POINT BY POINT OUTLINE OF THE DAF
prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
SHABBOS 97 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the thirteenth Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
1) MISJUDGING TZADIKIM
(a) Question: [It says, "V'Chet'o Mes" - according to R. Yehudah ben Beseira,] for which sin did Tzelafchad die?
(b) Answer: He was among [those who went to fight after Hash-m said not to, after the Meraglim -] "Va'Yapilu..."
(c) Similarly - R. Akiva says, [after Miryam spoke Lashon ha'Ra about Moshe it says] "Va'Yichar Af Hash-m Bam va'Yelach" - this teaches that also Aharon got Tzara'as;
(d) R. Yehudah ben Beseira: In any case, you should not say this!
1. If you are right, the Torah covered up [his Tzara'as], and you reveal it!
2. If you are wrong, you malign a Tzadik!
(e) Question: But it says "Bam" (plural)!
(f) Answer: That merely alludes to anger (but Aharon did not deserve to get Tzara'as).
(g) A Beraisa says that Aharon got Tzara'as:
1. (Beraisa): "Va'Yifen Aharon El Miryam v'Hinei Metzora'as" - he turned away from his Tzara'as [to see Miryam's].
(h) (Reish Lakish): One who [wrongly] suspects a Tzadik is stricken bodily:
1. Moshe said "V'Hen Lo Ya'aminu Li" (Benei Yisrael will not believe that You sent me to redeem them) - Hash-m knew that they would believe;
2. Hash-m: They are believers that descend from believers (Maharsha - they will believe on account of a tradition from their Avos) - in the end, you will not believe!
i. They are believers - "Va'Ya'amen ha'Am"; they descend from believers - "V'He'emin (Avraham) ba'Shem"; in the end (when I will tell you to speak to the rock), you will not believe "Ya'an Lo He'emantem Bi".
(i) Question: What is the source that Moshe was stricken for suspecting Benei Yisrael?
(j) Answer: "Havei Na Yadcha b'Cheikecha..." (Tzara'as came on his hand).
(k) (Rava): Hash-m's attribute of bestowing good acts faster than His attribute of punishment:
1. Regarding punishment it says "Va'Yotzi'ah v'Hine Yado Metzora'as ka'Shaleg" (after he finished removing his hand it was stricken); when He healed it, it says "Va'Yotzi'ah me'Cheiko v'Hine Shavah ki'Vsaro" (it was healed the moment it left).
(l) (R. Elazar): "Va'Yivla Mate Aharon Es Matosam" - it was a double miracle (Aharon's rod had become a snake - after it returned to be a rod again, it swallowed the rods of the Mitzriyim).
2) THE ARGUMENT IN THE MISHNAH
(a) (Mishnah): If he threw from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Yachid [and Reshus ha'Rabim was in the middle...], he is liable;
(b) Question (Rabah): In what case do they argue?
1. Perhaps they argue within 10 Tefachim, about whether or not Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah (something in the air is considered to be at rest) - Chachamim do not say Kelutah - but all exempt above 10, for we do not learn throwing from Moshit;
2. Or, they argue above 10 Tefachim, R. Akiva learns throwing from Moshit, Chachamim do not - but all Mechayev below 10, for Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah.
(c) Answer (Rav Yosef): Rav Chisda asked this question, and Rav Hamnuna answered it from a Beraisa:
1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): If one transferred from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Yachid, going through Reshus ha'Rabim itself, he is liable;
2. Chachamim exempt.
3. Inference: Since it says 'going through Reshus ha'Rabim itself', this implies that they argue about within 10 (Reshus ha'Rabim extends only up to 10).
4. Question: What do they discuss?
i. Suggestion: They discuss Ma'avir (carrying).
ii. Inference: They argue about within 10, but all exempt above 10.
iii. Rejection: R. Elazar taught that if one was Motzi something more than 10 Tefachim above the ground he is liable, for this is how Benei Kehas carried!
5. Answer: They discuss throwing.
6. Inference: They argue about within 10, but all exempt above 10.
7. They argue about whether or not Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah.
(d) This answer of Rav Hamnuna argues with R. Elazar:
1. (R. Elazar): R. Akiva is Mechayev even above 10 - the Beraisa says 'Reshus ha'Rabim itself', which denotes within 10, to teach the extremity of Chachamim's opinion, they exempt even within 10.
(e) R. Elazar argues with R. Chilkiya bar Tuvya:
1. (R. Chilkiya bar Tuvya): Within three Tefachim, all Mechayev; above 10, all exempt; R. Akiva and Chachamim argue about between three and 10.
2. Support (Beraisa): Within three Tefachim, all Mechayev; above 10 is forbidden only mid'Rabanan [because he transfers to a different Reshus ha'Yachid] - if both Reshuyos ha'Yachid are owned by the same person, it is permitted;
3. Between three and 10, R. Akiva is Mechayev, Chachamim exempt.
(f) (Beraisa): If both Reshuyos ha'Yachid are owned by the same person, it is permitted.
(g) Suggestion: This refutes Rav!
1. (Rav): If there are two houses on opposite sides of Reshus ha'Rabim, it is forbidden to throw from one to the other;
2. (Shmuel): It is permitted. (Since Shmuel permits, surely the same person owns both!)
(h) Rejection: We already established [in Eiruvin] that they discuss when one of the houses is higher than the other - [it is difficult to reach the destination, therefore] Rav forbids lest the object fall in Reshus ha'Rabim and he will come to take it.
3) THE SOURCE FOR DERIVING THE LAWS OF LAVUD
(a) Question (Rav Chisda or Rav Hamnuna): What is the source that anything within three Tefachim is Lavud (Batul to the ground)?
(b) Answer #1 (The other of Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna): It is impossible for Reshus ha'Rabim to be paved perfectly flat with a carpenter's plane (it is Reshus ha'Rabim even if there are small bumps).
(c) Question #1: If so, even something three Tefachim should be Lavud!
(d) Question #2 - (Mishnah): If walls [of a Sukah] hang down from above, if they are three Tefachim off the ground, they are Pesulim.
1. Inference: If they are within three Tefachim they are Kesherim [even though reason (b) does not apply]!
(e) Answer (to Question #2): A wall three Tefachim off the ground is Pasul because a kid can stick its head through.
(f) Question: Granted, that explains Lavud to the ground - but Lavud applies even high above the ground (e.g. in walls or in Sechach...)!
(g) Answer #2 (to Question (i)): Rather, a tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that any gap of less than three Tefachim is Lavud.
4) TWO CHIYUVIM FOR ONE THROWING
(a) (Beraisa - Rebbi): If one threw something from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Rabim and it passed through Reshus ha'Yachid, he is liable;
1. Chachamim exempt.
(b) (Rav and Shmuel): Rebbi is Mechayev only in a Reshus ha'Yachid with a ceiling over it, we consider it to be filled (with articles, therefore it is as if the thrown object rests on an extension of the floor), he exempts if there is no ceiling.
(c) (Rav Yehudah): Rebbi is Mechayev two Chata'os [if he was Shogeg], for Hotza'ah and Hachnasah
(d) Question (Rav Chana): This implies that Rebbi is Mechayev [twice] for an Av and its Toladah;
1. Contradiction (Beraisa - Rebbi): It says "Eleh ha'Devarim [...Sheshes Yomim Te'aseh Melachah]" - this alludes to 39 Melachos told to Moshe on Sinai (Devarim (plural) teaches two, the 'Hei' teaches one more, the Gematri'a of Eleh is 36. Surely, Rebbi taught this to teach that one who does all the Melachos (b'Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos) brings 39 Chata'os - if he obligates for an Av and its Toldah, one can be liable even more!)
(e) Answer (Rav Yosef): You have a difficulty because you think that Rav Yehudah discusses Rebbi's opinion - we say that he discusses R. Yehudah's opinion [in a different Beraisa]!
(f) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If one threw something from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim and [before landing] it passed four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable;
(g) Chachamim exempt.
(h) (Rav Yehudah): R. Yehudah is Mechayev two Chata'os, for Hotza'ah and for Ma'avir in Reshus ha'Rabim;
1. We cannot say that he is Mechayev only once, for then Chachamim would totally exempt - but he was Motzi from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim!
(i) Objection: Perhaps indeed, R. Yehudah is Mechayev only once - the case is, he wanted the object to rest before reaching Reshus ha'Rabim:
1. R. Yehudah holds that Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah, it is as if it rested [in midair], and his intent was fulfilled;
2. Chachamim do not say Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah, so his intent was not fulfilled.
3. R. Yehudah does not Mechayev [twice] for an Av and its Toldah.
(j) Question (Beraisa): R. Yehudah adds [to the list of Avos Melachos] Shovet (evening the warp threads) and Medakdek (hitting the woof so it will not be too taut);
1. Chachamim say, Shovet is included in Meisach, and Medakdek is included in weaving.
2. Suggestion: The case is, he did both [Shovet and Meisach, or Medakdek and weaving, in one Helam] - R. Yehudah is Mechayev for an Av and its Toldah!
(k) Answer: [No, he did them separately - Bach deletes this from the text, Ri does not]; R. Yehudah is not Mechayev for an Av and its Toldah - he holds that they are Avos, Chachamim hold that they are Toldos. (Ri - they argue about the warning necessary to kill a Mezid transgressor - one must be warned for the right Av.)
1. Support: It says 'R. Yehudah adds' - we understand this if he says that they are Avos - but if he is Mechayev for an Av and its Toldah, he does not add!
(l) (Rabah and Rav Yosef): R. Yehudah obligates only once.
(m) Question (Ravina): Rav Yehudah said that R. Yehudah is Mechayev twice [for Hotza'ah and for Ma'avir] - if he wants the object [to rest] 'here' (where it actually rested, he is not liable for Hotza'ah until it gets there, for) he does not need it 'there' (where it first entered Reshus ha'Rabim - therefore, he should be exempt for Ma'avir);
1. If he wants the object 'there', he does not want it 'here' (surely he is exempt for Ma'avir, he did not intend for it at all)!
(n) Answer (Rav Ashi): The case is, he was not particular where it lands (as long as it is in Reshus ha'Rabim).
(o) The following is obvious - if one intended to throw eight Amos and it went four, this is like one who wanted to write 'Shimon', and wrote only 'Shem' (he is liable - 103A);
(p) Question: If he intended to throw four Amos and it went eight, what is the law?
1. Do we say, [he is liable because] he moved it [like he wanted - the extra distance it went does not exempt him];
2. Or, [is he exempt because] it did not land where he wanted?
(q) Answer (and rejection of (o)): This is like Ravina's question [above] - Rav Ashi answered, the case is, he was not particular where it lands (if not, he would be exempt)!
1. Above, we equated throwing four Amos when he intended for eight Amos to writing 'Shem' when he intended for 'Shimon' - but they are different!
2. One is liable for writing Shem because one must do so in order to write Shimon - but one need not throw four Amos [and have it rest after four, which is a condition to be liable] in order to throw eight!