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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 19, 2020 | 讻状讛 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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Shabbat 74

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of Harriet Sommer, Hindel bat Zissel z”l,聽 by Eric Sommer and by Francine Shraga in honor of her daughter Sarah on earning her PhD. Congratulations! We are all so proud! Love, Mom, Dad, Rose and Dov.

Why are certain actions perfomred in the Tabernacle (mishkan) on the list of 39 melachot and others are not? Laws of selection (separating good from bad or bad from good) are discussed in a braita but in a very unclear manner. The gemara bring five explanations. The gemara tries to assess if really one is allowed to select good from bad. What are toladot of grinding? Why did the mishna write baking instead of cooking? Rav Acha says that one can be olbigated for cooking by putting object/utensils in an oven or pot like a peg or tar to prepare it. One who crafts a barrel, oven or wicker basket is obligated many sacrifices – for what actions? Rashi and Rav Hai Gaon disagree about which ones, partially based on a debate about whether one can be obligated in building for crafting a utensil. When in the Tabernacle did they do the acts of tying, untying and tearing?

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬讗 诇讛 讞砖讬讘 诇讛 讜诇讬讞砖讘 谞诪讬 讻讜转砖 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讻谉 注谞讬 讗讜讻诇 驻转讜 讘诇讗 讻转讬砖讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讗讬 讞砖讬讘 讻讜转砖 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讜诇讬驻讜拽 讞讚讗 诪讛谞讱 讜诇注讬讬诇 讻讜转砖 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬:


even though there is a different labor that is similar to it, the mishna enumerated it. Every labor that was performed in the Tabernacle is significant. The Gemara asks: And let him enumerate the labor of pounding as well, as wheat was pounded to remove its outer kernel in the Tabernacle. Abaye said: The labor of pounding is not one of the essential stages in the baking of bread, as paupers eat their bread without pounding the wheat to remove the bran. Therefore, since the tanna enumerated threshing, there was no need to include pounding among the labors enumerated in the breadmaking process. Rava said a different explanation: Who is the tanna of this mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The primary categories of labor are forty-less-one, a number derived from a textual allusion. Therefore, the list cannot be expanded. And had the tanna enumerated pounding, there would be forty labors rather than thirty-nine. The Gemara asks: And let him take out one of these, selecting or winnowing, and insert pounding, thereby leaving the number intact. Rather, the reason that the tanna did not include pounding is clear, according to the explanation of Abaye.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 讜诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜诇诪讞专 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讗驻讜转 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讘砖诇 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐


The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the laws of selecting: If there were several types of food before him, and he wants to remove one or more from the mixture, one selects and eats, selects and puts aside. And one may not select, and if one did select, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? The end of this baraita contradicts the beginning. Ulla said: It is saying as follows: One selects and eats if he is doing so for the purpose of that day, Shabbat. And he selects and puts aside food for the purpose of that day. And one may not select for the purpose of the next day. And if one did select for the next day, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav 岣sda strongly objects to this explanation: And is it permitted to bake for that day, and is it permitted to cook for that day? No other labor prohibited on Shabbat may be performed for the purpose of Shabbat, and the same should hold true for selecting.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讜讻砖讬注讜专 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讗驻讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 讘讬讚 讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 讘讬讚 讘拽谞讜谉 讜讘转诪讞讜讬 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜讘谞驻讛 讜讘讻讘专讛 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


Rather, Rav 岣sda said it is to be understood as follows: One selects and eats less than the measure of a dried fig-bulk, which is the smallest amount for which one is liable by Torah law. One selects and puts aside less than that measure. And one may not select the measure of a dried fig-bulk, and if one did select that measure, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation: And is it permitted to bake less than the measure for liability ab initio? Although performing a prohibited labor on a minute measure does not engender liability, it is prohibited. Therefore, the baraita cannot be interpreted as saying that one may ab initio select an amount that is less than the measure for liability. Rather, Rav Yosef said: One selects and eats by hand, selects and put aside by hand. However, with a basket [kanon] or with a plate, both of which are large, flat vessels used for sorting sizeable quantities, one may not select ab initio. And if he did select, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering if he did so unwittingly. If he did so intentionally he is exempt from stoning. However, it is prohibited. And one may not select with a sieve or with a sifter. And if he did select with those utensils, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪讬讚讬 拽谞讜谉 讜转诪讞讜讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 讛驻住讜诇转 讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 讛驻住讜诇转 驻住讜诇转 诪转讜讱 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬讚讬 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 驻住讜诇转 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讗诇转专 讜讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 诇讗诇转专 讜诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 谞注砖讛 讻讘讜专专 诇讗讜爪专 讜讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 讗诪专 谞讞诪谞讬


Rav Hamnuna strongly objects to this: Does the mishna teach anything about a basket or a plate? Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation is based on the addition of details that do not appear in the baraita either. Rather, Rav Hamnuna said: One selects and eats if he is removing food from the waste, and similarly, selects and puts aside if he is removing food from the waste. However, one may not select waste from food, and if he did select in that manner, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The typical method of selecting is the removal of waste from the food. An individual who alters the procedure is not liable. Abaye strongly objects to this: Does the mishna teach anything about food from waste? That detail is not mentioned in the baraita either. Rather, Abaye said: One selects and eats if he is removing food for immediate use, and similarly one selects and puts aside for immediate use. However, one may not select for use later that same day. And if he did select, he is considered like one who selects for storage, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering. This explanation requires no emendation of the mishna. It is merely an interpretation of the phrase: One selects and eats, as referring to selecting for immediate use. The Gemara relates that the Sages stated Abaye鈥檚 explanation of the baraita before Rava. He said to them: Na岣ani, Abaye, spoke well.


讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讘讬专专 讜讗讻诇 讜讘讬专专 讜讛谞讬讞 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诪转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘拽谞讜谉 讜转诪讞讜讬 讛讗 讘谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛


Until this point, the Gemara discussed selecting food from waste. The Gemara proceeds to discuss a different case. If there were two types of foods before him, and he selected and ate one type, and selected and put aside one type, Rav Ashi taught: He is exempt. Rav Yirmeya from Difti taught: He is liable. Rav Ashi taught: He is exempt. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that in that case he is liable? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, where Rav Ashi said that he is exempt, is referring to a case where he selects by means of a basket or a plate, as that method of selecting is not considered expert work; and that, where the baraita said he is liable, is in a case where he selects by means of a sieve or a sifter, as that method of selecting is considered expert work.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖讘转讗 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讛讜讗讬 讜讗讬拽诇注讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 砖讚讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讻诇讻诇讛 讚驻讬专讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 驻住讜诇转 讗住讜专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 注讬谉 讬驻讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讻讜讬谉


The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: It was the Shabbat of Rav Beivai to serve food to the students, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi happened to come to his house. He placed before them a basket of fruits without removing the leaves and the stems. And I do not know whether he did so because he holds that it is prohibited to select food from waste when it is not for immediate consumption, or whether he did so because he intended to show generosity to his guests by creating the impression that the basket was full. A fruit-filled basket conveys to the guests that there is plenty and that they may take as much as they wish. Therefore, there is no clear proof from this incident.


讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讛讘讜专专 转讜专诪讜住讬诐 诪转讜讱 驻住讜诇转 砖诇讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 驻住讜诇转 讗住讜专 砖讗谞讬 转讜专诪讜住讬诐


岣zkiya said: One who selects lupines from their waste after boiling them is liable for performing the prohibited labor of selecting. The Gemara asks: Let us say, based on this statement, that 岣zkiya holds that even selecting food from waste is prohibited. The Gemara rejects this proof: Lupines are different,


讚砖诇拽讬 诇讬讛 砖讘注讗 讝讬诪谞讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖拽诇讬 诇讬讛 诪住专讞 讜讻驻住讜诇转 诪转讜讱 讗讜讻诇 讚诪讬:


as they are boiled seven times. And, if one does not remove them from the shells, they rot. Therefore, it is considered like removing waste from food. The rotting edible portion of the lupine causes the shell to reek. Removing the edible portion, therefore, has the legal status of removing waste.


讜讛讟讜讞谉: 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚驻专讬诐 住讬诇拽讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讟讜讞谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚住诇讬转 住讬诇转讬 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讟讜讞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬拽驻讬讚 讗诪砖讞转讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讞转讱:


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who grinds. Rav Pappa said: One who chops beets into small pieces on Shabbat is liable due to the prohibited labor of grinding, as the actions are similar. Rav Menashe said: One who chops wood chips for sawdust (Rambam) is liable due to the prohibited labor of grinding. Rav Ashi said: If he is particular in his chopping with regard to the measurement, i.e., he is careful to cut all the chips to a particular size, he is also liable due to the labor of cutting.


讜讛诇砖 讜讛讗讜驻讛: 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讘拽 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讘讬砖讜诇 住诪诪谞讬谉 讚讛讜讛 讘诪砖讻谉 讜谞拽讟 讗讜驻讛 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讬讚讜专讗 讚驻转 谞拽讟


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who kneads and one who bakes. Rav Pappa said: Our tanna left out the labor of cooking the spices for dye, which was performed in the Tabernacle, and included the labor of baking, which was not performed in the construction of the Tabernacle. If, as stated above, all the primary categories of labor were derived from the labors in the Tabernacle, why did the tanna omit cooking? The Gemara answers: Our tanna cited the sequence of preparing bread, which was the underlying principle behind his organization of the primary categories of labor. He opened with plowing and concluded with the preparation of bread.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 住讬讻转讗 诇讗转讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇砖专讜专讬 诪谞讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讬专驻讗 专驻讬 讜讛讚专 拽诪讬讟 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗专转讞 讻讜驻专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚专 讜讗讬拽讜砖讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rav A岣 bar Rav Avira said: One who places a peg into an oven to dry is liable for performing the labor of cooking. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that he intends to strengthen the utensil, as ultimately, the peg is hardened in the oven, in contrast to cooking in which the fire softens the item being cooked. Therefore, he teaches us that initially the wood is softened in the oven, and only afterward it is hardened. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who boils pitch is liable for performing the labor of cooking. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since it proceeds to harden afterward, say that it is not considered cooking. One might think that since the pitch was hard before it was cooked and will ultimately be hard after it is cooked, boiling pitch is not considered cooking. Therefore, he teaches us that even a temporary change is considered cooking.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚注讘讚 讞讘讬转讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 砖讘注 讞讟讗讜转 转谞讜专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讜谞讛 讞讟讗讜转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚注讘讚 讞诇转讗 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗讬 讞讬讬讟讬讛 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转:


Rava said: One who unwittingly crafted an earthenware barrel on Shabbat is liable to bring seven sin-offerings: He crumbles the lumps of dirt; which is (1) grinding; (2) selects the stones from the dirt; (3) kneads the mortar; (4) cuts the mortar into pieces of a suitable size; (5) builds the mold; (6) kindles the fire, and then fires the earthenware vessel, which is (7) baking (ge鈥檕nim). One who crafts an oven is liable for eight sin-offerings, since in addition to those seven labors, he spreads another layer of mortar to finish the job, performing the prohibited labor of (8) smoothing. Abaye said: One who unwittingly crafts a receptacle from reeds on Shabbat is liable to bring eleven sin-offerings. In pruning the reeds, he performed both (1) reaping and (2) planting, as he stimulates growth of the remaining reeds. He (3) gathers the reeds; (4) selects them; (5) smooths and levels them; cuts them into small pieces, which is (6) grinding; and (7) cuts them to a particular measurement. When he begins weaving the reeds, he performs the labors of (8) stretching the warp; (9) constructing two meshes; and (10) weaving. Crafting the object as a whole constitutes (11) building (ge鈥檕nim). And if he sews the mouth of the receptacle, he is liable to bring thirteen sin-offerings with the added labors of (12) sewing and (13) tying.


讛讙讜讝讝 讗转 讛爪诪专 讜讛诪诇讘谞讜: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜讜讛 爪诪专 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讙讜讝讝 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪谞驻抓 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讟讜讜讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讙讝讬讝讛 讘讻讱 讜讗讬谉 讚专讱 诪谞驻抓 讘讻讱 讜讗讬谉 讚专讱 讟讜讜讬 讘讻讱 讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖讟讜祝 讘注讝讬诐 讜讟讜讜 讘注讝讬诐 讗诇诪讗 讟讜讜讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 砖诪讛 讟讜讜讬讛 讞讻诪讛 讬转讬专讛 砖讗谞讬


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who shears wool, and one who whitens it, which are labors in the process of shearing and spinning wool. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who unwittingly spins wool still attached on the back of an animal on Shabbat is liable to bring three sin-offerings: One due to shearing, since, in the process, some of the wool is detached from the sheep; and one due to combing the wool; and one due to spinning. Rav Kahana said: This is not a typical manner of shearing, and this is not a typical manner of combing, and this is not a typical manner of spinning. The Gemara asks: And is that not a typical manner of spinning? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Ne岣mya that the verse in the context of the work of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd all the women whose hearts lifted them with wisdom spun the goats鈥 (Exodus 35:26) means that they washed the hair on the goats, and they spun it into threads on the goats themselves without first shearing the hair? Apparently, spinning on the back of an animal is considered a typical manner of spinning. The Gemara answers: Extraordinary wisdom is different. Although certain individuals are capable of spinning wool that way, the typical person is not capable of performing that feat.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转讜诇砖 讗转 讛讻谞祝 讜讛拽讜讟诪讜 讜讛诪讜专讟讜 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 (讜讗诪专 专讘讬) 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 转讜诇砖 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讙讜讝讝 拽讜讟诐 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讞转讱 诪诪专讟 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪诪讞拽:


The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who unwittingly plucks a large feather from the wing of a bird on Shabbat, and who snips the tip of the feather, and who pulls out the thin threads that comprise the feather is liable to bring three sin-offerings. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in explanation: One who plucks the wing is liable due to the labor of shearing. One who snips the tip of the feather is liable due to cutting. And one who pulls out the threads is liable due to smoothing.


讛拽讜砖专 讜讛诪转讬专: 拽砖讬专讛 讘诪砖讻谉 讛讬讻讗 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讻谉 拽讜砖专讬谉 讘讬转讚讜转 讗讛诇讬诐 (拽讜砖专讬诐) 讛讛讜讗 拽讜砖专 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛转讬专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讻谉 讗讜专讙讬 讬专讬注讜转 砖谞驻住拽讛 诇讛谉 谞讬诪讗 拽讜砖专讬诐 讗讜转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转专爪转 拽讜砖专 诪转讬专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讬 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 转专讬 讞讜讟讬 拽讬讟专讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 砖专讬 讞讚 讜拽讟专 讞讚 讛砖转讗 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 诪诇讻讬 讛诪诇讻讬诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注讬诇讗讬 砖讻谉 爪讚讬 讞诇讝讜谉 拽讜砖专讬谉 讜诪转讬专讬谉:


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who ties and one who unties. The Gemara asks: Where was there tying in the Tabernacle? Rava said: They tied the tents of the Tabernacle to the pegs. The Gemara rejects this: And is that considered performance of the labor of tying? That was tying a knot in order to untie it. When the children of Israel departed from an encampment, they dismantled the Tabernacle, which involved untying all of the knots. One is not liable for tying a temporary knot on Shabbat. Rather, Abaye said: As the weavers of curtains for the Tabernacle, when a thread would rip, they would tie it. Rava said to him: You have resolved the problem with regard to the labor of tying; however, with regard to the labor of untying, what can be said? Where, in the construction of the Tabernacle, was the labor of untying performed? And if you say that it was performed if one found two threads with knots tied next to each other, he untied one and left one tied; now, before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so, as the curtain would look flawed, in the Tabernacle, before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, would one do so? Rather, Rava said, and some say that Rav Elai said: The trappers of 岣lazon, whose blood was used in the Tabernacle as a dye, tie and untie their nets.


讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转: 讜讛讗 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖拽砖专谉:


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who sews two stitches. The Gemara asks: That does not endure; two stitches will unravel immediately. A prohibited labor whose result is temporary is not considered a prohibited labor. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That has the legal status of a prohibited labor only in a case where, after sewing the stitches, he tied them. He tied a knot at each of the two ends of the thread so that the stitches would not unravel.


讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专: 拽专讬注讛 讘诪砖讻谉 诪讬 讛讜讛 专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who tears in order to sew two stitches. The Gemara asks: Was there tearing in the construction of the Tabernacle? The Gemara answers that it was Rabba and Rabbi Zeira who both said the following explanation:

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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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 74: The Problem of Seedless Watermelon

Who's Who: Nachmani. Borer - what are the parameters of this melakhah? A tannaitic statement needs rereading by the Amoraim,...
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 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 74

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬讗 诇讛 讞砖讬讘 诇讛 讜诇讬讞砖讘 谞诪讬 讻讜转砖 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讻谉 注谞讬 讗讜讻诇 驻转讜 讘诇讗 讻转讬砖讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讗讬 讞砖讬讘 讻讜转砖 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讜诇讬驻讜拽 讞讚讗 诪讛谞讱 讜诇注讬讬诇 讻讜转砖 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬:


even though there is a different labor that is similar to it, the mishna enumerated it. Every labor that was performed in the Tabernacle is significant. The Gemara asks: And let him enumerate the labor of pounding as well, as wheat was pounded to remove its outer kernel in the Tabernacle. Abaye said: The labor of pounding is not one of the essential stages in the baking of bread, as paupers eat their bread without pounding the wheat to remove the bran. Therefore, since the tanna enumerated threshing, there was no need to include pounding among the labors enumerated in the breadmaking process. Rava said a different explanation: Who is the tanna of this mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The primary categories of labor are forty-less-one, a number derived from a textual allusion. Therefore, the list cannot be expanded. And had the tanna enumerated pounding, there would be forty labors rather than thirty-nine. The Gemara asks: And let him take out one of these, selecting or winnowing, and insert pounding, thereby leaving the number intact. Rather, the reason that the tanna did not include pounding is clear, according to the explanation of Abaye.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 讜诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜诇诪讞专 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讗驻讜转 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讘砖诇 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐


The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the laws of selecting: If there were several types of food before him, and he wants to remove one or more from the mixture, one selects and eats, selects and puts aside. And one may not select, and if one did select, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? The end of this baraita contradicts the beginning. Ulla said: It is saying as follows: One selects and eats if he is doing so for the purpose of that day, Shabbat. And he selects and puts aside food for the purpose of that day. And one may not select for the purpose of the next day. And if one did select for the next day, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav 岣sda strongly objects to this explanation: And is it permitted to bake for that day, and is it permitted to cook for that day? No other labor prohibited on Shabbat may be performed for the purpose of Shabbat, and the same should hold true for selecting.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讜讻砖讬注讜专 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讗驻讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 讘讬讚 讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 讘讬讚 讘拽谞讜谉 讜讘转诪讞讜讬 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜讘谞驻讛 讜讘讻讘专讛 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


Rather, Rav 岣sda said it is to be understood as follows: One selects and eats less than the measure of a dried fig-bulk, which is the smallest amount for which one is liable by Torah law. One selects and puts aside less than that measure. And one may not select the measure of a dried fig-bulk, and if one did select that measure, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation: And is it permitted to bake less than the measure for liability ab initio? Although performing a prohibited labor on a minute measure does not engender liability, it is prohibited. Therefore, the baraita cannot be interpreted as saying that one may ab initio select an amount that is less than the measure for liability. Rather, Rav Yosef said: One selects and eats by hand, selects and put aside by hand. However, with a basket [kanon] or with a plate, both of which are large, flat vessels used for sorting sizeable quantities, one may not select ab initio. And if he did select, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering if he did so unwittingly. If he did so intentionally he is exempt from stoning. However, it is prohibited. And one may not select with a sieve or with a sifter. And if he did select with those utensils, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪讬讚讬 拽谞讜谉 讜转诪讞讜讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 讛驻住讜诇转 讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 讛驻住讜诇转 驻住讜诇转 诪转讜讱 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬讚讬 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 驻住讜诇转 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讜专专 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讗诇转专 讜讘讜专专 讜诪谞讬讞 诇讗诇转专 讜诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐 诇讗 讬讘专讜专 讜讗诐 讘讬专专 谞注砖讛 讻讘讜专专 诇讗讜爪专 讜讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 讗诪专 谞讞诪谞讬


Rav Hamnuna strongly objects to this: Does the mishna teach anything about a basket or a plate? Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation is based on the addition of details that do not appear in the baraita either. Rather, Rav Hamnuna said: One selects and eats if he is removing food from the waste, and similarly, selects and puts aside if he is removing food from the waste. However, one may not select waste from food, and if he did select in that manner, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The typical method of selecting is the removal of waste from the food. An individual who alters the procedure is not liable. Abaye strongly objects to this: Does the mishna teach anything about food from waste? That detail is not mentioned in the baraita either. Rather, Abaye said: One selects and eats if he is removing food for immediate use, and similarly one selects and puts aside for immediate use. However, one may not select for use later that same day. And if he did select, he is considered like one who selects for storage, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering. This explanation requires no emendation of the mishna. It is merely an interpretation of the phrase: One selects and eats, as referring to selecting for immediate use. The Gemara relates that the Sages stated Abaye鈥檚 explanation of the baraita before Rava. He said to them: Na岣ani, Abaye, spoke well.


讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讘讬专专 讜讗讻诇 讜讘讬专专 讜讛谞讬讞 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诪转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘拽谞讜谉 讜转诪讞讜讬 讛讗 讘谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛


Until this point, the Gemara discussed selecting food from waste. The Gemara proceeds to discuss a different case. If there were two types of foods before him, and he selected and ate one type, and selected and put aside one type, Rav Ashi taught: He is exempt. Rav Yirmeya from Difti taught: He is liable. Rav Ashi taught: He is exempt. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that in that case he is liable? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, where Rav Ashi said that he is exempt, is referring to a case where he selects by means of a basket or a plate, as that method of selecting is not considered expert work; and that, where the baraita said he is liable, is in a case where he selects by means of a sieve or a sifter, as that method of selecting is considered expert work.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖讘转讗 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讛讜讗讬 讜讗讬拽诇注讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 砖讚讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讻诇讻诇讛 讚驻讬专讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 驻住讜诇转 讗住讜专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 注讬谉 讬驻讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讻讜讬谉


The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: It was the Shabbat of Rav Beivai to serve food to the students, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi happened to come to his house. He placed before them a basket of fruits without removing the leaves and the stems. And I do not know whether he did so because he holds that it is prohibited to select food from waste when it is not for immediate consumption, or whether he did so because he intended to show generosity to his guests by creating the impression that the basket was full. A fruit-filled basket conveys to the guests that there is plenty and that they may take as much as they wish. Therefore, there is no clear proof from this incident.


讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讛讘讜专专 转讜专诪讜住讬诐 诪转讜讱 驻住讜诇转 砖诇讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗讜讻诇 诪转讜讱 驻住讜诇转 讗住讜专 砖讗谞讬 转讜专诪讜住讬诐


岣zkiya said: One who selects lupines from their waste after boiling them is liable for performing the prohibited labor of selecting. The Gemara asks: Let us say, based on this statement, that 岣zkiya holds that even selecting food from waste is prohibited. The Gemara rejects this proof: Lupines are different,


讚砖诇拽讬 诇讬讛 砖讘注讗 讝讬诪谞讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖拽诇讬 诇讬讛 诪住专讞 讜讻驻住讜诇转 诪转讜讱 讗讜讻诇 讚诪讬:


as they are boiled seven times. And, if one does not remove them from the shells, they rot. Therefore, it is considered like removing waste from food. The rotting edible portion of the lupine causes the shell to reek. Removing the edible portion, therefore, has the legal status of removing waste.


讜讛讟讜讞谉: 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚驻专讬诐 住讬诇拽讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讟讜讞谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚住诇讬转 住讬诇转讬 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讟讜讞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬拽驻讬讚 讗诪砖讞转讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讞转讱:


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who grinds. Rav Pappa said: One who chops beets into small pieces on Shabbat is liable due to the prohibited labor of grinding, as the actions are similar. Rav Menashe said: One who chops wood chips for sawdust (Rambam) is liable due to the prohibited labor of grinding. Rav Ashi said: If he is particular in his chopping with regard to the measurement, i.e., he is careful to cut all the chips to a particular size, he is also liable due to the labor of cutting.


讜讛诇砖 讜讛讗讜驻讛: 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讘拽 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讘讬砖讜诇 住诪诪谞讬谉 讚讛讜讛 讘诪砖讻谉 讜谞拽讟 讗讜驻讛 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讬讚讜专讗 讚驻转 谞拽讟


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who kneads and one who bakes. Rav Pappa said: Our tanna left out the labor of cooking the spices for dye, which was performed in the Tabernacle, and included the labor of baking, which was not performed in the construction of the Tabernacle. If, as stated above, all the primary categories of labor were derived from the labors in the Tabernacle, why did the tanna omit cooking? The Gemara answers: Our tanna cited the sequence of preparing bread, which was the underlying principle behind his organization of the primary categories of labor. He opened with plowing and concluded with the preparation of bread.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 住讬讻转讗 诇讗转讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇砖专讜专讬 诪谞讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讬专驻讗 专驻讬 讜讛讚专 拽诪讬讟 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗专转讞 讻讜驻专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚专 讜讗讬拽讜砖讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rav A岣 bar Rav Avira said: One who places a peg into an oven to dry is liable for performing the labor of cooking. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that he intends to strengthen the utensil, as ultimately, the peg is hardened in the oven, in contrast to cooking in which the fire softens the item being cooked. Therefore, he teaches us that initially the wood is softened in the oven, and only afterward it is hardened. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who boils pitch is liable for performing the labor of cooking. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since it proceeds to harden afterward, say that it is not considered cooking. One might think that since the pitch was hard before it was cooked and will ultimately be hard after it is cooked, boiling pitch is not considered cooking. Therefore, he teaches us that even a temporary change is considered cooking.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚注讘讚 讞讘讬转讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 砖讘注 讞讟讗讜转 转谞讜专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讜谞讛 讞讟讗讜转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚注讘讚 讞诇转讗 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗讬 讞讬讬讟讬讛 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转:


Rava said: One who unwittingly crafted an earthenware barrel on Shabbat is liable to bring seven sin-offerings: He crumbles the lumps of dirt; which is (1) grinding; (2) selects the stones from the dirt; (3) kneads the mortar; (4) cuts the mortar into pieces of a suitable size; (5) builds the mold; (6) kindles the fire, and then fires the earthenware vessel, which is (7) baking (ge鈥檕nim). One who crafts an oven is liable for eight sin-offerings, since in addition to those seven labors, he spreads another layer of mortar to finish the job, performing the prohibited labor of (8) smoothing. Abaye said: One who unwittingly crafts a receptacle from reeds on Shabbat is liable to bring eleven sin-offerings. In pruning the reeds, he performed both (1) reaping and (2) planting, as he stimulates growth of the remaining reeds. He (3) gathers the reeds; (4) selects them; (5) smooths and levels them; cuts them into small pieces, which is (6) grinding; and (7) cuts them to a particular measurement. When he begins weaving the reeds, he performs the labors of (8) stretching the warp; (9) constructing two meshes; and (10) weaving. Crafting the object as a whole constitutes (11) building (ge鈥檕nim). And if he sews the mouth of the receptacle, he is liable to bring thirteen sin-offerings with the added labors of (12) sewing and (13) tying.


讛讙讜讝讝 讗转 讛爪诪专 讜讛诪诇讘谞讜: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜讜讛 爪诪专 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讙讜讝讝 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪谞驻抓 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讟讜讜讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讙讝讬讝讛 讘讻讱 讜讗讬谉 讚专讱 诪谞驻抓 讘讻讱 讜讗讬谉 讚专讱 讟讜讜讬 讘讻讱 讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖讟讜祝 讘注讝讬诐 讜讟讜讜 讘注讝讬诐 讗诇诪讗 讟讜讜讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 砖诪讛 讟讜讜讬讛 讞讻诪讛 讬转讬专讛 砖讗谞讬


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who shears wool, and one who whitens it, which are labors in the process of shearing and spinning wool. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who unwittingly spins wool still attached on the back of an animal on Shabbat is liable to bring three sin-offerings: One due to shearing, since, in the process, some of the wool is detached from the sheep; and one due to combing the wool; and one due to spinning. Rav Kahana said: This is not a typical manner of shearing, and this is not a typical manner of combing, and this is not a typical manner of spinning. The Gemara asks: And is that not a typical manner of spinning? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Ne岣mya that the verse in the context of the work of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd all the women whose hearts lifted them with wisdom spun the goats鈥 (Exodus 35:26) means that they washed the hair on the goats, and they spun it into threads on the goats themselves without first shearing the hair? Apparently, spinning on the back of an animal is considered a typical manner of spinning. The Gemara answers: Extraordinary wisdom is different. Although certain individuals are capable of spinning wool that way, the typical person is not capable of performing that feat.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转讜诇砖 讗转 讛讻谞祝 讜讛拽讜讟诪讜 讜讛诪讜专讟讜 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 (讜讗诪专 专讘讬) 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 转讜诇砖 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讙讜讝讝 拽讜讟诐 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讞转讱 诪诪专讟 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪诪讞拽:


The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who unwittingly plucks a large feather from the wing of a bird on Shabbat, and who snips the tip of the feather, and who pulls out the thin threads that comprise the feather is liable to bring three sin-offerings. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in explanation: One who plucks the wing is liable due to the labor of shearing. One who snips the tip of the feather is liable due to cutting. And one who pulls out the threads is liable due to smoothing.


讛拽讜砖专 讜讛诪转讬专: 拽砖讬专讛 讘诪砖讻谉 讛讬讻讗 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讻谉 拽讜砖专讬谉 讘讬转讚讜转 讗讛诇讬诐 (拽讜砖专讬诐) 讛讛讜讗 拽讜砖专 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛转讬专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讻谉 讗讜专讙讬 讬专讬注讜转 砖谞驻住拽讛 诇讛谉 谞讬诪讗 拽讜砖专讬诐 讗讜转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转专爪转 拽讜砖专 诪转讬专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讬 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 转专讬 讞讜讟讬 拽讬讟专讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 砖专讬 讞讚 讜拽讟专 讞讚 讛砖转讗 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 诪诇讻讬 讛诪诇讻讬诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注讬诇讗讬 砖讻谉 爪讚讬 讞诇讝讜谉 拽讜砖专讬谉 讜诪转讬专讬谉:


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who ties and one who unties. The Gemara asks: Where was there tying in the Tabernacle? Rava said: They tied the tents of the Tabernacle to the pegs. The Gemara rejects this: And is that considered performance of the labor of tying? That was tying a knot in order to untie it. When the children of Israel departed from an encampment, they dismantled the Tabernacle, which involved untying all of the knots. One is not liable for tying a temporary knot on Shabbat. Rather, Abaye said: As the weavers of curtains for the Tabernacle, when a thread would rip, they would tie it. Rava said to him: You have resolved the problem with regard to the labor of tying; however, with regard to the labor of untying, what can be said? Where, in the construction of the Tabernacle, was the labor of untying performed? And if you say that it was performed if one found two threads with knots tied next to each other, he untied one and left one tied; now, before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so, as the curtain would look flawed, in the Tabernacle, before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, would one do so? Rather, Rava said, and some say that Rav Elai said: The trappers of 岣lazon, whose blood was used in the Tabernacle as a dye, tie and untie their nets.


讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转: 讜讛讗 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖拽砖专谉:


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who sews two stitches. The Gemara asks: That does not endure; two stitches will unravel immediately. A prohibited labor whose result is temporary is not considered a prohibited labor. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That has the legal status of a prohibited labor only in a case where, after sewing the stitches, he tied them. He tied a knot at each of the two ends of the thread so that the stitches would not unravel.


讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专: 拽专讬注讛 讘诪砖讻谉 诪讬 讛讜讛 专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜


We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who tears in order to sew two stitches. The Gemara asks: Was there tearing in the construction of the Tabernacle? The Gemara answers that it was Rabba and Rabbi Zeira who both said the following explanation:

Scroll To Top