6

We find that the avos m'lachos (classes of forbidden activity on shabas) are based upon the labors associated with the mishkan (tabernacle) in the mishna (e.g. Shabas 11:6) and g'mara (e.g. Shabas 97). This question assumes that the construction of the mishkan and not the service therein was the basis for the archetypal m'lachos.

Considering how much metal work the construction of the mishkan and its accouterments entailed, why are there not avos m'lachos like mining, pounding, smelting, and vigorously applying a bellows?

This is considering that we have other m'lachos such as dash and borer that the g'mara seems to tell us are only listed separately because they were procedurally distinct in the mishkan preparation even though they are functionally equivalent. Otherwise, I might conclude that since the acts involved in producing metal structural elements for the mishkan would de facto be forbidden because they fall under other categories they didn't need their own.

Community
  • 1
WAF
  • 23,730
  • 4
  • 46
  • 138
  • But we do! Bishul, Boneh, Soser, and Makeh BePatish are all relevant. The issue is that the "sidurah dimateches" overlaps with "sidurah depas" and the other ones. It's not expedient to demarcate an additional seder that's already contained in the existing avos melachos. – Isaac Kotlicky Mar 07 '16 at 14:40
  • @IsaacKotlicky "Expedient"? What does that mean here? Defining Avos as opposed to Toldos is relevant for rules about Shegagos etc. This is not just a word game of what do we want to call it. – Double AA Mar 07 '16 at 14:47
  • @IsaacKotlicky Please see my last paragraph. It does not appear that Chaza"l were optimizing for number of avos. Can you write your answer up as an answer with a source? If that part of your premise undermines my assumption it could be the right answer. – WAF Mar 07 '16 at 14:54
  • If I had sources on hand for this, I would gladly write it up as an answer. Alas, this is somewhat supposition (aided by the Rambam's interpretation of Bishul). On the contrary, the top of 74a makes clear that they ARE optimizing for a given number. It appears the issue is defining כל מילתא דהויא במשכן. You are claiming this is everything involved in the CONSTRUCTION, but it seems from Chazal's choices that they're counting the MAINTENANCE of the Mishkan. The kelim, having already been built, wouldn't require further work. Replacing begadim used for service and baking bread occurred daily. – Isaac Kotlicky Mar 07 '16 at 15:03
  • @WAF 39 is the goal number, as it's the number of things listed as done in the construction (cf Exo 35) – Double AA Mar 07 '16 at 15:58
  • It's also the 10 statements of G-d during Creation times the four ways in which His actions are felt within creation (based on Isa 43:7 and the number of letter in the tetragrammaton) minus creation ex-nihilo -- which people can't do, so refraining from it would be pointless. And while that sounds like a stretch: (1) I heard it from R Aryeh Kaplan zt"l (see also his Waters of Eden), and (2) the number of melkhos is called "arba'im chaseir achas". – Micha Berger Mar 07 '16 at 18:40
  • The number of sedarim of melakhos is also significant in-and-of itself. Ashkenazim tie tzitzis in groups of 7, 8, 11 and 13 which are in numerically increasing order. But they match the 7 melakhos of preparing leather, the 8 "none of the above" at the end of the mishnah, the 11 of sidura depas and the 13 of making cloth. – Micha Berger Mar 07 '16 at 18:46
  • Maybe I misphrased that. I understand that the total is 39 and that was the definition חז"ל were seeking, but it does not appear they were optimizing for fewest אבות per activity, as exemplified by בורר and friends. So the question of why these specifically didn't make the list. Also, please note that my question is explicitly limited to the latter opinion in the operation vs. construction debate. – WAF Mar 07 '16 at 18:46
  • There is also these two odd gematrios (Y-mi Shabbos 7:2, vilna 44a): רבי חנינא דצפורין בשם ר' אבהו אל"ף חד. למ"ד תלתין. ה"א חמשה. דבר חד. ודברים תרים. מיכן לארבעים חסר אחת מלאכות שכתוב בתורה. רבנן דקיסרין אמרין מן אתרה לא חסרה כלום. אל"ף חד. למ"ד תלתין. ח' תמניא. לא מתמנעין רבנן דרשין בין ה"א לחי"ת. – Micha Berger Mar 07 '16 at 18:53
  • I should have pointed out that that Y-mi opens the discussion with "מניין לאבות מלאכות מן התורה ר' שמואל בר נחמן בשם רבי יונתן כנגד ארבעים חסר אחת מלאכה שכתוב בתורה." The Yerushalmi was sure that it's the Torah, not Chazal, who picked the number 39ץ – Micha Berger Mar 07 '16 at 19:11
  • One last Y-mi (7:2 vilna 51a): תני רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר הצבעים שבירושלים היו עושין מלאכה בפני עצמה. על דעתיה דר' ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה מ' מלאכות אינון. וניתני. לא אתינן מיתני אלא מילין דכל עלמא מודיי בהן.

    So earlier it said that the number 39 is from the Torah, but here it says that there are 39 melakhos that all tannaim agree on. Which would imply the number is coincidental. (To the extent that anything can ever be coincidental.)

     – Micha Berger Mar 07 '16 at 21:13

1 Answers1

1

The Rambam says in Hilchos Shabbas 9,6 that smelting metal is a tolada of bishul, which does not answer your question.

It would seem that activities that could only be performed by the king or large organisations, such as quarrying, are not included in the 39 melachos which relate to the average individual's cessation from work.

Alternatively these activities may not be avos because the purpose of avos is to bring artifacts to a state where they are available for human consumption (in the broader sense of the word).

Because the end products of smelting, quarrying, etc. are far removed from human consumption we have not yet identified an av melacha.

WAF
  • 23,730
  • 4
  • 46
  • 138
pcoz
  • 2,020
  • 8
  • 12
  • But then why is burning fire an Av Melakha? See http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/veyakhel/kla.html and the Seforno, Chizkuni, etc. – Double AA Mar 07 '16 at 00:50
  • @DoubleAA Technically one gets hana'ah from fire, and this is "human consumption." But his reference to the Rambam does have a place here - the melachos involved with making the kelim already are part of existing Avos. It would be redundant to list them separately. – Isaac Kotlicky Mar 07 '16 at 14:45
  • @IsaacKotlicky I don't know in what sense you use the word "technically" nor do I have any feel that you read the sources I referenced. – Double AA Mar 07 '16 at 14:46
  • @DoubleAA I did in fact read your linked material. It's not clear what your objection to fire being an Av Melacha is an objection to in the answer, which uses differing concepts that don't entirely mesh with each other. Fire is an Av Melacha because it is specifically listed in the Torah, and I was pointing out that it fits within the rubric of "human consumption," irrespective of other objections. I am not opining on the correctness of the answer provided. – Isaac Kotlicky Mar 07 '16 at 14:53