Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 68

1) "KLAL GADOL"

QUESTIONS: The Gemara asks why the Mishnah at the beginning of this Perek, as well as the Mishnah in the seventh Perek of Shevi'is, introduce their teachings with the words "Klal Gadol?" The Gemara says that if it is because each of these Mishnayos precedes another Mishnah relating a less-detailed Klal than the first Mishnah, then the Mishnah in the first Perek of Ma'aseros should also say "Klal Gadol," because it, too, precedes a less-detailed Klal.

The Gemara then suggests that the Mishnayos in Shabbos and Shevi'is say "Klal Gadol" because these two categories of Halachah include the unique concept of Avos and Toldos. If so, asks the Gemara, then according to Bar Kapara, why does the Mishnah in his version of Ma'aseros say "Klal Gadol?"

The Gemara concludes that it says "Klal Gadol" whenever a certain category of Halachah is more inclusive than another category (Shabbos is more inclusive than Shevi'is, as the Gemara explains, and Shevi'is is more inclusive than Ma'aser, and Ma'aser is more inclusive than Pe'ah).

(a) What was the Gemara's initial question on Bar Kapara (why, according to him, does it say "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros)? The Gemara itself suggested that when a less-detailed Mishnah follows a more-detailed Mishnah, it says "Klal Gadol" in the more-detailed Mishnah (which is the case in Ma'aseros)! Although this is rejected because of the wording of a Mishnah in Ma'aseros, there is no need to reject it according to Bar Kapara's version of that Mishnah. Why, then, is the Gemara looking for another reason for why it says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara?

(b) The Gemara says that the Klal of Ma'aser is more inclusive than that of Pe'ah, and that is why it says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara. Why, then, does it not say "Klal Gadol" in our Mishnayos of Ma'aseros?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHBA and RAN answer that the Gemara certainly could have remained with its original answer, that the reason it says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara is because there is another, less-detailed Klal that follows. However, the Gemara preferred to give an explanation that fits both Bar Kapara and those who argue with him, who do not have the words "Klal Gadol" in the Mishnah in Ma'aseros.

(b) In the Gemara's conclusion, the reason it says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara is because Ma'aser is more inclusive than Pe'ah. Our Mishnah leaves out the word "Gadol" there because only in the d'Rabanan laws does Ma'aser include more than Pe'ah, but in the d'Oraisa laws, they are equal: both Ma'aser and Pe'ah include only Dagan, Tirosh, v'Yitzhar (wheat, grapes, and olives). According to the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM's text of the Gemara, the Gemara itself says this answer.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that "the punishment of Shabbos is greater than that of Shevi'is," because the laws of Shabbos apply even to objects which are detached from the ground, while Shevi'is applies only to things attached to the ground.

If the Gemara was looking for ways in which Shabbos is more severe than Shevi'is, it should have simply said that Shabbos is punishable with Sekilah (stoning) while Shevi'is is only a Lav (punishable with Malkus)!

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARAM answers that the Gemara also wanted to explain that Ma'aser is greater than Pe'ah, and in that case, the punishment of Ma'aser is *not* greater than the punishment of Pe'ah. Rather, the category of Ma'aser is broader and applies to more situations than Pe'ah. Therefore, the Gemara gave a similar answer to differentiate between Shabbos and Shevi'is.

(b) The Gemara wanted to find a reason why the *Klal* is Gadol -- why the rule itself is greater. The Gemara therefore explains how the rule of Shabbos is greater, i.e. more broad, than the rule of Shevi'is, and it does not explain how the punishment is greater. (M. Kornfeld)

(c) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) writes that it says "Klal Gadol" in the Mishnah in Shabbos because, indeed, Shabbos is punishable with Sekilah!

The MAHARSHA explains that the Rambam understood our Gemara to be making two different statements when it says, "Gadol Onsho Shel Shabbos Yoser m'Shel Shevi'is, d'Ilu Shabbos Isa Bein b'Talush Bein b'Mechubar..." ("The punishment of Shabbos is greater than that of Shevi'is, for Shabbos applies both to detached and to attached objects...."). That is, Shabbos is greater than Shevi'is because (a) it entails a greater punishment, Sekilah, and (b) it is more inclusive, for it applies to both detached and attached objects.

68b

QUESTION: Rav and Shmuel maintain that a Tinok sh'Nishbah is Chayav to bring only one Korban Chatas for all of the Shabbosim that he desecrated (case 1), and they interpret the first case in the Mishnah accordingly. As a result, they interpret the second case in the Mishnah as saying that one who knew about the concept of Shabbos but forgot it must bring a Chatas for every Shabbos that he desecrated (case 2).

The Gemara asks if so -- if the person in the second case in the Mishnah, which is referring to one who forgot the concept of Shabbos, is Chayav to bring a Chatas for each Shabbos that he desecrated, then it follows that a person who *knew* about the concept of Shabbos but forgot that *today* was Shabbos (case 3) must bring a Chatas for each and every Melachah that he performs on Shabbos.

How did the Gemara know that? RASHI (DH Chayav) explains that the Gemara knew it from an inference. If one who knows about Shabbos but forgets that today is Shabbos (case 3) would be Chayav to bring only one Chatas for every Shabbos that he desecrated, then that case should have been written in the Mishnah together with the case of one who forgot about the concept of Shabbos (case 2), who is also Chayav to bring one Chatas for every Shabbos that he desecrated. Since the Mishnah did *not* include case 3 with case 2, it must be that his Chiyuv is different and he is Chayav to bring a Chatas for every Melachah that he does.

How can the Gemara make such an inference? The Gemara just a few lines earlier said that if the Mishnah would have taught that case 2 (one forgot the concept of Shabbos) is Chayav to bring a Chatas for each Shabbos that he desecrated, then *certainly* ("Kol sh'Ken") we would know that case 3 (one who knew the concept of Shabbos but forgot that today was Shabbos) must bring a Chatas for each Shabbos that he desecrated! That is, the Gemara implies that case 3 is included in case 2 from a Kal v'Chomer. Why, then, does the Gemara now say that case 3 should have been listed explicitly?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Aval Lo) explains that the inference is not as Rashi explains it to be (that is, that the Mishnah should have mentioned case 3 together with case 2). Rather, the inference is that the Mishnah should have mentioned case 3 *separately*, and said *not* that he is Chayav one Chatas for every Shabbos (that is, in the positive sense), but rather said that he is "*not* Chayav *more* than one Korban per Shabbos. Since it did not say that, it implies that he *is* Chayav more than one Korban per Shabbos -- he is Chayav one Chatas for each and every Melachah that he did.

(b) RASHI, as mentioned, says that case 3 should have indeed been included together with case 2, therefore our question returns.

In defense of Rashi, we could say that the Gemara initially said that case 3 would have been learned from case 2 through a Kal v'Chomer, *had the Mishnah used the words* "Tinok sh'Nishbah" in the first case, and "one who forgot the concept of Shabbos" in the second case. But now that the Gemara says that the words "Shochei'ach Ikar Shabbos" in the Mishnah also refer to Tinok sh'Nishbah, the Gemara assumes that the Mishnah would *not* rely on a Kal v'Chomer to teach case 3, because it would have been easy to include that case in the category of someone who forgot the concept of Shabbos by merely adding one more word (without having to add a whole new case -- cf. Tosfos Beitzah 2b DH v'Niflog). Therefore, the Gemara is assuming now that if the Mishnah does not explicitly mention one who forgets that today is Shabbos (case 3), it must be because it has a different Halachah (and not because it is learned from a Kal v'Chomer). (M. Kornfeld)