📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of Rambam Hilchot Shabbat Chapter 7
General Overview
Chapter 7 of Hilchot Shabbat enumerates the 39 avot melachot (primary categories of labor), with rules regarding avot and toladot (primary and derivative categories), the distinction between them, and the practical halachic differences.
—
Halacha 1 — The 39 Avot Melachot
The Rambam’s Words
Heading: “Melachot hachayavin aleihen” (The labors for which one is liable). The number of all avot melachot is forty minus one: plowing, sowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking… (and he enumerates all 39 melachot).
Plain Meaning
The Rambam enumerates the 39 avot melachot, parallel to the Mishna in Shabbat chapter Klal Gadol, but with his own changes in order and language.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. Why “melachot hachayavin aleihen” in the heading: The Rambam places in the heading the concept of liability/punishment, because the entire division of 39 melachot is primarily relevant to the matter of punishments — to know what type of melacha one performs is relevant for chatat when done inadvertently, stoning/karet when done intentionally, warning, an av with its toladot, etc. Perhaps the language “hachayavin aleihen” (for which one is liable) comes to exclude other matters of Shabbat desecration that are not punishable by stoning (like shevutim – rabbinic prohibitions).
2. Continuation from Chapter 1: The chapter is a simple continuation of Chapter 1 where the Rambam said “One who performs melacha on Shabbat is liable to stoning and karet when done intentionally and chatat when done inadvertently.” After learning the general principles (erev Shabbat, intention, saving a life), we now learn another principle: what are the melachot themselves, and that they divide into avot and toladot.
3. Rambam’s language vs. Mishna’s language: The Rambam says “hacharisha, hazeria” (plowing, sowing) (gerund form), while the Mishna says “hacharesh, hazoreia” (the plower, the sower) (active participle). The Rambam’s language is more precise, because we’re speaking of avot melachot — the melacha itself, not the person who does it. However, it’s noted that the Rambam also speaks of actions (not just abstract nouns), because we’re speaking of the person who is liable — the ways he performed them.
4. “Arba’im chaser achat” — why not “tisha usheloshim” (thirty-nine): 39 is a “complicated number” — 40 minus 1 is easier to remember, closer to a round number. It’s compared to lashes (arba’im chaser achat), where the Torah actually says “arba’im” (forty) and the Sages subtracted one, and the language has already become a standard expression.
5. The Rambam’s order vs. the Mishna’s order: The Rambam follows a different order than the Mishna. The Mishna has three clear series (the bread series, the garment series, the parchment/scroll series), but afterwards it becomes more general. The Rambam places makeh bapatish (striking the final hammer blow) together with boneh and soter (building and demolishing), which can be categorized as “construction.” In the Mishna, however, it goes: boneh and soter, mechaber and ma’avir (joining and separating), makeh bapatish.
6. Different ways to group: Rav Rabinowitz wanted to count differently: weaving/unweaving, tying/untying, sewing/tearing, building/demolishing — as opposite pairs.
The Categories of Melachot:
The Bread Series (11 melachot): Plowing → sowing → reaping → binding sheaves → threshing → winnowing, selecting, sifting (three steps of removing kernels from waste — “three types of borer”) → grinding → sifting (flour) → kneading → baking.
The Garment Series (13 melachot): Shearing → whitening → combing → dyeing → spinning → stretching threads → weaving → separating threads → tying → untying → sewing → tearing.
The Scroll/Parchment Series: Trapping → slaughtering → skinning → tanning → smoothing → cutting → writing → erasing (to write) → marking lines.
Construction: Building, demolishing, striking the final hammer blow.
7. [Digression: Why isn’t construction enumerated with all its details] The question is asked why construction isn’t enumerated with all its details (like mixing cement, quarrying stones) the way it is with bread or garments. The answer: In the Mishkan, construction was very simple — there wasn’t any complicated construction work, but rather more with curtains. The melachot stem from the work of the Mishkan.
8. Hav’ara — where does it belong? Hav’ara (kindling) appears in a separate verse (“Lo teva’aru eish bechol moshvoteichem” – You shall not kindle fire in all your dwelling places) and is therefore separated. But hav’ara could also have fit in the bread series (before baking one needs fire). It remains an open question.
9. The order of hav’ara/kibuy — Mishna vs. Rambam: In the Mishna it says “hamechabe vehameva’ir” (extinguishing and kindling – kibuy before hav’ara), but the Rambam writes hav’ara before kibuy — which is the logical order, because one cannot extinguish before one kindles. The Meiri says something about why the Mishna places kibuy first. Also with boneh and soter the order in the Mishna is reversed.
—
Halacha 2 — “Kol shehen me’inyanan nikra’im avot melachot”
The Rambam’s Words
“All these melachot and all that are of their nature are called avot melachot.”
Plain Meaning
Not only the 39 melachot themselves, but also things that are of the same nature (concept/essence) as them, are also called avot melachot — as opposed to toladot.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. A third category — “me’inyanan”: It’s not just avot and toladot. There’s a third category — things that are exactly the same melacha but with a different name, different action, or different manner, but essentially it’s the same nature — this is also an av melacha. Only when there’s a weaker similarity does it become a toladah. The distinction: “inyan” (nature) means the concept/essence, not the specific name. Like a “father’s friend” is on the same level as the father, but a “child” derives from him.
—
Halacha 2 (continued) — Example: Choresh, chofer, oseh charitz
The Rambam’s Words
“Whether one plows or digs or makes a furrow, for each and every one of them is digging in the ground and they are one nature.”
Plain Meaning
All three — choresh (plowing), chofer (digging), oseh charitz (making a furrow) — are one nature: making a hole/groove in the earth. All three are avot melachot (not toladot).
Novel Points and Explanations
1. Meiri: Choresh usually means a person with an animal (with a plow); chofer is when a person digs with a shovel; charitz is when he hacks with a hammer.
2. Rabbeinu Yonah: The distinction is: by choresh one moves away the sand, by chofer one leaves the sand in front.
3. Main point: Even though they have different names and different tools/methods, it’s one nature — because both the result (a hole in the earth) and the action (scratching/digging in the earth) are the same. Therefore all three are avot, not toladot.
—
Halacha 2 (continued) — Example: Zorea, noteia, mavrich, markiv, zomer
The Rambam’s Words
“Whether one sows seeds or plants trees or bends branches or grafts or prunes — all these are one av from the avot melachot… all these their nature is to cause something to grow.”
Plain Meaning
Five ways to make trees/plants grow — zorea (sowing seeds), noteia (cutting a branch and placing it in a new location), mavrich (bending a living branch into the earth without cutting it), markiv (placing a branch from one tree onto another tree), zomer (cutting branches so the tree will grow better) — all are one av melacha.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. Distinction between noteia and mavrich: Noteia is when one cuts off a piece completely and places it in a new location. Mavrich is when one takes a living tree, inserts a piece into the earth, and later when it begins to grow there one cuts it off — it remains connected to the old tree until it grows.
2. Zeria is usually associated with seeds/kernels (grain). But trees are usually not planted with seeds — one takes a branch or a piece from an existing tree. Therefore it’s called “noteia” not “zorea”. Nevertheless it’s the same nature — making something grow.
3. Zomer — why is it an av and not a toladah? A strong question: zomer (cutting branches) is a completely different action than sowing — he cuts, he doesn’t sow! Therefore the Rambam says it’s not a toladah but the av itself, because the nature is one: lehatzmiach davar — to cause growth. All five ways are different methods of the same nature.
4. [Digression: Zomer vs. kotzer] When a person cuts a piece from a tree on Rosh Hashana, he doesn’t yet know clearly whether he’s now doing kotzer (removing from its place of growth) or zomer (causing growth). Perhaps the distinction is in the season — kotzer is when it’s already finished, zomer is done at the beginning of the season so it will grow.
—
Halacha 2 (continued) — Example: Kotzer, botzer, goder, mosek, oreh
The Rambam’s Words
“Kotzer — one who harvests grain or legumes. But with grapes it’s called botzer, with dates — goder, with olives — mosek, with figs — oreh. All these are one av melacha, for each and every one its nature is to uproot something from its place of growth.”
Plain Meaning
All forms of removing a fruit/grain from its place of growth are one av melacha — kotzer — even though they have different names.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. Why do they have different names? It’s not just different fruits — it’s also different actions. Grain is cut with a sickle, grapes are cut with different tools, olives are shaken from the tree. They’re different crafts, different implements, different ways. Therefore they’re all the av itself, because the nature is one: la’akor davar mimekom gidulo (to uproot something from its place of growth).
2. The foundation of “inyan hamelacha”: When we learned avot melachot, “kotzer” doesn’t mean literally only cutting grain — it means the definition: la’akor davar mimekom gidulo. Why do we say “kotzer”? Because it’s common, it’s the most frequent form. But the 39 melachot are not abstract — they’re concrete actions. The “la’akor davar mimekom gidulo” is already an abstract similarity between all forms.
—
Halacha 3-4 — The Distinction Between Av and Toladah
The Rambam’s Words
“The toladah is a melacha that resembles the av from these avot.”
Plain Meaning
A toladah is a melacha that is similar to the av, but not the same thing — we don’t take it “me’inyana” (from the same nature), but it derives from it.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. The Maggid Mishneh’s distinction (in the introduction) — two types of “same melacha”:
– Different “eichut hanif’al” (different object/item): For example kotzer and botzer — exactly the same action, but one does it to a different thing (grain vs. grapes). This is still the av itself.
– Different “eichut hape’ula” (different manner): For example zorea and noteia — a slightly different action, but just a different way of doing the same thing. This is also still the av.
– A toladah is when it’s similar but not the same action — it’s a broader category that includes both, but it’s not the narrow nature.
—
Halacha 4-5 — Examples of Toladot
Example 1: Toladat tochen — mechatech yerek
The Rambam’s Words
“How so? One who cuts vegetables into small pieces to cook them — he is liable, for this melacha is a toladah of grinding. For grinding takes one body and cuts it into many.”
Plain Meaning
Someone who cuts vegetables into small pieces in order to cook them (for example for soup) is liable for toladat tochen (grinding), because tochen means taking one body and dividing it into many pieces.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. Why is mechatech yerek a toladah and not the av? By tochen the original body is completely transformed — from wheat becomes flour, a completely new thing. By mechatech yerek it remains vegetables, just in smaller pieces. It’s only a toladah because it has a similarity in a broader category: taking one body and dividing it. But it’s not in the narrow nature of completely transforming something.
2. When would it be the av itself? If someone made from a vegetable a powder (like corn powder), that would be the av of tochen itself — because he grinds something, he makes from a fruit a dust. But here he only makes from a larger piece of fruit smaller pieces — therefore it’s only a toladah.
3. The Maggid Mishneh’s language: “Even though grinding completely changes the original body” — this is the decisive distinction. By tochen the first body is completely changed, by mechatech yerek not.
4. Why did the Rambam take an example from tochen and not from zorea/kotzer? The Rambam moves away from zorea/kotzer (which he’s been discussing until now) and takes an example from tochen — because there one sees better the distinction between av and toladah. By zorea/kotzer all forms are the av itself; one needs an example where it’s clearly a toladah.
Example 2: Toladat tochen — shaf lashon shel matechet
The Rambam’s Words
“One who takes a tongue of metal and files it in order to take from its dust, as goldsmiths do — this is a toladah of grinding.”
Plain Meaning
Someone who rubs a piece of metal in order to obtain metal dust (as goldsmiths do — they mix in pieces of other metals into gold so it will be harder) — this is also a toladah of grinding.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. Why is it a toladah and not tochen itself? With wheat, when one grinds it, it becomes flour — which is a new thing, not just small pieces of wheat. Flour doesn’t look like tiny wheat pieces, it’s the inner material of the wheat. A wheat kernel is actually “flour in potential” — the wheat is the unfinished flour. But a tongue of metal is not like that — with gold, when one scrapes it, the small pieces still remain metal, it hasn’t become a new thing. One can use it in different ways, there’s less change in the body of the thing itself, just a change in the form/definition. Therefore it’s a toladah and not an av.
Example 3: Toladat borer — making cheese
The Rambam’s Words
“And so one who takes milk and places in it rennet in order to curdle it — he is liable for toladat borer, for he separated the solid from the liquid (the curd from the whey).”
Plain Meaning
When someone places a piece of rennet (stomach of an animal) in milk, the sharpness of the rennet makes the milk sour and it becomes cheese. He separates the solid part (gush) from the liquid part (kos/whey). This is a toladat borer.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. First time we see that we look at the result: The action itself — placing an ingredient in a pot — doesn’t look like borer at all. Borer is taking pieces and separating them. But here we look at the result: because of his action, the milk was separated from the liquid. This is a new principle — that by toladot we look at the result, not just at the deed.
2. Why only toladat borer and not borer itself? Because borer itself means one takes pieces that lie together and separates them physically. Here he performed a chemical action that led to a separation — therefore it’s a toladah.
Example 4: Toladat boneh — shaping cheese
The Rambam’s Words
“And if he shaped it and pressed it — he is liable for boneh. For anyone who gathers part upon part and everything sticks together until it becomes one body, or until it resembles building.”
Plain Meaning
After separating the solid part from the liquid, when one takes the milk and shapes it into a piece of cheese — one is liable for boneh. Because boneh means gathering parts together until it becomes one body.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. “Guf” by the Rambam: The Rambam uses the word “guf” not in the sense of a human body, but in a broader sense — a “body”, a solid thing, just as a table is also a “guf”.
2. Symmetry with tochen: The Rambam said earlier that tochen means dividing one body into parts. Here boneh is the opposite — gathering parts together until it becomes one body. This is domeh levinin (resembles building).
3. Why not lash? The question is raised whether making cheese isn’t more similar to lash (kneading). The discussion leaves this open — one can think of many things when one abstracts so strongly.
4. The Rambam’s principle — “miguf hamelacha teda”: The Rambam says that not every time will he explain why something is a toladah of a particular av. He says: “Umiguf hamelacha hane’eseit beShabbat teda me’eizeh av vetoladat eizeh av” — from the essence of the melacha you will understand yourself. “Guf hamelacha” doesn’t mean the result, but the more abstract definition of what the melacha is. The Rambam says: I can’t always explain the analysis (as he did here with borer/tochen/boneh), but you should think it through yourself.
5. What does he mean by “lamdanut”? He means the definitions he gave — that tochen is mafreid chalkey guf echad (separating parts of one body), that boneh is mekabetz chalakim (gathering parts) into one body. These are analytical definitions that the Rambam thought out to explain why certain things are toladot of certain avot.
6. It’s always easier to see the connection than to see the distinction — that is, it’s harder to understand why something is specifically a toladah of this av and not of that one.
—
Halacha 7 — Practical Difference Between Av and Toladah
The Rambam’s Words
“Between one who performs an av melacha or a toladah from the toladot — when done intentionally he is liable to karet if there are no witnesses, and if witnesses came and warned him he is stoned, and when done inadvertently he is liable to a fixed chatat.”
“If so, what difference is there between avot and toladot? There is no difference between them except regarding the sacrifice alone.”
Plain Meaning
Regarding punishment there is no difference whatsoever between an av and a toladah — both are Torah prohibitions with the same severity: karet, stoning, or chatat. The only difference is regarding the sacrifice.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. The difference regarding sacrifice: “For one who performs melachot inadvertently — if he performed many avot in one period of unawareness, he is liable to one chatat for each and every av.” Each av is a separate chatat. But “if he performed an av and its toladot in one period of unawareness, he is only liable to one chatat” — an av with its toladot are viewed as one thing.
2. The Torah divided Shabbat labor into 39 avot melachot, not into hundreds of toladot. Therefore the maximum chatatot from one Shabbat (in one period of unawareness) is 39.
3. When done intentionally there’s no practical difference, because karet can only be received once, and stoning also.
4. The Rambam doesn’t go into more details here of the laws of inadvertent sins, he only states the principle in Hilchot Shabbat.
—
Halacha 8 — Chatatot When Done Inadvertently: Many Avot in One Period of Unawareness
The Rambam’s Words
“How so? If one plowed and sowed and reaped on Shabbat in one period of unawareness — he is liable to three chatatot. And even if he performed forty minus one inadvertently and forgot that all these melachot are forbidden to be done on Shabbat — he is liable for each and every melacha one chatat. But if he performed several toladot, such as grinding and crushing vegetables and filing metal plates in one period of unawareness — he is only liable to one chatat, for he only performed one av and its toladot.”
Plain Meaning
The maximum chatatot from one Shabbat in one period of unawareness is 39 — one for each av melacha. But if one performed several toladot of the same av in one period of unawareness, one is only liable to one chatat, because they all fall under the same av.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. The Rambam gives an example of a person who forgot that all melachot are forbidden on Shabbat — he thought it was a mitzvah to do all these things on Shabbat (a “simple-minded ignoramus”). In such a case he is liable to 39 separate chatatot, because each av melacha is an extra category.
2. The Rambam brings the example of tochen, ketishat hayerek, and shaf luchot shel matechet — which he established earlier in Chapter 7 are toladot of tochen — that if one performed all of them in one period of unawareness, one is only liable to one chatat.
—
Halacha 9 — Similar Melachot in One Period of Unawareness
The Rambam’s Words
“Even one who performs many melachot that are similar to one melacha in one period of unawareness — he is only liable to one chatat. How so? If one sowed and planted and bent branches and grafted and pruned — he is liable for one chatat, for all of them are one av.”
Plain Meaning
Not only an av with its toladot, but also several melachot that are “similar” to one another — i.e. different forms of the same av melacha — are counted together as one chatat in one period of unawareness. The example: zeria, netia, havracha, harkava, and zemira are all forms of zorea, and one is only liable to one chatat.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. The Rambam’s unique category of “me’ein melacha”: The Rambam interprets the Mishna “avot melachot arba’im chaser achat… me’ein melacha achat chayav al achat” that “me’ein” is a special category — not an av and not a toladah, but a melacha that is exactly the same as the av, just in a different manner or with a different thing. A toladah must be “a bit different” from the melacha, but a “me’ein” is the same melacha in a different form.
2. Other commentators vs. Rambam: There are commentators who interpreted that “me’ein melacha achat” in the Mishna simply means a toladah. The Rambam, however, makes from it a new, special category.
3. No practical halachic difference: In practice there is no practical halachic difference between the Rambam’s approach and the approach that says “me’ein” means toladah — because the Rambam also agrees that the law of a toladah is the same (one is not liable separately for a toladah when one has already performed the av in one period of unawareness). It’s only an analytical distinction, and one must think where a practical difference could emerge — but it doesn’t remain entirely clear.
4. The logical reasoning: It makes sense analytically that the Rambam doesn’t always want to say “toladah” — because a toladah is something that is similar to the av but different, while a “me’ein” is exactly the same melacha, just performed in a different manner (like netia is the same as zeria, just with a tree instead of seeds).
—
Thus far Hilchot Shabbat Chapter 7.
📝 Full Transcript
Laws of Shabbat Chapter 7 – The 39 Melachot
Introduction to Chapter 7
Speaker 1: Okay. Good. We are now going to learn Laws of Shabbat in the Rambam, Chapter 7.
In this chapter, the Rambam enumerates the 39 melachot, and some laws regarding the distinctions between the 39 melachot, or the concept of avot and toledot. But before going into the details, here is the list with some general principles of the 39 melachot.
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Yes. Very good.
Announcement About Donors
Speaker 1: Yes, let’s mention the donors. Yasher koach to Reb Yoel, Reb Yoel Eli Wertzberger, for supporting our shiur. And Reb Yoel Hirschler says that the community should learn from Reb Yoel. Very good.
Halacha 1 – “Melachot HaChayavin Aleihen”
Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “Melachot HaChayavin Aleihen”. He is going to enumerate here the 39 melachot, but he begins the chapter by saying that these melachot are the ones for which there are punishments.
Why Does It Say “Melachot HaChayavin Aleihen” in the Chapter?
It’s actually more relevant to enumerate the punishments for desecrating Shabbat at the beginning, but I think he enumerates it here because the distinction of the 39 melachot is primarily relevant to the matter of punishments. This is actually what a person needs to know – which type of melacha he is doing when he does it – is for the matter of punishments specifically. Because as the Rambam will later enumerate, if one does an av with its toledah, or regarding warning, and he captures here that the melachot are the ones that are stoning and karet.
Or perhaps he means to exclude what he doesn’t enumerate here as desecration of Shabbat? To exclude desecration, and there are others that were also a matter of desecrating Shabbat but not regarding stoning. This is apparently the point.
Continuation from Chapter 1
It’s a simple continuation just as Chapter 1 where he said there, began, “One who does melacha on Shabbat is liable to stoning and karet if intentional, and a sin offering if unintentional”. And now he adds a detail to this, that in this there are avot and toledot, you need to know what are avot and toledot. Because there are also melachot shevutim that we will learn later, which one is not liable for. Even biblically there are things for which one is not liable. Also there are.
Speaker 2: Melachot, not melachot. It’s not melachot, it’s extra mitzvot.
Speaker 1: Yes, as if this is all a long continuation from the first halacha. He says that there are melachot of Shabbat. We learned all kinds of principles about melachot of Shabbat, that what one may not do from erev Shabbat etc., one must have intention, saving a life etc. Now we learn another principle essentially about melachot.
The Rambam’s Language of the Melachot
Speaker 1: And what are they? So what are the melachot? They are liable to death, stoning, and karet if intentional, stoning with witnesses and warning, karet without witnesses and warning if intentional, one must bring a sin offering if unintentional. The melachot are some avot and some toledot. There are melachot that are avot, and there are ones that are toledot of the avot.
And how many are they? “The number of all the avot melachot is forty minus one”. The number of the avot melachot is thirty-nine. One less than forty. Forty minus one.
Discussion: Why “Forty Minus One” and Not “Thirty-Nine”?
Speaker 1: It’s simpler for people. That’s forty, and in a specific unit?
Speaker 2: No, not really.
Speaker 1: No, it’s not to say that the language, forty minus one, by the melachot appears so often. But I think this is simply easier to remember. The next thing for a person, 39 is somewhat a complicated number. 40, minus one. It’s a clearer… It’s closer to a round number so that people can remember it easier.
Speaker 2: Can you need to remember it easier?
Speaker 1: But yes. Because he will only remember the forty. One won’t remember, oh it’s a turn, we have a small trace, I subtracted one. But I think the Mishnah on tractates the setam have a place. We got used to them, it’s to say stand the kingdoms, but in the language of the Mishnayot it makes more sense to say it this way. But I think by kingdoms it’s more drastic, because kingdoms in the Torah it says forty a corner in the cham they say, there it’s understood that it’s forty minus one.
But I think yes. But you say that there it was actually forty minus one. But they subtracted today. It’s already become such a common language to what. Okay, could be the next one.
The List of the 39 Melachot
Speaker 1: “And these are they”, says the Rambam, these are the 39 melachot. The 39 melachot that appear in the Mishnah in the chapter Klal Gadol, and the Rambam says it in a slightly different language than in the Mishnah.
The Rambam’s Language vs. The Mishnah’s Language
In the Mishnah one speaks of the person who does it, the Rambam does the actions. And the Rambam is… according to precise analysis the Rambam is better, because we say avot melachot, we don’t speak of a person doing melacha, a person who is plowing, rather the avot melachot are the plowing. So therefore the Rambam says it this way.
But the Rambam also speaks of the actions, he doesn’t say the noun of the action, he already speaks of the verb. “The plower”, he says, “the plowing”.
I said you understand, because these are the avot melachot, we’re already speaking of a person who is liable, so we speak of the ways that he did it. In the Mishnah he needs to say “the plower”, which is one of the melachot.
General Overview of the Melachot
Speaker 1: Okay. The 39 melachot have to do also with the major things that people are busy with. People are busy preparing food, people are busy preparing their clothing, people are busy taking care of everything that has to do with animals, yes, building, and so on. Writing books, one needs to have soldiers, one needs to have fire, and the last one is carrying out, which is separate.
Seder HaPat – Eleven Melachot
Speaker 1: Okay. So first the eleven of seder hapat:
Choresh – preparing the ground so that one can sow
Zore’a – the sowing
Kotzair – after the produce has already grown
Me’amer – gathering in the field the grown grain
Dash – beating out the stalks so that the kernels come out. Because sowing is more, it has to do more with the kernels coming out that were precisely placed. We will learn or have later, each one of these things will be precise, it’s indeed the later harvest. Both have something to do with preparing the kernels.
After that there is Zoreh and Borer – extracting the kernels from the chaff. All three are three types of borer. The next things are things of… ah, dash, zoreh, borer, yes, that’s preparing the kernels so that one can extract the kernels from the stalks. It’s three ways to extract the… or three steps, three stages, three steps, yes, the kernels from the waste that’s in them.
And after that when one has the kernels, to make them into flour one grinds them – Tochen
Meraked – one cleans them by sifting them
Lash – one kneads a dough
Ofeh – one bakes the bread
These are the eleven melachot of bread.
Seder HaBeged – Melachot of Preparing Clothing
Speaker 1: Making clothing is like this:
Gozez – cutting the wool from the animal
After that is Melaben – cleaning
Menafetz – straightening out
Tzove’a – dyeing
Toveh – after that making the threads
Sochech – inserting the threads into the equipment so that one can easily make merchandise from this, assembling a textile
Noseich and Masechet – also a similar melacha, also in the matter of preparing the machine so that from small threads will become a whole merchandise
Oregh – after that weaving the merchandise
Discussion: What is “Potzei’a”?
Speaker 1: HaPotzei’a and HaKosher, what does potzei’a mean? I don’t remember the language of the Mishnah potzei’a, wait, I’ll go through it again. Ah, VeHaBotzei’a, yes. Something in the matter of sewing.
Hapotzei’a is when one removes a piece that got tangled from weaving. Not exactly a fix, not tearing, but when one puts in a thread, sometimes two threads come in by mistake, one needs to flatten it, fix the weaving, that means taking the weave so that one can redo it. It’s not clear the word, but some kind of fixing.
VeHaKosher – making a knot
VeHaMatir – untying a knot
VeHaTofer – sewing
VeHaKore’a – tearing the sewn thing so that one can sew further
Melachot of Building
Speaker 1: Okay, and after that we have the melachot of building a house:
HaBoneh
VeHaSoter – demolishing a house
VeHaMakeh BaPatish – which means more or less finishing the house
Discussion: The Order of the Melachot – The Rambam vs. The Mishnah
Speaker 1: It’s interesting, because we don’t understand why Chazal specifically arranged it, how they arranged it. But for example, we’re certain that boneh one can also do in various things. One can say pouring cement, laying a brick, laying cement. It’s not clear why… Yes, you see, boneh is no less than making bread.
Let’s be clear, the category of boneh I invented myself, the Mishnah doesn’t go in this order. I wrote this in order to explain the Rambam’s order. The Mishnah here in this section, we will learn, the Rambam says everything like the Mishnah except for one thing which according to the Gemara is a correction, but except for that, the Rambam also goes in a different order than the Mishnah.
Speaker 2: Do you have the Mishnah here?
Speaker 1: Haboneh vehasoter. The Mishnah doesn’t have any category of building. I made this because I saw that the Rambam puts together makeh bapatish with building and demolition, so I imagined that this is the point. But in the Mishnah it goes, I thought I had it here, let’s just leave it, let them see it. Seder pat, seder beged, seder sefer. Yes, here.
In the Mishnah it goes, ah, kosher umatir, tofer shtei tefirot, vehakorei’a al menat litfor, they had that. After that goes the section from tzad tzvi until ah, sirtut. What isn’t here sirtut, because sirtut is a translation inserted into the other, sirtut, sirtut.
In the Mishnah goes boneh vesoter, mechaber ume’abir, umakeh bapatish. It seems that the Mishnah wants to put together the opposites, boneh vesoter, mechaber ume’abir. But by the Rambam, one can also say in the Rambam like this, he learns the Rambam like this, keshirah tefirah keri’ah, binyan setirah. So two, three such ones, but also arigah uvtzi’ah. Arigah uvtzi’ah, keshirah tefirah keri’ah, binyan setirah. Right, so that’s the other way. Rav Rabinovitch wanted to count the Rambam like this. I preferred to do it this way.
But regarding fire, one can also say it’s connected. It’s also mechaber ume’abir, right. One can add it to building. Somewhere, I don’t know, one needs to make an order, make, yes, the order isn’t consistent.
In the Mishnah also is, so not clear. The end, ultimately there are three, let’s say clearly. In the Mishnah there are three series, which means seder hapat, seder habeged, and seder hasefer I think. Preparing parchment, yes. Which is three series which is very clear, what you say perhaps you’re right. It counts every detail, every action. Yes.
And after that there is, building is a bit more generally put together. One can speak about building, one can speak about hotza’ah mereshut lireshut is a category of its own, and after that kibbui, not clear.
Discussion: Where Does Hav’arah Belong?
Speaker 2: I think, hav’arah and kibbui, the thing is understood in the verse extra, yes, “lo teva’aru eish bechol moshevoteichem”.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed.
Speaker 2: Yes, hav’arah could also have fit for afiyah, for example.
Speaker 1: Yes. If you can put it in, yes. I actually wouldn’t.
Speaker 2: Interesting.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it’s not the same? Perhaps he means it’s a different matter to make… I don’t know what.
By fire one needs to make though. When someone goes with the meal because he makes bread, he will also do a whatever kiddush, yes.
Speaker 2: Actually interesting. Perhaps back then…
Discussion About the Order of Melachot in the Mishnah
Speaker 1: Yes, the order doesn’t have it, indeed. And the Mishnah has this… So not clear. The end… There are three, let’s say clearly, in the Mishnah there are three orders, which means seder hapat, seder habeged, and seder hasefer I think, or parchment, yes. Which is three orders which is very clear, so you say perhaps you’re right.
It counts every detail, every action. Yes. And after that there is… building is a bit more generally put together. One can speak about building, one can speak about hotza’ah mereshut lireshut is a category of its own, after that kibbui… not clear. I think, hav’arah and kibbui is a thing that appears in the verse extra, yes, “lo teva’aru eish bechol moshevoteichem”, a whole inquiry whether we actually derive it from there. Yes, hav’arah one could also have fit for afiyah, for example, yes, if one could have put it in, yes. But it’s actually not. Interesting.
Speaker 2: Perhaps it’s not the same? Hav’arah means regarding a different matter, to make… By afiyah one needs to have making. When someone goes with the order because he makes bread, he will also do hav’arah and kibbui, yes. Actually interesting. Perhaps back then… We’ll see later what exactly how one works on hav’arah itself. But okay.
Why Isn’t Building Detailed Like Pat and Beged?
Speaker 1: Further, the next melachot is… It could be, I can suggest that I look at it, because today a building is a very big complicated thing. It could be their idea was very simple, putting together stones, and it’s actually not. But I look at it that building one can make like pat, it’s more a complex thing.
Speaker 2: No, let’s be clear. Not exactly, because we tell you that the pat one begins from… You also understand, from baking bread and sowing there’s a year. From plowing until baking is a year. But building also. There are some that one can actually understand, there is dash, zoreh, borer, are roughly the same thing, there it’s actually a bit of a question. But between plowing until baking are different things. It’s only like a process. I say, in making clothing he knows from the machine, he knows precisely from the two houses of threads and how one makes the masechet. But building, something, he doesn’t know that one needs to knead cement and one needs to then make rope and carve out the stones. Okay, one doesn’t know, it’s not clear why. I think it’s more a thing of the Mishkan as they say. I already know how much one can ask here with logic, why for example certain melachot they made the type of melacha an av. I already know, there’s in this a very great wisdom, I don’t know, so they set up categories. There’s certainly a meaning, there must be a meaning, but one sees, there are things that are a toledah which is more common that people should do for example, and for some reason it became a toledah of whatever.
Speaker 1: Perhaps about the Mishkan, the Gemara always says about the work of the Mishkan. Perhaps in the Mishkan they didn’t make any cement, it was a very simple building. What was there? There was the type of building of weaving, of tearing the curtains, all types of buildings with the curtains. But there wasn’t any wisdom in construction in the Mishkan.
Speaker 2: Actually there they say for example, cooking is that a melamed, and we’re actually speaking of work of the Mishkan. Could be. Not clear, it’s a good question, water, and one needs to think about it. But we’re learning a bit with bekiyut, so I already know, one can. Okay, more of water.
Seder HaSefer — From Animal to Sefer Torah
Speaker 1: The next thing is like plowing until baking, from when there’s an animal in the forest until having from it a Sefer Torah, parchment. So like this, vehatzad, catching an animal, and shochto, afshito, skinning the hide, working out the hide, umechakko, preparing the hide so it can become parchment. This is a bit more a detail of having, or not a detail, rather it’s another av, but working out the hide, or removing all hair from the hide. Mechikah means I think making smooth. Making smooth, that’s indeed, or one can mean removing all hair. But ibbud is also something like making smooth. Ibbud is more with putting it into the chemicals, and it becomes… Could be ibbud is also could be treading on the hide, if I remember correctly. Yes, not the same as mechikah. Yes, mechikah is already after the ibbud, it’s already more detail more of it.
Vechatcho, to cut the hide, the Rambam told us precisely that the Sefer Torah will be made from sheets, one needs to cut it. Vehaketivah vehaMechikah, cutting, writing, and often one needs to erase in order to write. VeHashirtut, making lines so that one can write straight lines. The Rambam said that one needs to do by a Sefer Torah.
Hav’arah and Kibbui — Order in Mishnah vs. Rambam
Speaker 1: Okay. Two melachot of fire is kindling and extinguishing, hav’arah and kibbui. And the last melacha is… ah, sorry, in the Mishnah it says “hamechabbeh vehamav’ir”, and the Rambam writes in the correct order, hav’arah before kibbui. But there’s nothing to extinguish before it’s kindled. But there’s simply a logic that essentially with this matter of melacha one does hav’arah first.
Boneh vesoter is also like this in the Mishnah? Yes. Hav’arah and kibbui it says “hamechabbeh vehamav’ir”. It’s interesting. There’s in this some secret. He brings, the Meiri says something, because usually, I didn’t understand, because in practice one needs to kindle the fire first. Something he said why it says in the Mishnah first kibbui and then hav’arah.
Hotza’ah Mereshut Lireshut
Speaker 1: And the last one is hotza’ah mereshut lireshut, carrying from one domain to another. This is the av melacha of hotza’ah.
Halacha 2 — “All These Melachos and All That Are of Their Nature”
The Rambam’s Innovation: Inyan vs. Toladah
Speaker 1: Good. So the Rambam says, the Rambam explains, “All these melachos”, all these things that we’ve discussed here, the thirty-nine, “and all that are of their nature”, also things that are the same thing as this, “are called avos melachos”. Yes, the Rambam has an innovation, “to exclude toladot”, that there aren’t just avos and toladot. What does avos and toladot mean? Let’s learn, an av is the primary melacha, and a toladah is something that is similar to it but not exactly. It comes out that there is what is the same melacha, just with a different name, or with a different action, or with a different manner, but essentially it’s the same melacha, it’s an av melacha.
I mean that the Rambam says that the names of the avos are not a narrow definition just to be, for example, mochek ha’os (erasing letters) just meaning the exact action of erasing letters, rather it’s a somewhat broader category. And afterwards there is something that is not the same thing, rather it’s a weaker similarity, that becomes a toladah. Exactly the distinction between the similarities we will try to understand when the Rambam will bring the examples.
That’s what “me’inyonom” means. “Inyan” means the meaning, the concept, as you say, not the word “choresh” for example, rather it’s the idea of choresh. And a toladah must be not the idea of choresh. There is the father’s friend, he is on the same level as the father, and there are the children, brothers, and there are children who descend from this. In short, the inyonim, the Rambam brings three examples, which means yes, ah, exactly when we think, we will see by the toladah of choresh, we will see the distinction between the types and their toladot.
Example 1: Choresh — “One Who Plows or Digs or Makes a Furrow”
Speaker 1: In short, the types, one who plows, if someone plows the normal way of plowing, or digs, or someone digs, or makes a furrow, or someone makes a furrow. I don’t know exactly what this means at all, because I don’t see the three examples, but presumably there is a certain way how one normally does choresh. I know, a plow goes and makes a kind of line. What is the difference between choresh and oseh charitz? I would have said it’s exactly the same thing, not types.
The Rambam says, even something that isn’t called by the word choresh, but choresh means… no, I mean how he says here is, choresh means making… plowing means what? Making the earth soft, or that sort of thing, something scratching in the earth. He says, there are three kinds of ways how one can call scratching in the earth. Let’s say, in wet earth it’s called this, or in dry, or when one needs to make a bit deeper. Chofer does look like deeper than choresh. Choresh one doesn’t make a deep hole. Choresh one digs a bit up, yes, one makes that the hard earth should become so soft. Chofer means digging in. What is the technical difference of the three things at all?
Speaker 2: It’s true that basically it’s the same thing, they all make a hole in the earth. Therefore indeed they are all the same melacha, yes. We need to understand why it’s the same thing. The difference is only, a choresh uses such a tool. That is the tool that’s called a choresh. Chofer is when one does the same action, one does the same thing, but with a different kind of machine or what, a different implement. It could be that it’s a bit fancier different the thing. Making a choresh, as you say, deeper or less deep, or… but oseh charitz is the greatest, one can do it even with the bank, if one does it with the hands.
The Meiri and Rabbeinu Yonah on the Distinction Between Choresh, Chofer, and Oseh Charitz
Speaker 1: He says so, the Meiri, he says that choresh normally means a person with an animal, and chofer or charitz are other ways, when a person does it himself with his hand or with another… chofer is that he digs with a shovel, that sort of thing, and charitz is that he chops with a hammer. A second one, Rabbeinu Yonah says differently. It has to do with, ah, by choresh one moves away the sand, and by chofer one leaves the sand in front. Okay. It’s also true, but it’s one inyan. It’s correct that it’s the same result and the same action even, both the same result and also the same action, he cuts a hole, such a small hole in the earth, but it’s different ways. Therefore it’s called, even if they ask, it’s choresh, it’s not called choresh, but it’s a choresh, therefore it’s a choresh even if it’s not called choresh. “For each and every one of them is digging in the ground” — it’s a sort of way of making a digging, a hole in the ground, “and it is one inyan”.
Example 2: Zorea — “One Who Sows Seeds or Plants or Grafts”
Speaker 1: And likewise, he will also say, he will bring the Gemara of sowing. “One who sows seeds”, normally sowing means… these things have a unique name, it’s interesting, but there are several things that have unique names for each action. By sowing they say, not just actions, there is by objects, kotzer there is such a thing. Sowing means that one cuts seeds, yes, by kotzer we will say. Normally when one says zorea, it has to do with the word zeraim, he plants seeds, kernels. He makes kernels grow, they give it a name sowing. It doesn’t necessarily mean that one makes kernels grow, one makes something grow.
He says, trees, when one plants trees, it’s not called sowing, it’s called notea. Or one doesn’t do it with kernels. There are two ways of planting a tree: you can take a kernel and put it in the earth, you can take a piece of tree that was, stick it in, or something like that. Perhaps there is also with kernels?
Speaker 2: No, I mean it’s simply a different… when one plants a tree… let’s say with kernels, a fruit, a fruit tree has kernels. One doesn’t do it with kernels normally, therefore it’s indeed called differently. One does it normally with a tree that already exists, one takes perhaps a branch and one puts it in the earth, something like that. Somewhere there are kernels. There is also a way of taking an already existing tree, it’s faster. Today certainly, one almost never plants trees with kernels, it’s very not efficient. Because normally trees normally have a way how they throw down their own kernels and it grows. I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about someone planting a tree.
Speaker 1: There are zeraim means, like grain, there are things where the way is to do it with kernels. Normally trees one doesn’t do with kernels, that’s what I mean, for the most part. Could be, because I mean the main word here, even if one doesn’t call it the word sowing, but the word is when one plants even such things. In that sort of field it’s not just a call for what has a different name.
Mavrich — Grafting
Speaker 1: The next one is an even more “obvious” different kind of thing, but it’s also in the same category as sowing. Oh, a mavrich branches, and vines place a lot of that sort of field,
Av Melacha of Zorea (Continued) — Notea, Mavrich, Markiv, Zomer
Speaker 1: I’m not talking about that. When someone plants a tree, here zorea means like grain. There are things where it’s necessary to do the kernels, normally trees don’t do kernels. That’s what I mean for the most part. Could be, but I mean the main word here is even if one doesn’t call it the word sowing, but the word is when one plants it should be a distinction in the sort of fruits, not just a giant word that has a different name.
The next one is an even more obvious different kind of thing, but it’s also in the same category as sowing. Or, mavrich trees, he means he puts together two trees. Actually he binds together two trees. Mavrich means he takes a piece of branch from this tree and he puts it in the earth. And markiv is… so what is the difference between notea and mavrich? Notea is when one cuts off completely a piece and one puts it in a place. Mavrich is he takes a living tree, he sticks in a piece into the earth, later when it starts to grow there he cuts it off indeed. Actually it should be in the earth and it should still be young from the previous tree.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Or markiv, he puts together, he puts in a piece from one branch and he puts it up on another branch which is connected in another tree. Or zomer, or someone who cuts off so that it can grow, yes? All these are one av, from the avos melachos.
The Inyan of All Five Ways — To Cause Something to Grow
You see though that here it’s a bit further, yes? By a mavrich or at least a zomer, yes? By choresh all three were preparation in the ground. A zomer, he does a completely different thing, he cuts. He doesn’t sow, he cuts. But that is the way of making it grow. But it’s not a toladah, that is exactly inyan echad. How inyan echad? All these, their inyan is to cause something to grow, we would see something to be growing. Making grow. Very good. Making grow. Even though he does the action of cutting, but with this he makes grow the… why does one cut? Because the others should grow well, right?
Question: Why Isn’t Zomer a Toladah?
And why wouldn’t that have been for example a toladah? We’ll see later by the others the Gemaras of toladot. A zomer sounds like it would have been a good toladah. No, it’s not a toladah. A toladah, soon we will see. But you understand though that the zomer, our answer though is making trees, how does one make trees grow? There are five ways to make trees grow. What makes a tree? I have five ways, one can be zorea, one can be notea, one can be mavrich, one can be markiv, one can be zomer, five ways, right? That’s basically what he says.
Interesting Question: Zomer vs. Kotzer
Yes, it’s interesting what it says here, when a person goes to someone with a knife on Rosh Hashanah a piece from a tree, he doesn’t yet know clearly whether he’s now doing kotzer or zomer?
Speaker 2: Mm.
Speaker 1: It’s interesting, he doesn’t say that this is a toladah, this is exactly the av of plantings, interesting.
Speaker 2: Perhaps that’s a different season, kotzer is when it’s already there, but zomer one does at the beginning of the season when it hasn’t yet grown and the like, it’s not… I know already, perhaps it happens that one can do it at the same time.
Av Melacha of Kotzer — Botzer, Goder, Mosek, Oreh
Speaker 1: The Rambam says: And similarly, the one who reaps, the melacha of kotzer, kotzer is used for grain, by cutting grain, or legumes, that’s also called kotzer. But there are other types of cutting, other sorts of things attached to the ground that have other names. For example by grapes it’s called botzer, or by dates it’s called goder, or by olives it’s called mosek.
Speaker 2: Goder… goder, it looks, here it says… mosek, goder.
Speaker 1: Or oreh figs, or one who cuts figs. All these are one av melacha, for each and every one, their inyan is to uproot something from its place of growth.
Meaning, the intention is to tear out something from the place where it grows. And in this manner the rest of the avos, that the av doesn’t mean only the narrow translation of that word, like for example sowing has to do with seeds, but he also sows…
Speaker 2: That is also kotzer.
Discussion: Why Do the Different Fruits Have Different Names?
Speaker 1: Seemingly here too you have a distinction in the action. That means grain one cuts with a, you know what is a cutting machine, and by grapes one needs to cut with a different sort of machine, that’s a different sort of action, it’s a reason why they have different names. I mean, it’s understood… one has a different word for cutting grapes… it’s a different action, one needs different tools, it’s different crafts a bit and different things. It’s understood it’s the same idea, therefore it’s indeed the same inyan, but I want to bring out also a bit the distinction.
Speaker 2: We know if that is the reason why they should immediately have different words, it’s interesting why they have different words. I understand that the word is about the different actions.
Speaker 1: And what is the different fruit? Because each fruit has received its name. One doesn’t see such a thing in kodesh that they have the same names. Perhaps because they both grow similarly, they are a sort of similar.
Speaker 2: But it’s a bit different. Think about it, grain one cuts this way. I can imagine, I don’t know, one cuts it a bit differently. Olives, for example, one shakes the tree until I don’t know what. What are the different ways how one takes it? It’s not everything one cuts with a… what’s called the thing that one cuts grain with? The round thing?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Today one just does a combine.
The Foundation of “Inyan HaMelacha”
Speaker 1: Okay, so that is the meaning of inyan hamelacha, and the Rambam says this is not a toladah, rather an av, it’s the same thing. It’s different words. When one learned avos melachos, it means as you say, it doesn’t mean literally kotzer, it means the definition, the thing of uprooting something from its place of growth.
Why does one say kotzer? Because it’s common. One could say uprooting something from its place of growth. No, it won’t give any abstract. The thirty-nine melachos are not abstract. The uprooting something from its place of growth is already more an abstract similarity between all the things. But the meaning of the word is kotzer, cutting. But normally cutting means a specific word for grain. He says it’s just a common expression. And the same thing with zorea, he doesn’t necessarily mean sowing, rather he grabbed perhaps the most frequent, normally when one cuts it’s grain or such a thing.
The Distinction Between Av and Toladah
Speaker 1: Good. Now the Rambam will say what are the toladot, because all these avos have toladot. The Rambam says, A toladah is a melacha that is similar to an av from these avos. It’s similar, but it’s not the same thing. One doesn’t take it from its inyan, rather a toladah that stems from it.
Toladah of Tochen — Mechateich Yerek
How so? One who cuts vegetables bit by bit to cook it, someone cuts a vegetable into small pieces in order to cook it. He wants to make a soup, he needs to cut the vegetable into very small pieces. Behold this one is liable, for this melacha is a toladah of grinding, because the melacha is a toladah of grinding, which is grinding. What is grinding? What is to grind? What is the action of grinding? For the grinder takes one body, he takes one body, he takes a kernel of wheat, and cuts it into many. So when someone cuts up vegetables he does a similar thing. Although it’s in a way different, because there one takes a kernel of wheat and one makes it into flour, and here it remains a vegetable, just in small pieces, but it’s still a toladah.
So let’s think, what would have been the inyan of grinding? That is to say, something similar to this, many toladot of grinding.
It’s interesting that the Rambam crawls away from zorea kotzer and he takes a different example, because the interesting thing is indeed to compare the toladah versus the inyan. What is there by grinding? But for example, what would have been the inyan of grinding, the actual inyan? When not one grinds wheat but one grinds something else, I don’t know what. And the toladah of it is when it’s not called grinding, no one would have said that the person is grinding, but you will strip away the thing. What happens here? What happens here is that one takes a large thing and it becomes small pieces. And with this cutting vegetables is also a similar thing.
The Maggid Mishneh’s Distinction — Quality of Action vs. Quality of Result
I can tell you the Maggid Mishneh in the introduction, he tries to say a word to explain this distinction. He says so, that there are melachos which are the same, he calls it “be’dimyonom”, the same exact melacha, but it’s different either with the thing that one does it to, or with the manner that one does it. He calls it “quality of the action”, the way that one does it, not the action itself. It’s the same action, but it’s a different sort of quality how one does it, or in “quality of the result”, the thing that one does it to.
For example, kotzer and botzer, that is the exact same action, but it’s a different result, one does it to a different thing. Or zorea and notea, it’s a bit a different action, but it’s only a different quality of action, a different way of doing the exact same thing.
As opposed to for example cutting vegetables, it’s similar but it’s not the same action. Here you say you cut, here you make flour, here you don’t make flour, here you make smaller pieces. But it’s similar, because both have a similarity, if one makes such a larger category, and one says taking one body and dividing it into a thing, then there is grinding, but it’s not grinding. Because grinding is the meaning, as you make from wheat flour. Here you haven’t made from wheat flour, not only. When you would have made, as you say, you make from corn flour, it’s also grinding, even perhaps with a bit different tools you make from that.
Discussion: When Would It Have Been the Av Itself?
Speaker 2: It’s understood, now indeed, when not he would have cut small pieces for a salad, but he makes from it a powder, would that have been grinding itself.
Translation
Speaker 1: Yes. When someone makes, let’s say, I don’t know, corn powder, or some such thing, I would say that’s the av of grinding (tochen), because he grinds something, he makes from a fruit that it should become a powder. But here he makes from a larger piece of fruit that it should become smaller pieces of fruit. It’s only a toledah because it has a similarity.
He says, “Even though grinding completely changes the original body”. That’s the… as you say, the magnificent definition. It’s similar, you want to say technically, it’s the same category in a broader category. There is a category, a broader category of cutting one body into many. That’s it. But it’s not in the more limited thing of making from one thing a completely different thing, yes, he completely ground it, it became flour. Right?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Discussion: Why Didn’t the Rambam Find an Example of Kotzer?
Speaker 1: Let’s go to a bigger case that’s more complicated. It’s actually interesting that the Rambam didn’t find an example of reaping (kotzer) that’s only… from the essence in…
Speaker 2: Yes. Kotzer is there. When someone pulls out hair, it’s kotzer from… because one removes waste from its place of growth. No? It’s not about hair. One must see it in the next chapter, we’ll see.
Toledah of Tochen — Polishing Metal Strips
Speaker 1: Okay. And apparently, the Rambam says another example of a toledah of grinding. He tells you, “One who takes a strip of metal”, someone takes a… lashon is interesting, sometimes a certain way, a certain size of making lashon shel argaman, lashon shel matachot. It’s such a small elongated piece, just something that looks like a tongue. It’s a kind of, I mean, a pack, I don’t know, a piece of metal, “and polishes it”, he rubs it. What does it have to do with breaking vessels of the same lashon? I don’t know. He grinds it “in order to take from its powder”, to have a powder, to have a dust of metal. As goldsmiths do, as goldsmiths do. I think in gold they throw in a few more little pieces of other metals that should make it harder.
Toledot Tochen — Goldsmith (Continued)
And he says, this is toledot tochen, because the matter is taking one body and dividing it into many bodies.
Even though you said that I know, a goldsmith is something connected more to, I don’t know, boneh, I don’t know what — no, but what happened? Here he took a thing that’s one piece and he ground it into small pieces, so that’s tochen.
But why isn’t it actual tochen? It sounds exactly like tochen. The whole thing with gold instead of wheat.
It could be the same thing, because here it remained metal. When someone asks someone what are the small pieces, it’s small pieces of metal. It’s not like from wheat it became flour. Flour isn’t small pieces of wheat? Flour doesn’t look like tiny wheats. Flour is a new thing. It means the inside of the wheat. You look at a wheat and… I don’t know.
It’s interesting. Apparently the change that happened between a piece of metal and small pieces of it is equivalent in value. I don’t know. It’s an interesting thing, no?
He tries to explain another distinction. I don’t catch what he’s saying. Perhaps actually about the fact that they’re still larger pieces, the powder is still larger relatively to the…
But you can look at it a bit differently, that the wheat is still on the way, it’s still not finished until it became flour. It’s still a part of… it’s still raw material. The wheat is the unfinished flour. What is wheat? Flour in potential.
A lashon shel matachot is not necessarily so. One can use it in different kinds of ways, one can make from it a crude piece. There’s less change in the body of things, it’s only a mixture in the definition.
Aha, interesting. Okay.
Toledot Borer — Making Cheese
And so one who takes milk and puts rennet in it — he put in the rennet from the animal, he put in the piece from the animal’s rennet, the beit hakevah is the stomach, which has in it a sharpness and that makes the milk become sour and it should become cheese from it — in order to curdle it to make cheese from it, he is liable for a toledah of borer, because he separated the kos — he removed the thick part of the milk from a part of the wet milk, from the liquid.
It’s very interesting. What isn’t the weaker? Mi hagevina. Kos is the water and the… ah, the water from the hard part. Okay. He takes out, he separates the watery part from the thick part.
This is very interesting, because this doesn’t look at all like borer. It’s a different kind of thing, he put in some ingredient in a pot. But the result is similar.
Innovation: We Look at the End Result
But here he brings something that we haven’t yet had such a thing. When someone sees someone putting something in, it doesn’t look at all like someone is doing borer. Borer isn’t putting something in a pot. But the end result from it — this is the first time we see that we look at the end result. The end result from it is that thanks to his action the milk became separated from the…
I think that all melachot we actually look at the end result.
No, but it’s only very different.
Understood, that’s a technique.
Discussion: Why Only Toledot Borer?
Let’s ask the opposite, why is this only a toledot borer? Why isn’t it borer itself?
Because borer means one takes pieces, the same pieces, and one takes them apart. Here you did some action, some chemical action, it separated, so that’s a toledot borer. Because of that, right?
I think so.
Yes, I think so.
Toledot Boneh — Forming Cheese
And if he formed it and pressed it — and after he took the piece of milk from which he already removed the kos, the water from it, the liquid, and he formed it so it should become a piece.
But interesting, here is really very interesting, what is he liable for? For boneh.
Wow! When he wants to look like he’s building, he’s playing with cheese, he’s building boneh.
But if you look at what is the purpose of boneh, what is the end result of his action, bringing together parts. “Sh… lekabetz… when gathering…” something is from the sides, the lamed is extra. “When gathering part upon part…” check… I don’t know. “When gathering…” no, something is wrong here.
Okay, let’s look at what it says here. When one gathers part upon part and attaches one until it makes one body or until it resembles a building.
What is a building? “All who gather…” sorry, it’s not… ah, it’s “all who gather”. When one takes… what is building a building? Building a building one must have different pieces of bricks, and one makes from it that it becomes one house, or a bunch of curtains, it becomes one tent. That’s building. And in cheese it’s the same thing. Here is a bunch… cheese is a bunch of small pieces of cheese, or thick pieces in the water, and one takes it together, it becomes a boneh.
“For all who gather part upon part and attach everything until it makes one body, or until it resembles a building.”
The Rambam’s Use of “Guf”
The Rambam has here the word “guf”. You take a body, not a body of a person. A guf by the Rambam means broader, like a table is also a guf, a body.
And separating is forbidden, the Rambam said earlier, tochen one separated in a certain way. And here he says, bringing together until it becomes one thing, that’s domeh levinin.
Which isn’t hard to understand, it makes sense. But it’s very different. Cheese isn’t a building, one can’t… okay, because it’s the toledah.
Yes?
Discussion: Why Not Lash?
Lash isn’t the same, it’s not lash? The sugya of cheese isn’t domeh lelash?
Okay, one can think, about many things one can think. When one abstracts so strongly, for that one needs the Gemara’s investigations, whether this is a toledah shedomah, a toledah she’einah domah, it’s similar.
Yes?
But here one only needs the Gemara, the Rambam only wants the Gemara’s law.
The Rambam’s Principle: “From the Body of the Melachah You Will Know”
What does an example mean? “And each one of these melachot are avot, and they have toledot that are similar to them”. Through the fact that the end result from it has a similarity. “And from the body of the melachah done on Shabbat you will know from which av and toledah of which av”. Instead of sometimes needing to calculate whether something is an av because it’s similar to another melachah, like for example grinding a piece of metal, that’s a toledah, excuse me. Things that become an av and when it becomes a toledah.
What does he want to say “from the body of the melachah”?
I think that what he writes here is, “body of the melachah” he means what he said earlier, not the end result. Body he means what it is, yes, exactly so, the more abstract definition.
He says, you will see that I write later that something is a toledah of that, think into what it is, not every time will I explain the learning of it.
Why does he explain? Why does he make such contemplation? Because both are intended to divide etc.
The Rambam says, I can’t explain to you now on every example, you want to learn further hilchot Shabbat? Look in, you’ll see that every time if I say that something is similar to a melachah, you’ll understand why. Think into what the melachah is, what he does, you’ll understand why it’s similar or why it’s a toledah of that av.
I think, because later he’s actually not explaining. Here he said a learning, that’s the toledot borer explanation, and not every time is he explaining explanation. But he says, when he would have just said one may not do this and that thing on Shabbat without saying from which, a person could have assembled himself from which av or toledah.
But usually he also says as which prohibition it is, no?
Right, so I think he only means to say that he doesn’t say the connection always. He doesn’t say why, what the connection is, whether because the action is similar or because the end result of the action is similar.
Exactly. What is the learning? What is the… he tells you fine definitions. You want to say that tochen is separating parts of one body, that’s a learning that the Rambam thought to explain why the things are toledot tochen or similar to tochen. So he tells you things he didn’t tell you, look, at what the action is understand, that’s what I think.
Because with his definition of boneh apparently it also contradicts the content, yes.
Okay. It’s always easier to see the connection than to see the distinction, ah.
I need to understand better by each example, but that’s the Rambam’s principles.
Okay.
The Practical Difference Between Av and Toledah
Now one will know the practical difference of the whole law of av or toledah. What is the practical difference between a thing being an av or being a toledah?
The Rambam says thus, between one who does an av melachah or a toledah from the toledot, it’s so, intentionally he’s liable for karet if there are no witnesses, and if witnesses came and warned him he’s stoned, and unintentionally he’s liable for a fixed chattat, always the same chattat.
So regarding punishment there’s no difference at all whether you do an av or a toledah, everything is Torah prohibitions, the same punishment exactly so.
If so what difference is there between avot and toledot? What is the distinction?
The Rambam says, there’s no difference between them except that there’s still another bit of distinction regarding the korban only. Regarding a korban comes out a distinction, why?
The Distinction Regarding Korban
For one who does melachot unintentionally, if someone does melachot unintentionally, if he did many avot in one period of unawareness, if he did in one inadvertence, in one concealment, when it was concealed from him the knowledge for example that today is Shabbat or such a thing, and he did a bunch of different avot, he did plowing, sowing, reaping, then he’s liable for one chattat for each and every av, each av is a thing, is a whole thing by itself, and he’s liable on each one separately.
So the Torah set it up that one can say that he didn’t rest on Shabbat, but no, it was divided into separate melachot, like he did three separate things. But for that it was only divided into thirty-nine, it wasn’t divided into hundreds of categories of toledot.
So regarding an av with its toledot it means yes like one thing, and if he did an av and its toledot in one period of unawareness he’s only liable for one chattat, they look at it like he did one thing.
So the practical difference is only unintentionally, but intentionally there’s no distinction, the punishment is dying twice once.
Can one also only get karet once?
Also not.
Yes, according to the Rambam’s karet certainly.
But regarding inadvertence, in other words, the maximum chattaot that one can get from one Shabbat, at least in one period of unawareness, is thirty-nine.
The Rambam doesn’t go here into more hilchot shegagot, here is hilchot Shabbat, he says more details from the point of how one is liable for inadvertence. But the general manner is here a distinction that if it’s in one period of unawareness, then one only makes one chattat on each av, not on an av with its toledot.
Halacha 8 (Continued) — Chattaot in One Period of Unawareness: Avot Melachot
Also yes, according to the Rambam’s karet certainly.
But regarding inadvertence, in other words, the maximum chattaot that one can get from one Shabbat, according to one period of unawareness, is thirty-nine. The Rambam doesn’t go here into more hilchot shegagot, which hilchot shegagot says more details of exactly when is one intentional and when is one inadvertent, but in general there’s a distinction that if it’s in one period of unawareness, then one only makes one chattat on each av, not on an av with its toledot. And the Rambam will now say examples.
How so? If he plowed and sowed and reaped on Shabbat in one period of unawareness, he is liable for three chattaot, three separate chattaot. And even if he did thirty-nine inadvertently, he did all thirty-nine melachot inadvertently, and forgot that all these melachot are forbidden to do on Shabbat, he forgot, he learned Mishnayot on Shabbat, he thought it’s a mitzvah, all these things a Jew must do on Shabbat, he makes himself an innocent am ha’aretz, yes? He’s liable for each and every melachah one chattat, because they’re separate.
But if he did several toledot, for example ground and crushed vegetables and polished metal plates, which are two laws that the Rambam said are toledot of grinding, he did them in one period of unawareness, in one inadvertence, he’s only liable for one chattat, since he only did one av and its toledot, and so all similar cases.
And what happens when he did similar to the same melachah? Ah, that he’ll say in the next section.
Halacha 9 — Similar to One Melachah in One Period of Unawareness
Even one who does many melachot similar to one melachah in one period of unawareness, not an av with its toledot, but an av with its colleagues, with its brothers that are similar to that av, also is only liable for one chattat, because that’s like one essential melachah. How so? If he sowed and planted and grafted and layered and pruned, all these laws that the Rambam enumerated earlier, that besides sowing which usually means planting seeds, there’s also a way of planting a tree or a branch of a tree and so on, or even cutting if that cutting makes it grow, and he’s liable for one chattat since they’re all one av, they’re all the same av of sowing, liable for all similar cases. That means that the thirty-nine are divided into separate categories. One isn’t liable for all other melachot, even if they’re very similar to sowing, but they’re all ways of doing sowing, and one is only liable for one chattat, liable for all similar cases.
Halacha 9 — Similar to One Melachah in One Period of Unawareness
It’s interesting, the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah, “avot melachot are forty, similar to one melachah one is liable for one.” There are commentators who interpreted that this simply means a toledah. The Rambam made a new category of “similar,” but in practice there’s no practical difference in law, because the Rambam also agrees that the law of a toledah is the same. So why does the Rambam need at all the whole definition of “similar melachah”? We don’t know. There’s no practical difference, it’s only a learning. One must think where comes out a practical difference. I actually don’t know. The Rambam speaks entirely that here they mixed names. He says there’s no practical difference, but he says he holds that the Rambam’s plain meaning is correct in the plain meaning of the Mishnah.
But it makes sense intellectually, logically, that the Rambam doesn’t always say it’s a toledah. A toledah must be a bit different from the melachah. Here it’s the same, just in a different manner or in a different thing. But why is it so important for the Rambam to say the whole matter of “similar”? Yes, not entirely clear.
—
Okay, until here hilchot Shabbat chapter 7.