אַבָּא שַׁלָּחָא הֲוָה, וְאָמַר: הָבִיאוּ שְׁלָחִין וְנֵשֵׁב עֲלֵיהֶן.

My father was a tanner, and one Shabbat he said: Bring me hides and we will sit on them (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). In other words, even the hides of a craftsman may be moved on Shabbat.

מֵיתִיבֵי: נְסָרִין שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן וְשֶׁל אוּמָן אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן, וְאִם חִישֵּׁב לָתֵת עֲלֵיהֶן פַּת לְאוֹרְחִין – בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מְטַלְטְלִין. שָׁאנֵי נְסָרִים דְּקָפֵיד עֲלַיְיהוּ.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : With regard to wooden boards belonging to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat; however, those belonging to a craftsman, one may not move them. And if, however, he thought to place bread upon them for guests, both these, the boards of the homeowner, and those, the boards of the craftsman, may be moved. Apparently, the raw materials of a craftsman may not be moved on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: Wooden boards are different in that one is particular about them that they not be damaged. Hides, on the other hand, are not damaged when one sits on them.

תָּא שְׁמַע: עוֹרוֹת, בֵּין עֲבוּדִין וּבֵין שֶׁאֵין עֲבוּדִין – מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָן בַּשַּׁבָּת, לֹא אָמְרוּ עֲבוּדִין – אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה בִּלְבַד. מַאי לָאו: לֹא שְׁנָא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְלָא שְׁנָא שֶׁל אוּמָן! לֹא, שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear that which was taught in a different baraita : With regard to hides, whether they are tanned or whether they are not tanned, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. The Sages said that tanned hides have a unique legal status, distinct from the status of hides that have not been tanned only with regard to ritual impurity. Only tanned hides become ritually impure. What, is it not saying that there is no difference whether they are hides belonging to a homeowner and there is no difference whether they are hides belonging to a craftsman; in both cases they may be moved on Shabbat? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the baraita is referring exclusively to hides belonging to a homeowner.

אֲבָל שֶׁל אוּמָן מַאי – אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין? אִי הָכִי, הָא דְּתָנֵי: “וְלֹא אָמְרוּ עֲבוּדִין אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה בִּלְבַד״ - לִפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידָהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּשֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, אֲבָל בְּשֶׁל אוּמָן – לֹא. כּוּלָּהּ בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת קָמַיְירִי.

The Gemara asks: But with regard to hides belonging to a craftsman, what is the halakha ? Is it true that they may not be moved on Shabbat? If so, that which was taught in the baraita : The Sages said that the legal status of tanned hides is distinct from the status of hides that have not been tanned only with regard to ritual impurity; let the tanna of the baraita distinguish and teach within the halakhot of Shabbat itself, and say: In what case is this statement, that there is no distinction between whether or not the hides were tanned, said? It was stated specifically with regard to hides belonging to a homeowner. However, with regard to hides belonging to a craftsman, no, if they were tanned they may not be moved. The Gemara answers: Since the entire baraita is speaking with regard to hides of a homeowner, it would have been forced to elaborate at greater length to introduce the distinction with regard to the hides of a craftsman than it did to introduce the distinction with regard to ritual impurity.

כְּתַנָּאֵי: עוֹרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן, וְשֶׁל אוּמָּן – אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן.

The Gemara notes that this issue is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im , as it was taught in a baraita : With regard to hides belonging to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat, and those of a craftsman, one may not move them. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to both these, the hides of a homeowner, and those, the hides of a craftsman, one may move them.

הֲדוּר יָתְבִי וְקָמִיבָּעֲיָא לְהוּ: הָא דִּתְנַן “אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת״ כְּנֶגֶד מִי?

The Gemara relates that those same Sages who sat and discussed the issue of hides, sat again and the y raised a dilemma: That which we learned in the mishna: The primary categories of labor, which are prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, are forty-less-one; to what does this number correspond? That is to say, what is the source of this number?

אָמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר חָמָא: כְּנֶגֶד עֲבוֹדוֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן. אָמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, כָּךְ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן לָקוֹנְיָא: כְּנֶגֶד ‘מְלָאכָה׳ ‘מְלַאכְתּוֹ׳ וּ׳מְלֶאכֶת׳ שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה – אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת.

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama said to them: They correspond to the labors in the Tabernacle. All types of labor that were performed in the Tabernacle are enumerated as primary categories of labor with respect to Shabbat. However, other labors, even if they are significant, are not enumerated among the primary categories of labor since they were not performed in the Tabernacle. Rabbi Yonatan, son of Rabbi Elazar, said to them that so said Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya: They correspond to the instances of the words labor, his labor, and the labor of, that appear in the Torah a total of forty-less-one times.

בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: “וַיָּבֹא הַבַּיְתָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ״ מִמִּנְיָנָא הוּא, אוֹ לֹא? אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: וְלֵיתֵי סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וְלִימְנִי! מִי לֹא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם, עַד שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וּמְנָאוּם.

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: The term his labor is written with regard to Joseph: “And it came to pass about this time, that he came into the house to do his labor; and there was none of the men of the house there within” (Genesis 39:11). Is it included in the count of the thirty-nine instances or not? Abaye said to him: And let us bring a Torah scroll and count the instances of the word labor and thereby determine whether or not there are thirty-nine instances without that one. Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in a case of similar uncertainty: They did not move from there until they brought a Torah scroll and counted them?

אָמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי קָא מְסַפְּקָא לִי – מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: “וְהַמְּלָאכָה הָיְתָה דַיָּם״ מִמִּנְיָנָא הוּא, וְהָא – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לַעֲשׂוֹת צְרָכָיו נִכְנַס,

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I cannot reach a conclusion relying solely on a count because there is another instance of the term labor, whose meaning is not clear to me. The reason I am uncertain is because it is written with regard to the Tabernacle: “For the labor they had was sufficient for all the work to do it, and too much” (Exodus 36:7). The question arises whether or not this mention of labor is included in the count of thirty-nine instances, i.e., whether or not it refers to actual labor. And if it does, that verse with regard to Joseph should be understood in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the expression, to do his labor, is a euphemism. It means that it was to attend to his needs and engage in relations with Potiphar’s wife that he entered.

אוֹ דִּילְמָא: “וַיָּבֹא הַבַּיְתָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ״ מִמִּנְיָנָא הוּא, וְהַאי “וְהַמְּלָאכָה הָיְתָה דַיָּם״ – הָכִי קָאָמַר: דִּשְׁלִים לֵיהּ עֲבִידְתָּא? תֵּיקוּ.

Or, perhaps, the verse relating to Joseph: “He came into the house to do his labor,” is included in the count, and it refers to actual labor. And this verse: “The labor they had was sufficient,” is saying the following: That they completed the preparatory labor, i.e., they brought all the materials, not that they engaged in the actual labor. Let the uncertainty stand unresolved.

תַּנְיָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: “כְּנֶגֶד עֲבוֹדוֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן״, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל מְלָאכָה שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ הָיְתָה בַּמִּשְׁכָּן, הֵם זָרְעוּ – וְאַתֶּם לֹא תִּזְרְעוּ, הֵם קָצְרוּ – וְאַתֶּם לֹא תִּקְצְרוּ,

With regard to the matter itself, it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the thirty-nine labors of Shabbat correspond to the labors performed in the Tabernacle. As it was taught in a baraita : One is only liable for performing a labor to which there was a corresponding labor in the Tabernacle. They sowed in order to grow dyes for the Tabernacle, and therefore you may not sow on Shabbat. They reaped, and therefore you may not reap on Shabbat.

הֵם הֶעֱלוּ אֶת הַקְּרָשִׁים מִקַּרְקַע לָעֲגָלָה – וְאַתֶּם לֹא תַּכְנִיסוּ מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. הֵם הוֹרִידוּ אֶת הַקְּרָשִׁים מֵעֲגָלָה לַקַּרְקַע – וְאַתֶּם לֹא תּוֹצִיאוּ מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, הֵם הוֹצִיאוּ מֵעֲגָלָה לַעֲגָלָה – וְאַתֶּם לֹא תּוֹצִיאוּ מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד.

They lifted the boards from the ground in the wilderness, which is a public domain, and placed them into the wagon, which is a private domain, and therefore you shall not carry objects in from the public domain to the private domain on Shabbat. They lowered the boards from the wagon to the ground, and therefore you shall not carry objects out from the private domain to the public domain on Shabbat. They took boards and other objects out and passed them from wagon to wagon, i.e., from one private domain to another private domain, and therefore you shall not take objects out from one private domain to another private domain on Shabbat.

מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, מַאי קָא עָבֵיד אַבַּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְהוּ, וְאִיתֵימָא רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד דֶּרֶךְ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

The Gemara expresses astonishment with regard to the last clause of the baraita : One who takes an object out from one private domain to another private domain, what prohibited labor is he thereby performing? The Gemara answers: It was Abaye and Rava who both said, and some say that it was Rav Adda bar Ahava who said: This is referring to taking an object out from one private domain to another private domain via the public domain, as the space between the two wagons in the wilderness was a public domain.

“בְּגִיזֵּי צֶמֶר וְאֵין מְטַלְטְלִין״. אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא טָמַן בָּהֶן, אֲבָל טָמַן בָּהֶן – מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן.

We learned in the mishna: One may insulate food in wool fleece, and he may not move it. Rava said: This halakha that fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only to a case where one did not insulate food in it. Only in that case is it set-aside. However, if one insulated cooked food in it, he may move it. By insulating food in the fleece, he indicated that he intends to use it on Shabbat.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ הַהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן בַּר יוֹמֵיהּ לְרָבָא: “טוֹמְנִין בְּגִיזֵּי צֶמֶר וְאֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן, כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה?

A certain Sage for whom it was his first day in that study hall raised an objection to Rava from our mishna: One may insulate food in wool fleece, and one may not move it. How, then, does he act if he insulated food in wool fleece and now wishes to remove the pot?