Melechet Machshevet: Difference between revisions

'''Melacha sheina tzaricha legufa''': There is a major dispute as to the definition of melacha sheina tzaricha legufa. Tosfot (94a s.v Rabbi)<ref name="ftn1"> See also Tosfos 94b s.v. aval </ref> explains that melacha sheina tzaricha legufa is a requirement that the purpose of each melacha be similar to the purpose for which it was done in the Mishkan. For example, if a person carries, he would be culpable if he carries in order to transport the object from one place to another. However, if he carries it just to remove it from a location that is melacha sheina tzaricha legufa.

 

 

'''Dvar sheina mitchaven''': Doing a permitted action in a way in which one doesn’t intend for a melacha to occur as a byproduct of one’s intended action is considered a dvar sheina mitchaven. Nonetheless, when it is inevitable that a melacha will take place as a result of one’s inherently permissible action, that action becomes forbidden (see Pesik Reisha). For example, dragging a light chair in a field where one’s intent is to transport the chair would be a dvar sheina mitchaven when the furrow is created as one did not intend to create a furrow.<ref name="ftn7"> Shabbos 22a, Shabbos 81b</ref> Tosfot (Shabbos 75a s.v. mitasek) writes that dvar sheina mitchaven is not unique to Shabbos; rather, it is a general exemption found in numerous laws throughout the Torah.  

 

'''Pesik Reisha''': If a person does a permitted action that has an inevitable unintended result that is forbidden, it is considered a pesik reisha. Although Abaye originally believed that it is was permitted in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, later he agreed with Rava that it forbidden.<ref name="ftn10"> Shabbos 133a</ref> The halacha follows Abaye and Rava. Nonetheless, there is a dispute amongst the Rishonim whether a Psik Reisha is forbidden on a biblical or rabbinical level.<ref name="ftn11"> Rambam (Shabbos 1:6) considers it a biblical violation of Shabbos. Tosfos (Shabbos 41b s.v. meycham) seems to agree. Shitah Mikubeset (Ketubot 5b s.v. behahiy), however, holds that it is only a rabbinic prohibition because of melechet machshevet.</ref>

 

 

 

</ref> have explained that his opinion is based on the understanding that pesik reisha is forbidden because it is as though one actually intended for the forbidden result to occur, being that it was inevitable and foreseeable. However, if one doesn’t benefit from the forbidden result, even if it is inevitable, clearly it is unintended since one doesn’t benefit. On the other hand, Tosfot (Shabbos 103a s.v. lo) argues that pesik reisha is forbidden under all circumstances. According to Tosfot, perhaps pesik reisha is forbidden because the forbidden result is considered included in one’s original permitted action since it is inevitable. That being the case, even if one doesn’t benefit, the forbidden action is considered included in one’s permitted act.

'''Mitasek''': Doing an action in a mitasek manner is to do something forbidden without intent that one is doing a forbidden action. For example, if one takes a vegetable lying on the ground thinking that it is detached from the ground but in reality it is attached, it would be considered mitasek. That is a case in which one’s intent was to do a permitted action and in reality a forbidden one resulted. The second area included in mitasek is where one has intent for a forbidden action but doesn’t believe that it will come out the same way that it really does. For example, if a person intends to take a red apple off a tree and ends up taking a green apple assuming that a person is concerned about the color of the apple, then that would be considered mitasek. Tosfot Shabbos 72b s.v. nitchaven adds that this second category of mitasek is unique to Shabbos. Whereas the first category is universal, the second is a leniency based on the concept of melechet machshevet.  

 

'''Shinui''': If a person does a melacha in an abnormal fashion, he isn’t culpable for his action. Nonetheless, normally such an action would be a rabbinic prohibition.<ref name="ftn16"> Mishna 92a, Gemara 103a, Rambam Shabbos 12:13</ref> In certain cases, an extreme abnormality might not be prohibited at all.<ref name="ftn17"> Mishna Brurah 320:10. See further on this topic in a piece by Rabbi Mordechai Willig in Am Mordechai Shabbos p. 148.</ref>  

'''Mekalkel''': The Torah prohibited melacha when it is done in a constructive manner. If, however, one does a melacha in a destructive fashion, there is no biblical prohibition. For example, a person who digs a hole in a field that isn’t meant to be plowed in order to use the dirt isn’t culpable because his action was destructive.<ref name="ftn18"> Chagiga 10a-b</ref>  

'''Shnayim She’asauha''': If two people do a melacha together each person is exempt and isn’t considered as though he violated the melacha independently. There is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon whether this applies only if each person couldn’t have independently done the melacha or even if the melacha truly required two people .<ref name="ftn21"> Mishna and Gemara Shabbos 92b-93a</ref> While the halacha is that shnayim she’asauha isn’t required to bring a chatat there is a dispute whether the prohibition to do a melacha with someone else’s help is rabbinic<ref name="ftn22"> Rav Yitzchak Elchanan in Beer Yitzchak (responsa 14)</ref> or biblical.<ref name="ftn23"> Chacham Tzvi (responsa 82). See further in Minchat Shlomo (Tanina no. 29)</ref>

'''Grama''': One who performs a melacha indirectly isn’t culpable and many Rishonim assume that it is totally permitted.<ref name="ftn24"> Gemara Shabbos 120b, Tosfos Beitzah 22b s.v. vehamistapek, Rama 334:22</ref> There is a dispute as to what is considered indirectly in order to exempt one from melacha. Some say that any action which will cause a melacha to occur at a later point is considered grama.<ref name="ftn25"> See Yabia Omer 10:26, Shemirat Shabbos Kehilchata (Introduction 1:26)</ref> Others explain that an action is only considered grama if it is disconnected physically and temporally from the process that eventually causes the melacha to occur.<ref name="ftn26"> B’ikvei HaTzoan Siman 7 explaining the opinion of Rav Soloveitchik</ref>