Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 49

1) RETURNING A POT TO ITS PLACE OF "HATMANAH"

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that if a pot was surrounded by insulatory material in such a way that when one lifts the pot, the material around it falls to where the pot was resting, he may not return the pot to its place. The Gemara (50b) says that even the Rabanan agree that if the material on the sides falls in, one may not return the pot. Why not?

(a) RASHI explains that it is forbidden to return the pot to its place of Hatmanah because the material in which it was insulated is Muktzah (like strips of wool), and one may not move it in order to return the pot to its place.

(b) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) says that even if one was using non-Muktzah objects for the Hatmanah, it is still prohibited to return the pot to its place. The reason is that since one has to clear away the area that become covered by the insulatory material, it is considered like he is doing a new Hatmanah (and not merely continuing the previous Hatmanah). The BEIS YOSEF says that this is also the way the Rambam rules in Hilchos Shabbos (although it is not written explicitly there). The Rambam is more stringent than Rashi because according to Rashi, one *may* move non-Muktzah material in order to return a pot to its place, while according to the Rambam one may not.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 259:3) mentions both opinions. Although the VILNA GA'ON cites a proof for the Rambam's stringent opinion from the Yerushalmi, the BI'UR HALACHAH writes that the Shulchan Aruch seems to side with the first opinion, since it mentions the Rambam's opinion only as a "Yesh Omrim" -- "there are those who say."

49b

QUESTION: The Gemara records two opinions regarding the source for the thirty-nine Melachos. Rebbi Chanina Bar Chama says that we learn them from the labors performed in the Avodas ha'Mishkan. Rebbi Yonasan b'Rebbi Eliezer (in the name of Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yosi Ben Lekunya) says that the thirty-nine Melachos are derived from the thirty-nine times that it says a form of the word "Melachah" in the Torah.

It seems from the Gemara that these two opinions are arguing. However, RASHI explains that according to the first opinion, we learn from the "Avodas ha'Mishkan" which Melachos are forbidden. The other opinion, however, is giving the source for the *number* of Melachos which are forbidden. The two opinions complement each other. Why, then, does the Gemara imply that they are arguing?

ANSWER: RAV MENACHEM KASHER (Torah Sheleimah Bereishis 39, #97) writes that the Yerushalmi records this argument slightly differently (Yerushalmi Shabbos 7:2), and it is cited in more detail in the Midrash (Mishnas Rebbi Eliezer, Parshah 20). There, the first opinion says that the thirty-nine Melachos correspond to the number of times it mentions the words *"Melachah" and "Avodah" in the description of the building of the Mishkan*. According to this, the first opinion in the Gemara is not only giving the source for *what* the Melachos are, but also for *how many* Melachos there are.

QUESTION: The second opinion in the Gemara says that the word "Melachah" (or a construct thereof) appears in the Torah thirty-nine times. The Yerushalmi says that the last "Melachah" of the count appears in Devarim 16:8, where the Torah commands us not to do Melachah on the seventh day of Pesach.

If one counts the number of appearances of [a form of] the word "Melachah" (or if one counts them in the Concordance), one will find that the word actually appears *65* times (25 times the word Melachah appears alone, and another 40 times, the word Melachah is constructed with a prefix or suffix). How does the Gemara come up with the number thirty-nine?

ANSWERS:

(a) RABEINU CHANANEL (cited by RAMBAN in our Sugya, and discussed more at length by RA'AVAN #350) explain that the Gemara is only counting the word "Melachah" when it is written in the context of something that is forbidden to do on Shabbos. For this reason, it does not count the appearances of "Melachah" that appear in the description of Creation in Bereishis, nor does it count the appearances of "Melachah" mentioned with regard to "Meleches Avodah" of Yom Tov (because the Melachos of Yom Tov do not include all of the Melachos that are forbidden to do on Shabbos). Similarly, it does not count the word "Melachah" in the verse, "For six days you shall do Melachah," because that verse is not commanding a person to *refrain* from Melachah, but it is commanding one to do Melachah. The number of remaining appearances of the word "Melachos" is indeed 39.

Rabeinu Chananel, however, only deals with 61 out of the 65, appearances of "Melachah."

(b) TOSFOS YOM TOV (Shabbos 7:2) explains that included in the count are only appearances of the word "Melachah" that are not part of the commandment of "Lo Ta'aseh Melachah" -- "Do not do Melachah." The count, not including all of the commands not to do Melachah, comes to a total of thirty-nine. The problem is that the Yerushalmi said that a command that includes the word "Melachah" *is* included in the count (because it says that the last one in the count is the one in the verse commanding that Melachah not be done on the seventh day of Pesach). Also, the MAREH HA'PANIM on the Yerushalmi points out that Tosfos Yom Tov missed a few Melachos and the count comes to more than 39, even without the commands not to do Melachah.

(c) The MAREH HA'PANIM says that the world "Meleches" is not included in the count (because it is not a word by itself, but a dependent construct). This decreases the number by 19. He omits several others from the count, which do not refer to a Melachah that is forbidden on Shabbos. However, the Torah Sheleimah (Torah Sheleimah Bereishis 39, #97) points out that he still missed a few. Another problem with his approach is that he will have to erase the word "Meleches" from our Gemara, which says that "Meleches" *is* included in the count.

(d) The Torah Sheleimah quotes the SEFER NETZACH YISRAEL (Rav Yisrael Segal, 1741) who says that the count does not include the appearance of the word "Melachah" in its raw form, with no prefix or suffix, reducing the total of 65 to exactly 40 (from which our Gemara subtracts one). He, too, will have to erase a word from our Gemara, which says that the word "Melachah" *is* included. In short, all of the approaches to resolve this Gemara are problematic in one way or another, and the issue requires further examination.