All the utensils used for weaving, including the cords and the reeds, may be carried [according to the rules governing] other utensils that are used for forbidden tasks.1 An exception is made regarding the upper weaver's beam and the lower weaver's beam. They may not be carried, because they are [usually] fixed [within the loam].2
Similarly, the pillars [of the loam] may not be moved, lest one fill the hole [in the earth created when they are removed]. It is permitted to move the other utensils of a weaver.3
Brooms made of date branches and the like, which are used to sweep the ground, are considered utensils that are used for a permitted purpose, since sweeping is permitted on the Sabbath.4
Bricks that remain after a building [was completed] are considered utensils that are used for a permitted purpose, for they are fit to recline upon,5, as is obvious from the fact that they are filed and adjusted for this purpose.6 If, however, one collects them, [it is evident] that they have been set aside [for building], and it is forbidden to carry them.7
A small shard may be carried, even in the public domain.8[This leniency is granted] because it is fit to be used in a courtyard to cover the opening of a small utensil.9 [When] the stopper of a barrel has been cut off, both it and its broken pieces are permitted to be carried. If one threw it into a garbage dump10 before the commencement of the Sabbath,11 carrying it is forbidden.
When a utensil has been broken [but not shattered into pieces], one should not remove a shard from it to use to cover [another utensil] or to use as a support.
It is permitted to bring three rounded12 stones into a lavatory to clean oneself.13 Of what size may they be? A fistful.14A clod of earth, by contrast, which is likely to crumble, is forbidden to be taken to clean oneself.15
It is permitted to take these stones up to a roof [so that one will be able] to clean oneself with them.16 When rain descends upon them and they sink in the mud, they may be taken if there is a distinct mark [showing their location].17
[When] a stone has filth on it, one can be certain that it is used to clean oneself. Therefore, carrying it is permitted it even though it is large.18
Should a person have a choice of [using] a stone or an earthenware shard [to clean himself], one should use the stone.19If, however, the shard comes from the handle of a utensil, one should use the shard.20
[The following rules apply when] a person has a choice of [using] a stone or grass: If the grass is soft, one should use it.21 If not, one should use the stone.22
The remnants of mats that have become tattered are considered utensils that may be used for a permitted purpose, for they are fit to be used to cover filth.23 In contrast, the remnants of clothes24 that are less than three [thumbbreadths] by three [thumbbreadths],25 and have become tattered may not be carried, for they are not fit - neither for the poor nor for the rich.26
The broken pieces of an oven are permitted to be carried; they are considered to be like all other utensils that are permitted to be carried.27 When, however, one leg of a range has slipped from its place, it may not be carried, lest one affix [it in its place].28
A ladder leading to a loft is forbidden to be carried [on the Sabbath], since it is not considered to be a utensil.29 [A ladder leading] to a dovecote [by contrast, is not considered muktzeh30 and] is permitted to be tilted. One should not, however, carry it from one dovecote to another, lest one follow one's ordinary course of conduct and come to snare [the doves].
[The following rule governs the use of] a rod that is used to harvest olives:31 When it is categorized as a utensil,32 it is considered to be a utensil that is used for a forbidden purpose. [The following rule governs the use of] a reed that is adjusted by a homeowner to open and lock [his door]:33 When it is categorized as a utensil,34 it is considered to be a utensil that is used for a permitted purpose.
[The following rules apply to] a door35 that once had a hinge - though at present it does not have a hinge36 - which is prepared to close a yard,37 but which drags on the ground when it is opened and closed: If the door is attached to and hanging on the wall, it may be used to close the space and may be locked.38 If not, it may not be used to close the space. If the door is [suspended] above the ground, it may be used to close the space.39 The same rules apply to a [partition made from] brambles or a mat that drags on the floor.
[The following rules apply to] a door that is made from a single piece of wood and which is placed in [a doorway] to close it and removed [to open it]. If [the doorway] does not have a base at the bottom that resembles a doorstep that would indicate that [the door] is a utensil that is used for [opening and] closing, [the door] may not be used to close [the doorway].40 If [the doorway] has a doorstep, one may use [the door].41
Similarly, a bolt that has a bulb at its end that indicates that it is a utensil used to bolt a door, and is not merely an ordinary beam, may be used to bolt a door on the Sabbath.42
[The following rules apply to] a bolt that does not have a bulb at its end: If it is tied to the door and suspended from it, we may use it to bolt the door on the Sabbath.43 [This ruling] also applies when it is carried together with the rope attaching it to the door.44
If, by contrast, the rope attaching it is fixed permanently to the door and the bolt is removed like a beam, placed in a corner, and then reattached when one desires, its use as a bolt is forbidden [on the Sabbath].45 This is forbidden because [the bolt] is not considered to be a utensil, nor is there any indication [that it is being used as a utensil], for it is not attached to the door, nor is it connected to a rope.46
A candelabrum that is made of several separate parts may not be moved on the Sabbath.47 [This restriction applies] regardless of whether it is large or small. [Why was this prohibition instituted? As a safeguard] lest [it fall apart and] one reconstruct it on the Sabbath.48
[The following rules apply when] a candelabrum has grooves and thus appears to resemble one that is made from several parts: If it is large and can be carried only with two hands, carrying it is forbidden because of its weight.49 If it is smaller than that, carrying it is permitted.50
We may remove a shoe from a shoemaker's block on the Sabbath.51 We may release a clothes press belonging to an ordinary person on the Sabbath. We may not, however, set the press in place.52 A press belonging to a launderer should not be touched at all; it is set aside not to be used, because of the financial loss [that might be incurred through its improper use].53
Similarly, unprocessed rolls of wool may not be carried,54 because [their owner] objects [to their use for purposes other than spinning fabric].55 Therefore, if they have been set aside for a particular purpose,56 it is permitted to use them. Unprocessed hides - regardless of whether they belong to a private person or to a [leather] craftsman - may be carried,57 because [their owner] does not object to their [use].58
All filth - e.g., feces, vomit, excrement, and the like - that is located in a courtyard where [people] are dwelling may be removed to a dung heap or to a latrine.59 Such entities are referred to as a chamber pot.60 If it is located in another courtyard, it should be covered by a utensil so that a child will not become soiled by it.
One may step on spittle that is lying on the ground without taking any notice of it.61 One may carry a warming-pan because of its ash. [This leniency is granted] despite the fact that it contains chips of wood,62 because it is equivalent to a chamber pot.
At the outset, we may not bring about the creation of a repulsive entity63 on the Sabbath. If, however, [such an entity] comes about as a natural process, or one transgresses and creates it, it may be removed.
It is permitted to partake of oil that flows from beneath the beam of an olive press on the Sabbath64 and from dates and almonds that are prepared to be sold.65 One may even begin to take grain from a storehouse66 or from a grain pile on the Sabbath, for food never becomes muktzeh on the Sabbath at all. On the contrary, all [types of food] are [always] prepared for use.67
[There is, however, one] exception: figs and raisins that have been set aside to dry. Since they pass through an intermediate stage when they become repulsive and are unfit to eat,68 they are considered muktzeh and are forbidden [to be carried] on the Sabbath.69
A barrel [of wine] or a watermelon that was opened may be carried and stored away, even though it is no longer fit to eat.70 Similarly, an amulet that has not proven its efficacy may be moved, although one is forbidden to go out [into the public domain] wearing it.71
The oil that remains in a lamp or in a bowl that was kindled on a particular Sabbath may not be used on that Sabbath. It is muktzeh because of the forbidden [labor with which it was associated beyn hash'mashot].72
Although taking [produce] from a storehouse of grain or of barrels of wine is permitted, it is forbidden to begin73 to empty [the storehouse]74 unless this is being done for a purpose associated with a mitzvah - e.g., emptying it to host guests or to establish a hall of study.
[In the latter situations,] how should the storehouse be emptied? Every person should take [out] four or five75 containers until it has been completely [cleared].76 We may not sweep the floor of the storehouse, as has been explained.77
[Even when one is forbidden to empty the storehouse,] one may enter and leave and create a path with one's feet by entering and leaving.
Any substance that is fit to be used as food for an animal, beast, or fowl that is commonly found may be carried on the Sabbath. What is implied? One may carry dry turmos beans78 because they are food for goats. Fresh [turmos beans,] by contrast, may not [be carried].79 [One may carry] chatzav80 because it is food for deer, mustard seed because it is food for doves,81and bones because they are food for dogs.
Similarly, we may carry all the shells and seeds [of produce] that are fit to serve as animal fodder. Concerning those that are not fit to be eaten: One should eat the food and throw [the shells or seeds] behind one's back;82 carrying them is forbidden.
One may carry meat that has spoiled, for it is fit to be eaten by beasts.83 One may carry raw meat - whether salted or unsalted84- because it is fit to be eaten by humans. This ruling applies to [raw] fish that has been salted. By contrast, carrying unsalted [raw] fish is forbidden.85
We may not carry broken pieces of glass even though they are edible by ostriches,86 nor bundles of twigs from a vine even though they are edible by elephants, nor luf,87 even though it is edible by ravens. [These restrictions were instituted] because these and similar [species] are not commonly found among most people.88
[The following rules apply to] bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of twigs: If they were prepared89 to be used as animal fodder, one may carry them. If not, one may not carry them.
If one brought in bundles of wild hyssop, madder, hyssop, or thyme90 to be used as kindling wood, one may not use them on the Sabbath.91 If one brought them in for use as animal fodder, one may use them. Similar rules apply to mint, rue, and other herbs.
We may not rake food that was placed before an ox that is being fattened for slaughter. [This applies regardless of whether the food has been placed] in a feeding trough that is a [separate] utensil92 or in an earthen feeding trough. [Similarly,] one may not shift [the food] to the side so that [it does not become mixed with] feces. [These restrictions are] decrees, [instituted] lest one level grooves [in the floor].93
One may take food that had been placed before a donkey and place it before an ox.94 One may not, by contrast, take food that had been placed before an ox and place it before a donkey. [This restriction was instituted] because the food that is before an ox becomes soiled by its spittle95 and is not fit to be eaten by another animal.96
Leaves that produce a foul and repulsive odor and are not eaten by animals may not be carried. For similar reasons, carrying the hook on which fish are hung is forbidden.97 By contrast, the hook on which meat is hung is permitted to be carried. The same applies in all similar situations.
Although carrying a corpse on the Sabbath is forbidden, one may anoint it and wash it, provided one does not move any of its limbs.98 We may slip out a pillow from underneath it99 so that it will be lying on the ground100 to enable it to remain without decomposing.
We may bring a utensil that will cool [a corpse] or a metal utensil and place it on the belly [of the corpse] so that [the corpse] will not swell. We may stop up [the corpse's] orifices so that air will not enter them. We may tie its jaw - not so that it will close101 - but so that it will not [open] further. We may not close [a corpse's] eyes on the Sabbath.102
When a corpse is lying in the sun, we may place a loaf of bread103 or a baby on it and carry it [into the shade]. Similarly, if a fire breaks out in a courtyard where a corpse is lying, we may place a loaf of bread or a baby on it104 and carry it [out from the fire].105
Indeed, even if a loaf of bread or a baby are not available, one may save a corpse from a fire. [This leniency is granted] lest one extinguish the fire out of apprehension that the corpse not be consumed [by the flames].
[The leniency of carrying an entity with] a loaf of bread or a baby upon it is granted only in the case of a corpse, because a person is distraught over the corpse [of his loved ones].106
[The following procedure should be adhered to when] a corpse is lying in the sun and there is no place to carry it, or [the people] do not desire to move it from its place: Two people should come and sit, one on either side [of the corpse]. If it is [too] warm for them [to sit on the ground], they may both bring couches and sit on them. If it is [too] warm for them [to sit in the sun], they may both bring mats and spread them over the couches.107
[Afterwards,] they both may [depart], overturn their couches, and remove them [leaving the mats suspended over the corpse]. In this manner, the covering is created on its own accord, [as it were], for the two mats are next to each other and their two ends are located on the ground on either side of the corpse.
When a corpse has decomposed108 in a house [to the extent that it produces a foul odor] and thus is being disgraced in the eyes of the living, and their honor is being compromised because of it, carrying it109 into a carmelit is permitted.110
[This leniency was granted because] the honor of the creatures is great enough to supersede [the observance of] a negative commandment of the Torah, namely: "Do not swerve right or left from the words they tell you" [Deuteronomy 17:11].111
If [the people in the home] have an alternative place to go, they may not remove the corpse. Instead, the corpse should be left in its place and they should depart.112
See Chapter 21, Halachah 3, which states that one may sweep a floor on the Sabbath only if it is paved. Since sweeping is permitted in that instance, however, it is considered a permitted activity.
Nevertheless, according to the Ramah (Orach Chayim 337:2), who forbids sweeping with these brooms even on a paved floor, a broom would be considered a utensil used for a forbidden purpose. The notes on that halachah mention the views of the later authorities.
For this reason, a more lenient ruling is given than with regard to the row of stones mentioned in Chapter 25, Halachah 21, where one must indicate one's desire to use them on the Sabbath. (See Mishnah Berurah 306:73.)
Although there is no utensil to cover there, since it is fit to cover a utensil one may take it to use for another purpose (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 306:7). Needless to say, one may carry it only less than four cubits.
As the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) emphasize, this leniency applies only to the broken pieces of a utensil. Since it was originally considered a utensil, it remains in this category as long as it can serve a useful purpose. In contrast, a stone is not considered a utensil, even though it is fit to cover another utensil, unless it is designated for this purpose.
Although it is useful, since its owner discarded it before the commencement of the Sabbath, there was no intent of using it at the time the Sabbath commenced. Therefore, it becomes forbidden. (See Ramah, Orach Chayim 308:7.)
Although stones are not considered to be utensils and therefore may not ordinarily be carried, an exception is made in order to allow a person to take care of his basic hygienic needs.
Because of the advances in civilization, the situations described in this and the following halachah are no longer common practice. Nevertheless, the motivating principle behind these laws - that our Sages allowed certain leniencies for the sake of human dignity and hygiene - is pertinent at all times.
In this context, it is worthy to note the difference of opinion mentioned by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 312:1): According to one opinion, it is permitted to carry these stones only in one's own courtyard; i.e., only the prohibition against carrying stones is lifted. A second opinion, however, maintains that the prohibition against bringing an article from a carmelit into the private domain is also lifted in this instance. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 312:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 312:8 favor the latter view.
Rashi (loc. cit.) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 312:1) explain that carrying the stones might entail extraordinary difficulty, which is normally forbidden on the Sabbath. An exception is made in this instance, however, for the reasons mentioned above.
As a corollary to this principle, the Mishnah Berurah 312:6 mentions that it is permitted to carry toilet paper. Although paper is generally considered to be muktzeh, since the purpose for which this paper is used is clearly designated, it is not placed in this category. The Mishnah Berurah, however, emphasizes that tearing the paper on the Sabbath is forbidden.
Since the grass is useful as animal fodder, it is not considered muktzeh. Therefore, using it is preferable to using the stone. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 312:6), which states that one may use grasses that are still attached to the ground, provided one does not uproot them.
The Maggid Mishneh cites the Ra'avad who states that this refers to the remnants of a tallit used for prayer, which are inappropriate to be used to clean filth. The Rambam, however, interprets this as referring to the remnants of all garments. Although the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:13) quotes both views, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:41 favors the Rambam's opinion, explaining that even though smaller pieces of cloth are fit to be used to clean filth, this does not cause them to be considered to be a כלי, "useful article," unless they are explicitly designated for this purpose. Therefore, they are placed in the category of muktzeh like stones.
Hilchot Keilim (op. cit.) mentions that a cloth three thumbbreadths by three thumbbreadths is fit only for the poor. A rich person, by contrast, will not consider a cloth valuable until it is a minimum of three handbreadths by three handbreadths. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:41 and the Mishnah Berurah 308:52 also apply these concepts with regard to our present halachah.
Hence, moving it at all is forbidden. (See Hilchot Eruvin 3:7, from which one can derive the following: A ladder leading to a loft is usually left there permanently. Therefore, it is a heavy structure that is not considered to be a כלי, a utensil, but rather a permanent part of the building's structure.)
Since it is usually moved from dovecote to dovecote, it is light and is therefore considered to be a כלי. Accordingly, if there were no room for suspicion that one would snare doves, one would be allowed to move it.
The Maggid Mishneh draws attention to Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 5:4, which states that the only reason the Sages permitted moving such a ladder on a holiday was to allow for festive joy (i.e., to permit one to bring doves to slaughter). Therefore, on the Sabbath, when slaughtering is forbidden, there is no reason to allow one to move such a ladder. A household ladder, by contrast, may be moved (Mishnah Berurah 308:78).
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:1), which states that for a reed to be "categorized as a utensil," it is not sufficient merely to think about using it for that purpose; one must actually adapt the article to fit the purpose for which it is intended to be used.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:1) mentions two perspectives on this matter. Rashi states that one must prepare the reed for use as a utensil that can be employed for other purposes. Otherwise, using it as a door stop will be considered to be building. Rabbenu Tam explains that as long as the reed is prepared for use as a door stop, it is sufficient.
Although in this halachah, the Rambam's perspective appears to follow that of Rashi, in his gloss to Chapter 23, Halachah 13, the Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam follows the position of Rabbenu Tam. The later authorities agree that one may rely on Rabbenu Tam's view (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 313:2; Mishnah Berurah 313:7).
Rashi and others explain that the difficulty with the doors mentioned in this halachah is that since they do not meet all the criteria of ordinary doors, closing an opening with them resembles building. The Rambam, by contrast, appears to maintain that the difficulty is whether doors of this nature are considered to be כלים, useful articles, or not. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:3) follows Rashi's view.
If the board used as a door lacks any sign of a hinge, it is not considered a כלי, a useful article, and carrying it is forbidden. In this instance, since it has the mark of a hinge, it was obviously used as a door in the past. Therefore, if it meets either of the other conditions mentioned by the Rambam, it may be moved on the Sabbath.
Our translation is based on Rashi (Eruvin 101a) and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.). More precisely, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 10:8), the Rambam defines the Hebrew term מוקצה as "a distinct place that is not used for any purpose, nor is it required by its owner - e.g., a barn or stable."
The Shulchan Aruch emphasizes that the ruling concerning moving the partition used as a door is dependent on the fact that this enclosure is used infrequently. If an entrance that is frequently used were closed with such a partition, it would be considered as having been set aside for this purpose. However, since this is not the case, there is reason for the restrictions mentioned.
According to the Rambam, the fact that they were attached to the wall before the Sabbath indicates that they were intended to be used as a door. According to Rashi, it is sufficient to indicate that one is not building on the Sabbath.
The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam's wording appears to indicate that two criteria must be met: The partition used as a door must have at least the remnant of a hinge, and it must either be attached to the wall or be suspended above the ground. He objects to this conception, explaining that based on Eruvin 101a, it would appear that if a partition is suspended above the ground, it is considered to be a door even if it never had a hinge.
The Maggid Mishneh states, however, that it is possible that the Rambam also shares this conception. (Merkevet HaMishneh postulates that he surely does. Otherwise, the Rambam's words would be redundant, since it is impossible for a door to be suspended above the ground unless it hangs from the wall or is attached by a hinge.) The Maggid Mishneh's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:3).
As in the previous halachah, Rashi and others explain that the reason the prohibition was instituted is that this door does not resemble an ordinary door. Hence, one appears to be building when closing it. The Rambam, by contrast, explains that the prohibition stems from the fact that the door is not prepared to serve as a כלי, a useful article. Therefore, moving it is forbidden, as explained in the previous chapter.
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:4), which states that even if the entrance has a doorstep, since it is uncommon to use a door made of a single piece of wood, such a door may not be used on the Sabbath. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues, this prohibition applies even when the door has a hinge.
The Magen Avraham 313:8 and other later authorities, however, maintain that one may rely on the Rambam's opinion if a door is used frequently as an entrance and an exit. This is surely true in the present age, when it is very common for doors to be made from a single piece of wood.
Eruvin 10:10 relates that there was a synagogue in Tiberias that had such a bolt. Its congregants refrained from using it on the Sabbath until Rabban Gamliel and the elders ruled that using it was permitted.
In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit:1) is more stringent and requires the bolt to be tied to the door even when it has a bulb at the end. (See the following halachah and notes.)
This refers to an instance where the bolt is attached to a rope that is, in turn, attached to the door. If the bolt is removed by detaching the rope from the door and carrying the bolt and the rope together, the presence of the rope serves as an indication that the bolt has been set aside to be used for a significant purpose. Therefore, there is no prohibition involved. If, as in the following clause, the bolt is detached from the rope, there is nothing to indicate that it is a useful article. Hence, it is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's interpretation of the Hebrew ניטל באגדו. Instead, he offers a different explanation: that the rope with which the beam is attached to the door with a knot that is strong enough to hold the beam when it is removed. This is the interpretation that Rav Yosef Karo follows in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:1).
It was permitted to use such a bolt in the Temple, because none of the Rabbinic prohibitions in the category of sh'vut were in effect there. Outside of the Temple, using such a bolt was prohibited for the reasons mentioned by the Rambam (or according to others, because this resembles building, Eruvin 102a).
Rav Moshe Cohen of Lunil and others question the distinction between this halachah and Chapter 22, Halachah 30, which mentions a piece of wood that is used to close a window. The Maggid Mishneh explains that in that instance, leniency was granted only when the piece of wood is prepared for that purpose. In the present halachah, by contrast, nothing has been done to indicate that the bolt is set aside for purposeful use.
It must be emphasized that the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) takes a different perspective and maintains that the restrictions were instituted lest it appear that one is building when using such a door. According to this perspective, unless the conditions mentioned above are met, it is forbidden to use this bolt, even if it was prepared for this purpose before the Sabbath.
This applies even when one has not lit this candelabrum at the commencement of the particular Sabbath in question. Had the candelabrum been lit at that time, carrying it would have been forbidden, as reflected by Chapter 25, Halachah 23.
The Kessef Mishneh questions the phrase "because of its weight," for seemingly Shabbat 46a considers that as another rationale for stringency, not at all dependent on the fact that the candelabrum has grooves. Indeed, these rationales offered by two separate sages seem to be mutually exclusive. He and other commentators attempt to resolve this difficulty. Rav Kapach notes that many authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah omit this problematic phrase.
A new shoe will most likely be firmly fixed on the shoemaker's block, and removing it would necessitate moving the block. This is, nevertheless, permitted, because the shoemaker's block is considered to be a utensil that is used for a forbidden intent. Accordingly, it may be moved when one desires to use the space it takes up - in this instance, the space within the shoe where one puts one's foot [Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 308:14)].
Rashi (Shabbat 141a) explains that putting clothes in a press is forbidden, because it appears to be an activity performed for the sake of the weekdays that follow, and not for sake of the Sabbath itself.
Rashi (loc. cit.) offers a different rationale for this prohibition: that setting up a professional press resembles building and opening it resembles the labor of demolishing. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 302:4) quotes Rashi's view.
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 259:1), which follows the ruling of Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Shabbat 49a), who permits picking up such rolls if they are used as insulation, unless they are explicitly set aside for sale. Although these rolls are generally used for spinning wool, since they are not very valuable, the fact that they are employed for the purpose of insulation is sufficient for them to be considered to have been set aside for that purpose (Mishnah Berurah 259:6).
Note the Magen Avraham 259:2, which states that they must be set aside to be used for this purpose - e.g., insulation - forever. It is not sufficient that one decide to use them for this purpose on merely one Sabbath.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 308:25) mentions an opinion that states that this leniency applies only to cow hides, but not to sheep hides. The later authorities, however, do not accept this view (Mishnah Berurah 308:107).
It would appear that the Rambam's intent is that although these repulsive entities should be forbidden to be removed since they are not כלים, it is permitted to remove them because of the discomfort their presence causes.
The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling only when the warming-pan has coals that had turned to ash before the commencement of the Sabbath. The Ra'avad offers a different explanation of the leniency, stating that it is granted because the warming-pan is the base for a permitted article (the ash that existed before the commencement of the Sabbath) and a forbidden article (the remainder of the ash and the chips of wood). The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 310:8) quotes the Ra'avad's interpretation.
Although the oil had not been separated before the commencement of the Sabbath, one is allowed to partake of it on the Sabbath. As mentioned previously, the Rambam follows the view of Rabbi Shimon (Shabbat 19b) who permits the use of nolad (objects that come into existence on the Sabbath).
As examples of this principle, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 310:2) states that one may pick up seeds from the ground which fell before the Sabbath that have not become rooted or eggs that were laid before the Sabbath from beneath a chicken. (See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:18.)
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) states that there are two drawbacks to such fruit: a) it is unfit to be eaten; b) the owners intentionally set it aside, not to be used until it became dried. Therefore, the restriction is placed upon it.
From the use of the word "begin," the Beis Yosef (Orach Chayim 331) derives the following ruling: If one begins emptying the storehouse before the commencement of the Sabbath, one may complete the removal of its contents on the Sabbath, even if one's purpose is not directly associated with a mitzvah.
The Turei Zahav 331:1 objects to this leniency, however, for this appears to be unnecessary work that should not be permitted on the Sabbath.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 18:1, based on Shabbat 127a), the Rambam explains the reason that this restriction was instituted. It is very likely that there are grooves or cavities in the floor of a storeroom, and a person would be tempted to level the floor if he were allowed to empty the entire room. The Turei Zahav 333:1 explains that the prohibition was instituted to prevent a person from exerting himself excessively.
Significantly, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 331:1 quotes both rationales, indicating that they are not mutually exclusive.
I.e., a single individual is not allowed to clear out the entire storehouse. Instead, each individual - or a substitute for him - must clear out the area he needs. Although one person may remove as many containers as he can carry at one time, he may not, however, return to take more (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.). See also the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 333:3).
The Maggid Mishneh objects to the mention of mustard seed. Although it is used as food for doves, it is also commonly used to prepare food for humans. There is a general principle that whenever a substance is considered to be food both for animals and for humans, it is considered to be set aside for use for humans and not for animals. The Kessef Mishneh, however, justifies the Rambam's ruling.
A person should throw the shells - and similarly, any other waste left after eating - over his shoulder so that he will not create a repulsive situation on the table before him. For, as mentioned above (Halachah 13), at the outset creating a repulsive situation is forbidden (Maggid Mishneh). Significantly, this point is not emphasized by the later authorities.
According to most authorities, although meat must be salted to remove the blood before cooking, there is no prohibition against eating uncooked unsalted meat. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 67:2.) Nevertheless, according to the Rambam (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 6:12), it is necessary to salt raw meat before one eats it. From the juxtaposition of these two rulings, Rav Kapach derives that, according to the Rambam, it is permitted to salt meat on the Sabbath to remove its blood.
Rav Kapach explains that the intent is not that the broken glass is actually considered to be food by the ostriches. Instead, the intent is that ostriches have strong digestive organs, which will not be torn by the glass. As such, the glass will assist them in the process of digestion, because it will help shred the other food that they have consumed.
Nevertheless, a person who owns a species of animal that is rarely found may carry whatever food is necessary for it, even though it is not usually consumed by other animals (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:29).
Preparation is necessary, because we assume that these substances would ordinarily be used for kindling (Maggid Mishneh). Note the Magen Avraham 308:53, which states that straw is usually employed at present as a mattress or for animal fodder. Hence, it is permitted to be carried even though it was not prepared before the Sabbath.
Since these substances are less likely to be used for kindling, everything depends on the person's intent when he brought them home. Note the Magen Avraham 321:1, which states that if one brings them home without any specific intent, they are considered to be animal fodder. (See also Chapter 21, Halachah 19.)
The Mishnah Berurah 324:37 emphasizes that the intent is that an animal of another species will not eat food that is soiled with the spittle of an ox. One ox will, however, eat food that is soiled with the spittle of another ox.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that, in contrast to a meat hook, a fish hook is not a proper utensil and will be discarded after use. Hence, it may not be carried on the Sabbath. Rav Kapach objects to this interpretation, noting that if this explanation were correct, it would have been more appropriate to state this halachah in Chapter 25, which differentiates between entities that are considered utensils and those that are not.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 310:1) states that it is permitted to carry a fish hook, because it is not considered too repulsive to move.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:13 and the Mishnah Berurah 311:22 relate that, based on the Zohar, it has become customary to close a corpse's eyes and straighten its limbs on the Sabbath, for the failure to do so will lead to danger.
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311:4), which mentions an opinion that allows a corpse to be carried if it is dressed in the clothes it wore while it was alive. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:10 accepts this ruling; the Mishnah Berurah 311:16, by contrast, does not.
If a baby or a loaf of bread is not available, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311:1) allows one to move a corpse by shifting it from one bed to another. The Ramah (loc. cit.:2) offers another alternative - to have a gentile carry the corpse.
Spreading the mats constitutes the construction of a temporary tent. This is permitted only because of the discomfort suffered by a living person, and not for the sake of preserving the corpse. Therefore, it is necessary to undertake all the stages in this process, so that it will not be obvious that this is being done for the sake of the corpse (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:11; Mishnah Berurah 311:19).
The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not mention carrying the corpse with a baby or a loaf of bread on it, as in Halachah 21. The commentaries differ on whether this is necessary. The Rashba maintains that it is desirable to place another article on the corpse, so that one will be carrying the corpse for the sake of a permitted article.
The Ramban, by contrast, explains that since one is carrying the corpse into a carmelit and violating a Rabbinic prohibition associated with a forbidden labor, it is preferable to minimize the violation of that prohibition by not carrying another article. Although the prohibition against carrying an entity (the corpse) that is muktzeh will be violated in a more serious way, it is preferable to violate that prohibition (which is associated with a sh'vut) than the prohibition against carrying into a carmelit, which has its source in the forbidden labor of transferring articles.
Although the Rashba's view is accepted by the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:2; Mishnah Berurah 311:9), one may rely on the Ramban's view if there is not another useful article available, and carry the corpse out without anything else.
The corpse may be carried into a carmelit, but not into a public domain (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:5; Mishnah Berurah 311:10).
The Tur allows carrying a corpse even into the public domain; since one does not intend to use the corpse, carrying it is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and the prohibition against performing such an activity is waived in this instance. The Rambam would surely not accept this premise, for he maintains that one is liable according to the Torah for performing a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Even the later Ashkenazic authorities who accept the basic principle of the Tur do not accept this leniency.
See Hilchot Mamrim 1:2, which interprets this as a commandment prohibiting us from transgressing a directive instituted by the Rabbis. All the Rabbinic commandments have their source in this mitzvah from the Torah. See also Hilchot Kilayim 10:29.
The commentaries emphasize that this ruling indicates that according to the Rambam, the main source for leniency is the regard for the honor of the living, that they are forced to remain in a house permeated by the odor of a decaying corpse.
[It is possible to explain that according to the view of the Ramah cited in Note 106, the honor of the corpse is also considered, and removing it is allowed even if the people in the home have an alternative place to spend the Sabbath (Mishnah Berurah 311:7)].
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Moznaim is the publisher of the Nehardaa Shas, a new, state-of-the-art edition of the Talmud and all major commentaries in 20 volumes. Click here to purchase or email the publisher at email@example.com