Shabbat 74b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

The case of lupines is different, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

for they boil them seven times,

boiling them seven times until they become sweet.

And if he does not remove them—

they rot.

For since they have become exceedingly softened through the boiling, if the lupines remain there, they will spoil.

Therefore, the lupines themselves are now considered, before they have been removed from the refuse, as refuse. And when he sorts them out from the shell—

as

one who sorts

refuse from food, so it is! [

The Ran explains that the shell itself does not rot even if they leave it. Therefore, the lupines are considered as refuse from food. But from Rashi it follows that both of them are considered refuse. And this requires examination.]

Another explanation: Rashi says that other kinds, inferior to them, are mixed in with the lupines, and those kinds become cooked in one or two times, whereas the lupines require that they be boiled seven times. And if, after several boilings, he sorts the lupines out from the other kinds, then although apparently he is sorting food from refuse, nevertheless, since

if he does not boil them—

they rot,

for if he does not continue boiling the lupines, they will spoil, whereas the other kinds, which have already finished cooking, will not spoil. Therefore, when he takes the lupines from the mixture—

as

one who sorts

refuse from food, so it is.

Rashi brought yet another explanation, that we read:

And if he takes them, they rot,

for whatever he takes in his hand is crushed between his fingers and becomes repulsive. Therefore, it is considered refuse in relation to what remains, which is still food, until he takes it in his hands.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who grinds!

Rav Pappa said: One who chops vegetables

chops them finely

is liable on account of grinding.

Rav Menashe said: One who splits wood

cuts it finely in order to kindle fire with it—

is liable on account of grinding.

Rav Ashi said: If he is particular about the measure

being particular to cut the wood to a measure

he is liable on account of cutting,

which is one of the principal categories of labor, for he cuts leather to an exact measure in order to make straps and sandals from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who kneads and one who bakes.

Rav Pappa said:

It is difficult to me: Why

did our tanna leave

the labor of

cooking the spices, which was in the Tabernacle, and mention baking,

even though there was no baking in the labor of the Tabernacle?!

And we answer:

Our tanna

took the sequence of bread-making.

For the tanna preferred to enumerate the sequence of the labors as they are practiced in making bread [because it is common. Ran]. Therefore, he mentioned baking in place of cooking, and baking is the cooking of bread.

Rav Aha bar Rav Avira said: One who throws a moist peg into an oven,

who threw a moist wooden peg into a hot oven so that it would dry and harden

is liable on account of cooking.

And we inquire about this:

Is it obvious?!

And we answer:

Lest you say, it is strengthening

to strengthen and harden

the utensil,

the peg, is what

he intends,

and this is the opposite of cooking, which is an action for softening the object—

it teaches us that it first becomes softened,

that at first it becomes softened from the heat,

and

only

afterward it hardens,

for at the later stage, when the moisture leaves it, it hardens. And the liability on account of cooking is for the first stage.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who heats tar,

who melted tar—

is liable on account of cooking.

And we inquire about this:

Is it obvious?!

And we answer:

Lest you say, since it subsequently hardens,

for after the tar has been melted, it is its way to return and harden,

say: he is not

liable on account of cooking—

it teaches us

that he is liable.

Rava said: One who makes a clay vessel,

an earthenware jug

is liable on account of seven sin-offerings.

And these are they:

a. Grinding. For he grinds the clods of earth until fine.

b. Sorting. He sorts the coarse pebbles from the fine earth.

c. Sifting. He sifts the earth through a sieve.

d. Kneading. He kneads the earth and makes it mud.

e. Smoothing. He spreads [smooths] the mud from which the jug is made, so that the jug will be smooth. And spreading is a derivative of smoothing.

f. Kindling. He lights a fire in the kiln.

g. Cooking. He places the jug in the kiln in order to fire it there. [

Rashi explains that he is not liable for the labor of digging, for he does not need the pit but needs only its earth, as above, on page 73b.]

And one who makes

an oven—

is liable on account of eight sin-offerings.

For there is here one labor added to the seven labors in the case of the jug, because after he removes the oven from the kiln, he spreads mud over it, to thicken it, so that the heat in the oven will be preserved. And with this his labor is completed, and he is liable for it on account of striking the final hammer, which is the labor of “finishing the utensil.” [

But it is not applicable to make him liable for making a jug on account of “striking the final hammer,” because the labor of finishing, which is the essence of the definition of “striking the final hammer,” must be performed as a labor in itself, and only then is it defined as the labor of “finishing.” Whereas placing the jug in the kiln is not an act of “finishing” but an act of firing, and the fact that the labor of making the jug is completed on its own in the kiln is not defined as an act of finishing. This appears from the meaning of Rashi’s words. However, there are those who hold that Rashi’s opinion is that one is not liable for striking the final hammer unless one does this by hand.]

Abaye said: One who makes a beehive,

a woven basket made from reeds—

is liable for eleven sin-offerings.

And these are they:

a. Planting. He prunes the reeds, and pruning is a derivative of planting.

b. Reaping. If, when pruning, he needs the wood, he is also liable on account of reaping.

c. Gathering. He gathers the reeds together.

d. Sorting. He sorts the good reeds from the inferior ones.

e. Smoothing. He smooths the surface of the reeds.

f. Grinding. He cuts the reeds into two and into three and makes them thin.

g. Cutting. For the cutting is according to a measure.

h. Setting the warp. He sets up the warp reeds.

i. Making two heddle loops. He weaves one weft reed above, within the warp, and one below, in order to hold the weaving. [Rashi in the Mishna below, on page 105a, explains that there are not actual heddle loops here, but nevertheless this is included within the labor of making two heddle loops. Hagahot HaBach.]

j. Weaving. For he continues with the weaving of the beehive.

k. Striking the final hammer. He cuts the ends of the reeds in order to make them even, and this is the completion of the labor of the beehive.

And if he makes a rim for its mouth,

who made a rim according to the beehive by bending the ends of the reeds inward

he is liable for thirteen sin-offerings.

For two additional labors were added through this, and they are: The sewer. For he sewed the rim to the beehive. And the one who ties. For the sewing does not remain without tying afterward. [

Sewing: He sewed the rim to the basket.

And tying: The sewing does not remain secure without tying afterward.

Rashi explains that he is not to be made liable on account of the labor of building, neither in the case of a jug, nor in that of an oven and a beehive, and so forth, because there is no building in utensils.

He further wrote that there are those who explain that the grinding in the case of the beehive consists of boring holes in the wood, into which the ends of the warp reeds are inserted. And he raised a difficulty: Is this grinding not a labor that does not need its own purpose?]

We learned in the Mishna:

One who shears wool, and one who whitens it.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One who spins wool that is upon an animal on Shabbat is liable for three sin-offerings:

One on account of shearing,

for he shears the wool from the animal after the spinning.

And one on account of carding,

for he combed the wool before the spinning.

And one on account of spinning.

Rav Kahana said: This is not the manner of shearing

to shear spun wool.

And this is not the manner of carding.

And this is not the manner of spinning,

to card and spin the wool while it is still attached to the animal.

And we raise an objection:

And

for

not

is this the manner of spinning?!

But it was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Nehemiah:

It is said concerning the labor of the Tabernacle, “And all the women whose hearts inspired them with wisdom spun the goats”; this implies

they washed on the goats and spun on the goats,

when the wool was upon the goats, they washed and spun it.

Evidently, spinning upon an animal is called spinning?

And we answer:

Exceptional wisdom is different!

For they were wise of heart, and it was their way to spin in this manner, but an ordinary person does not generally do this, and it is an unusual manner.

The Sages taught: One who plucks the wing,

a large feather from the wing of a bird,

and trims it,

cuts the thin end of the feather, which is fit to be used in this manner, to insert it into a pillow and mattress,

and strips it,

from the rest of the feather he strips the hairs from both sides and throws away the shaft and uses the hairs for a pillow and mattress—

is liable for three sin-offerings.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

These are the three sin-offerings:

Plucking

the wing—

he is liable on account of shearing; trimming—

he is liable on account of cutting,

for he is particular to cut according to a measure, because he also uses the thick side of the feather for weaving hats.

Stripping—

he is liable on account of smoothing,

for he smooths the feather by removing the hairs.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who ties and one who unties.

And we inquire about this:

Where was tying performed in the Tabernacle?

And we answer:

Rava said: For

they

would tie to the stakes

that were stuck in the ground the

tents,

the curtains of the Tabernacle, by means of cords.

And we raise an objection:

That—

tying with the intention of untying

when dismantling the Tabernacle—

it was,

and therefore it is a non-permanent knot, for which one is not liable on Shabbat?

And we answer:

Rather, Abaye said: For the weavers of the curtains

of the Tabernacle,

when a thread broke for them,

in the middle of the weaving,

would tie it.

Rava said to him: You have answered “one who ties”,

but

“one who unties”—what is there to say,

where was “one who unties” in the Tabernacle?

And if you would say that if two threads happened to be tied together,

two adjacent threads, in each of which a knot had been made, one next to the other, and because the matter was prominent and unattractive,

he would untie one

he would untie one of the knots

and tie one,

while leaving the other tied.

It is impossible to say this.

For

now, before a flesh-and-blood king they would not do this; before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He—

would they do it?!

For if he untied one of the knots, a gap would remain there, since the threads were thick, as each thread was twisted from six threads.

Rather, when the thread tore near an adjacent knot, they would pull the two parts of the torn thread from both sides, and in the middle they would insert a new thread and tie it to the two ends, so that two adjacent knots would not be formed.

And we answer:

Rather, Rava said—and some say Rabbi Ila’i:

The labors of tying and untying were performed in the Tabernacle,

for the hunters of the tehelet-snail,

from whose blood they dyed the tekhelet, they

would tie and untie.

For the net was made of knots, and sometimes he would untie the knot in one net and transfer threads to another net, and tie them in the second net.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who sews two stitches.

And we inquire about this:

But it does not remain!

After all, only two stitches do not remain, but are destined to unravel, and this is not a labor?

And we answer:

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: And this is when he tied them,

the two ends of the thread, so that the sewing would remain.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who tears with the intention of sewing.

And we inquire about this:

Was tearing performed in the Tabernacle?!