Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 105

1) ONE LETTER IN THE MORNING, ONE IN THE EVENING

OPINIONS: The Mishnah at the end of the Perek cites an argument between Raban Gamliel and the Chachamim concerning one who writes "two letters in two lapses of awareness, one letter in the morning and one letter in the evening." What exactly is the case of writing one letter in the morning and one in the evening?

(a) RASHI says that the Mishnah is listing two different cases here. The first case is when one writes two letters in two lapses of awareness. The second case is when one writes one letter in the morning and one in the evening. Since he had so much time in between the two letters to find out that it was Shabbos (or to find out that writing on Shabbos is forbidden), it is considered as though he wrote the two letters in two separate lapses of awareness.

(b) TOSFOS disagrees. Nowhere do we find that an extended period between two forbidden acts done unknowingly at two different times in the day is considered to be like two lapses of awareness. Rather, Tosfos explains that the case is referring to when the person indeed remembered that it was Shabbos between the writing of the two letters, and thus he had two lapses of awareness. The reason why the Mishnah mentions that there was such a long period of time between the writing of the two letters is to teach that even in such a case Raban Gamliel argues with the Chachamim and says that the person is Chayav to bring a Korban for writing two letters on Shabbos.

OPINIONS: The Mishnah says that one who sets up two Batei Nirin is Chayav, whether in "Nirin" or in "Kirus." (See our photo of a loom, at our website or upon request.) Abaye explains that this means "two in the Batei Nira and one in the Nira." Rashi's explanations here are unclear. To what do these parts of the loom refer?

By way of introduction, the general function behind te loom's operation is to raise one row of warp threads (Shesi) while lowering the other so that one may pass the woof thread (Erev, which is wound in the Buchiyar, or shuttle) between them, and then to reverse the action and raise the row that was lowered and lower the row that was raised so that one may again pass the woof thread between them, thus making a weave. The "heddles" are the parts of the loom which lift and lower the rows of warp threads. The heddle is a frame which contains rings through which the warp threads are threaded. When one heddle is lifted, all of the warp threads passing through its rings are also lifted so that one may then pass the shuttle (containing the woof thread) between the two rows of warp threads. Each ring in the heddle is held in place by a taut string that is attached to the top of the frame of the heddle and by a taut string that is attached to the bottom of the frame of the heddle.

(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV explains that "two in the Batei Nira and one in the Nira" means passing one warp thread through one hole in the first heddle (so that the thread is lifted when the first heddle is raised) and then passing that thread *between* the rings in the second heddle (so that the thread is *not* lifted when the second heddle is raised), and then passing the thread through the comb which is held at the end of the warp threads right before they are woven, which is used to press each woof thread against the previous one after it is woven. Even though this comb is called the "Nira" here, it is normally called the "Kirus."

(b) The TIFERES YISRAEL (in Kalkeles ha'Shabbos) says that it means that two strings are passed through one ring of one heddle and one other string is passed through one ring of the other heddle.

(c) RASHI may mean that "two in the Batei Nira and one in the Nira" refers to passing two threads through two adjacent rings, and one string in the open space *between* the two rings. "Batei Nira" refers to the rings, and "Nira" refers to anywhere within the heddle frame, but not in the rings. (M. Kornfeld)

(d) The TOSFOS RID in the seventh chapter (73a) writes that "making two Batei Nirin" does not mean passing threads through the rings in the heddle. Rather, it refers to actually making the rings themselves. If so, the Gemara may mean as follows. Each ring has two strings tied to it holding it in place ("two in the Batei Nirin"), and the other ends of the strings are each attached, respectively, to the top and bottom of the heddle ("and one in the Nira" -- since only one string is attached to each side of the heddle's frame).

105b

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that one who rips his clothing on Shabbos out of anger or in mourning over the death of a relative is Patur, because his act was not a constructive one but a destructive one. The Gemara points out a contradiction between the Mishnah and a Beraisa that states that one who tears his clothing for the death of a relative is Chayav, since he accomplished something positive -- he fulfilled the Mitzvah of tearing Keri'ah. The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah is referring to the death of a distant relative for whom one is not Chayav to tear Keri'ah, while the Beraisa is referring to the death of a close relative for whom was is Chayav to tear Ker'iah.

Why does one fulfill the Mitzvah of Ker'iah on Shabbos? There should be a problem of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah," a Mitzvah that was done through a transgression!

ANSWER: This question is asked in the Yerushalmi (quoted by the RITVA), which asks what is the difference between tearing Ker'iah on Shabbos and eating stolen Matzah on Pesach (in which case one does not fulfill his obligation because it is a "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah"). The Yerushalmi answers that in the case of Matzah, "the eating is an Aveirah," but here, "he himself transgressed the Aveirah." It is no different eating Matzah which had been carryied from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, in which case one would fulfill his obligation. What does the Yerushalmi mean?

(a) Some Rishonim explain that when one steals Matzah to eat on Pesach, the transgression has an effect on the object (the Matzah) which remains up until the moment that he eats it. There is an obligation to return the stolen object to its rightful owner, and therefore the object itself as an "object of Aveirah." On the other hand, if a person tears his clothing for the death of a relative on Shabbos, there transgression had no effect on the object, and thus one fulfills his obligation. The concept of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" applies only when the object is affected by the transgression and contains an intrinsic element of transgression. (RITVA, Sukah 30a)

(b) Other Rishonim explain that "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" applies only when the Aveirah itself is the *cause* for the fulfillment of the Mitzvah; that is, without the Aveirah, the Mitzvah would not be done (see TOSFOS, Sukah 30a). A person must own the Matzah he eats in order to fulfill the obligation of eating Matzah on Pesach night. When a person steals Matzah, he acquires it when the owner gives up hope of ever getting it back (Yi'ush). Thus, the Aveirah causes the Matzah to become his, enabling him to fulfill the Mitzvah. This is not so in the case of tearing one's clothing on Shabbos in mourning, since the person could fulfill his obligation with this garment without transgressing Shabbos (such as by tearing on Sunday), the transgression is not what enables him to fulfill the Mitzvah and therefore there is no problem of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah."