Wednesday, April 26, 2006

What is the definition of "ma'aseh aveira" in hilchos shabbos - zorea, ofeh, etc.

I missed the forest for the trees in citing Tosfos Shabbos 4 and not the gemara itself. The gemara asks why the person who placed the dough in the oven would need to remove it and violate the derabbanan of rediyas hapas – if he remembers before the baking happens that baking is assur, then he would not be liable a chatas even if the dough is not removed because the melacha was not completed with the “ha’alama” of issur. QED (maybe) that the issur of ofeh is not merely placing the bread in the oven, but must include the state of it being baked (Afikei Yam II:4). I will concede that one can argue that this is not so – the ma’aseh afiya perhaps concludes when the bread is placed in the oven, but one is retroactively liable only if the baking takes place in a state of ha’alama of the issur (see Eglei Tal, meleches zore’a s”k 8). Why should this condition be necessary if the act of issur has already been done? Perhaps there is a distinction between the completion of the ma’aseh aveira qua human action and the completion of the melacha as a total act.
I argued in the comments that one can distinguish between zoreah and ofeh. By zoreah, the act can never be completed on Shabbos as the plant will take root only later, therefore, the definition of the aveira must be the act of placing the seeds alone. The same does not hold true by ofeh where the entire act may have to occur on Shabbos. The Afikei Yam adopts this sevara as well. One is tempted to argue here as well that the rooting of the plant (hashrasha) may be part of the melacha and one becomes liable retroactively days later - nafka minah if one can uproot the plant in the interim. We once discussed a complex yerushalmi which my brother-in-law raised a kasha on
here but he did not quote the punchline that relates to our discussion. According to Reish Lakish, even though one is chayav for kilayim merely by tossing seed (even before they land), in hilchos shabbos one is chayav only once the seed hits the ground. Clearly, according to the Yerushalmi, taking root is not required. The Ohr Sameich proves the Bavli agrees from Rav Papa’s kashe (Menachos 71) that if we learn from “asher tizra” that the omer permits new wheat, then it should permit even wheat which has not even taken root (i.e. because that is also called “zeriya”!) I am not sure if I have muddled the waters too much, or clarified things a bit : )


  1. Anonymous2:13 PM

    I would not say that the Yerushalmi says taking root is not required. I think you can also understand R"L to mean that within hilchos Shabbos, the melacha of zeriyah BEGINS when the seeds hit the ground, as opposed to Kilyaim where it begins when they leave his hand.

    The Toldos Yitzchak in that sugya makes it clear that in Kilyaim R"L deduces a Gezeras haKasuv from "Sadicha lo sizrah kilayim" that the intent to sow kilayim expressed simply by throwing the seeds into the air toward arable ground is Assur. What happens next is not important the issur was chal.

    R"L proceeds to say that in Shabbos one must wait for the seeds to hit the ground. I could argue that he is drawing the distinction between hilchos Shabbos and Kilayim that, at the least, the action of putting seeds in/on to the ground must take place, i.e., the seeds must land on the ground to do a melacha on Shabbos. Whether they need to take root is not so clear to me from what is said here.

    My recollection is that the Har Tzvi, quoted by YGB, gives sources who put zeriya into the same category as afiah in terms of requiring time to complete. So I am also not so sure that one can distinguish between these 2 melachos so easily. He deals in detail with the problems associated with duration of the melacha.

    Unfortunately, I have lost track as to why you want to make this distinction.

  2. The original issue was only with respect to afiya. One needs to be mechaleik if zeriya is chayav even before the process (hashrasha) completes, but afiya is chayav only after the process (the baking is done). Anyway, my approach to the Yerushalmi was based on the GR"A, which is also cited by the Ohr Sameiach and Afikei Yam. L'shitascha, l'mai nafka mina when the melacha begins? Either you are chayav already, or not (in which case, nothing has happened yet)?

  3. Anonymous4:55 PM

    Perhaps I should not have capitalized begins. The idea is the same as with afiyah. If it takes time to complete the melacha of zeriah, the beginning time determines whether one is chayuv, should the melacha proceed to completion. If I throw seeds on shabbos but the hashrasha takes place after shabbos ends there is the possibility to abort the melacha and avoid the chiyuv. If you say zeriah is complete once the seeds hit the ground, indeed what is done is done.
    Lets say zeriah requires hashrasha to be a melacha. You could imagine that all R"L is saying is if you throw the seeds into the air on shabbos, but they only land after shabbos you would be chayuv for kilayim but patur on the melacha of zeria.
    The Gr'a in the sugya there states the nafka mina for shabbos is should someone else or a dog "kalta". Does this have to mean before it lands or can it also mean kolait before hashrasha?

    The Har Tzvi brings a machlokes acharonim on whether afiyah and zeriah both require time to complete or not. He also brings a Reshash that the 2 melachos have the same halacha with regard to duration. So there is room to argue both ways.

  4. I do not understand - lets say you are chayav only if hashrasha took place. So l'mai nafka minah how you define the haschalas hamelacha - whether it is throwing the seeds in the air or their hitting the ground - you are only chayav because of the gmar melacha at hashrasha anyway? IOW, according to me that the yerushalmi is telling you when the melacha ends, nafka mina for when you are chayav, but if you learn the chiyuv is by hashrasha only, then who cares what the haschalas hamelacha is? (BTW, did you see the shita of the chinuch by kilayim and the minchas chinuch there? I should have written it over...) The consensus seems to be against the Rashash - how can you compare zeriya, which by definition never completes in one shabbos, with afiya, which can? It is quotes and rejected by the Afikei Yam, also Eglei Tal in zorea.

  5. Anonymous12:54 PM

    I think you have to look at both the haschal and the gmar see below.
    To restate things.
    1) My understanding is that Ziriah under hilchos kilyaim is different that under hilchos Shabbas. This is precisely the point of the Yerushalmi. For kilayim the chiyuv is chal (in R"L opinion) the instant you let go of the seeds independent of what happens afterwards. The seeds don't even need to hit the ground as the Gr"a points out. They just have to be aimed at arable land. This is a gizeiras ha kasuv according to R"L.

    Under Hilchos shabbas the melacha of zeriya is defined differently. Depending on how you want to understand Zeriya one has 2 scenarios:
    a) Hashrasha not required - There still has to be a ma'ase that has the potential to produce hashrasha. That only happens once the seeds actually hit the ground according to R"L. Being on the ground is potential hashrasha - flying in the direction of the ground is not. As the Gr"a states, if they are intercepted on the way, then one is over kilayim but not shabbos.
    b) hashrasha required - at some point the seeds must sprout. If the melacha was started on shabbos AND the seeds ultimately sprout one is over both shabbos and kilayim. Now one can understand the Gr"a to say that if someone comes along and uproots the seeds before they sprout one is still over kilayim, but not shabbos. The potential to be over shabbos is initiated by the haschalas hamelacha. Whether that potential becomes actual depends on the whether the gmar does in fact place.

    2) My main point was that I see no hechrech to say that this particular sugya in the Yerushalmi supports either side of the argument as to whether hashrasha is required for zeriah in hilchos shabbas or not.

    Moving to afiyah where all agree there is a duration required consider the following:
    3) If one sticks bread in a tanur close to the end of shabbos so that it finishes baking (under definitions of Hilchos shabbos) only after shabbos. Is the person chayuv? If you say that we look at the gmar melacha only, the answer must always be no. If you take the haschala into account, the answer can be yes, if it proceeded to completion. Big nafka mina.

    If someone came by after shabbos and removed the bread before the baking completed then the person is not chayuv. Had he begun baking after shabbos there would not be any discussion. That is why I focus on haschalas hamelacha.

    One can easily construct the parallel arguments for Zeriah.

    To open a "second front", it is not so easy (for me nothing is easy) to be mechalek by saying that zeriah that started on Shabbos can never end on that Shabbos. The Har Tzvi brings the issue of putting seeds in water where the Rambam holds one is chayuv immediately (obviously holding that zeriah takes no time to complete), but the Mogen Avraham requires a wait of 1/2 day. Perhaps one can say that hashrasha in this case takes 1/2 a day. Now we get into mitzius, but here is at least one example where zeriah, according to the M"A, can be started and completed on the same shabbos.

    I understand that I am defending a "minority opinion" that is probably not le halacha. But hopefully these sugyas will get clarified for me through this.

  6. I got what you were saying, but you did not address the problem. In your zeriya #2, naniach that if someone uproots the seed on shabbos before hashrasha you would be patur. So why does the y-lmi say according to R"L that shabbos is different from kilayim because you are chayav for the hanacha? The real difference is that shabbos requires hashrahsa, kilayim does not. And if you tell me that after the hashrasha occurs, l'mafreya you are chayav for the hanacha, still I ask you, l'mai nafka mina? You would not really be chayav until hashrahsa. So the distinction between tossing in the air and hanacha is a distinction that makes no practical difference of any sort. Aderaba, ikkar chaseir min hasfer - why does the Y-lmi not say within R"L that kilayim does not need hashrahsa, shabbos does?

  7. Anonymous1:43 PM

    I finally understand your point. I don't have a good answer, but I will try this Dochek one. (I can't rsist because it takes me full circle)

    Both hanacha and hashrasha are necessary for the chiyuv. Why choose to mention just hanacha, especially as you point out it not muchrachas by itself? If R"L mentioned only hashrasha, I might have a hava-amina to say one would be chayuv if the hashrasha took place on shabbos even though the hanacha took place on Thursday.

    How could anyone have such a hava-amina? Well, if you hold like R"Y in B"K that "aisho mishum chitzo", then it is possible to argue that indeed one can be chayuv for a melacha that began before Shabbas and completes on Shabbas. So R"L says this l'afukai the opinion of R"Y.

    So within this scenario we see that indeed the argument in kilayim and B"K are consistent, which is where I entered this discussion.

    To me this a bit convoluted, if both hanacha and hashrasha are required, R"L should say so explicitly.

    Thanks for your patience.