Previous daf

1)

(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 end.

(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 Patur.

(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 le'Chatzi Shiur'.

(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 above.

(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 by Ha'avarah.

(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 therefore) Patur.

(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 mid-flight.
Note: Rabah and Rava do not, in fact, argue, since each speaks in a difference case.

(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 Chashuv.

(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').

6)

(a) The Shiur for Binyan, Mesates, Makeh ba'Patish and Kode'ach - is a Kol Shehu.

(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 ba'Patish.

(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 their needles.

(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 be'Makom Ashirus'.

(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 Makeh ba'Patish.

(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 smaller cavity.

(b) 'Makeh be'Kurnas al ha'Sadan' - means to hit with the hammer on the anvil.

(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.