דף מקורות - סיום מסכת שבת - מנחם אב התש"פ

אפ

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אַרְבַּע רְשׁוּיוֹת לַשַּׁבָּת: רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְכַרְמְלִית, וּמְקוֹם פְּטוּר. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד? — חָרִיץ שֶׁהוּא עָמוֹק עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה, וְכֵן גָּדֵר שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה — זוֹ הִיא רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד גְּמוּרָה.

Shabbat 6a

as the halakha there is just as it is in the case of one who transfers an object in the public domain. There, even though as long as he takes it and walks and does not place the object he is exempt, is it not the case that when he places it he is liable? Obviously, between the place where he lifted the object and the place where he placed the object, where there is liability, there lies an undefined area where, as long as he continues walking, he is exempt. Here too, it is no different, as in both cases an identical situation exists: If he places the object at the end of his path he is liable, despite the fact that the area in the middle is an exempt place. The Gemara rejects this comparison: Is this comparable? There, anywhere that he places the object is a place of potential liability. That cannot be described as two places of liability with an exempt domain between them, as the area between them is also a place of potential liability if he were to place the object there. On the other hand, here, if he places it in the colonnade, it is an absolute exempt domain. Again the question arises: Where is there a precedent of liability for transferring an object through an exempt domain? The Gemara answers: Rather, it is possible to cite a different precedent: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of one who transfers an object in the public domain from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits exactly. There, is it not the case that, even though were he to place it within four cubits of where he stands, he is not liable because within four cubits, the complete prohibited labor of carrying in the public domain was not performed; and nevertheless, when he places it at the end of four cubits he is liable? Here too, it is no different. It can be said that there is a strip of exempt domain between the lifting and the placement. Again the Gemara rejects the analogy: Is that similar? There, in the public domain, for this man it is an exempt domain, as it is within four cubits of the place that he lifted the object. However, for the entire world, it is a place of potential liability, as the space itself is a public domain and it could be beyond four cubits for someone else who placed it there, and he would be liable. Here, on the other hand, the colonnade is an exempt domain for the entire world. There is no comparison between an absence of liability that stems from the fact that the prohibited labor was not completed and an unconditional exemption dependent solely on the nature of the domain in question. Rather, it is possible to cite a different precedent: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of one who carries out an object from the private domain to the public domain through the sides of the public domain. The sides of a public domain are narrow strips located adjacent to the houses where the multitudes do not congregate. There, is it not the case that, even though if one were to place an object on the sides of the public domain, he is exempt and, nevertheless, when he places it in the public domain he is liable? If so, here too, it is no different. Rav Pappa strongly objects to this explanation: Granted, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the sides of the public domain are a type of independent domain and not considered the public domain, that precedent is similar to our case. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who said that the sides of the public domain are considered a full-fledged public domain, what is there to say? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said to him: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said that the sides of the public domain are considered a public domain in a place where there are no stakes [ḥipufei] separating the houses and the courtyards from the actual public domain to prevent the public from damaging the walls of the houses. However, in a place where there are stakes, did you hear him say that the legal status of the sides is that of the public domain itself? Therefore, it is similar to that case of the colonnade, and consequently it serves as a precedent for liability when carrying through an exempt domain. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Azzai disagreed with regard to carrying out the object while walking through the colonnade. In his opinion one who carries it out is exempt. Yet, he agrees with the Rabbis that in a case where one throws an object from the private domain to the public domain through a colonnade he is liable, as it is tantamount to carrying out directly from domain to domain. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One who carries out an object on Shabbat from a store to a plaza via a colonnade is liable. The halakha is identical with regard to all means of transferring an object from domain to domain via a colonnade. The same is true for one who carries out, and one who carries in, and one who throws, and one who extends his hand from domain to domain. Ben Azzai says: One who walks and carries out and one who walks and carries in are exempt, as he is considered to have come to rest in the colonnade. On the other hand, one who extends his hand with the object and one who throws the object, whose actions are uninterrupted, are liable. In order to explain the essence of the laws of domains on Shabbat, the Gemara cites what the Sages taught in the Tosefta, that there are four domains for the halakhot of Shabbat: The private domain, and the public domain, and two additional domains: The karmelit, which is like neither the public domain nor the private domain, and an exempt domain, which does not fall into the category of domains. The Gemara elaborates: And what is the private domain? A ditch which is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, as well as a fence which is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide; that is a full-fledged private domain. The criteria for a private domain are that it must be an area of four by four handbreadths, with a ten-handbreadth difference in elevation from the surrounding environment. And what is the public domain? A main street [seratia] and a large plaza as well as alleyways [mevo’ot], which are open on both ends to the public domain, connecting between main streets; that is a full-fledged public domain. With regard to those domains: One may not carry out from the private domain of this kind to the public domain of this kind, and one may not carry in from the public domain of this kind to the private domain of this kind. If he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally, and there were no witnesses to his act, and he was not forewarned, he is liable to receive the punishment of excision [karet]. If he was forewarned and there were witnesses to his transgression, he is punished with the court-imposed capital punishment and stoned. However, a sea and a valley and a colonnade and the karmelit all enter into the general category of karmelit, which is neither like the public domain, because the multitudes are not congregated there, nor like the private domain, as it has no partitions. Rather, the Sages instituted that cases like these should be considered an independent domain. One may not carry and place an object in it beyond four cubits, just as it is prohibited to do so in the public domain. And if he nevertheless carried and placed an object in it, he is exempt, as it involves no Torah prohibition. And one may neither carry from it into the public domain nor from the public domain into it, as it is not the public domain. And one may neither carry from the private domain into it nor from it into the private domain, as it is not the private domain. And if he carried out from the private domain or carried in from the public domain, he is exempt, as it involves is no Torah prohibition. Similarly, there is a type of private domain which, by rabbinic law, has the legal status of a karmelit or a public domain. Courtyards shared by many and alleyways that are not open on both sides are private domains that are somewhat similar to the public domain because many people congregate there. For this reason, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting carrying within them. However, if they placed an eiruv, i.e., a joining of courtyards, to transform a common courtyard into a single domain, or a merging of alleyways to merge a common alleyway shared by several courtyards into a single domain, they are all permitted to carry objects from their houses into the courtyard or from the courtyard into the alleyway, respectively. However, if they did not place an eiruv, they are prohibited to do so. An example of the fourth domain listed in the baraita, the exempt domain is: A person standing on the threshold may take an object from the homeowner standing in the private domain and may give an object to him. Similarly, while standing there, he may take an object from a poor person standing in the public domain and may give an object to him because there is no element of prohibition or liability in carrying and carrying out in an exempt domain on Shabbat. There is no prohibition as long as he does not take the object from the homeowner in the private domain and give it to a poor person in the public domain, or from a poor person and give to the homeowner, as by doing so he facilitated transfer from domain to domain. And, however, if he took an object from one and gave it to the other, certainly no labor prohibited by Torah law was performed, and all three of them are exempt. Aḥerim say: Not every threshold is an exempt domain. Some are not sufficiently isolated from the surrounding domains. Sometimes, a threshold serves as two domains; at times the public domain and at times the private domain, as in different circumstances it is subsumed within the adjacent domain. Therefore, when the doorway is open, the threshold is an extension of the house and considered to be a private domain. If the doorway was locked, it is considered like the outside, like part of the public domain. This applies when the threshold is not an independent domain. And if the threshold was ten handbreadths high above the public domain and four handbreadths wide, it is a domain unto itself, i.e., a full-fledged private domain discrete from the house. It was taught in the Tosefta with regard to the definition of a private domain that the Master said, with added emphasis: This is the private domain. The Gemara asks: What was this emphasis added to exclude? The Gemara answers: To exclude this halakha of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the public domain. He may place

שמות כ״ו:א׳

(א) וְאֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֥ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה עֶ֣שֶׂר יְרִיעֹ֑ת שֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֗ר וּתְכֵ֤לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן֙ וְתֹלַ֣עַת שָׁנִ֔י כְּרֻבִ֛ים מַעֲשֵׂ֥ה חֹשֵׁ֖ב תַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה אֹתָֽם׃

Exodus 26:1

(1) As for the Tabernacle, make it of ten strips of cloth; make these of fine twisted linen, of blue, purple, and crimson yarns, with a design of cherubim worked into them.

אור החיים על שמות כ״ו:א׳

(א) ואת המשכן תעשה עשר יריעות. רמז בזה כנגד עשרה מאמרות שבהם נברא העולם לומר ששקול המשכן ככל העולם כלו שנברא בי' מאמרות, גם זכות לישראל בו כאילו קיימו הי' מאמרות שבהם נברא העולם. (ב) עוד נתכוין בסדר מצוה זו של יריעות שש ושל יריעות עזים שבשל שש צוה עשרה ושל עזים צוה עשתי עשר עוד צוה שיחבר ה' יריעות לבד וה' יריעות לבד וכן בשל עזים צוה לחבר שש לבד, טעם הדבר הוא כי רשם ה' שמו הנכבד ביריעות וצוה כי כולן יהיו רחבן ד' בין של שש בין של עזים כנגד ד' אותיות של שם הוי''ה, וכן תמצא שרמזו ראשונים במאמרם הזך (שבת ו'.) רשות היחיד רחבו ארבעה וגובהו עשרה שהוא על שם הוי''ה רחבו ד' וגובהו פירוש במילוי עשרה על זה הדרך יו''ד ה''י וא''ו ה''י, ...... והשומע ישמע ולבבו יבין:

Or HaChaim on Exodus 26:1

(1) ואת המשכן תעשה עשר יריעות, "And you shall construct the Tabernacle out of ten strips of cloth, etc. This number is an allusion to the ten directives G'd used when creating the universe. The Torah wants to tell us that construction of the Tabernacle was as important to G'd as creation of the universe itself. Constructing the Tabernacle would also confer as much merit on the Israelites as if they had personally brought about the creation of the universe which was created by means of ten directives. (2) There are still other considerations behind the requirement to use such materials as twisted linen of specific colours, goats' hair, etc. It is not accidental that G'd commanded ten strips of cloth to be made of linen whereas He commanded eleven strips of cloth made of goats' hair (verse 7) to be constructed and to be placed on top of the ten inner strips of cloth. Also the commandment to join five each of the linen strips of cloth together to form one unit, or in the case of the strips of cloth made of goats' hair, to combine two units of five or six strips together, this too was not arbitrary. The reason for all this was that G'd thereby symbolically impressed the three basic letters of His Ineffable Name on these four sections of strips of cloth joined in units of 10+5+6. (י+ה+ו). G'd commanded that all of these strips of cloth be four cubits wide, regardless of whether they were made of linen or of goats' hair. The number four symbolises that G'd's name contains four letters. You will find that our sages in Shabbat 6 state that a minimum of 4 handbreadths square and ten handbreadths height is required to qualify as a private domain. This is an allusion to the four letters in the Ineffable Name of G'd adding up to the number 26. Similarly, 4 by 4 plus 10 adds up to 26, i.e י+ה+ו+ה. Seeing that the letter י is relatively holier than the other letters in G'd's name, the unit of ten strips of cloth made of linen formed the inner cover of the Tabernacle, being closest to (directly exposed to) the Holy Ark. The reason the strips had to be joined in units of five is an allusion to the thought that the first letter ה in G'd's name is always associated with the letter י. This is part of the mystique of the reading of the letter י. When you read (look at the spelling of) that letter as if it were a word, i.e. י־ו־ד, you are combining the י with the letters ו and ד, which between them make up the shape of the letter ה, although you actually read only a single letter. This is part of the mystical dimension חכמה and some of these mystical apects are alluded to in the details of the coverings of the Tabernacle. The first two letters of the word חכמה add up to 28, corresponding to the length of these various strips of cloth the Torah commands as coverings for the Tabernacle. The third letter of the word חכמה, i.e. the letter מ whose numerical value is 40, is represented by the width of 40 cubits which the two units of linen strips amount to when joined together width-wise. The fourth letter in the word חכמה, i.e. the letter ה, equals 5, which is represented by the fact that 5 such strips of cloth had to be sewn together into a unit. It also alludes to the five different kinds of kind deeds that derive from the emanation חכמה. Subsequently, G'd commanded the making of eleven strips of cloth out of goats' hair, their number (11) to complete the name of G'd, i.e. ו־ה. They were to be divided into units of five and six respectively to form an allusion to these two letters in the latter half of G'd's Ineffable Name. The combined width of these eleven strips of cloth of goats' hair, i.e. 44 cubits, are an allusion to the mystical dimension of the spelling of the Ineffable Name as words, i.e. יוד־הא־ואו־הא. When you spell the name in this fashion you obtain a total of 45. (We have already explained on Genesis 48,5 that a discrepancy of a single digit when working with numerical values is compensated for by either adding or subtracting the entire word as required in order to make up this digit, i.e. 44 plus or minus the word serving as basis of the gematria.

ספר החינוך פ״ד

(א) מצות שמטת קרקעות - להפקיר כל מה שתוציא הארץ בשנה השביעית שהיא נקראת מפני המעשה הזה שנתחיבנו בה שנת השמטה, ויזכה בפרותיה כל הרוצה לזכות, שנאמר (שמות כג יא) והשביעת תשמטנה ונטשתה ואכלו אביוני עמך ויתרם תאכל חית השדה כן תעשה לכרמך לזיתך. ולשון מכילתא והלא הכרם והזית בכלל היה, כלומר שראש הפסוק שאמר תשמטנה ונטשתה יכלל כל מה שיצמח בארץ, בין פרות אילן או פרות אדמה, ולמה פרט הכתוב שני אלה? להקיש לכרם שאר מיני אילן, ללמד שכמו שיש בכרם עשה ולא תעשה, שהרי בפרוש נכתב עליו (ויקרא כה ה) ואת ענבי נזירך לא תבצר, כמו כן כל שאר האילן יש בהן עשה ולא תעשה. ולפיכך פרט כרם וזית, ללמד על ענין זה, כי כונת הכתוב דלאו דוקא כרם וזית לבד, אלא הוא הדין לכל שאר פרות האילן, אלא שהזכיר אחד מהם והוא מלמד לכלן שזה מן המדות שהתורה נדרשת בהם. ומצוה זו שהיא להפקיר כל פרותיה והמצוה האחרת שצונו האל לשבת בה, כמו שכתוב בכי תשא (שמות לד כא) בחריש ובקציר תשבת, קשר אחד להן.

(ב) משרשי המצוה, לקבע בלבנו ולציר ציור חזק במחשבתנו ענין חדוש העולם כי (שמות כ יא) ששת ימים עשה יי את השמים ואת הארץ וביום השביעי שלא ברא דבר, הכתיב מנוחה על עצמו. ולמען הסיר ולעקר ולשרש מרעיוננו דבר הקדמות אשר יאמינו הכופרים בתורה ובו יהרסו כל פנותיה ויפרצו חומותיה, באה חובה עלינו להוציא כל זמננו יום יום ושנה שנה על דבר זה למנות שש שנים ולשבת בשביעית, ובכן לא תפרד לעולם הענין מבין עינינו תמיד, והוא כענין שאנו מונין ימי השבוע בששת ימי עבודה והשביעי יום מנוחה. ולכן צוה ברוך הוא להפקיר כל מה שתוציא הארץ בשנה זו מלבד השביתה בה כדי שיזכר האדם כי הארץ שמוציאה אליו הפרות בכל שנה ושנה לא בכחה וסגלתה תוציא אותם, כי יש אדון עליה ועל אדוניה, וכשהוא חפץ מצוה עליו להפקירם. ועוד יש תועלת, נמצא בדבר לקנות בזה מדת הותרנות, כי אין נדיב כנותן מבלי תקוה אל הגמול. ועוד יש תועלת אחר [ת], נמצא בזה שיוסיף האדם בטחון בשם יתברך, כי כל המוצא עם לבבו לתת ולהפקיר לעולם כל גדולי קרקעותיו ונחלת אבותיו הגדלים בכל שנה אחת ומלמד בכך הוא וכל המשפחה כל ימיו, לא תחזק בו לעולם מדת הכילות הרבה ולא מעוט הבטחון.

(ג) מדיני המצוה מה הן הדברים מעבודות הארץ שהן לנו בחיוב שביתה זו מן התורה, כגון זריעה, זמירה, קצירה, בצירה, ואשר הן אסורות מדרבנן, כגון מזבל וחופר, ועבודות שבאילן כגון חותך ממנו יבלת, פורק ממנו עלין או בדין יבשים, מאבק באבק, או מעשן תחתיו להמית התולעת, סך הנטיעות, קוטם, או מפסג האילנות, ומה שהתירו לעשות כגון סוקרין בסקרא, ועודר תחת הגפנים, ודין עבודת בית השלחין, ושלא יעשה אשפה בתוך שדהו עד שיעבר זמן הזבול ואחר כך שתהא גדולה ולא יהא נראה כמזבל, ושעוריה ממאה וחמשים סאה זבל ולמעלה. ומה שאמרו (מוע''ק ג ב) שהחיוב להמנע מעבודת הארץ שלשים יום קדם שנה שביעית והיא הלכה למשה מסיני. ודין שדה אילן כמה זמן אסור בעבודה משנה ששית, ומהו נקרא שדה אילן, ואסור הברכה והרכבה, מה יהא בנטיעותיו, ופרות שביעית מה דינן, דכל שהוא מיחד למאכל אדם, כגון חטים ושעורים ופרות, אין עושין ממנו מלוגמא או דטיה, שנאמר בהן לאכלה. ושאינו מיחד למאכל אדם, כגון קוצים ודרדרים, עושין ממנו מלוגמא לאדם ולא לבהמה. ושאינו מיחד לאדם ולבהמה, כגון פואה ואזוב וקורנית, הרי הוא תלוי במחשבת האדם, חשבן לאכילה דינן כמאכל, חשבן לעצים דינן כעצים. ויתר רבי פרטיה כלן מבארין במסכת הבנויה על זה והיא מסכת שביעית [פרק ד מהלכות שמיטה]

(ד) ונוהגת בזכרים ונקבות בארץ ישראל בלבד, ובזמן שישראל שם, שנאמר עליה (ויקרא כה ב) כי תבאו אל הארץ. ומדרבנן נוהגת אפילו בזמן הזה בארץ דוקא. וכל מקום (שביעית ו א) שהחזיקו בו עולי בבל עד כזיב ולא כזיב בכלל אסור בעבודה, וכל הספיחים הצומחין שם אסורים באכילה, כי הם קדשו המקומות שהחזיקו בהם כבר לעולם. והמקומות שהחזיקו מהם כבר עולי מצרים ולא עולי בבל, שהן מכזיב ועד הנהר ועד אמנה, אף על פי שהן אסורין היום מדרבנן בעבודה בשביעית שהחמירו בהן, הספיחין שצומחין שם מתרין באכילה, אחר שלא נתקדש בעולי בבל. ומן הנהר ואמנה והלאה מתר בעבודה. סוריא, והוא מן המקומות שכבש דוד קדם שנכבשה ארץ ישראל כלה, וזהו הנקרא לרבותינו זכרונם לברכה (רמב''ם תרומות א, ג ט) כבוש יחיד, והארץ הזאת היא כנגד ארם נהרים וארם צובה כל יד פרת עד בבל, כגון דמשק ואחלב וחרן ומקומות אחרים סמוכין לאלו, אף על פי שאין שביעית נוהגת בהן מן התורה, גזרו בהן שיהיו אותן המקומות אסורין בעבודה כארץ ישראל. אבל (ידים ד ג) עמון ומואב ומצרים ושנער אף על פי שהן חיבין במעשר אין שביעית נוהגת בהן, וכל שכן שאין נוהגת בשאר חוצה לארץ. והעובר עליה ונעל כרמו או שדהו בשביעית או אסף כל פרותיו לביתו בזמן שישראל על אדמתן, בטל עשה. ומכל מקום מתר לאסף מהן מעט מעט לבית לאכל, ובלבד שתהא יד הכל שוה בהן כאלו אין לקרקע בעלים ידועים.

Sefer HaChinukh 84

(1) The commandment of the releasing (shmitat) of lands: To make ownerless everything that the earth put out in the seventh year, which is called the shmitta (release) year, because of this process in which we are obligated; and that all who want to [take] its fruits may do so - as it is stated (Exodus 23:11), "But the seventh you shall release it and abandon it, and the needy among your people will eat of it, and what they leave the beasts will eat; you shall do the same with your vineyards and your olive groves." And the language of Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 23:11: "And were the vineyared and the olive groves not included?" [This] means to say that the beginning of the verse that stated, "release it and abandon it" includes everything that grows in the earth, whether they are fruits of the tree or fruits of the ground. And [so] why did Scripture specify these two? "To compare the other types of trees to the vineyard, to teach that like there is a positive commandment and a negative commandment with the vineyard - as behold, it is written explicitly about it (Leviticus 25:5), "and the grapes that you set aside, do not reap" - so too, is there a positive commandment and a negative commandment in all of the other trees." And hence, it specified vineyard and olive grove, to teach about this matter. As the intention of the verse was not specifically about the vineyard and olive grove alone, but rather it is the same with all the other fruits of the tree. Rather, it mentioned one of them and it teaches about all of them, as this is one of the devices through which the Torah is expounded. And this commandment to make all of the fruits ownerless and the other commandment that God commanded us to rest in it - as it is stated (Exodus 34:21), "and rest from plowing and reaping" - are [both] connected.

(2) It is from the roots of this commandment to affix in our hearts and make a strong impression in our minds [about] the matter of the world having been created. As (Exodus 20, 11) "in six days did God make the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day" - in which He did not create anything - He imposed rest on Himself. And in order to remove and uproot and eradicate from our thoughts the idea of the eternity [of the world] - which the deniers of the Torah believe in, through which they destroy all its principles and break through its walls - did the requirement come upon us to expend all our time, day by day and year by year, for this matter, by counting six years and resting on the seventh so that this matter will never depart from between our eyes for all time. And this is similar to the manner in which we count the days of the week [by dividing them] into six days of work and the seventh is a day of rest. Therefore, He, blessed be He, did command to render ownerless all that the land produces in this year - in addition to resting during it (i.e. during the year) - so that a person will remember that the land which produces fruits for him every year does not produce them by its [own] might and virtue. For there is a Master over it and over its master - and when He wishes, He commands him (i.e. the master of the land) to render them (i.e. the fruit) ownerless. And there is another benefit in this matter - to acquire the trait of letting go (i.e. of one's possessions), for there is no one more generous than he who gives without hope for recompense. And there is another benefit - the outcome of this is that a person will add to his trust in God, may He be blessed, since anyone who finds it in his heart to give and abandon to the world all of the produce of his lands and his ancestral inheritance for an entire year - and educates himself and his family through this for all of his days - will never have the trait of stinginess overcome him too much, nor will he have a deficient amount of trust.

(3) From the laws of the commandment is what are the [types] of work on the land about which there is an obligation of rest by Torah writ - such as planting, pruning, reaping and harvesting; and that are forbidden by rabbinic writ - such as fertilizing, digging and work on trees such as cutting off excrescences, removing dry leave or stalks from it, placing dust [on exposed roots], raising smoke below it to kill insects, oiling saplings, pruning and removing trees; and that which they permitted to do, such as reddening with dye, hoeing under grape vines. And the law of an irrigated field. And that they should not make a dungpile in his field until the time of fertilizing is over; and that afterwards it be big and not appear like fertilizing - and its size is from one hundred and fifty seah and above. That which they said (Moed Katan 3b) that the obligation to refrain from working the land is from thirty days before the seventh year and that this is a law given to Moshe at Sinai (halacha le'Moshe miSinai). And the law of how much time from the sixth year is forbidden to work in a field of trees, and what is called a field of trees. And the prohibition of implanting shoots in the ground and grafting; what is [to be done with] his saplings; what is the law of the fruits of the seventh [year] - as we do not make a medicinal chew or a bandage from anything that is uniquely for human food, such as wheat and barley and fruits, as with them it states, "to eat it." But we do make a medicinal chew or a bandage for humans - though not for animals - from anything that is uniquely for animal food, such as thorns and thistles. And behold, that which is not uniquely for humans or animals - such as rubia, hyssop and thyme - depends on the designation of the person: [If] he designated them for food, their law is like food; but [if] he designated them for wood, their law is like wood. And the rest of its many details are elucidated in the tractate that is built upon this, and that is Tractate Sheviit (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 4).

(4) And [it] is practiced by males and females in the Land of Israel only, at the time that [the people of] Israel is there - as it is stated about it (Leviticus 25:2), "When you come to the land." And it is practiced rabbinically even at this time, only in the Land. And any place (Mishnah Sheviit 5:1) that those [Jews] that came up form Babylonia controlled until Keziv - but not including Keziv - is included in the prohibition of work, and all of the aftergrowth that grows there is forbidden to eat. As [these Jews] sanctified the places that they controlled forever. But in the places that those [Jews] that came up from Egypt controlled, but not those that came up from Babylonia - which is from Keziv to the river and to Amanah - even though, since they were stringent about [it], they are rabbinically forbidden today regarding work on the seventh [year], [nonetheless] the aftergrowth that grows there is permissible to eat; as it was not sanctified by those that that came up from Babylonia. And it is permissible even [for work] from the river and from Amanah and further. [With regards to] Syria, even though the seventh [year] is not practiced in it from Torah writ, they decreed that those places should be forbidden in work like the Land of Israel. And Syria is from the places that David conquered before all of the Land of Israel was conquered - and that is what our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, called the conquest of an individual (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Heave Offerings 1:3, 9). And that land corresponds to Aram Nehorayim and Aram Tsovah, all along the Euprates to Babylonia, [including] such [places] as Damascus and Allepo and Charan and other places close to these. But the seventh [year] is not practiced in Ammon, Moav, Egypt and Shinnar, even though they are obligated in tithing (Mishnah Yadayim 4:3). And all the more so is it not practiced in the other places outside of the Land. And one who transgresses it and seals his vineyard or his field on the seventh [year] - or gathered all of his fruits into his house at the time that Israel is on their land - has violated a positive commandment. And nonetheless it is permissible to gather from them to his house a little bit at a time to eat - so long as the hand of everyone is equal in them, as if there were no known owners to the land.

עירובין ד׳ א

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן: אַמַּת כִּלְאַיִם לֹא יְצַמְצֵם. וְלֵימָא: ״אַמַּת כִּלְאַיִם לֹא יְצַמְצֵם״, בְּאַמָּה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי אַמַּת סוּכָּה וְאַמַּת מָבוֹי? לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי אַמָּה יְסוֹד וְאַמָּה סוֹבֵב, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֵלֶּה מִדּוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בָּאַמּוֹת אַמָּה אַמָּה וָטֹפַח וְחֵיק הָאַמָּה וְאַמָּה רֹחַב וּגְבוּלָהּ אֶל שְׂפָתָהּ סָבִיב זֶרֶת הָאֶחָד וְזֶה גַּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. ״חֵיק הָאַמָּה״ — זֶה יְסוֹד, ״וְאַמָּה רֹחַב״ — זֶה סוֹבֵב, ״וּגְבוּלָהּ אֶל שְׂפָתָהּ סָבִיב״ — אֵלּוּ הַקְּרָנוֹת, ״וְזֶה גַּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ — זֶה מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: שִׁיעוּרִין חֲצִיצִין וּמְחִיצִין, הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. שִׁיעוּרִין?! דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא! דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶרֶץ חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְגוֹ׳״, וְאָמַר רַב חָנָן: כׇּל הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה לְשִׁיעוּרִין נֶאֱמַר — ״חִטָּה״, לִכְדִתְנַן: הַנִּכְנָס לַבַּיִת הַמְנוּגָּע וְכֵלָיו עַל כְּתֵיפָיו, וְסַנְדָּלָיו וְטַבְּעוֹתָיו בְּיָדָיו — הוּא וְהֵם טְמֵאִין מִיָּד. הָיָה לָבוּשׁ כֵּלָיו, וְסַנְדָּלָיו בְּרַגְלָיו, וְטַבְּעוֹתָיו בְּאֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו הוּא טָמֵא מִיָּד, וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס — פַּת חִיטִּין וְלֹא פַּת שְׂעוֹרִין, מֵיסֵב וְאוֹכֵל בְּלִיפְתָּן. ״שְׂעוֹרָה״, דִּתְנַן: עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל. ״גֶּפֶן״: כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית יַיִן לְנָזִיר.

Eruvin 4a

that they are not precisely a cubit. Granted, according to Rava, the baraita means: So that these, the cubits of diverse kinds of seeds, should be measured with expansive handbreadths, and those, the cubits of sukka, should be measured with depressed handbreadths. However, according to Abaye, it is difficult. The Gemara answers: Abaye could have said to you: Emend the baraita and say: The cubit of diverse kinds of seeds mentioned by the Sages is measured with a cubit of six handbreadths, not the other cubits. The Gemara raises a difficulty. However, from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All the cubits that the Sages mentioned with regard to diverse kinds of seeds are measured with cubits of six handbreadths, provided that they are not measured with exact handbreadths? This proves by inference that the anonymous first tanna is speaking of all cubits, and not only those in the case of diverse kinds of seeds. The Gemara answers that Abaye could have said to you: Isn’t there Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds in accordance with my opinion? I stated my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Gemara comments: According to Abaye, the issue of large and small cubits is certainly subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as his ruling can only be in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. According to Rava, however, must it be said that this is subject to a dispute between tanna’im? The Gemara answers: This is not necessarily the case, as Rava could have said to you: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not dispute the basic teaching of the anonymous first tanna that all the cubits mentioned by the Sages are cubits of six handbreadths. Rather, he came to teach us this: One should not reduce the cubit of diverse kinds of seeds, i.e., one should not measure it with depressed handbreadths. The Gemara raises an objection. And if that is the case, let him say: One must not reduce the cubit of diverse kinds of seeds. What does the phrase: A cubit consisting of six handbreadths come to exclude? Does it not come to exclude the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of an alleyway, which are measured with cubits of five handbreadths? The Gemara rejects this argument. No, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s formulation comes to exclude the cubit of the base of the altar, which is the bottom level of the altar, one cubit high with a ledge one cubit wide, and the cubit of the surrounding ledge of the altar, which is five cubits above the base, six cubits above the ground, and one cubit wide. Everyone agrees that those cubits are small cubits of five handbreadths. As it is written: “And these are the measures of the altar by cubits; the cubit is a cubit and a handbreadth, the bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit, and its border by its edge round about shall be a span: And this shall be the higher part of the altar” (Ezekiel 43:13). And the Sages explained this verse as follows: “The bottom shall be a cubit,” this is the base of the altar; “and the breadth a cubit,” this is the surrounding ledge of the altar; “and its border by its edge round about,” these are the horns of the altar, i.e., extensions of the corners of the altar; “and this shall be the higher part of the altar,” this refers to the golden altar that stood inside the Sanctuary and was also measured by small cubits. Since the Gemara discussed measurements, it proceeds to cite that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The measures relating to mitzvot in the Torah, and the halakhot governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersions, and the halakhot of partitions are all halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. These halakhot have no basis in the Written Torah, but according to tradition they were orally transmitted by God to Moses together with the Written Torah. The Gemara questions this assertion: Are measures a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? They are written in the Torah, as it is written: “A land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8), and Rav Ḥanan said: This entire verse was stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah. Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure when entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as that which we learned in a mishna: One who enters a house afflicted with leprosy of the house (see Leviticus 14), and his clothes are draped over his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure. However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is based on wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not on barley bread, and it relates to one who is reclining and eating it together with relish, which hastens the eating. This is a Torah measurement connected specifically to wheat. Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not render all the articles in the house ritually impure. The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarter-log of wine for a nazirite. A nazirite, who is prohibited to drink wine, is liable to be flogged if he drinks that measure.

עירובין ד׳ ב

״תְּאֵנָה״: כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת. ״רִמּוֹן״, כְּדִתְנַן: כׇּל כְּלֵי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים שִׁיעוּרָן כְּרִימּוֹנִים. ״אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ״: אֶרֶץ שֶׁכׇּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים. כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! וְהָאִיכָּא הָנֵי דַּאֲמַרַן! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֶרֶץ שֶׁרוֹב שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים. ״דְּבַשׁ״, כְּכוֹתֶבֶת הַגַּסָּה לְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וְתִיסְבְּרָא שִׁיעוּרִין מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבִי? אֶלָּא הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ, וְאַסְמְכִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן אַקְּרָאֵי.

Eruvin 4b

Fig alludes to the measure of a dried fig-bulk with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat. One is liable for carrying food fit for human consumption on Shabbat, provided that he carries a dried fig-bulk of that food. Pomegranate teaches the measure, as that which we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through being broken, as broken vessels cannot contract or maintain ritual impurity, and they are considered broken if they have holes the size of pomegranates. The Sages interpreted: A land of olive oil and honey, as: A land, all of whose measures are olive-bulks. The Gemara poses a question: Does it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are olives-bulks? Yet aren’t there those measures that we just mentioned above, which are not olive-bulks? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are olive-bulks, as most measures, e.g., those relating to forbidden foods and to impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent and by contact with an animal carcass, are olive-bulks. Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also determines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, one is liable only if he eats a large date-bulk of food. Clearly, the measurements pertaining to mitzvot are explicitly written in the Torah and were not transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara refutes this argument: And can you hold that all these measures are explicitly written in the Torah with regard to each of the halakhot mentioned above? Rather, they are halakhot that were transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages based them on verses in the Torah. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said above that Rav said that the laws governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersion are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion: These, too, are written in the Torah, as it is written: “And he shall bathe all his flesh in the water” (Leviticus 15:16), and the Sages derived that nothing should intervene between his flesh and the water. The definite article in the phrase “in the water” indicates that this bathing is performed in water mentioned elsewhere, i.e., specifically in the water of a ritual bath, and not in just any water. And the phrase “all his flesh” indicates that it must be in water into which all of his body can enter, i.e., in which a person can immerse his entire body at once. And how much water is that? It is a cubit by a cubit by the height of three cubits. And the Sages calculated the volume of a ritual bath of this size and determined that the waters of a ritual bath measure forty se’a. As this is derived from the Written Torah, what need is there for a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is needed with regard to his hair, that it too must be accessible to the water without interposition. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A single hair tied in a knot constitutes an interposition and invalidates the immersion. Three hairs tied together in a knot do not constitute an interposition, because three hairs cannot be tied so tightly that water cannot penetrate them. With regard to two hairs tied together in a knot, I do not know the halakha. This halakha with regard to hair is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to his hair is also written in the Torah, as it was taught in a baraita: And he shall bathe all [et kol] his flesh. The superfluous word et comes to amplify and include that which is subordinate to his flesh, and that is hair. The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach the details of interpositions on the body with regard to its majority and its minority, and with regard to one who is particular and one who is not particular, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: By Torah law, if there is an interposition between a person and the water, and it covers the majority of his body, and he is particular and wants the interposing substance removed, only then is it considered an interposition that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. However, if he is not particular about that substance, it is not considered an interposition. The Sages, however, issued a decree prohibiting substances covering the majority of one’s body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one’s body with regard to which he is particular. And, they issued a decree prohibiting substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which one is particular. The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one’s body with regard to which he is not particular an interposition due to substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, or alternatively, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which he is not particular. The Gemara answers: We do not issue that decree, because the halakha that deems both an interposition covering the minority of his body about which one is particular and an interposition covering the majority of his body about which one is not particular an interposition is itself a decree. Shall we then rise up and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? In any case, these details with regard to interpositions are neither written nor alluded to in the Torah; rather, they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said that the halakhot of partitions were transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion as well: They are written in the Torah, as the fundamental principle that a partition ten handbreadths high establishes a separate domain is derived from the Torah. As the Master said: The Holy Ark in the Tabernacle was nine handbreadths high, as the verse states that its height was a cubit and a half. A cubit contains six handbreadths, so its height totaled nine handbreadths. And the cover atop the Ark was one handbreadth, which total ten. There is a tradition that the Divine Presence does not descend into the domain of this world, which is derived from the verse that states that the Divine Presence would reveal itself from above the cover of the Ark. Apparently, a partition of ten handbreadths creates a separate domain. The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The cubit mentioned with regard to the building of the Tabernacle and the Temple was a large cubit of six handbreadths, whereas the cubit mentioned with regard to the sacred vessels was a cubit of five handbreadths. According to this opinion, the Ark, which was a cubit and a half, and its cover, which was a handbreadth, measured eight and a half handbreadths. Therefore, nothing can be derived with regard to a partition of ten handbreadths. The Gemara poses a question. And according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: All the cubits were medium ones, regular cubits of six handbreadths; what can be said? Apparently, according to his opinion, the laws governing partitions are explicitly stated in the Torah. The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the halakha with regard to a partition of ten handbreadths is indeed written in the Torah. However, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach other halakhot concerning partitions, e.g., the halakhot of extending [gode], according to which an existing partition is extended upward or downward to complete the requisite measure; and the halakhot of joining [lavud], according to which two solid surfaces are joined if they are separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths; and the halakhot of the curved wall of a sukka. A sukka is valid even if there are up to four cubits of invalid roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the invalid roofing is considered a bent extension of the wall. These concepts are certainly not written in the Torah. The Gemara returns to the laws of alleyways: If the cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway was higher than twenty cubits from the ground and one comes to diminish its height, how much must he diminish it? The Gemara is surprised by the question: How much must he diminish it? The amount that he needs in order to render its height less than twenty cubits. Rather, the space between the cross beam and the ground must, of course, be reduced to twenty cubits. However, when one raises the alleyway, how much must the width of the raised section be in order to render the alleyway fit for carrying within it? Rav Yosef said: One handbreadth. Abaye said: Four handbreadths. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora’im disagree about this: The one who said one handbreadth holds that one is permitted to utilize the area beneath the cross beam spanning the entrance to the alleyway, as he maintains that the cross beam serves as a partition, and the alleyway is considered as if it were sealed by a partition descending from the outer edge of the cross beam that faces the public domain. Since the area beneath the cross beam is part of the alleyway and is less than twenty cubits, there is a conspicuous demarcation for one standing in the alleyway.

דף יומיומי הרב ירון בן צבי - סיום למסכת שבת
בית המדרש הוירטואלי ע"ש ישראל קושיצקי - ישיבת הר ציון
דברי המשנה (כד, ה), 'מדבריהן למדנו שפוקקין ומודדין וקושרין בשבת', המובאים בסוף המסכת הם אותם הדברים שנאמרו לעיל במשנה* (יז, ז) 'פקק החלון רבי אליעזר אומר בזמן שהוא קשור ותלוי פוקקין בו ואם לאו אין פוקקין בו וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו'.
יתכן לומר שמשום שלעיל מובאים הדברים כמחלוקת, נאמרו כאן הדברים כסתם (שהלכה כסתם) ועוד הביאו 'מעשה רב' ללמדנו שזו הלכה למעשה:
"עולא איקלע לבי ריש גלותא. חזייה לרבה בר רב הונא דיתיב באוונא דמיא, וקא משח ליה. אמר ליה: אימר דאמרי רבנן מדידה דמצוה, דלאו מצוה מי אמור? - אמר ליה: מתעסק בעלמא אנא".
ברם, יכלו חכמים לכתוב דברים אלו כבר לעיל, ומדוע בחרו לסיים המסכת בכך?
אם נתבונן בדברי הגמרא נמצא שמוזכרות שלש הלכות: א. מחלוקת רבי אליעזר חכמים אודות פקיקת החלון בשבת - האם פעולה זו אסורה משום שדומה לתוספת בניין או מותרת. ב. מדידה היא מעשה של חול, 'עובדין דחול', והתירוהו בשבת רק לצורך מצווה. ג. 'מתעסק בעלמא', כשאין בו כל כוונה, מותר לשיטת כולם.
הראשונות הן הלכות שאפשר לתאר אותן כגבולות שהציבו חכמים בכדי לשמור על קדושת השבת – שלא תעשה בשבת כל מלאכה; בעוד מתעסק בעלמא גם הוא אחד הקצוות של דין מתעסק. על פניו אין קשר ברור בין הראשונות לאחרונה, אולם יתכן לומר שבדיוק בזה בא לידי ביטוי השוני בין דין שוגג למתעסק (אנוס) – המושג 'שוגג', אין משמעותו שהאדם לא אשם לחלוטין, אלא שהוא אשם בצורה חלקית כיוון שלא נזהר או בשל כל סיבה אחרת. בשונה מאנוס שפטור לגמרי ואינו צריך להביא קרבן כלל. וכן כתב הרמב"ם (הלכות שגגות ה, ו):
"הבא על אשתו שלא בשעת וסתה וראתה דם בשעת התשמיש, הרי אלו פטורין מקרבן חטאת מפני שזה כאנוס הוא ולא שוגג, שהשוגג היה לו לבדוק ולדקדק ואילו בדק יפה יפה ודקדק בשאלות לא היה בא לידי שגגה ולפי שלא טרח בדרישה ובחקירה ואחר כך יעשה צריך כפרה, אבל זה מה לו לעשות הרי טהורה היתה ושלא בשעת וסתה בעל אין זה אלא אונס".
בדרך כלל, שוגג חייב בקרבן בעוד האנוס פטור מקרבן. בשבת הדין הוא שאנוס פטור לחלוטין ואף מותר משום שרק מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה בשבת.** ההימנעות ממלאכה בשבת היא לשם רוממות הרוח והתקרבות לקב"ה; התורה אסרה לבצע כל פעולת יצירה חדשה, מכיוון שיצירת העולם הפסיקה במעבר מיום שישי ליום השבת. ציווי זה, בדומה לטעם השמיטה לשיטת בעל ספר החינוך***, ניתן כדי להזכיר לנו מיהו הבורא ומיהו הנברא, וכדי להזכיר שכשם שהבורא עצר ממלאכתו ביום השביעי, כך גם אנחנו מפסיקים ליצור ביום השביעי וזוכרים את המעמד של האדם ביקום. אדם שאינו טרוד במלאכות פנוי להתבוננות זו ובכך יכול לקיים את מצוות השבת. לכן מובן מדוע אדם 'מתעסק' דומה למי ששובת, שכן אין הוא עסוק במלאכת מחשבת ואינו טרוד בשל מעשהו וממילא מקיים את מצוות השבת
______________________
* בגמרא דף קכו עמוד ב.
** רש"י מסכת חגיגה (דף י עמוד ב) ד"ה מלאכת מחשבת - שהמחשבה חשבה בדעתו ונתכוון לה, וזה לא נתכוון לה לבנין זה - לפיכך פטור, וזהו רמז מועט, דאילו מלאכת מחשבת בשבת לא כתיבא, אלא במשכן הוא דכתיב, ולפי שסמך בפרשת ויקהל פרשת שבת לפרשת משכן - אנו למדין מלאכת מחשבת לשבת.
*** לשיטתו, המטרה היא להזכיר לאדם של מי כל אלה, וכותב ששנת השמיטה באה "כדי שיזכור האדם כי הארץ שמוציאה אליו פירות בכל שנה ושנה לא בכוחה ובסגולתה תוציא אותם, כי יש אדון עליה ועל אדוניה" (מצווה פד). דהיינו, הארץ שייכת לה', ושנת השמיטה באה להזכיר לאדם את מקומו ומטרתו בעולם.
עברית