Shabbat 73b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised it:

the enumeration

by which the tanna enumerated the thirty-nine labors—

why do I need it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

To teach you

that if he performed

the labors of

Shabbat all in one lapse of awareness—

he is liable

a sin-offering

for each one individually.

So that we should not mistakenly think that since the transgression in performing each and every labor is “desecration of Shabbat,” this is like one who repeatedly performed the same transgression during one lapse of awareness, who is liable only one sin-offering. Therefore, the tanna taught us in the Mishna also the enumeration of the labors, to teach us that each labor obligates a separate offering.

And the tanna stated the enumeration of the thirty-nine labors, rather than simply saying that the labors are divided with regard to offerings, for “a mere sign,” to know how many sin-offerings one who forgot all the laws of Shabbat becomes liable for [Rashi above, 69a. And above, on page 6b, Rashi added that according to Rabbi Yohanan, the tanna intended to teach us through the enumeration of thirty-nine that it is impossible to become liable for more than this sum of sin-offerings, because the remaining labors are derivatives of these primary categories and do not obligate an additional offering].

We learned in the Mishna:

One who sows and one who plows.

And we raised it: Why did the tanna teach the labor of sowing first?

Now,

surely

one plows before everything at the beginning,

for one plows first, and only afterward sows. And if so,

let him teach

the labor of

plowing

first,

and afterward

let him teach the labor of

sowing?

And we answer:

The tanna

of the Mishna

stands in the Land of Israel,

whose soil is harder than that of Babylonia.

For they sow first,

as they sow first,

and afterward plow.

For besides the first plowing before the sowing, they plow again after the sowing. Since the soil of the Land of Israel is hard, it is impossible to cover the seeds without additional plowing, which turns the seeds into the soil.

And the tanna came to teach us that this second plowing, too, is included in the labor of plowing, and is not considered the labor of sowing. And he taught it after sowing, for such is the manner of the second plowing: it is performed after sowing.

The tanna taught: One who sows, and one who prunes,

cutting branches of a tree so that the tree will grow and develop better,

and one who plants, and one who bends a branch into the ground,

bending the tip of the branch and covering it with soil, whereupon the branch takes root in the soil and produces another plant from it,

and one who grafts

a branch of one tree onto another tree—

all of them are one labor.

For the essence of all these labors is to bring about growth.

And we raised it:

What does it teach us?

What practical difference is there whether they are one labor or whether each one is a labor in its own right?

And we answer:

This teaches us

that if he performed them during one lapse of awareness, he is liable only one sin-offering. And as we learned at the beginning of our chapter:

One who performs many labors

all of which are

of the nature of one labor—

is liable only one.

Rav Aha said that Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rabbi Ami said: One who prunes—

is liable because of planting,

for it is a derivative of the labor of planting.

And one who plants

himself,

and

likewise

one who bends a branch into the ground and

likewise

one who grafts—

is liable because of sowing!

That is to say, one who plants, and likewise one who bends a branch into the ground and one who grafts, are themselves considered “of the nature of primary categories,” like the primary category of the labor of sowing. However, sowing is a primary category with seeds, whereas they are primary categories with trees.

And we raised it: Is it that bending a branch into the ground and grafting are only

because of sowing, yes,

they are liable, but

because of planting, no,

they are not liable?! Yet they resemble planting more, and it should have said that they are primary categories like planting.

And we answer:

Say: Also because of sowing!

For, as stated, they are primary categories with a tree, like sowing, since this is the sowing of trees.

And Rabbi Ami came to teach us that not only when he performed them together with planting, but even when he performed them together with sowing, he is likewise liable only one sin-offering.

And the novelty is that bending a branch into the ground and grafting are not considered derivatives of a derivative of sowing, for which he would be liable separately, but they are of the nature of a primary category of sowing.

And according to the Ritva and the Ran [in Rashi’s view], Rabbi Ami innovated a very great novelty.

Since pruning is a derivative of planting, whereas planting is considered of the nature of a primary category of sowing—for sowing is a primary category with seeds, and planting is a primary category with trees—therefore, only if he performs both the labor of sowing, the labor of planting, and the labor of pruning together is he liable only one sin-offering. Since the labor of planting, which lies between sowing and pruning, connects all three of them into one atonement.

But if he performs only the labor of sowing without performing the labor of planting, and he also performs the labor of pruning, he is liable two sin-offerings! For the offering for sowing cannot atone for pruning, since it is not its derivative.

And it emerges that an increase of labors [when he performs all three and does not perform only two, sowing and pruning]—diminishes the number of sin-offerings.

Rav Kahana said:

The

one who prunes and needs the wood,

who, besides his intention to improve the tree, needs the branches of the tree for fuel—

is liable two,

two sin-offerings.

One because of reaping, and one because of pruning,

which is a derivative of planting. But if he does not need the branches, he does not transgress because of reaping.

Rav Yosef said: One who cuts alfalfa,

cuts hay, and the practice is to cut it three times a month, and with each cutting it grows anew—

is liable two.

One because of reaping,

for he is indeed reaping it for the purpose of feeding animals.

And one because of planting,

since through the cutting he causes renewed growth.

Abaye said: One who cuts beet greens,

pulling out spinach—

is liable two.

One because of reaping, and one because of sowing,

because it grows again.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who plows.

The tanna taught: One who plows, and one who digs, and one who makes a furrow,

making a furrow in the ground—

all of them are one labor,

for their function is softening the soil [and all of them are “of the nature of a primary category” of plowing, Maimonides, chapter 7, law 2], and he is liable only one [offering] for them.

Rav Sheshet said: If he had a mound,

a small mound of earth,

and removed it:

If this was

in a house—

he is liable because of building,

for he leveled and improved the surface of the ground.

Whereas if he did this

in a field—

he is liable because of plowing,

for through this he prepared the soil for sowing by softening the soil.

Rava said: If he had a pit and filled it,

he filled it with earth:

In a house—

he is liable because of building,

for he repaired the floor of his house.

In a field—

he is liable because of plowing,

for the earth with which he filled the pit is soft and suitable for sowing, and through leveling the place with the entire field, it becomes suitable there for sowing.

Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a pit

in a house

on Shabbat, and does not need

the pit itself,

but

his need is

for its earth,

to use the earth to cover excrement—

is exempt for it.

And even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one is liable for a labor not needed for its own purpose,

and there was room to obligate him because of building even though he is not doing this for the purpose of repairing the house, here he is exempt.

For

these matters

for which Rabbi Yehuda obligates him even when he does not perform it for the purpose of the labor apply in a case where he

constructs

through his labor.

But

this one,

who digs a pit in a house and does not need the pit—

he is destructive

of the house, and here there is no labor of building at all.

And Rabbi Abba did not come to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda exempts in the case of destruction, for it is an anonymous Mishna that all those who destroy are exempt. Moreover, why did he need to innovate this specifically in such a case, where he performs a labor not needed for its own purpose? Rather, it appears that Rabbi Abba came to teach us that although making a pit in a house is not defined as an act of destruction in itself—for if he needs the pit, it is considered repair of the house, and he is liable for it because of building—nevertheless, here, since he does not need this repair in the house, but it is destruction for him, we take into account the destruction with regard to him and exempt him.

And the novelty applies even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one is liable for a labor whose purpose he does not need. For according to him, there was room to consider the repair performed in the house a labor of building, despite the fact that the person making the pit does not need this repair. For there is repair of the house here. Nevertheless, he is considered destructive, since the definition of the act as repair of the house or as destruction depends on the benefit of the owner of the house, and not on the act of repair in itself.

And it is possible that for this reason Rashi stated that the case is one who digs in a house and not in a field, because in a field the matter would be considered repair through plowing even if he himself does not desire this repair, since every making of a pit in a field is defined as plowing, which is preparation for sowing, even if with regard to the owner of the field it is destruction.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who reaps.

The tanna taught: One who reaps

grain,

one who harvests grapes

grapes,

and one who gathers

dates,

and one who gathers olives

olives,

and one who gathers figs

figs—

all of them are one labor [

and all of them are primary categories. Maimonides, chapter 7, law 4].

Rav Pappa said: One who throws a clod at a palm tree,

throwing a clod of earth at a palm tree, and the clod of earth struck the cluster of dates hanging from the palm tree,

and

as a result of its striking the cluster of dates

it caused to fall,

causing to fall from it

dates—

he is

liable two

sin-offerings.

One because of detaching,

which is a derivative of reaping,

and one because of threshing,

which is a derivative of threshing.

For just as in threshing one separates the kernels of grain from the ears, so too this one, who strikes the cluster of dates by throwing a clod of earth, separates the dates from the cluster in which they are found.

Just as in threshing, one removes the kernels of grain from the ears, so too, in this case, by striking the cluster of dates with the thrown clod of earth, he removes the dates from the cluster in which they are found.

Rav Ashi said: This is not the ordinary manner of detaching, and this is not the ordinary manner of separating!

For the ordinary manner is to pick the dates by hand or with an implement, and not by throwing a clod of earth at them. And a labor performed in an unusual manner, that is, through a change, is exempt.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who gathers into a pile.

Rava said: One who gathers salt

from saltworks,

who gathers the salt from the saltworks [where seawater collects and evaporates, and the salt remains]—

is liable because of gathering into a pile,

for this resembles gathering the ears of grain in the field.

Abaye said: Gathering into a pile applies only to growths of the ground,

and salt is not a growth of the ground.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who threshes.

The tanna taught: One who threshes, and one who beats flax,

separating the flax from the stalks,

and one who beats cotton,

performing a similar action with cotton—

all of them are one labor.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who winnows, one who selects, one who grinds, and one who sifts.

And we raised it:

Winnowing is the same as selecting, selecting is the same as

sifting,

for apparently all of them are one labor, since the essence of all of them is to separate waste from food. And if so, why were they enumerated as three separate primary categories of labor?