nikhreta<\/em>) from among his people\u201d (Shemot 31:14). If he desecrates Shabbat unintentionally, he is liable to bring a sin offering (MT 1:1; above 1:14).<\/p>\nAlthough it is a mitzva to desist from all melakha<\/em>, the Torah mentions four melakhot<\/em> explicitly: \u0124oresh<\/em>, Kotzer<\/em>, Mav\u2019ir<\/em>, and Hotza\u2019ah<\/em>. \u0124oresh<\/em> and Kotzer<\/em> are mentioned in Shemot 34:21: \u201cFor six days, work, but on the seventh day, cease. At the plowing (\u0125arish<\/em>) and reaping (katzir<\/em>), cease.\u201d This teaches that even activities upon which human life depends, through which man produces food, are forbidden on Shabbat (Ibn Ezra and Ramban ad loc.<\/em>). Kindling a fire is also mentioned explicitly: \u201cYou shall kindle no fire (teva\u2019aru<\/em>) throughout your settlements on Shabbat\u201d (Shemot 35:3). The Sages state that this melakha<\/em> is singled out to teach us that one is subject to punishment for each individual melakha<\/em> he performs on Shabbat. Thus, if one performs two melakhot<\/em> unintentionally, he is obligated to bring two sin offerings (Shabbat<\/em> 70a, following R. Natan; see also below 16:1). The melakha <\/em>of Hotza\u2019ah <\/em>is mentioned explicitly as well: \u201cLet everyone remain where he is; let no man leave (yetzei<\/em>) his place on the seventh day\u201d (Shemot 16:29). Hotza\u2019ah<\/em> is singled out to make it clear that even though it seems to be an insignificant activity \u2013 one merely moves an object but does not change it in any way \u2013 it is nevertheless considered a melakha<\/em> (see below 21:1).<\/p>\nWhen the Torah prohibits doing melakha<\/em>, it means creative work, like the melakhot<\/em> performed when erecting the Mishkan<\/em> (Tabernacle). Activities that do not create anything new, even if they are physically strenuous, are not prohibited. For example, carrying a needle from a reshut ha-ya\u0125id<\/em> (private domain) to a reshut ha-rabim<\/em> (public domain) is considered a melakha<\/em>, while moving chairs and tables within the same domain is not (below 21:1); reheating cooked food on Shabbat is not a melakha<\/em>, whereas cooking raw food on Shabbat is (below 10:2); attaching a window to its hinges is considered a melakha<\/em> even if it is easy to do, whereas opening and shutting a window is not a melakha<\/em> (below 15:3); reattaching a broken table leg is considered a melakha<\/em>, but lengthening a table by adding a leaf designated for such use is not (below 15:7).<\/p>\nWe derive a fundamental principle from the Mishkan<\/em>. Just as the Mishkan<\/em> was built with intent and planning \u2013 \u201cto work with every skilled craft (melekhet ma\u0125shevet<\/em>)\u201d (Shemot 35:33), so too on Shabbat, the Torah prohibits only melekhet ma\u0125shevet<\/em>. One who performs a melakha<\/em> with a shinui<\/em> (in an irregular manner), unintentionally, lo le-tzorekh gufah<\/em> (for a different purpose; see below), non-constructively, or without meaning for it to last \u2013 has not transgressed a Torah prohibition. In all of these cases, he has not performed melekhet ma\u0125shevet<\/em>. Nevertheless, most of the above cases are rabbinically prohibited (see sections 3-8 below). The Sages state in the Mishna: \u201cThe laws of Shabbat are like mountains hanging by a hair, with few scriptural sources and numerous laws\u201d (m.<\/em> \u0124agiga<\/em> 1:8). Indeed, countless laws of Shabbat are based on the melakhot<\/em> of the Mishkan<\/em>.<\/p>\nThere are numerous further discussions about the shi\u2019urim<\/em> (measures) that constitute a transgression of a melakha<\/em>. For example, when it comes to melakhot<\/em> that relate to food preparation, if one makes a quantity of food the size of a dried fig, he is liable (if the transgression was unintentional, he is liable to bring a sin offering; if intentional, the punishment is death). If the quantity was less than that, even though he has transgressed a Torah prohibition, he is exempt from punishment. In contrast, when it comes to \u0124oresh<\/em>, Zore\u2019a<\/em>, Kotzer<\/em>, and Boneh<\/em>, even the smallest act renders one liable. In order to keep our subject matter manageable, we will limit our discussion of what one may and may not do to matters of practical relevance.<\/p>\n\n
\n
[1]<\/a>. Editor\u2019s note: Though earlier in this volume we translated \u201cmelakha<\/em>\u201d as \u201cwork\u201d for simplicity\u2019s sake, now that the technical parameters of melakha<\/em> will be addressed, we have retained the Hebrew term that connotes the halakhic concept.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Cessation from all melakha[1] on Shabbat is a positive commandment, as the Torah states: \u201cSix days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease\u201d (Shemot 23:12). One who performs melakha on Shabbat not only neglects this positive commandment, but also violates a negative one, as it states: \u201cBut the seventh […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-01-09"],"yoast_head":"\n
01. The Torah\u2019s Commandment - Peninei Halakha<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n