Previous daf

1)

(a) The reason that, by Shigegas Shabbos, one is only Chayav one Chatas for each Shabbos (irrespective of how many Melachos he has performed) is because he has only transgressed *one* Shogeg, whereas by Shigegas Melachos, he has transgressed as many Shegagos as the Melachos he performed.

(b) If he withdraws at the mention of Shabbos, that is only because of the Melachos - which are forbidden on Shabbos, and if he withdraws at the mention of the Melachos, that is only because of Shabbos, which is the source of the forbidden Melachos.

(a) We know that the penalty for Shabbos is Misah, from "Kol ha'Oseh Bo Melachah, Yumas". If so, the Pasuk "Mechaleleha Mos Yumas" must be speaking about Shogeg, and it comes to teach us that a person can be Chayav many Misos for one desecration (Chiluk Melachos).

(b) "Mos Yumas" refers, not to physical death, but to money (since, if one considers money as part of oneself, having to give away money is like killing a little bit of oneself). And here, the transgressor is obligated to buy a number of Chata'os.

(a) "Eileh" has the numerical value of thirty-six; plus Devarim, which means 'two', and one more that one adds because of the 'Hey' in "ha'Devarim".

(b) Since lighting a fire, which was performed in the Mishkan, is one of the thirty-nine Melachos, why did the Torah need to write "Lo Seva'aru Esh" etc.? It must be, concludes Rebbi Nasan, to teach us that one is Chayav a Chatas for lighting a fire, and, since lighting a fire was included in the principle Pasuk of "Lo Sa'asu Kol Melachah", now that lighting a fire has been singled out for the Din of Chatas, it comes to indicate that the same will apply to all of the other Melachos included in the principle Pasuk.

(c) Rebbi Nasan rejected "be'Charish u'va'Katzir Tishbos" as a source for the this Din, because Charish and Katzir are two sources, and we have a principle that, whenever we have two sources, they become exceptions, and we learn the exact opposite from them. (In any event, they are not good sources for our Din, since they constitute a Mitzvas Asei; so it is just as well that we learn something completely different from there - see Rashi, DH 'Talmud Lomar').

(d) Shmuel declines to learn Chiluk Melachos from "Lo Seva'aru Esh", because he holds like Rebbi Yossi, who interprets the Pasuk quite differently: according to him, the Pasuk mentions 'Hav'arah' independently, to teach us that lighting a fire on Shabbos is only a La'av, and not a Chiyuv Kares.

(a) Rebbi Yossi learns...

1. ... from *"me*'Achas" that one will be Chayav on Shabbos, even if one did not complete the Melachah that one set out to do: e.g. if someone set out to write Shimon, but only wrote the 'Shin' and the 'Mem', he is Chayav a Chatas - since he has written the word 'Shem'.
2. ... and from "me'Henah" he learns that one is also Chayav for contravening the Toldos, as well as the Avos Melachos.

(b) Rebbi Yossi means by ...

1. ... 'Achas she'Hi Henah' (meaning although he only transgressed one, he is Chayav for many) -be' Zadon Shabbos ve'Shigegas Melachos';
2. ... 'Henah she'Hi Achas' (meaning that he is Chayav only one Chatas, although he transgressed many) - be'Shigegas Shabbos, ve'Zadon Melachos.

(c) Shmuel declines to learn Chiluk Melachos from the same source as Rebbi Yossi, because he does not agree with the Derashah of 'Achas she'Hi Henah' and 'Henah she'Hi Achas' (although it is not at first clear how Shmuel, an Amora, can argue with Tana'im - See Tosfos DH 'Lo').

5)

(a) 'He'elam Zeh ve'Zeh' etc., (which includes both Shigegas Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos) is a question of whether we go after the Shigegas Shabbos, and he is only Chayav *one* Chatas, or after the Shigegas Melachos, and he will be Chayav for *each Melachah* that he transgressed that Shabbos.

(b) The Sha'aleh cannot be resolved by the first case on our Mishnah; namely, that of ha'Shochei'ach Ikar Shabbos, which incorporates both Shigegas Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, and he is only Chayav *one* Chatas. Why not?
Because there, where he forgot the Ikar Shabbos, it is really only *one* Shegagah, whereas in our case, there are *two* types of Shegagah, one of them Shigegas Melachos , the other Shigegas Shabboos - since he is aware of Shabbos exists.

(c) As we already explained earlier, if he retracts at the mention of Shabbos, it is only because of the Melachos, and if he retracts at the mention of the Melachos, it is only because of the Isur Shabbos.

(d) Rashi explains that 'Ela Lo Shena' implies that he is only Chayav *one* Chatas.

(a) If the Chidush of the Mishnah of thirty-nine Melachos is that one is Chayav thirty-nine Chata'os for Shigegas Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, then how can the Gemara conclude that Shigegas Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos is Chayav only one Chatas?

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan this is no problem, because we can explain the Mishnah by Shagag be'Kares, ve'Heizid be'La'av, which, according to Rebbi Yochanan, is Chayav thirty-nine Chata'os, because it is called Zadon Shabbos. But according to Resh Lakish, who holds that Shagag be La'av is required as well as Shagag be'Kares, our Mishnah seems to be a classical case of Shigegas Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, and yet he is Chayav thirty-nine Melachos?

(c) The Gemara concludes that a genuine case of Shigegas Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos is only Chayav one; however our Mishnah is not a genuine case of Shigegas Shabbos - even according to Rava, because it speaks when he knew that it was Shabbos regarding the Isur of Techumin, which, according to Rebbi Akiva, is d'Oraysa.

(a) If someone reaped and ground twice, first be'Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos, and then vice-versa, and he became aware of the first set of Melachos and then of the second, he is obligated to bring only one Chatas for the first set of Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos. Because the first Ketzirah is Gorer the second Ketzirah, and the first Techinah, the second Techinah (despite the fact that the second set is slightly different than the first).

(b) Whatever is done in the same Ha'alamah as the first Melachah, but has a different name (e.g. Ketzirah and Techinah) is called Gereirah - provided they were performed within the same Ha'alamah.
Whereas whatever has the same name as the first one, and is performed within the same Ha'alamah (e.g. Katzar ve'Chazar ve'Katzar), does not even require Gereirah to include it in the Korban of the first one.
Consequently, the second Ketzirah, which he performed be'Shigegas Shabbos, is Gorer the Techinah which he performed in the same Ha'alamah. The second Ketzirah itself, does not even require Gereirah, since it is automatically covered by the Chatas that he brings for the first Ketzirah (since it has the same name as the first Ketzirah.
The first Techinah, which will only be covered by the Korban of the second Techinah, which, in turn is only covered because of Gereirah (as we just explained), is called Gereirah li'Gereirah.