מתני׳ הַבּוֹנֶה כַּמָּה יִבְנֶה וִיהֵא חַיָּיב? הַבּוֹנֶה כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְהַמְסַתֵּת, וְהַמַּכֶּה בַּפַּטִּישׁ וּבַמַּעֲצָד, הַקּוֹדֵחַ כָּל שֶׁהוּא – חַיָּיב. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה, וּמְלַאכְתּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בַּשַּׁבָּת – חַיָּיב. (וְכֵן) רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמַּכֶּה בַּקּוּרְנָס עַל הַסַּדָּן בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה – חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִּמְתַקֵּן מְלָאכָה.

With regard to one who builds on Shabbat, thereby violating a prohibition in a primary category of prohibited labor, how much must he build to be liable to bring a sin-offering? One who builds is liable for building any amount. And one who chisels, or strikes with a hammer or with an adze, or one who drills a hole of any size on Shabbat, is liable. This is the principle: Anyone who performs a prohibited labor and his labor endures on Shabbat is liable. And so too, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer during his labor has performed a constructive act and is liable, because he is as one who improves the labor that he is performing.

גמ׳ כָּל שֶׁהוּא לְמַאי חַזְיָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שֶׁכֵּן עָנִי חוֹפֵר גּוּמָּא לְהַצְנִיעַ בָּהּ פְּרוּטוֹתָיו. דִּכְוָותָהּ גַּבֵּי מִשְׁכָּן – שֶׁכֵּן תּוֹפְרֵי יְרִיעוֹת חוֹפְרִין גּוּמָּא לְהַצְנִיעַ בָּהּ מַחֲטֵיהֶן. אַבַּיֵי אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּמִשְׁתַּכִּי – לָא עָבְדִי הָכִי. אֶלָּא: שֶׁכֵּן עָנִי עוֹשֶׂה פִּיטְפּוּטֵי כִּירָה קְטַנָּה לִשְׁפּוֹת עָלֶיהָ קְדֵירָה קְטַנָּה. דִּכְוָותָהּ גַּבֵּי מִשְׁכָּן – מְבַשְׁלֵי סַמָּנִין לִצְבּוֹעַ יְרִיעוֹת שֶׁחָסְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן, עוֹשִׂין פִּיטְפּוּטֵי כִּירָה קְטַנָּה לִשְׁפּוֹת עָלֶיהָ יוֹרָה קְטַנָּה.

The Gemara asks: With regard to any small amount of building, for what use is it suited? Rabbi Yirmeya said: As a poor person digs a hole in the floor of his house in which to hide his coins. Digging a hole in the floor of a house is an act of building. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was as those who sewed curtains in the Tabernacle dug holes in which to hide their needles. Abaye said: Since needles rust in the ground, they did not do so. The Gemara seeks a different example of small-scale building that is significant. Rather, an example is that a poor person makes legs for a small stove to place a small pot on it. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was with regard to those who cooked herbs used to dye curtains, whose dyeing process was lacking a small amount for completion. At that point, it was not worth the effort to cook a large quantity of dye, and so they would make legs for a small stove upon which to place a small cauldron to cook a small bit of dye to finish the job.

רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: אֵין עֲנִיּוּת בִּמְקוֹם עֲשִׁירוּת. אֶלָּא: שֶׁכֵּן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ נֶקֶב בְּבִירָתוֹ וְסוֹתְמוֹ, דִּכְוָותָהּ גַּבֵּי מִשְׁכָּן – שֶׁכֵּן קֶרֶשׁ שֶׁנָּפְלָה בּוֹ דַּרְנָא – מַטִּיף לְתוֹכָהּ אֳבָר וְסוֹתְמוֹ.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: There is no poverty in a place of wealth. In the Tabernacle, as in any public project, actions are not performed on a small scale or in parsimonious quantities; they were performed generously. Those who cooked dyes in the Tabernacle had no use for small crucibles. Rather, an example of significant small-scale building is a homeowner who has a small hole in his house and seals it. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was with regard to a beam that was set upon by a worm that bore a hole into it; one pours lead into the hole and seals it.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמְצַדֵּד אֶת הָאֶבֶן – חַיָּיב. מֵיתִיבִי: אֶחָד נוֹתֵן אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן אֶת הַטִּיט – הַנּוֹתֵן אֶת הַטִּיט חַיָּיב!

Shmuel said: If one sets a stone in place on Shabbat, i.e., he takes a building stone and fixes it in place on the ground on Shabbat, he is liable for performing the prohibited labor of building. The Gemara raises an objection to this from that which the Sages taught with regard to building on Shabbat. In a case where one puts down a stone and another one places the mortar, the one who places the mortar is liable for building. Apparently, the prohibition of building is only violated when mortar is added. Merely setting a stone in place is not enough to establish liability.

וְלִיטַעְמִיךְ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: וַאֲפִילּוּ הֶעֱלָה וְהִנִּיחַ עַל גַּבֵּי דִּימוֹס שֶׁל אֲבָנִים – חַיָּיב! אֶלָּא: תְּלָתָא בִּנְיָינֵי הֲווּ, תַּתָּא מְצִיעָא וְעֵילָא. תַּתָּא – בָּעֵי צִדּוּדֵי וְעַפְרָא, מְצִיעָא – בָּעֵי נַמִי טִינָא, עִילַאי – בְּהַנָּחָה בְּעָלְמָא.

The Gemara answers: And according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of that mishna Rabbi Yosei says: And even if one lifted the stone and placed it on a top row of stones [ dimos ], he is liable even without securing it with mortar. Rather, apparently, there are three different kinds of building: Bottom row, middle row, and upper row. The bottom row requires setting the stones in place and dirt to hold it in place. The middle row requires mortar as well. The upper row suffices with mere placement.

“וְהַמְסַתֵּת״. מְסַתֵּת מִשּׁוּם מַאי מִיחַיַּיב? רַב אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בַּפַּטִּישׁ. הָעוֹשֶׂה נֶקֶב בְּלוּל שֶׁל תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, רַב אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בַּפַּטִּישׁ. עַיָּיל שׁוּפְתָּא בְּקוֹפִינָא דְּמָרָא, רַב אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בַּפַּטִּישׁ.

We learned in the mishna: One who chisels any amount is liable. The Gemara asks: With regard to one who chisels, for which primary category of prohibited labor is he liable? Rav said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of building. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel. They similarly disagreed with regard to one who makes a hole in a chicken coop. Rav said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of building. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer. And similarly, with regard to one who inserts a pin into the handle of a hoe in order to secure the handle, Rav said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of building. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמַעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא – בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַב, מִשּׁוּם דְּדֶרֶךְ בִּנְיָן בְּכָךְ. אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה נֶקֶב בְּלוּל שֶׁל תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, דְּאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בִּנְיָן בְּכָךְ – אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל. וְאִי אַשְׁמַעִינַן בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב, מִשּׁוּם דְּדָמֵי לְבִנְיָן, דַּעֲבַדֵיהּ לַאֲוִירָא.

The Gemara comments: It is necessary for the Gemara to teach us that Rav and Shmuel disagreed in each of these cases because one could not be inferred from the other. As, had the Gemara told us only the first case of chiseling, I would have said that it is specifically in that case that Rav said one is liable for building because it is a typical manner of building; however, with regard to one who makes a hole in a chicken coop, which is not a typical manner of building, say that Rav agrees with Shmuel that this is not subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building. And had the Gemara told us only about this case of making a hole in a chicken coop, I would have said that it is specifically in that case that Rav said one is liable for building, because it is similar to building, as people do so for ventilation in a chicken coop, just as they place windows in buildings.

אֲבָל שׁוּפְתָּא בְּקוֹפִינָא דְּמָרָא, דְּאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בִּנְיָן בְּכָךְ – אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל. וְאִי אַשְׁמַעִינַן בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, אֲבָל בְּהָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי – אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַב, צְרִיכָא.

However, inserting a pin into the handle of a hoe, which is not a typical manner of building, say that Rav agrees with Shmuel that it is not subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building. Conversely, had the Gemara told us only about this case of inserting a pin into the handle of a hoe, I would have said that it is only in that case that Shmuel said that the action is not subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building; however, with regard to these other two cases of chiseling and making a hole in the coop, say that Shmuel agrees with Rav that they are subsumed under the rubric of the prohibited labor of building. Therefore, it was necessary to cite all three disputes.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעֲיָא מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְסַתֵּת מִשּׁוּם מַאי מִיחַיַּיב? אַחֲוֵי לֵיהּ בְּיָדֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בַּפַּטִּישׁ. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: הַמְסַתֵּת וְהַמַּכֶּה בַּפַּטִּישׁ! אֵימָא: הַמְסַתֵּת הַמַּכֶּה בַּפַּטִּישׁ.

Rav Natan bar Oshaya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to one who chisels, for which primary category of prohibited labor is he liable? He indicated with his hand that he is liable for striking a blow with a hammer. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: One who chisels and one who strikes a blow with a hammer, indicating that they are two different prohibitions? The Gemara answers: Emend this and say: One who chisels is liable due to the prohibition of striking a blow with a hammer.

תָּא שְׁמַע:

Come and hear a proof that will resolve this dilemma from that which we learned: