Shabbat 192

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מכדי זריקה תולדה דהוצאה היא הוצאה גופה היכא כתיבא א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (שמות לו, ו) ויצו משה ויעבירו קול במחנה משה היכן הוה יתיב במחנה לויה ומחנה לויה רה"ר הואי וקאמר להו לישראל לא תפיקו ותיתו מרה"י דידכו לרה"ר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Consider: throwing is a derivative of carrying out:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On principal and derivative labours v. p. 3. n. 2. Throwing is certainly a derivative only, since it is not enumerated in the principal labours supra 73a: also it must be a derivative of carrying out, for it is not similar to any of the other principal labours, ');">¹</span>

וממאי דבשבת קאי דילמא בחול קאי ומשום דשלימא לה מלאכה כדכתיב (שמות לו, ז) והמלאכה היתה דים וגו' גמר העברה העברה מיוה"כ

where is carrying out itself written? — Said R. Johanan, Scripture saith, And Moses gave commandment, and they caused a proclamation to pass throughout the camp, [etc.]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXVI, 6. ');">²</span>

כתיב הכא ויעבירו קול במחנה וכתיב התם (ויקרא כה, ט) והעברת שופר תרועה מה להלן ביום אסור אף כאן ביום אסור

now, where was Moses stationed? in the camp of the Levites, which was public ground,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As everyone had to pass through to gain access to Moses. ');">³</span>

אשכחן הוצאה הכנסה מנלן סברא היא מכדי מרשות לרשות הוא מה לי אפוקי ומה לי עיולי מיהו הוצאה אב הכנסה תולדה

and he said to the Israelites, Do not carry out and fetch from your private dwellings into public ground. But how do you know that this was on the Sabbath: perhaps this happened<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he stood'. ');">⁴</span>

ומכדי אהא מיחייב ואהא מיחייב אמאי קרי לה האי אב ואמאי קרי לה האי תולדה

during the week, the reason being that the material was complete[ly adequate], as it is written, For the stuff they had was sufficient, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXVI, 7. ');">⁵</span>

נפקא מינה דאי עביד שתי אבות בהדי הדדי אי נמי שתי תולדות בהדי הדדי מיחייב תרתי ואי עביד אב ותולדה דידיה לא מיחייב אלא חדא

— The meaning of 'passing through' is learnt from [its employment in connection with] the Day of Atonement, Here it is written, and they caused a proclamation to pass throughout the camp; whilst there it is written, Then shalt thou cause a loud trumpet to pass through [sc. the land]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 9. ');">⁶</span>

ולר"א דמחייב אתולדה במקום אב אמאי קרו לה אב ואמאי קרו לה תולדה הך דהואי במשכן חשיבא קרי לה אב הך דלא הואי במשכן חשיבא לא קרי לה אב אי נמי הך דכתיבא קרי אב והאי דלא כתיבא קרי תולדה

just as there the reference is to the day of the interdict, so here too the day of the interdict [is meant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Sabbath. This method of exegesis is called gezerah shawah, q.v. Glos. ');">⁷</span>

והא דתנן הזורק ד' אמות בכותל למעלה מי' טפחים כזורק באויר למטה מי' טפחים כזורק בארץ והזורק בארץ ד' אמות חייב

We have thus found [an interdict for] carrying out: whence do we know [that] carrying in [is forbidden]? — That is common sense: consider: it is [transference] from one domain to another: what does it matter whether one carries out or carries in? Nevertheless. carrying out is a primary [labour], [whereas] carrying in is a derivative.

זרק ד' אמות ברה"ר מנלן דמיחייב אמר ר' יאשיה שכן אורגי יריעות זורקין מחטיהן זה לזה אורגין מחטין למה להו אלא שכן תופרי יריעות זורקין מחטיהן זה לזה

Yet let us consider: one is culpable for both: why is one designated a principal and the other a derivative [labour]? — The practical difference is that if one performs two principal or two derivative [labours] together he is liable to two [sacrifices], whereas if he performs a principal [labour] and its derivative he is liable only to one. But according to R. Eliezer, who imposes liability for a derivative [when performed] conjointly with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of'. ');">⁸</span>

ודילמא גבי הדדי הוו יתבי מטו הדדי במחטין דילמא בתוך ארבע הוו יתבי

the principal, why is one called a principal and the other a derivative? — That which was of account in the Tabernacle is designated a principal, whereas that which was not of account in the Tabernacle is designated a derivative.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 100a. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר רב חסדא שכן אורג יריעות זורקין בוכיאר ביריעה והלא אוגדו בידו בניסכא בתרא

Alternatively, that which is written is designated a principal, whereas that which is not written is designated a derivative.

והא במקום פטור קאזלא אלא שכן אורגי יריעות זורקין בוכיאר לשואליהן ודילמא גבי הדדי הוו יתבי מטו הדדי בחפת

Again, as to what we learnt, 'If one throws [an article] four cubits on to a wall above ten handbreadths, it is as though he throws it into the air;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is not liable. ');">¹⁰</span>

ודילמא שלחופי הוו משלחפי ותו מי שאילי מהדדי והתניא לודא (שמות לו, ד) איש איש ממלאכתו אשר המה עושים ממלאכתו הוא עושה ואינו עושה ממלאכת חבירו

if below ten, it is as though he throws it on to the ground;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since it traverses four cubits, he is culpable. ');">¹¹</span>

ותו מעביר ד' אמות ברה"ר מנלן דמחייב אלא כל ד' אמות ברה"ר גמרא גמירי לה:

and he who throws [an article] four cubits along the ground is culpable',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 75a. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מקושש מעביר ארבע אמות ברה"ר הוה במתניתא תנא תולש הוה רב אחא ברבי יעקב אמר מעמר הוה

— how do we know that he who throws [an article] four cubits in the street is culpable? — Said R. Josiah: Because the curtain weavers threw their needles to each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through public ground. ');">¹³</span>

למאי נפקא מינה לכדרב דאמר רב מצאתי מגלת סתרים בי ר' חייא וכתוב ביה איסי בן יהודה אומר אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת (ואם עשאן כולם בהעלם אחת) ואינו חייב אלא אחת אחת ותו לא והתנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת והוינן בה מניינא למה לי וא"ר יוחנן שאם עשאן כולם בהעלם א' חייב על כל אחת ואחת

Of what use are needles to weavers? — Rather [say:] Because the sewers threw their needles to each other. But perhaps they sat close together? — Then they would reach each other with their needles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When stretching their arms to thread the needles they would strike each other. ');">¹⁴</span>

אימא אינו חייב על אחת מהם

Yet perhaps they sat within four [cubits] of each other? Rather said R. Hisda: Because the curtain weavers threw the clue into the curtain. But the other [worker] still has the distaff in his hand? — He refers to the last manipulation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the weaver throws the clue through the web for the last time. ');">¹⁵</span>

רב יהודה פשיטא ליה דהמעביר חייב ומתני' פשיטא ליה דתולש חייב ורב אחא בר יעקב פשיטא ליה דמעמר חייב מ"ס הא מיהת לא מספקא ומ"ס הא מיהת לא מספקא:

But it passed through a place of non-liability?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 6a; i.e., it passed between the portions of the curtain, which is certainly not public ground. ');">¹⁶</span>

ת"ר מקושש זה צלפחד וכן הוא אומר (במדבר טו, לב) ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר וימצאו איש וגו' ולהלן הוא אומר (במדבר כז, ג) אבינו מת במדבר מה להלן צלפחד אף כאן צלפחד דברי ר' עקיבא

— Rather [say:] Because the curtain weavers threw the clue to those who would borrow it from them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Aruch reads: their apprentices. On both readings the reference is to people working on other curtains, and the clue had to traverse public ground. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר לו ר' יהודה בן בתירא עקיבא בין כך ובין כך אתה עתיד ליתן את הדין אם כדבריך התורה כיסתו ואתה מגלה אותו ואם לאו אתה מוציא לעז על אותו צדיק

Yet perhaps they sat near each other? Then they would touch each other on making the border. Yet perhaps they sat in irregular lines?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Crosswise, or in zigzag rows, so that they could work close together without touching each other. ');">¹⁸</span> Moreover, did they borrow from each other? Surely Luda<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An amora: Yalkut reads: Levi. ');">¹⁹</span> taught: every man from his work which they wrouqht:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXVI, 4. ');">²⁰</span> he wrought of his own work [stuff], but not of his neighbour's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having sufficient material of his own. ');">²¹</span> Again, how do we know that if one carries [an article] four cubits in the street, he is culpable? Rather the whole [law of transporting] four cubits in the street is known by tradition. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: [The offence of] the gatherer [of sticks]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XV 32 seq. ');">²²</span> was that he carried [them] four cubits over public ground. In a Baraitha it was taught: He cut [them] off.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He cut off twigs or branches from a tree, which is the equivalent of detaching produce from the soil. ');">²³</span> R. Aha b. Jacob said: He tied [them] together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They were already lying on the ground. Tying them together is the same as binding sheaves. ');">²⁴</span> In respect of what is the practical difference? — In respect of Rab's [dictum]. For Rab said, I found a secret scroll of the School of R. Hiyya, wherein It is written, Issi b. Judah said: There are thirty-nine principal labours, but one is liable only [for] one. One and no more? Surely we learnt, The principal labours are forty less one. And we pondered thereon: why state the number? And R. Johanan answered: [To teach] that if one performs all of then, in one state of unawareness, he is liable for each separately? Say: for one of these he is not culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 6b for notes. ');">²⁵</span> Now, Rab Judah is certain that he who carries [in the street] is culpable; the Baraitha is certain that he who cuts off is culpable; while R. Aha b. Jacob is certain that lie who binds is culpable. [Thus] one Master holds, This at least is not in doubt, while the other Master holds, That at least is not in doubt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As being referred to in Issi's dictum. ');">²⁶</span> Our Rabbis taught: The gatherer was Zelophehad. And thus it is said, and while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man [gathering sticks, etc.];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 32. ');">²⁷</span> whilst elsewhere it is said, our father died in the wilderness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXVII, 3. ');">²⁸</span> just as there Zelophehad [is meant], so here too Zelophehad [is meant]: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah b. Bathyra to him, 'Akiba! in either case you will have to give an account [for your statement]: if you are right,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if it is as your words'. ');">²⁹</span> the Torah shielded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'covered'. ');">³⁰</span> him, while you reveal him; and if not, you cast a stigma upon a righteous man.'