Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bava Kama, 80

1) THE IDENTITY OF "A CERTAIN CHASID"

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which relates an incident regarding "a certain Chasid" who became ill, and the doctors told him that the only thing for him to do was to drink raw milk of a goat every morning. They brought him a goat, which he tied to the legs of his bed, in order to prevent it from grazing outside and transgressing the Isur of keeping a Behemah Dakah in Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, he colleagues, when they saw that he had a goat in his home, abstained from visiting him, calling him a robber. The Beraisa relates that this Chasid had performed no other sin.

Who was this Chasid?

ANSWER: The Gemara later (103b) and in Temurah (15b) relates that whenever an incident is recorded involving "a certain Chasid," it refers either to Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava or to Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i. Which one of those Chasidim is the subject of the incident recorded in our Gemara? The SHITAH MEKUBETZES here, in the name of the GA'ON, says that it was Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava. Indeed, the Yerushalmi (Sotah 9:10) and the Tosefta (8:4) say this explicitly (as cited by the Yefeh Einayim and the Mitzpeh Eisan). (See also Insights to Shabbos 127:2.) (I. Alshich)

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which relates an incident regarding a certain Chasid who became ill, and the doctors told him that the only thing for him to do was to drink raw milk of a goat every morning. They brought him a goat, which he tied to the legs of his bed, in order to prevent it from grazing outside and transgressing the Isur of keeping a Behemah Dakah in Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, he colleagues, when they saw that he had a goat in his home, abstained from visiting him, calling him a robber. The Beraisa relates that this Chasid had performed no other sin.

What was the Chasid's sin? Why did his friend's accuse of him of sinning? We know (Sanhedrin 74a) that when a person's life is in danger, it is permitted for him to transgress an Isur in order to save his life (except for the three Isurim of Shefichas Damim, Giluy Arayos, and Avodah Zarah)! Hence, he was permitted to keep the Behemah Dakah in order to save his life!

ANSWERS:

(a) The TORAS CHAIM in Eruvin (21b, DH Mutav) answers based on the opinion of the ROSH and the TUR (YD 157), who rule that if a person wants to be Machmir on himself and let himself be killed in order to avoid doing an Aveirah, he is permitted to do so. This Chasid was on such a lofty level of Avodas Hashem that this act of keeping a Behemah Dakah, and not giving up his life, was considered a sin. (This is also the view of the RAMBAN in Kesuvos (19a), who writes that it is a "Midas *Chasidus*" to let oneself be killed and not transgress an Aveirah. Hence, this act was considered a sin according to the great degree of Chasidus of Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava.)

(b) The Toras Chaim also explains how the RAMBAM will explain our Gemara. The Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:1) rules that one is *not* permitted to be Machmir on himself and let himself be killed instead of doing a sin. The Rambam writes that one who lets himself be killed instead of doing a sin is "Mischayev b'Nafsho" ("guilty for his life." Why, then, was this act of keeping a Behemah Dakah called a sin?

The Toras Chaim explains that even though the Chasid had no way to cure himself other than by drinking the raw milk of a goat each morning, nevertheless he would not have *died* without the milk. His condition of "Gone'ach m'Libo" just would have persisted.

The MAHARSHA (Chidushei Agados) also suggests this answer.

The HAGAHOS MAHARAV RANSBURG, however, questions this answer. The Gemara in Kesuvos (60a) says that it is permitted for a sick person to drink the raw milk from a goat on Shabbos, because even though drinking the milk from a goat is an Isur d'Rabanan (Mefarek k'l'Achar Yad), nevertheless "in a situation of pain, the Rabanan did not prohibit it." Here, too, the Chasid was in pain, and since the Isur of keeping a Behemah Dakah is only an Isur d'Rabanan, we should say that "in a situation of pain, the Rabanan did not prohibit it!"

His question can be answered with the words of the ME'IRI who says that in a case where the Isur d'Rabanan involves an enactment made to prevent loss to other people, we must be exceedingly Machmir. Even though the Me'iri himself holds that the Chasid should have given his life and not transgressed this Isur, and the Maharsha holds that the Chasid's life was not in danger, nevertheless the Me'iri's explanation that this Isur d'Rabanan is an especially stringent one suffices to explain the difference between the case in the Gemara in Shabbos, where the sick person is allowed to perform the Isur d'Rabanan, and the case here, where it was considered a sin.

80b

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the Halachah of "Amirah l'Nochri" -- telling a Nochri to perform a Melachah on Shabbos. Telling a non-Jew to do Melachah for a Jew is one of the Shevus decrees enacted by the Rabanan. Even though non-Jews transgress no prohibition by doing Melachah on Shabbos, the Rabanan prohibited telling them to do Melachah for Jews. What is the reason why the Rabanan prohibited telling a Nochri to do Melachah on Shabbos?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 6:1) writes that the Rabanan prohibited it "in order that Shabbos not be taken lightly in one's eyes, lest one come to do the Melachah himself."

(b) RASHI in Avodah Zarah (15a, DH Keivan) writes that the reason for the decree is because of the verse, "Mimtzo Cheftzecha v'Daber Davar" -- "... and you honor it (Shabbos) by not engaging in your own affairs, from pursuing your own needs *and speaking [forbidden] speech*" (Yeshayah 58:13), which establishes a guideline for speech on Shabbos. Telling a Nochri to do a Melachah is Asur because one may not speak like that on Shabbos.

(c) RASHI in Shabbos (153a, DH Mai Ta'ama) implies that the reason it is Asur to tell a Nochri to do a Melachah on Shabbos is because when the Nochri does the Melachah, he is acting as the Shali'ach of the Jew and it is considered as though the Jew is doing the Melachah. (Regarding how a Nochri can be a Shali'ach for a Jew, see NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT 182. See also Nesivos ha'Mishpat 348:4.)

It seems that there is a Halachic difference between these explanations. According to Rashi in Avodah Zarah, it seems that it should be *permissible* to tell a Nochri *before* Shabbos to do a Melachah for him on Shabbos, since the Jew's "Dibur," speech, is not being done on Shabbos. According to the other two explanations, the Isur will remain, regardless of whether the Jew tells the Nochri on a weekday to do Melachah on Shabbos, or whether he tells him on Shabbos itself. (KOVETZ SHI'URIM, Beitzah, #49). The Kovetz Shi'urim adds that there are *two* elements of Isur involved with Amirah l'Nochri. The first is that the Jew is making the Nochri a Shali'ach to do Melachah for him, and the second is that the act of speaking such words itself is prohibited (either because of "Mimtzo Cheftzecha" or because of the reason that the Rambam gives). (I. Alshich)

(See also Insights to Shabbos 150:1.)