English translation — יתרו ג

Sicha 3*

<pg>106</pg>

A.

It is stated in the Yerushalmi at the end of Eruvin: He used to say: Tongs are made with tongs1

(The tongs are not made except with another tongs.

Korban HaEdah)

The first tongs, what was it?

(The first tongs, who made it?

KHa"E)

It was created

(It was created during the six days of creation,

which are among the things that were created on Shabbat eve at twilight1.

KHa"E).

Rabbi Chanina said before Rabbi Mana: And what do you say to it?

(That is, how do you bring this matter to the laws in the Mishnah?

KHa"E),

From one tongs they learned many tongs, and so from one rest they learned many rests.

Before Moses explains the connection of this article to here,

that this is an answer

(by hint)

to the question in the Gemara there before this,

in connection with the words of the Mishnah regarding the law of removing a creeping creature found in the Temple — "Rabbi Akiva says: A place where one is liable for its intentional [violation] with karet and for its unintentional [violation] with a sin-offering, from there they remove it",

and they said about this in the Gemara "If one removed from a place where one is liable for it with karet and it fell into a place where one is not liable for it with karet — it was already seen to go out

[That is²,

it was already fit to remove initially,

and it is obvious that one removes it even from there,

but the question we have is,

if]

one found another next to it

[In the place²

where it fell..

where one is not liable for it with karet]

does one remove both of them

[Since²

it was permitted for this one, it was permitted even for that one]

or does one remove only that which was seen to go out"

[Initially]?

And as an answer to this question, Rabbi Mana replied "by way of hint and parable..

Just as from one [permitted] bundle they learned to make several bundles,

so too from one [permitted] cessation of work they learned several cessations of work,

since once one cessation of work was permitted in the Temple,

to carry and remove this one that was seen to go out,

he removes with it in the place where it fell also the second one with it,

for what is the difference,

since once it was permitted, several cessations of work are permitted"

(because they are simultaneous³).

But this explanation is difficult,

because superficially it is only a very distant hint,

since there is no connection between the reasoning to permit the second shevut — "since it was permitted

(one shevut)

several shevutot are permitted"

(the basis of the permission in this is — "since³

and they are simultaneous")

— with the parable "tongs made by tongs"

(that from one tongs several tongs were made)⁴.

And also this explanation does not fit with the language of the Yerushalmi "from one shevut they learned several shevutot" — for here there is no matter of learning,

but only a general permission,

"since it was permitted to this, it is also permitted to that".

And furthermore: according to this explanation,

what is the practical difference of the discussion how the first pair of tongs was created — for to explain that from one cessation they learned several cessations, it is sufficient to say that "tongs are made with tongs"&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;?

&lt;pg&gt;107&lt;/pg&gt;

And especially since there are opinions&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

that there is no necessity to say that the first pair of tongs was a creation by Heaven,

for "it is possible to make it by casting etc.",

why does the Yerushalmi need to enter here into the discussion and conclude that the first pair of tongs was a creation by Heaven

[and even if it was made by man,

several pairs of tongs were made from it].

2.

And behold, the source of this discourse is

(as written in the presence of Moses)

in the Tosefta here&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;,

and the language of the Tosefta: The laws of Shabbat..

like mountains hanging by a hair, a little Scripture and many laws, and they have nothing to support them,

from here said Rabbi Yehoshua: Tongs are made with tongs, the first tongs

what would it be? Was it not created?

It is explicit,

that the analogy of "tongs are made with tongs" regarding the matter of "rest" is in this,

that although there is only "a little Scripture"

(in the Torah)

regarding the rest of Shabbat,

nevertheless,

from this "little Scripture" emerge "many laws"

(so that they are like "mountains hanging by a hair",

and furthermore — "they have nothing to support them")

— in the manner of the multitude of tongs, all of which are a result of the first tong that was created in the six days of creation.

And with this is well understood the reason that in the Tosefta is brought the manner of creation of the first tongs,

that it is by the hands of Heaven — because this is the analogy to the cessation of Shabbat,

that the source and essence of the "many laws" of Shabbat is — "a verse

(few)

",

the Written Torah which is "by the hands of Heaven"; and from this there branched out afterwards "many laws",

until the multitude of shevutin, decrees and fences that are rabbinic⁹

— similar to the many tongs that were made by human hands,

from the power of the first tongs.

And therefore it seems to me,

that also in the Yerushalmi here

(which also brought the discussion about the creation of the first tongs)

the intention is like in the Tosefta¹⁰,

and what is said "from one shevita they learned etc." does not refer to rabbinic shevut

(according to the explanation of the Pnei Moshe¹¹),

but rather to the matter of shevita that is explicit in the Torah,

which is "a verse few"

("one shevita"),

from which they learned "many shevitot" — the multitude of prohibitions of rabbinic shevut.

[And as the Rambam wrote&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

"It is said in the Torah&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

You shall rest even from matters that are not labor, one is obligated to rest from them,

and there are many matters that the Sages prohibited as shevut,

some matters are prohibited because they resemble labors and some matters are prohibited as a decree lest one come from them to a capital sin" — from the continuation of the Rambam's words it is understood,

that the prohibitions of shevut that are rabbinic belong to the commandment of "you shall rest",

and known is the discussion&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

in the interpretation of the Rambam's words,

whether the intention is that the Torah prohibited matters of shevut but the matter was handed over to the Sages,

or that all prohibitions of shevut are rabbinic and only relied on&lt;pg&gt;108&lt;/pg&gt;

this verse,

or that there are matters of shevut that are from the Torah and there are that are rabbinic].

And based on this, one could say,

that the words of the above-mentioned Yerushalmi at the end of the tractate relate to the conclusion of the last Mishnah of the tractate,

which is in the statement of Rabbi Shimon — "A place where the Sages permitted you, from your own they gave you,

for they only permitted you on account of shevut",

that the explanation of this statement of R"Sh

(in which cases the Sages permitted shevut)

depends on the explanation of the connection between Rabbinic shevutim

(which are "by human hand",

"from your own")

to the source of the concept of rest in the Torah

("a scant verse"),

as will be explained below.

3.

And this will be understood by prefacing the words of the Bavli at the end of the tractate in the words of R"Sh,

and this is its language:

"Rabbi Shimon, where does he stand..

as we learned¹⁵

One who became dark [on Shabbos] outside the techum, even one amah, may not enter,

Rabbi Shimon says: even fifteen amos, he may enter,

because the surveyors do not exact the measures on account of those who err

(that is¹⁶

: when they measure and mark the place where the two thousand amos end,

"they do not exact the measures",

rather they place the marker within the techum,

so that if he went out, he did not commit a transgression),

that the first Tanna said: he may not enter,

and Rabbi Shimon said to him: he may enter" — because "from yours they gave you,

for he is already within his techum"

(Rashi).

"They permitted you only because of shevus — where does it stand..

that the first Tanna said¹⁷

ties it

(the harp string in the Temple that was severed,

for the first Tanna holds that he ties it on Shabbos),

and Rabbi Shimon said to him: ties a bow,

a bow that does not come to a chatas obligation, the Sages permitted it,

a tie that comes to a chatas obligation, the Sages did not permit it",

that is to say,

that "here too they gave you only from yours,

namely a bow,

which was a permitted thing"

(Tosafos)¹⁸.

That is: the words of R. Shimon "A place where the sages permitted you, from your own they gave you,

that they permitted you only because of shevut" — refer to two matters in which he disagrees with the first Tanna:

(a)

the law of "one who became dark outside the techum",

where there R. Shimon is lenient and says that "even fifteen cubits he may enter",

since "from your own they gave you",

(b)

the law of a harp string in the Temple that broke,

where there R. Shimon is stringent and forbids tying,

because "they permitted you only because of shevut",

that is "they gave you only from your own",

a permitted thing — a bow.

And in Tosafot there explains the reason "that he waited until here"

[For apparently: the law of "one who became dark outside the techum" was brought in this tractate many chapters ago&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;,

and likewise the law of "they tie a string on Shabbat" was stated in a previous Mishnah&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

— and why were the words of R. Shimon stated

(regarding these two laws)

specifically at the end of the tractate?]

— "Because he wanted to conclude matters of the Temple but not in the country",

and as the Maharsha explains "because R. Shimon does not disagree except regarding the Temple,

he did not want to interrupt among all these rabbinic prohibitions that everyone agrees about in the country,

and he waited until here to teach us that R. Shimon disagrees regarding tying a string in the Temple and forbids".

But the Maharsha himself rejects this explanation,

and writes "And all this is forced to say that because of this he waited until here,

that it was not mentioned at all explicitly the dispute of R' Shimon regarding tying a thread in any Mishnah,

and above also²⁰

R' Yehuda argues with the first Tanna only in matters of the Temple,

and he did not wait until here."

<pg>109</pg>

And therefore he explains,

that the words of R' Shimon were said not only regarding these two laws,

but "a general principle R' Shimon came to teach us,

and therefore..

he waited with the matter of R' Shimon until here which is the end of tractate Eruvin,

and gave a general principle in all the laws of tractate Eruvin that they were lenient in them in several places for the sake of a mitzvah and other needs and because they said to forbid and they said to permit that all the laws of Eruvin are only rabbinic..

and therefore permission was given to the sages to be lenient in them according to the need and this is what he said: Every place that the sages permitted to be lenient in the laws of Eruvin, that is because from yours that which was forbidden was given to you to be lenient in it, but regarding biblical prohibitions that permission was not given to the sages to be lenient in them, and this matter is explicit in the entire tractate."

[And the intent of the Gemara "R' Shimon where does he stand" is only "because&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

that the phrase "every place" implies that he stands

(also)

on a particular matter in this subject that R' Shimon already said,

and he says regarding the matter "they permitted you from your own we find a particular matter in the words of R' Shimon who said that even fifteen cubits he may enter and likewise regarding the matter "they did not permit you except because of shevut" we find that R' Shimon [said] a particular matter in the prohibition of tying a strand"].

4.

And one may add in greater depth:

The intention of R. Shimon is not only to distinguish between Torah law and rabbinic law

(that only a shevut that is rabbinic can be permitted,

"because they said to forbid and they said to permit"),

but rather he comes to distinguish within shevut itself,

that there is a shevut that is "from your own" and this they permitted,

but not so a shevut that is not "from your own"

[and according to the second opinion in the Talmud — the sound of the lyre in the Temple that ceased,

that what R. Shimon forbade tying is because it might come to liability for a sin-offering,

that it is not speaking of a Torah prohibition

(because it is speaking of a knot that is not permanent)²²

but rather a shevut that is due to a decree lest one come to liability for a sin-offering].

And based on this, it seems,

that the general principle of R. Shimon is not only "a general principle in all the laws of tractate Eruvin",

but rather was stated regarding the general laws of Shabbat.

That regarding prohibitions of shevut we find several types in the manner of their connection to a Torah prohibition,

and about this R. Shimon gave the general principle,

that the Sages have no power to permit a shevut except from this type that is "from your own".

Explanation of the matter:

In the prohibitions of shevut there are two general types,

and as explained in Tzf"a"n on the Rambam²³

:

(a)

There are shevutim that "the rabbis attached them to a Torah-prohibited melacha",

and they have upon them the name melacha

(rabbinic),

(b)

things that the sages prohibited to do on Shabbat but these things do not have the name "melacha"

(even rabbinically).

And one could say,

that this is the intent of the aforementioned Tosefta that the laws of Shabbat are "like mountains suspended by a hair, a scant verse and many laws, and they have nothing to rely on" — for at first glance it is perplexing: In the Mishnah Chagigah²⁴

it distinguishes between "the annulment of vows" and "the laws of Shabbat,"

that "the annulment of vows fly in the air and have nothing to rely on" and "the laws of Shabbat...

they are like mountains suspended by a hair, which are²⁵

a scant verse and many laws" — and here the Tosefta says²⁶

that also the laws of Shabbat "have nothing to rely on<pg>110</pg>

to rely on"

(And indeed in the Tosefta it is stated

(as in the Mishnah)

that the laws of Shabbat are "a scant verse and many laws")²⁷?

And according to the above it can be said — that in the prohibitions of shevut itself there are two types:

(a)

"Mountains hanging by a hair" meaning prohibitions of shevut that have a basis from the Torah,

for even though it speaks about "mountains"

(multitude of laws)

that hang by a hair alone

("a scant verse"),

nevertheless they are hanging and attached to a "hair",

(b)

"They have nothing upon which to rely" meaning prohibitions of shevut that have no basis from the Torah,

and these "have nothing upon which to rely",

and they are like "flying in the air"²⁸.

And this is the rule that Rabbi Shimon came to teach us in all the laws of Shabbat,

that we find in them a multitude of prohibitions of shevut,

that "where the sages permitted you, from your own they gave you, that they permitted you only because of shevut" — they permitted only "from your own",

namely shevut that is entirely rabbinic²⁹

and has no basis from the Torah,

but not so shevut that has a basis from the Torah

(and can lead to liability for a sin-offering³⁰)

they did not permit.

5.

And based on this, the explanation of the words of the Yerushalmi at the end of the tractate is clarified,

which cites the Tosefta: "He used to say: Tongs are made with tongs,

The first tongs, what were they?

They were a creation [beriah]",

to teach us that just as "from one tongs they learned

(were made)

many tongs,

and so from one shevut [restriction] they learned many shevutin" — for with this he explains the principle of the aforementioned R. Shimon&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

:

In order to explain the difference between the two types of prohibitions of shevut — he prefaces,

that the first tongs is a creation [beriah] by Heaven

(from which tongs were made several tongs — by human hand)

; and likewise regarding the laws of shevut — that the essence of the prohibition of shevut is from the Torah — a creation [beriah] by Heaven,

&lt;pg&gt;111&lt;/pg&gt;

as it is written in the Torah¹³

"you shall rest",

and "from one rest they learned several rests" — several prohibitions of rest that were explained by the Sages

(just as the first tongs that were made by Heaven — several tongs were made by man).

[And this is also the explanation of the question and answer "The first tongs, what was it

(and he answers)

it was made with fire" — for so it is also in the allegory,

in the prohibitions of rest,

there is a possibility to say³²

that the entire matter of "rest" is only Rabbinic

(and in the allegory — that also the first tongs were made by man³³),

but the conclusion is — "it was made with fire",

that the foundation of the matter of rest is from the Torah,

as above

(section 2)

from the Rambam].

And based on this it is also understood,

that also in the prohibitions of shevut derabbanan themselves there are two types: shevut that is similar to the aforementioned "one rest,"

that is, a shevut that has a basis from the Torah

(and through it one can come to a biblical prohibition)

— and this shevut is not permitted,

and there is a shevut that is not similar to "one rest" which is a creation by Heaven,

but rather it is entirely rabbinic

("by human hands"),

that has no basis from the Torah

(and one cannot come through it to a biblical prohibition),

and then "from your own they gave you, for they only permitted you because of shevut"³⁴.

6.

And now, regarding the general concept of Shabbat, it is stated in the Midrash³⁵

that a certain heretic asked Rabbi Akiva,

"If according to your words that the Holy One, blessed be He, honors Shabbat, let Him not sit winds, let Him not bring down rains, let Him not grow grass," and Rabbi Akiva answered him: "I will give you a parable: to two people who were living in one courtyard,

if this one does not give an eiruv and that one does not give an eiruv, are they permitted to carry in the courtyard?

But if one person lived in the courtyard,

he is permitted in the entire courtyard.

So too here, the Holy One, blessed be He, because there is no other authority with Him and the entire world is His, He is permitted in the entire world,"

and this means,

that the general concept of Shabbat is the absence of carrying from domain to domain³⁶.

And on the contrary, the general concept of Shabbat is to reveal that the entire world is in the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and consequently everything is a private domain,

for the Unique One of the world.

And this is also the entirety of the matter of eiruvin — from the language

to mix together,

meaning that they make from several domains — one domain,

and consequently it is permitted to carry etc.

And this is also the entirety of the innovation that will be in the true and complete redemption — "a day that is entirely Shabbat"

— for then the prophecy will be fulfilled

"I have wounded and I will heal",

meaning,

that all the partitions will be nullified

that separate between "the public domain" and "the private domain",

and the entire world will be — a private domain,

for the Unique One of the world.

(From the talks of 10 Shevat and 15 Shevat 5743)