Hello,
On Daf 75, the gemarah asks which melachot are transgressed if one traps and squeezes a chilazon. Everyone agrees that one is chayav for trapping, but there are arguments as to what else one is chayav for. My question is why squeezing the chilazon is not a melacha in and of itself. Earlier we said that we learn tying and untying from the nets used to trap the chilazon, so we know that they were trapped for the mishkan. And if everything done for the mishkan is a melacha, then why not squeezing the chilazon to get the dye?
I have here two answers (one of which I think is from the Yerushalmi): 1) that they brought the dye from Egypt, so it is not included as a melacha, and 2) since there is no water in the desert, they got the chilazon from a miracle, so it is not included as a melacha. For both of those answers, I bring the proof of the tying and untying of the knots. If prepairing the nets to catch the chilazon can obligate us in two melachot, certainly squeezing the chilazon should be a melacha.
Thank you,
Benji Cohen
Benjamin Cohen, Skokie, IL, USA
The Yerushalmi (7:2) is coming to answer why one opinion there holds that this is not Tzeidah (trapping), but does not discuss why there is not a new Melachah of squeezing the Chilazon. However, you have thought of exactly the same question as the RASHASH (75a) on our Gemara.
I have not found an explicit answer to this question. It is possible that the answer lies in Rava's statement that the Rabanan held this is not Dash because Dash does not apply to things that are not "Gidulei Karka." Though Rava is explaining why the Rabanan hold this is not Dash, this also might explain why it is not its own Melachah (and why the Gemara itself does not raise the question while investigating how many Melachos one transgresses when being Potzei'ah a Chilazon). Once we have an established teaching that Dash is only by Gedulei Karka, it seems strange to say that we should make a separate Av Melachah which is essentially Dash for things other than Gedulei Karka, called "Potzei'ah Chilazon" or something similar. This would seemingly preclude making a special Av Melachah out of being Potzei'ah a Chilazon, unless there would be broad parameters, which seem difficult to establish once it cannot be similar to Dash.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
Hello Rav. Montrose,
I was discussing your response with a friend of mine, and he brought up a good point. You mentioned that:
This would seemingly preclude making a special Av Melachah out of being Potzei'ah a Chilazon, unless there would be broad parameters, which seem difficult to establish once it cannot be similar to Dash.
However, the mishna lists three different melachot for separating. If there can be three melachot that are pretty much exactly the same, why not have two types of squeezing: one for Gedulei Karka, and one for animals?
Thanks,
Benji Cohen
Yaakov Montrose responds:
Shalom Benji,
Though they are all connected to separating, the three separate Melachos for separating are not the same Melachos at all (i.e. Zoreh is a Chidush Din that throwing something up in the air where it will end up separating itself is Chayev, unlike Borer where the separation is done with a utensil or one's hand, see RABEINU CHANANEL on 74a). The only difference that we have thought of between the Melachah of Dash and potentially "Potzei'ah Chilazon" is that they are being done to two separate items, one of which incidentally is not classified as Gedulei Karka.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
Hello Rav. Montrose,
I am sorry, but I still have questions. Even if you were to say that there are three Av Melachot for separating because each teaches its own Chidush (although why the gemarah could not do the same thing in two Avot and use one for the Chilazon I do not know), it does not make sense that squeezing the Chilazon should not be a Melacha at all. Even if all 39 Av Melachot are taken up, then why not include "Potzei'ah Chilazon" as a Tolda to something else? It seems strange that not only is one of the actions done for the Mishkan not an Av, but it is not included in one of the other Melachot. This is the part that I am having such a hard time understanding.
Thank you for your patience,
Benji Cohen
I recently saw that the Iglei Tal (Borer 11:2) was bothered by something similar to your question. He asks, "If Petzias Chilazon happened in the Mishnah and Petziah is Dishah, why don't we learn from there that Dishah is certainly b'Gidulei Karka? Wasn't everything which was done for the Mishkan a Melachah?" He gives a novel answer. He says that although everything done in the Mishkan was a Melachah, we don't know why it was a Melachah. Accordingly, as long as we can say that a certain Melachah was done by doing this act in the Mishkan, we have no proof that a second Melachah was also done (see Iglei Tal at length).
Regarding our case, he quotes the Gemara in Sanhedrin (91a, see Rashi) that the Chilazon usually arrived in bunches. Therefore, when they would be Potzei'ah all of the Chilazon at once in the Mishkan, they would be performing Borer, as the bodies and blood would be in the midst of being separated. We therefore have no proof that the Melachah of Dash was also being done at that time, and we cannot redefine Dash. Our Gemara talks about a single Chilazon, which was not how they did the Melachah in the Mishkan, and there is therefore no source to say there should be a Melachah by the Petzia'ah itself.
This answer would also answer your question regarding why there isn't a separate Melachah/Toldah called Potzei'ah Chilazon. As the Melachah of Borer was being done, we have no proof that another Melachah/Toldah was being performed called Potzei'ah Chilazon.
Take Care,
Yaakov Montrose