Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 340 - Several Laws Regarding Matters Prohibited on Shabbos since They Resemble Derivatives of Primary Categories

SECTION 340 Several Laws Regarding Matters Prohibited on Shabbos since They Resemble Derivatives of Primary Categories [of Forbidden Labor] (1-18)

1 One who shears an animal – whether alive1 or dead,2 whether domesticated or non-domesticated3 – is liable. [Indeed, this] applies even when one shears a hide that has already been skinned from an animal. This is one of the primary categories of forbidden labor,4 for in [the construction of] the Sanctuary, they would shear the hides of the tachashim5and the rams.

By contrast, one who tears wool off an animal or its hide by hand is exempt because this is not the ordinary manner of shearing.6 Similarly, one who removes his own hair or nails by hand or with his teeth is exempt.7 According to Rabbinic Law, however, it is forbidden to remove [hair or nails] by hand;8 [indeed,] even removing another person’s [hair or nails by hand] is forbidden, though one cannot skillfully manipulate his hands to skillfully remove another person’s [hair or nails] without an implement.9

If, however, one cut off [nails or hair] with an implement, he is liable even if he cuts off only two hairs.10 If [the person] cuts off one [hair], he is exempt [from punishment]. Nevertheless, it is Scripturally forbidden to do so, as is [the case with regard to performing any] half measure [of forbidden labor].11

A man who pulls out gray hairs from [between] dark ones so that he will not appear old is liable even if he pulls out only one [hair.12 Indeed,] such an act is forbidden even during the week, because of the prohibition,13 “A man should not wear the garment of a woman.” As indicated by the Targum, [the meaning of the command is that] a man should not adorn himself [in the same manner] as a woman adorns herself.14

2 A person who shears [an animal] or one who cuts his nails with a utensil is only liable when he has a need for the wool, hair, or nails that he cuts off. If he does not need them, his act is a melachah she’einah tzerichah legufah, a forbidden labor which a person performs for a purpose that does not involve the object with which the forbidden labor was performed.15

Accordingly, when a woman forgets to trim her nails on Friday and Friday night is the night for her to immerse [in the mikveh],16 there is an authority who permits her to instruct a non-Jewish woman to cut them for her. [The rationale is that] any activity that is only forbidden by Rabbinic Law17 is permitted to be performed by a non-Jew for the sake of a mitzvah,18 as stated in sec. 307[:12] and sec. 325[:4].

Other authorities maintain, however, that one is liable even if he does not need the wool, hair, or nails, (for the primary focus of the forbidden labor is removal of the hair and the wool from the skin, the nails from the fingers, and the person needs this removal.19 Furthermore,) in the Sanctuary as well, they would shear the hides of the tachashim even though they did not require their hair. Therefore, license should not be granted to instruct a non-Jewish woman to cut [the woman’s nails], for doing so is a shvus20in a complete sense. Such an activity is not permitted even for the sake of a mitzvah, as stated in sec. 276[:8]. Instead, one should tell [the non-Jewish woman] to remove [the Jewish woman’s nails] with her hands or her teeth, because that would be a shvus d’shvus.21

Even though [the woman] leans her fingers toward the non-Jewish woman and thus assists her somewhat, this is not significant, because [merely] helping [a person perform a forbidden labor] is not of consequence. (It is entirely permitted according to Scriptural Law; even according to Rabbinic Law, it is only forbidden to help a person perform a forbidden labor in the complete sense or to perform an activity forbidden as a shvus when a mitzvah is not involved. When, by contrast, a mitzvah is involved, [our Sages] did not impose a prohibitive decree against helping [a non-Jew perform a forbidden act],22 just like they did not impose a prohibitive decree against instructing a non-Jew to do so. [The rationale is that: just like one who instructs a non-Jew in reality] does nothing, so too, by helping, one does not do anything, because helping is not considered as a truly significant act. It is only that the Sages imposed a prohibitive decree against [helping a non-Jew perform a prohibition] lest doing so lead the person to perform that forbidden activity himself.23 It is, by contrast, forbidden for a Jew to perform a forbidden act even if it is a shvus d’shvus and a mitzvah is involved, as stated in sec. 331[:8-9].24)

3 It is forbidden to cut off a wart, whether it contains moisture or is dry, from either one’s own or another person’s body, whether by hand or with an implement. If one cuts off a wart that contains moisture with an implement, he is liable for shearing according to the authorities who maintain that one is liable for shearing even when he has no need for the entity that he shears.25

4 Writing and erasing with the intent to write in the space of the erasure, are [two] categories of forbidden labor,26 for they would write on the boards of the Sanctuary so that they would have a sign [by which] to know which [board was to be] paired with it. At times, an error was made, and then what was written [previously] was erased and a [new sign was] written in its place. Erasing without the intent to write [in that place], by contrast, did not take place in [the construction of] the Sanctuary and is not at all similar to a forbidden labor.27

Since one is liable for erasing [only] when he does so in order to write [in that place] again, i.e., he is [liable for] preparing a surface on which to write, even if [the person] did not erase letters but merely rubbed out ink, he is liable. [This ruling also applies when one rubs out] wax that fell on a tablet. [In the Talmudic era, they had tablets] covered with wax, and one wrote by engraving [within the wax] with an iron stylus.28 If other wax fell on the tablet, and one rubbed it out and removed it in order to engrave letters on the [original layer of] wax that was under it, he was liable.

[The above applies when] the space [where the person rubbed out the ink or the wax] was large enough to write or engrave two letters on it. Similarly, one who writes or erases letters is only liable when [he writes or erases] two letters.29 [One who writes or erases only] one letter is exempt. It is, however, forbidden [to do so] according to Scriptural Law, as is [any act that involves the performance of] half the measure [of a forbidden labor].30 Similar laws apply with regard to one who rubs out or removes wax from parchment in order to write in that place.

Similar laws [also] apply to one who removes wax that dripped on letters. [The rationale:] What difference is there between preparing a place to write or rectifying letters that have already been written? On the contrary, in the latter instance, one is making a greater improvement. Nevertheless, there are [authorities who rule] leniently in this regard.

According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to erase even when one does not have the intent to write [in that space]. Therefore, it is forbidden to break a cake that has figures resembling letters on it.31 [This restriction applies even if] the person’s intent is merely to eat. Nevertheless, [in actual fact,] he is [thereby] erasing [letters].32 It is, however, permitted to give [such a cake] to a child. [The rationale is that when a child performs] a transgression for his own benefit, there is no need to rebuke him, as will be stated in sec. 343[:1, 10].

There are authorities who forbid opening books [on Shabbos] that have letters written33 across the edges of the [tops, sides, and/or bottoms of] pages [see fig. 7], because of [the prohibition against] erasing34 and [so, too, do they prohibit] closing them, because of [the prohibition against] writing.35 True, [the person] does not intend to do this, but it is inevitable that it will occur.36

There are authorities who permit closing the book. [Their rationale is that] since the letters are already written and all that is lacking is bringing them together, this is not considered as writing. [They reason that] since it is possible to bring [the letters] together easily, without performing a new act, it is as if they have already been brought together and one is not doing anything by actually bringing them together. Similarly, it is permitted to open them for this reason. [The person] is not considered to have erased the letters since the writing still exists and the letters can easily be brought together. Hence, they are considered as if they have already been brought together.37 This is the prevailing custom.

5 One who corrects the calligraphy of a letter, e.g., he removes the connecting bridge on top of a ches, thus transforming it into two zayinin, is liable.38

(One who corrects the calligraphy of another letter, e.g., he removes the corner of the upper line of a dalet, making it a reish, is exempt [from punishment].39 It is, however, [nevertheless] forbidden to do so according to Scriptural Law.)40 [See figs. 8 and 9.]

6 One is liable [for writing] only when he writes with a substance that will endure on an article that will endure.41 According to Rabbinic Law, however, it is forbidden to write even when writing with a substance that does not endure on an article that does not endure, e.g., writing with liquids or fruit juices42 on vegetable leaves or the like. For this reason, one must take care not to trace letters within liquids [that spill] on a tabletop,43 or to inscribe letters in ash, hardened fat, or honey.

It is, however, permitted to trace the likeness of the form of letters in the air, because one is not making a visible imprint at all. Similarly, [one may trace the form of letters] on a tabletop when there are no liquids present, because in this instance as well, he is not making a visible imprint at all. True, by doing so, he is training his hand to write [properly. Nevertheless,] this is not of consequence. Similarly, it is permitted to watch a [non-Jewish] professional perform his craft on Shabbos even though one is learning [the profession by observation].44

7 One who cuts the form of letters into a hide is liable,45 since engraving is included in the forbidden labor of writing.46 However, one who makes an impression of the form of letters on a hide is exempt because the impression will not endure. It is, nevertheless, forbidden to do so according to Rabbinic Law as a safeguard lest [one make an impression] that will endure. If, however, one does not form a lettered image, but only makes an impression as a sign, he is permitted to do so, even initially. Therefore, it is permitted to make an impression on a text with one’s fingernail as a sign in the place where there is an error.

When does the above apply? With regard to parchment, which is firm and an impression made on it will not endure. It is, by contrast, forbidden to make an impression on paper, because an impression made on it will endure for a long time. [Therefore,] even if [the impression] is not an image of letters, [making it] is forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. [This is] a decree [imposed lest one make] an image of writing for which one is liable when it endures.

There are authorities who forbid [making an impression] even on parchment. They maintain that one is liable for making an impression, even if it is a mere sign and not an image of letters,47 if it will endure, because they would make marks on the boards of the Sanctuary to know which [boards] were paired. Therefore, one is liable if he makes one scratch on two boards or two scratches on one board as a sign, as was made for the boards of the Sanctuary. If, however, he makes only one scratch on one board, he is exempt, but it is forbidden to do so according to Scriptural Law,48 because [the scratch was made on] an entity on which it will endure. Making an impression on parchment that will not endure is forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. [This is] a decree [imposed lest one make an impression that] endures. A G‑d-fearing person should be stringent regarding his own conduct and follow the ruling of these authorities.

8 All the above [applies when one makes an impression] that is not an image of letters at all. If, however, it is an image of any type of writing, even if it is not letters in the Ashuri script,49 and even if [the marks] are not known letters, but marks commonly made for signs, like the signs that are commonly made [as a substitute] for numbers, it is considered as an image of letters and one is liable for making [such a mark] if he made it with an entity which will endure. [And if the person made the mark] with an entity which will not endure, it is forbidden according to Rabbinic Law, according to all authorities.

When one writes in the Ashuri script, and omits the taggim50from the letters שעטנ"ז ג"ץ, he is exempt because he has not completed the task [of writing these letters]. Similarly, whenever one writes [in the script of] any [language], but does not finish forming the letters in the prescribed fashion, he is exempt. Nevertheless, doing so is forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. For this reason, there are authorities who maintain that one who writes with a thin script called meshita51is exempt because it was derived from the Ashuri script. Thus, it is comparable to letters written in the Ashuri script that were not completed in the prescribed fashion, as will be explained in sec. 545.52

9 Inserting silver letters into a garment53 is considered as writing and it is forbidden to make [such insertions] on Shabbos.

10 One who sketches drawings and designs in a document or the like in the manner that artists draw is liable for [performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of writing. The same [applies when one] erases [such drawings or designs].54

11 Before leatherworkers cut a hide, they usually engrave lines on the hide indicating how long, how wide, or how short they desire to make the cut. Afterwards, [the leatherworkers] pass the knife along those lines. They [also] did this when they cut the hides for the Sanctuary. Therefore, engraving such a line is considered one of the primary categories of forbidden labor.55 Similarly, one is liable for scratching such a line on parchment or paper so that he can write evenly.

12 One who sews two stitches and ties up [the thread]56 or one who sews three stitches – even though he does not tie up [the thread] – is liable [for performing the forbidden labor of sewing].57 If, however, [the person] sews two stitches, but does not tie up [the thread], he is exempt because [his act] will not endure. It is, however, forbidden to do so according to Rabbinic Law. If [the person] ties up the thread, he is also liable for [performing the prohibited labor of] tying [a knot].58

13 [The following laws apply when] a garment was sewn, but a long thread was left, and the two portions of the garment separated slightly from each other and the threads became loose: [If] one pulled the end of the thread in order to tighten the portions and attach them to each other, and [as a result of his action, the sides of the garment] became attached [for] the length of three stitches,59 he is considered to have sewn [this garment] and he is liable,60 even though he did not tie up [the threads].

[There are] people who tighten garments around their arms via a cord that is extended and pulled tight. It is forbidden to extend [the cord and tighten it] on Shabbos because [of the prohibition against] sewing. (True, this is not a lasting stitching, since [the person] only pulls [the cord to tighten the garment] when he wears it, and when he removes [the garment], he loosens it. Nevertheless, [this practice] is forbidden by Rabbinic Law because it resembles sewing.) [An exception is made when] the holes are slightly large and have a circular [border] sewn around them, for then [tightening the cord] does not resemble sewing.

In such a situation, even if the thread is threaded through a needle, it is permitted to go out wearing [the garment with the needle attached].61 [The rationale is that] since [the needle] is always connected to the thread and the thread [is always connected] to the garment, [the needle and the thread] are considered as being used by the garment.

If the garment is not closed tightly by this thread to the extent that [the person] must loosen [the thread] when he takes off [the garment], but instead, at times he changes his mind and leaves [the thread] as is for the indefinite future,62 because he can take off [the garment] as it is while [the thread] is tightened somewhat, it is forbidden for [the person] to tighten [the thread] on Shabbos in any case, lest he decide to leave [the thread tightened] this way for the indefinite future. Thus, he will have made a lasting stitch and when one makes a lasting stitch, the fact that the holes are slightly large and have a circular [border] sewn around them is inconsequential.

14 When soft fabric falls out of a pillow, it is permitted to return it. It is, however, forbidden to place [soft fabric] in a pillow initially, because by doing so, one is fashioning an implement. See sec. 317[:5].

15 Collecting produce is one of the primary categories of forbidden labor.63 It was performed in [the construction of] the Sanctuary with the herbs that were sown. [The forbidden labor of] collecting produce applies only when produce is collected in the place in which it grows, like a harvested crop whose sheaves are collected in the place where they grow. Similarly, it applies when one collects fruit and gathers them together in the place where they fell from the tree. If, however, [the fruit] scattered in another place, it is permitted to gather them, as stated in sec. 335[:5].64

[According to Scriptural Law, the forbidden labor of] collecting produce applies only to produce that grows from the earth.65 According to Rabbinic Law, however, a [similar] prohibition applies to collecting other products in the place where they are produced, for example, [the Sages prohibited] collecting salt from the place where water is evaporated and salt is produced. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

(There are authorities who maintain that one who presses produce together until it forms a single block is liable for collecting produce, even if it is performed in a place other than where the produce grows, for example,) one who presses together dried figs and makes a [cake of dried figs] or one who pierces [fresh] figs, passes a string through them, and collects them so that they become one entity. This is a derivative of the forbidden labor of collecting fruit and one is liable for doing so. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations. (One must follow the stringency of this view.)66

16 One who places flax seeds or sesame seeds in water is liable for [performing the forbidden labor of] kneading a dough, because the seeds mix together and become attached to each other.67

17 Cutting an object that was already separated from its source of nourishment is permitted as an initial preference, provided one is not careful to cut it in a precise measure, as stated in sec. 314[:16]. Nevertheless, if by doing so, [the person] makes [the object] fit to be used for a purpose, he is liable for fashioning an implement, should he cut [the object] with a knife, as stated in sec. 32268 with regard to cutting a sliver of wood. It is forbidden to cut [the object] without using a knife, but one who does so is exempt [from punishment].69 Therefore, one may not break a shard [into small pieces] or tear a paper70 [even though the shard and the paper] are permitted to be carried,71 [if the person is doing so] to use [the pieces that were broken off] for a purpose,because it is considered as if one fashioned an implement. See sec. 508[:2].

(There is, however, no prohibition in doing so because of concern for [the forbidden labor of] tearing, since [that forbidden labor applies] only when one separates many entities that had previously been joined together, for example, [when] one tears a garment woven from many strands.72 In contrast, a piece of paper is a single entity. [Hence,] one does not [incur liability for the forbidden labor of] tearing when he tears and cuts it.73

For this reason, it is permitted to tear a piece of leather off the opening of a barrel of wine, as stated in sec. 314[:12. This is permitted because] the leather is a single entity and the prohibition against tearing does not apply to it, only the prohibition against cutting, when one is careful to cut it in a precise measure,74 as stated in that source.)

Nevertheless, separating papers that are attached together is a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of tearing,75 and attaching papers or hides with scribes’ paste or the like is a derivative of [the forbidden labor of] sewing, and one is liable [for doing so].

When does the above apply? When [the papers or hides] are attached in a manner that is intended to endure. When, however, pages of books are stuck together [unintentionally] by wax or during the binding process, it is permitted to open them on Shabbos because they were not attached to endure. [Indeed,] they were attached as a matter of course, without any intent. Therefore, this is not at all comparable to [the forbidden labor of] sewing, and [the forbidden labor of] tearing does not apply [when separating them].

18 When a pin or needle becomes even slightly crooked, it is forbidden to straighten it (because one is repairing an implement).76