Gemara Shabbat, daf gimmel amud bet (page 3, side b). Today's daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat (in memory of the soul) Avraham ben Ester and Yosef ben Sabuto. Ruach Hashem tenichem beGan Eden (May they rest in the Garden of Eden), amen. Today's daf is being studied lirfu'ah shelemah (for a complete recovery) for our dear friend Daniel ben Ester, Moshe ben Malkah, and Leah bat Rachel, ul'chol cholei amo Yisrael (and all the sick of His people Israel). Refuah shelemah (complete healing), refu'at hanefesh u'refu'at haguf (healing of soul and body), bimherah veyameinu vechen yehi ratzon venomar amen (speedily in our days, may it be so).
Today's daf is on bet amud bet. We start three lines from the bottom. Let's go back to our Mishnah very quickly. We learned the beginning of the masechet (tractate), concerning hotza'ah. The Mishnah said, yetzi'ot haShabbat (the transfers of Shabbat), shtayim shehen arba: two cases that are really four. There are shtayim bifnim for the person standing on the inside, the ba'al habayit, meaning the person standing on the inside, and shtayim shehen arba for the person standing outside, the ani, meaning the person standing outside.
What is the case of the shtayim? Shtayim is min haTorah (from the Torah). The person standing inside, if he makes akirah and hanachah and brings something from the outside to the inside, commits an issur de'oraita (Torah prohibition), and he is chayav (liable). That's one case de'oraita, or vice versa: he goes from the inside to the outside. That's also akirah ve'hanachah. Those are the two cases on the ba'al habayit's side. Then you have two cases on the ani's side. The ani takes something from the reshut harabbim, the outside, and brings it in, or vice versa: he takes something from the reshut hayachid, the inside, and brings it out. He does everything; he did akirah ve'hanachah. So that's shtayim bifnim, and that's shtayim for the person outside.
Shehen arba: what does shehen arba mean? Altogether, you have four cases so far, and you'll have four more: two for the person inside and two for the person outside, in cases where they did only one of the two actions—akirah, but not hanachah. For example, take the ba'al habayit. The cases can be explained simply: the ba'al habayit either extended his empty hand into the reshut harabbim or extended his hand into the reshut harabbim with something in it. Vice versa, the ani extended his hand into the reshut hayachid empty, or extended his hand into that domain with something in it. Basically, you have two cases of akirah by the ba'al habayit and two cases of akirah by the ani: akirah alone. That's why the Mishnah counts those akirot as derabbanan (rabbinic), because they did only half a melachah (prohibited labor).
So the Gemara is going to ask the obvious question. You're right: you're counting four more cases because you're counting the two akirot done solely by the ba'al habayit and the two akirot done solely by the ani. But what about the hanachot? The person who does the hanachah also makes an issur derabbanan. In those four cases, you should count an additional four cases for the person who does the hanachah. He is also patur aval assur—he also makes an issur derabbanan. So why did the Mishnah count only the akirot and not the hanachot? That's the first question.
The Gemara says: Amar leh Rav Matnah l'Abaye (Rav Matnah said to Abaye), temanya havyan: why are you saying there are eight cases? Altogether, the Mishnah has eight cases: the four de'oraita and the four derabbanan. Why four derabbanan? Tartei sarei havyan: it's really 12 cases. Keep the four de'oraita the same, but instead of having four derabbanan, make it eight derabbanan, because you should count the akirah and the hanachot. The person who made the hanachah also did half a melachah and is therefore also patur aval assur. So why didn't you count that?
Then he says, u'letamech—what do you mean, once you're already counting like that? Shittesrei havyan: why don't you count 16? Look at the beginning of the Mishnah. When, for example, the ba'al habayit did the akirah ve'hanachah, the Mishnah says the ba'al habayit is chayav and the ani is patur. At this point, they're thinking that patur means patur aval assur. So you have four more cases: all the cases where one person did the akirah ve'hanachah and the other person was patur should also be counted. So instead of 12 cases, you have 16.
The Gemara says that last question is not a question. Amar leh (he said to him): Ha lo kashya (this is not difficult). Bishlama bava deresha patur umuttar lo katani (as for the first part, it doesn't teach a case that is exempt and permitted). That case is patur umuttar, meaning the person who made the akirah ve'hanachah is chayav, while the other person, whom the Mishnah calls patur, is permitted. We're not counting cases of muttar. Ela bava deseifa depatur aval assur, kashya (but the final part, where it says exempt but forbidden, is difficult). In the seifa, both the oker, the person who made the akirah, and the mani'ach, the person who did the hanachah, are chayav—meaning, when we learned in the Mishnah that one person made an akirah and one made a hanachah, shtehem peturim (both are exempt), what does that mean? Both did something forbidden. The person who made the akirah did half a melachah, and the person who did the hanachah also did half a melachah. The oker is no more chayav than the mani'ach. So how come you didn't count the mani'ach?
The Gemara says, you're right: kashya (it is difficult). That's a good question. Really, the Mishnah could have said, “Yetzi'ot haShabbat, shtayim shehen shehen shesh”—meaning there are more cases, 12 cases altogether—or “shtayim shehen shemonah,” meaning there are more cases in the Mishnah. That's the Gemara; it leaves it like that. Why didn't they count them? The Netziv, if you remember, alluded to that question on the first amud.
Umi'ika bechulei Shabbat patur umuttar? (Is there such a thing as exempt and permitted throughout Shabbat?) He says, hold it. Where did you get this concept of patur umuttar? You're telling me that when the beginning of the Mishnah says the oker and the mani'ach are chayav and the other person is patur, patur means mutar. When did we ever see in Shabbat that patur means mutar? Ve'amar Shemu'el (and Shemu'el said): Kol peturei deShabbat patur aval asur, bar mehani telat (all exemptions on Shabbat are forbidden, except these three). Any time it says patur in Masechet Shabbat, it means patur aval assur, except for three cases that are patur umuttar. What are the three cases that are patur umuttar? Tzidat tzvi, trapping a deer; tzidat nachash, trapping a nachash; and mepis mursa, opening a pimple in order to let out the pus. In those cases, when it says patur, it means patur umuttar. It implies that every other patur means patur aval assur.
So the Gemara says, ki itzterich leShemu'el (when Shemu'el's teaching was needed): peturei deka avid ma'aseh, petura delo ka avid ma'aseh, ika tuva (there are many exemptions where no act was done). You don't have to tell me about those. Shemu'el's chiddush (novel point) was that there are certain cases where you do a ma'aseh (act) and are still patur umuttar. You trapped a deer: patur umuttar. You let out the pus: that's a chiddush of patur umuttar. But there are many cases where you're doing nothing, and for sure you're patur umuttar. In the Mishnah's case, when the ba'al habayit did the akirah and the hanachah, the ani did nothing. I know there are many cases like that where you do nothing and patur means patur umuttar. Shemu'el's chiddush was that even where you did a ma'aseh, there are certain cases that are still patur umuttar. There are three cases where you do a ma'aseh and are patur umuttar. Our Mishnah is talking about an obvious case where the person didn't do anything, so there are many cases of patur umuttar beli ma'aseh (without an act).
“What are these three?” “Why are these three?” No, these three involve a ma'aseh. Shemu'el's chiddush was that I'll give you cases of patur umuttar even where you did a ma'aseh. But there are many cases where you didn't do a ma'aseh and patur also means mutar. What's one of those cases? Our Mishnah: the ba'al habayit did the akirah and the hanachah, and the ani did nothing, so patur umuttar.
The Gemara says, okay, still, mikol makom tartei sarei havyan (nevertheless, there are twelve). The bottom line is that you still have a question, going back to our original question: it should be twelve. Why don't you count the oker and the mani'ach? In the case where one person was oker and one was mani'ach, why are you counting only the oker as the issur? You should count the mani'ach as well.
Peturei de'atu lidei chatat ka chashiv, delo atu lidei chatat lo ka chashiv (it counts exemptions that can lead to a sin-offering, but not those that cannot). As we learned—what is this, like Rashi on the second amud? On the first amud of bet. What does that mean? It's counting only the oker. That's Rashi's pshat (interpretation). Why count only the oker? Really, both the oker and the mani'ach are patur aval assur. They both did issurim. That means they were assigned an issur derabbanan; both have to do teshuvah for making an issur derabbanan. So why did the Mishnah count only the oker? Because the oker can lead to a de'oraita, right? The oker can lead to a hanachah. That's already significant enough to count. It's not that we're not counting the mani'ach; the mani'ach also did an issur. But we're counting the oker because the oker can lead to a de'oraita. That's Rashi's first opinion.
Rashi brings another shitah (approach) from rabboteinu, from his rabbis. They say the Mishnah is counting the cases of the person who moved his hand inside. Either the ani moved his hand inside or the ba'al habayit moved his hand outside. The person moving his hand is the case the Mishnah lists; the passive person is not listed. But the main pshat in Rashi is the first pshat: it lists the oker and not the mani'ach because the oker can come to an issur.
Now I just want to make a point about something we said on today's daf. I brought you a question from the Aruch HaShulchan. All over Masechet Shabbat, all over Shas, we see the concept, “Chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah” (half a measure is forbidden by Torah law). If the Torah says that a certain shi'ur (measure) makes you chayav min haTorah, then doing half that shi'ur is also forbidden by the Torah. Chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah. Even though there might not be sekilah (stoning), karet (spiritual excision), or malkot (lashes), chatzi shi'ur is still asur. That means if a person, for example, cooks on Shabbat, there's a certain shi'ur of cooking required to be chayav on Shabbat. If you cook half the amount, you still did something forbidden by the Torah. The bottom line is, you cooked. Instead of cooking a kezayit (olive-sized amount), you cooked half a kezayit. It doesn't matter; you're still chayav bishul. Could you give the person sekilah? Of course not. But when he goes on Yom Kippur, he has to say, “Avarti al issur bishul de'Oraita beShabbat.” What issur de'Oraita? He did chatzi shi'ur. Chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah.
So we asked a question: wait, our Mishnah lich'orah (apparently) goes against that rule. The Mishnah said the ba'al habayit is oker and the ani is mani'ach; each person did a separate half of the melachah. What did we say in that case? Patur aval assur. What does patur aval assur mean? It's assur miderabbanan (by rabbinic law). But each person did chatzi shi'ur. Chatzi shi'ur is lich'orah assur min haTorah.
If you remember, Aaron gave an answer right away, which was a good sevara (reasoning). The Me'iri actually says much the same thing. He says, “Rabbi, there's a chilluk (distinction) between chatzi shi'ur and chatzi melachah.” His sevara was good. I'll explain what you meant, and I think this is what you said: in the case of bishul or afiyah (baking), I was ofeh (baked). I did the full melachah on half the amount, but I did the full melachah. So a full melachah on half the amount is assur min haTorah. Mah she'ein ken (which is not so) here: I didn't do a full melachah. The full melachah is akirah ve'hanachah.
He would say it like this: granted, Rabbi, if you made, let's say, the shi'ur of how much you have to carry—let's say the shi'ur is kekotevet (date-sized amount)—there's a shi'ur, right? I would agree, Rabbi, that if instead of making an akirah ve'hanachah on the size of a kotevet, you made an akirah ve'hanachah on half a kotevet, then I agree that chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah, because you did the full melachah with half the shi'ur. But that's not so when you do half the melachah. Half the melachah has nothing to do with chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah. That's the distinction he wants to make.
I just want to point something out. If you bring me a Rambam for a second—the big one at the top. That's it. The Rambam is clear that he holds there's no chilluk regarding chatzi shi'ur. Look at the Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat, perek (chapter) yud-bet. Perek yud-bet, halachah (law) tet. The Rambam writes, Hakotev shtei otiyot chayav (one who writes two letters is liable), vehamochek also. Katav al menat lichtov bimkomah (he wrote with the intention to write in its place). Okay, fine. Where am I? No, I'm in the wrong perek. I need yud-bet, yud-bet tet. I'm in the mochek. I don't need mochek.
Hamotzi bein bimino bein bismolo bein betoch cheiko (one who carries, whether in his right, left, or bosom): it doesn't matter how he carries. He puts it in his pocket, his right hand, or his left hand; he's chayav. Vechen hamotzi al ktefo (and likewise one who carries on his shoulder); that's a normal way to do it as well. All those cases are normal ways as well. Which halachah am I looking at? Yud-bet? Tet? Okay, it's not tet. Ein hamotzi meirishut lirshut chayav ad sheyotzi keshi'ur hamo'il meirishut hayachid lirshut harabbim (one is not liable for carrying between domains until carrying the required measure from the private domain to the public domain). You have to carry a certain shi'ur, shi'ur hamo'il. O meirishut harabbim lirshut hayachid (or from the public domain to the private domain), veya'akor meirishut zeh veyani'ach birshut sheniyah (and lift it from this domain and place it in the second domain). Aval im akar velo hini'ach, o hini'ach velo akar, o shehotzi pachot mikishi'ur, patur (but if he lifted without placing, placed without lifting, or carried less than the measure, he is exempt).
You see clearly, according to the Rambam, regarding chatzi shi'ur, he doesn't make a chilluk between the shi'ur. That means that if you did an akirah ve'hanachah with less than a shi'ur, he's also saying it's patur; or if he did only akirah or hanachah, that's also going to be patur. Could be that's the Rambam's shitah throughout. Could be he holds chatzi shi'ur is miderabbanan. Could be he holds chatzi shi'ur miderabbanan.
I'm telling you this because we saw an opinion this morning from the Aruch HaShulchan. He wanted to say a different sevara. What is the sevara in chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah? The sevara is that you do a chatzi that could lead to a full one. But in hotza'ah, you're right, an akirah could lead to a hanachah, but a hanachah cannot lead to another akirah somewhere else. Therefore, since in hotza'ah the two parts don't lead—only half of it leads to the whole—there's no such thing as chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah by hotza'ah. That was his answer.
I'm pointing this out because I found something this afternoon: what I think is a very important Rashash. The Rashash is in the back here, on the Gemara's question. The Gemara said that really we should have 12 cases. We should count not only the akirot but also the person who made the hanachah. The Gemara answers—what was the Gemara's lashon (wording)? The Gemara's lashon was, “Mikol makom tartei sarei havyan, peturei de'ato lidei chiyuv chatat ka chashiv.” The ones that lead to a chiyuv chatat are counted, which are the akirot. “Delo ato lidei chiyuv chatat lo ka chashiv”: the hanachah, which doesn't lead to a chiyuv chatat, wasn't counted.
But again, according to Rashi, both the oker and the mani'ach are issur derabbanan. We clearly saw that on the first amud. Rashi clearly said the rabbis made a decree on the oker because he might come to make a hanachah, but it's only issur derabbanan. The person who is oker, Rashi clearly said, is doing something forbidden rabbinically.
I found a Rashash. The Rashash says—no, this doesn't have the Rashash. On the bottom it has—oh, it does have it on the bottom. Let's see his lashon. “Nireh li be'aniyuti” (it seems to me, in my humble opinion). “Lefi mah dekayma lan” (according to what is established for us), that chatzi shi'ur is forbidden by the Torah, “ve'af be'issurei Shabbat” (and also in the prohibitions of Shabbat), so chatzi shi'ur is also forbidden by the Torah in issurei Shabbat. “Karei Shas lechi hai gavna chatzi shi'ur” (the Talmud calls this kind half a measure). That means peturei de'atei lidei chatat.
Do you know why the Torah—the Mishnah—listed only the akirot? The akirot are asur min haTorah, because that type of chatzi shi'ur is asur min haTorah since it can lead to a hanachah. Therefore, according to the Rashash, the Mishnah is actually listing cases that are asur mide'orayta but patur, meaning you can't get sekilah, malkot, or karet for them. According to the Rashash, the Mishnah really was listing the akirot. Why does it list the akirot and not the hanachot? Because the akirah is de'orayta. How could the akirah alone be de'orayta? Because chatzi shi'ur is really asur min haTorah, especially an akirah that can lead to a hanachah, no different from afiyah, where doing half the shi'ur can lead to it.
So it comes out that we have a phenomenal machloket (dispute). Yes, peturim mechatat, patur mechatat: it's asur mide'orayta, and you're patur from a chatat. You're not chayav on chatzi shi'ur. They're patur; they're patur, but it's not patur because of an issur derabbanan.
“In Shevuot?” No, it's—“In Masechet Shevuot, this morning, if the Gemara asked a question in order to—it's two that was four, and in the morning we ended up saying they're both de'oraita. They're both de'oraita. So if we're talking about de'oraita and they're all de'oraita—” No, could be it's de'oraita with punishment. Could be, what if a de'oraita has punishment? De'oraita with a chatat, de'oraita with sekilah—whatever has to be de'oraita. This could also be issur de'orayta, but you don't get a punishment for it.
So it's amazing: there's such a big machloket between Rashi—clearly, because Rashi on the first amud clearly spelled out that if you make an akirah alone, it's issur derabbanan, a gezeirah shema ya'aseh hanachah (a decree lest he do a hanachah). Clearly, the Rashash doesn't take that approach. We were bothered by the question, and the Rashash is really saying, “Eini hachi nami” (indeed, so it is): you're right, chatzi shi'ur is asur min haTorah by akirah. The Aruch HaShulchan clearly doesn't follow this Rashash either.
That would be a nice point. Clearly, the Rambam said akirah alone is a derabbanan. But it's important to keep the Rashash in mind: don't assume that akirah alone is nothing, just surface-level. There are shitot that will say chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah even on akirah alone. That's what I wanted to point out. It's a very big find, and it's a new way of learning this line in the Gemara: the Mishnah listed the de'orayta mamash, the actual de'oraita cases for which you get sekilah, and it listed the de'oraita cases for which you don't get a punishment but which are still a chatzi shi'ur. That's a nice derech (approach) in the Mishnah. That's why it didn't discuss the hanachot, because the hanachot themselves are really an issur only derabbanan. There's not even a chatzi shi'ur by the hanachot, because you cannot come to—what is the ani supposed to do? There is an issur derabbanan here. He's taking them away wherever he—he's also—what do you mean, what is he supposed to do? He made a hanachah; he's over. It's forbidden for him. There's nine, that's asur. But the Mishnah does not discuss issur derabbanan. You did an issur derabbanan; what's he going to do, teshuvah?
Okay, let's quickly do the Gemara. Where do you see this concept in the world, anyway, that if you do half a melachah you're not chayav? Maybe I'll say the person does half and is also chayav. Where do you see that you have to do a full melachah to be chayav?
The Gemara says: Shneihem peturim (both of them are exempt). Veha it'avida melachah mibeinei-hu (but the labor was performed between them)—what's the difference? A melachah was done through both of them. The bottom line is, they partnered in a melachah. You did half; I did half. But together we have a shutafut (partnership); we did a melachah, so you should be chayav.
Tanya, Rebbi omer (it was taught; Rebbi says): “Me'am ha'aretz ba'asotah” (when an ordinary person does it), “ha'oseh et kulah velo ha'oseh miktzatah” (one who does all of it, not one who does part of it), “yachid ve'asah otah chayav, shnayim ve'asu otah peturim” (one person who does it is liable; two who do it are exempt). Okay, ba'asotah is a singular person—ba'asot otah, when he does the full melachah. From here we learn that to be chayav you have to do a full melachah, but two people who did a melachah are going to be peturim.
Itmar nami (it was also stated): we have an amora (Talmudic sage) who says the same thing. Amar Rav Chiyya bar Gamda (Rav Chiyya bar Gamda said): nizrekah mipi chavurah (it was uttered by the group)—this halachah came out of the chavurah, was thrown out in the group. Ve'amru (and they said): “Ba'asotah.” What does ba'asotah teach us? Yachid she'asah chayav, shnayim she'asu peturim. That's a very famous halachah: one person who does the whole melachah is chayav; shnayim she'asu, two who do it, are peturim.
“Ba'a minei—yes?” Correct. I'm just giving the—“Ba'a minei Rav mi-Rebbi” (Rav asked Rebbi). Now we have a question that was asked to Rebbi. Who asked the question? Rav asked Rebbi an interesting question: “Hit'ino chavero ochlin umashkin” (his fellow loaded him with food and drink). A guy is standing in his house, in the bayit, in the reshut hayachid. His friend comes along and loads him up with all kinds of ochlin umashkin. That makes sense; it's Shabbat. Diber hakatuv behoveh (Scripture speaks of the usual case): the guy is getting loaded up, whatever, loaded up with food and drink. And now what happens? The guy walks out.
Who made the akirah here? His friend made the akirah. His friend made the akirah and loaded him. Who made the hanachah? Well, he went from the reshut hayachid and walked out to the reshut harabbim. But wait, the Gemara says, “Vehotzian lachutz” (and he took him outside). “Mahu?” (What is the ruling?) “Akirat gufo ke'akirat chefetz mimekomo?” (Is movement of his body like moving an object from its place?) Maybe you'll tell me that when you move your body, that's considered making an akirah. You're right: you didn't pick the item up off the floor or put it on your shoulders; somebody else loaded you. So I could argue, as the Gemara says, “Umchayav o dilma lo?” (Would he be liable, or perhaps not?) Maybe I could argue and say, listen, the person who made the akirah put it on you. He made the akirah; he lifted it off the floor, put it on your back, and therefore you didn't do an akirah and hanachah. Or I can say, no, you made the akirah.
“Where did I make an akirah? I didn't even touch the item!” What do you mean? You moved. You have the stuff on your back; when you move, you're oker. You took your foot off the floor. You're oker from the reshut hayachid and you went to the reshut harabbim. What do you mean? Basically, the question is: is akirat gufo considered an akirah? Of course, if I picked it up from the floor, that's an akirah; we already know that. The chiddush here is that the guy picked it up from the floor and put it on the other guy's back. So the other guy hasn't touched it yet. Now he walks. Maybe I consider that walking an akirah, and then he gets to the reshut harabbim and stops; there's your hanachah. That's the question Rav asked Rebbi. Is the question clear? Is akirat gufo considered an akirah or not?
The Gemara says: Amar leh chayav (he told him, “He is liable”). Yes, akirat gufo is. “Ve'eino domeh leyado” (and it is not comparable to his hand). We don't say that akirat yad—putting something in the hand—is considered an akirah. Where do we see this? “Mai ta'ama?” (What is the reason?) “Gufo nayach, yado lo nayach” (his body rests; his hand does not rest).
Rashi explains: take the cases of our Mishnah. We don't have a case of akirat gufo in our Mishnah; we have a case of akirat yad. The ani is standing outside, right? He sticks his hand inside. Then what happens? The ba'al habayit sticks something in his hand, so we said the ba'al habayit did the akirah, right? And then what does the ani do? Takes it out. Takes it out. Whoa! What did we say? Patur. They're both patur. Why are they both patur? Maybe I'll say the ani is chayav. If you tell me that akirat yad is considered an akirah, then he moved it from the reshut hayachid and put it in the reshut harabbim. So no: akirat yad is not an akirah.
Why isn't akirat yad an akirah? “Gufo, yeah; yad, no.” Simple reason: where's his hand? His hand is suspended. His hand is not on the ground, and therefore he's not making an akirah from the ground. “Yado lo nayach”: his hand is not on the ground. But where is his guf? On the ground. So therefore, since his—you're right, but where's his hand? His hand is suspended in midair. Did he make an akirah from the ground? He didn't make an akirah from the ground. His feet are stationary; they're not moving. Only his hand is moving.
The Gemara says, “Yado lo nayach.” His hand didn't rest on the ground. He's standing in the reshut harabim and sticks his hand through the window. Correct? So you'll say, “Oh, maybe that's an akirah.” What do you mean, akirah? His hand was suspended. Look at Rashi's lashon: “Gufo nach al gabei karka vehavya akirah” (his body rests on the ground, and that constitutes lifting). Look at Rashi before that: “Yado lo nayach hilkach hotza'ah lo akar midei” (his hand does not rest; therefore, he did not lift anything for carrying), “vederech hotza'ah belo akirah vahanachah” (carrying requires lifting and placing). You need an akirah and a hanachah. Therefore, the person with the—there's a difference between a hand and a body.
“Oh, that's a different case. That's a different case. That's a different case, and the Gemara is going to talk only about the case I brought.” The Gemara says, “Gufo nayach, yado lo nayach.”
Amar leh Rabbi Chiyya le-Rav (Rabbi Chiyya said to Rav). Rav Chiyya is going to tell Rav, “Why are you bothering Rabbi with questions on Masechet Shabbat? He wasn't learning Masechet Shabbat; he was learning a different masechet. You come and ask him a crazy question about akirat gufo and all that. You're lucky that Rabbi is holding in every sugya, because if he weren't holding in every sugya, he would have answered you wrong. I always tell you, don't ask the rabbi a question unless he's learning that sugya.”
He tells him, Amar leh Rav Chiyya le-Rav, “Bar pachtei” (son of distinguished people). Rashi says, ben gedolim (son of great people). “Lo amrinan lo amina lach” (didn't I tell you?): “Ki ka'e Rabbi beha masechta” (when Rabbi is studying this tractate), “lo teshayeleih bemasechta achriti” (don't ask him about another tractate). “Dilma lav ada'ateih” (perhaps he is not focused on it); maybe he'll give you an answer he's not clear on. “De'ilav de-Rabbi gavra rabba hu, kasaftyeih” (were Rabbi not a great man, you would have embarrassed him). Why? “Demeshani lach shinuyei delav shinuyei hu” (he would give you an answer that isn't really an answer). But don't worry: “Hashta miha shapir meshani lach” (at least now he answered you properly). “De-tanya” (as it was taught): “Hayah ta'un ochlin umashkin mibe'od yom vehotzi'an lachutz mishechashechah chayav lefi she'eino domeh leyado” (if he was carrying food and drink before nightfall and took it out after dark, he is liable because it is not comparable to his hand).
Clearly, the beraita gives an example of a person who moves from one domain to another. He already had the stuff on his shoulders before Shabbat. The akirah was done before Shabbat, so there's nothing. Then what did he do? On Shabbat, he walked out, and that's considered chayav. Where was the akirah? Akirat gufo. Mah she'ein ken beyado (which is not so with his hand): you see that the rule does not apply when it comes to his hand.
So Rashi says, “Hapeshutah lifnim vegufo lachutz” (his hand is inside and his body is outside). That's the exact case: his hand, let's say, is inside and his body is outside, and he pulls his hand out. We don't consider that he made an akirah ve'hanachah, because the hand is in a different reshut and his body stayed stationary. So you were right, baruch Hashem, Rabbi was right—but don't do that again. Don't ask questions of a rabbi when he's not learning that masechet.
Amar Abaye (Abaye said)—now listen to Abaye's dilemma: “Peshita li yado shel adam einah lo ki-rshut harabim velo ki-rshut hayachid” (it is clear to me that a person's hand is neither public nor private domain). How do you consider a person's hand? What's the status of the hand itself? Is it reshut harabim? Is it reshut hayachid? Clearly, the hand is neither a reshut harabim nor a reshut hayachid. How does he know it's not considered a reshut hayachid or reshut harabim?
“Ki-rshut harabim lo damya” (it is not like a public domain): it's clearly not a reshut harabim. “Miyado de'ani” (from the hand of the poor person). Now, what did it say in the case of the ani? Rashi says, “Dikatani matnitin dechi natan ba'al habayit mitochah patur” (as the Mishnah teaches, when the householder takes from within, he is exempt). The ani stuck his hand in with something—a piece of bread or whatever, a basket. He put something into the house. Who made the akirah? The ani. Okay, and what happened? The ba'al habayit took it from his hand and put it in his house.
If you're going to tell me that the hand of the ba'al habayit is reshut harabim, that means he made an akirah from the reshut harabim—the ani! The ani! If you're going to tell me the hand of the ani is reshut harabim, that means the ba'al habayit took it from the reshut harabim to the reshut hayachid, and he'd be chayav. So you clearly see that the hand of the ani is not considered like a reshut harabim, because otherwise he would be taking from a reshut harabim and putting it in a reshut hayachid. The Mishnah doesn't say that.
“Ki-rshut hayachid lo damya miyado de-ba'al habayit” (it is not like a private domain, from the householder's hand): same case in reverse. The ba'al habayit sticks his hand out, and the ani takes from him. If you're telling me the hand is reshut hayachid, that means the ani is taking from the reshut hayachid to the reshut harabim, and the Mishnah doesn't say that. So clearly, we don't consider a person's hand either a reshut hayachid or a reshut harabim.
So the question is, what is it? “Ba'ei Abaye: yado shel adam mahu shete'aseh kecharmelit?” (Abaye asks: can a person's hand be treated as a karmelit?) There's a rabbinical zone. It's not really a reshut hayachid, because it's not so enclosed. It's not a reshut harabim either, because people don't really go there too much. It's a zone called a karmelit (intermediate domain). Karmelit is really like a forest. Rashi is going to say it comes from the lashon “karmilo veya'aro” (like a vineyard and a forest); it's like a forest. It's enclosed, but it's really open, so it's like a neutral place. Maybe the rabbis will treat the hand like a karmelit.
Look at Rashi now. “Hashta dachazinan dela'av batar gufo shadinan leh” (now that we see we do not assign it according to the body). That's the key: the hand doesn't follow where the body is. You see clearly that the guy is standing in the reshut harabim, the ani, but his hand is not considered reshut harabim. The ba'al habayit is standing in the house, but his extended hand is not considered reshut hayachid. So you see clearly that the hand doesn't get drawn after the body. That we see clearly. But maybe the rabbis imposed on the hand the status of a karmelit.
Rashi says, “Le'inyan chiyuvei de'oraita alma ishtanui reshuta” (regarding Torah liabilities, it is clear that its domain has changed). It must be that the hand has its own reshut. The hand is separate from where the person is standing, yes? “Mi achmur aleih rabbanan lemeheveh kecharmelit?” (Did the Rabbis make it stringent as a karmelit?) “Dehicha de'oashit yado mele'ah lireshut acheret, lo yachzirenah” (when he extends his full hand into another domain, he should not return it).
You know what the nafka mina (practical consequence) is? The guy on Shabbat—or even before Shabbat, whatever—has something in his hand and is standing in one reshut. He sticks his hand out the window. If you consider his hand a karmelit, the rabbis made a gezeirah (rabbinic decree): you're not allowed to go from the karmelit to a reshut hayachid or from a karmelit to the reshut harabim. So maybe, if he sticks his hand out the window, he has to stay like that all Shabbat. If you consider his hand a karmelit, he won't be allowed to retract it.
Rashi says, “Dehicha de'oashit yado mele'ah lireshut acheret lo yachzirenah etzlo, vetehei kach peshutah ad shetecheshach” (when he extends his full hand into another domain, he should not return it to himself, but should leave it extended until dark). He has to keep his hand out the window until it gets dark. “Vecheivan dela'av batar gufo gerira” (and since it does not follow the body), the hand doesn't go after the body. נעשית היא רשות? הא מנו רבנן דגזרו שמא... לשבת, שמא יכניס או יוציא ממנו לרשות היחיד ולרשות הרבים, שמו כרמלית. Never mind; he calls it a karmelit. Rashi says, “Ya'aro vecharmilo,” like a forest.
Bottom line, what do you see here? That's the Gemara's question: “Mi kensuh rabbanan le'ahadorei legabeih o lo?” (Did the Rabbis impose a penalty that he cannot return it to himself, or not?) Get the case; it's very simple.
“The guy on Shabbat, he—” “Saying that for all Shabbat is a technical question.” I'm saying that for all Shabbat; it's possible he shouldn't have done it. It's asur. It's like the guy who holds his beard all Shabbat because he's worried, you know, that he's going to stick something—he's going to pull a hair out. “Oh, very good.” So if it doesn't go after the guf, which we see clearly from the Mishnah, maybe he has a reshut bifnei atzmo (a domain of its own), maybe it's called a karmelit. So when you're taking your hand back in, you're taking from a karmelit to a reshut hayachid, which is asur miderabbanan. That's the Gemara's question.
“Why does it become a karmelit? He's in the reshut hayachid; his hand is a karmelit. He's taking from the karmelit to the reshut hayachid. That's issur derabbanan.” If the hand's a karmelit, he's taking from a karmelit to the reshut hayachid. “Can't be? What you're doing in your house is mutar, because you're in a reshut hayachid; there's no problem.” What you're doing in your house—I'm talking about when you're switching the reshuyot. You're sticking your hand out the window with an item in it. “Yes! Yes! What—obviously, you're—” Again, we're talking about a specific case where you're in one domain and your hand is in another domain. The Gemara clearly proved from the Mishnah that the hand doesn't follow the body. That means your hand is not a reshut hayachid, nor is it a reshut harabim. So what is it? I don't know; maybe I'll call it a new zone. Call it a karmelit. What's the nafka mina? That's the nafka mina: can the person who stuck his hand out pull it back? Can he bring it back in? Because then on Shabbat you're bringing something from a karmelit to a reshut hayachid. That's asur.
So the Gemara says, “I don't know what the makom patur is yet.” Ta shema (come and hear): “Hayetah yado mele'ah peirot” (his hand was full of fruit), “vehotzi'ah lachutz” (and he extended it outside). So he stuck it outside, exactly the case we want. “Tani chada asur lehachzirah, vetani idach mutar lehachzirah” (one teaching says it is forbidden to return it; another says it is permitted to return it). He's stuck—stay until motza'ei Shabbat, Rabbeinu Tam. One says you can bring it back. How do you reconcile them?
“Mai lav beha kamipalgei?” (Do they not disagree about this?) “Demar savar kecharmelit dami umar savar lav kecharmelit dami?” (One holds it is like a karmelit, and one holds it is not like a karmelit.) Isn't that the machloket (dispute)? One rabbi says it's like a karmelit, so you can't put it back; another says it's not a karmelit, it's like your body, and your body is a reshut hayachid, so you can bring it back. If it's not a karmelit, the rabbis were not oser on it. That's the Gemara's answer.
So you see that there's a shitah out there that says it's a karmelit. “Lo”—no, you're learning wrong. “Dekulei alma kekarmelit damya” (everyone agrees it is like a karmelit). Everybody says the hand is a karmelit, and really you should not be allowed to bring it back in. But the rabbis say you can bring it back in. “Velo kashya” (and it's not difficult): “Kan lemattah measarah, kan lemalah measarah” (here below ten, there above ten). It depends where his hand was. He was in the reshut harabbim; his hand is lower than asarah, so since anything less than asarah is considered part of the reshut harabim, his hand is considered a karmelit. But if his hand is above ten tefachim (handbreadths), above ten tefachim isn't even considered reshut harabim. Reshut harabim only goes up to ten tefachim. In that case, the rabbis were not gozer. It's only a karmelit when it's in the domain of the reshut harabim. When it's above the domain of the reshut harabim, the rabbis did not call it a karmelit. But really, it is a karmelit toch asarah (within ten handbreadths).
“Our Mishnah is lemalah measarah?” It's not like a reshut hayachid, and it's not like a reshut harabim. This is one guy. Our Mishnah is talking about two guys. One guy is making an akirah, one guy is making a hanachah. They look at him as though it's leheiter (as permitted). Leheiter.
“But ve'iba'it eima”—easy! The Gemara says another answer: “Eidi ve'eidi lemattah measarah” (both cases are below ten). Oh, really, I can tell you both beraitot are less than ten, and the hand is not a karmelit. If it's not a karmelit, why is it asur? Velo kashya: “Kan mibe'od yom, kan mishechashechah” (here before nightfall, there after dark). It all depends when he stuck his hand out. Mibe'od yom, the rabbis didn't penalize him. If he stuck his hand out mibe'od yom, he didn't do an issur. You're allowed to stick your hand out the window Friday afternoon. In that case, they let you put your hand back in. Mishechashechah, the rabbis penalized him. When you did it on Shabbat, when you made the akirah or the hoshatah, you stuck your hand out on Shabbat. Really, the hand is not a karmelit. Technically, you should be allowed to bring it right back in, but since you did the akirah or the hoshatah on Shabbat, the rabbis were kones (imposed a penalty).
Do you understand the difference? It's not a reshut harabim, it's not a reshut hayachid; it's nothing. It's just where you are. It's considered like a reshut hayachid, let's say, legabei the guy himself. So technically, you should be able to stick it in. “But what?” No, it's less than ten, it's less than ten, but what? It all depends when you started. You can hear that. You're a wise guy: on Shabbat you stuck the thing out of the window, so stay like that the whole Shabbat. But if you did it before Shabbat, bring it back in.
The Gemara is going to say, on the contrary, there's a logic to say the exact opposite: “Aderabbah, ipcha mistabra” (on the contrary, the opposite is more logical). Why? “Mibe'od yom de'i shadi leih lo atei lidei chiyuv chatat, liknesuh rabbanan; mishechashechah de'i shadi leih atei lidei chiyuv chatat, lo liknesuh rabbanan” (before nightfall, if he drops it he will not incur a sin-offering, so the Rabbis should penalize him; after dark, if he drops it he may incur one, so they should not).
You're going to tell the guy, let's say he did it on Shabbat. He did it on Shabbat, so, kenas: you have to stay like this the whole Shabbat. What are the odds, like you said, that he'll stay the whole Shabbat? What's going to happen? He's going to drop it. Now he is over an issur de'oraita, because he made the akirah in a reshut hayachid and now made a hanachah in a reshut harabim. Aderabbah, where it can come to an issur Torah, there's a sevara to say you should not kenas him. Or if he did it, let's say, mibe'od yom: what's the problem? Even if he drops it, he won't be over an issur de'oraita, because he made the akirah mibe'od yom and stuck it out. If he drops it, what issur did he do? Issur derabbanan at most. In that case, it makes sense to kenas him, because we can afford it. Even if he drops it, it's okay. But why should I make a kenas on a person when it's very hard to do, and making this kenas is going to bring him to an issur de'oraita? Do you understand why it's going to bring him to an issur de'oraita?
The Gemara says the logic is reversed. The logic is reversed! But the Gemara didn't say that. So it seems that the Gemara isn't concerned about a person coming to an issur de'oraita. “I don't care; I'm going to make a kenas.” Even if it's going to come to an issur de'oraita, the Gemara doesn't care. That's why the Gemara says, “Umidelo kameshinan hachi” (and since we do not answer this way): the fact that the Gemara didn't say that shows it wasn't concerned that making this kenas might cause the person to come to an issur de'oraita. If he drops the item in the reshut harabbim, he made an akirah ve'hanachah beShabbat, one of the two motzi'ot. If they didn't say that, “Tifshot de-Rav Bibi” (resolve Rav Bibi's question). You can solve another question of Rav Bibi bar Abaye. What did Rav Bibi say? The question of Rav Bibi bar Abaye: “Hidbik pat betannur” (he attached bread to the oven). The guy took bread and put it in the oven beShabbat, beshogeg (unintentionally). Beshogeg. He stuck it in the oven. Now what? It hasn't baked yet. On Shabbat, there's a rabbinic prohibition called rediyat hapat (removing bread from the oven). You're not allowed to pull the bread off the wall on Shabbat.
So what would you say in a case like this? A guy went beshogeg and stuck it on the thing. Now his friend sees him and says, “Oh my God, if this bread stays for another three seconds, he's going to be over an issur de'oraita.” So maybe let this guy do an issur derabbanan by letting him pull it off, in order to save his friend from doing an issur de'oraita?
The Gemara says, I could solve the question: “Hidbik pat betanur hitiru lo leradotah kodem sheyavo lidei chiyuv chatat?” (Did they permit him to remove it before he incurs a sin-offering?) Or the person himself! Did they allow the person himself? Forget about his friend. Issur derabbanan. So did they allow him to pull it off, or did they not allow him? “Tifshot, excuse me, o lo hitiru ka miba'ya” (resolve it—excuse me, the question is whether they permitted it). The Gemara says, “Tifshot delo hitiru” (resolve that they did not permit it). You can learn from here that we're not going to be mekel. What do you see from here? We let him keep his hand outside the whole Shabbat, even though he's going to come to an issur de'oraita. If we were worried about an issur de'oraita, we should tell him, “Put your hand back in.” But from the case of hotza'ah, where he put his hand outside, you see that, sof sof, “Sorry, you're stuck. You put the bread on; de'oraita.”
The Gemara says, no. “Ha lo kashya.” The Gemara says, “Ha lo kashya, vetifshot!” “In hachi nami” (indeed, so it is): according to what we just said, you'd be able to solve it. In hachi nami. It's not a question—solve it! In hachi nami. The guy will not be able to do rediyat hapat. Good. You say, “If that's the answer, we have an answer to this question?” Okay, we do have an answer to the question. Now what do you want from us?
“Ve'iba'it eima: le'olam lo tifshot” (and if you wish, say: actually, don't resolve it). No, what are you comparing the two things? “Velo kashya: kan beshogeg, kan bemezid” (and it's not difficult: here inadvertently, there intentionally). It depends what the person was doing, beshogeg or bemezid (intentionally). Beshogeg: the person put the bread on the wall beshogeg; we're not going to penalize him. Let him take it off so he doesn't come to an issur de'oraita. In this case of hotza'ah, he did it bemezid. Yes, he did it bemezid, wise guy. Now suffer. Bemezid, the rabbis penalized him.
Ve'iba'it eima: idi ve'idi beshogeg (and if you wish, say: both cases were inadvertent). So why, in one case, do you throw the book at him and, in the other, leave him alone? “Vehacha bekensu shogeg atu mezid kamipalgei” (here they disagree whether an inadvertent act is penalized on account of an intentional one). The question is whether, if a person does something beshogeg, you're concerned that he might do it bemezid. If you allow this—if you condone the shogeg—he might do it bemezid next week. “Mar savar kensu shogeg atu mezid, umar savar lo kensu shogeg atu mezid” (one holds they penalize inadvertence on account of intent, and one holds they do not).
Rashi says: “Beshogeg lo kensu rabbanan” (the Rabbis did not penalize him inadvertently). “U-de-Rav Bibi lo tifshot mehacha lo le'issur velo leheiter” (you cannot resolve Rav Bibi's question from here, neither to forbid nor to permit). “Deha lo kensu beshogeg, lav mishum chashasha dedilma mashlaf lei miyadeih” (the reason they did not penalize an inadvertent act is not concern that he might drop it from his hand). “Ela mishum delo avid issura bemezid” (rather, it's because he did not do the prohibited act intentionally). “Va'asiyat yado eino afilu shevut ela mishum kensa” (returning his hand is not even a shevut, except as a penalty). “Vehacha lo kensu” (and here they did not penalize him). But rediyat hapat is a shevut (rabbinic prohibition), and the Rabbis made a decree about it. “Kodem sheyavo lidei chiyuv chatat lo batlu gezeratam” (they did not annul their decree before he could come to incur a sin-offering).
Let's read the Rashi from the beginning, and then we'll continue this. I just want to read the Rashi; we have to go back to it because we don't have time. Look at Rashi: “Hidbik pat betanur, pash'ah beshogeg venizkar shehu Shabbat kodem shete'afeh” (he inadvertently attached bread to the oven and remembered that it was Shabbat before it baked). “Vehacha be'alma rediyat hapat shevut shevutit, shehu chochmah ve'einah melachah” (here, removing bread from the oven is a rabbinic restriction; it is a skilled act but not a labor). “Hitiru lo et ha'issur midivreihem veyirdenah kodem shete'afeh veyitchayev mishum ofeh shehu av melachah, o lo hitiru leradotah ulehotzi'ah min hatanur?” (Did they permit him to violate their prohibition and remove it before it bakes and he becomes liable for baking, or did they not permit him to remove it from the oven?)
Those are the answers we have till now. The first answer was, “In hachi nami tifshot.” Just as we tell the person he has to keep his hand outside the whole time, and he might come to an issur de'oraita, you can't do the rediyat hapat; he might come to an issur de'oraita. The first answer is tifshot; it doesn't distinguish between shogeg and mezid.
What's the second answer? “Ve'iba'it eima lo tifshot, velo kashya, kan beshogeg, kan bemezid.” Beshogeg, they didn't impose a kenas rabbanan; bemezid, the Rabbis did. That's the Rashi there that we have to read. Yes, yes. “Beshogeg lo kensu rabbanan.” Look at Rashi: in a shogeg, they didn't impose a penalty.
“U-de-Rav Bibi lo tifshot mehacha”: in Rav Bibi's case of rediyat hapat, you cannot resolve it, neither to forbid nor to permit. “Deha lo kensu beshogeg”—the fact that we say they don't penalize in a shogeg has nothing to do with concern that perhaps he'll drop it from his hand. That's not the reason. Rather, it's because he didn't do the issur intentionally. When a person does it beshogeg, the reason I'm letting him pull his hand back is not concern about whether he'll drop it. We said that in a shogeg, I'm not going to throw the book at him.
“Vehachazaratah lo, eina afilu shevut,” meaning returning his hand is not an issur; it's no issur at all, unless I want to impose a kenas on the person. “Vehacha, lo kanis”: I'm not going to penalize someone who did it beshogeg by making him keep his hand out. But “aval rediyat hapat, shevut hu”: rediyat hapat is an issur no matter how you look at it. Whether he stuck the bread in beshogeg or bemezid, it's always forbidden to take the bread off. “Venigzerah beminyan” (and the Rabbis established a decree like this). “Kodem sheyavo lidei chiyuv chatat lo batlu gezeratam” (they did not annul their decree before he could incur a sin-offering). So you can't be poshet (resolve) that it is permitted to do it.
“Ule'inyan nami lo tifshot dekansu bemezid, dehatam nami ki mehadar lemizal, de'azil vesheyitchayev mitah beit din, vehacha i kavish leih lemibradut, al korcheih yitchayev mitah be...”
Tavo aleinu yachad mikol tov (may all good come upon us together), amen ve'amen, amen ve'amen, because this...