Me'ammer: Defining the Melakha
THE LAWS OF SHABBAT
By Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon
Shiur
#35:
Meammer, Part I
I)
Defining the Melakha
We began this series by looking at the latter
melakhot of the bread-making process.
We now come full circle by looking at the final step of producing grain,
immur (bundling); the melakha is known as meammer. Both terms come from the word omer,
meaning sheaf. After ketzira
(reaping), the cut stalks of grain are collected and tied in sheaves; fruits, on
the other hand, are gathered into baskets and boxes.
Regardless of the species, these actions
fall under the heading of meammer.
The
Mishna
(73a) counts meammer as one of the
thirty-nine melakhot. The Meiri (ad loc.) explains:
Meammer this is gathering the sheaves after the harvesters have left them in
their place, piling them in one place and binding them; the same applies if one
gathers stalks one-by-one and makes sheaves of them.
This is true of all similar actions.
Thus, one who gathers stalks into sheaves is liable because of
meammer.
At first glance, this melakha
is puzzling. Generally, a
melakha is defined solely as an action
which is creative or improves the item itself.
With meammer, no new action is done to the item; one only moves
things from one place to another, gathering them into one spot.[1]
In order to grasp the basis of the
prohibition of meammer, we will delve
into the different aspects of this melakha.
GIDDULEI
KARKA
The Gemara (73b) quotes a
dispute as to whether the prohibition of meammer is limited to items which grow in the ground, known as
giddulei karka.
Rava said: He who
collects salt out of a salina is liable because of bundling.
Abbayei said:
Bundling applies only to that which grows in the ground (giddulei karka).
In this
case, a person gathers salt from a salina,
an area of land encrusted
with crystalline salt, the result of the evaporation of seawater. Rava is of the opinion that one who
does so on Shabbat is liable because of
meammer, while Abbayei believes that the prohibition of
meammer applies only to giddulei
karka. Abbayei holds,
apparently, that since the melakha of
immur in the Mishkan was
specifically performed on giddulei karka,
one is only liable because of meammer
only when working with giddulei karka.
Halakhically, the Or Zarua (Vol. II, Ch. 57) and the
Meiri (73b) follow the view of
Rava, that one is liable for the melakha
of meammer even when not dealing with
giddulei karka; the
Rambam (8:5) and the Rosh (7:2),
on the other hand, follow the view of Abbayei, that
immur of non-giddulei karka is
not forbidden on a Torah level.[2] However, the
Rambam (21:11) notes that Abbayei
concedes that immur of non-giddulei karka is rabbinically
forbidden, since this act is similar to
meammer.
The Shulchan
Arukh (340:9) rules in accordance with the
Rambam, that immur of non-giddulei karka is rabbinically
forbidden:
It is forbidden to gather salt from the salt works, as this is similar to
meammer.
Therefore, it is rabbinically forbidden to gather eggs from the chicken coop and
put them in a vessel (Eglei Tal,
Meammer 6;
Ketzot Ha-shulchan Ch. 146, Baddei ha-Shulchan 49:22).[3]
MEKOM GIDDUL
Many
Rishonim add another condition for liability: one cannot violate
meammer unless one collects the
items in their mekom giddul,
literally the place where they grew (this may be figurative if we apply
meammer to materials other than
plants). Some bring a proof to this
from the Mishna in Beitza
(31a):
One may bring in
wood from that which is gathered in the field, and even from that which is
scattered in the enclosure.
In other
words, on Yom Tov, one may bring firewood in from the field only if it had been
previously gathered, before the holiday; while from the enclosure (karpef),
which is an outdoor fenced-in area, it is permissible to bring in wood on Yom
Tov even if it is scattered.
Tosafot (s.v. Min ha-karpef)
question this: why is gathering wood from the enclosure not forbidden because of
meammer?
They explain that the prohibition of
meammer is applicable only in the
mekom giddul of the items:
This is perplexing,
as this should be meammer, which is a
primary melakha!
One may say that
immur is only applicable in the place
in which they grow.
This
limitation is also cited by the Rashba (Beitza 33b, s.v. U-vilvad)
the Ritva (73b, s.v. Abbayei) and the Ran (Beitza 19a, Rif, s.v.
U-mikol Makom); they add that because of this concern, the
above-mentioned passage in Shabbat talks about one who gathers salt from a
salina, i.e., the place in which salt is naturally dried, its
mekom giddul, and not from another
place.[4]
Why
should the melakha of
meammer apply only in the
mekom giddul?
An answer may be derived based on the
Gemara in Beitza (13b). There the Gemara deals with another
type of melakha not the forbidden labor of Shabbat, but the act which
renders produce done for the purposes of taking tithes.
What is their
completion for tithes?
it is once one
raises a heap.
However, for
Shabbat, one is not liable for raising a heap
It is thoughtful labor (melekhet machshevet) which the Torah
forbids.
The
Gemara determines that gathering
produce into a heap is considered pivotal and decisive for the purposes of
tithes, but this action is not forbidden on Shabbat by Torah law, since this is
not considered melekhet machshevet.
Rashi (s.v. Ela Mai)
explains:
Even though this is
considered melakha for tithes, for
Shabbat, it is melekhet machshevet
which the Torah forbids namely, skillful labor. This is because of the
juxtaposition of Shabbat to the construction of the Mishkan in Vayakhel,
and regarding the latter it says melekhet machshevet.
In other
words, the juxtaposition of the passage of Shabbat and the passage of the
construction of the Mishkan (Shemot 35:1-3 and 35:4 ff.
respectively) teaches us that one is liable on Shabbat only for acts of creation
and skill. Piling things in a heap
is not an act of skill or creation, and therefore it is not forbidden on
Shabbat.
However,
it would appear that raising a heap is exactly what is done in the
melakha of
meammer what is the difference between the
melakha of meammer, which is
forbidden by the Torah, and raising a heap of produce, which is not forbidden,
since there is no improvement or creation in it?
Rashi (ad loc.) adds a phrase to resolve this difficulty:
For the issue of
Shabbat, once one has brought the onions into the house, there is no
melakha in raising a heap.
In other
words, the melakha of
immur is done in the field, and
it is there that raising a heap is considered a
melakha, while the Gemara in
Beitza deals with someone who gathers fruits or vegetables in the
house, and there raising a heap is not considered a
melakha.
Rashi accepts the view of Tosafot
which we mentioned, that there is no liability for
meammer except in the mekom
giddul, and from his words it arises that
immur not in the mekom giddul
is not included in the prohibition, since there is no improvement or alteration
of the produce itself.[5]
However,
this very distinction still requires some explanation: if raising a heap in the
house is not considered melekhet
machshevet, since there is no improvement or alteration of the produce
itself, why is raising a heap in the field considered
melekhet machshevet? How does
gathering produce in the field constitute an act of creation or improvement?
One may
explain that immur in the
mekom giddul has greater significance,
since it constitutes the completion of the
melakha of ketzira.
True, the scythe has severed the connection of the stalks to the
ground; however, as long as they are scattered throughout the field one cannot
do anything significant with them.
Only after the gathering may one move the stalks on to threshing, milling, etc. This is true of other produce: the
harvesting becomes more significant after one gathers the produce into one
place.
If so,
the basis of the melakha of
meammer is gathering produce after
ketzira, which completes the
harvesting and gives it significance.[6]
As such, the prohibition applies only
when the produce is located in its mekom
giddul, right after the ketzira. If the produce was harvested and
gathered previously and then scattered after reaching the house, the
re-gathering is not deemed significant and is not included in the
melakha of
meammer.
MEAMMER
ACHAR MEAMMER
The Tosafot Rid (73b)
writes:
Meammer this means gathering stalks behind the
harvester and making them into a sheaf
You
may find it difficult: if so, should one be liable, because of meammer,
for collecting scattered fruits in ones own courtyard?!
Answer:
There is no meammer except at the
time that it is detached from the ground, which is at the beginning of its
collection; gathering fruit which has already been collected and later scattered
is not meammer.
This statement implies that even if fruits are still in their
mekom giddul, if they have already
been collected and are then scattered again, there is no act of
meammer in collecting them again. (This
stands opposed to the implication of
Rashi, that only in the house is there no prohibition of
meammer, but in the field there
remains a prohibition of meammer,
even if the fruits had been already gathered and were then scattered again.)
What is the reason? The Eglei Tal (Meammer 2:3) understands that just as ein tochen achar tochen
(literally, there is no grinding after grinding i.e., once a substance has
been ground, there is no significance to breaking it down again) similarly
ein meammer achar meammer.
However, this understanding is unprecedented. When it comes to tochen, we
can understand that once something attains the status of tachun (ground),
even should it later become a mass again, it does not return to its initial
state, and the prohibition of tochen is not applicable to it.
(If the original act is totally voided,
and the matter actually returns to its original state, there may indeed be a
prohibition of tochen; see our shiur on this topic.) When it comes to
meammer, on the other hand, when fruits are gathered and then
scattered, the scattering presumably nullifies the previous
immur entirely!
It makes sense that the view of the Rid is based on the
conceptualization of the melakha of
meammer as the conclusion of the
act of ketzira; therefore the
prohibition only applies at the initial collection of the fruits, following the
ketzira. After the fruits have already been
gathered, the melakha of
ketzira is complete, and from this point onward, even if they may be
scattered and collected again, this is not conceived as a continuation of the
ketzira, even if the fruits are still
in the field. (The
Eglei Tal himself suggests a
similar approach, ibid. 8; see the Shevitat Ha-shabbat, Maaseh
Choshev, 14b, who proposes a somewhat different approach.)
PROCESSED ITEMS
The Arukh Ha-shulchan (340:3) adds that there is no prohibition of
meammer for items which have already
been processed i.e., ground or cooked:
It is
obvious that meammer applies only to
grain or produce which has been neither baked nor cooked, nor have they been
ground, so that they are still in the state in which they were harvested or
detached. Were this not true, it
would be forbidden on Shabbat to leave loaves together in a given spot or to
leave a number of fruits next to each other! Certainly,
this prohibition applies only when they are being picked from the field, the
gardens or the trees not when they are in the house, and all the more so not
after grinding, baking or cooking.
The
innovation here is that even if a person, for example, cooks the fruits in their
mekom giddul, there is no prohibition
in gathering them after cooking. In
light of what we have written above, the logic is that the prohibition of
meammer applies only to
immur which comes after the
ketzira and completes it; clearly, we
cannot speak of completing the ketzira
after the produce has already been ground or cooked.
[1] The melakha
of hotza'a (transporting) also does not change the body of the object,
merely its location; indeed, the Gemara
(96b) seeks out a separate source for this
melakha and does not derive it from the acts of constructing the Mishkan,
and the Rishonim explained that the Mishkan serves as a source only for
creative, constructive melakhot, while
hotzaa is an inferior melakha
which yields no lasting alteration or improvement, and therefore it requires an
explicit source (Tosafot 2a, s.v.
Pashat is one source for this notion).
[2] The Or Zarua
rules like Rava, because in every dispute between Abbayei and Rava, the halakha
follows Rava, except for six specific named cases. The Maggid Mishneh and Kesef Mishneh
(ad loc.) explain the view of the Rambam in the following way: his text read
Rabba instead of Rava, and thus he rules like Abbayei against Rabba. (Nevertheless, there are those who
believe that even in a dispute of Rabba and Abbayei, the halakha follows Rabba,
as he was Abbayeis teacher, and the halakha does not follow a student against
his master).
[3] However, in a case of significant
loss, the Shevet Ha-Levi (Vol. IV, Ch. 39) allows a Jew to have a non-Jew
collect eggs, since the prohibition is only rabbinic in nature, and a Jew is
allowed to ask a non-Jew to violate a rabbinic prohibition on Shabbat in order
to prevent significant financial loss.
[4] The Maharach Or Zarua (Responsa,
Ch. 214) rejects the proof from this Gemara: Perhaps collecting stubble in a
courtyard is not immur, as it must be
akin to immur of stalks, that one
gathers them together and binds them; alternatively, they lie together so that
the wind will not scatter them and so that people and animals will not scatter
them this happens when they are loose, and they are easily lost in various
ways when the stalks are separate.
However, sticks in the courtyard, which are gathered solely for immediate
kindling, are not gathered per se; it is simply burdensome to kindle every stick
and throw every stick individually into the flames, and it is not for the sake
of improving and maintaining the sticks that one gathers them. Thus, this is not
meammer.
In other words, the melakha of
meammer applies only when the
gathering helps to keep the stalks from being lost and the like, but when one
gathers fruits or sticks together only because it is convenient to use them en
masse, such an act is not included in the prohibition of
meammer (Rav Mordecai Benet writes the same in his analysis of the
melakha of
meammer in his work Magen Avot).
According to this, the basis of the prohibition of
meammer is the improvement of the
produce by gathering it; this act of collection allows them to be better
preserved.
However, the other Rishonim apparently do not understand it in this way. These Rishonim allow gathering
wood from an enclosure on Yom Tov only because this is not their mekom
giddul, and it is implied that were it not for this reason, we would forbid
it because of meammer, even though
one does not improve the wood by gathering it.
[5] This is how the
Ketzot Ha-shulchan (Ch. 146; Baddei Ha-shulchan, 49) explains why the
melakha of
meammer specifically is limited to
its mekom giddul, while the act of disha (threshing) or the
melakhot of zoreh, borer and merakked (winnowing, selecting
and sifting) are not limited in this way: Disha and
borer are actions which are done to
the grain itself; disha causes the
husks to come apart, and through zoreh and
borer and merakked, the refuse
is separated and the item undergoes a change.
This is not true of meammer,
in which one does not do any action to the item itself and one does not alter
it, and which melakha should it
be?
rather, all
melakhot which were done for the Mishkan
are forbidden on Shabbat; as it is the way of the harvester to do
immur afterwards, and this is what was
done for the Mishkan, the
immur is considered a
melakha which is forbidden on Shabbat. Therefore, we need it to be
specifically similar to the act which was done for the Mishkan, in which the immur was at
its mekom giddul, as is the way of the harvesters. However, gathering scattered fruits
outside their mekom giddul is not similar to what was done for the Mishkan, so it is not in the
category of the melakha at all.
[6] This explanation
fits with Abbayeis view, that meammer applies only to giddulei karka. According to the view of Rava, that
there is a prohibition of meammer in
gathering salt and other items as well, but only in their
mekom giddul (from a salina), the
melakha of
meammer is not specifically a completion of the act of ketzira, but
every gathering of something from its
mekom giddul, which completes its gathering and furthers its utilization.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!