Shabbat 184

ואת"ל אנשי הוצל עושין כן בטלה דעתן אצל כל אדם:

And should you object, But the people of Huzal do thus, their practice is null by comparison with that of all men. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE INTENDS TO CARRY OUT [AN OBJECT] IN FRONT OF HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it comes'. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המתכוין להוציא לפניו ובא לו לאחריו פטור לאחריו ובא לו לפניו חייב באמת אמרו האשה החוגרת בסינר בין מלפניה ובין מלאחריה חייבת שכן ראוי להיות חוזר רבי יהודה אומר אף מקבלי פתקין:

BEHIND HIM, HE IS NOT CULPABLE; BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, HE IS CULPABLE. [YET] IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID: A WOMAN, WHO WRAPS HERSELF ROUND WITH AN APRON WHETHER [THE ARTICLE IS CARRIED] BEFORE OR BEHIND HER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she hangs anything on it to carry it out, either before or behind her, but it becomes reversed. ');">²</span> IS CULPABLE, BECAUSE IT IS NATURAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fit'. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי שנא לפניו ובא לו לאחריו דפטור דלא אתעביד מחשבתו לאחריו ובא לו לפניו נמי הא לא אתעביד מחשבתו א"ר אלעזר תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו אמר רבא ומאי קושיא דילמא לפניו ובא לו לאחריו היינו טעמא דפטור דנתכוון לשמירה מעולה ועלתה בידו שמירה פחותה לאחריו ובא לו לפניו היינו טעמא דחייב דנתכוון לשמירה פחותה ועלתה בידו שמירה מעולה

FOR IT TO REVERSE ITSELF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence she knows of this, and such must be considered her intention. ');">⁴</span> R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO THOSE WHO RECEIVE NOTES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf.: officials who go out with documents for taking a census, inventories of the State treasury, etc. They carried these in pouches hanging from their belts, which sometimes turned round back to front. R. Judah rules that these too are culpable in such a case. ');">⁵</span>

אלא מאי קושיא דיוקא דמתני' קשיא המתכוין להוציא לפניו ובא לו לאחריו פטור הא לאחריו ובא לו לאחריו חייב אימא סיפא לאחריו ובא לו לפניו הוא דחייב הא לאחריו ובא לו לאחריו פטור א"ר אלעזר תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the difference in [intending to carry it] BEFORE HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEHIND HIM, that HE IS NOT CULPABLE? [Presumably] because his intention was not fulfilled! But then [if he intended to carry it] BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, [there] too his intention was not fulfilled! Said R. Eleazar: There is a contradiction:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast. R. Han: (I take) an oath! (quoted in Tosaf. Keth. 75b s.v. [H]). ');">⁶</span> he who learnt the one did not learn the other. Raba said: But what is the difficulty: Perhaps [where he intended to carry it] BEFORE HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEHIND HIM, this is the reason that HE IS NOT CULPABLE, because he intended a strong vigilance whereas he succeeded [in giving it only] a weak vigilance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his intention is unfulfilled. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב אשי מאי קושיא דילמא לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא לאחריו ובא לו לאחריו דחייב דאיתעבידא מחשבתו אלא אפילו לאחריו ובא לו לפניו איצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ולא איתעביד מחשבתו לא ליחייב קמ"ל דנתכוון לשמירה פחותה ועלתה בידו שמירה מעולה דחייב

but [if he intended to carry it] BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKED ROUND BEFORE HIM, this is the reason that HE IS CULPABLE, because he intended [only] a weak vigilance whereas he succeeded [in giving it] a strong vigilance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his intention was more than fulfilled. ');">⁸</span> But then what is R. Eleazar's difficulty? The implications of the Mishnah are a difficulty:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M.: Rather if there is a difficulty the following is the difficulty.] ');">⁹</span>

ולאחריו ובא לו לאחריו תנאי היא דתניא [המוציא מעות בפונדתו ופיה למעלה חייב פיה למטה רבי יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין אמר להן ר' יהודה אי אתם מודים בלאחריו ובא לו לאחריו שהוא חייב ואמרו לו ואי אתה מודה כלאחר ידו ורגלו שהוא פטור

IF ONE INTENDS TO CARRY OUT [AN OBJECT] IN FRONT OF HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, HE IS NOT CULPABLE: hence [if he intends to carry it] behind him and it comes behind him, he is culpable. Then consider the second clause: BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, only then is he CULPABLE: hence [if he intends to carry it] behind him and it comes behind him, he is not culpable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably because such carriage is unnatural, as one cannot exercise a proper vigilance. ');">¹⁰</span> — Said R. Eleazar: There is a contradiction: he who learnt the one did not learn the other. R. Ashi observed: But what is the difficulty: Perhaps he leads to a climax:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he states', 'it is unnecessary'. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר ר' יהודה אני אמרתי דבר אחד והן אמרו דבר אחד אני לא מצאתי תשובה לדבריהם והן לא מצאו תשובה לדברי מדקאמר להו אי אתם מודין לאו מכלל דפטרי רבנן וליטעמיך דקאמרי ליה אי אתה מודה מכלל דמחייב רבי יהודה והתניא לאחר ידו ורגלו ד"ה פטור

it is unnecessary [to rule that if he intended to carry it] behind him and it came behind him, he is culpable, since his intention was fulfilled. But even [if he intends to carry it] BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, it must be [stated]. [For] you might think that I will rule, since his intention was unfulfilled, he is not culpable; therefore he informs us that he intended [only] a weak vigilance whereas he succeeded [in giving it] a strong vigilance, So that he is culpable. [Shall we say that where he intends to carry it] behind him, and it comes behind him, there is a controversy of Tannaim? For it was taught: If one intends carrying out [an object] in his belt with its opening above, but he carries [it] out in, his belt with its opening below, [or] if one intends to carry out in his belt with its opening below,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the reading in the Tosef. Shab. and is thus emended here by Wilna Gaon. Cur. edd.: If one carries out money in his belt with its opening above he is culpable; if its opening is below, R. Judah rules that he is culpable etc. ');">¹²</span>

אלא לאחריו ובא לו לאחריו ד"ה חייב לאחר ידו ורגלו דברי הכל פטור כי פליגי בפונדתו ופיה למטה מר מדמי ליה לאחריו ובא לו לאחריו ומר מדמי ליה לאחר ידו ורגלו:

— R. Judah rules that he is culpable, but the Sages hold him not culpable. Said R. Judah to them: Do you not admit that [if one intends to carry out an object] behind him and it comes behind him, he is culpable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So here too, though carrying an object in a belt with its opening below is unusual. ');">¹³</span> Whilst they said to him: Do you not admit that [if one carries out an object] as with the back of his hand or with his foot, he is not culpable? Said R. Judah: I stated one argument, and they stated one argument. I found no answer to their argument, and they found no answer to mine. Now, since he says to them, 'Do you not admit,' does it not surely follow that the Rabbis hold that he is not culpable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is dependent on Tannaim. ');">¹⁴</span>

באמת אמרו האשה כו': [תנא כל באמת הלכה היא: רבי יהודה אומר אף מקבלי פתקין]: תנא) שכן לבלרי מלכות עושין כן

Then on your reasoning, when they say to him, 'Do you not admit,' does it follow that R. Judah holds him, culpable! But surely it was taught: With the back of his hand or his foot, all agree that he is not culpable! Rather [conclude thus: if one intends to carry out an object] behind him and it comes behind him, all agree that he is culpable; with the back of his hand or foot, all agree that he is not culpable. They differ when [he carries it out] in his belt with its opening below: one Master likens it to [intending to carry it out] behind him and it comes behind him, while the other Master likens it [to carrying] with the back of one's hand or foot. IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID: A WOMAN, etc. It was taught: Every [statement of] 'In truth [etc.]' is the <i>halachah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 60a. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המוציא ככר לרשות הרבים חייב הוציאוהו שנים פטורין לא יכול אחד להוציאו והוציאוהו שנים חייבין ור' שמעון פוטר:

R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO THOSE WHO RECEIVE NOTES. A Tanna taught: Because clerks of the State do thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Aruk: they carry their documents in an apron around their loins, and sometimes these are at the front and sometimes at the back. ');">¹⁶</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE CARRIES OUT A LOAF INTO THE STREET, HE IS CULPABLE; IF TWO CARRY IT OUT, THEY ARE NOT CULPABLE. IF ONE COULD NOT CARRY IT OUT AND TWO CARRY IT OUT, THEY ARE CULPABLE; BUT R. SIMEON EXEMPTS [THEM].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a sin-offering. ');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר אביי ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא זה יכול וזה יכול רבי מאיר מחייב ור' יהודה ור' שמעון פוטרים זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול רבי יהודה ור' מאיר מחייבים ורבי שמעון פוטר זה יכול וזה אינו יכול דברי הכל חייב

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah said in Rab's name-others state, Abaye said — others again state, it was taught in a Baraitha: If each alone is able,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To carry it out alone. ');">¹⁸</span> — R. Meir holds [them] culpable, while R. Judah and R. Simeon hold [them] not culpable. If each alone is unable, R. Judah and R. Meir hold [them] culpable, while R. Simeon exempts [them]. If one is able but the other is not, all agree that he is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed infra. ');">¹⁹</span>

תניא נמי הכי המוציא ככר לרשות הרבים חייב הוציאו שנים רבי מאיר מחייב ורבי יהודה אומר אם לא יכול אחד להוציאו והוציאו שנים חייבין ואם לאו פטורים ורבי שמעון פוטר מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא ד, כז) בעשותה העושה את כולה ולא העושה את מקצתה כיצד שנים שהיו אוחזין במלגז ולוגזין בכרכר ושובטין בקולמוס וכותבין בקנה והוציאו לרשות הרבים יכול יהו חייבין תלמוד לומר בעשותה העושה את כולה ולא העושה מקצתה

It was taught likewise: if one carries out a loaf into the street, he is culpable. If two carry it out: R. Meir declares him culpable; R. Judah rules: If one could not carry it out and both carry it out, they are culpable, otherwise they are not culpable; while R. Simeon exempts [them]. Whence do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: [And if any one … sin…] in his doing [etc.]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. lv, 27. ');">²⁰</span> [only] he who does the whole of it [is culpable], but not he who does part of it. How so? If two hold a pitchfork and sweep [corn together];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden on the ground of binding sheaves, supra 73a. ');">²¹</span> [or] the shuttle, and press;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is weaving. ');">²²</span> or a quill. and write; or a cane, and carry it out into the street,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All these actions can be done by one man. ');">²³</span> — I might think that they are culpable: hence it is stated, 'in his doing': [only] he who does the whole of it, but not he who does part of it.