Shabbat 49b (מט:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama said to them: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said as follows

My father,

Rabbi Yosei,

was a tanner

[a craftsman who worked leather]

.

And he said

to us [on a weekday; Rashi. And Rabbeinu Ḥananel explained that it was on Shabbat]:

Bring the hides and let us sit on them!

Apparently, even a craftsman is not particular about hides, and even for him they are designated for sitting. Therefore, they are not muktzeh and may be moved.

The Gemara raises an objection: Boards belonging to a householder—

may be moved

on Shabbat, since they are fit for use.

But boards

belonging to a craftsman—

may not be moved,

because they are set aside for their designated work.

And if he had decided

during twilight, at the onset of Shabbat,

to place upon them

[the boards]

bread for guests—

in either case,

whether they are boards belonging to a householder or to a craftsman,

they may be moved

.

Thus, ordinarily, boards belonging to a craftsman are forbidden to move, because they are set aside for their designated work. This is difficult for Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama, who permits even hides belonging to a craftsman to be moved.

And we answer:

Boards are different, because the

craftsman

is particular about them,

lest they become damaged. This is not so with hides, about which the craftsman is not particular, because there is no concern that they will be damaged.

Come and hear: Hides—

whether tanned

[processed]

or untanned, may be moved on Shabbat,

as they are not muktzeh, since they are fit for sitting.

And the Sages said

“hides

that are tanned”

specifically

only with regard to ritual impurity.

Only tanned hides become susceptible to ritual impurity, whereas untanned hides do not become susceptible to ritual impurity.

And we analyze the statement:

Is it not so

that the beraita says that they may be moved on Shabbat,

there is no difference

between hides

belonging to a householder, and there is no difference

between hides

belonging to a craftsman?

If so, this supports Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama.

And we reject this:

No,

do not say “there is no difference.” Rather, it is specifically hides

belonging to a householder

that may be moved.

And we respond:

But

hides

belonging to a craftsman—what is their status?

They may not be moved,

and this is contrary to Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama.

This cannot be said.

For

if so,

there would be a difficulty with

what the tanna taught

at the end of the beraita:

“And the statement that hides must be tanned was made only with regard to ritual impurity.”

Yet according to your statement, tanned and untanned hides also differ with regard to Shabbat.

And if so,

let him state the distinction in that very matter,

with regard to Shabbat, and say as follows:

When is this statement applicable

—that both tanned and untanned hides may be moved? Only

in the case of hides belonging to a householder. But in the case of hides belonging to a craftsman,

only untanned hides may be moved, but tanned hides

may not.

Since he is particular about them, they are no longer designated for sitting and are forbidden to move.

And we reject this again: Hides belonging to a craftsman are indeed forbidden to move. The reason the beraita does not distinguish in this manner is that

the entire

beraita

is discussing a householder. The tanna seeks to distinguish between hides belonging to a householder, and in this regard we find a distinction only with respect to ritual impurity.

And we conclude: This matter is

a dispute

a

mong

tannaim.

As it was taught in a beraita:

Hides belonging to a householder may be moved, but hides belonging to a craftsman may not be moved.

Hides belonging to a householder may be moved. But hides belonging to a craftsman may not be moved.

Rabbi Yosei says: Both this and that,

whether they belong to a householder or to a craftsman,

may be moved.

Those Sages sat again,

those rabbis mentioned above,

and they asked:

We learned: “Thirty-nine primary labors” —

Corresponding to what

were precisely these labors established as the primary labors of Shabbat?

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama said to them: They correspond to the labors of the Tabernacle.

All thirty-nine of these labors were needed for the work of the Tabernacle.

[That is why the passage concerning Shabbat was juxtaposed to the passage concerning the work of the Tabernacle, so that the laws of Shabbat could be derived from the work of the Tabernacle.]

Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar said to them: Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonia, said as follows:

The number of the thirty-nine labors

corresponds to

the number of times that

“labor”

or

“his labor”

or

“the labor of” appears in the Torah.

They total

forty less one.

And this is what the verse is saying: “You shall not perform any labor”—that is, you shall not perform the labors whose number corresponds to the number of occurrences of the word “labor” in the Torah.

Rav Yosef raised a question:

With regard to what is written concerning Joseph,

“And he came

into the house to perform his labor,”

does this verse too

belong to the count

of the thirty-nine occurrences

or not?

The Gemara will explain shortly what prompted his uncertainty.

Abaye said to him,

to Rav Yosef: Why do you have any uncertainty about this?

Let us bring a Torah scroll and count

whether there are thirty-nine occurrences of “labor” in the Torah without this verse or not. Indeed,

did Rabba bar bar Ḥana not say in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

with regard to another incident:

“They did not leave there until they brought a Torah scroll and counted them”?

Rav Yosef said to him,

to Abaye:

My uncertainty

regarding whether this verse is included in the count is

because it is written

another matter involving the word “labor” in connection with the work of the Tabernacle, in the verse

“And the labor was sufficient.”

If these two verses are both counted, there will be forty occurrences of “labor” in the Torah. Necessarily, one of these two verses is not included in the count.

And my uncertainty is which of them is included in the count. Perhaps the verse, “And the labor was sufficient,”

is included in the count,

because it refers to actual labor. This is what it means: The labor that they were performing was sufficient, neither less nor more than what was needed [for example, the hammering out of sheets of gold to cover the boards; they hammered them out precisely according to the required amount].

But

the verse written concerning Joseph, “And he came into the house to perform his labor,” is not included in the count, because the verse is not speaking of actual labor. Rather, it should be understood

in accordance with the one who says:

Joseph

entered to attend to his needs

[that is, to have relations with Potiphar’s wife. But the likeness of his father’s image appeared to him, and he said to him: “Your brothers are destined to be inscribed on the stones of the ephod. Do you wish your name to be erased from among them?”].

Or perhaps, “And he came into the house to perform his labor” is included in the count,

and Joseph entered to perform actual labor.

And this

verse,

“And the labor was sufficient,”

is not included in the count, because it does not concern actual labor. Rather,

this is what it means: His work was completed!

For the verse evidently concerns the work of bringing the donations, which had been completed, so that no further donations were needed.

And we conclude:

Teyku!

It was taught in accordance with the one who says

that there are thirty-nine labors

corresponding to

the number of

the labors of the Tabernacle.

As it was taught in a beraita: One is liable only for a labor whose counterpart was performed in the Tabernacle.

They

[in the work of the Tabernacle]

planted

herbs for dyeing the sky-blue wool and the rams’ hides,

and

so

you shall not plant

on Shabbat.

They harvested

herbs,

and

so

you shall not harvest.

They lifted the boards from the ground

of the Israelite camp, which was a public domain,

onto a wagon,

which was a private domain [since it was ten handbreadths high and four by four handbreadths wide],

and

so

you shall not carry in from a public domain into a private domain.

They lowered the boards from the wagon to the ground,

a public domain,

and

so

you shall not carry out from a private domain into a public domain.

They carried

boards

from one wagon to another, and

so

you shall not carry out from one private domain

to another

private domain

.

And we ask: One who carries from one private domain to another private domain,

what does he do?

There is no prohibition from the Torah in this act.

And we answer:

Abaye and Rava both say, and some say Rav Adda bar Ahava:

This is what it means: Do not carry

from one private domain to another private domain by way of a public domain.

This is analogous to carrying from one wagon to another in the Tabernacle, since the airspace between the wagons was a public domain.

We learned in the Mishna: One may insulate

with tufts of wool, but may not move

them.

Rava said: They taught

that it is forbidden to move them

only

when he

did not insulate with them.

Since they are still set aside for their designated work.

But if he insulated with them—

they are no longer designated for their work,

and they may be moved.

One of the scholars, who was his contemporary,

[as it was his first day in the study hall]

raised an objection to Rava:

But we learned:

One may insulate with tufts of wool, but may not move them. What does he do?