Commentary page

Shabbat 93a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Shabbat 93a

Shabbat 93a. The full printed text of this folio side — 8 numbered segments, about 320 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

בְּעִיגּוּל שֶׁל דְּבֵילָה וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בְּקוֹרָה וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם לֹא יָכוֹל אֶחָד לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם — חַיָּיבִין, וְאִם לָאו — פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָכוֹל אֶחָד לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם — פְּטוּרִים, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ״ — יָחִיד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ חַיָּיב, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעֲשָׂאוּהָ — פְּטוּרִין.

In contrast, if two people held a round cake of figs, which is too heavy for one person to carry, and they carried it out to the public domain, or if they held a beam and carried it out to the public domain, Rabbi Yehuda says: If one person is incapable of carrying it out alone, and two people carried it out, they are liable. And if not, if one person is capable of carrying it out alone, they are exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one person is incapable of carrying it out alone, and two people carried it out, they are exempt. It is with regard to that case that it is stated: “By performing it” (Leviticus 4:27), to establish a principle: An individual who performs a transgression is liable, two people who perform a transgression are exempt.

Segment 2

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּהַאי קְרָא: ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: תְּלָתָא מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי, ״נֶפֶשׁ תֶּחְטָא״, ״אַחַת תֶּחְטָא״, ״בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ תֶּחְטָא״ — חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי זֶה עוֹקֵר וְזֶה מַנִּיחַ, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי זֶה יָכוֹל וְזֶה יָכוֹל, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree over the interpretation of this verse: “And if one person among the common people sins unwittingly by performing it, any one of God’s commandments not to be done, and be guilty” (Leviticus 4:27). Rabbi Shimon holds: Three exclusionary statements are written in this verse. It is as if it were written: A person who sins, one who sins, and by performing it he sins. The Torah could have conveyed the same meaning by saying simply: And if one of the common people. Apparently, the superfluous words in the verse are exclusionary and the verse should be understood as follows: A person, and not many people; one, and not two; by performing it, and not by two performing it. One of the terms comes to exclude from liability a case where each of the two people performs a part of the transgression, i.e., this person lifts an object from one domain, and that person places it in another domain. And one of the terms comes to exclude a case where this person is capable of performing the action alone, and that person is also capable, and the two of them perform the action together. And one of the terms comes to exclude even a case where this person is incapable of performing the action alone, and that person is incapable of performing the action alone. Since the two of them violated this prohibition together, they are both exempt.

Segment 3

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי זֶה עוֹקֵר וְזֶה מַנִּיחַ, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי זֶה יָכוֹל וְזֶה יָכוֹל, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי יָחִיד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: יָחִיד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין — חַיָּיב.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: One of the terms comes to exclude a case where this person lifts an object, and that person places it, as he agrees that they are exempt in this case. And one of the terms comes to exclude a case where this person is capable of performing the action alone, and that person is also capable. And one of the terms comes to exclude the case of an individual who performed a transgression in accordance with the ruling of a court. If a court issued a mistaken ruling that a prohibited action is permitted, and an individual performed that action based on that ruling, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering and is considered to have sinned due to circumstances beyond his control. And Rabbi Shimon holds that an individual who performed a transgression in accordance with the ruling of a court is liable to bring a sin-offering for his mistake. His action is not considered intentional, but falls into the category of an unwitting act.

Segment 4

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר — מִי כְּתִיב ״נֶפֶשׁ תֶּחְטָא״ ״אַחַת תֶּחְטָא״ ״בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ תֶּחְטָא״? תְּרֵי מִעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי, חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי זֶה עוֹקֵר וְזֶה מַנִּיחַ, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי יָחִיד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir, who deems them liable in a case where each was capable of performing the act alone, interpret the third exclusionary term? The Gemara answers: Is it written in the verse: A person who sins, one who sins, and by performing it he sins? There are not three exclusionary terms in the verse. Only two exclusionary terms are written, as the words: “One person who sins,” constitutes a single phrase. Therefore, one term comes to exclude from liability a case where this person lifts an object, and that one places it; and one term comes to exclude an individual who performed a transgression in accordance with the ruling of a court.

Segment 5

אָמַר מָר: זֶה יָכוֹל וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב. הֵי מִנַּיְיהוּ מִיחַיַּיב? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זֶה שֶׁיָּכוֹל, דְּאִי זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — מַאי קָא עָבֵיד! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: דְּקָא מְסַיַּיע בַּהֲדֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְסַיֵּיעַ אֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ.

We learned earlier that the Master said: In a case where this person is capable, and this person is incapable, and they performed it together, everyone agrees that he is liable. The Gemara seeks to clarify: Which of them is liable? Rav Ḥisda said: The one who is capable of performing the act alone is liable, as if it was the one who is incapable of performing the act alone that was liable, what is he doing that would render him liable? His efforts are inadequate to perform the task. Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Ḥisda: He is doing quite a bit, as he is assisting him. He said to him: The assistance provided by one who assists another to perform a task that the other could have performed himself is insubstantial.

Segment 6

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּטָּה, וְאַרְבַּע טַלִּיּוֹת תַּחַת רַגְלֵי הַמִּטָּה — טְמֵאוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד עַל שָׁלֹשׁ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר. הָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה וְאַרְבַּע טַלִּיּוֹת תַּחַת רַגְלֵי הַבְּהֵמָה — טְהוֹרוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד עַל שָׁלֹשׁ. וְאַמַּאי? הָא קָמְסַיַּיעַ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי! לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן מְסַיֵּיעַ אֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ?

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: We, too, also learned that halakha in a mishna, with regard to vessels upon which a zav lies or rides. By Torah law, any vessel designated for lying and riding, upon which a zav lies or rides, becomes impure even if the zav did not come into direct contact with it. If a zav was sitting on a bed, and there were four garments beneath the four legs of the bed, they are all ritually impure. The weight of the zav is considered to have rested on each of the garments because the bed is incapable of standing on three legs. And Rabbi Shimon deems the garments ritually pure, since only a portion of his weight rested on each garment. However, if he was riding on an animal, and there were four garments beneath the legs of the animal, they are all ritually pure because the animal is capable of standing on three legs. And why are the garments ritually pure? Aren’t the animal’s legs assisting each other in supporting the weight of the zav ? Is it not because we say: An object that assists is insubstantial?

Segment 7

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּיסְקַרְתָּא: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ מְסַיֵּיעַ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּעָקְרָה לַהּ לִגְמָרֵי. וְכֵיוָן דְּזִימְנִין עָקְרָה הָא, וְזִימְנִין עָקְרָה הָא, לֶיהֱוֵי כְּזָב הַמִּתְהַפֵּךְ! מִי לָא תְּנַן: זָב שֶׁהָיָה מוּטָּל עַל חֲמִשָּׁה סַפְסָלִין אוֹ עַל חָמֵשׁ פּוּנְדָּאוֹת, לְאוֹרְכָּן — טְמֵאִים, לְרׇחְבָּן — טְהוֹרִין. יָשֵׁן, סָפֵק מִתְהַפֵּךְ עֲלֵיהֶן — טְמֵאִין.

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: Actually, I will say to you that a person or an object that assists is substantial. However, it is different here, in this case, as the animal lifted its foot completely. The mishna is not discussing the case of an animal that could theoretically stand on three legs, but an actual situation where it completely lifted one of its feet and the fourth foot did not even assist in supporting the animal’s weight. The Gemara rejects the suggestion of Rav Yehuda of Diskarta. And since it sometimes lifts this foot and sometimes lifts that foot, it should have the legal status of a zav who turns over. Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to a zav who was lying on five benches or on five money belts, if he was lying along their length, they are impure. At different times, his entire body was lying on each of the benches or on each of the money belts. If he was lying across their width, they are ritually pure because at no point was his entire weight supported by one of the benches or the money belts. However, if he slept across their width, there is uncertainty whether or not, while sleeping, he turned over on them. This raises the possibility that, at some point, he lay along their length, and his entire weight was supported by one of the benches. Therefore, all of the benches are impure. A zav who moves his weight from one place to another renders all of those places ritually impure. Similarly, the fact that the animal lifts different legs is not sufficient for each to be considered as not assisting to support the weight of the zav .

Segment 8

אֶלָּא לָאו, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן מְסַיֵּיעַ אֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא,

Rather, is it not that the garments beneath the legs of the animal remain ritually pure because we say: An object that assists is insubstantial? Each foot merely assists in supporting the weight of the zav . Similarly, Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: We, too, also learned support for this halakha ,

Shabbat 93a

Shabbat 93a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rav Nissim Gaon

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text