The faith depth of the issue of 'Fathers and History'

By: Nathan Kotler

background
In the first mishna in the first chapter, it is said, "four fathers are torts." The Gemara, as is its custom, is precise in every word or concept stated in the mishna and attempts to understand its depth. The Gemara concludes from the words of the mishna that if we say "fathers," then there must also be "toldot." The "fathers" are the primary types of torts explained in the Torah, and the "toldot" are secondary types of torts learned from the fathers.
The Gemara attempts to clarify whether the law of the ancestors is the law of the ancestors? It compares other areas in which we find ancestors and history, such as Shabbat and impurity.
Regarding Shabbat, the Mishnah in Tractate Shabbat (33:1) states, "There are forty ancestors of works, minus one." If it is said that there are 39 ancestors of works, then there are certainly also descendants. Is the law of descendants the same as that of ancestors? The difference is in the case of one who accidentally did two works together "in mutual contradiction." If he did two ancestors or two descendants, he is liable for sin for each one. However, if he did a father and a descendant, he is liable for only one sin for the father and not for the descendant.
However, we find that there is another method, and that of Rabbi Eliezer, that if one accidentally commits a sin for both father and offspring, one is liable for two sins, for both the father and the offspring. If so, according to Rabbi Eliezer's method, what would be the difference between a father and an offspring?
The Gemara says that according to Rabbi Eliezer's method, the difference between Av and Tolda is that a work that was important in the Mishkan was called Av, while a work that was not important in the Mishkan was called Tolda.
Why did Tosafot bring another version?
The Tosafot present another version that disputes the notion that the importance of the work in itself would make it a father, but that it had to be practiced in the Mishkan. The conclusion of the second version is that not every work practiced in the Mishkan is a father, and likewise not every important work is a father, but every important work practiced in the Mishkan is a father.
We must ask: What forced the Tosaf to bring a different version?
It seems that the answer is that we learn the 39 Avot Melacha of Shabbat from the crafts that were practiced in the Mishkan (Shabbat 44:2), and therefore it is impossible to separate the definition of 'Av Melacha' from the Mishkan and claim that the only condition for an Av is that the craft is important. After all, all study of Shabbat crafts comes from the Mishkan.
The essence of productive crafts
But we must continue to ask, why do we learn the 39 Avot Melachah of Shabbat specifically from the works that were in the Mishkan?
The Tosafot in Tractate Shabbat wrote: "For the necessity for which work was done in the Mishkan is the body (prohibition) of the work and its root" (Tsed, 1, cf. Rabbi Shimon Potter). Rabbi Hirsch explained the words of the Tosafot and explained that since the work of the Mishkan is the foundation, the root of every productive work that creates change in the world, therefore the work prohibited on Shabbat should be learned from them. After all, refraining from doing these works expresses the absolute commitment to the will of God (Rashar Hirsch, Exodus 20:10; 30:13; 35:1).
However, it seems that we should try to delve deeper into the reason why we learn the 39 Avot Melachah that are forbidden on Shabbat specifically from the Mishkan crafts.
Tikun Olam (Repair of the World)
Rabbi Chaim of Czernowitz writes in his book 'Siddur Shel Shabbat' that b