This website is dedicated L’ilui Nishmas R’ Shmuel Yitzchak ben R’ Moshe A”H ר’ שמואל יצחק בן ר’ משה ע”ה
For Halachik questions please contact Rabbi Reingold at q@dvarhalacha.com

Grama 6 – Meleches Machsheves 4 (Klal 9) Hilchos Shabbos – S0322

D'var Halacha
D'var Halacha
Grama 6 - Meleches Machsheves 4 (Klal 9) Hilchos Shabbos - S0322
/

 

Sponsorships for the upcoming Klalim, which discuss the 39 melachos of Shabbos, are available. Please contact Rabbi Reingold for more information at rabbireingold@gmail.com or 301.996.5910

 

We have finished Klal 9. The purpose of this Klal was to learn about broad klalim which come up regarding melachos of Shabbos. We will discuss a few other concepts not discussed by the Chayei Adam. We have discussed the concept of intent impacting the status of melacha, and now we are discussing grama.

 

We are learning about the concept of grama. We left off discussing a contradiction between three Gemaras, two (zoreh and opening the door (according to Rabeinu Chananel)) which seem to teach that grama is chayav, and one (putting out a fire) which seems to teach that grama is muttar. 

 

In Achiezer, Rav Chaim Ozer writes that meleches machsheves will only create issur on a grama action when a melacha is performed in a normal way of performing it. The normal way to perform zoreh is through the wind, hence it is chayav even though it is a grama because it is a meleches machsheves. However, if the grama is not performed in a regular way, it will be patur. Therefore, the Gemara about extinguishing the fire is grama and therefore muttar because extinguishing fire in this manner is not the standard manner of extinguishing a fire. He defines the normal way to do it includes once something becomes a standardized way of performing an action, even if it was not done that way in the mishkan. When one does it in a normal fashion, one will be chayav because of meleches machsheves, even if it technically could have been considered a grama, because the normal way has a chashivus to it.

Rav Chaim Ozer does not address the case of opening the door and stoking the fire. Rabbi Reingold would suggest that adding wind to fan the flames of a fire is a standard action. Although specifically using the door is not necessarily standard, people use various different items and actions to fan the flames of a fire with the goal of increasing the fire. Rav Chaim Ozer does not specifically address the Gemara about fanning the flames so this is Rabbi Reingold’s suggestion. 

 

The sefer Even HaOzer puts another limitation on the concept of meleches machsheves. He writes that meleches machsheves will only create issur on a grama action when a person intends on the action. However, if the person did not intend to perform the action, meleches machsheves will not turn a grama action into an issur. 

 

The Avnei Nezer writes another limitation. He suggests that when it comes to extinguishing the fire, the person is not looking to put out a fire inasmuch as that there be no fire. If so, it is not considered a chashuv action on his part, so it is not considered melacha but rather grama. On the other hand, when it comes to the Gemara about fanning the fire, having a larger fire is something which the person would want, so the concept of meleches machsheves considers the action to be assur. 

 

It is important to note that the Even HaOzer and Avnei Nezer are not specifically addressing the Gemara about fanning the flames, but rather the contradiction between the cases of zoreh and extinguishing a fire, and explaining why meleches machsheves applies to one and not to the other.

 

Summary

  • We have a contradiction between three Gemaras, two (zoreh and opening the door) which seem to teach that grama is chayav, and one (putting out a fire) which seems to teach that grama is muttar. 
  • One approach (the Rosh) is that
  1. zoreh is unique, 
  2. and the Gemara about opening the door which says assur is referring to maaseh/koach rishon, direct action. Since the direct action of the person caused the melacha, it is no longer considered a grama and therefore chayav. 
  3. The case of placing items in front of the fire to extinguish it is an indirect action and therefore considered grama.
  • Another explanation (Rabbeinu Chananel according to Zera Emes) is that 
  1. zoreh is not unique and the gemara about opening the door is a case of indirect action, which is only chayav because of meleches machsheves
  2. and the Gemaras which say assur are referring to where there is no time lapse between the person’s action and the beginning of the melacha. Then meleches machsheves works to be mechayav him. When there is no time lapse, one will be chayav even if it is not their koach rishon which causes the melacha. 
  3. The case of placing items in front of the fire to extinguish it is where there is a time lapse between the placement of the item and the extinguishing, and therefore it is considered grama.
  • The Achiezer’s approach (Rabbeinu Chanael) is that
  1. Zoreh is not unique and the methods suggested for extinguishing a fire are not the normal way of extinguishing a fire, so they are grama and muttar.
  2. The cases that are assur are actions which are performed in a regular way, where meleches machsheves causes it to be considered a melacha,
  3.  and where it is not performed in a regular way, in which case it is considered grama. 
  4. Thus, the Gemaras about zoreh and fanning the fire are the normal way of performing the action so it is chayav.
  • The Even HaOzer’s approach (Rabbeinu Chananel) is that
  1. Zoreh is not unique
  2. One is only chayav when a person intends on the action. In the Gemara about zoreh, the person intends the action and therefore they are chayav. 
  3. In the Gemara about extinguishing the fire, the person’s intention is that there should not be a fire rather than that they should be actively involved in the act of firefighting. 
  4. The Even HaOzer does not address the Gemara about fanning the fire.
  • The Avnei Nezer’s approach (Rabbeinu Chananel) is that
  1. Zoreh is not unique.
  2. It is only meleches machsheves when a person actively wants the outcome.. In the Gemara about zoreh, the person wants the outcome (winnowed grain).
  3. In the Gemara about extinguishing the fire, the person just wants that there be no fire, not that he actively extinguish the fire.
  4. The Avnei Nezer does not address the Gemara about fanning the fire.

You Might Also Like

Sign Up to Receive Our Free Daily Email That Includes:

[email-posts-subscribers namefield="NOT" desc="" group="Public"]
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors