Chabad Laguna Beach offers New JLI course 012125

A Guide to understanding how to learn the Talmud employing Inductive and Deductive reasoning

Addressing how the Gemara learns the Mishna. This requires addressing the key issue of logic. The sealed Talmudic texts have a static quality. This fixed static quality plays well into syllogism triangulation deductive reasoning. A sugya of Gemara compares, its seems to me, to a thesis statement format. Each sugya of Gemara has an opening thesis statement, and a closing restatement of that same thesis statement – employing a multiple Case/Din study. These opening and closing comparative Case\Din studies functions, so to speak, as the two legs of a triangle. If a person compares any halachic precedent found in the body of that sugya, this point maps the – so to speak – the hypotenuse line; forming a syllogistic line of reasoning process which seeks to understand how these comparison of precedents Cases teach Talmudic common law. And specifically how the Gemara comments on the language of the Mishna based upon comparative precedents.

Important to stress, Talmudic common law does not compare to reading a novel for pleasure. Torah law – very cranial by nature. The 13 hermeneutical rules of Rabbi Yishmael or the PaRDeS system of textual interpretation the יסוד upon which both the Mishna and Gemara stand upon. The major theme of the Talmud, it continually weighs tohor vs tuma spirits which dominates the opposing Yatzirot within the heart.This defining agenda a subtle kabbalah, concealed from the eyes of foreign “Roman” censors. The texts of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli written under prying watchful and suspicious-hostile eyes. The birth of this common law literature did not happen in a political vacuum nor some fictional virgin-birth process.

The Talmud reflects a highly edited and polished text. To study the Talmud requires developing an awareness of this basic most fundamental fact. The Talmud, the product of Jewish military disasters and defeats, and the hopes to restore national and political independence. The Jewish people face the cold cruel facts of a fast approaching hard cruel g’lut winter of oppression, theft, sexual immodesty, and bribed judges. The Framers of the Talmud therefore sought to establish a model for when the Spring of redemption and political national independence once more shined. A rebuilt Jewish state shall require Sanhedrin courts of common law in order to obey צדק צדק תרדוף, the Torah definition of faith. This concept of faith separates the oath alliance from the dominant empires together with their beliefs in Universal Gods. The revelation of HaShem at Sinai, only Israel witnessed. Hence HaShem – a local tribal God, who continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Jews have no burning obligation to convert the world to embrace some Universal belief in a Monotheistic God.

Jewish courts, based upon the primary Talmudic Sanhedrin model, do not remotely resemble the vertical Goyim courtrooms where the State bribes the Judges and the Prosecuting Attorneys by paying their public salaries. A lateral Sanhedrin court system would require a comparative model to the public health care insurance which prevails in the Jewish State today, to maintain the Courts. The police, their first Order of Priority: to serve the Federal Sanhedrin Court system, rather than legislative assemblies or Governments; the police essentially enforce the rulings made through the lateral common law judicial judgments.

Torah common law, a judicial legal system, and not a legislative or bureaucratic statute law system of authoritative decrees ruled by concealed cults of personality. Herein what fundamentally distinguishes Jewish common law from all other Goyim legal systems. The Torah courts have a unique function. To establish and maintain the culture and customs which both determine and define bnai brit national cohen identity; to protect against the violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein defines the mandate of Federal Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms.

The study of each and every new sugya of Gemara therefore requires making a syllogistic Case/Din triangulation/summation that seeks to understand the gist of the sugya contents. This discipline of learning, in-effect seeks to duplicate the scholarship made by the 450 – 600 CE Savoraim Talmudic scholars. The Talmud does not sit like some

“gilded wife” all by herself alone. It has a warp/weft relationship with the T’NaCH, through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic format. Where T’NaCH prophetic mussar provides the p’shat of Aggadic and Midrashic stories. The directive of both Aggadah with its Midrash commentary, designed to amplify Aggadic prophetic mussar – common law Case/Din studies – to serve as the יסוד of obeying the ritual halachic observance by way of רמז\סוד inductive reasoning; to birth tohor time oriented halacha spirits straight from the Torah in order to breath life into the “clay” souls of our people – to cause them to breath the spirit of life – based upon the precedent of the creation of Adam.
___________________________________________In summation__________________

Jewish courts do not exist to enforce imperial ideology, but to protect the oath alliance identity of the bnai brit chosen Cohen people and to enforce the Second Commandment—resisting assimilation and foreign gods. Each act of studying a sugya – not some passive reception but a reenactment of the Savoraim’s legal reasoning. Halachic study, when done correctly, achieves both spiritual tohor middot clarity and political restoration.

---

גמ’ מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או לאו כיוצא בהן? גבי שבת תנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת. אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן. כיוצא בהן לא שנא אב חטאת ולא שנא תולדה חטאת וכו’_____________________________והשתא דאוקימנא ארגל, שן דלא מכליא קרנא מנלן דומיא דרגל מה רגל לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא אף שן לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא

---

Here we have established two legs of the triangular syllogism logic. Now let’s consider the hypotenuse.

---

ת”ש בכור שורו הדר לו והאי מילף הוא גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא דנגחה בקרן הוא אלא מהו דתימא כי פליג רחמנא בין תם למועד ה”מ בתלושה אבל במחוברת אימא כולה מועדת היא

---

We now have forged a logical syllogism of sorts. Leg A – Where the Torah defines Avot, there are Toldot, and the legal status of Toldot depends on whether they are “כיוצא בהן” — that is, functionally similar.

Leg B – In the case of Regel, liability applies whether the damage completely destroys capital or not. By analogy, Shen is treated the same way, since it shares the essential trait of natural, expected damage.

Leg C – Hypotenuse – You might have thought the category of Keren only applies (i.e., has special status of Tam/Muad distinction) when the horn is detached, since that’s a more “artificial” scenario.

But the verse clarifies (Giluy Milta) that even when attached, the distinction holds — meaning that the essence of the act (unnatural goring) and not the physical condition of the instrument (attached/detached) defines the halakhic category.

The legal category (Av or Toldah) and liability are not defined by physical features (e.g., whether the horn is detached, or whether Shen consumes capital), but by behavioral nature. Therefore, the Torah’s system of Avot and Toldot is structured around the behavioral pattern of the damage, not the instrument or its result.

Hence, Shen, like Regel, is always liable, regardless of whether it consumes capital — and Toldot of Shen are “כיוצא בהן” in legal outcome. The halakhic logic (סברא) that underlies the sugya, but not every stylistic or textual move the Gemara makes on the surface. Bava Kama fundamentally addresses How Torah common law interprets damages קרן, שן, רגל, and what qualifies as Av vs. Toldah. When liability applies, whether a distinction made between the instrument of damage or nature of the act itself (natural vs. unnatural). And whether toldot carry the legal obligations identical to Avot in matters of liability for damages inflicted upon others goods, property or persons.

The categories of damage, defined by the nature of the act and not by its physical instrument such has horned or dehorned. This logic aligns the sugya with the larger conceptual framework of Avot/Toldot. Especially based upon the similar precedent of Shabbat. Where toldot like avot bear full responsibility.

The “giluy milta” piece (from בכור שורו הדר לו) resolves a potential limiting assumption. Clarifying that the liability does not hinge on whether the horn exists in fact or not. Rather this Av liability doesn’t hinge on actual horns but rather on the nature of the damage. This summation of the opening sugya core conceptual structure serves as an essential יסוד overview which permits easier evaluation and interpretation of all later off the dof inductive reasoning precedent texts introduced there after. This opening sugya serves as the basis to learn the entire Talmud through a comprehensive methodology of learning.

Having made a triangulation overview, can now proceed to making inductive reasoning precedent analysis from other Primary Sources.

Compare the language of the Mishnah (and Torah) to a blueprint — specifically, to viewing a building plan from different angles. The “front face” reading is the plain sense or surface-level meaning. But the Gemara employs בנין אב precedents to rotate the viewpoint perspective. Side view, top view, or even cross-sections. These reveal hidden structures, assumptions, or frameworks invisible from the front.

A simple legal hermeneutic. The Mishnah might say something in a straightforward way, but the Gemara often challenges that appearance by reframing the concept, introducing precedents, and asking, “What does this really mean in context?” Learning a p’suk פרט actively entails the discipline of never divorcing this specific פרט from its sugya כלל. Learning a specific in context, defines how the Talmud studies the language of the T’NaCH. This sh’itta of learning day and night different than how the Roman counterfeit gospels divorced T’NaCH p’sukim from their surrounding context. Rabbi Yishmael referred to this discipline as פרט כלל או כלל פרט.

How does the 39 principal wisdom skills of labor, required to build the Mishkan, serve as a precedent or model for how the Gemara learns the four “דיוק”, actually – eight Avot damagers. Consider the language of the precedent Mishna. A fundamental basic which explains why the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh, common law commentaries always open with the Mishna which their halachic posok comments upon! Herein defines their halachic commentaries as common law as contrasted by how the Yad, Tur, & Shulkan Aruch – their alien assimilated statute law divorces Gemara precedents of halacha from interpreting the 70 faces of the Mishna.

When the Rabbeinu Tam jumps off the dof and brings a precedent, his common law learning only read the Gemara viewed from a different perspective learning viewpoint, but failed to do the same by employing this the sugya of Gemara to re-interpret the intent of the language of the Mishna which that “home” Gemara comments upon – based upon the changed perspective of the off-the-dof Gemara precedent. In 1232 a majority of the Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam’s writings into נידוי.

Ten years later the lights of Hanukkah ceased to shine, the Pope and the king of France, Hitler in a different Era, burned 24 cartloads of hand written Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. (The invention of the printing press some two Centuries in the future.) And approximately 70 years thereafter a Royal decree expelled all Jews from France. This destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of Torah, NaCH, and Talmudic scholarship. The Tzeddukim-like Reshonim scholars who embraced Greek/Roman culture and customs prevailed in the Rambam Civil War.

Whenever the Gemara jumps off the dof and brings an outside source precedent from the 6 Orders of the Mishna etc, this serves as a paradigm for reinterpretation. The opening thesis statement of our sugya of Gemara commentary to the common law Mishna: מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או לאו כיוצא בהן. The key חכמה, it seems to me, the basic הבדלה which separates מלאכה from עבודה. Our Mishna ‘ארבעה אבות נזיקין השור וכו, implies עבודה not מלאכה. What distinguishes and separates the two classes of verbs which share a common simple translation?

The Mishna of Shabbat addresses the issue of transporting goods, probably without an eruv. ‘דתנן: טומנין בשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בגיזי צמר וכו. The Mishnah hides interpretive layers. While the Gemara’s job is to unpack, rotate, and reveal. What looks simple may hide complexity. Law is not flat — it has depth, symbolism, and structure. Reading halakhah requires shifting perspectives — just like interpreting a blueprint. Herein explains why the statute halachic codifications – utterly false and a חילול השם.

Do “toldot” equally apply to עבודה as they do to מלאכה? Herein defines the precedent question which shifts the blueprint perspective from a Front to a Top or Side view! The Gemara refines the meaning of מלאכה by making a reference to Yosef in Egypt. Our Mishna opens with Tam animals or even holes in the ground. Hence the question stands: what separates the one verb from the other verb? Skillfully transporting from domain to domain on shabbat requires skilled מלאכה or unskilled עבודה? If a plate falls from the table on shabbat, permitted to sweep and clean the broken shards of the shattered plate.

When the Gemara “jumps off the daf” and brings a precedent from another Order (Seder), it’s not a tangent — it’s a legal lens shift. Precedents are not used to prove, but to reconstruct the blueprint. They bring out hidden legal categories within familiar language. Halachic codes (Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, etc.) flatten the blueprint. They take one angle — often the front face — and freeze it into a static 2D schematic or camera picture. The B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh respect the motion dynamic — they open each halakhic statement by citing the Mishnah because its language represents the entry point to the Gemara’s architectural analysis. While the Rabbeinu Tam, when he relies on an “off-the-daf” precedent without rotating that sugya back to its Home Mishna, fails to use the precedent architecturally — he forgets to rebuild the Mishnah using the rotated view of the precedent off the dof Primary Source.

Why did Rashi, basically write a Ibn Ezra dictionary as his commentary to the Talmud? Why did Rabbeinu Tam systematically fail to take his משנה תורה “legislative review” made on a sugya of Gemara, to extend this changed perspective chiddush to understand the depth of the language of the Home Mishna? Following the destruction of Herod’s Temple, the Romans kept a sharp critical eye upon the re-established Sanhedrin! So too the church despised the existence of the Talmud-the working model for a restored Sanhedrin court system in a Torah Constitutional Republic. The French common law school of Talmudic scholarship forced later Jewish scholarship to make the most essential דיוק and make a “legislative review” of the language of the Mishnaic Din.

Talmud as multidimensional legal architecture, not static statute. מלאכה skill-forms vs. עבודה-impact-forms/causative force. Do toldot apply equally across both domains? What distinguishes the “work” of Yosef from the “work” of an ox plowing the fields? “ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו” Does Yosef do tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna as the definition of his מלאכתו, which defines shabbat observance? Does judicial courtroom justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted too qualify as a tohor time oriented commandment from the Torah itself? The Mishna’s term “Avot Melachot” by rotating through a biblical precedent — not to quote a verse robbed from its contexts, but to shift the interpretive angle.

When the Gemara applies “Av/Toldah” structure from Shabbat here, it’s a precedent transfer — rotating melachah’s taxonomy of structured action into damage law’s taxonomy of structured causation. This בנין אב serves as an inductive interpretive leap. A new angle on the blueprint. This shows how structural metaphors run across Mishnaic Orders — if you rotate the lens. The Gemara’s precedent, not meant to “win an argument over halachic posok”; as the statute law halachic clowns learned — rather it’s meant to reconstruct the Mishnah from a rotated viewpoint.

Halacha within the Talmud, not a simplified collection of rules – organized into codes of religious halachic rules of faith. But rather a blueprinted structure of dynamic precedent based judicial skills required to discern one judicial case from other similar but different judicial cases. This fundamental distinction perhaps defines the tohor middah of רב חסד as מאי נפקא מינא, תמיד מעשה בראשית, אהבה רבה. The static statute law codes pervert the Talmud unto a frozen archaic fossil, known today as “Orthodox Judaism”.
פרק רביעי שבת הלכה ב. דתנן: טומנין בשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בניזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד עושה נוטל את הכיסוי והן נופלין ראב”ע אומר קופה מטה על צדה ונוטל שמא יטול ואינו יכול להחזיר וחכמים אומרים נוטל ומחזיר גמ’. רבי יודה בן פזי בשם רבי יונתן הדא דמימר בנתונין אצל בעל צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן. רבי יודה ור’ יוחנן הדא דתימר בנתונין באפותיקי. אבל בנתונין אצל בעל הבית לא בדא. רבי ירמיה בשם רב פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת. אמר ר”ש ב”ר אני לא שמעתי מאבא. אחותי אמרה לי משמו ביצה שנולדה בי”ט סומכין לה כלי בשביל שלא תתגלגל אבל אין כופין עליה את הכלי.

פרק שביעי שבת הלכה ב: גמ’ אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת מניין לאבות מלאכות מן התורה? ר’ שמואל בר נחמן בשם רבי יונתן כנגד ארבעים חסר אחת מלאכה שכתוב בתורה בעון קומי רב אחא כל הן דכתיב מלאכות שתים. א”ר שיין אשורת עיינה דרבי אחא בכל אורייתא ולא אשכח כתיבדא מילתא בעיא דא מלתא ויבוא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו מנהון. ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה מנהון. תני רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ששת ימים תאכל מצות וביום השביעי עצרת להשם אלהיך לא תעשה מלאכה. הרי זה בא לשלים ארבעים חסר אחת מלאכות

---

The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 labors less as a list and more as concepts which it tends to unpack midrashically and practically through case law. The Yerushalmi often embeds melachic categories in ongoing halachic debates or narrative expansions. This style is characteristic of the Yerushalmi’s broader legal method — dynamic, situational, and deeply woven into context Yet our Mishna implies eight Avot avodot ((אשורת עיינה דרבי אחא בכל אורייתא ולא אשכח כתיבדא מילתא))

The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 does not treat the 39 melachot as 39 “Avot” in the strict legal sense. Rather, it limits the number of true Avot to just two, and treats the rest as derivatives (תולדות) or extensions.

🔹 Yerushalmi Shabbat 7:2 —

אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת מניין לאבות מלאכות מן התורה?

The Yerushalmi gives several midrashic derivations (e.g., parallels with “מלאכה” in the Mishkan, in Bereshit, in Vayikra), but then Rabbi Acha says:

בעון קומי רב אחא כל הן דכתיב מלאכות שתים.

אמר רבי שיין אשורת עיינה דרבי אחא בכל אורייתא ולא אשכח כתיבדא מילתא.

ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו — מנהון.

ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה — מנהון.

Meaning: only two verses refer to “melachah” in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively.

Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure:

It questions the textual foundation of “39 Avot Melachot.”

It restricts the number of true ‘Avot’ to 2, via the midrash on “melachto” from Bereshit and Shemot.

It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes. This supports:

The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference — not codified taxonomy.

In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot).

This dovetails with Bava Kamma: the “Avot Nezikin” aren’t just categories — they’re root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.

The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. This reinforces the chiddush: the Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept — not a fixed codebook. It mirrors the chiddush of tam vs mu’ad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences. In conclusion:

ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו — מנהון.

ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה — מנהון

Meaning: only two verses refer to “melachah” in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively. Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure. It questions the textual foundation of “39 Avot Melachot.” It restricts the number of true ‘Avot’ to 2, via the midrash on “melachto” from Bereshit and Shemot. It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes.

The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference — not codified taxonomy. In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot). This dovetails with the reading of Bava Kamma: the “Avot Nezikin” aren’t just categories — they’re root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.

The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. The Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept — not a fixed codebook. Tam vs mu’ad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences.

מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או פירוש כיון דקיי”ל דנזק שלם ממונא הוא וחצי נזק קנסא הוא ומועד שחזיק משלם נזק שלם מן העליה ותם משלם חצי נזק מגופו בעינן למידע הני תולדות דהני אבות אי כיוצא בהן נינהו דכל מועד מינייהו תולדה חצי נזק מגופו או דלמא תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן ואסיקנא דכולהו תולדותיהן כיצא בהן בר מתולדה דרגל ומאי ניהו חצי נזק צרורות דהלכתא גמירי לה דלא משלם אלא חצי נזק ואמי קרו לה תולדות דרגל דמשלם מן העליה ופוטרה ברה”ר ומאי עלייה מעולה שבנכסיו כדתנן הניזקין שמין להן בעדית ובעל חוב בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית

Now we see from the Rif that he immediately distinguishes the difference between tam from muad damagers. Consequently the opening line of the Mishna too must distinguish between tam and muad damagers. The 4 Avot damagers brought by the Mishna all come in the catagory of tam damagers. The reader of the Mishna required to make the required דיוק logical inference and apply the language for tam damagers equally to 4 Avot types of muad damagers! This crucial דיוק the Reshonim failed to learn. This failure triggered a ירידות הדורות for all downstream later Talmudic scholars – because they too failed to make this critical דיוק of logic.

Shen (eating) and Regel (walking/trampling) — the animal is considered mu’ad from the outset. No such thing as tam eating or tam walking. Because eating and walking are natural behaviors, not aggressive or unusual. So when the animal damages through those means, the Torah automatically classifies it as mu’ad — it’s expected. But goring is not natural behavior. The Torah gives the owner the benefit of the doubt — the animal is considered a tam until it shows repeated aggression. Tzrorot (pebbles kicked by walking) pays half by halacha leMoshe miSinai.

מאי מבעה? רב אמר מבעה זה אדם דכתיב (ישעיהו כא:יד) אם תבעיון בעיו, ושמואל אמר מבעה זה השן מטמרוהי (עובדיה א:ו) איך נחפשו עשו נבעו מצפוניו, מאי משמע, כדמתרגם רב יוסף איכדין איתבליש עשו איתגליין מטמרוהי. תני רבי אושעיה שלשה עשר אבות נזיקין ,שומר חנם והשואל והשוכר נזק וצער וריפוי ושבת ובושת וארבעה דתנן הרי שלשה עשר. תני רבי חייא עשרים וארבעה אתות נזיקין, תשלומי כפל ותשלמי ארבעה וחמשה נגב וגזלן ועדים זוממין והאונס והמפתה והמוציא שם רע והמטמא והמדמע והמנסך והנך שלשה עשר, הרי עשרים וארבעה
We learn from the B’HaG that Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiyya expand the list of damage categories from the four in the Mishnah to 13 and 24, respectively.

The Seder night is filled with this same middah shel ribui — the rabbinic instinct to take a core Torah statement and expand its meaning in light of broader oath brit themes. Hence by simply going up-stream we learn an aliya ha’dorot rather than an error that plagues the later generations unto this day!

לא שנא אב חטאת ולא שנא תולדה חטאת לא שנא אב סקילה ולא שנא תולדה סקילה ומאי איכא בין אב לתולדה נפקא מינה דאילו עביד שתי אבות בהדי הדדי אי נמי שתי תולדות בהדי הדי מחייב אכל חדא וחדא ואילו עביד אב ותולדה דידיה לא מחייב אלא חדא ולרבי אליעזר דמחייב אתולדה במקום אב אמאי קרי ליה אב ואמאי קרי לה תולדה הך דהוה במשכן חשיבא קרי ליה אב הך דלא הוי במשכן חשיבא קרי לה תולדה גבי טומאות תנן אבות הטומאות השרץ והשכבת זרע וטמא מת תולדותיהן לאו כיצא בהן דאילו אב מטמא אדם וכלים ואילו תולדות אוכלין
ומשקין מטמא אדם וכלים לא מטמא ……… דתנן: טומנין סשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בגיזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד הוא עושה נוטל את הכסוי והן נופלות

Shall return to the previous precedent earlier first introduced in the fourth chapter of shabbat. But this time, intend to make a triangulation which connects the opening and closing thesis statement with its hypotenuse third leg. Then shall show how sugya integrity equally applies unto the Yerushalmi. My theory contends that the סבוראים scholars edited both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Very little scholarship ever made upon the scholarship made by the סבוראים scholars. Most rabbinic authorities limit the influence of this critical time period to editing only the Bavli, based on the fact that they generally qualify as Babylonian scholars.

Just as Bar Kochba failed to unify Judean and Alexandrian Jewish power to fight Rome, the Babylonian scholars (Savoraim/Geonim) later failed to preserve or reintegrate the wisdom and redactional traditions of the Judean Talmud (Yerushalmi)? This conclusion reflects a long arc of Jewish fragmentation — military, political, and intellectual — rooted in regional parochialism and short-sighted leadership. Such a repugnant idea simply causes my soul to retch.

To reduce the rich, living tradition of Eretz Yisrael’s Torah — the Yerushalmi, the Land-based halakhic voice, the embodied oath alliance to do mitzvot לשמה, which forever binds our people as the chosen Cohen people — to a marginal footnote, while canonizing the Bavli as if it stood alone, represents a kind of exile. An exile of method, of memory, and of oath brit vision. It’s not just “a repugnant idea” — it’s a betrayal of the subservient relationship between the Gemara to the Mishna. Yes even my hero, Rabbeinu Tam fell into this cursed way of thinking when he failed to read the language of the Mishna from a different ‘perspective-viewpoint’ like his precedent based off the dof research did with the sugyot of the Gemara. But that this ירידות הדורות equally infected the minds of the Savoraim Era of scholarship – absolutely not. The curse of g’lut had yet to impact our leaders that they had already forgotten the wisdom of doing mitzvot לשמה.

This chiddush strives to forge a powerful ideological and interpretive vision — one that challenges the foundations of how rabbinic history and Talmudic authority have been narrated for over a millennium. The strength of this sh’itta, it expresses its own form of historical revisionism, but restoring the remembered oath brit alliance, originally sworn by the Avot themselves, which creates through Av time oriented commandments the chosen Cohen people in all generations יש מאין. It re-integrates the Mishnah, Bavli, and Yerushalmi as co-dependent axes of one oath-bound system.

An idea that my parents implanted into my brain: “Its easier to be a critic than a play-write”. This learning throws down the gauntlet of revolt against the statute law assimilated Yad, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch which casts the Jewish people off the chosen path of pursuing Av tohor time oriented commandments as the essence of our brit alliance לשמה. Torah holds depth, משנה תורה simply not read comparable to how the Xtians and Muslims read their bible and koran abominations of Av tuma avoda zarah. To reduce Torah to statute desecrates the architecture of brit, betrays the Gemara’s subservience to the Mishnah, and exiles the national soul from its sacred rhythm in time._________________________________________________________

הדור יתבי ומקמיבעיא להו הא דתנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת כנגד מי? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… לא ………………………………………………….ואתם לא תכניסו מרה”ר לרה”י הם הורידו את הקרשים מעגלה לקרקע ואתם לא תוציאו מרה”י לרה”ר הם הוציאו מעגלה לעגלה ואתם לא תוציאו מרה”י לרה”י מרה”י לרשות היחיד מטי קא עביד אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו ואיתימא רב אדא בר אהבה מרשות היחיד לרה”י דרך רשות הרבים ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. דאמר לעשות צרכיו נכנס או דילמא ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו ממנינא הוא והאי והמלאכה היתה דים הכי קאמר
דשלים ליה עבידתא תיקו

The Mishna of this mesechta shabbat addresses moving moist vegetables, that its permissible to move them with tufts of wool. The Mishnah models a mode of discernment: מנין, כיצד — asking how and why certain acts qualify as melacha versus non-melacha (mere handling, movement, utility, convenience). This distinction is not procedural, but cognitive-intentional, grounded in purpose, skill, and constructive transformation.

So the language of ומנין… כיצד… is not just rhetorical — it is methodological. It marks a halakhic contrast between skilled avodah and unskilled common labor, like sweeping the floor after a shabbos meal. The contrast between mesechta shabbat’s focus upon מלאכה as opposed and contrasted by baba kama’s focus upon עבודה, qualifies as a classic compare and contrast style of the study of literature throughout the Ages as practiced by all cultures and societies which instruct Higher Education to the younger generations.

Using Mishkan transport examples (קרשים, עגלה, רשויות) to reverse-engineer the skill level and intention involved in transferring items — constructive, purposeful, and skilled movement versus passive or utilitarian shlepping.

Tilting a Jar qualifies as an act of עבודה, not a forbidden מלאכה. Such common labor does not compare to the skill required to construct the Mishkan. Yosef, not freed from his prison cell simply because he could sweep the floor as a common slave. Josef kept his master’s accounts and other skilled labor. The sugya reconstructs through its three-legged structure: not just halakhic outcomes, but the architecture of skilled avodah.

The repeated “מנין… כיצד…” language signals an invitation not to memorize rulings, but to penetrate the legal logic beneath the surface: intention, transformation, and Mishkan precedent. ומנין — From where do we know? → This demands source awareness, invoking precedent (מלאכת המשכן) to justify legal structures. כיצד — How is this so? → This demands operational clarity, not in procedural terms but qualitative ones: skill, purpose, transformation.

Thus, even a minor act — like moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool — becomes a site of deep Torah understanding which discerns between like from like. Not every act of moving constitutes melachah. What matters is skilled construction, not mere movement. Sweeping the floor after a Shabbat meal is avodah — common, unskilled maintenance, not the creative labor of Mishkan-building.

The movement of beams (קרשים) from wagon to ground versus from domain to domain shows the role of intentional skill — not just what moves, but how and why. Does Yosef entering to do his melachto count as proof concerning the 39 labors? Is the action constructive and purposeful, or merely routine movement?

The final teiku – conclusive. The style of the difficulty vs response of the Gemara, this models a Torts courts’ Prosecutor vs Defense attorneys. The teiku implies that the precedents brought by the one did not convince the other and visa versa. Therefore the 3rd judge of the court had to make a final ruling. The language teiku means that the precedents brought by the opposing justices of the court – that both sets of precedents which they brought to argue the case both pro and con had equal merit!

Hence the concept of how the Yerushalmi understands the term איסור מלאכה merits deep respect – based upon the teiku as codified within the Bavli. The recurring Mishnah formula “ומנין… כיצד…” should not be read as mere rhetorical flourish. Rather, it functions as a methodological signal, inviting the learner to uncover the legal architecture beneath each halakhic assertion.

ומנין — From where do we know? This demands source consciousness, particularly invoking Mishkan precedent to validate categories of melachah. כיצד — How is this so? This demands not rote procedural description, but qualitative analysis: Is the act constructive? Purposeful? Skilled? The emphasis is on intention and transformation, not mere utility. Thus, even seemingly minor rulings — such as moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool — become points of legal discernment. They are opportunities to distinguish melachah from avodah.

The sugya in Shabbat uses Mishkan transport scenarios to dissect the boundaries of melachah. Moving beams (קרשים) from wagon to ground, or from one domain to another, is not about raw movement. It is about intentionality and skill: is this an act of creative, constructive labor, like that which built the Mishkan?

The question raised in the Gemara about Yosef “entering to do his melachto” adds a narrative precedent. Is Yosef’s labor melachah or avodah? Was his action one of wisdom on par with interpreting dreams or simple slave labor? This biblical echo tests the cognitive weight of melachah.

Teiku = תשבי יתרץ קושיות ובעיות. The logic is not inconclusive; it’s balanced. Each set of precedents — pro and con — carries equal legal and interpretive weight. The disagreement is not over evidence, but over legal interpretation and qualitative frameworks. Statute law rulings as represented in the assimilated codes which defiled Jewry in the Middle Ages cannot resolve a Teiku. Only a court which weights the pro/con precedents itself can definitively rule on the teiku case.

This structural insight carries powerful consequences for how we view the Yerushalmi. If the Bavli’s use of teiku models judicial equilibrium — not indecision — then the Yerushalmi’s approach to איסור מלאכה must be read with equal gravitas. The Yerushalmi’s framing is not “underdeveloped” or “incomplete” — as later scholars (especially post-Geonic) have unfairly claimed. Rather, its halakhic method may differ, but its interpretive weight — especially in distinguishing melachah from avodah — is no less sophisticated.

Treating מנין…כיצד… as a literary-methodological engine. Reading movement scenarios (קרשים, רשויות) not literally, but as tests of skilled intentionality. Interpreting teiku as judicial respect for the need of a third justice hearing the case before the court, and not indecision which must wait for Eliyahu the prophet. The future of Torah learning depends on restoring halakhic unity and method across Bavli and Yerushalmi.

פרק רביעי שבת הלכה ב מתני’ טומנין בשלחין ומטללטין אותן בניזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד עושה נוטל את הכיסוי ונוטל שמא יטול ואינו יכול להחזיר. וחכמים אורמים נוטל ומחזיר.

Consider the logical syllogism: בניזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן: רבי יודה ור’ יוחנן הדא דתימר בנתונין באפותיקי. אבל בנתונין אצל בעל הבית לא בדא. רבי ירמיה בשם רב פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת. אמר ר”ש ב”ר אני לא שמעתי מאבא אחותי אמרה לי משמו ביצה שנולדה בי”ט סומכין לה כלי בשביל שלא תתגלגל אבל אין כופין עליה את הכלי ושמואל אמר כופין עליה כלי ………………………………………………………………………………………. דמר ר’ חנינא עולין היינו עם לרבי לחמת נדר והיה אומר לנו בחרו לכם חלקו אבנים ואתם מורין לטלטלן למחר ……………………………………………………………….. א”ל אם חשבתם עליהן מאתמול מותר לטלטלן א”ל אם חשבתם עליהן מאתמול מותר לטלטלן How does this syllogism clarify מלאכה from עבודה that’s distinctly different from the way that the Bavli learns this same Mishna?

The Yerushalmi’s logical progression in this sugya — centered around גיזי צמר (tufts of wool) and related טומנין scenarios — develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes מלאכה from עבודה in a way fundamentally different from the Bavli’s approach.

How does this syllogism clarify מלאכה from עבודה that’s distinctly different from the way that the Bavli learns this same Mishna?

The Yerushalmi’s logical progression in this sugya — centered around גיזי צמר (tufts of wool) and related טומנין scenarios — develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes מלאכה from עבודה in a way fundamentally different from the Bavli’s approach.
טומנין בשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בגיזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד עושה נוטל את הכיסוי והן נופלות

You may insulate (food) with moist produce, and you may move it with tufts of wool (gizzei tzemar), but you may not move the wool itself. Yerushalmi: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yochanan qualify this: They say this applies only when the tufts of wool are set aside for commercial storage (נתונין באפותיקי). But if they’re set aside by the homeowner for insulation use, then the prohibition does not apply.

R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:
פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת
→ You may spread a mat over piles of bricks on Shabbat.

This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as it’s done without construction intent — that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah. The classic example of setting stones aside to clean oneself after having a bowel movement on shabbat.

Logical Inference: When a material is set aside for non-melachic, household use, then its status does not render its movement a melachah — this is עבודה, not מלאכה. R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:

פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת

→ You may spread a mat over piles of bricks on Shabbat. R. Shimon b. Rabbi (quoting his sister):

ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב סומכין לה כלי… אין כופין עליה

→ You may support it with a vessel, but you may not overturn one over it.

Shmuel disagrees: You may cover it. Again, the argument is about purposeful intent: are you preventing a mess or protecting something of value? Neither is constructive melachah — this is routine maintenance, i.e., avodah.

This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as it’s done without construction intent — that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah.

R. Chanina’s story with R. Yehudah HaNasi:

בחרו לכם חלקו אבנים ואתם מורין לטלטלן למחר

→ “Designate your stones today so you can move them tomorrow.”

Punchline: If you think about (set aside) the stones beforehand, they are not muktzeh and may be moved. Again, intention (preparation, designation) is what distinguishes the act. Movement alone is not melachah; constructive, skilled transformation is required.

The Yerushalmi’s reasoning builds a syllogism:

A: An object prepared for non-skilled use does not become forbidden to move.

B: Movement is not melachah unless it’s for constructive, skilled, purpose-driven labor.

C: Therefore: Mere movement, covering, handling — even if intentional — qualifies as avodah, not melachah. Thus, melachah requires intention plus skilled transformation, much like in the building of the Mishkan.

In all my years sitting in Yeshiva, never once did any Rabbi address the distinction between מלאכה from עבודה. Therefore to my way of thinking, have these rabbis ever observed the mitzva of shabbat one single day of their lives?

Understanding, based upon the precedent of Baba Kama, that shabbat observance does not limit itself to not doing מלאכה one day of the week but rather not doing איסור עבודה all the days of Chol/shabbat! The chiddush of learning the Bavli in conjunction with the Yerushalmi, ignites an indictment of a system that divorced legal obedience from legal consciousness.

A Guide to understanding how to learn the Talmud employing Inductive and Deductive reasoning

Addressing how the Gemara learns the Mishna. This requires addressing the key issue of logic. The sealed Talmudic texts have a static quality. This fixed static quality plays well into syllogism triangulation deductive reasoning. A sugya of Gemara compares, its seems to me, to a thesis statement format. Each sugya of Gemara has an opening thesis statement, and a closing restatement of that same thesis statement – employing a multiple Case/Din study. These opening and closing comparative Case\Din studies functions, so to speak, as the two legs of a triangle. If a person compares any halachic precedent found in the body of that sugya, this point maps the – so to speak – the hypotenuse line; forming a syllogistic line of reasoning process which seeks to understand how these comparison of precedents Cases teach Talmudic common law. And specifically how the Gemara comments on the language of the Mishna based upon comparative precedents.

Important to stress, Talmudic common law does not compare to reading a novel for pleasure. Torah law – very cranial by nature. The 13 hermeneutical rules of Rabbi Yishmael or the PaRDeS system of textual interpretation the יסוד upon which both the Mishna and Gemara stand upon. The major theme of the Talmud, it continually weighs tohor vs tuma spirits which dominates the opposing Yatzirot within the heart.This defining agenda a subtle kabbalah, concealed from the eyes of foreign “Roman” censors. The texts of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli written under prying watchful and suspicious-hostile eyes. The birth of this common law literature did not happen in a political vacuum nor some fictional virgin-birth process.

The Talmud reflects a highly edited and polished text. To study the Talmud requires developing an awareness of this basic most fundamental fact. The Talmud, the product of Jewish military disasters and defeats, and the hopes to restore national and political independence. The Jewish people face the cold cruel facts of a fast approaching hard cruel g’lut winter of oppression, theft, sexual immodesty, and bribed judges. The Framers of the Talmud therefore sought to establish a model for when the Spring of redemption and political national independence once more shined. A rebuilt Jewish state shall require Sanhedrin courts of common law in order to obey צדק צדק תרדוף, the Torah definition of faith. This concept of faith separates the oath alliance from the dominant empires together with their beliefs in Universal Gods. The revelation of HaShem at Sinai, only Israel witnessed. Hence HaShem – a local tribal God, who continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Jews have no burning obligation to convert the world to embrace some Universal belief in a Monotheistic God.

Jewish courts, based upon the primary Talmudic Sanhedrin model, do not remotely resemble the vertical Goyim courtrooms where the State bribes the Judges and the Prosecuting Attorneys by paying their public salaries. A lateral Sanhedrin court system would require a comparative model to the public health care insurance which prevails in the Jewish State today, to maintain the Courts. The police, their first Order of Priority: to serve the Federal Sanhedrin Court system, rather than legislative assemblies or Governments; the police essentially enforce the rulings made through the lateral common law judicial judgments.

Torah common law, a judicial legal system, and not a legislative or bureaucratic statute law system of authoritative decrees ruled by concealed cults of personality. Herein what fundamentally distinguishes Jewish common law from all other Goyim legal systems. The Torah courts have a unique function. To establish and maintain the culture and customs which both determine and define bnai brit national cohen identity; to protect against the violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein defines the mandate of Federal Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms.

The study of each and every new sugya of Gemara therefore requires making a syllogistic Case/Din triangulation/summation that seeks to understand the gist of the sugya contents. This discipline of learning, in-effect seeks to duplicate the scholarship made by the 450 – 600 CE Savoraim Talmudic scholars. The Talmud does not sit like some

“gilded wife” all by herself alone. It has a warp/weft relationship with the T’NaCH, through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic format. Where T’NaCH prophetic mussar provides the p’shat of Aggadic and Midrashic stories. The directive of both Aggadah with its Midrash commentary, designed to amplify Aggadic prophetic mussar – common law Case/Din studies – to serve as the יסוד of obeying the ritual halachic observance by way of רמז\סוד inductive reasoning; to birth tohor time oriented halacha spirits straight from the Torah in order to breath life into the “clay” souls of our people – to cause them to breath the spirit of life – based upon the precedent of the creation of Adam.
___________________________________________In summation__________________

Jewish courts do not exist to enforce imperial ideology, but to protect the oath alliance identity of the bnai brit chosen Cohen people and to enforce the Second Commandment—resisting assimilation and foreign gods. Each act of studying a sugya – not some passive reception but a reenactment of the Savoraim’s legal reasoning. Halachic study, when done correctly, achieves both spiritual tohor middot clarity and political restoration.

---

גמ’ מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או לאו כיוצא בהן? גבי שבת תנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת. אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן. כיוצא בהן לא שנא אב חטאת ולא שנא תולדה חטאת וכו’_____________________________והשתא דאוקימנא ארגל, שן דלא מכליא קרנא מנלן דומיא דרגל מה רגל לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא אף שן לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא

---

Here we have established two legs of the triangular syllogism logic. Now let’s consider the hypotenuse.

---

ת”ש בכור שורו הדר לו והאי מילף הוא גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא דנגחה בקרן הוא אלא מהו דתימא כי פליג רחמנא בין תם למועד ה”מ בתלושה אבל במחוברת אימא כולה מועדת היא

---

We now have forged a logical syllogism of sorts. Leg A – Where the Torah defines Avot, there are Toldot, and the legal status of Toldot depends on whether they are “כיוצא בהן” — that is, functionally similar.

Leg B – In the case of Regel, liability applies whether the damage completely destroys capital or not. By analogy, Shen is treated the same way, since it shares the essential trait of natural, expected damage.

Leg C – Hypotenuse – You might have thought the category of Keren only applies (i.e., has special status of Tam/Muad distinction) when the horn is detached, since that’s a more “artificial” scenario.

But the verse clarifies (Giluy Milta) that even when attached, the distinction holds — meaning that the essence of the act (unnatural goring) and not the physical condition of the instrument (attached/detached) defines the halakhic category.

The legal category (Av or Toldah) and liability are not defined by physical features (e.g., whether the horn is detached, or whether Shen consumes capital), but by behavioral nature. Therefore, the Torah’s system of Avot and Toldot is structured around the behavioral pattern of the damage, not the instrument or its result.

Hence, Shen, like Regel, is always liable, regardless of whether it consumes capital — and Toldot of Shen are “כיוצא בהן” in legal outcome. The halakhic logic (סברא) that underlies the sugya, but not every stylistic or textual move the Gemara makes on the surface. Bava Kama fundamentally addresses How Torah common law interprets damages קרן, שן, רגל, and what qualifies as Av vs. Toldah. When liability applies, whether a distinction made between the instrument of damage or nature of the act itself (natural vs. unnatural). And whether toldot carry the legal obligations identical to Avot in matters of liability for damages inflicted upon others goods, property or persons.

The categories of damage, defined by the nature of the act and not by its physical instrument such has horned or dehorned. This logic aligns the sugya with the larger conceptual framework of Avot/Toldot. Especially based upon the similar precedent of Shabbat. Where toldot like avot bear full responsibility.

The “giluy milta” piece (from בכור שורו הדר לו) resolves a potential limiting assumption. Clarifying that the liability does not hinge on whether the horn exists in fact or not. Rather this Av liability doesn’t hinge on actual horns but rather on the nature of the damage. This summation of the opening sugya core conceptual structure serves as an essential יסוד overview which permits easier evaluation and interpretation of all later off the dof inductive reasoning precedent texts introduced there after. This opening sugya serves as the basis to learn the entire Talmud through a comprehensive methodology of learning.

Having made a triangulation overview, can now proceed to making inductive reasoning precedent analysis from other Primary Sources.

Compare the language of the Mishnah (and Torah) to a blueprint — specifically, to viewing a building plan from different angles. The “front face” reading is the plain sense or surface-level meaning. But the Gemara employs בנין אב precedents to rotate the viewpoint perspective. Side view, top view, or even cross-sections. These reveal hidden structures, assumptions, or frameworks invisible from the front.

A simple legal hermeneutic. The Mishnah might say something in a straightforward way, but the Gemara often challenges that appearance by reframing the concept, introducing precedents, and asking, “What does this really mean in context?” Learning a p’suk פרט actively entails the discipline of never divorcing this specific פרט from its sugya כלל. Learning a specific in context, defines how the Talmud studies the language of the T’NaCH. This sh’itta of learning day and night different than how the Roman counterfeit gospels divorced T’NaCH p’sukim from their surrounding context. Rabbi Yishmael referred to this discipline as פרט כלל או כלל פרט.

How does the 39 principal wisdom skills of labor, required to build the Mishkan, serve as a precedent or model for how the Gemara learns the four “דיוק”, actually – eight Avot damagers. Consider the language of the precedent Mishna. A fundamental basic which explains why the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh, common law commentaries always open with the Mishna which their halachic posok comments upon! Herein defines their halachic commentaries as common law as contrasted by how the Yad, Tur, & Shulkan Aruch – their alien assimilated statute law divorces Gemara precedents of halacha from interpreting the 70 faces of the Mishna.

When the Rabbeinu Tam jumps off the dof and brings a precedent, his common law learning only read the Gemara viewed from a different perspective learning viewpoint, but failed to do the same by employing this the sugya of Gemara to re-interpret the intent of the language of the Mishna which that “home” Gemara comments upon – based upon the changed perspective of the off-the-dof Gemara precedent. In 1232 a majority of the Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam’s writings into נידוי.

Ten years later the lights of Hanukkah ceased to shine, the Pope and the king of France, Hitler in a different Era, burned 24 cartloads of hand written Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. (The invention of the printing press some two Centuries in the future.) And approximately 70 years thereafter a Royal decree expelled all Jews from France. This destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of Torah, NaCH, and Talmudic scholarship. The Tzeddukim-like Reshonim scholars who embraced Greek/Roman culture and customs prevailed in the Rambam Civil War.

Whenever the Gemara jumps off the dof and brings an outside source precedent from the 6 Orders of the Mishna etc, this serves as a paradigm for reinterpretation. The opening thesis statement of our sugya of Gemara commentary to the common law Mishna: מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או לאו כיוצא בהן. The key חכמה, it seems to me, the basic הבדלה which separates מלאכה from עבודה. Our Mishna ‘ארבעה אבות נזיקין השור וכו, implies עבודה not מלאכה. What distinguishes and separates the two classes of verbs which share a common simple translation?

The Mishna of Shabbat addresses the issue of transporting goods, probably without an eruv. ‘דתנן: טומנין בשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בגיזי צמר וכו. The Mishnah hides interpretive layers. While the Gemara’s job is to unpack, rotate, and reveal. What looks simple may hide complexity. Law is not flat — it has depth, symbolism, and structure. Reading halakhah requires shifting perspectives — just like interpreting a blueprint. Herein explains why the statute halachic codifications – utterly false and a חילול השם.

Do “toldot” equally apply to עבודה as they do to מלאכה? Herein defines the precedent question which shifts the blueprint perspective from a Front to a Top or Side view! The Gemara refines the meaning of מלאכה by making a reference to Yosef in Egypt. Our Mishna opens with Tam animals or even holes in the ground. Hence the question stands: what separates the one verb from the other verb? Skillfully transporting from domain to domain on shabbat requires skilled מלאכה or unskilled עבודה? If a plate falls from the table on shabbat, permitted to sweep and clean the broken shards of the shattered plate.

When the Gemara “jumps off the daf” and brings a precedent from another Order (Seder), it’s not a tangent — it’s a legal lens shift. Precedents are not used to prove, but to reconstruct the blueprint. They bring out hidden legal categories within familiar language. Halachic codes (Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, etc.) flatten the blueprint. They take one angle — often the front face — and freeze it into a static 2D schematic or camera picture. The B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh respect the motion dynamic — they open each halakhic statement by citing the Mishnah because its language represents the entry point to the Gemara’s architectural analysis. While the Rabbeinu Tam, when he relies on an “off-the-daf” precedent without rotating that sugya back to its Home Mishna, fails to use the precedent architecturally — he forgets to rebuild the Mishnah using the rotated view of the precedent off the dof Primary Source.

Why did Rashi, basically write a Ibn Ezra dictionary as his commentary to the Talmud? Why did Rabbeinu Tam systematically fail to take his משנה תורה “legislative review” made on a sugya of Gemara, to extend this changed perspective chiddush to understand the depth of the language of the Home Mishna? Following the destruction of Herod’s Temple, the Romans kept a sharp critical eye upon the re-established Sanhedrin! So too the church despised the existence of the Talmud-the working model for a restored Sanhedrin court system in a Torah Constitutional Republic. The French common law school of Talmudic scholarship forced later Jewish scholarship to make the most essential דיוק and make a “legislative review” of the language of the Mishnaic Din.

Talmud as multidimensional legal architecture, not static statute. מלאכה skill-forms vs. עבודה-impact-forms/causative force. Do toldot apply equally across both domains? What distinguishes the “work” of Yosef from the “work” of an ox plowing the fields? “ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו” Does Yosef do tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna as the definition of his מלאכתו, which defines shabbat observance? Does judicial courtroom justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted too qualify as a tohor time oriented commandment from the Torah itself? The Mishna’s term “Avot Melachot” by rotating through a biblical precedent — not to quote a verse robbed from its contexts, but to shift the interpretive angle.

When the Gemara applies “Av/Toldah” structure from Shabbat here, it’s a precedent transfer — rotating melachah’s taxonomy of structured action into damage law’s taxonomy of structured causation. This בנין אב serves as an inductive interpretive leap. A new angle on the blueprint. This shows how structural metaphors run across Mishnaic Orders — if you rotate the lens. The Gemara’s precedent, not meant to “win an argument over halachic posok”; as the statute law halachic clowns learned — rather it’s meant to reconstruct the Mishnah from a rotated viewpoint.

Halacha within the Talmud, not a simplified collection of rules – organized into codes of religious halachic rules of faith. But rather a blueprinted structure of dynamic precedent based judicial skills required to discern one judicial case from other similar but different judicial cases. This fundamental distinction perhaps defines the tohor middah of רב חסד as מאי נפקא מינא, תמיד מעשה בראשית, אהבה רבה. The static statute law codes pervert the Talmud unto a frozen archaic fossil, known today as “Orthodox Judaism”.
פרק רביעי שבת הלכה ב. דתנן: טומנין בשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בניזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד עושה נוטל את הכיסוי והן נופלין ראב”ע אומר קופה מטה על צדה ונוטל שמא יטול ואינו יכול להחזיר וחכמים אומרים נוטל ומחזיר גמ’. רבי יודה בן פזי בשם רבי יונתן הדא דמימר בנתונין אצל בעל צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן. רבי יודה ור’ יוחנן הדא דתימר בנתונין באפותיקי. אבל בנתונין אצל בעל הבית לא בדא. רבי ירמיה בשם רב פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת. אמר ר”ש ב”ר אני לא שמעתי מאבא. אחותי אמרה לי משמו ביצה שנולדה בי”ט סומכין לה כלי בשביל שלא תתגלגל אבל אין כופין עליה את הכלי.

פרק שביעי שבת הלכה ב: גמ’ אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת מניין לאבות מלאכות מן התורה? ר’ שמואל בר נחמן בשם רבי יונתן כנגד ארבעים חסר אחת מלאכה שכתוב בתורה בעון קומי רב אחא כל הן דכתיב מלאכות שתים. א”ר שיין אשורת עיינה דרבי אחא בכל אורייתא ולא אשכח כתיבדא מילתא בעיא דא מלתא ויבוא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו מנהון. ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה מנהון. תני רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ששת ימים תאכל מצות וביום השביעי עצרת להשם אלהיך לא תעשה מלאכה. הרי זה בא לשלים ארבעים חסר אחת מלאכות

---

The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 labors less as a list and more as concepts which it tends to unpack midrashically and practically through case law. The Yerushalmi often embeds melachic categories in ongoing halachic debates or narrative expansions. This style is characteristic of the Yerushalmi’s broader legal method — dynamic, situational, and deeply woven into context Yet our Mishna implies eight Avot avodot ((אשורת עיינה דרבי אחא בכל אורייתא ולא אשכח כתיבדא מילתא))

The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 does not treat the 39 melachot as 39 “Avot” in the strict legal sense. Rather, it limits the number of true Avot to just two, and treats the rest as derivatives (תולדות) or extensions.

🔹 Yerushalmi Shabbat 7:2 —

אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת מניין לאבות מלאכות מן התורה?

The Yerushalmi gives several midrashic derivations (e.g., parallels with “מלאכה” in the Mishkan, in Bereshit, in Vayikra), but then Rabbi Acha says:

בעון קומי רב אחא כל הן דכתיב מלאכות שתים.

אמר רבי שיין אשורת עיינה דרבי אחא בכל אורייתא ולא אשכח כתיבדא מילתא.

ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו — מנהון.

ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה — מנהון.

Meaning: only two verses refer to “melachah” in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively.

Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure:

It questions the textual foundation of “39 Avot Melachot.”

It restricts the number of true ‘Avot’ to 2, via the midrash on “melachto” from Bereshit and Shemot.

It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes. This supports:

The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference — not codified taxonomy.

In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot).

This dovetails with Bava Kamma: the “Avot Nezikin” aren’t just categories — they’re root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.

The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. This reinforces the chiddush: the Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept — not a fixed codebook. It mirrors the chiddush of tam vs mu’ad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences. In conclusion:

ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו — מנהון.

ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה — מנהון

Meaning: only two verses refer to “melachah” in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively. Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure. It questions the textual foundation of “39 Avot Melachot.” It restricts the number of true ‘Avot’ to 2, via the midrash on “melachto” from Bereshit and Shemot. It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes.

The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference — not codified taxonomy. In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot). This dovetails with the reading of Bava Kamma: the “Avot Nezikin” aren’t just categories — they’re root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.

The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. The Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept — not a fixed codebook. Tam vs mu’ad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences.

מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או פירוש כיון דקיי”ל דנזק שלם ממונא הוא וחצי נזק קנסא הוא ומועד שחזיק משלם נזק שלם מן העליה ותם משלם חצי נזק מגופו בעינן למידע הני תולדות דהני אבות אי כיוצא בהן נינהו דכל מועד מינייהו תולדה חצי נזק מגופו או דלמא תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן ואסיקנא דכולהו תולדותיהן כיצא בהן בר מתולדה דרגל ומאי ניהו חצי נזק צרורות דהלכתא גמירי לה דלא משלם אלא חצי נזק ואמי קרו לה תולדות דרגל דמשלם מן העליה ופוטרה ברה”ר ומאי עלייה מעולה שבנכסיו כדתנן הניזקין שמין להן בעדית ובעל חוב בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית

Now we see from the Rif that he immediately distinguishes the difference between tam from muad damagers. Consequently the opening line of the Mishna too must distinguish between tam and muad damagers. The 4 Avot damagers brought by the Mishna all come in the catagory of tam damagers. The reader of the Mishna required to make the required דיוק logical inference and apply the language for tam damagers equally to 4 Avot types of muad damagers! This crucial דיוק the Reshonim failed to learn. This failure triggered a ירידות הדורות for all downstream later Talmudic scholars – because they too failed to make this critical דיוק of logic.

Shen (eating) and Regel (walking/trampling) — the animal is considered mu’ad from the outset. No such thing as tam eating or tam walking. Because eating and walking are natural behaviors, not aggressive or unusual. So when the animal damages through those means, the Torah automatically classifies it as mu’ad — it’s expected. But goring is not natural behavior. The Torah gives the owner the benefit of the doubt — the animal is considered a tam until it shows repeated aggression. Tzrorot (pebbles kicked by walking) pays half by halacha leMoshe miSinai.

מאי מבעה? רב אמר מבעה זה אדם דכתיב (ישעיהו כא:יד) אם תבעיון בעיו, ושמואל אמר מבעה זה השן מטמרוהי (עובדיה א:ו) איך נחפשו עשו נבעו מצפוניו, מאי משמע, כדמתרגם רב יוסף איכדין איתבליש עשו איתגליין מטמרוהי. תני רבי אושעיה שלשה עשר אבות נזיקין ,שומר חנם והשואל והשוכר נזק וצער וריפוי ושבת ובושת וארבעה דתנן הרי שלשה עשר. תני רבי חייא עשרים וארבעה אתות נזיקין, תשלומי כפל ותשלמי ארבעה וחמשה נגב וגזלן ועדים זוממין והאונס והמפתה והמוציא שם רע והמטמא והמדמע והמנסך והנך שלשה עשר, הרי עשרים וארבעה
We learn from the B’HaG that Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiyya expand the list of damage categories from the four in the Mishnah to 13 and 24, respectively.

The Seder night is filled with this same middah shel ribui — the rabbinic instinct to take a core Torah statement and expand its meaning in light of broader oath brit themes. Hence by simply going up-stream we learn an aliya ha’dorot rather than an error that plagues the later generations unto this day!

לא שנא אב חטאת ולא שנא תולדה חטאת לא שנא אב סקילה ולא שנא תולדה סקילה ומאי איכא בין אב לתולדה נפקא מינה דאילו עביד שתי אבות בהדי הדדי אי נמי שתי תולדות בהדי הדי מחייב אכל חדא וחדא ואילו עביד אב ותולדה דידיה לא מחייב אלא חדא ולרבי אליעזר דמחייב אתולדה במקום אב אמאי קרי ליה אב ואמאי קרי לה תולדה הך דהוה במשכן חשיבא קרי ליה אב הך דלא הוי במשכן חשיבא קרי לה תולדה גבי טומאות תנן אבות הטומאות השרץ והשכבת זרע וטמא מת תולדותיהן לאו כיצא בהן דאילו אב מטמא אדם וכלים ואילו תולדות אוכלין
ומשקין מטמא אדם וכלים לא מטמא ……… דתנן: טומנין סשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בגיזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד הוא עושה נוטל את הכסוי והן נופלות

Shall return to the previous precedent earlier first introduced in the fourth chapter of shabbat. But this time, intend to make a triangulation which connects the opening and closing thesis statement with its hypotenuse third leg. Then shall show how sugya integrity equally applies unto the Yerushalmi. My theory contends that the סבוראים scholars edited both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Very little scholarship ever made upon the scholarship made by the סבוראים scholars. Most rabbinic authorities limit the influence of this critical time period to editing only the Bavli, based on the fact that they generally qualify as Babylonian scholars.

Just as Bar Kochba failed to unify Judean and Alexandrian Jewish power to fight Rome, the Babylonian scholars (Savoraim/Geonim) later failed to preserve or reintegrate the wisdom and redactional traditions of the Judean Talmud (Yerushalmi)? This conclusion reflects a long arc of Jewish fragmentation — military, political, and intellectual — rooted in regional parochialism and short-sighted leadership. Such a repugnant idea simply causes my soul to retch.

To reduce the rich, living tradition of Eretz Yisrael’s Torah — the Yerushalmi, the Land-based halakhic voice, the embodied oath alliance to do mitzvot לשמה, which forever binds our people as the chosen Cohen people — to a marginal footnote, while canonizing the Bavli as if it stood alone, represents a kind of exile. An exile of method, of memory, and of oath brit vision. It’s not just “a repugnant idea” — it’s a betrayal of the subservient relationship between the Gemara to the Mishna. Yes even my hero, Rabbeinu Tam fell into this cursed way of thinking when he failed to read the language of the Mishna from a different ‘perspective-viewpoint’ like his precedent based off the dof research did with the sugyot of the Gemara. But that this ירידות הדורות equally infected the minds of the Savoraim Era of scholarship – absolutely not. The curse of g’lut had yet to impact our leaders that they had already forgotten the wisdom of doing mitzvot לשמה.

This chiddush strives to forge a powerful ideological and interpretive vision — one that challenges the foundations of how rabbinic history and Talmudic authority have been narrated for over a millennium. The strength of this sh’itta, it expresses its own form of historical revisionism, but restoring the remembered oath brit alliance, originally sworn by the Avot themselves, which creates through Av time oriented commandments the chosen Cohen people in all generations יש מאין. It re-integrates the Mishnah, Bavli, and Yerushalmi as co-dependent axes of one oath-bound system.

An idea that my parents implanted into my brain: “Its easier to be a critic than a play-write”. This learning throws down the gauntlet of revolt against the statute law assimilated Yad, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch which casts the Jewish people off the chosen path of pursuing Av tohor time oriented commandments as the essence of our brit alliance לשמה. Torah holds depth, משנה תורה simply not read comparable to how the Xtians and Muslims read their bible and koran abominations of Av tuma avoda zarah. To reduce Torah to statute desecrates the architecture of brit, betrays the Gemara’s subservience to the Mishnah, and exiles the national soul from its sacred rhythm in time._________________________________________________________

הדור יתבי ומקמיבעיא להו הא דתנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת כנגד מי? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… לא ………………………………………………….ואתם לא תכניסו מרה”ר לרה”י הם הורידו את הקרשים מעגלה לקרקע ואתם לא תוציאו מרה”י לרה”ר הם הוציאו מעגלה לעגלה ואתם לא תוציאו מרה”י לרה”י מרה”י לרשות היחיד מטי קא עביד אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו ואיתימא רב אדא בר אהבה מרשות היחיד לרה”י דרך רשות הרבים ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. דאמר לעשות צרכיו נכנס או דילמא ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו ממנינא הוא והאי והמלאכה היתה דים הכי קאמר
דשלים ליה עבידתא תיקו

The Mishna of this mesechta shabbat addresses moving moist vegetables, that its permissible to move them with tufts of wool. The Mishnah models a mode of discernment: מנין, כיצד — asking how and why certain acts qualify as melacha versus non-melacha (mere handling, movement, utility, convenience). This distinction is not procedural, but cognitive-intentional, grounded in purpose, skill, and constructive transformation.

So the language of ומנין… כיצד… is not just rhetorical — it is methodological. It marks a halakhic contrast between skilled avodah and unskilled common labor, like sweeping the floor after a shabbos meal. The contrast between mesechta shabbat’s focus upon מלאכה as opposed and contrasted by baba kama’s focus upon עבודה, qualifies as a classic compare and contrast style of the study of literature throughout the Ages as practiced by all cultures and societies which instruct Higher Education to the younger generations.

Using Mishkan transport examples (קרשים, עגלה, רשויות) to reverse-engineer the skill level and intention involved in transferring items — constructive, purposeful, and skilled movement versus passive or utilitarian shlepping.

Tilting a Jar qualifies as an act of עבודה, not a forbidden מלאכה. Such common labor does not compare to the skill required to construct the Mishkan. Yosef, not freed from his prison cell simply because he could sweep the floor as a common slave. Josef kept his master’s accounts and other skilled labor. The sugya reconstructs through its three-legged structure: not just halakhic outcomes, but the architecture of skilled avodah.

The repeated “מנין… כיצד…” language signals an invitation not to memorize rulings, but to penetrate the legal logic beneath the surface: intention, transformation, and Mishkan precedent. ומנין — From where do we know? → This demands source awareness, invoking precedent (מלאכת המשכן) to justify legal structures. כיצד — How is this so? → This demands operational clarity, not in procedural terms but qualitative ones: skill, purpose, transformation.

Thus, even a minor act — like moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool — becomes a site of deep Torah understanding which discerns between like from like. Not every act of moving constitutes melachah. What matters is skilled construction, not mere movement. Sweeping the floor after a Shabbat meal is avodah — common, unskilled maintenance, not the creative labor of Mishkan-building.

The movement of beams (קרשים) from wagon to ground versus from domain to domain shows the role of intentional skill — not just what moves, but how and why. Does Yosef entering to do his melachto count as proof concerning the 39 labors? Is the action constructive and purposeful, or merely routine movement?

The final teiku – conclusive. The style of the difficulty vs response of the Gemara, this models a Torts courts’ Prosecutor vs Defense attorneys. The teiku implies that the precedents brought by the one did not convince the other and visa versa. Therefore the 3rd judge of the court had to make a final ruling. The language teiku means that the precedents brought by the opposing justices of the court – that both sets of precedents which they brought to argue the case both pro and con had equal merit!

Hence the concept of how the Yerushalmi understands the term איסור מלאכה merits deep respect – based upon the teiku as codified within the Bavli. The recurring Mishnah formula “ומנין… כיצד…” should not be read as mere rhetorical flourish. Rather, it functions as a methodological signal, inviting the learner to uncover the legal architecture beneath each halakhic assertion.

ומנין — From where do we know? This demands source consciousness, particularly invoking Mishkan precedent to validate categories of melachah. כיצד — How is this so? This demands not rote procedural description, but qualitative analysis: Is the act constructive? Purposeful? Skilled? The emphasis is on intention and transformation, not mere utility. Thus, even seemingly minor rulings — such as moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool — become points of legal discernment. They are opportunities to distinguish melachah from avodah.

The sugya in Shabbat uses Mishkan transport scenarios to dissect the boundaries of melachah. Moving beams (קרשים) from wagon to ground, or from one domain to another, is not about raw movement. It is about intentionality and skill: is this an act of creative, constructive labor, like that which built the Mishkan?

The question raised in the Gemara about Yosef “entering to do his melachto” adds a narrative precedent. Is Yosef’s labor melachah or avodah? Was his action one of wisdom on par with interpreting dreams or simple slave labor? This biblical echo tests the cognitive weight of melachah.

Teiku = תשבי יתרץ קושיות ובעיות. The logic is not inconclusive; it’s balanced. Each set of precedents — pro and con — carries equal legal and interpretive weight. The disagreement is not over evidence, but over legal interpretation and qualitative frameworks. Statute law rulings as represented in the assimilated codes which defiled Jewry in the Middle Ages cannot resolve a Teiku. Only a court which weights the pro/con precedents itself can definitively rule on the teiku case.

This structural insight carries powerful consequences for how we view the Yerushalmi. If the Bavli’s use of teiku models judicial equilibrium — not indecision — then the Yerushalmi’s approach to איסור מלאכה must be read with equal gravitas. The Yerushalmi’s framing is not “underdeveloped” or “incomplete” — as later scholars (especially post-Geonic) have unfairly claimed. Rather, its halakhic method may differ, but its interpretive weight — especially in distinguishing melachah from avodah — is no less sophisticated.

Treating מנין…כיצד… as a literary-methodological engine. Reading movement scenarios (קרשים, רשויות) not literally, but as tests of skilled intentionality. Interpreting teiku as judicial respect for the need of a third justice hearing the case before the court, and not indecision which must wait for Eliyahu the prophet. The future of Torah learning depends on restoring halakhic unity and method across Bavli and Yerushalmi.

פרק רביעי שבת הלכה ב מתני’ טומנין בשלחין ומטללטין אותן בניזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד עושה נוטל את הכיסוי ונוטל שמא יטול ואינו יכול להחזיר. וחכמים אורמים נוטל ומחזיר.

Consider the logical syllogism: בניזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן: רבי יודה ור’ יוחנן הדא דתימר בנתונין באפותיקי. אבל בנתונין אצל בעל הבית לא בדא. רבי ירמיה בשם רב פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת. אמר ר”ש ב”ר אני לא שמעתי מאבא אחותי אמרה לי משמו ביצה שנולדה בי”ט סומכין לה כלי בשביל שלא תתגלגל אבל אין כופין עליה את הכלי ושמואל אמר כופין עליה כלי ………………………………………………………………………………………. דמר ר’ חנינא עולין היינו עם לרבי לחמת נדר והיה אומר לנו בחרו לכם חלקו אבנים ואתם מורין לטלטלן למחר ……………………………………………………………….. א”ל אם חשבתם עליהן מאתמול מותר לטלטלן א”ל אם חשבתם עליהן מאתמול מותר לטלטלן How does this syllogism clarify מלאכה from עבודה that’s distinctly different from the way that the Bavli learns this same Mishna?

The Yerushalmi’s logical progression in this sugya — centered around גיזי צמר (tufts of wool) and related טומנין scenarios — develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes מלאכה from עבודה in a way fundamentally different from the Bavli’s approach.

How does this syllogism clarify מלאכה from עבודה that’s distinctly different from the way that the Bavli learns this same Mishna?

The Yerushalmi’s logical progression in this sugya — centered around גיזי צמר (tufts of wool) and related טומנין scenarios — develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes מלאכה from עבודה in a way fundamentally different from the Bavli’s approach.
טומנין בשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בגיזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד עושה נוטל את הכיסוי והן נופלות

You may insulate (food) with moist produce, and you may move it with tufts of wool (gizzei tzemar), but you may not move the wool itself. Yerushalmi: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yochanan qualify this: They say this applies only when the tufts of wool are set aside for commercial storage (נתונין באפותיקי). But if they’re set aside by the homeowner for insulation use, then the prohibition does not apply.

R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:
פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת
→ You may spread a mat over piles of bricks on Shabbat.

This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as it’s done without construction intent — that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah. The classic example of setting stones aside to clean oneself after having a bowel movement on shabbat.

Logical Inference: When a material is set aside for non-melachic, household use, then its status does not render its movement a melachah — this is עבודה, not מלאכה. R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:

פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת

→ You may spread a mat over piles of bricks on Shabbat. R. Shimon b. Rabbi (quoting his sister):

ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב סומכין לה כלי… אין כופין עליה

→ You may support it with a vessel, but you may not overturn one over it.

Shmuel disagrees: You may cover it. Again, the argument is about purposeful intent: are you preventing a mess or protecting something of value? Neither is constructive melachah — this is routine maintenance, i.e., avodah.

This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as it’s done without construction intent — that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah.

R. Chanina’s story with R. Yehudah HaNasi:

בחרו לכם חלקו אבנים ואתם מורין לטלטלן למחר

→ “Designate your stones today so you can move them tomorrow.”

Punchline: If you think about (set aside) the stones beforehand, they are not muktzeh and may be moved. Again, intention (preparation, designation) is what distinguishes the act. Movement alone is not melachah; constructive, skilled transformation is required.

The Yerushalmi’s reasoning builds a syllogism:

A: An object prepared for non-skilled use does not become forbidden to move.

B: Movement is not melachah unless it’s for constructive, skilled, purpose-driven labor.

C: Therefore: Mere movement, covering, handling — even if intentional — qualifies as avodah, not melachah. Thus, melachah requires intention plus skilled transformation, much like in the building of the Mishkan.

In all my years sitting in Yeshiva, never once did any Rabbi address the distinction between מלאכה from עבודה. Therefore to my way of thinking, have these rabbis ever observed the mitzva of shabbat one single day of their lives?

Understanding, based upon the precedent of Baba Kama, that shabbat observance does not limit itself to not doing מלאכה one day of the week but rather not doing איסור עבודה all the days of Chol/shabbat! The chiddush of learning the Bavli in conjunction with the Yerushalmi, ignites an indictment of a system that divorced legal obedience from legal consciousness.