Category Archives: principles of shabbos

Shabbos 110-111 Healing, castration, דבר שאין מתכוין , and קרוב לפסיק רישיה

Posted on by

Our dapim continue to focus a lot on the prohibition of רפואה (healing) on shabbos.

Whereas any concern about danger to life over-rides all laws of Shabbos, the same does not apply to other ailments.

A biblical transgression may not be performed for an ill person who is not in danger, though much of the time, a rabbinical one may be.

However, when it comes to a מיחוש בעלמא (a pain or discomfort that is not severe enough to confine one to bed or affect the entire body,) , Chazal actually forbade even permitted activities, as a גזירה (decree,), intended to prevent one from coming to transgress the melacha of טוחן ( grinding.)

As most cures were (and often still are) derived from plants which were ground up and used for therapeutic purposes, there was a real concern to Chazal that taking medicine, or allowing any other curative activities, might lead to biblical shabbos transgressions.
The rule which our Mishna formulated is that anything which a person normally eats or drinks when he is healthy, may be done on shabbos, even if it has a curative affect.

The same applies to actions, such as bathing in the “good parts” of the sea, which one normally does when healthy, even when one does so for therapeutic purposes. (see back on Daf 109)

I planned a nice post on the discussion of washing and cooling off in the ocean on Shabbos (floating or swimming is a different issue) , which that sugya seems to clearly imply is fine (spoiler alert- at least for Ashkenazim, it isn’t due to a later custom), but had to leave it to a little later- hang in there!

Here, our Mishna deals with drinking a כוס של עקרין (literally a cup of roots) on shabbos. This was a potion made up of tree sap from Alexandra (see Rashi 110a.)
Our Mishna forbids it, seeing as it is used mainly as a cure for jaundice and not as a drink for healthy people.

There is however a negative side affect of this remedy- it causes sterility-causing sterility to oneself, other people, or even animals, is a biblical prohibition, whether done chemically or physically.

As a result, the Gemara questions how this could be allowed even on a weekday, and replies that it is only forbidden when one’s intention is to cause sterility, but if one has a different intention, and the sterility happens automatically, it is allowed.

A proof is brought from Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling that one who wishes to neuter a rooster, should cut its crown off, and the neutering will happen on its own.
The Gemara responds that the case of the rooster is different, as it is not actually made infertile physically or chemically- its “pride” is simply taken away and it loses it motivation to mate.
In our case, however, even though the intention is to heal the jaundice, the side-effect is actual chemical castration, and that is forbidden.

The Gemara then proceeds with other attempts to explain why taking this potion is permitted, by limiting it to people who are already infertile , a woman who has no duty to procreate, or as a last resort, an infertile woman.

I would like to focus on the first stage of this discussion and see how it relates to the well-known leniency of דבר שאין מתכוין.
This is one of the most important principles of melacha on shabbos, but unlike most of the leniencies based on the requirement for מלאכת מחשבת calculated or significant work) on shabbos, this one applies to other prohibitions as well.

The most often quoted example is the ruling of Rabbi Shimon that a person is permitted to drag a bed, chair, or bench along the ground on shabbos in order to move it, and does not have to be concerned that he will dig a groove in the ground while doing do, so long as that is not his intention.

According to Rabbi Shimon, there is no need to refrain from a permitted activity because of the concern that it might be accompanied by a forbidden secondary activity, so long as one’s intention is for the permitted activity.

Rabbi Yehuda disagrees (the precise source for this disagreement is the subject of another discussion) and holds that’s even if one only intends to perform the permitted action, one still has to be concerned about an unintended forbidden consequence.

The leading Amora Rav rules like Rabbi Yehuda, and his colleague, Shmuel, rules like Rabbi Shimon and is permissive.
In various places, the Gemara quotes this case as one of the 3 times where the later Amora, Rabbah, rules like Shmuel rather than Rav, and this therefore became the accepted halacha throughout the Shas- דבר שאין מתכוין מותר.

One important qualification, however, is that the secondary forbidden action we are concerned about should not be inevitable – the term given for this is פסיק רישיה ולא ימות – cutting off a chickens head for one’s child to use as a ball, without the intent to kill it.

Seeing as killing the chicken is an inevitable result of the action of cutting off its head, the action is forbidden, even if that is not his intention.

One of the sources for this distinction is on our daf 111a-b , where Rav tells us that we follow Rabbi Shimon regarding permission to anoint oneself with the very exclusive rose-oil on shabbos, because כל בני ישראל בני מלכים הם – all Jews are princes, and it is thus considered normal to use such things even for non-curative purposes.

The Gemara then questions how Rav can say that we hold like Rabbi Shimon, when he clearly rules in another case in the laws of Shabbos against Rabbi Shimon (why he needs to consistently follow Rabbi Shimon in all cases is not clear from the Gemara, and is the subject of much discussion in the Rishonim.)

The question at hand is whether one may tighten a cloth that is tied around a barrel of wine to prevent leakage, seeing as there is a concern of squeezing out the wine from the cloth (also a topic of much debate regarding what precisely the problem with that would be.)

This seems to be a classic case of דבר שאין מתכוין – the intention is to plug the leak, not to squeeze out the wine.
However, Rav is quoted as forbidding this, which seems to show that he does not hold like Rabbi Shimon regarding דבר שאין מתכוין.

The Gemara attempts to answer this by pointing out that this is actually an example of פסיק רישיה- squeezing our the wine is an inevitable result of tightening the cloth, and Abaya and Rava have pointed out that even Rabbi Shimon would agree that it is forbidden!

While the Gemara rejects this solution seeing as we know that Rav in fact does not agree with Rabbi Shimon’s leniency regarding דבר שאין מתכוין, we remain with the universally accepted distinction that even though דבר שאין מתכוין is permitted, פסיק רישיה is not.

Now back to Daf 110, the כוס של עקרין , and another possible distinction regarding דבר שאין מתכוין.

It is clear from the conclusion of the Gemara that for a fertile male, drinking this potion is forbidden even during the week, due to the prohibition of סרוס (castration.)

The question is why? Surely this is a classic example of דבר שאין מתכוין- the intention is to treat the jaundice, not to cause infertility!
Tosfos quotes Rav Achai Gaon who is so bothered by this question, that he claims that even though Rabbi Shimon holds that דבר שאין מתכון is permitted in all or at least most prohibitions, not only regarding shabbos melacha, we only follow him on shabbos, not in other matters!

There are numerous places in the shas where it is clear that Rabbi Shimon permits דבר שאין מתכוין in other areas of halacha, among them
-permitting a Nazir to scratch his hair without being concerned it might be detached (Nazir 42a)

  • allowing people selling שעטנז ( mixtures of wool and linen) to wear them for show, even though they might benefit from their warmth and transgress the prohibition of wearing שעטנז
    שעטנז (Kilayim 9/5) –[see my Hebrew article for an analysis as to what the precise prohibition is and why wearing it for show is allowed.]
    -performing a bris on a leprous infant, despite the concern that he might cut the נגע off together with the foreskin, transgressing the prohibition of removing a leprous lesion. )Shabbos 133a)
  • letting blood from a בכור בהמה (first born animal) without being concerned he might cause a blemish, which is forbidden. )Bechoros 33b )

As there is no clear claim anywhere in the shas that the Amoraim’s acceptance of Rabbi Shimon’s leniency is limited to the laws of Shabbos, the claim of Rav Achai Gaon is rather radical, and the Tosfos rejects it out of hand, as does the consensus of halachik opinion.

Tosfos actually brings proofs from some of the other sugyos that the Amoraim clearly rule like Rabbi Shimon in all areas of halacha regarding the leniency of דבר שאין מתכוין.

The question remains, however, if that is the case, why is drinking this כוס של עקרין forbidden even during the week, at least for fertile males?

Tosfos suggests that this is because this is actually a case of פסיק רישיה – the resulting infertility is inevitable, and that is why all the Amoraim and Tannaim would agree it is forbidden.

We cannot simply end there, however.
After all, surely Rav Achai Gaon was aware that פסיק רישיה is forbidden?
We also have to try to explain what Rav Achai Gaon would do with all the proofs that the Tosfos brought from the other areas of halacha.

We do not have time in this post for the later, but as far as the former goes, it is unlikely that two Rishonim would debate an easily verifiable medical fact such as whether infertility is an inevitable result of drinking a כוס של עקרין .

A more “lomdish” approach would be to suggest that they agree as to how likely this side-effect is, but debate how inevitable the prohibited action has to be in order to make the permitted action forbidden.

How inevitable you might ask? Surely inevitable means precisely that?

As is often the case with halachik definitions, this is not so simple though- there is some discussion amongst the Rishonim as to the permissibility of something that is קרוב לפסיק רישיה- almost inevitable but not completely, and we shall hopefully discuss in more in later posts.

In fact, a different Tosfos points out that our אב לכולם- the case of dragging the bench, is actually almost inevitable, and the novelty of that particular sugya is that even such a case is permitted.

Perhaps Rav Achai Gaon also makes no distinction between דבר שאין מתכוין and ספק פסיק רישיה whereas our Tosfos (in this case Rabbeinu Yitchak) considers ספק פסיק רישיה to be forbidden like פסיק רישיה ?

Or perhaps we can simply argue that the ingredients used forכוס של עקרין , which grew naturally In Egypt, were simply not available in Geonic Babylonia or medieval France, and the כוס של עקירן was simply not available to either Rav Achai or the Ri, making this a factual argument that is not easily resolved by observation or research, and thus a valid debate in how to understand the sugya?

These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as psak halacha.

Shabbos 105 and 106 מקלקל, anger management, and discipling the family.

Posted on by


The Mishna on 105b discusses the melacha of קורע (tearing).
The biblical prohibition applies to tearing something for constructive purposes, such as tearing threads in an imperfect garment to sow it up again correctly. (Tearing toilet paper might fit into this category but is a subject of its own.)
However, our Mishna tells us that if this is done out of anger, mourning for a relative, or for any destructive purpose, one is exempt, and has only transgressed a rabbinical transgression.
Our sugya debates the question of whether tearing something out of mourning or in anger is considered a constructive act or not.
Simply using our own logic, there seems to be logic on both sides – on the one hand, one is not making the torn item into anything that can be used for a constructive purpose as a result.
On the other hand, there might be a constructive result from the action itself, in that one fulfills one’s obligation to tear one’s clothes to mourn a relative, as well as one’s psychological need to grieve.
Similarly, tearing something out of anger might fulfil a constructive purpose, such as calming oneself down.
It appears from our Mishna that it is not considered constructive.
However, the Gemara brings a Beraita which is of the opinion that one is liable for such actions, indicating that they are halachically considered constructive.
The Gemara concludes that if one tears a garment for a relative that one is liable to tear for, the action is considered constructive because one has discharged his obligation by this action.
However, if one tears for a relative that one has no obligation to tear for, the action is not considered constructive, seeing as he has discharged no obligation by so doing.
The Gemara adds that the same applies to anyone that it is a mitzva, even if not an absolute obligation, to tear one’s clothes for, such as a חכם (scholar) or an איש כשר (righteous man)
How the above two are defined halachically requires further discussion of course.
The exclusion of a relative one is not obligated to tear for seems to make it clear that emotional therapeutic value is not enough to be considered a constructive act on its own, without actually fulfilling a mitzva.
However, we are still face with a contradiction between our Mishna and the Beraisa regarding tearing something in anger.
One would think that based on the law regards relatives, we have already settled the fact that tearing simply for emotional or therapeutic benefit is not considered a constructive action as far as liability on shabbos in concerned, and is still considered מקלקל.
Why then does the author of the Beraisa hold that one is indeed liable for this, in contrast to the author of the Mishna who holds that one is not?
At first, the Gemara tries to explain that this dispute is not actually based on whether it is מקלקל or not, but rather on whether one is liable for מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא.
The Mishna which exempts someone who tears out of anger is not doing so because of מקלקל, but rather because it reflects the view of Rabbi Shimon who holds that one is exempt for מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא , a melacha done for a constructive purpose but for one other than its usual purpose as derived from the Mishkan, the classic example being digging a hole because he wants the dust, rather than the hole itself( see Shabbos 73b.)
Here he has no need for the torn garment itself, but rather for the emotional relief or indulgence of his anger he feels from tearing it, making it classic מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא.
According to this suggestion, The Beraisa which says that one is liable for this simply reflects the view of Rabbi Yehuda that one is liable for מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא.
(We should note at this point that should this suggestion be accepted, we would have a סתם משנה (anonymous Mishna) that is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, which all things being equal, would be a very strong reason for the poskim to rule like him- but that’s for another time!)
The issue with this suggestion is that it totally ignores the exemption of מקלקל, which certainly seems to apply
i. based on logical analysis
ii. based on the previous conclusion that emotional benefit is not considered a constructive purpose regarding melacha
iii. Based on the wording of the Mishna which seems to base the exemption on מקלקל explicitly. ( one would then have to say that מקלקל mentioned in the Mishna is a totally new exemption, not the reason for the previous too exemptions and others like it, which while not illegal, certainly doesn’t seem to be the simple reading of the Mishna.)
The Gemara rejects this suggestion based on the fact that Rabbi Yehuda himself does not disagree with the exemption of מקלקל, which clearly seems to apply here.
It then suggests that perhaps the Beraisa that says one is liable for tearing something out of anger actually holds that tearing out of anger is constructive, in that it appeases his יצר (inclination).
This is a full 180 degree turn in which the Gemara acknowledges that at least according to the Beraisa, emotional therapeutic benefit might actually be considered constructive regarding melacha (it is possible to learn that even our Mishna would acknowledge that but exempts it due to מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא , but once we have found an acceptable way to reconcile the two views without reference to this debate, particularly as the Mishna does seem to given the reason for the exemption as מקלקל, it seems more likely that the Mishna would disagree simply on the point as to whether emotional benefit is constructive, and holds that it is not, which is reflected by the fact that its exempts one who tears out of mourning as well.)
The Gemara doesn’t seem so bothered by the suggestion that emotional benefit might be considered constructive in general ( to the point that we would then need to explain the difference between the emotional benefit of indulging or discharging one’s anger which one is liable for and that of fulfilling one’s need to grieve which is exempt even according to the Beraisa in the absence of a mitzva.)
Yet it rejects that suggestion that tearing out of anger might be constructive flat out for a different reason- indulging one’s anger is NEVER constructive .
It brings the very strong statement of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri that a person who tears or breaks something out of anger is considered like one who has worshipped idols -The way of the יצר הרע (evil inclination) is first to make you indulge your anger by destroying something and then to make you do other sins.
Rav Avin goes further and interprets the verse “לא יהיה בך אל זר “ (“there shall not be in you a strange god” -Tehillim 81/10) as referring to the evil inclination within everyone.
Indulging one’s evil inclination in the hope that it will go away afterwards is not viewed as a constructive action, rather as a catastrophic form of מקלקל.
This concept in also seen regarding the inclination for sexual relations.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 107a) relates how David heMelech requested a test from Hashem, so he could also be regarded on par with the אבות (the three forefathers), and mentioned in the first blessing of the עמידה (silent standing prayer.)
It relates that Hashem agreed to this, and even warned him that the test would involve a woman.
David haMelech though that he would indulge his sexual drive in a permitted way that day by sleeping with all his wives, so by the time the test came, it would be worn out.
However, this was of no help. And he failed the test of Batsheva miserably.
The Gemara explains that he forgot the simply rule that אבר קטן יש באדם משביעו רעב
מרעיבו צמא ( a man has a small organ, if he starves it, it is satisfied, but if he indulges it, it is hungry.)
Hence engaging in too much sexual indulgence, even in a permitted way, is not constructive at all, and rather than getting tired of it eventually, simply leads to a person being addicted and chronically obsessed with it.
Now to return to our sugya- so under what circumstances could tearing something in anger be considered constructive and liable, as per the ruling of the Beraita?
The Gemara concludes with something that could seem very shocking in our modern, liberal world: performing certain actions that appear to be out of anger in order to instill fear in the members of one’s household, not out of uncontrolled anger indulgence, are indeed constructive and one would be liable for them on shabbos.
The Gemara gives some examples, but we will have to leave that to further discussion- please don’t copy any of those actions without getting suitable practical rabbinic AND legal advice!
(p.s. Another unresolved issue regarding מקלקל is seeing that injuring a person is basically always destructive (as well as being a prohibition outright,) how could one ever be liable for wounding a person on shabbos, something we know from various places that one is certainly liable for? The discussion on 106a resolved around this.
Our long-standing discussion about whether a שבות דשבות על ידי ישראל is permitted or not might also find some precedent in our Mishna, as it does indeed seem to be a case of both מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא and מקלקל, which according to Rabbi Shimon should actually be a שבות דשבות! Lots to say on this, but its late…)
These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as psak halacha.

Shabbos 102 The evasive מכה בפטיש (hammer-blow)

Posted on by

Shabbos 102 The evasive מכה בפטיש (hammer-blow)

One of the most difficult categories of forbidden work on Shabbos must be the melacha of מכה בפטיש, literally “striking with a hammer.”

After all, when a hammer is used constructively, it will usually be used as part of other forbidden categories of work, such a building, and when it used to destroy things with no positive intention, it will usually be מקלקל (a destructive action,) which is only rabbinically prohibited .

Yet this is indeed list in the Mishna (Shabbos 73a) as one of the 39 categories of work forbidden on shabbos, and it is essential to understand what it is.

The Mishna on our daf lists this melacho as one of those which has no minimum quantity required for liability.

Rashi gives both a general rule and an example of this melacha.

He gives the example of the hammer blow given to a stone by those who hew stones, after it has been cut out of the rock but not completely detached .

The stone is then hit with a hammer which causes it to detach and fall from the rock surface.

This is the final stage in the act of hewing a stone, and Rashi then tells us the general rule that the final stage of any melacha makes up the melacha of מכה בפטיש . He told us this rule back on daf 73a as well.

In truth though, numerous difficulties can be raised with both the rule and the example.

Firstly, as Tosfos points out, a forbidden category of melacha needs to involve an action performed in the work of the mishkan, and no quarry work was involved in that at all ( there were no stones in the mishkan, and constructing an altar from hewn stone was actually forbidden- note also how the Aron, Menorah, and Shulchan were all made of one single piece of beaten gold, and NOT of anything that had been cut into parts and then joined together !)

Secondly, if מכה בפטיש is the final stage of any מלאכה, surely it is already included in that מלאכה itself , and why should it get its own category? Does that mean that any melacha done from start to finish would incur two punishments , one for that particularly מלאכה , and one for completing it ? If so, one would expect that to be discussed .

However, this definition of מכה בפטיש does not originate with Rashi, but actually goes back to the Talmud itself (Shabbos 75b) where Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira both tell us that anything that involves completing a מלאכה is מכה בפטיש.

Tosfos appropriately does not disagree with the rule cited by Rashi, but chooses rather an example that did take place in the work of the mishkan , namely the final hammer blow given to strenghen the vessels of the mishkan once they were ready .

Does this melacha perhaps apply to the final act in a creative process even if that process does not involve a forbidden melacha ?

If so , where do we see such an example – after all, if it is a creative act of work that wasn’t in the mishkan, it will usually be included in the toladot of that melacha .

The key might lie in a Yerushalmi often quoted by our teacher, haGaon haRav Osher Weiss שליט”א ( various teshuvos on electricity in מנחת אשר חלק 1 וחלק 3 for example )

The Yerushalmi (Shabbos perek 7/ halocha 2) accounts that Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish spent 3 and a half years studying the matter of 39 melachos.

They found 39 Tolados ( derivatives) of each melacha.

Whatever melacha they were able to fit into one of those, they included in one of those .

Those that they could not include in one of those were included in מכה בפטיש .

It seems clear from this Yerushalmi that there exists NO melacha that is not forbidden on shabbos.

Every possible melacha, however it is defined, either falls under one of the 39 categories, their derivatives , or the מלאכה of מכה בפטיש.

Rav Weiss himself suggests the relatively radical idea that for this reason, any activation of an electric circuit fits under the prohibition of מכה בפטיש .

Although the Bavli gave a different definition, namely גמר מלאכה, and the rule is that one does not follow the Yerushalmi when it contradicts the Bavli, he contends that it is possible that the Bavli did not mean to exclude these “left out” melachot from מכה בפטיש but simply to also include the completion of any melacha .

However, as he himself is fully aware, many poskim before him rejected this possibility, and were most likely fully aware of this Yerushalmi.

Far from me with my barely existent understanding of the subject to argue, but those who do not follow this view regarding electricity have all these Poskim to rely on ( of course, electricity remains forbidden for numerous possible other reasons given, but there could be many נ”מ)

Perhaps what the Yerushalmi really means is that COMPLETING any melacha, even one that doesn’t fit into the forbidden categories, is still forbidden because of מכה בפטיש .

However it follows from this classification that unlike other melachot, some of which one could transgress just by doing some or most thereof ( even if one is sometimes exempt due to “בעשותה” ) , one would have to actually complete the goal of these “left out” melachot in order to transgress.

If one learns this way, there is no disagreement between the bavli and the Yerushalmi at all- מכה בפטיש indeed includes all “left all” melachos , but only the completion of them.

In fact, it is also stated in the same halacha on the Yerushalmi that גמר מלאכה is מכה בפטיש,

Admittedly, this might not be the simplest reading of the Yerushalmi, but it allows for a simpler reading of the Bavli and also avoids the need to say that the Bavli and Yerushalmi have such a basic difference in understanding the melacha, one that the Rishonim do not seem to mention at all ( though see the Rambam , for example in Pirush haMishnayos to perek 7 which Rav Osher suggests as a support for his words .)

Of course , we would now have to test all the examples given in the gemara of this melacha, as well as those on our daf that Rav and Shmuel argue about, before we can really see if this thesis can stand its ground .

We would also need to define exactly what מלאכה is , and what kind of גמר מלאכה is meant by the Gemara- is it the completion of any melacha, just the completion of a כלי, or just the completion of a מלאכה not already included in the 39.

Lots of work to do, but its late …

Shabbos 100 Relative versus objective movement

Posted on by

Shabbos 100 Relative versus objective movement

On this daf, we have a number of interesting discussions that touch on physics and make an impact on the laws of shabbos.

One of the recurring themes in this Masechta is that in order to transgress the biblical prohibitions of transferring an item from one domain to another, one has to both lift it up from one domain and put it down at rest in the other.

If the item never comes to rest in the forbidden domain, one will generally only have transgressed a rabbinical prohibition at a maximum. (One exception is the rule of קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמי according to some opinions in the Gemara.)

We are told that if one draws water from one domain and puts it down in another on top of water (such as in a river or pond) , even though the water actually mixes and flows with the other water and never “rests”, its is considered to have rested, as this is the way of water.

Rashi adds that if one were to pickup or splash water from a body of water, it would similarly be considered uprooting it, even though it was never really at rest.

Water by its nature is constantly moving (unless absorbed by a solid) and that is halachically considered its natural state of rest!

In contrast, if one picks up a solid item such as a nut from one domain and puts it down in another domain on top of water, so that it flows on the surface of the water, and never rests, one is exempt from the biblical prohibition, as the solid never comes to its natural state of rest, which is a state of stillness.

Rava then asks an interesting related question:

What would happen if our famous nut is picked up from one domain and placed inside a container floating down a stream of water in another domain?

The item is at rest in the vessel, but the basket is moving with the water.
Is this considered to be an act of הנחה (putting to rest) the nut, seeing as it is stationary relative to the container it is in, or is it considered not to be at rest, seeing as it is inside a moving container?

By Rashi’s extension, we could then also ask whether lifting up the item is considered an act of uprooting, seeing as the item is in its natural state of stillness within the vessel, or whether it considered as if it always was moving, seeing as it was inside a moving vessel!

The Gemara leaves this question unresolved.

What exactly is the uncertainly of the Gemora?

It seems clear that the doubt concerns whether an item’s halachik state of rest or movement is defined in absolute terms, or relative to the surface it is dependent on for support.

On the one hand, it seems that this status must be relative- after all, all items and beings at “rest” on the surface of the Earth, are essentially only at rest relative to the Earth- in more “objective” terms, they are all moving at an incredible speed around the Earth’s axis as well as around the sun!

Yet halacha considers such items or people to be fully at rest.

However, if one takes a closer look, there is another possible reason why this is so.

Perhaps in general, halacha defines “at rest” as objectively “at rest”, unless the items’ natural state is to be in constant movement, like water.
Seeing as the natural state of anything on the surface of this planet is to be moving with the planet, that too is considered its natural state of rest.

However, it is not the natural state of a nut to be inside a vessel floating down the river- perhaps in such a case, we go by an item’s objective state, and thus do not consider it to be still but rather moving!

To formulate this in more formal Brisker format:
Is the reason why an item at rest on the surface of the Earth is halachically considered to be “at rest” because
i. Halacha goes by relative state, not objective state, and relative to the Earth, it is indeed at rest, just like a nut inside a container floating down a river is at rest relative to container it is in.
ii. Halacha usually goes by objective state, but just like water’s natural state of rest is a state of movement, so to any terrestrial item’s natural state of rest is one of moving with the sun.

The Nafka Minah (practical difference) would be that now infamous nut inside the container:
If option 1 is correct, then the nut will indeed be considered to be at rest, even though the container it is in is moving.
If, on the other hand, option 2 is correct, the nut will be considered to be moving and NOT at rest, unlike a terrestrial item that moves with the earth.

The next question of the Gemara is about two liquids with different densities on top of one another, such as oil and wine.

Is this considered like a solid on top of a liquid, or a liquid on top of a liquid.
There is no time left for this fascinating issue today, but it raises a very interesting question:

What happens when water of one density is transferred to a body of water of different density in a different domain?

Sound Impossible? Then you obviously haven’t been to the “Meeting of the waters” in Brazil!
But I leave that for further discussion- hint: color….

One other curveball- I have assumed in this analysis that Chazal were aware/believed that the Earth revolves around its orbit and/or around the sun. Is this a fair assumption, or way off track?

Shabbos 99 Defining the public domain, and the great Eruv controversy

Posted on by

Shabbos 99 Defining the public domain, and the great Eruv controversy

In the first chapter (Shabbos 6a), we were introduced to the 4 רשויות (domains) of Shabbos, roughly as follows:

  1. רשות היחד
    (private domain)- an area at least 4 טפחים (hand-breadths) wide that is either raised at least 10אמות (arm-lengths) above the ground, surrounded by partitions of that height, or sunken into the ground at that depth.
  2. רשות הרבים
  • large and busy thoroughfares and markets, and מבואות (quieter side streets) that open to them
  1. כרמלית
    ( some examples given there are the sea, open valleys and a כרמלית proper, but this is generally understood to mean a place that is too open to be a private domain and too quite to be a public domain.
  2. מקום פטור
    an exempt area.

We are also told that transferring an item from a private domain to a public domain, vice-versa, or 4 Amos within a public domain is a biblical offense.
On the other hand, transferring an item from either a private or public domain to a Carmelis or vice-versa, or transferring an item 4 Amos within a Carmelis, is only a rabbinical prohibition.

Although obviously we treat rabbinical prohibitions very seriously, we have mentioned numerous times that there are still certain leniencies with them that do not apply to biblical prohibitions, one of them being the idea of a שבות דשבות , an action that is only rabbinically prohibited for two separate reasons.

Such things, are permitted for the sake of Mitzva, great need, or to prevent suffering, at least when done by a non-Jew, and according to some opinions, even when done by a Jew (see earlier posts on שבות דשבות)

An example could be asking a non-Jew to carry or transfer something in, into or from a Carmelis, or according to the more lenient views, by a Jew in an unusual way in or into a Carmelis.

Pulling a pram with a child that is able to walk on his own inside a Carmelis could also be such an example, due to the rule of חי נושא את עצמו (a living person carries himself), perhaps to be discussed in another post.

Another important distinction would be in the case of a ספק (doubt) if an action is forbidden or not – the golden rule being that in doubt regarding a biblical rule, we need to err on the side of stringency, but when it comes to a biblical rule, we may be lenient out of doubt.

Perhaps the most important distinction between a רשות הרבים and a כרמלית is in the laws of Eruvin, which largely rely on the fact that the Eruv is made in an area in which it is only rabbinically forbidden to carry, such as a Carmelis, and not a רשות הרבים, where making an Eruv is far more problematic.

As such, accurately being able to tell the difference between a רשות הרבים and a כרמלית is essential and makes a major impact on daily shabbos life.

As usual, the main factors we consider in this distinction, are the properties of the דגלי מדבר (the biblical encampment of Israel), which are the basis for the מלאכה of הוצאה being performed in the work of the Mishkan, and thus qualifying as a forbidden category of work.

3 of the most commonly accepted distinctions between the two, are as follows:

  1. A רשות הרבים needs to be at least 16 Amos wide, like the space in which the wagons passed (5 for each wagon, 5 for the space between them plus one extra for the Levi, as per our daf!)
  2. A רשות הרבים must be open, not even covered at the top by a roof, as per the camp of Israel.
  3. A רשות הרבים needs to have at least 600,000 people, like the population in the camp of Israel.

The first condition, namely the minimum width, is universally accepted, and based on an explicit statement on our daf, as well as in a Mishna (Bava Basra 99b), which according to Rashi, has its source in the reasoning mentioned on our daf.

The second condition has actually been the matter of debate on the previous daf, but seems to be the consensus of the poskim.

In contrast, the third condition has been and remains the subject of MUCH controversy.
On the one hand, there is NO specific source for this requirement in the Gemara.
It is only in some of the (mainly) Ashkenazi Rishonim (early commentators) that we see this requirement.
Although this could be a logical extension of the comparison to the biblical encampment, as mentioned above, as Rashi explicitly says (Rashi, Eruvin 6a) , it actually seems to be contradicted by our daf, which tells us that the ground underneath the wagons was considered a רשות הרבים – it is kind of hard to imagine 600000 people fitting into that space!
It is also a rather difficult suggestion, given that there were only 600000 men in the biblical camp, but far more people when women and children are included- as such, if we going for this rule, lets go even further and make the minimum number far higher! (see Tosfos Eruvin 6a who brings and resolves these difficulties.)

As such, the (mainly) Sephardi Rishonim, such as the Rambam (Shabbos 14/1), Ramban, and others (see Beit Yosef 345 for a list) , do not mention this requirement at all, and it remains a major debate to this day (see Shulchan Aruch 345/7 who brings both opinions, the more lenient one only as a יש אומרים (secondary opinion.)

In practice, mainstream Ashkenazi practice is to treat cities, or even neighborhoods within cities, that do not have at least 600000 people , as a כרמלית , and to allow regular simple Eruvin in such places (see for example Taz O.C. 345/6) , though there are certainly some Ashkenazim who, like many of their Sephardi brethren, are stringent.

For more, see for example Aruch haShulchan 345/14 for a lengthy treatment on this controversy in the Ashkenazi world, and compare Birkei Yosef with Yalkut Yosef on the same siman regarding what normative Sephardi practice should be.

These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as psak halacha.

Shabbos 96 הוצאה – the inferior מלאכה that rules the roost. 

Posted on by

If you would ask any semicha student which of the מלאכות ( forbidden categories of shabbos work) are the most complex, my bet would be that it would be a tough choice between בשול ( cooking ) and הוצאה (transferring.)

If that student  had extended his usual semicha studies to include  ערובין , it would become a no brainer- הוצאה would definitely scoop the prize .

This is the only one of the מלאכות that takes up virtually an entire masechta ( Eruvin) , as well as at least 4 full chapters of Shabbos.

It is also one of the only 2 מלאכות ( I stand to be corrected ) that gets it own source:

  • the מלאכה of הבערה ( lighting a fire) is specifically mentioned  (Shmos  35/3) – לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת  ( You may not kindle a fire in any of your dwelling places on the Sabbath day .)
    Chazal debate why it is singled out and their are 2 major approaches to this (הבערה ללאו יצאת או הבערה לחלק יצאת)  , but thats  not for this post.
  • Our Gemara asks where the source is that הוצאה is forbidden on shabbos, and brings a passuk ויעבירו קול במחנה  (Shmos 36/6) , an instruction to stop bringing ( transferring) things for the Mishkan. 

Given that we are already aware from various sugyos that we have studied that the source for all the מלאכות is the verse “You shall not do any מלאכה ” and the  proximity of the verse that discusses Shabbos to the one that discusses the משכן (sanctuary) , teaches us that the מלאכות referred to in the prohibition are those that were done in the work of the משכן.

In our very Mishna, this same idea is applied to the מלאכה of הוצאה to explain why passing something from one private domain to another through a public domain is forbidden yet throwing is not, according to Chachamim ( Rabbi Akiva of course disagrees and forbids throwing as well- welcome to הזורק! )

In chapter 4 of our  Masechta (Shabbos 49b) , it also specifically mentioned that both הוצאה   ( literally taking out ) and  its תולדה ( derivative )  הכנסה ( bringing in ) , are derived from what was done in the Mishkan.

As such, the question screaming out at us is why do we need a separate passuk to teach us the prohibition of הוצאה and its תולדות of הכנסה, זריקה, etc , when it was  already one of the 39 מלאכות done in the Mishkan and is indeed derived from there too!

Tosfos on the first daf of the Masechta ( Shabbos 2a ” פשט” ) , deals with this  question at length, and focuses on the idea that הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה ( inferior מלאכה ).

This seems to be because unlike most מלאכות where an actual physical change ( usually an improvement) is made in the object the מלאכה is applied to,  transferring an item from one domain to another does not have any physical affect at all- it remains the same item as it was before.

Tosfos points out that it is so questionable whether this should even qualify as a מלאכה  that transferring from one adjoining  private domain to another is completely permitted on a biblical level while transferring from a private domain to a public domain is forbidden, despite their similarity in terms of the action done!

The question that still bothers Tosfos though, is the converse .

If we already know that הוצאה is forbidden from a separate  verse despite it being a מלאכה גרועה , then why does our Mishna and other sugyos have to show that it was done in the Mishkan ?

He answers with the radical idea that had we not been able to show that הוצאה was indeed one of the מלאכות in the Mishkan, we would have learnt from the passuk that explicitly forbids it that ANY melacha like action, (perhaps even a weak one like הוצאה) , is forbidden on shabbos, even if it was NOT done in the Mishkan !

We thus need a separate passuk to teach us that even though it is a מלאכה גרועה, it is still included in the prohibition with its sister melachot that were done in the Mishkan, but we need the fact that it was in fact done in the Mishkan to save the famous rule that only מלאכות done in the Mishkan are in fact forbidden !

It thus comes as a leniency rather than a stringency  as we thought .

But what would we have done with the דרשה that derives the forbidden מלאכות from the משכן due to proximity of verses ?

Tosfos suggests that this would have simply been used  to teach us something else , perhaps a fascinating statement about how he views the world of דרשות in general , but thats for another time perhaps …

Lets take a minute go consider how far-reaching this suggestion is- The golden rule that we always take for granted about the connection between the Mishkan and Shabbos would have come tumbling down in a moment had Chazal not shown that this “inferior Melacha” was also done on the Mishkan!

There is another, philosophical lesson, I would like to learn from this .

What seems to us like the weakest of Melacho, one that has NO physical impact on the item at all, to the point that it needs its own unique prohibition, has become the Melacha which our Masechta opened up with, that occupies 2 of the longest and most complex chapters of the Masechta, and also gets its own entire Masechta virtually to itself !

Despite the emphasis placed on the laws of לשון הרע ( gossip) and אונאת דברים (offending people ), in practise , we  still often tend to harbour  the mistaken belief that ” sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me .”
So long as one doesn’t actually physically hurt a person, it is OK to hurt him emotionally, after all emotions cannot be seen or measured !

Yet the message of this מלאכה is precisely the opposite. 

If a constructive action that involves no physical improvement to an item can not only be considered מלאכת מחשבת , a significant form of work, but even dominate all the other מלאכות in the time spent studying it , how much more so should we focus on the significance of non physical damage that appears to be less significant, but in fact, can be as damaging , or even more so, than physical actions, , as we know from the innocent  lives that have been utterly ruined by lashon harah.

Shabbos 94 שבות דשבות על ידי ישראל – a double derabonen by a Yisroel

Posted on by

Shabbos 94 שבות דשבות על ידי ישראל – a double derabonen by a Yisroel

One of the most powerful leniencies on Shabbos, is the rule of a שבות דשבות, an action which is only rabbinically prohibited for 2 different reasons.

The most common application of this applies to work done by a non-Jew on Shabbos for a Jew.

In general, it is forbidden to ask a non-Jew to perform a forbidden task for a Jew on Shabbos. According to most opinions, this is a rabbinical prohibition, which I hope to discuss in a later post.

However, one is permitted to ask a non-Jew to perform something that is only rabbinically prohibited, for example to move something that is Muktza, or perform a forbidden melacha in an unusual way, so long as there is a great need for this, to prevent suffering, or for the sake of a Mitzva. (This too, is not straight-forward, and I hope to devote a future post to it.)

Although subject to debate in the Rishonim, this is the generally accepted halacha, and is because this is only rabbinically forbidden, for 2 different reasons:

  • אמירה לעכום (asking a non-Jew to perform forbidden work) is only rabbinically forbidden
  • The actual act being requested, is also only rabbinically forbidden.
    The generally accepted source for this, is a sugya in Eruvin 67 , which allows one to ask a non-Jew to bring hot water for a bris milah through a shared courtyard where an eruv has not been made. (See Rif and Ran Shabbos 56 for a long analysis and debate on this.)

The question is, however, whether this is limited to a rabbinical prohibition performed by a non-Jew, or whether a Jew would also be allowed in case of great need, to perform an action that is a שבות דשבות, for example moving Muktza in an unusual way, or two people turning on a light in an unusual way.

In order to answer this question, one would either need to prove that whatever Chazal’s reason for this leniency is equally applicable to a שבות דשבות performed by a Jew, or find a specific case in the Gemara where a שבות דשבות by a Jew is permitted.

On the other hand, should we find a case where a שבות דשבות by a Jew is not permitted, even for the sake of a Mitzva, great need, or suffering, one would be forced to either prove that this is an exception or a non-authoritative view, or conclude that שבות דשבות is not permitted for a Jew.

I have been trying for many years to find a concrete example of what might be an example of שבות דשבות by a Jew that is permitted, within the Gemara.

Today’s daf got me extremely excited, at least for a minute!

We are told that there was a corpse in the town of Darukra, that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak permitted to be moved to a Carmelis (an open area that is not closed enough to be a private domain and not busy enough to be a public domain.)

This action seems to be a clear example of what we are looking for, a שבות דשבות done by a Jew!

  • It is mentioned just after we have analyzed the view of Rabbi Shimon that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה (A Melacha where the usual result is not needed- another post to look forward to!) is only rabbinically forbidden. As the corpse is not needed, but merely needs to be removed, this would be one reason that this is only rabbinically forbidden.
  • It was taken to a כרמלית, which is also only Rabbinically prohibited!
    It seems that we have our case!

The trick, however, comes in how we learn the continuation of the sugya!
Rabbi Yochanan, brother of Mar son of Ravina, challenges Rav Nachman bar Yitchak on his leniency.

He says that even if one holds like Rabbi Simon that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is only rabbinically prohibited (פטור אבל אסור), that does not make it permitted!

It seems clear that the challenger does not see a difference between one שבות or a שבות דשבות if it is done by a Jew, or the question would not be relevant- it would be true that even Rabbi Shimon agrees that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is at least rabbinically forbidden, but Rav Nachman bar Yitchak only permitted it to be moved to a כרמלית, which is also only דרבנן, and thus permitted as a שבות דשבות.

At this stage, one might still argue that Rav Nachman bar Yitchak himself does differentiate and permits a שבות דשבות even by a Jew.

However, if that were the case, one would expect him to reply accordingly.

Instead, he replies that even his challenger would permit this case, and even if he held like Rabbi Yehuda that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא is biblically forbidden (i.e. Only one שבות is involved.)

This is because of the rule that כבוד הבריות (human dignity) over-rides any rabbinical prohibition, and seeing as this was only to a כרמלית , which is only rabbinically prohibited, it was permitted.

It seems from his reply that the reason he permitted this was NOT because of a general rule that שבות דשבות is permitted for any mitzva, or great need, but because of the התיר of כבוד הבריות that applies to any שבות, even if it isn’t a שבות דשבות.

Before I give up and acknowledge that this sugya is thus not a proof that שבות דשבות על ידי ישראל is permitted, but rather could be a proof that it is not, I make one final argument:

Perhaps, Rav Nachman’s reply is not meant to deny the permissibility of שבות דשבות על-ידי ישראל , which likely is his initial motivation for his decision.

Maybe, he is merely bringing the less controversial התיר of כבוד הבריות to answer his challenger and to show that even his challenger, and even Rabbi Yehuda himself, would also have no reason to oppose his reason!
Much more to discuss, but that’s it for tonight….

These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as psak halacha.

Shabbos 93 שנים שעשו    A melacha performed by 2 people

Posted on by

Shabbos 93 שנים שעשו    A melacha performed by 2 people

As mentioned yesterday, I would like to focus today on an extremely practical leniency in the laws of Shabbos- the exemption of a melacha done by 2 people.

 

This rules takes us all the way back to the beginning of the Masechta, where we learnt that in order to be forbidden biblically and liable to  a korban (or מיתה  or כרת  if done knowingly) for transferring something on Shabbos from one domain to another,  one has to both uproot the object from the one domain and put it down in the other.

 

Someone who does only one of these actions, has performed a rabbinical prohibition, not a biblical one, and is exempt from the biblically prescribed punishment.

 

A question that might have still been left open during the many daf that discussed this rule, is what the source is for this exemption!

 

One possibility is that it is simply another manifestation of the general rule that a biblically prohibited Melacha must be considered מלאכת מחשבת, an important, calculated, and significant act of work.

One could argue that if one only performed part of the action, leaving the rest for someone else to complete, one’s action is simply not מלאכת מחשבת.

 

On our daf, we face a different, though possibly related, exemption.

 

Here, two people perform a Melacha together, such as writing with the same quilt, or carrying the same item from one domain to another.

 

In this case, we are faced with 3 opinions:

-Rabbi Meir is of the view that one is liable

-Rabbi Yehuda is of the view that so long as neither of them could have managed the action on their own, they are exempt. Otherwise, they are liable.

– Rabbi Shimon is of the view that even if each of them could have managed the action on their own, they are still exempt.

 

The Gemara derives these 3 views from the passuk in Vayikra which is the basis for the requirement to bring a sin offering:

 

ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ בעשתה.

“and if one soul sins unknowingly from amongst the people, by doing it.”

According to Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, there 3 מעוטים (exclusions) here:

נפש  (a person in the singular)

אחת (one)

בעשותה  performing it, ie ALL of the transgression)

 

Rabbi Yehuda uses one of these to exclude the case when each of them do part of the Melacha, ie either עקירה (uprooting) or הנחה (putting down), as in the first Mishna of the Masechta.

He then uses another one to exclude a case when two people perform the entire act together, when they could have done it on their own, ie our case, when two people carried a fig outside.

The third exclusion is used by him for a different matter.

 

Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rabbi Yehuda regarding the first two exclusions and uses the third as well to exclude a case when both of them could NOT have done the action on their own.

 

Rabbi Meir holds that the first 2 exclusions, i.e. נפש אחת , count as 1, not 2, and only excludes the case of 2 people doing different parts of the melacha- he uses the other exclusion (בעשותה) for  the same different matter Rabbi Yehuda derived from it.

 

It follows that both Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda agree that in a case where two people perform the entire melacha together, and they could have each done it on their own, they are exempt.

The Halacha follows this majority view (see Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch on this subject), and both cases of שנים שעשו, the case where different parts of the melacha are performed by 2 different people, and our case, where an entire  melacha that could have been performed by one person is done by two people together, are exempt from the biblical punishment and are only rabbinically forbidden.

 

It also follows from our daf that both leniencies are learnt from their own unique words in the above mentioned passuk, and not just from the requirement for מלאכת מחשבת.

 

Why is it important at the end of the day whether this is derived from its own passuk, or from מלאכת מחשבת?

 

I would like to suggest two possible practical ramifications (נ”מ):

 

What happens if two people perform together another forbidden action, NOT related to shabbos, that they could have both done individually?

For example, if two people together made an idol.

If the exemption was only from מלאכת מחשבת, it would only apply to shabbos, and these two would definitely be liable.

However, if the exemption is due to the independent passuk regarding the laws of sacrifices, it has no specific relation to shabbos, and should in theory also apply to other prohibitions.

Yet despite this, I am yet to see an example of the Gemara applying this exemption to prohibitions other than shabbos.

 

Another Nafka Minah could be regarding the leniency of שבות דשבות (an action that is only rabbinical in nature for two different reasons.)

The rule is usually, regarding shabbos at least, that such an action is permitted in case of suffering, great need, or for the sake of a Mitzva (though whether this applies to an action performed by a Jew, or only to one performed by a non-Jew is in fact subject to debate.)

If this leniency  indeed applies to actions performed by a Jew as well, what happens if two people perform one action that each of them could have done on their own, in an unusual manner (שנוי)?

This action is only rabbinically prohibited for 2 reasons- it is unusual, AND 2 people have performed it instead of one.

However, if the leniency of שנים שעשו, is also, like שנוי, derived from the requirement of  מלאכת מחשבת , one could argue that this is not really a שבות דשבות , but all part of the same one exemption, namely מלאכת מחשבת!

(I did put this possibility to haGaon Moreinu haRav Osher Weiss Shelita, and his gut feel was that it would still be called a שבות דשבות, but there is certainly what to explore here.)

 

If, on the other hand, as we have proven, the leniency of שנים שעשו comes from a completely different context than that of שנוי  and other Mishkan\Meleches Machsheves related leniencies, our case would clearly be an example of  a שבות דשבות , and according to those who permit this even when done by a Jew for the sake of Mitzva, great need, or to avoid suffering, this should certainly be permitted!

Shabbos 92 מתעסק and unintentional melacha revisited

Posted on by

This Daf is packed with examples of some of the most important principles of Melocho on Shabbos, mainly based on the idea that in order to be biblically forbidden and punishable, an act has to be considered מלאכת מחשבת (a significant, important, or calculated act of work.)

Among them, are the idea that a melacha done in a significantly unusual way (שנוי) is exempt from punishment, as is the rule of two people performing a melacha that could be done by one person ( more on that tomorrow , Hashem willing .)

We have discussed before the concept of מתעסק, where someone who does not have full intention to perform the forbidden act might be exempt .

This, unlike many of the exemptions of מלאכת מחשבת, is derived ( כריתות יט.) from a specific מעוט ( exclusion) in the verse that obligates one to bring a קרבן חטאת for performing a serious transgression unknowingly – “וחטא בה פרט למתעסק” . ( interestingly enough, so is שנים שעשו, right here on the daf)

Yet , despite having its own source, the Gemara in numerous places also states that המסעסק בשבת פטור מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה המתעסק בחלבים ועריות חיב שכן נהנה – one who performs a melacha on shabbos without intention is exempt, as the Torah only forbade calculated melacha, but if one eats forbidden fats or sleeps with someone forbidden to him unintentionally, he is liable , as he has derived pleasure from it .

This seems to imply that מתעסק is yet another exemption of מלאכת מחשבת , and not an independent exemption based on its own source .

One can ask further that if the only reason מסעסק is liable by forbidden fats and עריות is because of the pleasure he gets ( a subject for analysis in its own right), then it should apply in ALL areas of halacha where pleasure is not a factor, not only on shabbos , so what is the relevance to מלאכת מחשבת , which is only an exemption on shabbos? ( see Rashi there who asks the question and takes a different approach to what I suggest below, which is more constant perhaps with other Rishonim here , for reasons outside the scope of this post, but that need to be fully studied to get an understanding of this concept.)

It stands to reason that there probably two different kinds of מתעסק or intentional melacha , one category that is exempt in all areas of halacha other than where הנאה ( pleasure) is involved , and one that is only exempt on shabbos .

For example , the classical case of מתעסק where one intends to pick up something detached from the ground and landed up picking up something connected to the ground ( see earlier post on perek 7) , is similar to intending to eating permitted fat and landing up eating forbidden fat, which would be exempt if not for the fact that he derived benefit.

It follows that there is no need for the concept of מלאכת מחשבת to exempt this, as it is covered under the blanket exemption learnt from its own source, which applies in theory to all areas of halacha.

But there is another kind of מתעסק , which we see in the main sugya in כריתות, as well as on our daf today !

This involves a case where one intends to do something that is forbidden, but lands up performing the same forbidden action on a different חפצא ( object ) than intended , or in a different manner (צורה) than intended .

One example subject to debate in the sugya in כריתות is when one intends to light or extinguish a certain candle and lands up lighting or extinguishing a different one .

In other areas of halocho, if one would intend to , for example, bow down to one idol. , and landed up bowing down to another , it is very possible that one would still be liable, seeing as one intended to do the same forbidden action, and there is no exclusion from וחטא בה .

However, on shabbos, the exemption of מלאכת מחשבת is so strong, that it requires a complete fulfillment of נתקים מחשבתו, (his intentions were fully fulfilled .)

Any deviation from this could be a reason for exemption, due to this broader form of מתעסק.

A far -reaching application on this rule is found in a Mishna on our daf!

If one intends to carry something in front of him, and lands up carrying it behind him, even though there is no lack of intent ( מתעסק) in the מעשה ( action), or even in the חפצא ( object of the action), but merely in the צורה ( manner or form of the action), one is exempt!

Rashi explains that this is a form of לא נתקיימה מחשבתו ( his intentions were not fully fulfilled ) which in turn is a form of מתעסק!

[ These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf . They are not intended as psak halacha ]