Torah Community Connections

Week 6 - Wednesday - 5 Jan. 2000

SHABBAT: CHAPTER 10: MISHNA 6

If one takes off his fingernails this with that, or with his teeth, and similarly his hair, and similarly his moustache, and similarly his beard, and similarly the woman who braids, and similarly the woman who colors blue, and similarly the pokeset. Rabbi Eliezer

declares her liable; but the Sages prohibit on account of shevut. If one plucks from a pierced flowerpot he is liable, but from that which is not pierced he is exempt. But Rabbi Shimon exempts in this and in that.

Kehati

This mishnah does not deal with “carrying”; it was placed here on account of the preceding mishnah, because of the dispute regarding an activity which is not required for its own sake (Melekhet Shelomo, follow -ing Tosafot).

If one takes off his fingernails - on Shabbat, this with that - he cuts the fingernails of one hand with the fingernails of his other hand, or he bites them off with his teeth, and similarly if one plucks his hair with his hand, and similarly his moustache, and similarly his beard - he plucks his moustache or his beard with his hand or with his teeth, and similarly the woman who braids - her hair, and similarly the woman who colors her eyes blue with eyepaint, and similarly the pokeset - the woman who makes a parting in her hair, dividing it into two. According to a second interpretation, the woman who paints her face (Jer. Talmud).

Rabbi Eliezer declares liable - to bring a sin-offering, for all these are derivatives of main classes of activity: cutting one’s nails, hair, moustache, or beard, are derivatives of “shearing”; braiding her hair, and thepokesel (according to the first interpretation) are derivatives of “building”; and coloring blue is a derivative of “writing” (Rambarn, Bartenura). The Gemara, however, concludes that coloring blue is a derivative, not of writing, but of “dyeing” (see Tosefot Yom Tov, who is surprised that Rambarn and Bartenura, do not rule in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara). The pokeset, according to the second interpretation given above, is a derivative of dyeing;

but the Sages prohibit on account of shevut - I.e., according to the Sages, one who performs any of these activities does not incur liability to bring a sin-offering, for they are not derivatives, as they were not performed in the normal way that the main classes of activity are performed (i.e., this is not the way in which shearing, building, or the other main classes, are done). Nonetheless, it is prohibited by the Soferim to do them on Shabbat because ofshevut(see the Introduction to the Tractate and Glossary). The Gemara states that according to the Sages, only who who cuts or plucks his fingernails or his hair with his hands is exempt. If one, however, cuts or plucks his fingernails or hair with a utensil, even the Sages agree that he is liable to a sin-offering. Tosafot write that they hold, as does Rabbi Yehudah, that one is liable for an activity which is not required for its own sake. If one plucks from a pierced flowerpot on Shabbat, he is liable - to bring a sin-offering, for the legal status of a pierced flowerpot is as something attached to the earth, for it is nurtured from the earth through the hole: therefore, if one plucks from it, it is as if he plucks a plant from the earth, which is a derivative of “reaping,” but from that a flowerpot which is not pierced - he is exempt - because it is not considered as attached to the earth.

but Rabbi Shimon exempts in this and in that - he holds that even a pierced flowerpot is not considered as attached to the earth (seeKH. 7:8). The halakhah does not follow Rabbi Shimon.

SHABBAT: CHAPTER 11: MISHNA 1

If one throws from a private domain to the public domain, from the public domain to a private domain he is liable. From a private domain to a private domain with the public domain in between Rabbi Akiva declares him liable, but the Sages exempt.

Kehati

After teaching the laws of carrying from one domain to another, this chapter continues by teaching the laws of throwing and reaching forth from one domain to another, which are derivatives of carrying. The four

domains relating to the Shabbat and their differing legal statuses have already been explained (see the Introduction to the Tractate). For the better understanding of this chapter, however, we repeat that the airspace of the public domain, from a height of ten tefahs and up, is considered to be a makorn patur. This mishnah discusses throwing from one domain to another; it teaches that although the person throwing only uproots the object from one domain, while the setting down in the other domain follows of its own accord, nevertheless, since the setting down is the direct result of his throwing, throwing is a derivative of carrying, and he is liable for so doing.

If one throws an object from a private domain to the public domain, or if one throws from the public domain to a private domain - on Shabbat, he is liable for throwing is a derivative of carrying; therefore, the legal status of one who throws from a private domain to the public domain is the same as one who carries out, and the legal status of one who throws from the public domain into a private domain is the same as one who carries in. If one throws from a private domain to a private domain with the public domain in between - the Tannaim disagree regarding this: Rabbi Akiva declares him liable - He holds that since the object has passed through the air-space of the public domain, it is considered as if it had come to rest in the public domain. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Akiva refers to a case in which the object is thrown through the air at a height of less than ten tefahs, and Rabbi Akiva holds “enveloped is the same as set down” i.e., something enveloped by the air of the public domain at a height of less than ten tefahs, is considered to have been set down there,

but the Sages exempt - They hold, “enveloped is not the same as set down” although the object was enveloped by the air-space of the public domain, it does not have the same legal status as if it had been set down there. If, however, the object passed through the public domain at a height of more than ten tefahs, which is a makorn patur, even Rabbi Akiva agrees that the person throwing is exempt.

We have explained the disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages according to one opinion in the Gemara, which is followed by most commentators. According to another opinion in the Gemara, however, even above ten tefahs Rabbi Akiva declares the thrower liable, because he learns the law of throwing from the law of reaching forth, and one who stretched forth from one private domain to another through the public domain, even above ten tefahs, is liable (as is explained in the following mishnah), while the Sages do not learn the law of throwing from the law of reaching forth.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives