Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A CAPITAL OFFENSE EXEMPTS FROM PAYMENT

(a) (Rav Chisda): R. Nechunya Ben ha'Kanah admits that one who steals and eats Chelev must pay.

1. He is considered a thief when he picks it up; he is not liable to die until he eats it.

(b) Suggestion: Rav Chisda argues on R. Avin.

1. (R. Avin): One who throws an arrow 4 Amos (in a public domain on Shabbos), and it tears silk along the way, does not have to pay.

i. Since the arrow cannot land unless it was thrown, his capital offense starts with the shooting.

2. In Rav Chisda's case, R. Avin would also say that he cannot eat the Chelev unless he lifts it!

(c) Rejection: The cases are different.

1. Reason #1: The arrow cannot land without being shot; one can eat without lifting the Chelev - he could bend down and eat!
2. Reason #2: He cannot retrieve the arrow after shooting it; he can return the Chelev after picking it up.
3. The difference between these 2 reasons is one who carries a knife 4 Amos in a public domain (on Shabbos) and tears silk along the way.

i. According to reason #1, here, too the capital offense starts with setting the knife in motion, so he should be exempt.
ii. According to reason #2, here he could reconsider and stop it from damaging, so he should pay.

(d) (R. Avin): One who throws an arrow 4 Amos (in a public domain on Shabbos), and it tears silk along the way, does not have to pay.

(a) Question (R. Bibi Bar Abaye - Mishnah): One who steals a wallet on Shabbos must pay, because the theft precedes the breaking of Shabbos;
(b) If he was dragging the wallet, he is exempt, because the theft and the breaking of Shabbos come simultaneously.

1. Here, too, we should say that the capital offense starts when he lifts the wallet!

(c) Answer #1: The case is, he lifted the wallet intending to hide it, then reconsidered to take it out.
(d) Objection: Is one really liable for breaking Shabbos in such a case?

1. (R. Yochanan): One who moves objects from one corner to another, and reconsiders to take them out is not liable for breaking Shabbos, since his initial intention was not to take them out.

(e) Answer #2: We must say, he intended to take them out from the start; the case is, he stopped in the middle.

1. Suggestion: If he stopped to adjust the load - this is the way of carrying (and still, the breaking of Shabbos starts with picking up the wallet)!
2. Rather, he stopped to rest (and the breaking of Shabbos starts when he resumed walking).

3. Question: But if he stopped to readjust the load, he would be exempt?

i. If so, let the Mishnah distinguish between stopping to rest/readjust, rather than between carrying and dragging!

4. Answer: The Mishnah is as Ben Azai, who says that each step a person takes is considered to be resting (so the breaking of Shabbos only starts when he steps outside).
5. Question: This would not apply if he threw the wallet - would he then be exempt?

i. If so, let the Mishnah distinguish between carrying and throwing, rather than between carrying and dragging!

6. Answer: We need to teach the case of dragging, so one will not think that this is not the normal way to carry a wallet, and he would not be liable for breaking Shabbos.

i. Suggestion: #1: If the wallet is small - dragging is not normal!
ii. Suggestion: #2: If it is big - dragging is obviously normal!
iii. Rather, it is a medium size wallet.

7. Question: To where did he take it?

i. Suggestion: #1: If to a public domain - he is liable for breaking Shabbos, but he is not yet considered a thief!
ii. Suggestion: #2: If to his own domain - he is considered a thief, but is not liable for breaking Shabbos!
iii. Rather, he brought it to the shoulder of a public domain.

8. Question: How does the Tana hold regarding the side of a public domain?

i. Suggestion: #1: If as R. Eliezer, who says it is as a public domain - he is liable for breaking Shabbos, but he is not yet considered a thief!
ii. Suggestion: #2: If as Chachamim, who says it is not as a public domain - he is considered a thief, but is not liable for breaking Shabbos!

9. Answer: He holds as R. Eliezer; R. Eliezer only considers it as a public domain regarding Shabbos, because the road is often congested, and people get pushed to the shoulder.

i. Regarding acquisition, it is not as a public domain, since people are not there so often.

(f) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): He put his hand within 3 Tefachim of the ground and received the wallet.

1. This is as Rava's law: A man's hand is considered as a place 4 Tefachim by 4 Tefachim (and therefore he is liable for breaking Shabbos/he acquires the stolen object).

(g) This is how Rav Acha learned.
(h) Answer #4 (Ravina): Really, he took the wallet to a public domain; a theft is acquired even in a public domain.

(a) Rav Acha and Ravina argue on what we infer from the following Mishnah.
(b) (Mishnah): A man was dragging an ox to steal it. If it died before he left the owner's premises, he is exempt; if he lifted it or left the premises before it died, he must pay.

1. Ravina learned from the first part of the Mishnah - he is exempt because he did not yet leave the premises - had he left them, even to a public domain, he would have to pay.
2. Rav Acha learned from the 2nd part. If he lifted it or took it out - taking it out is like lifting it.

i. Just as lifting it, it comes to his domain - so taking it, it must come to his domain.

(c) Question: The 1st part contradicts Rav Acha; the 2nd part contradicts Ravina!
(d) Answer #1: Rav Acha explains that until the thief reaches his domain, the Mishnah considers him to be in the owner's premises.
(e) Answer #2: Ravina does not learn that the case of taking it out must resemble lifting it.

(a) (Mishnah): One who has relations with his sister ... .
(b) (Gemara - Contradiction - Mishnah): These are lashed: one who has relations with his sister, his father's sister, his mother's sister, his wife's sister, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father's brother, or a Nidah.