Shabbas 10a - Tefilla and Torah

The Ben Yehoyada gives a different interpretation from what we explained in shiur to explain the sugya about Tefilla and Torah

First of all, the Ben Yehoyada is medayeik from the language of the gemara “דקא מאריך בצלותיה”  that is his tefilla that he was maarich in, as Rashi says “לרפואה לשלום ולמזונות” but not generic tefilla. Most of tefilla is חיי עולם.

The Ben Yehoyada asks – even if what ר’ ירמיה did by rushing shiur was not great, isn’t a bit overboard to call it תועבה, a word used for עבודה זרה and משכב זכר. Therefore he says that (based on a statement by בר קפרא elsewhere) that תועבה is נוטריקון for תועה אתה ב. The explanation is that this tefilla that he would daven now, when he stopped in the middle of learning, would lead his thought to לתעות, wander, and he will not be able to have any kavana in his tefilla since he would still be in that sugya. Ben Yehoyada says that this is the reason the חסידים הראשונים would prepare for an hour. Since they were learning at night, they needed to have a break to remove the torah thoughts from themselves before they daven.This also is a different explanation for why the people whose תורתם אומנותם do not have to daven: it is because they cannot have kavana!

8a – does a reshus hayachid require hanacha in area of 4x4

As we learned in shiur, there is a machlokes if a reshus hayachid requires הנחה ע”ג מקום ד על ד or not. We learned the simple peshat of 8a that both Rebbi and Chachamim agree with Rav Chisda that indeed a reshus hayachid does not require it. This is the way the Rashba understands as well, though in doing so he takes us through all the sugyos from 4b until 5b showing that we need to check each one as many of them are not easy to understand in this light. This provides with a closer analysis of the cases and how to understand them and a chazara over those cases.

As we remember on 4a, the gemara asks – don’t we require both עקירה and הנחה from a makom 4x4? The first proof, that it is shitas Rabbi Akiva does not pose a problem since his example involves a hanacha in reshus harabim and thus we can say that this is not an issue within reshus hayachid. However, in the first suggestion of shitas Rebbi, the issue of the זיז would depend on how we understand the case of שדי נופו בתר עיקרו. According to Rashi, the tree is considered to be in reshus harabim, so again the hanacha comparison to our mishna is fine and does not require 4x4 in reshus hayachid. (See tosfos for alternative peshat)

However, as we continue, the Rashba says it would seem that the sugya on dapim 4-5 really does not agree with Rav Chisda, as we see from the טרסקל case. The gemara there explicitly says “התינח טרסקל ברשות היחיד” which clearly shows a need for a טרסקל even in reshus hayachid for an area of 4x4. Similarly, in the previous gemara, the second shitas Rebbis is one where the hanacha took place in a reshus hayachid, meaning that Rebbi is the one who holds you dont need 4x4 in a reshus hayachid but others disagree, meaning he is the one shita that holds this way. Also, the case of הכניס ידו לתוך חצר חבירו וקיבל מי גשמים, here too we have a case in reshus hayachid and the gemara asks where is the 4x4?

However, the Rashba deflects all these and explains that the entire sugya is really only asking in one directions – about the case of placing in the hand of the עני and not the other way around. And the focus of the sugya is never on reshus hayachid.

A few other interesting opinions about reshus hayachid are: the shita of the Rach (quoted in Ramban) that only above 10 does not require 4x4, so therefore Rav Chisda is not taking on the sugya on 4b-5a. Also, a difference is noted between a person – who is not the reshus itself and thus would require 4x4 (just that in the maskana the hand is good enough) as opposed to the reshus itself or objects in it like the amud.

Shabbas 7a - Karpaf

Rav Ashi explains that a karpaf is not a karmelis. If so, what is it? It is a reshus hayachid מדאורייתא with an issur of טלטול ד’ אמות. This begs the obvious question – doesn’t this mean that karpaf is not one of the 4 רשויות and it would be more correct to list 5 reshuyos in the beraysa on 6a, since its dinim are different than a karmelis (you are chayav mideoraisa if you transfer from רשות הרבים to it unlike the karmelis). The Rishonim address this question on 6a. Ramban answers that the beraysa is listing four different types of areas, not halachically, just physically. Their halachos are מדאורייתא only 3 but מדרבנן four. Therefore, the karpaf is not separate since physically it is a reshus hayachid. Tosfos’s (and others) answer is that the karpaf is a reshus hayachid gamur and only has the din of karmelis for carrying 4 amos within, so it is not new – it is like two reshuyos already counted, in some aspects like reshus hayachid and some like karmelis. The footnotes in the Ran explains this difficult answer that the gezeira of carrying in a karpaf does not define the area differently (as chazal did by karmelis), it just creates an איסור גברא, therefore it is not counted.

(Interestingly, see yerushalmi that says:ארבע רשויות לשבת: רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, וכרמלית, ומבואות שאינם מפולשין )

shabbas 4a -- sinning to prevent a greater sin

The gemara rejects the possiblity that one would perform an aveira in order to prevent another person from doing a greater aveira. Tosfos points out that this rule is in effect in some places in shas. i.e that we do perform an עבירה קלה on someone else's behalf in order to prevent a greater aveira. Tosfos provides 3 explanations for when this would apply:

1. When it is your fault. This is the case where you were not מפריש and you will cause others to eat tevel so we allow you to violate an issur derabanan to be מפריש שלא מן המוקף. This can be explained as a problem of you doing an aveira of לפני עוור and thus not done for your friend but for yourself.

2. If it is a מצוה רבה. The classic example is freeing a half slave (an איסור עשה) to allow him to be fulfill פריה ורביה.

3. If the person did the aveira המזיד then we do not sin for him but בשוגג we would.

Based on 2 (and 3 above), the Shulchan Aruch סימן שו סעיף יד paskens that we DO violate an issur derabanan (and perhaps even safeik deoraisa -- see Mishna Berura about שלש פרסאות) for a grave aveira, i.e to save from shemad. The case he discusses is to violate techum shabbas to save your daughter (MB says not necessarily your own daughter) if she was kidnapped to convert her. Mishna Berura says that if she left במזיד to convert, then you still may be allowed to violate a pure איסור דרבנן. This is davka because it is not a one time aveira but will be a permanent situation (see taz).

shabbas 3b -- extending your hand above 10 tefachim

The first אוקימתא of the gemara explains that above 10 we would be allowed to extend a hand to reshus harabim. Rav Meir explained that this is because above 10 tefachim the hand is a makom petur and not a karmelis. This assumption is not rejected as the gemara continues in subsequent אוקימתות. Thus Tosfos indeed says that above 10 is מותר לכתחילה and thus if we have a problem where we actually stuck our hand out to רשות הרבים, we can pull it back in by doing it above 10 tefachim. The Rashba does not accept this since as the gemara progresses we move to a simple קנס not based on the hand being a כרמלית. Therefore, it would be assur to extend our hand above 10 tefachim to prevent us from possibly doing it below 10 or because we may drop the object. (Rashba there addresses why it is not gezeira legezeira).

The Rambam does not mention the difference between above and below 10 tefachim explicity so we would think that he agrees with the Rashba. However, the מגיד משנה points out that the Rambam uses the language אויר רשות הרבים which by definition is less than 10 tefachim, and then he would agree with Tosfos.

The Mishna Berura also says like Tosfos and allows you lechatchila to return your hand above 10

The תיובתא on ר' יונתן (Horayos 3b)

The gemara brings a תיובתא on ר' יונתן from the din of רובו ככולו by a גזירה שאין רוב הציבור יכולים לעמוד. The Keren Ora asks why is this a תיובתא on ר' יונתן? After all the only machlokes is if they are silent, everyone agrees that if 1 of the Beis Din disagree with the psak that there is no פר העלם דבר. Therefore, according to everyone you don't go בתר רוב here. The machlokes ר' יונתן and everyone else is on a detail, does everyone have to agree (ר' יונתן) or is שתיקה enough. But everyone agrees that if even one member disagrees you don't go בתר רוב. If so, why is this a תיובתא on ר' יונתן?

The Keren Ora does not have a good answer for the question.

אמר ר' יונתן אפילו מאה - הוריות ג ע"ב

The Acharonim are bothered by 2 questions:
1. The Rambam (שופטים ט:ג) paskens that by the ב"ד הגדול we do not add dayanim, if so how can ר' נתן say 100 dayanim? How did they add 29 dayanim?
2. There is a din of אין ב"ד שקול so how can you have 100 dayanim?

The simple answer to the second question is that 100 is לאו דוקא, it is just a round number but it really was 99 or 101.

The מל"מ says maybe ר' נתן is talking about where they added שלא כדין however, he asks that ר' נתן learns his din out from a pasuk and it is very diificult to say that the pasuk is talking about where the ב"ד acted שלא כדין and he leaves it וצ"ע.

The Aruch Hashulchan answers that maybe we can be מחלק between הוראה and דין. In a case of דיני נפשות you can't have more then 71 dayanim and you can't have an even number. But maybe on איסור והיתר you can have more then 71 and it can be even.

The מהריץ חיות points out that the אנשי כנסת הגדולה had 120 members and it would seem that they were acting as the ב"ד הגדול.