Daf Yomi Shabbat 73a/75b - Salting and Curing

The Mishna on Shabbat 73a perhaps diverts from its usual sytle for the forbidden labor of curing {hides} on Shabbat.

The Mishna states:

CAPTURING A DEER, SLAUGHTERING IT, OR FLAYING IT, OR SALTING IT, CURING ITS HIDE, SCRAPING IT [OF ITS HAIR], CUTTING IT UP, etc.

Typically, we see a specification of the object of the labor when it changes from the previous subject. Thus, the Mihsna begins with SOWING, PLOUGHING, REAPING, etc., until we reach the last stage of this process, BAKING. The next stage begins with SHEARING WOOL, BLEACHING IT, HACKLING IT, etc. -- that is, we begin a new process upon the wool of sheep, and so we specify "wool" as the object, and all the other labors listed are processes in the production in something from that wool, ending in TEARING IN ORDER TO SEW TWO STITCHES. We then begin a new subcategory, beginning with CAPTURING A DEER and ending with creating parchment and writing/erasing on that parchment: CURING ITS HIDE, SCRAPING IT [OF ITS HAIR], CUTTING IT UP, WRITING TWO LETTERS, ERASING IN ORDER TO WRITE TWO LETTERS [OVER THE ERASURE]. The remaining elements in the Mishna are relatively distinct, either existing individually or in sets of two, and one does not specify the object of these labors.

Now, within these subgroups of labors, when the object was specified at the start, one occasionally finds a ו at the end of each verb. Thus, at the start, הגוזז את הצמר, SHEARING WOOL, there is no ו needed since the object is indicated directly by means of the noun הצמר. Subsequent actions can use the pronoun ו, meaning "it," to specify that the action takes place on the same object. Thus, המלבנו, BLEACHING IT, והמנפצו, HACKLING IT, etc.. Not every action uses the pronoun.

Within the group of labors which begin CAPTURING A DEER, many of the actions do use the pronoun ו. Thus השוחטו, והמפשיטו, המולחו - SLAUGHTERING IT, OR FLAYING IT, OR SALTING IT. However, the next action contains both a possessive ו, as well as a noun: והמעבד את עורו - CURING ITS HIDE. Subsequent labors, SCRAPING IT [OF ITS HAIR], and CUTTING IT UP, which use the pronoun ו, presumably use it to refer to the skin of the deer, rather than the deer itself. While this seems an accurate shift, one might question if such a shift is necessary, or if if we had stuck with the first noun "deer," we would have been fine, since after all one scrapes the deer when one scrapes the deer's hide.

In fact, if one looks at the Rif's version of the Mishna (daf 31b in the Rif, available at my Rif blog), we see that he does not write והמעבד את עורו, CURING ITS HIDE, but rather והמעבדו, CURING IT. Furthermore, if we look at the pesikta in the gemara in the Rif (which is Shabbat 75b in the gemara, and daf 32b in the Rif), you will see that once again it has והמעבדו. (The full citation is הצד צבי השוחטו, והמפשיטו, המולחו והמעבדו.)

By way of explanation, a pesikta is the citation between the sets of two dots citing a portion of the Mishna, in order to show what portion of the Mishna the gemara is discussing. This was not part of the original gemara, but was added by the Geonim as a helpful tool. Thus, this is a citation of the Mishna by the Geonim, and one again they have והמעבדו instead of והמעבד את עורו, CURING IT instead of CURING ITS HIDE. So one should not dismiss it as a mere typographical error in the Mishna in the Rif.

Furthermore, it is not just the pesikta in the Rif that has והמעבדו instead of והמעבד את עורו. In our gemara as well, in the peskita, on Shabbat 75b, we also have והמעבדו instead of והמעבד את עורו. The pesikta in this case is different, and shorter - המולחו והמעבדו. This means that it is not just the Rif that has this girsa, but apparently the geonim who had input into the manuscript(s) that eventually yielded our gemara had this girsa in the Mishna as well.

How could the pesikta on the gemara be inconsistent with the Mishna in our gemara? It is a simple matter. Initially, gemaras did not have the Mishna as part of it. Some had all the Mishnayot listed in the very beginning, for convenience. So when forming the printed text, the printers inserted a Mishna. This is not necessarily the same one, with the same text, as the one the Geonim used. Meanwhile, the Rif includes a Mishna in his text, and presumably his version of the Mishna matched that of the Geonim.

Is this all academic, or does this have any repercussions lehalacha, or even in terms of understanding the gemara? I believe that there is in fact a critical distinction.

If we turn to Shabbat 75b, we encounter a discussion about the labors of salting and curing {=tanning hides}:

SALTING AND CURING IT.
But salting and curing are identical?
Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both said: Omit one of these and insert the making {tracing} of lines.
Rabba bar Rav Huna said: He who salts meat is liable on account of curing.
Rava said: Curing does not apply to foodstuffs.
Rav Ashi observed: And even Rabba bar Rav Huna ruled thus only when he requires it for a journey; but [when he needs it] for his house, one does not turn his food into wood.

Thus, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both maintain that salting and curing are not each an independent av melacha, but rather they are together an av melacha, or else one is an av and the other a toleda. This would mean that if someone both salted and cured in a single session of forgetfulness, he would be obligated to bring a single sin-offering, rather than two. Meanwhile, by declaring the making of lines (sirtut) an av melacha, as opposed to declaring it the todela of some other labor, the result is that if one makes lines and does that other melacha in a single period of forgetfulness, he would be obligated to bring two sin-offerings, rather than one.

One can argue with this coalescing of the labors of salting and curing. Specifically, one might point out that salting is not just the beginning portion of curing, but is also used in the preparation of meat. Thus, salting should count as its own primary labor, and curing should count as another primary labor.

I would posit that this is in fact what Rava is saying. He states that curing does not apply to foodstuffs. Thus, if someone salted meat, rather than hide, he would not violate the av melacha of curing. Further, he would not violate it even as a toleda of curing, since curing does not apply to foodstuffs. Perhaps this means that his act is entirely permitted? I would posit that Rava is stating that this falls under an entirely different av melacha, that of salting.

It would seem that Rabba bar Rav Huna argues. He maintains that he who salts meat is liable on account of curing. Thus, this is either the av melacha of curing, or a toleda of the av melacha of curing. Therefore, even salting meat counts as curing, and there is no justification for listing salting and curing as separate entities in the Mishna. He would then agree to both Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish that one should remove "salting" from the Mishna and insert "making lines."

However, Rav Ashi, in a later generation, partially harmonizes Rabba bar Rav Huna with Rava. Rav Ashi explains that Rabba bar Rav Huna only ruled that salting meat falls under the rubric of curing when one salts it sufficiently to turn it into jerky, which one does when preparing for a long journey. Thus, in certain cases salting meat can fall under the category of curing. However, when salting meat normally, one does not render it jerky, and thus it is not a toleda of curing. Does this mean it is entirely permitted? Perhaps, but I would posit that in fact Rav Ashi is saying that it is a separate av melacha, that of salting. Thus, there is justification for listing salting and curing as two separate avot melachot in the Mishna.

If so, Rava, Rabba bar Rav Huna, and Rav Ashi argue with Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish whether salting or making lines on parchment is counted as a separate av melacha. Since they are batrai, the law should be like them.

If we examine the Rif, we discover that he only cites the statement of Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, but omits Rabba bar Rav Huna, Rava, and Rav Ashi. Thus, it seems he rules like Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Similarly, the Rosh cites the pesikta of המולחו והמעבדו as well as the statement of Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, but omits the rest. Perhaps they read the rest of the gemara differently, or perhaps different kelalei hora`a are in play.

At any rate, consider once again the changed girsa in our Mishna. Rather than והמעבדו, we have והמעבד את עורו. What is the effect of this change? First, curing is something that applies specifically to the hide of the deer, as opposed to its meat. Second, it is only curing and on that is specifically for its hide. Salting, which appears earlier in the list, might apply to something other that the hide - for example, meat. Thirdly, perhaps the specification of curing its hide is a rejection of Rabba bar Rav Huna, that in certain situations salting meat might also be considered curing, and an endorsement of Rava, who states that curing does not apply to foodstuffs.

Thus, the changed girsa appears to support my conclusion, that we rule like Rav Ashi (and perhaps Rava as well) over Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

It is not immediately apparent when this girsa change came to be. Clearly the Rif, the Rosh (in his citation of the pesikta), and some Geonim had the girsa of והמעבדו. This girsa change might be post-Geonic, or else it could have came into being much earlier, and existed in a parallel girsa which merely was not cited. Meanwhile, we have the Mishna as recorded in the Rif, as well as the Mishna as cited by the Geonim in the pesikta, as it appears in both the Rif and in our gemara.

I would be remiss if I did not briefly mention the Yerushalmi. In the Mishna in the Yerushalmi, we once again have והמעבד את עורו. However, in the pesikta in the Yerushalmi (daf 52a) we have והמעבדו. Further, the statement there is telling: המעבדו - מה עיבוד היה במשכן? שהיו משרטטין בעורות. "What type of curing did they perform in the mishkan? They traced lines in the hides." Thus, they leave in curing meat, but tie it in to the mishkan by recalling the making of lines on skins. This roughly parallels the statement of the Palestinian Amoraim, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, who replace curing with the making of lines.

It would then seem that, according to Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, the making of lines would not replace salting, but rather would replace curing, and not because curing and salting are identical, but rather because the labor performed in the mishkan was tracing lines (of which curing would be a toleda). What then, to make of the statement in the beginning of the gemara of "But salting and curing are identical?" This is an interpretation of the setama degemara, who understands this in the context of the discussion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, Rava, and Rav Ashi, and who did not see the Yerushalmi. Thus, surely, salting should not be omitted from the list, and salting and curing/making lines are two separate avot melachot.

Update, and Partial Rebuttal:
How could one learn the Bavli otherwise? Simple.
Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both say that one should remove one of the set of salting/ curing and instead insert making lines. Thus, there is no dispute in the matter, and all other Amoraim would agree. Since this is a matter of definition and the important matter of what one chooses to include in the list of avot melachot in the Mishna, the Rif (and Rosh) list this statement.

Now, Rabba bar Rav Huna, Rava, and Rav Ashi all agree to Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Thus, mere salting is not a matter under consideration. Rather, the issue is whether salting meat (or any food) in varying degree might fall under the authentic av melacha, curing. Rabba bar Rav Huna says yes, Rava says that curing does not apply to foodstuffs, and Rav Ashi says that even Rabba bar Rav Huna only speaks of extreme salting, to make jerky.

It is an interesting issue how to treat arguments about assigning actions to an av melacha. Does saying that salting falls under curing mean only under curing, or even under curing? We see this at the bottom of 75b to the top of 76a, in the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Shmuel states one is liable for slaughtering on the score of taking a life. Meanwhile Rav says he is liable on the score of dyeing (that is, coloring something). The setama degemara protests - only dyeing? What aboout taking of a life? And the setama answers that he means even for dyeing.

What then, to make of the two girsaot in the Mishna? Well, the change from והמעבדו to והמעבד את עורו could easily be read as an endorsement of Rava, that ibbud only applies to the hide of the animal, and not to foodstuffs.

In terms of the Yerushalmi, I'd have to learn it in more detail, but one might say that asking what form of ibbud existed in the Mishkan, and answering making lines in the hides, is an answer for the span of avot melachot from curing until making lines. That is, capturing and slaughtering have other parallels in the construction of the Mishkan, but from ibbud until making lines, they explain that this is all part of the process up to making the lines, which was in the construction of the Mishkan. And they would agree with the removing of salting and inserting making lines, as after all both Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, usually disputants, both agree that one should insert making lines as one of the melachot. Perhaps.