ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 102
(a) The Reisha of the Mishnah: 'ha'Zorek, ve'Nizkar me'Achar she'Yatzesah
mi'Yado, Kaltah Acher, ... Patur', implies that if , after throwing the
object and remembering that it is Shabbos, it falls to the ground, he is
Chayav. But how can he be Chayav, asks the Gemara, when the Seifa states
that the beginning and the end of a Melachah need to be be'Shogeg - where
he did *not* that it was Shabbos until after he had completed the Melachah
- before he can be Chayav.
(b) The Gemara initially thinks that, even if he remembers in the middle,
he is nevertheless Chayav, as we inferred from the two cases of the Reisha,
and he is Patur in the Seifa when he remembered, only because he could have
stopped the Melachah in the middle i.e. be'Lachsa u'Misna'. 'Lachsa
u'Misna' is a bent piece of wood, which was normally attached to the
holders of the barrels of wine, to hold the barrels firmly together during
transportation (by donkey). The Lachsa was attached to a piece of string,
and the Seifa is speaking when he threw the Lachsa, but was still holding
the string in his hand. *That* is when he is Patur, if he was Meizid at the
(c) Ogdo be'Yado - which means that the thrower is holding one end of the
object in his hand - exempts him from any Chiyuv at all, since one is only
Chayav when it has left his hand completely.
(d) Someone who wounds another person, is Chayav even if he is holding the
other end of the weapon - and it is only regarding carrying, that he is
(e) The Din of someone who throws to make a wound, and remembers, is
mentioned independently in the Seifa of the Reisha, so how can we establish
the Seifa by the same case?
(a) 'Tarti Katani' means that the Mishnah is stating not *one* case, like
we at first thought , but *two* ('ha'Zorek, ve'Nizkar ... *O* Kaltah
Kelev'), and the first case speaks when the object landed after he
remembered that it was Shabbos, and he is indeed Patur, just like the Seifa
says he is.
(b) Rav Ashi adds to the end of the Reisha: 'Ha Nachah, Chayav. Bameh
Devarim Amurim, she'Chazar ve'Shachach, Aval Lo Chazar ve'Shachach, Patur'
(just like it says in the Seifa).
(c) The Tana needs to mention that he later forgot, so that it should be a
case of Techilaso ve'Sofo bi'Shogeg.
(d) The Tana mentions 've'Nizkar' in the middle, to teach us 'Ein Yedi'ah
(a) The Gemara tries to establish the Seifa of the Mishnah by a case of
carrying (and not of throwing, as we learnt until now). And it is there,
that the Mishnah tells us that he is Patur if he remembers in the middle,
but not by throwing, where he will be Chayav even if he remembers, since he
is unable to prevent the Melachah from being concluded, as we explained
(b) The Gemara rejects that contention too, on the grounds that 'Zeh
ha'Klal refers to 'ha'Zorek' in the Reisha, so we can hardly establish it
(a) Rabban Gamliel says that someone who remembers that it is Shabbos after
writing *one* letter, but before writing the *second* letter, he forgets
again, he is Chayav, because 'Ein Yediyah la'Chatzi Shiur'. Even *he* will
agree, says Rabah, that if someone carries six Amos, two Amos be'Shogeg,
two Amos be'Meizid and two Amos be'Meizid, he will be Patur from a Korban.
Why is that?
Because at the moment of Chiyuv - four Amos - he was (Meizid, and
(b) Rabah must be speaking about carrying, and not throwing, because, had
the article been thrown, he would not have been considered Meizid at any
stage, since he was unable to withdraw the article from its flight.
Consequently, Rabah would agree that he is Chayav.
(c) When Rava says that he is Chayav, even according to the Rabbanan of
Rabban Gamliel, he is speaking about someone who *throws* the article, and
not who carries it. Because, had he been carrying the article, he would be Patur, according to the Rabbanan (who hold Yesh Yedi'ah la'Chatzi Shiur),
since he is able to withdraw (just like someone who remembers that it is
Shabbos before writing the second letter); whereas when he throws the
object, even *they* will agree that the Yedi'ah after half the Shiur is
meaningless, and he will be Chayav, since he is unable to withdraw it in
Note: Rabah and Rava do not, in fact, argue, since each speaks in a
(a) When our Mishnah states 'Nachah be'Fi Kelev, Patur', that speaks if he
did not intend the object to land in the dog's mouth; he is Patur because a
dog's mouth does not have the Shiur of Hanachah (i.e. four Tefachim). Rava
is speaking in a case when he intended the object to land in the dog's
mouth. He is then Chayav, because his intention makes the dog's mouth
(b) We see from the Mishnah in Kerisus that, even someone who would not
normally be Chayav (since people do not tend to carry out things in their
mouths), becomes Chayav because his intention has made what he is doing
Chashuv (see Tosfos D.H. 'Ela').
(a) The Shiur for Binyan, Mesates, Makeh ba'Patish and Kode'ach - is a Kol
(b) Mesates means smoothening the stones after they have been shaped, or
cutting grooves in it.
(c) Rashi here describes Makeh ba'Patish as giving the mined stone the
final blow with a pick, to loosen it from the quarry.
(d) Rabban Gamliel (who adds that a worker who bangs his hammer on the
anvil whilst working, is also Chayav because of Makeh ba'Patish), is coming
to teach us that, although he is not completing the work being performed -
only improving the tool being used - it is nevertheless considered Makeh
(a) Initially, the Gemara thought that Binyan Kol Shehu applies to a poor
man who digs a hole, to hide his Perutos. This was performed in the
Mishkan, when the people who stitched the curtains would dig holes to store
(b) Abaye initially explains Binyan Kol Shehu regarding the small metal
legs that a poor man would make for his earthenware oven. This was
performed in the Mishkan, when the dyers ran short of dyed wool;, they
would then manufacture a little oven, to place on it a small pot, to cook a
small amount of dye.
(c) The Mishkan was the house of Hashem, and it is not befitting that there
should be 'poverty (a shortage) in the place of wealth' - 'Ein Aniyus
(d) If a hole appears in a palace, they will fill it in. In the Mishkan
too, if a worm made a hole in a plank, it was filled in with lead.
(a) 'Metzaded' means maneuvering the stone of a building in place.
(b) Shmuel (the author of a.) is speaking about the bottom row of the
building, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who requires cementing before one
can be Chayav, is speaking about the middle rows; and Rebbi Yossi, who is
Mechayev just for the placing of the stone, is referring to the top row,
which does not even require maneuvering.
(a) The purpose of the hole in the chicken-coop is to let out the foul air.
(b) According to Shmuel, Mesates, someone who makes a hole in a
chicken-coop, or a wedge in the handle of a spade, is Chayav because of
(c) Mesates is a process in *building*, so we would not have known from
there that, according to Rav, one is also Chayav because of Binyan in the
case of making a hole in a chicken-coop (which is *not*).
And had they argued in the latter case, we might have thought that Rav
refers to that as Binyan, because making a hole for air, is something that
one tends to do when constructing houses, but that he will agree with
Shmuel in the case of a wedge in the handle of a spade, which is not the
way of building at all.
Therefore he needs to inform us that even that is Binyan and not Makeh
ba'Patish (though it is not clear why).
On the other hand, had the Machlokes been confined to this latter case
only, we would have thought that, in the first two cases, which are at
least similar to building, Shmuel will agree with Rav. That is why they
need to argue in all three cases.
(d) Shmuel reads the Mishnah 'ha'Mesates, 'ha'Makeh ba'Patish' ... Chayav?
(a) According to Shmuel, who holds that boring a hole is Chayav, not
because of Boneh, but because of Makeh ba'Patish, why does the Mishnah rule
'ha'Kode'ach Kol she'Hu Chayav'? Someone who bores a hole in the wall has
still to fill it in. Consequently, it is not the final Tikun, and,
according to Shmuel, he should not be Chayav?
(b) The Mishnah is no problem according to Rav, who holds that boring a
hole is Chayav because of *Boneh* Kol Shehu; so he will be Chayav, whether
it is the final process or not.
(c) The Mishnah is speaking, according to Shmuel, when he banged a nail in
the wall, and left it there, in which case, he *has* completed the process,
and is Chayav for Makeh ba'Patish.
(a) 'Zeh ha'Klal' etc. comes to include a case where someone carves a
cavity which can hold three Lugin in a large block of wood that is large
enough to contain a Kav (four Lugin). The Chidush is that, in spite of the
fact that he intends to enlarge the cavity from three to four Lugin, he is
nevertheless Chayav, since some people will use it as it is with the
(b) 'Makeh be'Kurnas al ha'Sadan' - means to hit with the hammer on the
(c) If the Chiyuv of 'Makeh be'Kurnas al ha'Sadan' is for training one's
hand to strike the right spot with the correct force, then one should be
Chayav even for just *watching* an expert craftsman working on Shabbos?
(d) The source for 'Makeh be'Kurnas' etc. - is the workers in the Mishkan,
whose job it was to beat the flat golden and copper plates. After every
three strokes, they would bang once on the anvil, in order to ensure that
the base of the hammer remained smooth - otherwise a rough-bottomed hammer
is likely to split the plates.