There is an argument about doing some kind of work on Shabat that is not intended but it must happen. There are 39 type of work on Shabat that are not allowed, e.g. sewing, lighting a fire, building etc. Many of them have to do with types of things that would go into baking bread. But that would not apply to baking with electricity which is not fire.]
In any case The Ri [Rabbainu Isaac] holds when it is a work that must happen it is forbidden even if he does not want it. The Aruch says when he does not want it is it permitted. This comes up in Tosphot in Yoma page 34 [that is the biggest Tosphot I think I have seen in a long time]. Tosphot brings this argument in Shabat also. And Joseph Karo also brings it.
This subject is also R. Akiva Eiger's object of study in one of his long essays.
What I wanted to say today just before I have to run is this. I think the Aruch makes a lot of sense. Just think about it. We are going with R. Shimon that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור. Right? So what is going on in דבר שאינו מתכווין? It is that he is doing something else that results in the work. And let's say the work must happen. Why would that be any worse that doing the actual work itself, but with a different intention from what the work is liable in? He could be digging a pit which is actual work but if he only needs the dirt then he is not liable! I would have to say the Aruch makes a lot of sense to me. [Incidentally R. Akiva Eigger also spends his entire long pamphlet on this topic defending the Aruch.]
I brought this up with my learning partner, and he said first of all he can't see any difference between מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא.
And he also pointed out that the Ri is in fact saying something very sensible. That דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is forbidden by rabbinical law as a fence around the Torah. He is not claiming that it is forbidden from the Torah itself.
_______________________________________________________________________________
There is an argument about doing some kind of מלאכה on שבת that is not מתכווין but פסיק רישא. There are ל''ט types of work on שבת that are not allowed, e.g. sewing, lighting a fire, building etc. Many of them have to do with types of things that would go into baking bread.
In any case ר''י רבינו יצחק holds when it is דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה. The ערוך says פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is permitted.
The ערוך makes a lot of sense. Just think about it. We are going with רבי שמעון that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור. Right? So what is going on in דבר שאינו מתכווין? It is that he is doing something else that results in the מלאכה. And let's say the work must happen. Why would that be any worse that doing the actual work itself but with a different כוונה from what the מלאכה is liable in? He could be digging a pit which is actual מלאכה but if he only needs the dirt then he is not liable!
I brought this up with my learning partner and he said first of all he can't see any difference between מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא.
And he also pointed out that the ר''י is in fact saying something very sensible. That דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is forbidden דרבנן as a fence around the Torah. He is not claiming that it is forbidden from the Torah itself.
In any case The Ri [Rabbainu Isaac] holds when it is a work that must happen it is forbidden even if he does not want it. The Aruch says when he does not want it is it permitted. This comes up in Tosphot in Yoma page 34 [that is the biggest Tosphot I think I have seen in a long time]. Tosphot brings this argument in Shabat also. And Joseph Karo also brings it.
This subject is also R. Akiva Eiger's object of study in one of his long essays.
What I wanted to say today just before I have to run is this. I think the Aruch makes a lot of sense. Just think about it. We are going with R. Shimon that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור. Right? So what is going on in דבר שאינו מתכווין? It is that he is doing something else that results in the work. And let's say the work must happen. Why would that be any worse that doing the actual work itself, but with a different intention from what the work is liable in? He could be digging a pit which is actual work but if he only needs the dirt then he is not liable! I would have to say the Aruch makes a lot of sense to me. [Incidentally R. Akiva Eigger also spends his entire long pamphlet on this topic defending the Aruch.]
I brought this up with my learning partner, and he said first of all he can't see any difference between מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא.
And he also pointed out that the Ri is in fact saying something very sensible. That דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is forbidden by rabbinical law as a fence around the Torah. He is not claiming that it is forbidden from the Torah itself.
_______________________________________________________________________________
There is an argument about doing some kind of מלאכה on שבת that is not מתכווין but פסיק רישא. There are ל''ט types of work on שבת that are not allowed, e.g. sewing, lighting a fire, building etc. Many of them have to do with types of things that would go into baking bread.
In any case ר''י רבינו יצחק holds when it is דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה. The ערוך says פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is permitted.
The ערוך makes a lot of sense. Just think about it. We are going with רבי שמעון that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור. Right? So what is going on in דבר שאינו מתכווין? It is that he is doing something else that results in the מלאכה. And let's say the work must happen. Why would that be any worse that doing the actual work itself but with a different כוונה from what the מלאכה is liable in? He could be digging a pit which is actual מלאכה but if he only needs the dirt then he is not liable!
I brought this up with my learning partner and he said first of all he can't see any difference between מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא.
And he also pointed out that the ר''י is in fact saying something very sensible. That דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is forbidden דרבנן as a fence around the Torah. He is not claiming that it is forbidden from the Torah itself.
