Latest / Time4Mishna / Shabbos 10.3-10.6

Transcript

Shabbos 10.3-10.6 · Time4Mishna

• 0:02
  The point of the following Mishnah is to teach us that if somebody carries something out in neroshus, harabim, or from one domain into another in a way which is an unusual way to carry something, in such a case he will be exempt, since the Malacha of Haitza implies a regular way of carrying something, if you do it in an unusual way, you will be exempt. So the Mishnah says, who carries something out with his right hand or his left hand beside Cho by his chest? Let's say he carries it under his garment by where his chest is.
• 0:35
  Or even if he carries it on his shoulders, in these four scenarios, he would be obligated because these are all considered to be regular ways of carrying. Now, the Mishnah explains the last one. How do we know that carrying on your shoulder is considered a regular way for carrying shekahas?
• 0:51
  Because that is how the members of the family of Khos carried things in the midbar. Their job was to carry the oro and the Mishkan. And the other big kim of the Bas, Hamikdash and the Torah explicitly says they will carry it on their shoulders. So see, that is considered a regular way of carrying. However, says the Mishnah, if it was.
• 1:11
  If it was carried in an indirect way, for example, Baragl on his foot, in his mouth, and we're discussing a case where it's not food, if he was carrying food, then it is considered regular to carry it in his mouth with a marpa. If he carries it on the inside of his elbow, on his ear, in his hair, with a pundasayola, in his money belt, which he wore around his waist, and it had a place in there to keep his money. If the opening of the hole to place money in there was facing downwards, then it's very easy for things to fall out of there. So it was not common for people to carry things in the money belt when whilst the opening was facing downwards.
• 1:51
  If he hangs something between the money belt and his cloak, his shirt, or is fascha luka, if he carries something in the edges of his shirt or of his cloak, the hem b' min olay, if he carries it in his shoe, in his sandal, which usually refers to a stronger type of shoe. In all these cases, says the Mishnah potter, he is exempt Shalay Haitzigde, Hamitzien, since he did not carry something in the general way that people carry things. And this is really a principle with all of the Malachas of Shabbos, that one is only chayev. If he does it in the regular way of doing it. Mishadala There is an important principle which needs to be taken into account in pretty much every Malacha of Shabbos, and that is the principle known as meleches machevas. This principle is learned from the Mishkan, which is really the source for all of the 39 Malachas of Shabbos. And the basic meaning of this concept is that one is only liable for doing a Malachah on Shabbos in if it is a constructive Malacha, which he planned to do, which means that if he tried to do something in a particular way and it ended up happening in a different way, which he is not happy with and does not fulfill his plan or his intention, then he will not be chayav. And the Mishnah gives an example and explains it in the context of the Malachah of Haitza, of carrying from one domain into another, or in Eroshi so intends to carry something out in front of him, but he ended up carrying it behind him. For example, let's say he had a bag around his neck and it was in front of him, and let's say he rushed outside and in doing so the bag swung backwards and he ended up taking it whilst it was behind him and he couldn't really see it, says the Mishnah potter. He is exempt, since he intended to carry it in front of him where he could see the item, take care of it, make sure it's there still, but he ended up taking it and carrying it when he couldn't really see it. So his intention and plan was not fulfilled, and this is therefore not considered a malechas mark shevas, and one is only chayev for a malacha if it is a malechas Mershevas. On the other hand, says the Mishna La Akharov, if he intended to carry it behind him, so he didn't really mind that he couldn't, that he wasn't watching over it. So then Volodylafonov, if it swung in front of him and he ended up actually carrying it in front of him, he is liable for breaking Shabbos, since this is an even better way for him of carrying it. So so his plan was fulfilled. Plus more. Now the Mishnah adds be'ms omrou. In truth, they said we had this phrase back in the first prayer of the Meserchda. And whenever the Mishnah says be' emes omrou, it refers to a clear halacha, often to a halachah lemesh mesinai, but it always refers to a clear halacha which has been passed down from one generation to another. And pretty much everyone agrees with this. So the Mishnah says a woman who was wearing an apron, and the aprons they had weren't tied to the woman so well, so it would often SW from side to side and even backwards. So whether the apron ends up being in front of her or behind her, if, let's say she placed an item inside the apron, let's say there was a pocket in the apron and she put something in the pocket, whether the apron ends up being behind her or in front of her, she is liable because it is fitting and common for it to go back and forth. And therefore, really her intention is to take it out. Wherever the apron is, she knows that the object might end up flying behind her. But that was still her intention. Since this is such a common thing, it is still considered a male shevas even if it swings back or forward.
• 5:24
  Huda adds, furthermore, says even messengers who accept notes, and we're referring to important officials whose job it was to transfer a message or a note from one person to another, and they would often do this in a rush, and they would put whatever they had to carry inside a sort of tube which they would then tie around their neck. And it was very loose, so it would constantly be swinging. And although in general it would stay in front of them, it would happen on occasion that it would swing backwards. Srihuda says the same applies in this case. Their intention must have been from the beginning that the tube will go backwards. And therefore even if it does swing backwards, it's still considered, and some explained that the tanakama because according to the Tanakamma, since it does not swing backwards so often, this is not necessarily included in the intention and the plan of the official, and therefore it would not be considered a molechismachevas if he ends up carrying it when it is behind him. Mishnah we already learned at the beginning of the Mesekhta that if somebody does half the malacha, for example, when carrying from one domain into another, if he lifts it up and changes its domain, but then somebody else takes it from him and puts it down, so he didn't do the entire malacha, since he did not put it down in the new domain, and he is therefore not Chayev, although it is forbidden Midorbanon to do even half a malacha midori, so it is not forbidden, and therefore he is not Chayev. So this mission is going to give another couple of applications of this halacha hamaytz keikaloshas harabim. One who carries out a loaf of bread into a public domain, of course he is Chayev. However, if two people together carried out one loaf in torajisarabim, then peturin, they are exempt. And this is learned from the posse, which says, if one singular person sins, if he breaks Shabbos, and then it goes on to say what he is chaev. But we see from here that only if one person does the entire malacha himself and not two people, only then would he be chayev. However, says the Mishnah, if one person alone was not able to take this out, let's say it was extremely heavy and two people took it out, in that case, chayav and they are both obligated because they both did their entire part, which was necessary for the malacha to be done. It wasn't as if they shared one malachah. Since two people are needed to do this malachah, each person did everything they needed to do. They did sort of their entire part of the malachah. And the only way the malachah could have been done was by two people. And therefore they are obligated, however, exempts them even in this scenario, because at the end of the day one cannot be chayyev from Malacha unless he does the entire thing himself. And the malcholikas between the tanakama and is really based on psukim and how they interpret the psukim continues the mission with another important rule. When it comes to the Malacha of Haitza, if somebody carries out food, but less than the minimum amount to be chayyev for carrying, namely a dried the size of a dried fig, so he carries food which is less than the size of a dried fig in a utensil. So of course, for the food he is exempt from, but the Mishnah says Potua la kli, he's even exempt for having carried out the utensil, although the utensil is considered significant.
• 8:46
  The reason being that since the entire purpose of carrying the utensil was for the sake of the food, it's considered secondary to the food. So if the food is not considered significant and he's not chaev for that, then all the more so he is not going to be chaev for the secondary utensil carrying that, because the utensil is secondary to the food. On a similar note, as if somebody carries an alive person on a bed, there is a rule which dictates that somebody who is Alive carries himself. Meaning even if you carry somebody, you are not going to be chaotic, because really, he can carry himself. He has life inside of him. He's not something which you carry, really, he himself supports himself, and therefore you'll be exempt for carrying him. And by extension, potter Alfala, Mita, you will be exempt for carrying the bed as well, because the bed, bed is secondary to the person, and therefore you cannot be more obligated for the bed than the person, however, says if you carry a dead person in the bed, then of course you will be obligated for having carried the dead person, because of course, a dead person does not support himself or carry himself. Now, the fact that you carried him in a bed doesn't increase the prohibition. That's not a second avera, because as we explained, the bed is just secondary to the dead person. And that is how you are carrying the dead person and ends off the mission.
• 10:10
  The same applies if somebody carries out the size of an olive of a dead person. So he carries out part of a dead person, or the size of an olive of an animal which died without having been slaughtered, or the size of a lentil of a dead sheretz, which refers to a number of different small animals which transmit tumor when they die, a severe level of tuma. And these amounts are the minimum for one to be chayev for carrying out those things on Shabbos says he is liable. And the reason for these amounts is because that is the minimum amount which can become tommy. The minimum amount of a dead body which can become tommy is the size of an olive. And the same goes for a dead animal, a regular animal. But when it comes to a sheret, the minimum is a size of a lentil smaller than the size of an olive. And so that is considered a significant part of that animal, such that if you would carry that amount into Shabbos or from then you would be chayev. Now, interestingly, in these last cases of the dead bodies and the dead animals says that this person will be exempt. And the reason for this is because this is a case of a malachosh ehnat tzarich al gufa. And we've seen this principle once before, and it refers to a malacha, which was done, but not for the constructive purpose or outcome which it's for. Meaning in this case, why is he removing the dead body or the dead animals? Not because he wants those things in the rosh Hasarabim, that would be a positive, positive outcome which he wants. I want these things, so I'm going to Carry them into where I want them over here. What's he doing? He's removing them from somewhere. He doesn't want those things in his house, so he is getting rid of them into the Rosharabim. Personally, he would have preferred not to have them there at all in the first place. So since the reason why he's doing the Malacha is not for the positive outcome of having those in the Rosha Sarabim, rather it is in order to get rid of them from where they are now that is considered a Malach Hashein at Tzirech Alagufa. And whereas, according to the town of Kama, one is Chayev from Malach Hashen at Tzireachalagufa, according to Rabbi Shimon, it is only forbidden medire bonon, and therefore one is not Chayev for doing a Malachosharich al Gufa Mishnavot, last Mishnah of the Perek. And although this seems to be quite randomly placed here, it's going to discuss a few different Malachas all in one Mishnah, and none of them have anything to do with Haitza.
• 12:31
  Nevertheless, it is placed here because it is relevant to the discussion of Malach Tzrich al Gufa. Now, before seeing the Mishnah inside, it's important to remember two important concepts. One is an AV Malacha and the other is a TO.
• 12:44
  There are 39 Avais Malachas, which are the main categories of Malachah. Those which were done in the Mishkan and told us are the subcategories, the secondary malachas, things which resemble those things which were done in the Mishkan. So the Mishnah begins. Hanoitl Tzipporov Zoibazoi. One who takes off his fingernails, meaning he cuts his fingernails by using a different fingernail. So let's say he's got a sharp fingernail, he can use that to cut other fingernails. Ibashinov or if he uses his teeth, to cut his fingernails.
• 13:15
  Similarly, one who cuts part of his hair using his fingers, say, plucks some hair out of here, moves some of the hair from his moustache with his fingers or from his beard. Cutting any of these four things is considered a tolder of the Malacha of Gezes, of shearing a sheep. Just like there, you're cutting the hair, you're cutting something which grows from the animal. So too, any of this cutting will also be forbidden. Mid Oraisa as a Tolder of Gezes, at least according to one opinion, as we are Going to see the similarly, one who braids a person's hair, it was done in a very neat manner. It's considered a tolder of building. You're constructing a certain pattern, one who colors their eyelids, that is a toldah of the Malacha of writing.
• 14:04
  This is also a way to arrange one's hair such there will be gaps in between lots of the hairs where you could see the actual scalp of the person. And that once again, because it's such a neat formation and a pattern, it is considered a tolder of the malacha of building. So in all of these cases that the person is obligated, all of these things are told us of certain malachas and therefore you are chaev. However, the chachom holds all of these things are forbidden midrabanan. The term shavus refers to something which is forbidden midrabanon on Shabbos, however, they are not forbidden mid risa. And the reason for this is because to be considered a toldah, an activity has to be done in a similar way to how the av Malacha was done. In all these cases where he used his own hands to do it and no tool was used, that is not considered similar to the av and therefore it's not considered a tolder. Rather, it is only forbidden because it is a bit similar similar to the Malacha. Now, what is the relevance of Malachi and Srikh Algufa over here? The answer is that if the reason why he was, let's say, cutting his nails was because he didn't want to have long nails, or if he took out some hair from his moustache because the hair was annoying him, that means that he's not doing it because he wants the nail or because he wants that hair, he's doing it to get rid of it. And that is considered.
• 15:28
  And so the only case where you would be chayav here if you hold the you're exempt is if the reason why you were cutting the nails or the hair was because you actually wanted the nails, you had a purpose for those things and you weren't just doing it to get rid of it. Now the Perkins off by discussing an otz its nokov, which is a plant pot which has a hole at the bottom. And as Machlikovich runs through many mishnahs throughout Shas about what the status of an otz, it's nokov is, according to one opinion, since the plant does draw nourishment from the ground as a result of the hole, we view it as if it was actually planted in the ground itself, and therefore all laws which applied to the ground and things which go from ground apply to this plant pot as well. So, for example, one who uproots a plant from a plant pot with a hole in it, he is liable, just like one is liable for uprooting a plant from the ground itself.
• 16:24
  But if it does not have a hole in it, then potter he is exempt, although it is still forbidden now with all of this person in either case, because, according to Shimon, the plant pot with a hole in it, something which grows in there is not considered like it's growing in the ground, it's considered like a regular plant pot, and therefore one would not be Chayev for uprooting something from there.