מתני׳ הבונה כמה יבנה ויהא חייב הבונה כל שהוא והמסתת והמכה בפטיש ובמעצד הקודח כל שהוא חייב זה הכלל כל העושה מלאכה ומלאכתו מתקיימת בשבת חייב (וכן) רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף המכה בקורנס על הסדן בשעת מלאכה חייב מפני שהוא כמתקן מלאכה:
MISHNA: 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? The Sages said: 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׳ כל שהוא למאי חזיא אמר רבי ירמיה שכן עני חופר גומא להצניע בה פרוטותיו דכוותה גבי משכן שכן תופרי יריעות חופרין גומא להצניע בה מחטיהן אביי אמר כיון דמשתכי לא עבדי הכי אלא שכן עני עושה פיטפוטי כירה קטנה לשפות עליה קדירה קטנה דכוותה גבי משכן מבשלי סמנין לצבוע יריעות שחסרה מלאכתן עושין פיטפוטי כירה קטנה לשפות עליה יורה קטנה
GEMARA: 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.
רב אחא בר יעקב אמר אין עניות במקום עשירות אלא שכן בעל הבית שיש לו נקב בבירתו וסותמו דכוותה גבי משכן שכן קרש שנפלה בו דרנא מטיף לתוכה אבר וסותמו
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.
אמר שמואל המצדד את האבן חייב מיתיבי אחד נותן את האבן ואחד נותן את הטיט הנותן את הטיט חייב
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.
וליטעמיך אימא סיפא רבי יוסי אומר ואפילו העלה והניח על גבי דימוס של אבנים חייב אלא תלתא בנייני הוו תתא מציעא ועילא תתא בעי צדודי ועפרא מציעא בעי נמי טינא עילאי בהנחה בעלמא:
The Gemara answers: And according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of that mishna where we learn that 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.
והמסתת: מסתת משום מאי מיחייב רב אמר משום בונה ושמואל אמר משום מכה בפטיש העושה נקב בלול של תרנגולים רב אמר משום בונה ושמואל אמר משום מכה בפטיש עייל שופתא בקופינא דמרא רב אמר משום בונה ושמואל אמר משום מכה בפטיש
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.
וצריכא דאי אשמעינן קמייתא בההיא קאמר רב משום דדרך בנין בכך אבל עושה נקב בלול של תרנגולים דאין דרך בנין בכך אימא מודה ליה לשמואל ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמר רב משום דדמי לבנין דעבדיה לאוירא
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.
אבל שופתא בקופינא דמרא דאין דרך בנין בכך אימא מודה ליה לשמואל ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמר שמואל אבל בהנך תרתי אימא מודה ליה לרב צריכא
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.
בעא מיניה רב נתן בר אושעיא מרבי יוחנן מסתת משום מאי מיחייב אחוי ליה בידיה משום מכה בפטיש והאנן תנן המסתת והמכה בפטיש אימא המסתת המכה בפטיש
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.
Come and hear a proof that will resolve this dilemma from that which we learned: