Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 93

1) "YACHOL/EINO YACHOL"

QUESTION: The Gemara inquires, who is Chayav in a case of "Yachol/Eino Yachol" (where one person is able to do the Melachah by himself and the other person is unable to do it by himself)? The Gemara suggests that perhaps the "Yachol" is Chayav.

RASHI (DH Ein Bo) implies that one possibility is that the "Yachol" is Patur and the "Eino Yachol" is Chayav. How can that be? Since the Melachah is being done primarily by the "Yachol," why should he not be Chayav?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS therefore learns differently. The Gemara is asking whether the "Yachol" *alone* is Chayav, or whether *both* of them are Chayav.

(b) RASHI, however, is consistent with his reasoning earlier (92b). Rashi explained that when the Melachah is performed by two people who are able to do the Melachah alone, they are Patur, because it is not the normal manner to do a Melachah with someone else. Here, too, it stands to reason that the Yachol is Patur because he is doing the Melachah in an abnormal manner (that is, with someone else).

Alternatively, the Ritva understands the reasoning of Rashi based on what he quoted earlier from Rav Moshe ben Rav Yitzchak (see Insights to 92:2:c); the "Yachol" is Patur because he could have done it with all of his strength had he done the Melachah alone, and now he did it with only part of his strength. Since he did not use all of the strength that he could have, he is Patur.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that when the horse stands upon four garments with one garment under each leg, each garment is Tahor because the horse could stand on three legs and the fourth leg is only Mesayei'a. RASHI (DH Mip'nei sh'Yecholah) says that this is in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yehudah who says that in a case of "Yachol/Yachol," where both individuals are able to do the Melachah alone, they are Patur because of Mesayei'a.

Why does Rashi say that this is like Rebbi Yehudah, and equate "Yachol/Eino Yachol" to "Yachol/Yachol?" After all, even Rebbi Meir agrees that in the case of "Yachol/Eino Yachol," the "Eino Yachol" is Patur, and thus we see that Rebbi Meir also agrees that Mesayei'a is Patur!

Second, why does Rashi say that according to Rebbi Yehudah, "Yachol/Yachol" are Patur because they are both *Mesayei'a*? Earlier (92b), Rashi explained that the reason why "Yachol/Yachol" are Patur is because when two capable people perform one Melachah together, it is not the *normal manner* of doing the Melachah!

Third, if Rebbi Yehudah holds that they are Patur because "Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash" (one who is unable to do the Melachah by himself and merely assists someone else who is able to do it by himself is not considered as doing any Melachah), then why does the Gemara have to search for proofs from cases of Zavim to show that "Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash?" The Gemara should simply prove it from Rebbi Yehudah's opinion!

ANSWER: The CHASAM SOFER explains that the Gemara was in doubt whether Mesayei'a is considered to be performing the Melachah or not. The Gemara initially questioned which participant in the Melachah, in a case of "Yachol/Eino Yachol," is Patur. One option, according to Rashi, was to say that the "Yachol" is Patur, and the "Eino Yachol" is Chayav. But what is the logic to say such a thing? The logic is that since a "Yachol" who does a Melachah with someone else is not the normal way for him to perform the Melachah, he is Patur, while the "Eino Yachol" who performs the Melachah with someone else *is* doing the Melachah in the normal fashion (see previous Insight). If that is true, then what is the logic to say the other possibility -- that the "Eino Yachol" is Patur and the "Yachol" is Chayav? The logic is that "Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash," and thus the "Eino Yachol" is Patur.

It follows that the question of whether Mesayei'a is considered to be doing a significant act or not depends on Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning for exempting the two parties in the case of "Yachol/Yachol." That is, if his reasoning is because, as Rashi initially explained, they are doing a Melachah in an abnormal fashion, then in the case of "Yachol/Eino Yachol" the "Eino Yachol" will be Chayav, because he is doing the Melachah in his normal fashion (i.e. with someone else). But if Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning to exempt "Yachol/Yachol" is because they are both considered Mesayei'a, then the "Eino Yachol" will be Patur because of Mesayei'a.

Rashi earlier explained the first way (that the Petur is based on the fact that the two are doing the Melachah in an abnormal fashion), because he was explaining according to the initial assumption of the Gemara, before it was ever proposed that Mesayei'a is not significant. In the conclusion, when the Gemara teaches that Mesayei'a is not significant, Rashi points out that that indeed is also the reasoning of Rebbi Yehudah. (See also MAHARSHA)

93b

OPINIONS: A fundamental argument concerning the liability for performing Melachah on Shabbos concerns a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, a Melachah "that is not needed for itself." Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue whether one is Chayav for performing such a Melachah that is "not needed for itself." Rebbi Yehudah says that one is Chayav, and Rebbi Shimon says that one is Patur. What exactly defines a Melachah "that is not needed for itself?"

(a) TOSFOS (94a, DH Rebbi Shimon Poter) understood Rashi to be saying that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is any Melachah that one did in order to *prevent* something else from happening, or in order to *rectify* something that was already done wrong. For example, a person who carries a dead body out of a house is interested in correcting an uncomfortable situation (the dead body being in his house), and would have preferred that the dead body were never brought *into* the house in the first place. However, Tosfos refutes this explanation. When a curtain has a wormhole and one tears some more above and below the hole in order to later mend it neatly, he is Chayav (this is Meleches Kore'a, Shabbos 75a). Rashi, asks Tosfos, should maintain that one is Patur. The person tore the curtain only in order to prevent further damage, and would have preferred that the wormhole not be there in the first place!

(b) TOSFOS himself (94a, DH Rebbi Shimon) defines a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah as any Melachah not performed for the same reason that that Melachah was performed *in the Mishkan*.

(c) The RAMBAN (94b) and BA'AL HA'ME'OR (106a) write that a Melachah must be performed with the objective for which that activity is *normally performed*. If one is doing the Melachah for a purpose other than its normal objective, it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. For example, digging a pit in order to use the dirt is a Melachah that is not needed for itself, because, normally, the objective of digging is in order to have a pit, and not to use the dirt, which is a secondary outcome of the digging. Also, a Melachah performed in order to prevent damage from happening, such as capturing a snake, is considered a Melachah that is not needed for itself because the normal objective of capturing is to use the animal. The same is true of carrying an object to Reshus ha'Rabim in order to keep oneself from becoming soiled.

This may be RASHI's opinion as well, unlike TOSFOS' understanding of Rashi (see (b)). This is why ripping the garment to repair a wormhole is considered a true Melachah, for the person ripping the garment is presently interested in having the garment ripped apart (the primary effect of the Melachah) and not in a secondary outcome of the ripping.