Shabbat 74b (עד:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Lupines are different,

as he boils them seven times,

as they must be boiled seven times until they become sweet.

And if he does not remove them—

they spoil.

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

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

it is

like sorting

refuse from food!

The Ran explains that the shell itself does not spoil even if it is left there. Therefore, the lupines are considered refuse from food. However, Rashi appears to understand that both of them are considered refuse. This requires further examination.

Rashi offers another explanation: the lupines are mixed with other species inferior to them, and those species cook after one or two boilings, whereas the lupines must be boiled seven times. If, after several boilings, he sorts the lupines out from the other species, then although it appears that he is sorting food from refuse, nevertheless, since

if he does not boil them—

they spoil,

for if he does not continue boiling the lupines, they will spoil, whereas the other species, whose cooking is already complete, will not spoil. Therefore, when he removes the lupines from the mixture—

it is

like sorting

refuse from food.

Rashi also cites another explanation, reading the text as follows:

and if he removes them, they spoil,

meaning that whatever he takes in his hand disintegrates between his fingers and becomes repulsive. Therefore, it is considered refuse relative to what remains, which is still food, until he removes it with his hands.

We learned in the Mishna:

and one who grinds!

Rav Pappa said: One who finely chops beets,

chopping them very finely,

is liable on account of grinding.

Rav Menashe said: One who finely splits wood,

cutting wood into very small pieces in order to fuel a fire—

is liable on account of grinding.

Rav Ashi said: If he is particular about the measure,

if he is careful to cut the wood to a measured length—

he is liable on account of cutting,

which is one of the primary categories of labor: cutting 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:

I have a difficulty: Why

did our tanna omit

the labor of

cooking the herbs, which was performed in the Tabernacle, and mention baking,

even though baking was not performed in the Tabernacle?!

And we answer:

Our tanna—

listed the sequence of bread-making.

The tanna preferred to enumerate the labors in the order in which they are performed in making bread [because this is common; Ran]. Therefore, he mentioned baking in place of cooking, since baking is the cooking of bread.

Rav Aḥa bar Rav Avira said: One who places a damp wooden peg into an oven,

throwing a damp wooden peg into a hot oven so that it will dry and harden—

is liable on account of cooking.

We raise a difficulty:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

Lest you say that he intends to harden

to strengthen and harden

the utensil,

the peg;

he intends

to do this, which is the opposite of cooking, since cooking is an action that softens an object—

it teaches us that it first softens,

as it initially becomes soft from the heat,

and

only

afterward hardens,

when its moisture leaves it at a later stage. His liability on account of cooking is for the initial stage.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who heats pitch,

melting tar—

is liable on account of cooking.

We raise a difficulty:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

Lest you say, since it subsequently solidifies,

as pitch tends to harden again after being melted,

say that he should not

be liable on account of cooking—

it teaches us

that he is liable.

Rava said: One who makes a clay barrel,

a barrel made of clay,

is liable for seven sin-offerings.

And these are they:

a. Grinding: He grinds the clods of earth into fine particles.

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 turns it into clay.

e. Smoothing: He spreads and [smooths] the clay from which the barrel is made, so that the barrel will be smooth. Spreading is a derivative of smoothing.

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

g. Cooking: He places the barrel in the kiln in order to fire it there.

Rashi explains that he is not liable for the labor of digging, since he does not need the hole but only its earth, as stated above, on folio 73b.

And one who makes

an oven—

is liable for eight sin-offerings.

There is an additional labor here beyond the seven labors involved in making a barrel: after removing the oven from the kiln, he plasters it with clay to thicken it, so that the heat within the oven will be retained. With this, his labor is complete, and he is liable on account of striking with a hammer, which is the labor of “finishing the utensil.”

However, with regard to making a barrel, it is not appropriate to hold him liable on account of “striking with a hammer,” because the finishing labor—which constitutes the essential definition of “striking with a hammer”—must be performed as a labor in its own right, and only then is it defined as a finishing labor. Placing the barrel in the kiln, by contrast, is not a finishing action but a firing action; and the fact that the making of the barrel is completed by itself in the kiln is not defined as a finishing action. This appears to be the implication of Rashi’s words. However, some maintain that Rashi’s view is that one is liable for striking with a hammer only when one performs it by hand.

Abaye said: One who makes a woven reed basket,

a basket woven 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 he prunes the reeds because he needs the wood, he is also liable on account of reaping.

c. Gathering: He collects 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 or three pieces and makes them thin.

g. Cutting: The cutting is performed to a measured length.

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

i. Making two heddles: He weaves one weft reed above the warp and one below it in order to hold the weaving in place. [Rashi, in the Mishna below, on folio 105a, explains that these are not actual heddles; nevertheless, this is included in the labor of making two heddles, Hagahot HaBach.]

j. Weaving: He continues weaving the basket.

k. Striking with a hammer: He cuts the ends of the reeds in order to make them even, and this completes the labor of making the basket.

And if he sewed its mouth,

making a rim for the basket by bending the ends of the reeds inward—

he is liable for thirteen sin-offerings.

Two additional labors have thereby been added, namely:

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 liable on account of the labor of building, neither in the case of a barrel, nor an oven, nor a basket, and so on, because there is no building with regard to utensils.

He further wrote that some explain that grinding with regard to a basket consists of drilling holes in the wood into which the ends of the warp reeds are inserted. He raised the difficulty that this grinding is a labor not needed for its own purpose.

We learned in the Mishna:

one who shears wool, and one who whitens it.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who spins wool that is on an animal on Shabbat is liable for three sin-offerings:

One on account of shearing,

because he shears the wool from the animal after spinning it.

And one on account of carding,

because he combed the wool before spinning it.

And one on account of spinning.

Rav Kahana said: This is not the usual manner of shearing,

to shear spun wool.

And this is not the usual manner of carding.

And this is not the usual manner of spinning,

to card and spin wool while it remains attached to the animal.

And we object:

And

if

not

the usual manner of spinning?!

And it was taught in a beraita in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya:

It is stated with regard to the labor of the Tabernacle, “And all the women whose hearts moved them with wisdom spun the goats”; this implies

that they washed the goats and spun the goats,

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

Apparently, spinning on an animal is called spinning?

And we answer:

Exceptional skill is different!

They were wise-hearted women whose practice was to spin in this manner, but an ordinary person does not practice this way, and it is considered an unusual manner of performing the labor.

The Sages taught: One who plucks a wing feather,

a large feather from the wing of a bird,

and trims it,

cutting the thin end of the feather, which is fit for use in this manner, to insert it into a pillow or cushion,

and strips it,

stripping the remaining feather by removing the hairs from both sides and discarding the shaft, and using the hairs for a pillow or cushion—

is liable for three sin-offerings.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

These are the three sin-offerings:

Plucking

the wing feather—

he is liable on account of shearing; trimming—

he is liable on account of cutting,

because he is particular to cut it to a measured length, as he also uses the thick side of the feather for weaving hats.

Stripping—

he is liable on account of smoothing,

because he smooths the feather by removing the hairs.

We learned in the Mishna:

one who ties and one who unties.

We raise a difficulty:

Where was tying performed in the Tabernacle?

And we answer:

Rava said: Since

they

would tie to pegs

driven into the ground the

tents,

the curtains of the Tabernacle, with cords.

And we object:

That—

tying with the intention of untying

when dismantling the Tabernacle—

was

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

And we answer:

Rather, Abaye said: Since the weavers of the curtains

of the Tabernacle

would have a thread break,

in the middle of the weaving,

they would tie it.

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

but

what can be said about “one who unties,”

where was “one who unties” performed in the Tabernacle?

And if you say that when two adjacent threads happened to have knots,

two neighboring threads, each of which had a knot made next to the other, and because this was conspicuous and unattractive,

he would untie one

of the knots,

and tie one,

leaving the other one tied.

This cannot be said.

For

now, if this is not done before a flesh-and-blood king, would it be done before the Holy One, King of kings—

would it?!

For if one of the knots were untied, an empty space would remain there, since the threads were thick, each thread having been twisted from six strands.

Rather, when a thread tore next to an adjacent knot, they would pull the two sections of the torn thread in opposite directions, insert a new thread between them, and tie it to both ends, so that two adjacent knots would not be formed.

And we answer:

Rather, Rava said—and some say Rabbi Ilai said:

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

since the hunters of the ḥillazon,

whose blood was used to dye the tekhelet, would

tie and untie.

The net was made of many knots, and sometimes they would untie a knot in one net, transfer the threads to another net, and tie them in the second net.

We learned in the Mishna:

and one who sews two stitches.

We raise a difficulty:

But it does not hold!

After all, only two stitches will not remain secure; they will ultimately unravel, and this is not a labor?

And we answer:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And this is when he tied them,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

one who tears in order to sew.

We raise a difficulty:

Was tearing performed in the Tabernacle?!