal
Gadol because by Shabbos, there are both Avos and Toldos; whereas by
Ma'aser, since there are no Toldos, the Tana does not use that term.
(d) The four Avos (i.e. the four Melachos mentioned specifically by the
Torah) by Shevi'is are - sowing, reaping, pruning and harvesting the
(a) According to Bar Kapara, who maintains that the Tana mentions Klal
Gadol also by Ma'aser, the Tana uses the term Gadol, by any subject which
is more strict than another case:
(b) Namely ...
(c) Dyes and Hefker are Patur by Ma'aser, too.
- Shabbos is Gadol compared to Shevi'is, because there are Melachos which
apply even to what was detached before Shabbos, whereas those of Shevi'is apply only to what is still attached when Shevi'is arrives.
- Shevi'is is Gadol compared to Ma'aser, because it applies also to animal
food, whereas Ma'aser is confined to food eaten by humans.
- Ma'aser is more strict than Pei'ah, because Ma'aser applies to both figs
(although they are not harvested simultaneously) and vegetables (which cannot be stored - because they do not keep), whereas Pei'ah does not apply
to either of these (for the reason that we mentioned).
(d) mi'd'Oraysa, only corn (the five types of grain), wine and oil need to
be Ma'asered. The Rabbanan added fruit and vegetables - they did not want
to differentiate between one species and another; so they included *all*
species in the obligation. Dyes and Hefker, which are not species, they saw
fit to preclude from the Din of Ma'aser (in the same way as they are Patur
(a) Rav and Shmuel establish the first case in our Mishnah by a Tinok
she'Nishbah or a Ger who converted among the gentiles - but not by someone
who knows about Shabbos, but forgot it momentarily; *he* is Chayav for
every Shabbos that he transgresses.
(b) They interpret 'Kol ha'Shochei'ach Ikar Shabbos' to mean that he never
knew about Shabbos, as if the Tana had written 'Kol she'Haysa Shechuchah
Mimenu Ikar Shabbos'.
(c) According to Rav and Shmuel, why, in the middle case of the Mishnah,
does the Tana present the case of 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos' (meaning that
he was conversant with Shabbos, but he forgot it for a certain period of
time)? Surely, it would have done better to have presented the case of
'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach' (which we just established has the same Din
according to them). Why?
Because we would have then said that if by 'Hikir, ve'li'be'Sof Shachach'
(where we cannot apply the principle 'Yamim she'Bentayim Havyan Yedi'ah
le'Chalek' - since, having later forgotten about Shabbos, from where should
he have suddenly remembered that it was Shabbos), he is Chayav for each and
every Shabbos, then how much more so by 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos' (where he
only forgot temporarily, and where 'Yamim she'Bentayim Havyan Yedi'ah
Lechalek' *is* applicable). But now that the Tana presents the case of
'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos', we can infer that, in the case of 'Hikir
ve'li'be'Sof Shachach', where he could not have known in the middle, he
would only be Chayav *one* Chatas - for forgetting about Shabbos.
(d) When the Mishnah said 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos, according to Rav and
Shmuel, it means 'Mi she'Haya Yodei'a Ikrah shel Shabbos, ve'Shachechah'.
(a) If the Tana had thought that, someone who did *not* completely forget
about Shabbos brings one Chatas for each Melachah, then he should have
incorporated it in the second case of the Mishnah - together with 'Mi
she'Yada Ikar Shabbos ve'Shachechah'. Now that he did not, it is clear
that, in his opinion, someone who did not forget Shabbos, must bring a
Chatas for each and every Melachah.
(b) In that case, asks the Gemara, why does the Seifa (where he is Chayav
for each Melachah that he transgresses) present the case of 'ha'Yodei'a
she'Hu Shabbos' etc. (Shigegas Melachos), it should have presented the case
of 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos', which is Chayav for each Melachah even though
he only transgressed *one* Shogeg, and it would go without saying that by
Shigegas Shabbos, where he transgressed many Shegagos, he would be Chayav
(c) The Gemara therefore concludes that Rav and Shmuel do not differentiate
between a 'Tinok she'Nishbah' and 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach'. In both
cases, he is Chayav to bring *one* Chatas. And the Reisha of our Mishnah
('Kol ha'Shochei'ach Ikar Shabbos" etc.) also speaks in the case of 'Hikir'
(d) The Tana could just have well presented the case of 'Tinok
she'Nishbah'. However, it preferred to present the case of 'Hikir
ve'li'be'Sof Shachach', to teach us that even 'Hikir'etc., is only Chayav
*One* Chatas, and not for *each* Shabbos (like we thought at first,
according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish).
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, a Tinok she'Nishbah is
Patur from bringing a Korban, because they hold that 'Omer Mutar' is
considered an Ones and not a Shogeg.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish concede that Rebbi Akiva supports Rav
and Shmuel, who hold that 'Omer Mutar' is considered a Shogeg and not an
Ones. However, they follow the opinion of Munbaz, who argues in the Beraisa
with Rebbi Akiva.
(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, a Tinok she'Nishba will have to bring one
Korban for each Chiyuv Kares that he transgressed (e.g. one for drinking
blood, one for eating Chelev, one for worshipping idols); according to
Munbaz, he will be Patur from bringing any Chata'os at all.
(b) A Ger she'Nisgayer le'Bein ha'Nochrim, will have the same Din as a
Tinok she'Nishbah - (though it is not so clear how to define such a Ger -
Who converted him, and what sort of Gerus did he undergo).
(a) Munbaz learns Shogeg (who is called 'a Chotei') from the Meizid of
Shevu'as ha'Eidus (whom the Torah also calls 'a Chotei'). From there he
derives that a Shogeg is Chayav a Chatas only when he had a Yedi'ah - at
some stage - of his sin (to preclude a Tinok she'Nishbah from a Chatas).
(b) Rebbi Akiva queries him: if we are can learn Shogeg from Meizid, he
asks, then why should we not also say that just like a Meizid has knowledge
of his sin even whilst he is sinning, so too, must a Shogeg? 'But how can
you call that a Shogeg', he asked Munbaz, when he replied that indeed it
(c) Ultimately, Munbaz learns his Din from a Hekesh (which is really a
Semuchin, since it involves *two* Pesukim - in Bamidbar) of "Torah Achas
Yihye Lachem, la'Oseh bi'Shegagah" and "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh be'Yad
(d) The Chachamim learns from the Hekesh that, in order to be Chayav a
Chatas, a La'av must be similar to Avodah Zarah (the subject-matter of the
second Pasuk: i.e. it must be a La'av for which one is Chayav Kares