Gemara Tosphot Yoma 34b. [i.e. the Babylonian Talmud]
I wanted to mention two questions on this Tosphot.
But before I do I need some terminology. "Work done not for its own sake" = A. "Work that is not intended" is B (אינו מכווין). Pesik Risha פסיק רישא [automatically happens] is C.
In Tractate Kritut we have the case of turning over coals. For turning over the bottom coals Rabbi Shimon says he is not obligated. Tosphot says there are three reasons to say he is ought to be obligated in a sin offering: (1) Melechet Machshevet (מלאכת מחשבת). [ Done on purpose, not accidentally] , (2) damaging by fire which R. Shimon says is obligated, and (3) it is a case of being intended and automatically happens. So why is he not obligated ? Answer (of Tosphot): A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.
Then why, Tosphot asks, does not the Gemara say this? Why does it say the case is B (אינו מכווין)? Answer to show the strength of R. Yehuda who says even though it is B, he is still obligated in a sin offering.
Tosphot then approaches the Gemara in Tractate Shabat 103a. There is is picking green leaves (chicory, endive (plant)) [http://www.naturemanitoba.ca/botany/wildPlants/Chicory.pdf] that can be eaten. If he does it to eat, then to R. Shimon he is obligated only once and not for the additional obligation of making his field look nicer. But we ask is it not B+C (אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא)?
Answer: It is someone else's field.
That is just the straight Gemara.
The two questions on Tosphot concerns the way he treats this later Gemara.
Question one: Tosphot is satisfied with his being not obligated in someone else's field since it is B+C (אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא) . This is in direct contradiction to what he said in Kritut concerning the parallel case of coals.
Question Two: In his own field, we should also make a distinction if it is A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה or not.
The 2nd question is really just a note, but not really a "kashe".
I really have to be running along but I will take a couple more minutes to make question one even more powerful.
Tosphot says the reason in Kritut that the Gemara said it is a case of B+C is because it wanted to show the strength of R Yehuda. So why, Tosphot asks, then in a later on case when he draws the coals closer to himself, the Gemara does not say the same thing? Why does it say it is a case of A?
Answer: In drawing coals it could be that he does not mind if they get hotter. So the Gemara can't say it is not intended. Only in the case of turning over coals in which case he is against the idea of the bottom coals getter hotter. He would rather they would not . But he simply has no choice since he has to get the top ones to the bottom of the pile where they will cool down and become usable coals. My point here is that Tosphot says that even so, R. Shimon would say he is obligated to bring a sin offering except for the fact that it is A.
So why then in Tractate Shabat is Tosphot satisfied with the fact that it being B+C makes him not obligated even thought it is simply a case of his not caring whether the field gets improvement in value.
I probably should mention here that I do not mind if he is not obligated in Shabat 103 because it is A. I only wish that that would be the reason that the Gemara or Tosphot would use over there.
My learning partner made a suggestion that perhaps Tosphot meant for the original three means of being obligated to R Shimon were meant to work together. [I.e. that the idea B+C with the idea of damage by fire]. That is: Maybe Tosphot meant for those three original means to be obligated to work together. But if you look at the actual language of Tosphot you can see that is not what he says. But at least it might save Tosphot in a conceptual manner--even if it is not exactly what he said.
Incidentally this all came up because my learning partner and myself were looking at Reb Chaim Soloveitchik who has very nice piece on Maimonides concerning Shabat. But after looking at his essay for a while it occurred to my learning partner that we ought to go back to the Talmud itself to get a little more background.
So that led us to this Tosphot in Yoma.
Appendix:
[1] Work done not for its own sake: Classical example: Digging a pit for the dirt, not for the hole to plant in.
Work not intended: Classical example: He does something permitted but something forbidden might result.
Pesik Reish is he does something permitted but something forbidden must result.
[2] You might take a look at the essay of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik about "work done not for its own sake" which has real grace and power. It is complete and self contained and answers some good questions about the approach of Maimonides to this whole subject.
[3] There is a third question also on the same Tosphot. It concerns the issue of how Tosphot treats the Gemara in Kritot. In that Gemara there is a case where someone pulls burning coals closer to himself. the Gemara itself says it is not obligated in a sin offering because it is "A".work done not for its own sake.
Now to some degree we can accept this. we already are understanding that the only time lighting a fire is obligated is when he needs the coals. I might like to argue about this here but I am anxious to get to a much more glaring difficulty. Before Tosphot says one of the three reason R Shimon would say tuning over the bottom coals is obligated is that even though it is accidental it would be obligated for even damage by fire is obligated. I mean to say that Tosphot. That is, you do not need intention to be obligated for lighting a fire. So even if he thinks he is pulling apples closer to him he would be obligated in a sin offering. how then do we say he is not obligated because of A? [That is for R Shimon you do not need melechet machashevet (מלאכת מחשבת) for fire.]
Normally, I would just write this stuff in a private notebook, but it occurs to me that there might be people out in the world that would like to understand what it means to learn Gemara [Talmud] properly. If I write in in a private notebook maybe no one will ever see it. On the Internet it might help people get an idea of how to learn the Talmud.
I wanted to mention two questions on this Tosphot.
But before I do I need some terminology. "Work done not for its own sake" = A. "Work that is not intended" is B (אינו מכווין). Pesik Risha פסיק רישא [automatically happens] is C.
In Tractate Kritut we have the case of turning over coals. For turning over the bottom coals Rabbi Shimon says he is not obligated. Tosphot says there are three reasons to say he is ought to be obligated in a sin offering: (1) Melechet Machshevet (מלאכת מחשבת). [ Done on purpose, not accidentally] , (2) damaging by fire which R. Shimon says is obligated, and (3) it is a case of being intended and automatically happens. So why is he not obligated ? Answer (of Tosphot): A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.
Then why, Tosphot asks, does not the Gemara say this? Why does it say the case is B (אינו מכווין)? Answer to show the strength of R. Yehuda who says even though it is B, he is still obligated in a sin offering.
Tosphot then approaches the Gemara in Tractate Shabat 103a. There is is picking green leaves (chicory, endive (plant)) [http://www.naturemanitoba.ca/botany/wildPlants/Chicory.pdf] that can be eaten. If he does it to eat, then to R. Shimon he is obligated only once and not for the additional obligation of making his field look nicer. But we ask is it not B+C (אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא)?
Answer: It is someone else's field.
That is just the straight Gemara.
The two questions on Tosphot concerns the way he treats this later Gemara.
Question one: Tosphot is satisfied with his being not obligated in someone else's field since it is B+C (אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא) . This is in direct contradiction to what he said in Kritut concerning the parallel case of coals.
Question Two: In his own field, we should also make a distinction if it is A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה or not.
The 2nd question is really just a note, but not really a "kashe".
I really have to be running along but I will take a couple more minutes to make question one even more powerful.
Tosphot says the reason in Kritut that the Gemara said it is a case of B+C is because it wanted to show the strength of R Yehuda. So why, Tosphot asks, then in a later on case when he draws the coals closer to himself, the Gemara does not say the same thing? Why does it say it is a case of A?
Answer: In drawing coals it could be that he does not mind if they get hotter. So the Gemara can't say it is not intended. Only in the case of turning over coals in which case he is against the idea of the bottom coals getter hotter. He would rather they would not . But he simply has no choice since he has to get the top ones to the bottom of the pile where they will cool down and become usable coals. My point here is that Tosphot says that even so, R. Shimon would say he is obligated to bring a sin offering except for the fact that it is A.
So why then in Tractate Shabat is Tosphot satisfied with the fact that it being B+C makes him not obligated even thought it is simply a case of his not caring whether the field gets improvement in value.
I probably should mention here that I do not mind if he is not obligated in Shabat 103 because it is A. I only wish that that would be the reason that the Gemara or Tosphot would use over there.
My learning partner made a suggestion that perhaps Tosphot meant for the original three means of being obligated to R Shimon were meant to work together. [I.e. that the idea B+C with the idea of damage by fire]. That is: Maybe Tosphot meant for those three original means to be obligated to work together. But if you look at the actual language of Tosphot you can see that is not what he says. But at least it might save Tosphot in a conceptual manner--even if it is not exactly what he said.
Incidentally this all came up because my learning partner and myself were looking at Reb Chaim Soloveitchik who has very nice piece on Maimonides concerning Shabat. But after looking at his essay for a while it occurred to my learning partner that we ought to go back to the Talmud itself to get a little more background.
So that led us to this Tosphot in Yoma.
Appendix:
[1] Work done not for its own sake: Classical example: Digging a pit for the dirt, not for the hole to plant in.
Work not intended: Classical example: He does something permitted but something forbidden might result.
Pesik Reish is he does something permitted but something forbidden must result.
[2] You might take a look at the essay of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik about "work done not for its own sake" which has real grace and power. It is complete and self contained and answers some good questions about the approach of Maimonides to this whole subject.
[3] There is a third question also on the same Tosphot. It concerns the issue of how Tosphot treats the Gemara in Kritot. In that Gemara there is a case where someone pulls burning coals closer to himself. the Gemara itself says it is not obligated in a sin offering because it is "A".work done not for its own sake.
Now to some degree we can accept this. we already are understanding that the only time lighting a fire is obligated is when he needs the coals. I might like to argue about this here but I am anxious to get to a much more glaring difficulty. Before Tosphot says one of the three reason R Shimon would say tuning over the bottom coals is obligated is that even though it is accidental it would be obligated for even damage by fire is obligated. I mean to say that Tosphot. That is, you do not need intention to be obligated for lighting a fire. So even if he thinks he is pulling apples closer to him he would be obligated in a sin offering. how then do we say he is not obligated because of A? [That is for R Shimon you do not need melechet machashevet (מלאכת מחשבת) for fire.]
Normally, I would just write this stuff in a private notebook, but it occurs to me that there might be people out in the world that would like to understand what it means to learn Gemara [Talmud] properly. If I write in in a private notebook maybe no one will ever see it. On the Internet it might help people get an idea of how to learn the Talmud.
