More Discussions for this daf
1. Borer 2. Rava and Abaye 3. Tosofos DH v'Chi Mutar
4. Borer According to Rashi 5. Maga B'Tumas Meis vs. Maga B'Mais 6. Listing Ofeh insted of Bishul
7. Why can't we asked Rav Chisda's question on Abaye? 8. Why aren't temporary knots prohibited? 9. Kotesh
10. Prohibition Of Medicine Use 11. The Shi'ur of Chalah for practical purposes 12. משכן מקדש
13. בורר ואוכל בורר ומניח 14. הבורר תורמוסים מתוך פסולת 15. האי מאן דשדא סיכתא לאתונא
16. האי מאן דעבד חלתא

Boruch Kahan asked:

On Daf 74b both Rovo and Abaye inform us that if you made certain Keilim or did certain actions on Shabbos you would be Chayav various amounts of Chatoos 7,8,11,13 Stam a Heoroh that these 4 numbers coincide to the amount of Chulyos(I think that is the right word) 1 is meant to do between each Koysher on Arba Kanfos(Lo Meshaneh,Lo Nogea)

My main question is why does the Gemoro do this, Mimoh Nafshach either go ahead and list what these Chatoos are or not say it in the first place.It is now left to the Heileger Rashi and the rest of the Rishonim namely Tosfos ,Rashi himself brings a Yesh Meforshim,Ran ,Rif Vechulu never mind the Rambam to argue what they are .What bothered the Gemoro that it just could not go ahead and list these Chatoos .WHAT DOES THE GEMORO WANT WITH THESE MAIMROS OF ROVO AND ABAYE.

I am sure there is something a bit more in these type of cryptic shorthand Gemoros than just work through the Rishonim and you will get Pshat.

Any comments


Boruch Kahan of London

The Kollel replies:

Reb Boruch, it is wonderful to hear from you again after quite a while.

1. That is an incredible observation you made about 7, 8, 11, 13 and the Chulyos!

2. Perhaps your question -- about why the Gemara does not list all of the Chata'os -- may be answered with the principle the Gemara sometimes mentions (see Gitin 33a, for example): "Tana Ki Ruchla li'Chashiv v'Leizel?" - "Is the Tana of the Mishnah comparable to the seller of spices who counts out every single item he has for sale?" In other words, it is not the Derech of the Gemara to enumerate every single detailed fact. The Gemara often does not explain fully everything that it mentions, but it leaves it to us to fill in the rest. (The Rishonim in this respect make things easier for us.)

3. There is actually another Gemara which is similar to this one, in Makos 16b, where again it is Abaye who says that somebody who eats a "Potisa" receives four sets of Malkus. Again, Rashi there has to fill in for us the different prohibitions against eating crawling creatures. The Gemara must be telling us with these statements how much we should be careful with both Shabbos and with Kashrus, because through merely one action it is possible to transgress several prohibitions of the Torah. Also, the Yerushalmi in Shabbos relates how Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish sat together and found 39 Toldos for each of the 39 Avos Malochos. I heard that Rav Elyashiv shlit"a demonstrated from this Yerushalmi how many prohibitions there are on Shabbos and how careful we must be to avoid doing something which might fall into any of these categories.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Boruch Kahan asks further:

My main problem is and I forgot to include this in my question ,sorry, is straight after this Sugyo the next Sugyo in Klal Godol says Mefurash in the name of Rav Yochonon that if you did a certain type of spinning then you are Chayav 3 melochos AND THERE THE GEMORO SPELLS IT OUT ACHAS MISHUM VECHU' and then Rav Kahana argues etc. so why in this Sugyo do we speak out the various Melochos involved and in the Gemoro previous not.

Also if you dont mind me disagreeing with you, the Klal from Gittin isn't that really applicable Davka to Tanoim not Amaroim.I know this does not hold with your second point from Makkos since that is also an Amora Abaye

Any further Heoros perhaps

Kol Tuv Boruch Kahan

The Kollel replies:

Reb Boruch, this is a very strong question! I will have to do a lot of re-thinking. However, I think what I suggested earlier still applies, although I will need to explain it in more depth.

1. Before I answer your excellent question, I want to ask another Kashya on the Sugya. Why do the Rif and the Rosh not mention this sugya at all, and the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 10:13) mentions it only briefly and does not tell us how many Chata'os a person is Chayav to bring for the Chavisa, Tanura, and Chalsa?

2. I found no one who asked this question. In order to answer it, I must propose a Chidush, which is similar to what I wrote earlier. The primary purpose for why the Gemara teaches that one is Chayav for so many Chata'os for one act on Shabbos is to emphasize to us the seriousness of the prohibition against working on Shabbos. (By the way, in a more positive tone, it also teaches us how much reward one receives for observingShabbos. We know that one who sits inactive and refrains from doing an Aveirah is rewarded with a reward equivalent to one who performs a Mitzvah actively.) The focus of the Gemara here is more to give us Musar about the importance of observing Shabbos, rather than to teach us a particular Halachah of exactly which Melachos one is Chayav for with the Chavisa, Tanura, and Chalsa. This is why the Rif and Rosh and Rambam make no mention of how many times one is Chayav for these, because the main purpose of the Gemara is not to tell us that Halachah per se but rather to give us Musar by illustrating the maximum number of Chata'os a person might do.

3. Now we also can understand why the Gemara does not tell us for which seven melachos he is liable with the Chavisa, and which eight with the Tanura, etc. This is because the main purpose of this Gemara is not to teach us the Halachos but rather to teach us Musar about how serious the laws of Shabbos are.

4. If this approach is correct, your very good challenge that the Klal in Gitin (33a) applies to Tana'im, and not to Amora'im, is not relevant. In fact, I can back up your challenge with another principle: that an Amora is expected to explain himself, while a Tana does not need to explain himself (see Tosfos to Beitzah 25a, DH Kan, and Taz YD 36:14). However, in the case of the Gemara here, everyone will agree that the Amora does not need to give a long list of all of the details of the Melachos involved, because, again, the purpose of the Gemara is merely to emphasize how many Isurim are involved, and not to specify exactly which ones. This is what I meant in my previous answer when I made the comparison with Gitin 33a.

Again, a "groisa shekoiyach" and Hatzlachah Rabah,

Dovid Bloom

Yitzchak Zirkind comments:

I would like to point out that there is a clear connection between the numbers 7,8,11and 13 (regarding the Chata'os for making a barrel etc. on Shabbos) and the windings of Tzitzis.

See Mateh Moshe on Hilchos Tzitzis, who points out that the numbers 7,8,11and 13 equal a total of 39. He brings a different reason there to explain why the number 39 appears in Tzitzis, but I may suggest that it has a connection to the 39 Melachos of Shabbos. Note that both Shabbos and Tzitiz are "equivalent to all of the Mitzvos in the Torah" according to Chazal (see Kol Eliyahu of the Vilna Gaon, Parashas Shelach.)

b'Derech Derush, there is much to be said about this. Rava discussed the first two sets of Melachos, that when combined equal the value of the first two letters of the Holy Name. Abaye added the last two sets, that correspond to the final letters of the Holy Name, and have the numerical value of Echad. (And this is accomplished by Chaytei l'Puma...) Both his examples of 11 and of 13 appear in the Melachos involved in creating the same Kli, while Rava lists sets of 7 and 8 Melachos that are involved in the creation of two different Kelim - I will leave it at that for now.

Obviously, these Melachos are prohibited on Shabbos and one who does them is Chayav Chatos - which is nothing positive. Melachos which, when done in a permissible manner, represent Tov and Kedushah, can be transformed into a Chiyuv Kares on Shabbos.

Best wishes,

Yitzchak Zirkind

The Kollel adds:

Here is a slight addition to the above answer stated in 3). In my previous answer I suggested that Rava and Abaye are trying to tell us how careful one has to be not to transgress Shabbos prohibitons. We can add on to this that the Gemara is also hinting at how many Halachos there are connected with Shabbos and how much one should learn them in order to become expert in these Halachos, because one sees that from one mere action one can be liable to several Chatoos.

[Possibly one could add to this that this is in fact the reason why the Gemara did not detail which Melachos one is liable for because it wants us to work them out on our own and that way we will become expert in all the Halochos].

If so, we now have a source from the Gemara for the famous teching of Rav Yonasan Eibechitz (cited by the Mishneh Berurah) that it is impossible for someone who has not learnt Hilchos Shabbos thorughly and reviewed them at least 2 or 3 times, to be saved from breaking Shabbos b'Shogeg.

A freilicha Chanuka

Dovid Bloom

The Kollel adds further:

Here is a small addition to the above. The point is that if one is familiar in a practical way with what a Chavisa, Tanura, and Chalsa are, and what processes are involved in their manufacture, it should be fairly self-apparent what Melachos are involved in making them. Therefore, the purpose of Rava and Abaye in this Gemara is not to tell us what Melachos one transgress when he makes these objects, but rather to find examples of activities for which one is liable for a large number of Chata'os. Such examples will help us understand how important it is to be proficient in the las of Shabbos, so that we avoid transgressing many Isurim.

(One might challenge this by saying that since there are disputes between the Rishonim about exactly which Melachah one is liable for (for example, the Machlokes between Rambam and Rashi whether one is Chayav for Boneh), how can we say that it is self-apparent what the Melachos are? Nevertheless, it should still be pointed out that for the majority of Melachos there is no argument, so if the Gemara would have wanted to tell us about the Machlokes concerning Boneh, it would not have had to give examples where there are so many other Melachos involved, for which there is no dispute.)

In contrast, Rabbi Yochanan's ruling in the case of one who weaves wool while it is still on the animal is a big Chidush; it is very novel to say this is the normal way of doing "Toveh," "Menapetz," and "Gozez" (which in fact is Rav Kahana's argument against Rebbi Yochanan). Therefore, it is necessary for Rebbi Yochanan to state exactly what Melachos are involved, because otherwise we would not have known Rebbi Yochanan's view in this regard.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom