Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 106

1) MELACHOS DONE FOR A DESTRUCTIVE PURPOSE

QUESTION: The Mishnah (105b) states that all acts of Melachah done for a destructive purpose ("Mekalkel") are Patur. Rebbi Avahu quotes a Tana who states that the Melachos of Chovel (wounding) and Mav'ir (kindling) are exceptions, for which one is Chayav even when done for destructive purposes. Rebbi Yochanan argues and maintains that one is Chayav for Chovel and Mav'ir only when there is a constructive element in the perpetrator's purpose, such that only when one does Chovel in order to get blood for feeding to one's dog, or one does Mav'ir because he needs the ashes.

The Gemara questions Rebbi Avahu's opinion from our Mishnah, which says that *all* Melachos done for a destructive purpose are Patur. The Gemara answers that our Mishnah is going according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, while Rebbi Avahu is going according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. (From Rashi it seems that Rebbi Yochanan, who argued on Rebbi Avahu, was following the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, like our Mishnah.)

Rashi explains that according to Rebbi Shimon it is not possible to ever do an act of Mav'ir or Chovel she'Tzerichah l'Gufa for a constructive purpose. If so, we may ask the following question: Even though Mekalkel is Chayav according to Rebbi Shimon, in order to be Chayav on Shabbos for doing a Melachah another condition must be met. The Melachah must be a Melachah *she'Tzerichah l'Gufah* (-- even by Chaburah and Hav'arah, Sanhedrin 85a). How can there ever be a case of "Mekalkel," doing a Melachah not for a non-constructive purpose, which is "Tzerichah l'Gufah?" Since it is a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah one should be Patur according to Rebbi Shimon even for Mekalkel b'Chaburah! (TOSFOS Sanhedrin 84b DH Man Shemat)

ANSWERS:

(a) According to Rashi, Rebbi Shimon must be Mechayev only in a situation where a person is interested in *doing damage* (such as burning or hurting his friend, see Rashi DH Chutz and DH u'Mav'ir). Even though it is in his interest to do damage, the damage is still objectively called "Mekalkel," and therefore Rebbi Yehudah would be Poter for such an act while Rebbi Shimon is Mechayev. (See Maharsha for another explanation; however it does not seem from Rashi DH u'Beraisa that he would consider the Maharsha's case "Mekalkel.")

(b) TOSFOS (DH Chutz) disagrees with Rashi's analysis of Rebbi Shimon' opinion. According to Tosfos, the category of Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufa is much broader, and cooking on a wood fire is indeed considered to be a Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufa even according to Rebbi Shimon. (That is, Tzerichah l'Gufa includes not only when the destruction of the wood is the objective, but even when the cooking of the food is the objective.) If so, according to Rebbi Avahu a situation of Mekalkel that is Tzerichah l'Gufa can be construed, such as a who person lights a fire to cook food (= Tzerichah l'Gufa) with wood that is -- unbeknownst to him -- Asur b'Hana'ah, and therefore *cannot* be used to cook in truth (= Mekalkel).

Tosfos adds that Rebbi Yochanan, who says Chovel must be for a constructive purpose such as feeding a dog, also is describing the opinion of *Rebbi Shimon*, and not Rebbi Yehudah. According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Shimon only is Mechayev one who is Mekalkel b'Chaburah or b'Hav'arah if there is *some* degree of constructive outcome from the action, even though the action is *not normally* done for such a purpose (= bruising in order to feed blood to dogs), or even though the constructive goal is attained only *after* the bruising has been done (= the blood is fed to dogs only *after* it is bruised; Rabbeinu Tam). Tosfos maintains that such an act is also considered to be Tzerichah l'Gufa, since the blood (= Neshemah that was removed) itself is used to feed the dogs. Rebbi Yehudah, who argues with Rebbi Shimon, requires a *fully* constructive intent and will not be Mechayev in the above two cases.

(According to Tosfos, Rebbi Shimon's only source for saying that Mekalkel b'Chaburah and b'Hav'arah is Chayav is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, i.e. it is learned from Milah on Shabbos etc., as the Gemara here concludes).

106b

RASHI (DH b'Tzipor Dror) explains that the reason that the bird is not considered captured while it is in the house is because it flies from one corner of the house to the other and one cannot catch it.

In the Mishnah, though, Rashi (DH ha'Tzad Tzipor) explains that the bird is not considered captured because it escapes through the windows. Why does Rashi change his explanation? (Rashi in Beitzah (24a) also changes his explanation from the Hava Amina, in which he explains that the bird escapes through the windows, to the conclusion, in which he explains that the bird escapes by fleeing from one corner of the house to another.)

ANSWER: The Gemara initially suggested that the difference between being considered captured and not considered captured is based on the type of enclosure the bird is in; if it is roofed, the bird is considered captured, if it is not roofed, it is not considered captured. If the Gemara at that stage meant that the bird could dodge from one corner to the other, then it would not matter whether the enclosure is roofed or not; the bird could always escape. It must be that the Gemara at that stage was referring to a regular bird that can only escape through open parts of the house (and not by fleeing from corner to corner).

The Gemara concludes that a bird is not considered captured even in a roofed area when that bird is a Tzipor Dror. If so, it must be that the bird escapes by going from corner to corner, and not by flying away through the windows. That is why a Tzipor Dror is the only bird that is not considered captured in such a situation.