Monday, November 06, 2006

בסוגיא דתריסין אם יש איסור משום טירחא

ברש"י י ע"א מבואר דיש הו"א לאסור החזרת תריסין משום טירחא, אך בסוגיא הכא משמע ברש"י ־וכן הבין המ"ב־ שהצד לאסור הוא שיש דין בנין בכלים מדרבנן משום גזירה ולא הזכיר טירחא
וצ"ע דלמסקנה שבשאין בו ציר כלל מותר אפילו בבית, הפוסקים כותבים דמותר אפילו להחזיר אך אם יש טירחא צ"ע אם מותר. ובפנ"י משמע שכשאין ציר אין גם טירחא כי נמצא דהחנות קטנה, אך לפ"ז צ"ע מדוע נקט רש"י לעיל סברת טירחא. ועיין בפנ"י ולא עיינתי

1 comment:

Avi Lebowitz said...

I am not convinced that rashi on 11b says that the issur is bec. of binyan and stira d'rabonon. I think that rashi holds that there is no binyan and stirah by keilim at all midoryasa, even when you make the kli (as rashi implies here and says in shabbos). therefore, there is no room for any gezeira since it can't bring to a d'oraysa by a kli. Therefore, rashi 10a has to explain that the issur is bec. of tircha (it is not just a "hava amina". see maharshal that we are not goreis in the gemara the ending of "ad kahn lo ka'amri", and the real reason for the issur is bec. of tircha).
Tosafos on the other hand holds that binyan and stira is possible by keilim midoryasa (the rule of ein binyan... is only by assembling but forming from scratch is an issur d'oraysa), therefore holds that there is an issur d'rabonon "shema yitka". It comes out that Rashi and Tosafos argue whether we are matir for simchas yom tov (mishum tchilasan) the issur of tircha [rashi] or the issur derabonon of binyan and stirah [tosafos].
regarding the tzir issue, i don't have a clear picture of how it is. but i would imagine that it is a smaller and less significant type of action so that both tircha and binyan don't really apply.