Commentary for Shabbat 203:13

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הזורק</strong></big><br><br>

— Rabbah ruled, He [the thrower] is not liable; Raba said: He is liable. 'Rabbah ruled, He is not liable': even according to R. Gamaliel. who maintained. Knowledge in respect of half the standard is of no consequence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 341. n. 8. Here too' two cubits is half the standard. ');">¹¹</span> that is [only] there, because when he completes the standard, he completes it unwittingly, but here that [he completes it] wilfully, it is not so. But to what [does this refer]? If to one who throws, [surely] he is an unwitting offender?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he recollects, since it has left his hand and he cannot bring it back. ');">¹²</span> — Rather it must refer to one who carries. 'Raba said, He is liable': even according to the Rabbis, who maintained, Knowledge in respect of half the standard is of consequence: that is [only] there, because it is in his power,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to complete the action. ');">¹³</span> but here that it is not in his power, it is not so. But to what [does this refer]? If to one who carries, surely it is in his power? Rather it must refer to one who throws.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus there is no controversy, each referring to a different case. ');">¹⁴</span> Raba said: If one throws [an article] and it falls into the mouth of a dog or a furnace, he is culpable. But we learnt, <small>AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE?</small> — There that is not his intention; here this is his intention. R. Bibi b. Abaye said, We too have learnt [thus]: A person may eat once, and be liable to four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering on account thereof, [viz.:] All unclean person who eats heleb, which is nothar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For heleb and nothar v, Glos. ');">¹⁵</span> of sacred food [sacrifices] on the Day of Atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is liable to separate sin-offering because he has violated the interdicts of heleb, nothar, eating on the Day of Atonement, and the prohibition against an unclean person's consumption of sacred food. Again. since the heleb of a sacrifice belongs to the altar, he is liable to a guilt-offering for trespass. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Meir said: If in addition it is the Sabbath, and he carries it out in his mouth, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of carrying. ');">¹⁷</span> Said they to him, That does not fall under this designation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. eating, for this liability is on account of carrying, not of eating; v. Ker. 13b. ');">¹⁸</span> Yet why so? Surely this is not the normal way of carrying out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is not liable for performing an action in an abnormal manner. ');">¹⁹</span> But [what you must say is.] since he intends it this, his design renders it [his mouth) the [right] place;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For holding the food in to carry it out. R. Han.: his design renders his mouth the equivalent of a place four handbreadths square, whence and whither removal and depositing can take place. ');">²⁰</span> so here too, since he intends [it this].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the dog should catch it, etc. ');">²¹</span> his design renders it [the mouth of the dog or of the furnace] a place [for depositing]

Explore commentary for Shabbat 203:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.