Daf Ditty Shabbes 102: ‫בפטיש מכה‬

1
The Rishzyner Rebbe was once asked why he conducts his court with such pompous and splendor
considering that his forebears who were great men lived frugally and in poverty.

The Rebbe answered, there are people who give a Pidyon Nefesh for the sake of heaven and with
great holiness and their intention is that it should truly serve as redemption for their soul.

When I receive such a gift I use it only for actual good deeds- Torah study and charity.

There are also people who giving is tinged with other intentions as well and in that case the
money goes towards food drink and clothing.

However, there are donations that people give as a bribe- if not to bribe me then to bribe God
and such money can only be used to buy horses.

My grandfather's Chassidim were for the most part holy people and most of the money they gave
was for the sake of heaven. Hence, it went to charity.

My followers are mostly of the sort whose money can only be used to buy horses1.

1
A similar story (although in the reverse) was told about the Netziv who was collecting in Warsaw and was criticized by a
wealthy donor as to why his money was equal to the poor people’s donations. The Netziv calmed him by suggesting his money
went for the maintenance of the holy ark in the Volozhyn yeshiva where their money went to upkeep the wheels of his wagon.

2
The opening Mishnah of the 12th perek of Maseches Shabbes, lists specific activities that all fall
under the category of “building” on Shabbat.

The Gemoro searches for the corresponding activity that took place in the Tabernacle that serves
as the source for the prohibition.

Interestingly, the Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi) takes a different approach to this issue.
There, the Gemoro attempts to find the source for the primary category of building in the
Tabernacle, rather than define the measure that determines liability for building.

This is based on the fact that all of the measures are learned through mesorah/tradition. According
to what is stated in the Yerushalmi, the building activity in the Tabernacle was the establishment
of the beams.

The problem is that the construction was temporary, which means it is less than ideal as the source
for the primary category of labor.

It is possible that this is the reason that in the Babylonian Talmud the Tabernacle’s construction is
not cited as the source for the primary category of building.2

2
Steinsaltz, English version of the Koren Talmud Bavli with Commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, ed. Rabbi Shalom Berger

3
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.

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.

RASHI

4
 ‫ שכן מבשלי הסמנין )סממנים( המיועדים לצבוע בהם את היריעות שחסרה מלאכתן כמות קטנה של צבע‬,‫המשכן‬
‫ ולכן היו עושין פיטפוטי כירה קטנה כדי שיוכלו לשפות‬,‫ולא היה כדאי להם לבשל כמות גדולה צבע בדרך הרגילה‬
‫עליה יורה קטנה ולבשל בה כמות קטנה של צבע להשלמת הצביעה‬.

Our Mishnah now focuses on the sugya of ‫בפטיש מכה‬.

Rav and Shmuel disagree in three cases whether the act violates the prohibition against building
or delivering the ‫בפטיש מכה‬, the final hammer blow. The Gemara explains why all three cases are
necessary to understand their positions.
R’ Yochanan seems to follow the opinion of Shmuel that chiseling violates the prohibition
against delivering the ‫בפטיש מכה‬, the final hammer blow whereas R’ Noson bar Oshiya disagrees.

Tosafos:

Tosafos asks why the Mishnah presents the topic of construction at this point in the Maseches
immediately after ‫הוצאה‬/transferring and ‫זריקה‬/throwing.

Tosafos Yom Tov explains that the Gemara has now concluded its discussion of the final two
melachos which appeared in the list of 39 in the Mishnah (73a).

The Mishnah now wants to continue to backtrack and deal with the previous melacha in the list,
that of ‫ בפטיש מכה‬.Because this melacha of delivering the final blow and completing an object, is
associated with building, we now direct our discussion to the details of boneh ,which will lead to
the laws of ‫בפטיש מכה‬.

RASHI explains that ‫ בפטיש מכה‬refers to the final blow that a person gives to a rock which he
chisels it out of a mountain, in order to break it off of the mountain.

Rashi earlier (73a), however, explains that ‫ בפטיש מכה‬refers to when the artisan strikes the
hammer against the anvil after he flattens a metal strip, in order to smooth the surface of the
metal strip.
Why does Rashi give two different explanations for the act of ‫?בפטיש מכה‬

5
Rav Kornfeld3 suggests in the Mishnah earlier (73a), Rashi describes the Melachos as they were
performed in the Mishkan.

Therefore, Rashi explains there that " ‫ " בפטיש מכה‬means the strike of the artisan's hammer on the
anvil when his work is completed. There were no rocks that were chiseled for the construction of
the Mishkan.

Here, (in 102b) Rashi does not give the same explanation for “‫ ”בפטיש מכה‬because that
explanation is the same as the act that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel adds at the end of the
Mishnah.

The ‫ בפטיש מכה‬of the beginning of the Mishnah must be a different form of ‫( בפטיש מכה‬which the
Mishnah mentions in order to teach the present-day applications of the Melachah).

The definition of ‫בפטיש מכה‬.

The term ‫ בפטיש מכה‬literally means "hammer blow".

It is a description of one of the key manufacturing activities of the Mishkan, as explained earlier.
Specifically, the term ‫ בפטיש מכה‬refers to the final hammer blow that completed a vessel or
component and perfected its symmetry.

According to some commentaries, the term refers to the act of repairing the goldsmith's hammer,
done by striking it upon the anvil to flatten and smooth the surface of the hammerhead.

However, the general melacha of ‫ בפטיש מכה‬may be defined as any act of completion.

This act need not be accomplished by a hammer or any other tool. In fact, any manner of
creating, perfecting, or repairing an item can be considered an "act of completion", and be
classified under the melacha of ‫ בפטיש מכה‬Mide’oraita.

Even a simple, primitive act can be a full-fledged transgression of ‫בפטיש מכה‬. For example,
carving a (detached) tree branch to serve as an axe handle, or sharpening a strip of metal to
fashion a primitive cutting edge, if a functional (albeit improvisational) item of use is thus
created.

Thus, there are virtually countless possible applications of ‫בפטיש מכה‬.

3
Daf Advancement Forum, Shabbes 102b

6
General concepts of ‫בפטיש מכה‬:

Completing or perfecting an item the term completion here includes any act of creating or
perfecting an item by which that item can then be deemed fit and functional for an intended use.
The concept of "completion" can be divided into separate concepts:
• Creating
• Perfecting
• Strengthening a material

1) Creating an item of use the act of creating any object of use is a true act of completion and is
therefore ‫בפטיש מכה‬. This is referred to in the Talmud as Tikun Mana. Any act of creation is
‫בפטיש מכה‬, whether the new creation consists of a hard material, a soft and pliant substance, or
even a liquid form.
2) Perfecting an item ‫ בפטיש מכה‬can also occur when completing or perfecting an item that is
already basically functional, but merely lacks some aspect of completion (i.e. the "finishing
touch"). If, for example, a new silver cup is basically complete but requires one last hammer
blow to perfect its symmetry, that blow would be ‫בפטיש מכה‬. Similarly, opening the factory
stitching in pockets or vents of a new suit or dress may be ‫בפטיש מכה‬. (Tearing the stitching may
also involve the Melocho of Koraya.)

3) Strengthening a vessel. Strengthening the composition of a material is considered a significant

improvement, even if the item does not change its shape or appearance as a result. The Talmud
states that, according to one view, it is forbidden to pour cold water into a hot metal kettle or pot
(even if the water itself will not get hot and become cooked) because this tempers the metal and
is identical to the process of annealing. Annealing is the process of heating metal or glass and
then cooling it to prevent brittleness. Intentionally strengthening and improving metal in this
manner is ‫בפטיש מכה‬.

There is no poverty in a place of wealth

The Talmud tries to do two things at once: identify an example of a “very small” amount of
building, and connect that example to a parallel action in the Mishkan (tabernacle). After all, the
forbidden labors on Shabbat are modeled on the constructive acts of building in the Mishkan. But
finding an example of small building in the Mishkan proves challenging. Three rabbis offer
different answers:

First, Rabbi Yirmeya says that a poor person builds a tiny amount by digging a small hole to hide
their coins. Even though this is not traditional building, this digging counts as violating the law.
Where was this act of nearly inconsequential digging found in the Mishkan? It is similar to those
who sewed the curtains of the Mishkan: they hid their needles in small holes that they dug.

Abaye rejects this example, arguing that needles wouldn’t have been buried in the ground — they
would rust! Rather, he offers a second answer: A poor person who builds legs for a small stove to
place a small pot on it. This, we learn, is similar to those who cooked herbs to use for dye in the
Mishkan, and only needed a small stove to produce the coloring for the curtains.

7
Strikingly, both of these examples relate the poor person’s struggles to God’s holy dwelling place.
The image of a poor person squirreling away his precious coins, or cooking on a tiny stove, might
not automatically conjure up the royalty of the Mishkan with its colorful, majestic curtains. For
both Rabbi Yirmeya and Abaye, though, poverty and holiness are not in contradiction.

But Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov rejects this association, quoting a phrase used a number of times
elsewhere in the Talmud: There is no poverty in a place of wealth. ‫ֵאין ֲﬠ ִניּוּת ִבְּמקוֹם ֲﬠִשׁירוּת‬

Rashi explains this position: in the Mishkan, everything was made in abundance and there was
leftover material. No tiny, economical stoves.

Indeed, Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov’s position makes sense: why should the holiest building on earth
have similarities with a poor person’s dwelling?

In fact, we know from elsewhere that God prefers to enter through a small gate, even though human
kings enter from a large gate.

The proof is derived from:

,c‫; ַוֲﬠ ֹנְת‬c‫ ָמֵגן ִיְשֶׁﬠ‬,‫ִלי‬-‫ לו ַוִתֶּתּן‬36 Thou hast also given me Thy shield of salvation; and Thy
{‫ }ס‬.‫ַתּ ְרֵבּ ִני‬ condescension hath made me great.

"Your poverty/humility has made Me great." (II Sam 22:36) God identifies with the poor, and the
actions of the poor are not unfamiliar in the halls of God’s dwelling.

A tiny stove, a hiding place for coins — some rabbis saw these as deeply intertwined with God’s
palace.4

The loshon of the gemoro to explain the implausibility of using tiny crucibles to cook dyes is ‫ֵאין‬
‫ֲﬠ ִניּוּת ִבְּמקוֹם ֲﬠִשׁירוּת‬.

Talmud, Menachot 89a refers to the same concept of ‫ֵאין ֲﬠ ִניּוּת ִבְּמקוֹם ֲﬠִשׁירוּת‬. Three and a half log
of oil were required for the Candelabrum, as there were seven lamps and a half-log was required
for each lamp. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

4
Rabbi Elie Kaunfer, CEO of the Hadar Institute

8
 ‫איכא דאמרי מלמעלה למטה שיערו ואיכא דאמרי ממטה למעלה שיערו‬

How did the Sages reach the conclusion that a half-log of oil is needed? There are those who say
that the Sages calculated it by initially using a large quantity of oil, more than necessary to burn
throughout the night, and then decreasing the quantity by a small amount each night until they
saw that at the end of the night there was no oil remaining. And there are those who say that they
calculated it by initially using a small quantity of oil and then increasing the quantity each night
until they saw that the quantity was sufficient to allow the lamps to burn throughout the night.

‫מאן דאמר ממטה למעלה שיערו התורה חסה על ממונן של ישראל ומאן דאמר ממעלה למטה שיערו אין עניות במקום‬
‫עשירות‬:

The Gemara elaborates: The one who said that they calculated it by increasing the quantity each
night holds that they did so in accordance with the principle that the Torah spared the money of
the Jewish people, so the Sages wished to minimize the financial cost of their experimentation.
And the one who said that they calculated it by decreasing the quantity each night holds that in
the Temple one’s actions should not be motivated by a concern for the financial cost, as in a place
of wealth there is no poverty.

In an article on attitudes to poverty in the late antique period, scholars Rozenfeld and Perlmutter5
examined the attitude of rabbinic literature to poverty and the poor after the destruction of the
Second Temple.

In the Hebrew Bible there are instructions to care for the poor and to be compassionate toward
them.

However, in Wisdom literature there is also criticism of the poor depicting them as lazy. The
Torah obligates the individual Jew to support the poor though tithes from the produce of the
fields, giving charity and free loans, but does not advocate establishing public funds for the relief
of the poor.

Rabbinic literature from after the destruction of the temple shows that the rabbis advocated
community responsibility for helping the poor. It shows compassion toward the poor and
encourages the Jews to support them through charity.

They amended religious laws in order to enable the poor to have more to consume. This seems to
be a change from the way the rabbis related to the poor prior to the destruction as is depicted by
the New Testament.

5
The Attitude to Poverty and the Poor in Early Rabbinic Sources (70-250 CE) B. Z. Rosenfeld Bar Ilan University Department of
Jewish History rbenzi@hotmail.com H. Perlmutter Ashkelon Academic College Department of Jewish Studies, Brill Leiden 2016

9
Examination of actions attributed to sages from before the destruction shows that the rabbis
related positively primarily toward poor who were “sons of good” citizens.

The other poor were “others” and were left to charity and tithes. After the destruction all poor are
“ours,” sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 6

G. Hamel has researched the issue of poverty in Roman Palestine.7

The Torah describes different kinds of poor using various terms such as ani, evyon, rash, dakh,
misken. It is not always clear what the difference between the terms is, though it seems that
evyon is destitute compared to the ani that is merely poor.

In the Torah the burden of assistance to the poor rests with the individual, who would leave the
poor tithes from his field, give charity to a poor man who comes to his door, or lend money to a
distressed Jew.

However, it does not order establishment of institutions that will provide consistent care for the
poor, and it does not require that society set up assistance funds or organizations for the relief of
the poor.

Rabbinic literature shows significant expansion of the biblical laws concerning the poor. There is
a process of gaining awareness of the responsibility of the leadership toward the poor. In
statements attributed to sages from before the destruction of the temple there is a more proactive
attitude to taking care of the poor though still not a systematic organization.

After the destruction it seems that the rabbis describe the existence of a system of care for the
poor. This indicates a change in the attitude to the common poor, one which includes them in
society and discusses their needs.8

This special attention to wealthy people who became poor is further developed in another source
that mentions a fund that the priests in the temple maintained:

The discrete fund (lishkat hashain) that god fearing Jews would put in money, and poor people
from good families would come and take discretely.9

6
On the issue of poverty in ancient society and the Roman world see J. Hahn, “Poverty,” BNP, 11:741-44; W. Eder,
“Philanthropa (φιλάνθρωπα),” BNP, 11:12-13; A. Spawforth, “Euergetism,” OCD, 546-47; J. Percy Balsdon, Vivian Dacre, and
A. Spawforth, “Alimenta,” OCD, 61-62; see also W. Klassen, “Love,” ABD, 4:381-96. 2
7
G. Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine (Berkeley: University of California, 1990); see also R. Ulmer and M. Ulmer,
Righteous Giving to the Poor: Tzedakah (“Charity”) in Classical Rabbinic Judaism (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014).
8
Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 411-438
9
Sifre Deut. 117 (Finkelstein ed., 176).

10
It seems that it became a policy in the temple to care for the newly poor separately from the other
poor people who grew up poor.

The people who contributed to this fund are defined as “God fearing” which indicates that it was
voluntary donations that supported the temple fund, and there was no attempt to collect this
charity from the entire public.

There is a parallel source that adds to the notion that this kind of fund existed not only in the
temple but also in each and every city.10

10
The term “ben tovim” appears also in Mek. R. Shimon bar Yohai, 23:3 (Epstein-Melamed ed., 214-15), in the context of
poverty that the judge may favor a ben tovim and not the plaintive who deserves justice. In Sifre Deut. 38 (Finkelstein ed., 74),
the term appears as well but in this case the ben tovim is not poor.

11