Home
The gemara here brings proof that Shmuel must hold like R' Shimon concerning davar sheino miskavein (tziruf = annealing), by bringing a case of melakhah sheinah tzricha l'gufa (putting out gacheles shel eitz to avoid public harm). The gemara answers, he holds like R' Shimon in one and not the other.
Tosefos d"h Afilu asks what is the hava amina - why should Shmuel need to hold by both, just because each is a makhlokes R'Y and R'S? Tosefos answers that it's a comparison of chumros: we are more likely to be meikel on a davar sheino miskavein if it is already only a d'rabanon because of melakha sh'eina tzricha l'gufa.
I'm wondering if we can try to explain the hava amina differently. It's based on a common ground between the two issues: kavannah. In davar sh'eino miskavein, he doesn't have kavanna for the action of the melakha. In melakha sh'eina l'gufa, he doesn't have kavanna for the result of the melakha. Perhaps the hava amina is that the actual disagreement between R'Y and R'S is on this single issue: do we take something seriously if the person wasn't trying to accomplish it?
This idea actually seems to appear in a gemara in Bechoros 25a. The gemara there asks if R' Yose ben Hameshulam really holds like R'Y on davar sheino miskavein. Doesn't he say by parah adumah that if there is a hair with black outside and red at the base (Rashi's girsa), he's allowed to cut off the black - even though it's forbidden to shear hekdesh animals.
Rashi explains that it's called eino miskavein, since his goal is to fix the parah adumah, not to shear. Tosefos points out that this is not like eino miskavein in the rest of the Torah - here he lacks kavanah for the result, not for the action. (The concept of melakha sh'eino tzricha l'gufa only applies to Shabbos, nowhere else; here the idea is used for something totally different, to remove the issur of shearing.)
Tosefos says that Rashi's pshat can't work: if that were right, why would the gemara preface it by discussing R'Y and eino miskavein? - The question from parah adumah would be a good one no matter what R' Yose ben Hameshulam holds!
According to what I suggested earlier, Rashi's pshat may work with the hava amina in Shabbos. We are thinking that the basis of R'Y and R'S has to do with kavannah in both cases, on the result and on the action. Thus, showing what R' Yose holds about the result should tell us what he holds about a regular davar sheino miskavein (about the action) as well.
Seems like an interesting idea; I wonder if anyone has seen anything about it?
Tosefos d"h Afilu asks what is the hava amina - why should Shmuel need to hold by both, just because each is a makhlokes R'Y and R'S? Tosefos answers that it's a comparison of chumros: we are more likely to be meikel on a davar sheino miskavein if it is already only a d'rabanon because of melakha sh'eina tzricha l'gufa.
I'm wondering if we can try to explain the hava amina differently. It's based on a common ground between the two issues: kavannah. In davar sh'eino miskavein, he doesn't have kavanna for the action of the melakha. In melakha sh'eina l'gufa, he doesn't have kavanna for the result of the melakha. Perhaps the hava amina is that the actual disagreement between R'Y and R'S is on this single issue: do we take something seriously if the person wasn't trying to accomplish it?
This idea actually seems to appear in a gemara in Bechoros 25a. The gemara there asks if R' Yose ben Hameshulam really holds like R'Y on davar sheino miskavein. Doesn't he say by parah adumah that if there is a hair with black outside and red at the base (Rashi's girsa), he's allowed to cut off the black - even though it's forbidden to shear hekdesh animals.
Rashi explains that it's called eino miskavein, since his goal is to fix the parah adumah, not to shear. Tosefos points out that this is not like eino miskavein in the rest of the Torah - here he lacks kavanah for the result, not for the action. (The concept of melakha sh'eino tzricha l'gufa only applies to Shabbos, nowhere else; here the idea is used for something totally different, to remove the issur of shearing.)
Tosefos says that Rashi's pshat can't work: if that were right, why would the gemara preface it by discussing R'Y and eino miskavein? - The question from parah adumah would be a good one no matter what R' Yose ben Hameshulam holds!
According to what I suggested earlier, Rashi's pshat may work with the hava amina in Shabbos. We are thinking that the basis of R'Y and R'S has to do with kavannah in both cases, on the result and on the action. Thus, showing what R' Yose holds about the result should tell us what he holds about a regular davar sheino miskavein (about the action) as well.
Seems like an interesting idea; I wonder if anyone has seen anything about it?
