Ask A Question about the Daf

Introduction to Shabbos

Shabbos 2

1) THE NATURE OF THE MELACHAH OF HOTZA'AH

QUESTION: The Mishnah makes a point of enumerating four instances of transferring from one domain to another by a person standing outside (the "Ani") and the identical four actions performed by a person standing inside (the "Ba'al ha'Bayis"). The Mishnah counts as two the action of the Ani bringing an object into Reshus ha'Yachid and the action of the Ba'al ha'Bayis bringing an object out to Reshus ha'Rabim. Since these actions are essentially the same, why does the Mishnah count them as two?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Pashat) explains that the Melachah of Hotza'ah is not the same as other Melachos of Shabbos. It is a less-defined Melachah ("Melachah Geru'ah") because it is difficult to understand the rationale behind its definition; why is it permitted to carry from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid, while it is prohibited to carry from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid? Since the laws of Hotza'ah apparently depend on *fine differences* which are hard to grasp, we are not able to compare one type of Hotza'ah to another. Each has to be taught in the Mishnah separately.

Tosfos says that there are three applications of this postulate:

(a) The Gemara (96b) learns from the verse "Va'Yikalei ha'Am..." (Shemos 36:6) that one may not move objects from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim. In Eruvin (17b), however, the Gemara cites another verse, "Al Yetzei Ish Mim'komo..." (Shemos 16:29), as the source for the Melachah of Hotza'ah. Why are two verses necessary? Tosfos explains that the verses are needed for the *two types* of *Hotza'ah*. One verse is for the person standing in Reshus ha'Rabim who puts his empty hand into Reshus ha'Yachid and brings out an object that way, and the other verse is for the person who extends his full hand out into Reshus ha'Rabim from Reshus ha'Yachid and transfers it that way.

(b) Two sources are necessary to teach the two types of *Hachnasah* as well, that of the Ani and that of the Ba'al ha'Bayis.

(c) Generally, the source for a Toldah of a Melachah is logical. There is no need to cite a verse, or for the act to have occurred in the Mishkan. However, the Gemara (96b) finds it necessary to find a source that demonstrates that Hachnasah is a Toldah of Hotza'ah. Since Hotza'ah is a Melachah Geru'ah, we would not have allotted it Toldos at all without clear sources.

Elsewhere, Tosfos adds that the very idea that Hotza'ah is prohibited *at all* on Shabbos is novel. In the act of Hotza'ah, one does not effect any physical change at all on the object being moved, so it should not be considered a "creative act" and should not be prohibited on Shabbos (Or Zarua). This, too, makes it a Melachah Geru'ah. This has two implications:

(d) Normally, the fact that a Melachah was performed in the Mishkan is enough to make it an Av Melachah. Hotza'ah, however, requires a verse as well (TOSFOS, 96b, DH Hotza'ah).

(e) TOSFOS (Beitzah 12a, DH Dilma) explains that this is why Hotza'ah does not apply, according to some, on Yom Tov -- because it is a Melachah Geru'ah.

2b

QUESTION: The Gemara tells us that Hachnasah is also referred to as "Hotza'ah," and thus the Mishnah in Shavuos (and our Mishnah) which depicts four types of "Hotza'os" for which one is liable, is also referring to Hachnasah. The Gemara proves this from the Mishnah (73a) that states, "One who transfers from one Reshus to another is liable," and that includes Hachnasah.

How does the Gemara know that the Mishnah there is including Hachnasah? To the contrary, the Mishnah there is only listing the Avos Melachos, and Hachnasah is not an Av but a Toldah, as our Gemara just mentioned!

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that since we know that Hachnasah is prohibited, it is very likely that it is included in that Mishnah. What does Rashi mean? After all, even though it is prohibited, if it is a *Toldah* it need not be included in the list of the Mishnah. Why should we think that the Mishnah there is also referring to Hachnasah, when that Mishnah is discussing the *Av* Melachos (as Rashi himself says)?

Rashi is explaining according to his opinion elsewhere. Rashi understands that the term "Av Melachah" does not always refer to an Av as opposed to the Toldah, but rather it means "a category of Melachah which the Torah prohibits on Shabbos" whether Av or Toldah (Rashi, 68a, DH Av Melachah, see Rashi 18a DH she'Toanin). Since the *category* of "transferring from one Reshus to another" includes both the Av and the Toldah, it may be assumed that it includes Hachnasah as well.

(b) TOSFOS points out that the Gemara (Shavuos 5a) asks this question and answers that if the Mishnah was only referring to the Av of Hotza'ah, it should have said, "One who transfers from a *Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim* is liable." Since it only said, "... from *Reshus to Reshus*," it must have meant to include Hachnasah as well.

But still, why is it included in the Mishnah of Avos Melachos if it is a Toldah? The RASHBA (2b) explains that Rav Papa argues with the statement of the Gemara on the top of 2b (and with an opinion expressed in the Gemara on 96b), and maintains that Hachnasah is indeed an Av and not a Toldah.