Previous daf

1)

(a) How can it possibly be, that ...

1. ... something which is called a Melachah, and for which one is Chayav Chatas if one does it on Shabbos for *the next day*, should be permitted to do on Shabbos for later *on the same day*? Is it also permitted to *cook* for later that day.
2. ... one should be permitted to select Lechatchilah less than the Shiur for which one is Chayav? Have we not learnt in Yoma that 'Chatzi Shiur Asur Min ha'Torah'?
3. ... Does the Beraisa mention a funnel or a dish (or a sieve for that matter)? So from where do we know to differentiate in this way?
4. ... Does the Mishnah mention Ochel or Pesoles in the Beraisa? So again, how do we know to differentiate in this way?

(b) According to Abaye, the Beraisa only speaks about selecting with one's hands, and what the Beraisa is saying is that one may select with one's hands to eat immediately, since this is not the way in which people select (so it is not included in the Melachah of Borer, but becomes part of the eating process).
To select for later is forbidden, and is no different from someone who selects, to put into storage (for which he will obviously be Chayav).

(a) In fact, the Gemara concludes, there are*two* Beraisos, not just *one*. The Beraisa which says 'Chayav', speaks about selecting by means of a sieve, whereas the Beraisa which says 'Patur Aval Asur', is speaking about someone who uses a funnel or a dish - both Beraisos are speaking about selecting to eat immediately (see Tosfos DH 've'Hatanya').

(b) Rav Dimi was not sure why Rav Bibi declined to select the edible fruit from the basket. Whether it was because he was of the opinion that even the selection of the good from the bad is forbidden; or because it looks stingy to select a few pieces of fruit, to place on the table in front of the participants.

(c) No! Chizkiyah renders someone who picks out the Turmus-beans from their waste Chayav, because Turmus-beans are different than any other food (which would even be permitted Lechatchilah). There are three interpretations, depending on how one reads the Gemara:

1. 've'I Lo Shakli Lei, Masrach;
2. 've'I Lo Shalki Lei, Masrach';
3. 've'I Shakli Lei, Masrach'.

(d)

1. the food becomes so tender through the constant cooking, that if one does not remove it, it will smell. Constantly, as long as the beans are lying in the waste, they are considered inedible, and have the Din of waste.
2. The good Turmus-beans need to be cooked seven times. If one fails to do so, they will smell. Consequently, when one selects some of the beans, after two or three times cooking, from the other species cooking in the pot, it is like taking the Pesoles from the Ochel. Why?
Because the kinds that remain in the pot, may well be inferior, but they are ready to eat; whereas the beans stand to become smelly, unless they are cooked again a few more time. Consequently, extracting the beans from the pot is called Pesoles from Ochel.
3. The beans that one removes from the pot, after so many times cooking, crumble in his hands, and become very unpleasant to eat. Therefore, taking the beans out of the pot is like taking the Pesoles from the Ochael.

3)

(a)

1. 'Parim Silka' means cutting-up a beet into small pieces.
2. 'Salis Silta' means cutting wood into small pieces. Both are Chayav because of Tochen (according to the Hagahos Oshri, it is on beets exclusively, that one will be Chayav, not for any other vegetable).

(b) If one cut the wood to a certain size, he would also be Chayav because of Mechatech.

(c) The equivalent to baking with regard to dyes (which were needed for the construction of the Mishkan, as we explained earlier - whilst bread was not) is cooking, and *that* is what was actually performed in the Mishkan.

(d) The Tana mentions baking because he prefers to refer to bread (presumably because it is more common to bake bread than it is to cook dyes).

(a) By most things, the process of cooking softens them. When someone throws a wet peg into an oven, his intention is to harden it, in which case, we might have thought that he is Patur, since that is not called cooking. Therefore the Gemara needs to teach us that he is Chayav. Why? Because the wood first inevitably softens, before becoming hard. And it is because of the initial process of softening, that he is Chayav for cooking.

(b) By heating pitch, the person wants the pitch to become soft (unlike in the previous case, where he wants it hard). The Chidush therefore, is that, even though the pitch later becomes hard, he is nevertheless Chayav, because temporarily, at least, he achieved his goal of softening it.

(a) The barrel-maker is not Chayav for digging the earth, because he needs the earth, and not the hole, and, as we learnt earlier, he is Patur - according to Rebbi Shimon, because it is a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah', and because it is Kilkul - according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) Manufacturing an earthenware oven follows exactly the same process, except that, after baking it in the furnace, one adds a layer of clay, so that the oven should preserve its heat. For that, he will also be Chayav because of Makeh ba'Patish.

(c) Boring a hole in the boards of the weaving-loom will not constitute grinding, since he does not want the wood that has been ground, and the Melachah would therefore be a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' (which is Patur, according to Rebbi Shimon).

(d) If he reinforces the beehive by making a rim around the top, he will also be Chayav for sewing and tying a knot.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, someone who spins the wool directly from the sheep's back, will be Chayav for shearing, splitting the strands of wool and spinning.

(b) Rav Kahana argues that this is not the normal way to perform any of these Melachos. Consequently, he will not be Chayav for any of them.

(c) The Pasuk, which describes how the women spun the hair directly from the backs of the goats, is speaking about professionals, who are Chayav even according to Rav Kahana. When Rav Kahana said that one is *not* Chayav, he was referring to non-experts in that field.

(d) 'Tolesh' (plucking the feathers from the soft section of a bird's wing) is Chayav because of Gozez; 'Kotem' (clipping off the fluff from the stem) because of Mechatech, and 'Moret' (trimming the hard end of the stem) is Chayav because of Memachek.

(a) The source in the Mishkan for tying knots cannot be ...

1. ... tying the curtain-cords to the tent-pegs, because they were not tied down permanently - whenever they moved, they would untie them again; and we will learn later that one is not Chayav for temporary knots.
2. ... We might well learn the Isur of tying knots from the weavers, who would tie knots whenever a strand from the curtains tore. But from where would we know untying (which is also an Av Melachah - and which was probably performed together with the tying, as we shall see).

(b) To leave one thread tied, and to untie the other one (leaving two loose ends), is not something that one would do for a human king, certainly not for Hashem!

(c) When two knots appeared next to each other, they would leave the one tied, and cut off a large section of the second thread, replacing it with a new thread which they would tie at the top and at the bottom.

(d) The source for tying and untying knots for the construction of the Mishkan was the knots that they would untie and tie - when they untied a thread from one net to tie onto another net (we are speaking here of the nets used to catch the small Chilazon fish, which they needed for the Techeles dye for the curtains).

(a) Two stitches in a garment will not last, and one is not Chayav for any Melachah which is too flimsy to last.

(b) The Gemara answers that indeed one is only Chayav for sewing two stitches in a garment if he ties the two ends with a knot.

(c) When a worm ate a small hole in the curtains, they would make a small tear at both ends of the hole, so that, when they subsequently stitched it together, the stitch would be straight, and not leave folds.