Vol 31.16 - Yitro 3                       Spanish French Audio  Video
 

Page 106   Page107   Page108   Page109   Page110   Page111  
 

Translation:

(Note: This sicha disucusses the aspect of Shvus: "Shvus", “Shvus d’Rabbanan” (plural “Shvusim”) (to encourage "rest") are Rabbinic decrees, in order to preserve the sanctity of Shabbat. Some of these are prohibited because they resemble a forbidden type of labor, while other activities are prohibited out of the concern that they may lead a person to perform a forbidden labor.

Mishnah - If a (dead) Sheretz was found in the Mikdash on Shabbat, a Kohen takes it outside in his Avnet (belt), to avoid delaying the Tuma’ah in the Mikdash (even on Shabbat. For although a Sheretz is Muktzeh, the concern to get rid of the Tum'as Mes overrides Shvus).

R’ Yehuda says, he takes it out with wooden tongs, to avoid increasing the Tum'ah (to the garment. Wooden Kelim without a receptacle are not Mekabel Tum'ah.)

Question: From where must we remove it?

Answer #1 (R. Shimon ben Nanas): We must remove it from the Heichal, Ulam and between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach;

Answer #2 (R. Akiva): We remove it from any place, which a Tamei person, upon willful transgression incurs Karet (excommunication) (שחייבין על זדונו כרת), and upon inadvertent transgression a Sin-Offering (ועל שגגתו חטאת)” (if he tarries there). (Note: in other words, the entire Azarah).

R. Shimon says, Chachamim permitted to you (only) what (really) is permitted to you. They permitted to you only Shevus (an Isur md'Rabanan.)

1. It states in the Talmud Yerushalmi, and the conclusion of tractate Eruvin:

“He (R’ Yehoshua) used to say, ‘tongs are made only through (an existing) tong’.

(A tong is only made with another tong, Korban HaEidah)

“Who made the first tong?”

(Who made the first tong, Korban HaEidah)

“It was created”.

(It was created at the end of the Six Days of Creation. For it was one of the things that were created on Erev Shabbat at twilight).

“R’ Chanina, said in front of R’ Mana: What are you saying?”

(In other words, what relevance does this have to the laws in the Mishnah? Korban HaEidah)

(R’ Mana answered:) “From one tong they learned to make many tongs. Likewise, from one Shvus they learned many Shvusim”.

The Pnei Moshe explains the connection between this statement to here. For this is an answer (allusion) to the question in the Talmud there, prior to this, in connection to the words of the Mishnah regarding the law of removing a Sheretz (a crawling creature) that is found in the Mikdash.

“R’ Akiva said: We remove it from any place,

which a Tamei person, upon willful transgression incurs Karet (excommunication) (שחייבין על זדונו כרת), and upon inadvertent transgression a Sin-Offering (ועל שגגתו חטאת)” (if he tarries there). (Note: in other words, the entire Azarah).

The Talmud there states,

“If he took it out from a place where there is the punishment of Karet (for a Tamei who enters, i.e. the Azarah) and it fell to a place where one does not incur the punishment of Karet

(does he take it out also from there on Shabbat? And the Talmud answers:)

It was already proper to be taken out (of the entire Mikdash, so it is permitted).

(In other words, it was already proper to remove it, at the beginning, and it is simple that he can also take it out from there. However, the question is:)

“If one found another (Sheretz) next to it”

(in a place where it fell . . where one does not incur Karet),

“may he take both out (on Shabbat)?

(Do we say that, since that is permitted, then even this is permitted) or may he only remove the one that was proper to be taken out (in the beginning)?)

As an answer to this question R’ Mana answers,

“In a manner of allusion and analogy . . that just as from one tong they learned how to make many tongs, so too here – from one Shvus they learned many Shvusim. For since, one Shvus was permitted in the Mikdash – namely, to carry and take out the (first Sheretz) that should be taken out. So too, the second one, that fell in another place, may be taken out, with it. For what is the difference - since it (this Shvus) was permitted, many Shvusim are permitted (since it was at the same time).

However, this explanation requires great examination:

For this is a very remote allusion (רמז רחוק ביותר). For there is no connection between the reasoning (הסברא) to permit the second Shvus –

“Since it (one Shvus) was permitted, many Shvusim are permitted”, (For the foundation of the allowance here is, “since it was at the same time”) –

with the analogy “tongs were made with another tong” (that from one tong - many tongs were made).

Moreover, this explanation does not fit with the wording of the Yerushalmi: “from one Shvus they learned many Shvusim” – for this is not an aspect of derivation (לימוד) but rather just an inclusive allowance (היתר כולל)  – “since that is permitted, then even this is permitted”.

Moreover:

According to this explanation, what does the debate of how the first tong was created, matter?

For in order to explain that from one Shvus, we derive that many Shvusim – it is sufficient to say “tongs were made with another tong”?

This is especially so, since according to many opinions, there is no necessity to say that the first tong was a creation of Heaven, for “it is possible to make it in a mold etc.” Therefore, why must the Yerushalmi enter into a debate here, and conclude that the first tong was a creation of Heaven?

(For even if it was man-made, one can still make many tongs from it).

2. The source of this statement is (as the Pnei Moshe states) in the Tosefta here:

“The laws of Shabbat . . are like mountains hanging by a hair – little written about them in the Torah and numerous laws, that do not have a basis to rely upon. From here, R’ Yehoshua said, tongs were made from the first tong. How was this? It was created (from Heaven)”.

Thus, it expressly states that the comparison of, “tongs were made from a tong” to the aspect of “Shvus” is in that, that even if there is just a “minor reference” in the Torah (“little written about them in the Torah”), regarding the Shvus of Shabbat, nevertheless from this “minor reference” - “numerous  Halachot” are derived from it.

(So much so, that they are like “mountains hanging by a hair”. Moreover, they “do not have a basis to rely upon”).

This is similar to the many tongs that were all a result of the first tong that was created from the Six Days of Creation.

With this, the reason that the Tosefta cites the manner of the creation of the first tong, that it was created from Heaven, is well understood. For this is the comparison to Shvus of Shabbat. For the source and root of “many Halachot” of Shabbat is, “(few) verses” - the Written Torah - which is “from Heaven”.

From this “many Halachot” branched out. So much so, that it resulted in the many Shvusim, Gezeirot and Fences (שבותין גזירות וסייגים) that are Rabbinic – similar to the many tongs that were man-made, from the power of the first tong.

Therefore, it appears that even in the Yerushalmi here (that also cites the debate regarding the creation of the first tong) the intent is like the Tosefta, that when it states,

“from one Shvus they learned etc.”,

it is not referring to Shvus d’Rabbanan (like the explanation of the Pnei Moshe), but rather on the aspect of Shvus which is expressly in the Torah,

which is “little written about them in the Torah” (“one Shvus”) from which we derive “many Shvusim” – a multitude of prohibitions of Shvus d’Rabbanan (Rabbinic decrees/שבות דרבנן).

(This is like Rambam writes:

“(Regarding the Sabbath,) the Torah (Exodus 23:12) states: "(On the seventh day,) you shall cease activity." (This implies) ceasing (even the performance of certain) activities that are not (included in the categories of the forbidden) labors. (The Torah left the definition of the scope of this commandment to) the Sages, (who) forbade many activities as Shvus. Some activities are forbidden because they resemble the forbidden labors, while other activities are forbidden lest they lead one to commit a forbidden labor”

From the flow of Rambam’s words, it is understood that the prohibitions of Shvus d’Rabbanan are related to the Positive command (העשה) of, “you shall cease activity” (תשבות).

This is like the well-known debate regarding the explanation of Rambam’s words, whether the intent is that:

• The Torah prohibited the aspects of Shvus, but the matter was handed to the Sages, or
• Whether all the prohibitions of Shvus are Rabbinic, and they just relied on a specific verse, or
• That there are aspects of Shvus that exist both from the Torah, as well as from the Rabbanan (Rabbis).

According to this, one could say that, that the aforementioned words of the Yerushalmi, at the end of the tractate are related to the conclusion of the last Mishnah of the tractate, which are the words of R’ Shimon:

“R’ Shimon says, Wherever the Sages permitted something to you, they granted you only from your own, as they permitted to you only activities that are prohibited due to Shvus (Rabbinic decree (Note: not labors prohibited by Torah law).

The explanation of this statement of R’ Shimon (in which situations the Sages permitted Shvus) is dependent on the explanation of the relation between the Shvusim d’Rabbanan (which are “from man” (בידי אדם), “from your own” (משלך)), to the source of the aspect of the Shvus, that is in the Torah (“little written about them in the Torah”), as will be explained.

3. This can be understood by prefacing the words of the Talmud Bavli at the conclusion of the tractate regarding the words of R’ Shimon:

“On the basis of what Mishnah did Rabbi Shimon formulate this principle?

(Note: The principle of, “Wherever the Sages permitted an action to you, they granted you only from your own”) . .

We learned in the Mishnah: With regard to one for whom it grew dark while he was outside the Shabbat limit, even if he was only one cubit outside the limit, he may not enter the town. R’ Shimon says: Even if he was fifteen cubits outside the limit, he may enter the town, because when the surveyors mark the Shabbat limit, they do not measure precisely”

(In other words, when they measure and position the boundary mark within the two-thousand-cubit limit (Techum), “they do not measure precisely”. Rather they place the marker within the Shabbat limit, perchance if one went out, he has not transgressed a prohibition).

“For the Tana Kamma says he may not enter, whereas R’ Shimon says he may enter” – for “they granted you only from your own”, for he is already within the Techum” (Rashi).

The Talmud asks on R’ Shimon’s statement:

“’As they permitted to you only activities prohibited due to Rabbinic decree’ On the basis of what teaching did he formulate this principle?  (and The Talmud answers)

The Tanna Kamma said one may tie it

(Regarding a harp string in the Temple that broke, that the Tanna Kamma maintains that one may tie it with a knot, on Shabbat)

 Whereas R’ Shimon said: He may form only a bow.

For forming a bow, which will not lead to liability for a Sin-offering, is permitted by the Sages. However, tying a knot, which can lead to liability for a Sin-offering was not permitted by the Sages”.

In other words, “even here, they granted you only from your own”, meaning a bow which is a permitted thing (Tosafot)”

In other words, R’ Shimon’s words,

“Wherever the Sages permitted something to you, they granted you only from your own, as they permitted to you only activities that are prohibited due to Shvus“,

surrounds two aspects that they disagree with the Tana Kamma:

1. The law of “one for whom it grew dark while he was outside the Shabbat limit” where R’ Shimon is lenient and states,”Even if he was fifteen cubits outside the limit, he may enter the town”, since “they granted you only from your own”.
2. The law of the harp string in the Temple, that broke, where R’ Shimon is stringent and prohibits a knot for “they permitted to you only activities that are prohibited due to Shvus”. In other words, “they granted you only from your own” – something that is permitted – a bow.

Tosafot there explains the reason why,

“He wait(ed) until now (to argue with the Tana Kamma),

(For seemingly, the law of “one for whom it grew dark while he was outside the Shabbat limit” is stated in this tractate many chapters beforehand (52b). So too, the law of “Tying a knot on Shabbat” is stated in the previous Mishnah (102b) – Therefore, why are R’ Shimon ‘s words stated (in conjunction with these two laws) specifically at the end of the tractate?)

“because he (Rebbi, who codified the Mishnayot) wanted to teach all of the (permitted) things in the Mikdash, but not of the countryside (outside the Mikdash)”.

As it is explained in the Maharsha, “Because R’ Shimon only disagrees regarding the Temple, he did not come to differentiate between all these Rabbinic prohibitions, in the countryside, where everyone admits. Therefore, he waited until now to inform us that that R’ Shimon disagrees regarding the tying of a knot in the Temple, and that he prohibits it”.

 However, the Maharsha himself negates this explanation and writes:

“All this is problematic, to say that because of this (the harp-string) he waited until now. For this dispute of R’ Shimon regarding the tying of a knot is not mentioned, at all, in any Mishnah. Even prior to this (102a, b) R’ Yehuda disagrees with the Tana Kamma solely in matters of the Temple, and he did not wait until now”.

Therefore, he explains that R’ Shimon’s words were not just said regarding these two Halachot, but rather,

“R’ Shimon is coming to tell us a principle. Therefore, he waited, with the matter of R’ Shimon, until now which is the end of the tractate Eruvin, and he gave a principle in all the laws of Tractate Eruvin, where they were lenient, in many places, for the needs of the Mitzvah and other needs. And since some said to prohibit, and some to permit, for all the laws of Eruvin are only Rabbinic . . therefore, permission was given to the Sages to be lenient in them, when necessary. This is why it states, ‘all places where the Sages permitted to be lenient in the laws of Eruvin, are because ‘they granted you only from your own’. What they prohibited to you, was given to you to be lenient, in it. Which was not so regarding Biblical prohibitions, which the Sages were not given permission to be lenient in. This aspect is clear in the entire tractate”.

(The intent of the Talmud‘s statement:

“On the basis of what Mishnah did Rabbi Shimon formulate this principle?”

is just

“Because the wording ‘any place’ implies that it (also) refers to a particular thing in this matter that R’ Shimon already spoke of:

In the aspect that ‘they permitted something to you from your own’, we find a particular case in R’ Shimon‘s words where he said that,

“Even if he was fifteen cubits outside the limit, he may enter the town”

And also in the aspect where ‘They did not permit it to you except because of Shvus’, we find that R’ Shimon said a particular thing, regarding the prohibition of tying a knot”).

4. One could elaborate on a deeper level:

R’ Shimon‘s intent is not just to differentiate between Biblical and Rabbinic law,

(That solely Shvus d’Rabbanan may be allowed because “some said to prohibit, and some to permit”)

but rather he comes to differentiate within Rabbinic Law itself. Namely, that there is a Shvus that is “from your own” which is permitted, and there is a Shvus that is not “from your own”.

(Like the second law in Talmud Bavli – the harp string in the Temple that was severed. For the reason that R’ Shimon prohibited a knot is because one might come to incur a Sin-offering.

Here, it is not speaking of a Biblical prohibition,

(for it is speaking of a temporary knot (בקשר שאינו של קיימא).

but rather regarding a Shvus that is because of a Rabbinic Decree (גזירה) that one might come to incur a Sin-offering).

According to this, it appears that, R’ Shimon‘s principle is not just “a principle in all the laws of tractate Eruvin”, but rather, it is said regarding the general laws of Shabbat (כללות הלכות שבת).

For regarding the prohibition of Shvus, we find many types (כמה סוגים), in the manner of their relevance to Biblical prohibition (איסור תורה). In this, R’ Shimon gave a principle that that the Sages were not given the power to allow Shvus, unless it is in the category of “from your own”.

The explanation of the aspect is:

In the prohibition of Shvus, there are two general types, as is explained in Tzafnat Paneach on Rambam:

1. There are Shvusim that “the Rabbis based on a Biblical Labor” (רבנן אסמכוה על מלאכה דאורייתא). They are termed “Labor” (Melacha) (md’Rabbanan- Rabbinically)
2. Things that the Sages prohibited to do on Shabbat, but are not termed “Labor” (Melacha) (even md’Rabbanan).

One could say that that this is the intent of the aforementioned Tosefta that the laws of Shabbat are “like mountains suspended by a hair. They have little written about them in the Torah, yet there are numerous Halachot, and they have nothing to support them”.

For seemingly this is puzzling:

The Mishnah of tractate Chagigah differentiates between the dissolution of vows (היתר נדרים) and the Laws of Shabbat (הלכות שבת).

• “The dissolution of vows fly in the air and have nothing to support them”,

(Note: For these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. There is only a slight allusion to the dissolution of vows in the Torah, which is taught by the Sages as part of the oral tradition)

• Whereas “the laws of Shabbat . . are like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous”.

Yet here the Tosefta states that even the laws of Shabbat “have nothing to support them”?

(However, even the Tosefta states (like the Mishnah) that the laws of Shabbat “have little written about them in the Torah, and yet numerous halakhot”).

According to the aforementioned, one could say that:

In the prohibitions of Shvus itself there are two categories:

1. “Mountains suspended by a hair”. This refers to the prohibitions of Shvus that have a root in Torah. For although it is speaking of “mountains” (a multitude of laws) that are dependent upon one sole hair (“little written about them in the Torah”) nevertheless they are dependent and attached to the “hair” (תלויים ומחוברים ב״שערה״).
2. “Have nothing to support them”. This refers to the prohibitions of Shvus that do not have a root in Torah. These “have nothing to support them”, and are like “flying in the air”.

This is the principle that R’ Shimon is informing us regarding all the laws of Shabbat. For we find a multitude of Shvus prohibitions.

For “Wherever the Sages permitted something to you, they granted you only from your own, as they permitted to you only activities that are prohibited due to Shvus”

They only permitted, “from your own”. In other words a Shvus that is entirely Rabbinic and does not have a root in Torah. Whereas, a Shvus that indeed has a root in Torah (and is able to cause a Sin-offering) was not permitted.

5. According to this, one can explain the words of the Yerushalmi at the end of the tractate, that cites the Tosefta:

“He used to say: tongs were made from the first tong. How was this? It was created (from Heaven)”

This comes to teach us that just as “From one tong they learned (to make) many tongs. Likewise, from one Shvus they learned from many Shvusim”. For this comes to explain the aforementioned principle of R’ Shimon:

In order to differentiate between the two categories of Shabbat prohibitions– it prefaces that the first tong was a creation from Heaven (From one tong they (humans - man-made) learned (to make) many tongs)

So too is this regarding the laws of Shvus. The essential prohibition of Shvus is from the Torah – “a creation from Heaven”, as it states in the Torah, “you shall cease activity” and “from one c they learned from many Shvusim”- many prohibitions of Shvus that were explained by the Sages (just like from the first tong that was made from Heaven – many tongs were made by man).

(This is also the explanation of the question and answer

“How was the first tong? (and he answers) It was created”.

For so too is it, in the meaning of the analogy (בנמשל), regarding the prohibitions of Shvus.

For there is a supposition to say that the entire aspect of “Shvus” is just Rabbinic (like the analogy – that even the first tong was man-made). However, the conclusion (המסקנא) is “It was created”, namely that the foundation of the aspect of Shvus is from the Torah, as aforementioned (par. 2) from the Rambam)

According to this, it is also understood that even within the prohibitions of Shvus d’Rabbanan, there are two categories:

• A Shvus that is similar to “one Shvus”, and as the aforementioned. In other words a Shvus that has a root (עיקר) in Torah (and through which, one can come to incur a Biblical Prohibition (איסור דאורייתא). This Shvus may not be permitted.

• A Shvus that is not similar to “one Shvus”, which is a creation from Heaven. Rather, it is entirely Rabbinic (“man-made”) that has no root in Torah

(In which one cannot come to incur a Biblical Prohibition).

 This Shvus is “granted you only from your own, as they permitted to you only activities that are prohibited due to Shvus”.

6. In the general aspect of Shabbat, the Midrash states that:

“An apostate asked R’ Akiva, “If it is as you say, that G-d honors the Sabbath, then he should not cause rain to fall on it, He should not cause the grass to grow on it!” Replied R’ Akiva: “I will offer you an analogy: If two people live in one courtyard, unless they both contribute to an Eruv, would they be permitted to carry in the yard? But if one person lives in a courtyard, he has free reign in the entire yard. The same is true of G-d: since there is no other authority besides Him, since the entire world is His, He has free reign in the entire world.”

In other words, the entire aspect of Shabbat is the refrain from moving something from one domain to another (רשות לרשות). On the contrary, the entire aspect of Shabbat is to reveal that the entire world is G-d‘s domain. Therefore, it is all a private domain, to the One G-d of the world (רשות היחיד, ליחידו של העולם).

This is also the general aspect of Eruvin – from the wording “to join together”. In other words, that we make from many domains – one domain. Therefore, we are permitted to carry etc.

This is also the entire innovation that will be in the true and complete Geulah. The “day that is completely Shabbat“.

For then the tiding:

“I smite and I heal“ (מחצתי ואני ארפא)

will be fulfilled. In other words, all the barriers (המחיצות) that separate between the “public domain” (רשות הרבים) and the “private domain” (רשות היחיד) will be nullified, and the entire world will be – a private domain – for the One G-d of the world (רשות היחיד, ליחידו של העולם).

MSichas Yud-Shvat and Tu b’Shvat 5743