On the Parameters of the Prohibition of Melachah on Shabbat

The Prohibition of Melachah on Shabbat

The Torah commands us concerning Shabbat twelve times, as explained by Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvot (the ninth principle) and by Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 85), besides other places where Shabbat is mentioned in different contexts, such as the offerings and the showbread. The essence of Shabbat itself is already mentioned in the account of Creation, in the passage of Vayechulu.

The principal command, however, is, as Rambam (Laws of Shabbat 1:1) and the Chinuch explain, the verse “וביום השביעי תשבות” — “and on the seventh day you shall rest” (Shemot 23:12), while the negative commandment is from “לא תעשה כל מלאכה” — “you shall not do any work” (ibid. 20:10).

In addition to the general commandments of Shabbat observance, Scripture explicitly mentions several melachot: kindling fire (Shemot 35:3)[1], plowing and harvesting (ibid. 34:21)[2], and transferring from one domain to another (ibid. 36:6)[3]. Various reasons are given for this, as noted below. There are also Shabbat prohibitions that are not full melachot but independent negative prohibitions, such as techumin (ibid. 16:29)[4], the rest of a servant (ibid. 23:12)[5], the rest of an animal (ibid.)[6], the rest of a minor (ibid. 20:10)[7], the prohibition of mechamer, driving a loaded animal (ibid.)[8], and others.

There are also prohibitions whose basis is rabbinic; these too divide into various categories, but they are beyond the scope of this article.

The Thirty-Nine Melachot

The Torah does not explicitly list all the types of forbidden melachot or their number, except for the few mentioned above. The types of work and their number were derived by Chazal through various expositions.

The Gemara (Shabbat 49b) records a dispute. According to Rabbi Chanina bar Chama, the source is the work of the Mishkan: the thirty-nine Shabbat melachot correspond to the thirty-nine forms of labor performed in the Mishkan, as Rashi explains from the juxtaposition of Shabbat to the Mishkan in Parashat Vayakhel. A baraita likewise states: “One is liable only for labor similar to that which existed in the Mishkan”[9]. According to Rabbi Yonatan son of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Yosi ben Lakunya, the source is the number of times the words “melachah,” “melachto,” and “melechet” appear in the Torah, totaling thirty-nine.

Another derivation appears in a baraita (Shabbat 70a) in the name of Rabbi Natan: from “אלה הדברים” — “these are the things” (Shemot 35:1), meaning the thirty-nine melachot taught to Moshe at Sinai. Rashi explains the calculation: “אלה” equals 36, “דברים” indicates two more, and the letter ה in “הדברים” adds one, totaling 39.

The Types of Melachot and Their Division

The derivations include two components: first, the actual types of forbidden labor — the thirty-nine listed in the Mishnah (Shabbat 73a), “one who sows, plows, reaps,” etc.; second, the division of those labors into thirty-nine separate avot, which affects separate chatat offerings and warnings. The Gemara teaches that the distinction between winnowing, selecting, and sifting is learned from the very number of thirty-nine.

The Rishonim dispute whether the sources concern the types of work themselves or only their classification. Tosafot understand that the dispute concerns the source for the very types of forbidden work: whether they are learned from the Mishkan or from the count of the word melachah. Rashba, however, understands that all agree the types are learned from the Mishkan, and the dispute concerns only the division into thirty-nine avot. Ramban writes similarly.

In any event, the conclusion of the sugya is that the source is the work of the Mishkan, as in the baraita cited above.

The Chayei Adam writes: “Chazal received that nothing is called melachah except those labors that were in the Mishkan and were needed for the work of the Mishkan.” Similarly, the Aglei Tal writes that an av melachah is a significant act needed for the Mishkan made by Moshe in the wilderness.

Avot and Toladot

The Gemara states that since the Mishnah calls them “avot melachot,” this implies that there are toladot as well. Shabbat 70b derives this from the wording “הנה” and “מהנה.” Thus the thirty-nine avot have derivative labors that are also prohibited.

The law of a tolada is like that of an av regarding stoning and a chatat. The practical difference is in the division of chatat offerings: one who performs two avot, or two toladot of different avot, in one lapse of awareness brings two offerings; one who performs an av and its tolada brings one.

The Gemara explains that an important labor that existed in the Mishkan is called an av, while an important labor that did not exist in the Mishkan is called a tolada. Tosafot record several formulations: whether everything depends on importance, on both importance and presence in the Mishkan, or on presence in the Mishkan alone.

In any case, av and tolada refer to related labors sharing a root, not wholly unrelated acts.

Rambam’s Approach

Rambam writes that all these labors and anything of their nature are called avot melachot. Plowing, digging, or making a furrow are one av, for all are digging in the ground. Sowing, planting, grafting, layering, and pruning are one av, for all aim at causing growth. A tolada is work similar to an av: finely cutting vegetables for cooking is a tolada of grinding, since grinding divides one body into many parts.

It follows that the av is the primary labor, the root from which related toladot branch out; the primary labor itself may appear through several actions, all counted as the av.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that when the difference between actions is only in the quality of the action or the object acted upon, all are included in the av; when the resemblance is only partial, it is a tolada. Tiferet Yisrael further explains that similarity in both action and purpose, or in purpose when performed upon the relevant object, may define one av, whereas similarity only in action but not in purpose creates a tolada.

Action or Purpose

At first glance, melachot are defined as actions: grinding divides a body, kneading unites parts into dough, selecting separates food and waste. Yet some melachot include very different or even opposite acts: sowing includes planting and pruning; building includes digging and filling.

From Lechem Mishneh’s explanation of Rambam emerges an important principle: the essence of melachah is not necessarily a specific physical act, but a defined human purpose and all acts normally included in achieving it. The purpose of sowing is growth, and therefore includes planting and pruning; the purpose of building is creating a structure, and therefore includes the necessary acts even when they are opposite.

Acts Needed for the Melachah

Rambam maintains that even acts not identical with the body of the melachah, but needed for it, are included. Thus squeezing is a tolada of laundering, because squeezing is a need of washing, just as stirring is a need of cooking; stretching a thread is likewise a need of sewing.

Some explain that actions forming part of the process of a melachah are themselves melachah, even if they are not the entire act. This helps explain the prohibition of stirring even fully cooked food and of stretching a thread in preparation for sewing.

According to the principle above, Rambam’s idea is broader: even seemingly secondary acts, when directed toward the essential purpose of the melachah, are included in the melachah itself.

Acts Not Included in Melachah

Modern reality presents incidental effects with which a person has almost no connection, though a prohibited result occurs: walking where electronic cameras record him, or lights turn on because of him. Contemporary poskim discuss these cases. Some permit them when the person has no interest in the effect, because the action is remote and not attributed to him; although it may seem to be a psik reisha de-lo nicha lei, it is not melachet machshevet at all.

Some compare this to the Rashba’s ruling, citing the Yerushalmi, about one who locks his house and a deer is found trapped inside: there is no prohibition of trapping, though the result is inevitable. However, the Mishnah Berurah rules explicitly not like that Rashba.

A similar rationale appears in Nishmat Adam regarding taking animal feed with a sieve, where chaff falls through the holes: since he is not sifting but merely taking with a sieve, it is not melachet machshevet. Shvitat HaShabbat disagrees, and Biur Halachah indicates that the matter depends on a dispute among Rishonim.

According to the principle above, the leniency is clearer: if forbidden melachah is the purpose and the acts serving it, and Shabbat rest means refraining from pursuing that purpose and its means, then acts having no relation to any human purpose and no significance to the person do not even reach the level of psik reisha.

[1] The Tannaim dispute whether kindling was singled out as a separate negative commandment or to divide liabilities.

[2] According to Rabbi Yishmael; Rabbi Akiva interprets the verse regarding the seventh year.

[3] See Shabbat 96b; carrying is explicitly stated because it is considered a weaker melachah.

[4] See Eruvin 17b; 48a; 51a.

[5] See Shulchan Aruch 304:1 and Mishnah Berurah.

[6] See Shulchan Aruch 246:3ff. and 325:23.

[7] See Shabbat 121a and the poskim on shevitat katan.

[8] See Shulchan Aruch 266:1–2 and Mishnah Berurah.

[9] See the dispute of Rashi and Tosafot whether learning from the Mishkan includes the precise form of the labor.

[10] The number thirty-nine also teaches not to divide certain related labors into separate categories.

[11] A third explanation could have been suggested, but the Rishonim do not appear to take that approach.

[12] Although stated regarding Rabbi Eliezer, it reflects the essence of av and tolada even according to the Sages.

[13] Rambam follows his view that grinding applies to food, at least when cutting it for cooking.

[14] Selecting may also be defined as separating components from each other.

[15] See, however, Kesef Mishneh, Maggid Mishneh, and the glosses of Ramach.

[16] This assumes such actions are biblically prohibited as boneh according to the Chazon Ish; according to others they are rabbinic.

[17] See Orchot Shabbat, chapter 26, paragraph 31, note 44.

See the sources in the article