Agged Kli

Shabbat (10:2) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 years ago

The Mishnah (10:2) discusses a case where one took a basket full of vegetables from the house and placed it on the border of the house and the doorstep. The step is sufficiently low such that it is considered part of the public domain. The Mishnah teaches that even if a majority of the basket is outside the house, one has not violated the prohibition of hotzaah (taking an object from the private to public domain). It is only once the entire basket is taken outside, has one violated the prohibition.

The Gemara (Shabbat 91a) records a debate regarding our Mishnah. Chizkiya maintains that the Mishnah is refering to a case where contents are cucumbers or pumpkins that are placed in a way that no vegetable has fully left the house until the entire basket has been removed. If however the basket contained mustard seeds, then one would be liable. Rashi explains that that is because some of the seeds have been been transferred from the private to public domain. This is how the Bartenura explains that Mishnah.

R' Yochanan however disagrees and one would be exempt even if the basket contained mustard seed. The Gemara explains that the debate is based on whether agged cli, the fact that the basket contains mustards seeds, is considered agged. The Rambam rules like R' Yochanan and we shall try to understand this position.

The Tosfot (Pesachim 85b, s.v. benigrarim) explains that if one were to pull back those items that are still inside, when drawing the basket it would also bring those seeds that are outside along with it. Why that fact makes one is exempt still requires some thought.

The Rambam (Shabbat 12:11) however explains that since all the items are placed in one kli the contents are considered as if they are one object. Consequently, the fact that some seeds are not outside is irrelevant since we view all the seeds as one mass.

Perhaps to understand the difference between the Tosfot's explanation and the Rambam's, we need to understand another ruling of the Rambam.

Interestingly the Rambam (Shabbat 13:14) discusses a similar case where one throws an item outside that is tied to a string, yet still holds onto that string. There he explains that if he could pull the item back, then he would be exempt. He explains that it is not considered as if the item had a complete hanacha. The explanation in this case appears to be like the Tosfot.

The Chazon Yechezkel (Shabbat 2a, s.v. ve'im) explains that according to Rambam the two cases are different. Recall, that the full melacha of hotzaah involves both akira (lifting it from one domain) and hanacha (placing it in the other). In our case where the vegetables are contained in a kli, the Rambam writes that if one takes some of it out he is exempt "until he takes out the entire basket". The Chazon Yechezkel understands that according to the Rambam, since the contents are considered one mass, even akira has not even been performed.

With respect to the object on the string, the Rambam writes that "if he can draw the object towards him, he is exempt, since there is no hanacha -- it is considered like he picked up the object but did not put it down [in the other domain]." The Chazon Yechzkel understand that in that case it is considered as if akira was indeed performed but not hanacha. To be clear, the fact that he is holding the string is not considered comparable to where part of the basket is inside. The entire object is indeed outside. Yet since he could pull it back, in the case, the action lacks hanacha.¹

¹ See the Chazon Yechezkel who then uses this understanding to present a difficulty with the first Mishnah.

Download