Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 73

1) "FORTY MINUS ONE"

QUESTION: The Mishnah says that the number of Melachos are "forty minus one." Why did the Mishnah not simply say that there are "thirty-nine" Melachos?

ANSWERS:

(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV suggests that since the maximum number of lashes that a person can receive is called "forty minus one" (Makos 22a), the Melachos are also called "forty minus one." (The Mishnah refers to lashes as "forty minus one" and not "thirty-nine" because the Torah uses the word "forty" to refer to them.)

(b) The son of the TOSFOS YOM TOV suggests an answer based on the Gemara earlier (49b). The Gemara there says that the number of Melachos prohibited on Shabbos is derived from the number of times that the word "Melachah" appears in the Torah. The Gemara asked that the word "Melachah" actually appears forty times, and the Gemara answered that one of them is not counted. The Mishnah alludes to this by saying that there are "forty minus one" Melachos.

(c) The TOSFOS YOM TOV suggests another answer. The Gemara says later (74b; see RASHI there, DH v'Iy Chaytei) that one is Chayav for the Melachah of Tofer (sewing) only if one ties a knot at the end of the stitching so that it does not come out. Therefore, practically speaking, it is not possible to transgress the Melachah of sewing without also transgressing the Melachah of tying, in which case he has done 40 Melachos (all 39, plus an extra one of tying in order to complete the Melachah of sewing). The Mishnah alludes to this by saying that there are "forty minus one" Melachos. (One might ask that it is indeed possible to limit one's transgressions to 39, if one *first* sews a stitch, and *then* ties a knot to hold the stitch in -- without tying any other knots. In that case one is will be doing only 39 Melachos, and not 40! The Tosfos Yom Tov must mean that the Melachos cannot be done *in the order of the Mishnah* unless one does a total of 40 Melachos.)

(d) The MAYIM CHAYIM answers based on the Gemara (73b) which notes that the Melachah of plowing that is mentioned in the Mishnah is done *after* the Melachah of sowing. Since a person usually plows before sowing as well, the Mishnah must be referring to a *second* plowing, which is done when the soil is hard *after* the planting. If so, in doing all of the Melachos mentioned in the Mishnah, one does 40 Melachos (that is, two plowings, one before sowing and one afterwards). The Mishnah alludes to this by saying that there are "forty minus one" Melachos.

OPINIONS: What makes something an Av Melachah?

(a) RASHI (DH Ofeh) says that anything that was done for the construction of the Mishkan is an Av Melachah. One may ask, the verse says that all the materials necessary for the construction of the Mishkan were collected within two days after the people were commanded to build the Mishkan. How could they have prepared the herbs and plants used for the dyes in just two days, if they needed to plow, sow, reap, and so on? The IGLEI TAL (Introduction, #2) infers from Rashi that any act that was necessary to perform in order to obtain a material needed for the Mishkan is a Melachah even though it was *not done* for the Mishkan when it was actually constructed.

(b) However, the RAMBAN (74a) writes that only labors that were performed by the Jews explicitly for the sake of building the Mishkan are considered Melachos. This is supported by the wording of the Gemara earlier (49b), "*Hem Zar'u* v'Atem Lo Tizre'u" -- "Since they sowed, you shall not sow." How did they sow and reap in just two days? The AVNEI NEZER explains, based on a Midrash Raba, that just like Yakov Avinu planted Arazim trees in Egypt for the Mishkan and bid his children to take them out in order to build the Mishkan, so, too, he told them to plant and take out other materials for the Mishkan. Since the acts of planting etc. were done *for the Mishkan* (albeit in Egypt), one is Chayav for doing such acts on Shabbos.

(c) The RAMBAM (Teshuvos, #134) cites RAV HAI GA'ON who explains that any of the Melachos leading up to baking (i.e. the first 13 of the Mishnah) that was done in order to prepare for *offering the Korbanos and Menachos* in the Mishkan are considered a Melachah, and this is what the Gemara means by "*Hem Zar'u* v'Atem Lo Tizre'u," and by "Tana Sidura d'Pas Nakat" (Daf 74b). The AVNEI NEZER cites support for this from Rashi on 92a (DH sh'Ken Masa) who cites a Yerushalmi in the name of Rav Hai Ga'on.

However, it is not clear why Rav Hai Gaon only learns the Melachos of baking bread from the Korbanos of the Mishkan, and not the other Melachos (such as ha'Shochet etc.). Perhaps Rav Hai Gaon only means to explain why the Mishnah *lists* Melachos of baking instead of Melachos of cooking (see Rashi in the Mishnah), but not that they are Melachos *because* they were done for the Menachos. (M. Kornfeld)

73b

QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that "Zomer Chayav Mishum Notei'a" (pruning is Chayav because of planting), and "Notei'a, Markiv, and Mavrich Chayav Af Mishum Zorei'a" (even planting, grafting, and bending a vine branch and planting it are Chayav because of sowing). RASHI explains that since those three (Notei'a, Markiv, and Mavrich) are all forms of the Melachah of Zorei'a, if a person did all of them together with Zorei'a, one is Chayav to bring only one Chatas.

This implies that if one does Zomer, which is Chayav only because of Notei'a, together with Zorei'a, one would be Chayav to bring *two* Chata'os. But the Gemara just said that one who does all of these together is only Chayav one Chatas!

ANSWERS:

(a) The RITVA explains that according to Rashi, one is indeed Chayav two Chata'os, one for Zomer (which is Chayav because of Notei'a) and one for Zorei'a. But if he does Zomer and Zorei'a together with Notei'a as well, he will be Chayav to bring only one Chatas, because Zomer is part of Notei'a, while Notei'a is identical to Zorei'a (but done with a sapling instead of a seed). Since Notei'a and Zorei'a are covered by one Chatas, Zomer, which is a Toldah of Notei'a, is also covered by that Chatas.

(b) It is possible to learn differently in Rashi, though. When the Gemara says that Notei'a, Markiv, and Mavrich are Chayav "Af Mishum Zorei'a" (lit. "even because of Zorei'a"), it does not mean that they are Chayav for *both* Notei'a and Zorei'a. Rather, they are Chayav *only* for Zorei'a. "Af Mishhum Zorei'a" means that *even all of these* are Chayav only for Zorei'a (for we might have thought that they are their own independent Av Melachos and Chayav for both themselves and for Zorei'a -- see Background notes).

The Chidush of Zomer, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. It is obvious that Zomer is not its own separate Av Melachah. We might have thought that Zomer is not Chayav *at all* because it does not resemble any form of planting (since when one prunes a tree, he does not place any object into the ground in order to grow). Therefore Rav Ami is teaching us that Zomer is indeed Chayav for Notei'a.

(c) TOSFOS, quoted by the RITVA, disagrees with Rashi and says that the Gemara is discussing Hasra'ah (warning someone before he commits a sin), and not the obligation to bring a Korban or multiple Korbanos. The Gemara is teaching that one can only be Chayav for Zomer if he was warned with "Notei'a" (i.e. the witnesses warned him and said, "You will be Chayav if you do that act because it is an act of Notei'a!"). To be Chayav for Notei'a, Markiv, and Mavrich, though, one can be warned for either Notei'a or Zorei'a (but one will always be Chayav only one Korban, regardless of what he was warned for).

QUESTION: Rav Papa says that one who throws a rock or clod of earth at a date palm and knocks a date off is Chayav for two Melachos -- Tolesh (picking fruit off a tree) and Mefarek. RASHI explains that Mefarek in this context refers to taking the date out of its cluster. However, if this is true, then why is one not Chayav for Mefarek every time he removes a grape from a cluster (even if the cluster of grapes is not attached to the tree)? (SEFAS EMES)

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH v'Achas) and other Rishonim had a different text of Rashi, stating that Mefarek refers to "unburdening" the tree from its burden -- the dates.

(b) However, the Rishonim reject that explanation, because we do not find that a person is Chayav for Mefarek every time that he picks any type of fruit from a tree. He is only Chayav for Kotzer (Tolesh), but according to this rendition of Rashi, since he is unburdening the tree of its fruit, he should be Chayav for Mefarek as well.

Therefore, Tosfos explains in the name of the RASHBAM that the dates have an outer skin that comes off when it is knocked from the tree. Taking the date out of its outer skin is the same action as Mefarek, taking a grain out from its sheath.

(c) The RAMBAN learns that pulling a date off of its cluster *after* it falls from the tree is called Mefarek. The Ramban seems to have understood that the normal manner was to cut off the clusters of dates from the tree and then afterwards to separate dates from the cluster prior to selling them (in this respect it differs from grapes, because it is normal to sell grapes with their cluster). This may also be the intention of Rashi according to our rendition.