Wednesday, February 22, 2006

davar sh'aino mitkavain and tiltul min hatzad

Today's daf in Yerushalmi (Kilayim 4) seems to draw a parallel between the halacha of tiltul min hatzad, indirectly moving a muktzeh object, and the halacha of davar she'aino mitkavain, unintentional melacha, e.g. on shabbos it is permitted to drag a chair across a lawn because the intention is to move the chair, not to plough the lawn (provided that the ploughing is not inevitable). This seems a bit difficult. Tiltul min hatzad does not focus on intent, but on the manner of moving the object in question - in the Yerushalmi's case, a vegetable is being removed from the ground in a way that indirectly causes the surrounding earth to be dug up. The concept of tiltul min hatzad is that only directly moving the muktzah object itself is prohibited. Davar she'aino mitkavain is a halacha that focusses on intent. Tzarich iyun for me.


  1. Anonymous2:05 PM

    How did tiltul min hatzad get involved here? My understanding is that the patially buried vegetables can be moved even though some ground (or coals) get moved along with them. The ground or coals are muktzah - but to me their movement is OK not because of tiltul min hatzad but as a melacha she'ayna miskavein. Just like moving a chair creates a charitz which was not intended or desired, the motion of the ground or coals is also not intended or desired.

    I am not sure how to handle pesik reisha in this situation though.

    The Toldos Yitzchak on this Gemara states explicitly that in this case "v'ain afilu tiltul min ha tzad".

    On the other hand, let's say that indeed it is tiltul min ha tzad - and perhaps the Gemarah is uncomfortable with the identification of this with melacha she'aino miskavein so lemaskana the gemarah brings the case of a chair whose legs are sunk in clay. Removing the legs causes the clay to fall back into the "hole" much like the dirt falls back into the hole when the vegetable is removed. Closer parallel.

  2. I only had time to look in the P"M which very ambiguosuly blurs the two ideas. Anyway, learning yerushalmi has been a very lonely enterprise to date with too many kashes, not enough time for me to be look into well, and no one to really discuss the sugyos with, so I was in shock to actually see a comment on this post from someone holding in the sugya as well. Whoever you are, y'yasher kochacha! I get chizuk from finding others breaking their teeth on the sugyos!

  3. Anonymous11:56 AM

    Baruch T'heieh. I also get great chizuk from seeing someone actually discussing the yerushalmi on line. What follows is a long post, probably more for my benefit than anyone else since the act of commiting the thoughts to writing helps clarify it for me.

    I actually came in to apologize for posting prematurely and put in my current 2 cents worth. I re-read the sugya in the toldos yitzchak and the perush hagra and do find the mixture of ideas you brought up.
    My current 2 cents:
    There are 2 situations
    a) the partially buried vegetables and
    b) completely buried ones.
    For a) the toldos yitzchak says it is not even tiltul min hatzad. But for b) he says the reason it is mutar is because it is tiltul min hatzad. This follows the opinion of the Grah in the sugya.[The focus seems to be on moving the ashes, I would have said that the focus should be on pulling out the item which produces a hole which is potentially a d'oraisa]

    The gemara then says b) is consistent with R' Shimon and quotes a case that is mutar because of davar sheino miskavein. That is (case 1) Moving a heavy item that might cause a hole to be dug in the ground while moving. [Maybe this opinion focusses on the hole left behind??]

    Rava quotes a second case (case 2) that is mutar that of a chair sunk in mud which can be moved.

    Case 1:
    The idea behind case 1 is that we are moving ashes, but this is not intended, so if davar sheino miskavein is mutar b) should also be mutar. Therefore b) follows the opinion of R' Shimon. This is way the toldos yitzchak presents it. The reason for being mutar has shifted at this point. [To me, this conclusion seems hard to justify since case 1 is d'oraisa and b) is d'rabbanan, maybe the Chachim who argue with R' Shimon will admit in this case??]

    Case 2:
    I think Rava is unhappy with this reason shift and so brings case 2. Physically it resembles b) much more closely. We are pulling chair legs out of mud which is muktzah. We leave behind a hole which gets partially filled by the mud. AND the Grah states that case 2 is mutar because of tiltul min hatzad, the Grah never mentions "davar sheino miskavein" in this sugya.
    Unfortunately the Gra makes no comment on Case 1 at all. Since he focuses solely on titul min hatzad, it is hard to know how he sees the flow of the sugya when case 1 is brought up.

    If you got to this point, sorry for the loonng post. I ordered the Perush Ohr Yaakov on Kelayim. I am interested to see how he handles it. Keep up the nice posts. I enjoy your blog very much.