Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 18, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘讗讬讬专 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Shabbat 73

Today’s shiur is dedicated to celebrating International Women’s Talmud Day that took place yesterday and to all those learning and teaching by Adam Dicker and Carolyn Hochstadter and family.

The gemara continues to bring more cases where Rava and Abaye argue about whether or not one would be exempt because of mitasek. The mishna finally gets to the list of the 39 melachot. The gemara explains why the mishna specifies a number. The gemara begins to discuss different toladot of each of the melachot. They also bring cases where one can do one act and be obligated a number of sacrifices as the act can be classified under different melachot.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讬砖讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讜砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚住讘讜专 讚砖讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讜讗讻诇讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转 讚驻讟讜专 讚谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讞转讜讱 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 驻讟讜专 讜讗讘讬讬 砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚住讘讜专 专讜拽 讛讜讗 讜讘诇注讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转 讚驻讟讜专 讚谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讞转讜讱 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 讞讬讬讘:

Rather, is it not that the first clause of the baraita is dealing with the contrast between Shabbat and idolatry, and the latter clause of the baraita is dealing with contrasting Shabbat and other mitzvot? And what are the circumstances of: Unwitting without intent, with regard to other mitzvot? It is in a case where one thought that it was permitted fat, and ate it, and later discovered that it was forbidden fat. This is one example of other mitzvot where one is liable. That is not the case with regard to Shabbat, where he is exempt, as one who intended to cut a detached plant and unwittingly severed a plant still attached to the ground is exempt. And according to Abaye, who holds that he is liable in that case, what are the circumstances of: Unwitting without intent, with regard to other mitzvot? It is in a case where one had something in his mouth and he thought it was spittle and swallowed it with no intention to eat it, and it turned out to be forbidden fat that he swallowed. This is one example of other mitzvot, where he is liable. That is not the case with regard to Shabbat, where the phrase: He is exempt, is referring to the case of one who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground. In that case, even Abaye agrees that he is exempt. However, one who intended to cut a detached plant and unwittingly severed a plant still attached to the ground is liable since he intended to perform a standard act of cutting. Therefore, no proof can be cited from this baraita.

讗讬转诪专 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讚诇讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讚讗专讘注 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讘注诇诪讗 讻住讘讜专 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜谞诪爪讗转 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讚讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讘注诇诪讗

A similar dispute between Abaye and Rava was stated. In the case of one who intended to throw an object two cubits in the public domain, for which he would not be liable by Torah law, and it turned out that he threw it four cubits, in violation of the prohibition by Torah law against carrying an object four cubits in the public domain, Rava said: He is exempt. Abaye said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rava said: He is exempt, as he does not intend to execute a throw of four cubits, and, consequently, does not intend to perform a prohibited act. Abaye said: He is liable, as he intends to execute a standard throw, and ultimately a throw that traveled a prohibited distance was executed. Another dispute between them was stated. In the case of one who thought that he was in the private domain and threw an object more than four cubits, and, ultimately, it was found to be the public domain, Rava said: He is exempt. And Abaye said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rava said: He is exempt, as he does not intend to execute a prohibited throw. In a private domain, he may throw an object as far as he chooses. And Abaye said: He is liable, as he intends to execute a standard throw.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讜讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讞转讬讻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 讚讗专讘注 讘诇讗 转专转讬 诇讗 诪讬讝专拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讚讗专讘注 讗讘诇 讻住讘讜专 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜谞诪爪讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讚讗专讘注 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to mention these three disputes, despite their similarities, because each one teaches a unique element. As, had the Gemara taught us only the first, the case of one who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground, we would have said that it was only in that case that Rava said he is exempt, as he does not intend to perform an act of prohibited severing. He had no intention to perform an action that entails desecration of Shabbat. However, the ruling in the case of one who intended to throw an object two cubits in the public domain and he threw it four cubits would be more stringent, as an object cannot be thrown four cubits without being thrown two cubits. A throw of two cubits is a component part of the four-cubit throw. Consequently, say that in that case Rava agrees with Abaye, as he performed an act that has a prohibited dimension to it. And, had the Gemara taught us the dispute in this case of throwing two cubits as well, we would have said that it is only in that case that Rava says that he is exempt, as he does not intend to execute a throw of four cubits. A throw of fewer than four cubits does not constitute a transgression. However, in the case of one who thought that he was in the private domain, and ultimately it was found to be the public domain where the individual intends to execute a throw of four cubits, which is a prohibited distance, say that Rava agrees with Abaye that he is liable. Therefore, it is necessary to mention all three cases in which they disagree.

转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬讚注 讚讗住讜专讗 砖讘转 讜讬讚注 诇讛 讗讬住讜专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讜拽讗 讟注讛 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转

We learned in a mishna: The primary categories of labor are forty-less-one, and we discussed it and asked: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tally was included to teach that if one performed all of the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one. Granted, according to Abaye, who said that in a case like that one mentioned above, where one intended to throw an object two cubits and it traveled four cubits he is liable, you find that circumstance in a case where he was aware that the prohibition of Shabbat applies to certain labors, and he was aware that particular labors were prohibited, and was mistaken with regard to measures. He intended to perform an act involving less than the prohibited measure, and it turned out that the action he performed involved an amount equal to or greater than the prohibited measure. That is an unwitting act that renders him liable to bring a sin-offering, according to Abaye. However, according to Rava, who said that he is exempt in a case where one intended to throw an object two cubits and it traveled four cubits, in what circumstances do you find that he would be liable for each and every one? Is it in a case where, with regard to Shabbat, his actions were intentional, and, with regard to the prohibited labors, his actions were unwitting?

讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘讻专转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讝讬讚 讘诇讗讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬讚注 诇讛 诇砖讘转 讘诇讗讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 讜讻专转 讚讬讚注 诇讛 诇砖讘转 讘诪讗讬 讚讬讚注 诇讛 讘转讞讜诪讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗:

It works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: Once he was unwitting with regard to the fact that the punishment for his transgression is karet, even though he was aware that his action was in violation of a Torah prohibition and performed the transgression intentionally, he is considered to have sinned unwittingly. If he holds in accordance with that opinion, you find a case where one could be liable for each and every prohibited labor when he was aware that performing labor on Shabbat involves violation of a Torah prohibition, but he was unaware that the punishment for violating that prohibition is karet. However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said: It is not considered unwitting until he was unwitting with regard to both the prohibition and karet, the result is that he is completely unaware of all the prohibited labors of Shabbat. The question then arises: With regard to what aspect of Shabbat was he aware? If he was completely unaware of all the labors prohibited on Shabbat, in what sense were his actions intentional with regard to Shabbat? The Gemara answers: He was aware of the halakhot of the prohibition of Shabbat boundaries, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that this prohibition is by Torah law.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讛讝讜专注 讜讛讞讜专砖 讜讛拽讜爪专 讜讛诪注诪专 讜讛讚砖 讜讛讝讜专讛 讛讘讜专专 讛讟讜讞谉 讜讛诪专拽讚 讜讛诇砖 讜讛讗讜驻讛

MISHNA: This fundamental mishna enumerates those who perform the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat, which number forty-less-one. They are grouped in accordance with their function: One who sows, and one who plows, and one who reaps, and one who gathers sheaves into a pile, and one who threshes, removing the kernel from the husk, and one who winnows threshed grain in the wind, and one who selects the inedible waste from the edible, and one who grinds, and one who sifts the flour in a sieve, and one who kneads dough, and one who bakes.

讛讙讜讝讝 讗转 讛爪诪专 讛诪诇讘谞讜 讜讛诪谞驻爪讜 讜讛爪讜讘注讜 讜讛讟讜讜讛 讜讛诪讬住讱 讜讛注讜砖讛 砖转讬 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讜讛驻讜爪注 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讛拽讜砖专 讜讛诪转讬专 讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转 讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专 [砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转]

Additional primary categories of prohibited labor are the following: One who shears wool, and one who whitens it, and one who combs the fleece and straightens it, and one who dyes it, and one who spins the wool, and one who stretches the threads of the warp in the loom, and one who constructs two meshes, tying the threads of the warp to the base of the loom, and one who weaves two threads, and one who severs two threads for constructive purposes, and one who ties a knot, and one who unties a knot, and one who sews two stitches with a needle, as well as one who tears a fabric in order to sew two stitches.

讛爪讚 爪讘讬 讛砖讜讞讟讜 讜讛诪驻砖讬讟讜 讛诪讜诇讞讜 讜讛诪注讘讚 讗转 注讜专讜 讜讛诪诪讞拽讜 讜讛诪讞转讻讜

One who traps a deer, or any living creature, and one who slaughters it, and one who flays it, and one who salts its hide, a step in the tanning process, and one who tans its hide, and one who smooths it, removing hairs and veins, and one who cuts it into measured parts.

讛讻讜转讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛诪讜讞拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇讻转讜讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讛讘讜谞讛 讜讛住讜转专 讛诪讻讘讛 讜讛诪讘注讬专 讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪专砖讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转:

One who writes two letters and one who erases in order to write two letters. One who builds a structure, and one who dismantles it, one who extinguishes a fire, and one who kindles a fire. One who strikes a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel (Rabbeinu 岣nanel), and one who carries out an object from domain to domain. All these are primary categories of labor, and they number forty-less-one.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转:

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that the primary categories of labor number forty-less-one. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this tally? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tally was included to teach that if he performed all of the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness, during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one.

讛讝讜专注 讜讛讞讜专砖: 诪讻讚讬 诪讻专讘 讻专讘讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬转谞讬 讞讜专砖 讜讛讚专 诇讬转谞讬 讝讜专注 转谞讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗讬 讚讝专注讬 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 讻专讘讬

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who sows, and one who plows. The Gemara asks: Since, after all, in terms of plowing, one plows first and only then sows, let the tanna teach first one who plows, and afterward let him teach one who sows. The Gemara answers: The tanna ordered the mishna based on the practice in Eretz Yisrael, where they sow first and then plow. In Eretz Yisrael, the practice was to plow a second time after sowing to cover the seeds.

转谞讗 讛讝讜专注 讜讛讝讜诪专 讜讛谞讜讟注 讜讛诪讘专讬讱 讜讛诪专讻讬讘 讻讜诇谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讛谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 [讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉] 讛注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讜转 讛专讘讛 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讝讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讟注 讜讛谞讜讟注 讜讛诪讘专讬讱 讜讛诪专讻讬讘 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讝讜专注 诪砖讜诐 讝讜专注 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讟注 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 讝讜专注

A baraita is taught with regard to the prohibited labor of sowing: One who sows, and one who prunes the branches of vines to accelerate their growth, and one who plants, and one who bends the branch of a vine or a tree into the ground so that it takes root while still attached to the trunk, and one who grafts the branch of one tree onto another have all performed one type of labor, as they all stimulate plant growth. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us? The Gemara explains: This teaches us that one who unwittingly performs numerous prohibited labors subsumed under a single primary category of labor, like those listed in the baraita, is liable to bring only one sin-offering, since they are considered aspects of the same labor. Rabbi A岣 said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rabbi Ami said: One who prunes is liable for the labor of planting. And one who plants, and one who bends, and one who grafts is liable for the labor of sowing. The Gemara is surprised at this: Is that to say that one who bends and one who grafts a branch, for sowing, yes, he is liable; for planting, no, he is not liable? These labors, performed on trees, are more similar to planting. Rather, say as follows: One is liable even for sowing, as with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat there is no difference between sowing and planting.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讜诪专 讜爪专讬讱 诇注爪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 拽讜爪专 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讟注 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚拽讟诇 讗住驻住转讗 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 拽讜爪专 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讟注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚拽谞讬讘 住讬诇拽讗 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 拽讜爪专 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讝讜专注:

Rav Kahana said: One who prunes a tree and needs the wood that he hewed from the tree for fuel or some other purpose is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One sin-offering due to the labor of reaping, like anyone who severs an item from the ground for the purpose of harvesting the detached object, and one sin-offering due to the labor of planting, since he thereby stimulates growth of the plant. Similarly, Rav Yosef said: One who reaps alfalfa is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to reaping, since he is cutting the plant for animal feed, and one due to planting, since cutting stimulates the growth of the alfalfa. Similarly, Abaye said: One who cuts beet leaves is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to reaping and one due to sowing.

讜讛讞讜专砖: 转谞讗 讛讞讜专砖 讜讛讞讜驻专 讜讛讞讜专抓 讻讜诇谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讙讘砖讜砖讬转 讜谞讟诇讛 讘讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讘砖讚讛 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讞讜专砖 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讙讜诪讗 讜讟诪诪讛 讘讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讘砖讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讜专砖

We learned in the mishna among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who plows. A tanna taught in a baraita with regard to the labor of plowing: One who plows, and one who digs, and one who makes a furrow in the ground have all performed one type of labor. Rav Sheshet said: One who had a mound of earth and removed it in the house, thereby evening the surface, is liable due to the labor of building, as he thereby engages in construction of the house. In the field, he is liable due to the labor of plowing. Similarly, Rava said: One who had a hole and filled it, in the house he is liable due to the labor of building. In the field, he is liable due to the labor of plowing.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇注驻专讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪转拽谉 讛讗讬 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗:

Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat and digs the hole only because he needs its dirt is exempt for that act, which is not the labor of digging prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law. And even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that in general one who performs labor that is not necessary for its own sake, i.e., he performs the labor for a purpose other than the direct result of that action, is liable for it; that ruling applies only to a purpose that is constructive. However, this purpose is destructive, as one performs an act that unnecessarily mars the surface of the ground. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda would agree that in this case he is exempt.

讜讛拽讜爪专: 转谞讗 讛拽讜爪专 讛讘讜爪专 讜讛讙讜讚专 讜讛诪住讬拽 讜讛讗讜专讛 讻讜诇谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 驻讬住讗 诇讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗转专 转诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 转讜诇砖 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪驻专拽 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讚专讱 转诇讬砖讛 讘讻讱 讜讗讬谉 讚专讱 驻专讬拽讛 讘讻讱:

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who reaps. It was taught in a Tosefta with regard to the labor of reaping: One who reaps, and one who picks grapes, and one who harvests dates, and one who collects olives, and one who gathers figs have all performed one type of labor, as they all involve picking fruit. Rav Pappa said: One who threw a clod of earth at a palm tree and severed dates is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to severing, which is a subcategory of the primary category of reaping; and one for extracting, which is a subcategory of the primary category of threshing, as he removes something edible, the date, from its cover, its cluster. Rav Ashi said: In that case, one is exempt, since that is not the typical manner of severing, and that is not the typical manner of extracting, and one who performs a labor in an atypical manner is exempt.

讜讛诪注诪专: 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讻谞讬祝 诪讬诇讞讗 诪诪诇讞转讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪注诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讬诪讜专 讗诇讗 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注:

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who gathers. Rava said: One who gathers salt from salt pools is liable due to the labor of gathering, as he gathers a substance from the field into a pile. Abaye said: That is not so, as the prohibition of gathering by Torah law applies only to produce that grows from the ground.

讜讛讚砖: 转谞讗 讛讚砖 讜讛诪谞驻抓 讜讛诪谞驻讟 讻讜诇谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讛谉:

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who threshes. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: One who threshes, and one who beats flax to remove it from the hard cover of its stalk, and one who strikes a cotton plant to remove the cotton seeds have all performed one type of labor.

讛讝讜专讛 讛讘讜专专 讜讛讟讜讞谉 讜讛诪专拽讚: 讛讬讬谞讜 讝讜专讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪专拽讚 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讘诪砖讻谉

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who winnows, and one who selects, and one who grinds, and one who sifts. The Gemara asks: The prohibited labor of winnowing is the same as the prohibited labor of selecting, which is the same as the prohibited labor of sifting. They are all identical in the manner in which they are performed and have the same objective: Separating food from the accompanying waste. Why was it necessary to list them all? An answer was provided by Abaye and Rava, who both said and established a principle: Any manner of labor that was performed in the Tabernacle, for the purposes of the Tabernacle,

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 68-74 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7W4SpfJpg4
Weaving Wisdom

Weaving demonstration

  Here is a short demonstration of weaving. I wanted to show you how threads become...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 73: The 39 Melakhot of Shabbat

First, Abaye vs Rava on throwing an object in reshut harabim -- if the resultant action alines with your own...
Weaving Wisdom

Melachot relating to spinning, weaving and dyeing

On Daf 73a, we learn about all of the steps for turning wool into garments and textiles (for the Tabernacle...

Shabbat 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 73

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讬砖讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讜砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚住讘讜专 讚砖讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讜讗讻诇讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转 讚驻讟讜专 讚谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讞转讜讱 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 驻讟讜专 讜讗讘讬讬 砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚住讘讜专 专讜拽 讛讜讗 讜讘诇注讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转 讚驻讟讜专 讚谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讞转讜讱 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 讞讬讬讘:

Rather, is it not that the first clause of the baraita is dealing with the contrast between Shabbat and idolatry, and the latter clause of the baraita is dealing with contrasting Shabbat and other mitzvot? And what are the circumstances of: Unwitting without intent, with regard to other mitzvot? It is in a case where one thought that it was permitted fat, and ate it, and later discovered that it was forbidden fat. This is one example of other mitzvot where one is liable. That is not the case with regard to Shabbat, where he is exempt, as one who intended to cut a detached plant and unwittingly severed a plant still attached to the ground is exempt. And according to Abaye, who holds that he is liable in that case, what are the circumstances of: Unwitting without intent, with regard to other mitzvot? It is in a case where one had something in his mouth and he thought it was spittle and swallowed it with no intention to eat it, and it turned out to be forbidden fat that he swallowed. This is one example of other mitzvot, where he is liable. That is not the case with regard to Shabbat, where the phrase: He is exempt, is referring to the case of one who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground. In that case, even Abaye agrees that he is exempt. However, one who intended to cut a detached plant and unwittingly severed a plant still attached to the ground is liable since he intended to perform a standard act of cutting. Therefore, no proof can be cited from this baraita.

讗讬转诪专 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讚诇讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讚讗专讘注 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讘注诇诪讗 讻住讘讜专 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜谞诪爪讗转 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讚讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讘注诇诪讗

A similar dispute between Abaye and Rava was stated. In the case of one who intended to throw an object two cubits in the public domain, for which he would not be liable by Torah law, and it turned out that he threw it four cubits, in violation of the prohibition by Torah law against carrying an object four cubits in the public domain, Rava said: He is exempt. Abaye said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rava said: He is exempt, as he does not intend to execute a throw of four cubits, and, consequently, does not intend to perform a prohibited act. Abaye said: He is liable, as he intends to execute a standard throw, and ultimately a throw that traveled a prohibited distance was executed. Another dispute between them was stated. In the case of one who thought that he was in the private domain and threw an object more than four cubits, and, ultimately, it was found to be the public domain, Rava said: He is exempt. And Abaye said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rava said: He is exempt, as he does not intend to execute a prohibited throw. In a private domain, he may throw an object as far as he chooses. And Abaye said: He is liable, as he intends to execute a standard throw.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讜讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讞转讬讻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 讚讗专讘注 讘诇讗 转专转讬 诇讗 诪讬讝专拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讚讗专讘注 讗讘诇 讻住讘讜专 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜谞诪爪讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讬拽讛 讚讗专讘注 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to mention these three disputes, despite their similarities, because each one teaches a unique element. As, had the Gemara taught us only the first, the case of one who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground, we would have said that it was only in that case that Rava said he is exempt, as he does not intend to perform an act of prohibited severing. He had no intention to perform an action that entails desecration of Shabbat. However, the ruling in the case of one who intended to throw an object two cubits in the public domain and he threw it four cubits would be more stringent, as an object cannot be thrown four cubits without being thrown two cubits. A throw of two cubits is a component part of the four-cubit throw. Consequently, say that in that case Rava agrees with Abaye, as he performed an act that has a prohibited dimension to it. And, had the Gemara taught us the dispute in this case of throwing two cubits as well, we would have said that it is only in that case that Rava says that he is exempt, as he does not intend to execute a throw of four cubits. A throw of fewer than four cubits does not constitute a transgression. However, in the case of one who thought that he was in the private domain, and ultimately it was found to be the public domain where the individual intends to execute a throw of four cubits, which is a prohibited distance, say that Rava agrees with Abaye that he is liable. Therefore, it is necessary to mention all three cases in which they disagree.

转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬讚注 讚讗住讜专讗 砖讘转 讜讬讚注 诇讛 讗讬住讜专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讜拽讗 讟注讛 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转

We learned in a mishna: The primary categories of labor are forty-less-one, and we discussed it and asked: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tally was included to teach that if one performed all of the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one. Granted, according to Abaye, who said that in a case like that one mentioned above, where one intended to throw an object two cubits and it traveled four cubits he is liable, you find that circumstance in a case where he was aware that the prohibition of Shabbat applies to certain labors, and he was aware that particular labors were prohibited, and was mistaken with regard to measures. He intended to perform an act involving less than the prohibited measure, and it turned out that the action he performed involved an amount equal to or greater than the prohibited measure. That is an unwitting act that renders him liable to bring a sin-offering, according to Abaye. However, according to Rava, who said that he is exempt in a case where one intended to throw an object two cubits and it traveled four cubits, in what circumstances do you find that he would be liable for each and every one? Is it in a case where, with regard to Shabbat, his actions were intentional, and, with regard to the prohibited labors, his actions were unwitting?

讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘讻专转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讝讬讚 讘诇讗讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬讚注 诇讛 诇砖讘转 讘诇讗讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 讜讻专转 讚讬讚注 诇讛 诇砖讘转 讘诪讗讬 讚讬讚注 诇讛 讘转讞讜诪讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗:

It works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: Once he was unwitting with regard to the fact that the punishment for his transgression is karet, even though he was aware that his action was in violation of a Torah prohibition and performed the transgression intentionally, he is considered to have sinned unwittingly. If he holds in accordance with that opinion, you find a case where one could be liable for each and every prohibited labor when he was aware that performing labor on Shabbat involves violation of a Torah prohibition, but he was unaware that the punishment for violating that prohibition is karet. However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said: It is not considered unwitting until he was unwitting with regard to both the prohibition and karet, the result is that he is completely unaware of all the prohibited labors of Shabbat. The question then arises: With regard to what aspect of Shabbat was he aware? If he was completely unaware of all the labors prohibited on Shabbat, in what sense were his actions intentional with regard to Shabbat? The Gemara answers: He was aware of the halakhot of the prohibition of Shabbat boundaries, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that this prohibition is by Torah law.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讛讝讜专注 讜讛讞讜专砖 讜讛拽讜爪专 讜讛诪注诪专 讜讛讚砖 讜讛讝讜专讛 讛讘讜专专 讛讟讜讞谉 讜讛诪专拽讚 讜讛诇砖 讜讛讗讜驻讛

MISHNA: This fundamental mishna enumerates those who perform the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat, which number forty-less-one. They are grouped in accordance with their function: One who sows, and one who plows, and one who reaps, and one who gathers sheaves into a pile, and one who threshes, removing the kernel from the husk, and one who winnows threshed grain in the wind, and one who selects the inedible waste from the edible, and one who grinds, and one who sifts the flour in a sieve, and one who kneads dough, and one who bakes.

讛讙讜讝讝 讗转 讛爪诪专 讛诪诇讘谞讜 讜讛诪谞驻爪讜 讜讛爪讜讘注讜 讜讛讟讜讜讛 讜讛诪讬住讱 讜讛注讜砖讛 砖转讬 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讜讛驻讜爪注 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讛拽讜砖专 讜讛诪转讬专 讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转 讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专 [砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转]

Additional primary categories of prohibited labor are the following: One who shears wool, and one who whitens it, and one who combs the fleece and straightens it, and one who dyes it, and one who spins the wool, and one who stretches the threads of the warp in the loom, and one who constructs two meshes, tying the threads of the warp to the base of the loom, and one who weaves two threads, and one who severs two threads for constructive purposes, and one who ties a knot, and one who unties a knot, and one who sews two stitches with a needle, as well as one who tears a fabric in order to sew two stitches.

讛爪讚 爪讘讬 讛砖讜讞讟讜 讜讛诪驻砖讬讟讜 讛诪讜诇讞讜 讜讛诪注讘讚 讗转 注讜专讜 讜讛诪诪讞拽讜 讜讛诪讞转讻讜

One who traps a deer, or any living creature, and one who slaughters it, and one who flays it, and one who salts its hide, a step in the tanning process, and one who tans its hide, and one who smooths it, removing hairs and veins, and one who cuts it into measured parts.

讛讻讜转讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛诪讜讞拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇讻转讜讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讛讘讜谞讛 讜讛住讜转专 讛诪讻讘讛 讜讛诪讘注讬专 讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪专砖讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转:

One who writes two letters and one who erases in order to write two letters. One who builds a structure, and one who dismantles it, one who extinguishes a fire, and one who kindles a fire. One who strikes a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel (Rabbeinu 岣nanel), and one who carries out an object from domain to domain. All these are primary categories of labor, and they number forty-less-one.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转:

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that the primary categories of labor number forty-less-one. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this tally? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tally was included to teach that if he performed all of the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness, during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one.

讛讝讜专注 讜讛讞讜专砖: 诪讻讚讬 诪讻专讘 讻专讘讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬转谞讬 讞讜专砖 讜讛讚专 诇讬转谞讬 讝讜专注 转谞讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗讬 讚讝专注讬 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 讻专讘讬

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who sows, and one who plows. The Gemara asks: Since, after all, in terms of plowing, one plows first and only then sows, let the tanna teach first one who plows, and afterward let him teach one who sows. The Gemara answers: The tanna ordered the mishna based on the practice in Eretz Yisrael, where they sow first and then plow. In Eretz Yisrael, the practice was to plow a second time after sowing to cover the seeds.

转谞讗 讛讝讜专注 讜讛讝讜诪专 讜讛谞讜讟注 讜讛诪讘专讬讱 讜讛诪专讻讬讘 讻讜诇谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讛谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 [讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉] 讛注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讜转 讛专讘讛 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讝讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讟注 讜讛谞讜讟注 讜讛诪讘专讬讱 讜讛诪专讻讬讘 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讝讜专注 诪砖讜诐 讝讜专注 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讟注 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 讝讜专注

A baraita is taught with regard to the prohibited labor of sowing: One who sows, and one who prunes the branches of vines to accelerate their growth, and one who plants, and one who bends the branch of a vine or a tree into the ground so that it takes root while still attached to the trunk, and one who grafts the branch of one tree onto another have all performed one type of labor, as they all stimulate plant growth. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us? The Gemara explains: This teaches us that one who unwittingly performs numerous prohibited labors subsumed under a single primary category of labor, like those listed in the baraita, is liable to bring only one sin-offering, since they are considered aspects of the same labor. Rabbi A岣 said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rabbi Ami said: One who prunes is liable for the labor of planting. And one who plants, and one who bends, and one who grafts is liable for the labor of sowing. The Gemara is surprised at this: Is that to say that one who bends and one who grafts a branch, for sowing, yes, he is liable; for planting, no, he is not liable? These labors, performed on trees, are more similar to planting. Rather, say as follows: One is liable even for sowing, as with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat there is no difference between sowing and planting.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讜诪专 讜爪专讬讱 诇注爪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 拽讜爪专 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讟注 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚拽讟诇 讗住驻住转讗 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 拽讜爪专 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讟注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚拽谞讬讘 住讬诇拽讗 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 拽讜爪专 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讝讜专注:

Rav Kahana said: One who prunes a tree and needs the wood that he hewed from the tree for fuel or some other purpose is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One sin-offering due to the labor of reaping, like anyone who severs an item from the ground for the purpose of harvesting the detached object, and one sin-offering due to the labor of planting, since he thereby stimulates growth of the plant. Similarly, Rav Yosef said: One who reaps alfalfa is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to reaping, since he is cutting the plant for animal feed, and one due to planting, since cutting stimulates the growth of the alfalfa. Similarly, Abaye said: One who cuts beet leaves is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to reaping and one due to sowing.

讜讛讞讜专砖: 转谞讗 讛讞讜专砖 讜讛讞讜驻专 讜讛讞讜专抓 讻讜诇谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讙讘砖讜砖讬转 讜谞讟诇讛 讘讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讘砖讚讛 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讞讜专砖 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讙讜诪讗 讜讟诪诪讛 讘讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讘砖讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讜专砖

We learned in the mishna among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who plows. A tanna taught in a baraita with regard to the labor of plowing: One who plows, and one who digs, and one who makes a furrow in the ground have all performed one type of labor. Rav Sheshet said: One who had a mound of earth and removed it in the house, thereby evening the surface, is liable due to the labor of building, as he thereby engages in construction of the house. In the field, he is liable due to the labor of plowing. Similarly, Rava said: One who had a hole and filled it, in the house he is liable due to the labor of building. In the field, he is liable due to the labor of plowing.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇注驻专讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪转拽谉 讛讗讬 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗:

Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat and digs the hole only because he needs its dirt is exempt for that act, which is not the labor of digging prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law. And even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that in general one who performs labor that is not necessary for its own sake, i.e., he performs the labor for a purpose other than the direct result of that action, is liable for it; that ruling applies only to a purpose that is constructive. However, this purpose is destructive, as one performs an act that unnecessarily mars the surface of the ground. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda would agree that in this case he is exempt.

讜讛拽讜爪专: 转谞讗 讛拽讜爪专 讛讘讜爪专 讜讛讙讜讚专 讜讛诪住讬拽 讜讛讗讜专讛 讻讜诇谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 驻讬住讗 诇讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗转专 转诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 转讜诇砖 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪驻专拽 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讚专讱 转诇讬砖讛 讘讻讱 讜讗讬谉 讚专讱 驻专讬拽讛 讘讻讱:

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who reaps. It was taught in a Tosefta with regard to the labor of reaping: One who reaps, and one who picks grapes, and one who harvests dates, and one who collects olives, and one who gathers figs have all performed one type of labor, as they all involve picking fruit. Rav Pappa said: One who threw a clod of earth at a palm tree and severed dates is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to severing, which is a subcategory of the primary category of reaping; and one for extracting, which is a subcategory of the primary category of threshing, as he removes something edible, the date, from its cover, its cluster. Rav Ashi said: In that case, one is exempt, since that is not the typical manner of severing, and that is not the typical manner of extracting, and one who performs a labor in an atypical manner is exempt.

讜讛诪注诪专: 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讻谞讬祝 诪讬诇讞讗 诪诪诇讞转讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪注诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讬诪讜专 讗诇讗 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注:

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who gathers. Rava said: One who gathers salt from salt pools is liable due to the labor of gathering, as he gathers a substance from the field into a pile. Abaye said: That is not so, as the prohibition of gathering by Torah law applies only to produce that grows from the ground.

讜讛讚砖: 转谞讗 讛讚砖 讜讛诪谞驻抓 讜讛诪谞驻讟 讻讜诇谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讛谉:

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who threshes. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: One who threshes, and one who beats flax to remove it from the hard cover of its stalk, and one who strikes a cotton plant to remove the cotton seeds have all performed one type of labor.

讛讝讜专讛 讛讘讜专专 讜讛讟讜讞谉 讜讛诪专拽讚: 讛讬讬谞讜 讝讜专讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讜专专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪专拽讚 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讘诪砖讻谉

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who winnows, and one who selects, and one who grinds, and one who sifts. The Gemara asks: The prohibited labor of winnowing is the same as the prohibited labor of selecting, which is the same as the prohibited labor of sifting. They are all identical in the manner in which they are performed and have the same objective: Separating food from the accompanying waste. Why was it necessary to list them all? An answer was provided by Abaye and Rava, who both said and established a principle: Any manner of labor that was performed in the Tabernacle, for the purposes of the Tabernacle,

Scroll To Top