Gemara Clarity

Shabbos 102a

שבת ק״ב ע״א

Shabbat 102a

Learn Shabbos 102a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shabbos 102a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

The כלל that a חטאת requires שגגה from beginning to end in throwing and carrying, and how intention makes an unusual spot count as a place

Overview

The משנה teaches that someone who throws on שבת by mistake is פטור if he remembers mid-flight, or if the object is caught or burned before landing. It then states a כלל: a חטאת is brought only when both the beginning and the end of the act were בשגגה. The גמרא asks why the opening case implies that he is חייב if the object lands, when he already remembered. רב כהנא and רבא try several answers. רבא finally reads the opening line as two separate exempt cases. רב אשי instead fills in missing words: if the object lands, he is חייב only if he forgot again before it landed. Next, רבה and רבא discuss a case of two אמות שוגג, two מזיד, and two שוגג. The גמרא shows that רבה is speaking of carrying and רבא of throwing, so they do not really disagree. Finally, רבה rules that throwing on purpose into a dog's mouth or a furnace makes one חייב, because his intention makes it count as a place. רב ביבי בר אביי supports this from carrying food out in one's mouth, and the chapter ends.

Opening lines

מַתְנִי׳ הַזּוֹרֵק,

MISHNA: One who throws,

וְנִזְכַּר מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּצְתָה מִיָּדוֹ,

and remembered after it left his hand,

קְלָטָהּ אַחֵר,

if another person caught it,

קְלָטָהּ כֶּלֶב אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה —

a dog caught it, or it was burned —

The steps (28)

  1. StatementThe thrower who remembers mid-flight, or whose object is caught or burned
  2. StatementThrowing to wound, remembering before the wound happens
  3. StatementThe general rule: beginning and end must both be unwitting
  4. ChallengeIf the object lands, is he liable even though he remembered?
  5. Resolutionרב כהנא: the rule refers to a bolt on a cord
  6. ChallengeA bolt on a cord is still held in his hand
  7. ResolutionThe cord case is about wounding
  8. ChallengeThe wounding case is already in the משנה
  9. Resolutionרבא: the rule refers to carrying
  10. ChallengeBut the rule is taught about throwing
  11. Resolutionרבא: the משנה teaches two separate exempt cases
  12. Resolutionרב אשי says the משנה is missing words and rebuilds the throwing case
  13. ResolutionLiability only if he forgot again, so the כלל has a job
  14. StatementA dispute: mistaken, deliberate, then mistaken carrying
  15. StatementWhy רבה exempts, even according to רבן גמליאל
  16. QuestionWhat kind of case is this, throwing or carrying?
  17. ResponseThe case is carrying
  18. Statementרבא: Liable, Because a Thrown Object Is Out of His Control
  19. QuestionWhich Action Is רבא Talking About?
  20. Responseרבא Is Talking About Throwing
  21. Statementרבה: Throwing Into a Dog's Mouth or a Furnace Is Liable
  22. ChallengeChallenge From the משנה: A Dog Catching It Exempts
  23. ResolutionThe Difference Is Intention
  24. Proofרב ביבי בר אביי Begins a Proof: One Act of Eating, Many Offerings
  25. Statementרבי מאיר: Carrying Food Out in His Mouth on שבת
  26. QuestionWhy Liable? The Mouth Is Not the Normal Way to Carry
  27. ConclusionHis Intention Makes It Count as a Place, in Both Cases
  28. ConclusionHadran — Closing the Chapter of Throwing