Laws of Shabbat Chapter (Auto Translated)

Rambam Hilchot Shabbat Chapter 10 – The Melacha of Tying

Introduction – Review of the Melachot Until Now

Speaker 1:

Let’s learn Rambam, Sefer Zemanim, Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 10.

We’ve already learned the first twenty of the thirty-nine melachot, we’re in the middle of the melachot that have to do with making merchandise, making a garment.

This is an interesting point, also in the… the melacha of kosher (tying).

Speaker 2:

Yes, also in the previous series, as it were, the Rambam stopped in the middle, made a break at the beginning of Chapter 9. Also here…

Speaker 1:

Much more remains, kosher matir (tying and untying).

Speaker 2:

Yes, the Rambam, it’s finally the categories as important, with the 39, it turns out that it’s not too long a chapter, he didn’t recognize in the matter that this is flax and this is garments. There goes the main point, all the melachot of Shabbat.

Speaker 1:

Yes.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Halacha 1 – Hakosher: Fundamentals of the Melacha of Tying

The Rambam’s Words

Speaker 1:

Hakosher (one who ties), the Rambam says as follows: “Hakosher kesher shel kayama” (one who ties a permanent knot), if someone makes a knot that holds, a knot that holds, “vehi ma’aseh uman, chayav” (and it is the work of a craftsman, is liable).

Two Conditions or One?

So you have here two things: one, it must be a kesher shel kayama (permanent knot). One could learn differently, one could learn that a kesher shel kayama is a ma’aseh uman (craftsman’s work), what does kesher shel kayama mean? Something that a craftsman does, someone who knows how to make the proper knot, or this could be, there are two conditions, a kesher shel kayama and a ma’aseh uman, these are in the Rambam, later, later he explains that if it has only one condition it’s not…

Speaker 2:

Yes, yes.

Speaker 1:

You also think, something we see here a case where one needs a craftsman, yes? We also had, something requires a craftsman, from choresh (plowing).

Speaker 2:

Already, one needs a craftsman.

Speaker 1:

It almost means to say that it’s something that is a per- “ma’aseh uman” (craftsman’s work).

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Examples of Knots That Are Chayav

Speaker 1:

There are many types of knots, a knot that fulfills the two conditions, so it’s a craftsman’s knot and also it’s a kesher shel kayama it remains… is chayav (liable). Then he is chayav. And he gives the Gemara… he brings in the Gemara’s examples. “Kegon” (such as), what are the Gemara’s examples of knots that are shel kayama and ma’aseh uman? “Kesher hagamalim” (camel drivers’ knot), a knot with which one ties… “hagamulim” he says. What the person doesn’t… it says that in the nose of the camel one puts in something, a knot. And to this one connects a piece of merchandise so that the one who drives the camel, the driver, should be able to lead the camel. Or kesher sapanim (sailors’ knot), in a ship one puts in a rope with which to tie to the dry land, should make the knot.

Vekishrei retzu’ot minaal vesandal (and knots of shoe and sandal straps), or the knots with which one ties the shoe and sandal straps, shekoshrim haratzanim (that the shoemakers tie) that the cobblers tie to the shoes bish’at hityavtzrutan (at the time of their formation) when one makes the shoes, vechaha’i gavna (and the like) are knots that one wants for the long term. One doesn’t want, not every time one goes out with the camel does one make a new knot, rather it seems that one puts it in once and it’s a permanence for a longer time. And the same thing the other things, it’s a ma’aseh umanut (craft work), it’s a knot that one makes for a craft, as a part, yes? The word is because a craftsman makes it, or because it’s a matter of craft. One drives a camel, a horse, a ship, these are things that one does in work.

Speaker 2:

Right, the Gemaras that show you that there is a type of knot that is a special professional knot. It’s not an everyday thing that one makes in the kitchen, it’s a type of thing that one makes once in a while. The sailor makes it every time. I don’t know if he ties it to the ship, does he do this once, and then he ties it each time to the rope on the dry land. Perhaps that doesn’t actually mean kesher shel kayama. No, no, soon we’ll see what shel kayama means.

Patur Aval Asur (Exempt But Forbidden)

Speaker 1:

But a kesher she’eino shel kayama ve’eino ma’aseh uman is patur (a knot that is not permanent and not craftsman’s work is exempt). Exempt, but it’s forbidden from the Torah. And when is it permitted entirely, not forbidden? When it doesn’t have both conditions. A kesher she’eino shel kayama (knot that is not permanent), it doesn’t hold, ve’eino ma’aseh uman (and is not craftsman’s work), it’s not any craft work, mutar (permitted), one may entirely lechatchila (from the outset).

He begins to bring the Gemaras.

Discussion: What Does Ma’aseh Uman and Kesher Shel Kayama Mean?

Speaker 2:

What’s the opposite? A knot that is ma’aseh umanut (craft work) and not kesher shel kayama? Perhaps ma’aseh umanut must always be lasting things, because ma’aseh umanut is not relevant, it’s not Shabbat things. Anything that one does with a ship, even if there’s no journey, is not Shabbat-like. It’s a camel, all these things with animals. What comes in here Shabbat? Perhaps all ma’aseh uman, any ma’aseh uman apparently one may not do. But ma’aseh uman always means something that one does as a part of dealing with a ship or with a camel. Ma’aseh uman is a type of knot. It’s actually true that the sailors have their type of knot and so on. Ma’aseh uman means such a type of knot.

One can make for a ship, perhaps I need to make a knot that is not ma’aseh uman, I don’t know.

Speaker 1:

No, I think that the quality of the knot lies in the word kesher shel kayama. Ma’aseh uman means why does one make the knot, for what thing does one make the knot. There is such a thing kesher shel kayama for a ma’aseh uman, it’s the same thing. One can make a kesher shel kayama… it’s not the same thing. Kesher shel kayama speaks about the quality of the knot, and the ma’aseh uman speaks about for what thing one makes the knot.

Speaker 2:

No, no, no, let’s learn the Gemaras. This is a type of knots. He’s going to give the Gemaras of things that are, how is it called, that are kesher shel kayama but it’s not ma’aseh uman, that are also something to fix an animal and the like, but it’s not a thing that the craftsmen know precisely how to make the type of knot that holds well. A simple person doesn’t know, he can tie his camel, but it won’t be so good. It will be shel kayama. Shel kayama means that it doesn’t hold when untying, it’s made to remain. Shel kayama means literally. Shel kayama is actually not any type of knot. Shel kayama is actually, there is a knot that one makes because one will open it tomorrow, shel kayama means that you won’t open it tomorrow, it’s made to remain. Besides this one can make a good knot that the craftsman knows how to make, each one in his craft has his own, and there is a simple knot that a simple person can make.

Halacha 2 – Examples of Kesher Shel Kayama She’eino Ma’aseh Uman

The Rambam’s Words

Speaker 1:

Let’s learn the Gemaras and we’ll try to see to understand. In short, the Rambam says, he explains as follows: nifseka lo retzu’a (if a strap broke for him), once a strap was cut, from the sandal, or, as was said earlier, what one puts by the shoe and sandal, vekashar (and he tied), he tied it. Or shenipseka chevel (if a rope tore), the rope of something tore, of a vessel, vekashar (and he tied), he tied it. O shekashar chevel bedli (or that he tied a rope to a bucket), he tied to the bucket with which one draws out water, he tied a rope so one should be able to grab it. O shekashar retzu’a (or that he tied a strap), he tied the strap, the muzzle, the thing that one has, the bridle of the animal. All these things, harei zeh patur, ho’il ve’eino ma’aseh uman (behold this is exempt, since it is not craftsman’s work).

Vechen kol kayotza ba’elu hakesharim shehen ma’aseh hedyot (and so all similar to these knots that are layman’s work). That is, I think that the word is “shenipseka lo” (that it broke for him). That is, when one sews a shoe and makes a good knot, it’s a ma’aseh uman. But it tore, everyone fixes a bit as much as he can. So also shenipseka chevel (if a rope tore), or chevel bedli (rope to a bucket), is something that everyone can make. One comes to a well and one needs to tie there a chevel bedli (rope to a bucket), everyone can do it. This is not ma’aseh uman, ma’aseh hedyot (layman’s work). But it’s lekiyum (for permanence).

Kol adam kosher lekiyum (every person ties for permanence), one who ties his shoe wants that it should be there for a longer time. That is, a kesher shel kayama that is not ma’aseh uman is forbidden lechatchila (from the outset), it’s patur aval asur (exempt but forbidden). Vechol kesher she’eino shel kayama, ela shehu kesher uman, harei zeh asur (and any knot that is not permanent, but it is a craftsman’s knot, behold this is forbidden). That is, both ways it’s forbidden. It’s only permitted if it’s not kayama and not ma’aseh uman. It can be ma’aseh uman that is not kayama, and it can be ma’aseh hedyot that is kesher shel kayama, both of these will be forbidden, patur aval asur (exempt but forbidden).

Discussion: What Does Retzu’ot Minaal Vesandal Mean?

Speaker 2:

The shoes don’t mean that one ties the shoes like us who tie the shoes, that’s certainly not any kesher shel kayama, it’s not made to remain. No, one speaks of tying the strap to the shoe. Afterwards one ties the strap, but first one ties the strap to the shoe. Right, it means like a sandal where it’s not made to remove the… I still don’t understand precisely. Why does one need a craftsman? If it’s not kesher shel kayama. Kesher shel kayama means that it’s not any strong knot that it won’t hold, it will open. Why aren’t the two the same thing?

Speaker 1:

Ah, a craftsman knows how to make a kesher shel kayama and not a craftsman. Kesher shel kayama means that one will hold it. It has nothing to do with how good the knot is. You can make a good knot that you make it, one will after a certain time open it. It’s not any type of knot at all. It’s not that it will open by itself, but even if one makes a strong knot, but since one made it with an intention that one will open it, it’s a kesher she’eino shel kayama (knot that is not permanent).

Speaker 2:

Yes, it’s made, you planned to take it out. Such a type of knot that every day one makes it and opens it back, is called kesher she’eino shel kayama. If that’s the custom, it’s implied that a person can decide himself, that’s still a question. If a thing where it’s the custom that one makes it every day, doesn’t mean any kesher shel kayama. Kesher shel kayama is a thing that one made that it should remain. And uman (craftsman) is a type of knot that one calls… it means uman, one needs a craftsman. One calls the craftsman, I can’t, just a person doesn’t know how one makes it. One calls Rabbi Uman, you make it.

Halacha 3 – Knots That Are Permitted Lechatchila

The Rambam’s Words

Speaker 1:

Now he’s going to enumerate things that are permitted, that one may do, that it seems that it’s not uman and not kayama. He says as follows: kosheret isha miftechei hachaluk (a woman may tie the openings of the robe), a woman may tie the opening of her garment, af al pi sheyesh la shnei ptachim (even though it has two openings), even if it has two… it means, on top, today there are buttons, but there was, it had a string, and it has… what does shnei ptachim mean? It means, it’s a regular garment, where on each side there is one strap, and one ties them together. He says, even sheyesh la shnei ptachim (though it has two openings), therefore one can put it on and take it off by opening only one of them, perhaps one could think that the second will be called a kesher shel kayama? He says, no, the second is also not called kesher shel kayama, because the normal order is that one opens both every day.

Chitei sevachah (threads of a hairnet), threads that one puts on the head covering on the head, af al pi shehi refuyah (even though it is loose), even if without the knot the head covering will be too weak and fall off the head. But still doesn’t it mean kesher shel kayama? Not too weak. That is, one can, one doesn’t have to open it, because one can take it off and put it on without opening the knot. But going, the normal way of putting on the hat, that one opens it, uretzu’ot minaal vesandal shekoshran ragil bish’at malbish (and shoe and sandal straps that one ties regularly when wearing), ah, not good.

Hilchot Shabbat – Tying and Untying: Knots That Are Not Permanent

Permitted Knots – Specific Examples

Garment with Straps

It’s a regular garment where on each side there is one strap and one ties them together. He says, even if it’s only one knot, granted one can put it on and take it off by opening only one of them, perhaps one could think that the second has a law of a kesher shel kayama? He says no, the second also doesn’t have any kesher shel kayama, because the normal order is that one opens both every day.

Chitei Sevachah

Chitei sevachah (threads of a hairnet), threads that one puts on the head covering on the head, even yirpu (if they loosen), even if without the knot the head covering will be too weak and fall off the head, but still doesn’t it mean kesher shel kayama. Not too weak, it means one doesn’t have to open it, because one can take it off and put it down without opening the knot, but usually, the normal way of putting on the hat, one opens it and makes it back.

Retzu’ot Minaal Vesandal Shekoshran Bish’at Malbush

Retzu’ot minaal vesandal shekoshran al raglo bish’at malbush (shoe and sandal straps that one ties on his foot when wearing). Ah, not the straps that were spoken of earlier that the Rambam said his language that remain on the shoe, shekoshran be’et asiyatan (that one ties at the time of their making). Now one speaks of the straps that one puts on each time.

Nodot Yayin Veshemen

Venodot yayin veshemen (and bottles of wine and oil), bottles, merchandise in the bottles of wine and oil, afilu yesh lahem shnei zenavot (even if they have two tails), even if it has two bands, and the same thing, one side can remain closed.

Kederot Shel Basar

Vekederot shel basar (and pots of meat), that one ties from above the lid to the pot, afilu she’i efshar lehotzi habasar belo hatarat hakesher (even if it’s impossible to remove the meat without untying the knot).

Kesher Deli

Vehakosher deli bemeshicha be’avnei dekiyutza (and one who ties a bucket with a band of stones and the like), that one may tie a pail, a vessel to draw out water, with a band, aval lo bechevel (but not with a rope), but not with a rope, because a rope is already yes a kesher shel kayama. What’s the difference? Or it’s already yes more of a ma’aseh uman.

Tying Before an Animal

Vehakosher lifnei behemah beraglah (and one who ties before an animal at its leg), that one may tie in front of the animal, it means to tie the door, or to tie on the legs of the animal shelo tetze vetazik (that it should not go out and cause damage), that it should not go out, afilu yesh bah shnei esrot (even if it has two knots), even if it has two knots, and he also thought that one of the sides is a kesher shel kayama. So all these things he says, even if there is a place for not, because perhaps it is yes a kesher shel kayama, all these things but in practice it doesn’t mean enough kesher shel kayama, so it is yes permitted.

Chevel Shekeshurah Beparah O Ba’avus

Vechevel shehi keshurah beparah (and a rope that is tied to a cow), if on the cow there is already a rope, already one has already put a knot on the cow, one may tie the rope to the avus (feeding trough), to the bowl with which one gives food to the cow. O hayetah keshurah ba’avus (or it was tied to the avus), the avus has tied to it a rope, kosherah beparah (one ties it to the cow), one may tie it down to the cow. Both things one may do. Aval (but) what one may not do, aval one may not bring a chevel mitoch beito and tie it to the cow or to the avus. Why? What’s the problem here? I tie here, I tie here.

The chevel mitoch beito (rope from his house)? Yes. So mevatel keli mehechano (nullifying a vessel from its readiness), so then he can leave it. If the rope that is already connected, he will open it. When he covered it connected to the avus, so he puts it up and puts it down. But if he brings a chevel mitoch beito (rope from his house), he doesn’t need to have with the rope to drag the cow. It could be that the rope he will leave there. And the other things that were said that one may, even if it’s a yes a bit kesher shel kayama, but perhaps it’s not so different. I don’t know. Something in the reality is different. Perhaps when he brings a new one, it’s as if… when there is a rope… no, again, it’s very simple. It’s already tied from one side, and from the other side he ties it to the avus, and he will take it off when the cow finishes eating. But when he needs to tie it from one side, the first side we don’t, we never establish that one may not. The cow comes with a rope. When one brings it to the second side. Right?

Chevel Gurdi

Ve’im hayah chevel gurdi (and if it was a Gordian rope), if it’s a rope that Gordians means, Gordians, yes, it’s written even in the Gemara, Gordians said, a Gordi means people who sew, weavers, shemutar letalteloh (that it’s permitted to move it), what means rope? A chevel gurdi that one may not, because it’s muktzeh. If there is a chevel gurdi that is yes mutar letalteloh (permitted to move it) for some reason, yes, that’s what he says, harei zeh ma’avir vekosher beparah ba’avot (behold this one transfers and ties to the cow with ropes), one may yes. Why? Because a rope that one will afterwards want to use for merchandise, one won’t leave it as a kesher shel kayama.

Principle: Kesher Shel Kayama Is a Fact, Not a Quality

What’s the explanation? One sees that it has nothing to do with the quality of the knot, because you know that you will open it. Yes, that’s what he says, kesher shel kayama has nothing with the quality of the kesher shel kayama is a fact, because one will open it. No, why are all these things permitted? Shekol elu ein koshrim ma’aseh hedyot hen, ve’eino shel kayama (for all these are layman’s knots, and it is not permanent). Two reasons he has, one may lechatchila (from the outset), because it’s ma’aseh hedyot (layman’s work), one doesn’t need for this any craftsman, and it’s not shel kayama (permanent), the knot won’t remain there, ulefichach koshrim umatirin, ufeirush mutar likshoran lechatchila (and therefore one ties and unties, and the explanation is it’s permitted to tie them from the outset).

Question of the Ra’avad

Right. The Raavad doesn’t understand, if so why don’t they include a rope in the list? It’s also not a professional craft (maaseh uman), and also one doesn’t leave it there. So he argues, okay.

Baskets for Dates and Dried Figs – Untying is Permitted

Baskets for dates and dried figs, one places bags or things underneath to catch the dates and dried figs that are already falling down from the trees. One ties up the baskets with rope, it seems. One may untie, remove, and cut on Shabbos. Why does he suddenly mention untying here? He’s in the middle of discussing knots, what does he want to say here with this…

Selim, he’s going to say soon the Hagahos Maimoniyos that untying is the same law, a knot that one may tie one may also untie. So, apparently the word here is… one should open it, actually regarding this the proper order would be to open it.

Okay, what does he say at length by untying, I mean. Okay.

Grass Rope – Fit for Animal Food

He says at length by untying, anything that is fit for animal food, here he’s talking about the material with which one makes the knot. He says that if one uses grass, I don’t know, a piece of straw as a string to make with it a permanent knot, one may, because what is fit for animal food, it’s obvious that it won’t remain closed forever, one will perhaps use it on Shabbos. Therefore if the strap of his sandal broke in a karmelis, the strap of his sandal tore, we’re talking about a case where one may not, there where it’s connected to the shoe, where one actually makes a permanent knot, one may not do it again because it’s a permanent knot. What can one do? One takes grass rope that is fit for animal food and wraps it around and ties the grass, with this one may indeed tie to the shoe, because since we know it’s animal food, it’s obvious apparently that it will become moldy or whatever, it’s not something that can be a true permanent knot.

Discussion: Why is Something Fit for Animal Food Permitted?

A shoe or sandal strap that is not worn on the foot, so again, a person was walking on Shabbos, he’s stuck, his shoe strap tore. He may not tie a proper string, but a string that is fit for animal food he may, which would have been a permanent knot, as we said earlier, to tie to the shoe, because that’s what we’re talking about here, the shoe. His sandal strap broke, from the shoe, it opened, it tore off from the shoe. He now wants to sew a piece of string to the shoe, he may not put another string, but grass rope he may, because it’s not called a… because what is fit for animal food, why may one use something fit for animal food? What is the reason?

You said well, because he’s going to give it to his animal later. It’s not something that will last. It’s something that he’s going to give to his animal, and he needs it more urgently on his shoe. It’s not something, imagine a piece of grass, how long will it last on the feet? It’s not a knot to any… because you don’t want a knot. Something that can be eaten. Something that can be eaten. True, by the way, we don’t hold that one needs to be hungry for things, by the way.

Returning Straps to Their Place is Permitted

Not with the straps of shoes and sandals, not with the straps of shoes and sandals, not with the straps of shoes and sandals. The shoes and sandals no longer hold the feet. One may return the straps to their place, to put back, if one doesn’t need to make a new hole one may. But not to tie. This is apparently the distinction. Not that the hole opened and you tie it back. Rather to put back in the holes where it belongs to what. Yes, something like that.

Tying a Bow

Yes. Another thing the Rambam says, all these things we discussed one may not, it’s a proper knot. But a bow (aniva), a bow, which is a double knot like this, but which opens much more easily, is permitted, because it is not confused with tying, no one will think it’s a knot. It’s a different type of thing than a knot, a different type of knot. Therefore a rope that broke, a rope that tore, one gathers its two ends, there’s a way how one can fix it, one can take the two ends of the rope, and wraps a thread around them, and ties a bow. What is wrapping a thread around them? Can one make a bow with the rope itself, no? What does he want? No, one can’t, because it will open. Think yourself. A rope, here we’re talking about a rope that one needs for the bucket, yes? You need to have the rope so you can pull. Aha, if one can put on it something as a bow that will strengthen the rope, hold the rope. No, you can make a bow from the rope, but you insert, you see it, you insert another piece so it won’t open the bow. Understand? Because otherwise it can open itself the moment you pull on it.

A Non-Permanent Knot for a Mitzvah Purpose

Already, one may tie a non-permanent knot. We discussed a non-permanent knot, if it’s a professional craft one may not, but if it’s not a professional craft one may. But even if it’s a professional craft, yes, what he says here apparently, one may however for a mitzvah purpose. Such as tying to measure with it a measurement from the Torah measurements, he wants to tie a rope in order to be able to measure something, even a professional craft, which rabbinically one may not even a professional craft that is not a permanent vessel, but for a mitzvah purpose one may.

The same thing if a harp string broke, one may tie it in the Temple, also the same thing.

Laws of Tying and Untying, Sewing and Tearing

Knots for Mitzvah Purposes and in the Temple

Speaker 1:

Such as tying to measure with it a measurement from the Torah measurements. He wants to tie a rope in order to be able to measure something, measure the measurement of a… I don’t know what. Even a professional craft. What about rabbinically? One may not make even a professional craft that is not a permanent knot, but for a mitzvah purpose one may.

The same thing, if a harp string broke, one may tie it in the Temple. Also the same thing, in the Temple there is no rabbinic prohibition (shevus), therefore even a knot that is a professional craft, but if it’s not permanent one may, but not in the country. And however, one should not tie it initially even in the Temple. Initially one doesn’t do it even in the Temple. The only time they permitted in the Temple is only when it’s lacking for the harps to be able to… because then it will be a permanent knot. Initially, when you make it temporarily, it will tomorrow, a better one will come in, you don’t fix it. So then it will be biblical. The Temple can only permit rabbinic prohibitions, right? Yes, very good.

Laws of Untying

So this is the laws of tying. Now one can learn the laws of untying. Yes yes, learn a little, yes. So the law of untying, yes, how tying can be untying. It’s the same law as tying. It’s the opposite, it’s the mirror image, the reverse of it. Any knot for which one is liable for tying it, so one is liable for untying it.

Discussion: Is There by Untying a Requirement of “For the Purpose of Tying”?

It’s interesting, isn’t there by untying the law that it must be for the purpose of tying or something like that? Or any untying is something like a repair (tikun)? We haven’t come to this? Do you hear my question? There isn’t such a law like by tearing there is no destructive act (mekalkel). Untying is not tearing.

No, one opens it so one can then use it again and so forth. In other words, it’s perhaps a permanent knot, tearing in order to sew. It’s untying in order to tie.

Right. Simply a business matter. In short, if it’s a permanent knot and it’s a professional craft, then one is liable also for untying. And the same thing, any knot for which one who ties it is exempt, so one who unties it is exempt. That means, if it’s either a professional craft and it’s not a permanent knot, or a permanent knot and it’s not a professional craft, then that’s exempt on both. And any knot that is permitted to tie, so it is permitted to untie. It’s not a permanent knot, it’s permanent. I don’t know Hebrew.

Derivatives of Tying and Untying — Twisting Ropes

Nu, until here we learned the primary categories (avos) of tying and untying which were together. Now we’re going to learn that there are derivatives (toledos) of tying and untying. What is the derivative? One who twists ropes from flax fibers or from grass. What is grass? Grass? Coarse grass. Or from wool threads, or from linen threads, or from hair threads, and similar things, he makes a rope.

Distinction Between Twisting and Weaving

We learned earlier that there’s something of weaving. Ah, it’s actually right. We learned that there’s something of spinning, weaving, yes, where one makes material. Or there’s a weaver who is a derivative of weaving. Here he’s not a weaver, he’s not making any material. He’s making a rope. He’s making a rope, and he twists together a bit of things, different grasses or whatever. That means, since you see it’s like a preparation for making a rope that one will tie, this is a derivative of tying and one is liable. That’s how I understand it.

Measurement of Twisting

And its measurement, what is the measurement? How much rope twisting must one do in order to transgress this derivative of tying? Enough that the rope will stand by its twist without tying, so that his work is maintained. That means, a short rope you can take together different pieces of wool, linen, whatever it is, but you need to give it a bind so it will hold at all. If you twist, yes, it must be a rope, but at the end one needs to give it a bind. Because it opened. But you’ve made enough, it’s long enough that it holds enough already, that’s the measurement that you’ve already transgressed the… Ah, before that it’s a derivative of tying, because the normal way is to tie. As he says here, he ties the pieces of material or whatever, threads, in order to make a rope. But if he makes twisting, that instead of tying, as if then the work is completed, then that’s the measurement. Even without tying, with tying, that’s tying.

But certainly it’s understood, it’s a derivative of tying, because it’s a type of tying, only if it replaces the tying. If it doesn’t replace the tying, you’ve done nothing.

Derivative of Untying — Separating

Ahh, Chaim, separating is the opposite. Separating twisted rope is a derivative of untying and one is liable. But here there is indeed a concept of destructive act, because here when he opens the twisted rope nothing will remain. So it’s like one doesn’t intend to destroy alone, if he has benefit from it, right, he’s going to remake it or something like that, because if not it’s simply destructive.

The measurement of untying a twisted rope is the same measurement, he broke apart as much as when it was whole it could have held without tying. That’s until here the laws of tying and untying, yes? Right?

Rama — Professional Knots in Our Times

By the way, he brings, the Rama says that in our times we don’t know properly what is a professional knot. So therefore, anything that is two, a double knot, one is concerned that one doesn’t make Shabbos. Anything two, gone twice, yes, it’s a double knot, one doesn’t make on Shabbos. But a bow one may actually, yes. Not only that, even a bow that is on top of a knot, like one makes a belt, yes, one makes one small knot, and then a bow, a loop, a… how do you call it? A bow? In short, such a… how do you call it, the… a bow, yes. A bow is permitted.

Laws of Sewing

Okay. Uhm… we’re going to learn the craft of sewing, sewing. Ah, what is sewing? Sewing is not to make, but sewing is one puts together two pieces of material with something, right? Through a sewing. It’s very similar to weaving and that, but as I say, weaving is to make the material. Here is sewing, you put together two pieces of material, you connect them with a thread or something like that.

Measurement of Sewing

The law is thus: One who sews two stitches is liable. One who sewed two stitches is liable. How? When he ties the ends of the thread on both sides. If after sewing he tied it so the sewing won’t come undone, so it will be a sewing that holds. He has already repaired the sewing so it won’t slip. This is similar to what we learned earlier by tying or by twisting, right? A craft that… Anyone who does a craft and his craft is not maintained on Shabbos is exempt. This is a rule.

And this is when he made only two stitches, it’s lacking to tie the ends of the thread. But if he sewed more than two stitches, even if he didn’t tie, it will indeed hold, he is liable, because he repaired a sewing, the sewing holds. Because the next one holds it.

One Who Removes a Sewing Thread

One who removes a sewing thread on Shabbos, one pulls out a sewing thread on Shabbos, which he only needed when he was sewing, he pulls it out, he’s already finished. Ah, he says that he’s no longer sewing, but he clips it a bit to make it tighter. He is liable because of the needs of sewing.

Is this like a derivative of sewing? I didn’t know what to write here. We’ve seen by all primary categories of work, I don’t know what the needs of sewing means. Whether it means similar to the craft or it’s a derivative of sewing, he doesn’t explain. A new category, what does the needs of sewing mean. We saw the same thing by the needs of cooking, yes? All these things are the needs of cooking. What are they? Parts of the cooking. What would I have meant?

Okay. Yes.

Laws of Tearing

After sewing comes tearing. This is the opposite of sewing, to separate the two pieces, the two threads. Tearing, one who tears, he tears in order to sew two stitches, and he does it… no, “in order to” means that much, yes? How much does he tear? As large as two stitches, and he does it in order to sew two stitches, so one can sew again the two stitches, he is liable.

Tearing Destructively — Destructive Act

But one who tears destructively, one who tears because he wants to tear the garment, he is exempt, because of destructive act. So the Rambam says again such a thing, destructive act is only when he’s actually destructive, but if he has a benefit from it, it’s so, one who tears in his anger, one tears because he’s angry, or a mourner, or he tears mourning for a dead person, is indeed liable, because the tearing is not a destruction. Why? Because he settles his mind with this thing, and calms his inclination, he calms himself with this. He’s talking here about for a dead person or in his anger, so calms his inclination, or his anger subsides with this thing, so this helps him to calm down, behold this is repairing and he is liable.

So one can say thus, settling his mind is by a dead person, and calming his inclination is by one who tears in his anger.

Discussion: Why Doesn’t the Raavad Argue Here?

Here apparently the Raavad should also argue and say that one who wounds another person is not repairing. No? I don’t see that the Raavad argues here, which apparently is the same dispute as he goes earlier regarding wounding.

No, because tearing in anger can be with permission in a case, for example when one may get angry for a Torah matter. Or transgressions. For example, I don’t know, one who disgraces a Torah scholar, ah, okay. Behold this is repairing and he is liable.

Opening the Neck Opening

One who opens the neck opening on Shabbos, one, when one makes a shirt, but the hole where one needs to insert the neck is sewn, and to finish the shirt one needs to cut open and open that thing, he is liable because of tearing. Although there it’s not in order to sew, but it’s in order to repair.

Yes, but he’s not liable because it’s repair, he’s liable because it’s tearing. No, he’s not liable because it’s tearing in order to sew. So in order to sew always means to remove a defect. Right, there isn’t here any process that Tosafos says the repair of this, he now needs to open. It’s also repairing, yes. Makes sense.

Derivatives of Sewing and Tearing

What is the derivative? Yes, he’s going to say derivatives of sewing and tearing.

Gluing — Derivative of Sewing

One who glues papers or parchments, one glues together papers or parchment, with scribes’ glue, with glue that scribes use, and similar things, behold this is a derivative of sewing and he is liable, because it’s similar to sewing that he glues together in a permanent manner.

The Craft of Building, Demolishing, and the Final Hammer Blow

The Craft of Building

Introduction: Building Versus Sewing

But in a unique way, it’s not building, not taking together pieces of ground that become one, rather it’s similar to material, a paper is more similar to material than to a building.

And so one who separates, or the opposite, there are two papers glued, two notes are glued together, and he separated them, but he doesn’t do it destructively, he separates them because he wants them to be separated, behold this is a derivative of tearing.

Ay good.

Primary Category of Building

Now we’re going to learn the craft of building. What does the Rambam say by building? What is the primary category of building?

The Rambam says, one who builds any amount, that means that building is different from all the crafts we’ve had until now, the measurement is any amount. Every building is an important thing, there is no measurement in this.

We learned by plowing and sowing, so far as I remember there are two more crafts that had any amount. Also there it’s similar to building, it’s similar to building, it’s a repair in the ground. Yes.

One Who Levels the Ground in a House

Laws of Makeh B’patish and Tzeidah

Toladot Makeh B’patish – Examples of Completing a Task

The Glassblower, the Scraper, and One Who Makes a Hole

The Rambam says:

How so? One who blows into a glass vessel, one who fires a clay vessel even partially, one who scrapes any amount, and one who makes a hole of any size – this is a toladah of makeh b’patish and he is liable.

How so? He says, one who blows into a glass vessel – blowing into a glass vessel, this makes it into a vessel that can be used.

And one who fires a clay vessel, even partially – someone has a vessel but he shapes it, he forms it, even just a part of it.

And one who scrapes any amount – what does scraping mean? He scrapes off, like… he scrapes off what? Some vessel, yes, he makes it smoother, something sticks out a bit, he cuts it off. “Sanding,” yes, we call this polishing. He finishes the vessel by scraping off excess pieces from it and so on.

And one who makes a hole of any size – someone makes a hole in something that needs a hole, in wood, in a building, in the Mishkan, in vessels, but the hole makes it into a vessel, this is a toladah of makeh b’patish and he is liable.

An Opening Not Made for Bringing In and Taking Out

The Rambam says:

And any opening that is not made for bringing in and taking out, one is not liable for it.

He brings further, and any opening that is not made for bringing in and taking out, one is not liable for it. He mentioned an opening earlier, how did he mention an opening? Like when one makes an opening in an abscess. He didn’t say that one is not liable for an opening. I don’t know what comes in here. It has to do with the next piece, the one who lances an abscess. What does this have to do with an opening that is not made for bringing in and taking out? Okay. How is it for bringing in and taking out? Because he wants to take out the pus and he wants to bring in the medicine, yes? That’s how I understood it. I don’t know. Medicine? Maybe air? Air doesn’t mean anything.

Ah, he brings for example that the hole of a chicken coop is to bring in light and specifically to take out the air, so it should be airy. Perhaps the same thing is with these things. An opening must have a way in and a way out. An opening that is only one way is also an opening. This is somewhat the principle. I don’t know but what he means.

Ah, he says for example someone makes a hole and also will fill it in order to insert a nail. This is not really sealing, because a nail will go in, it won’t come out. He explains there, nothing comes out of this opening, so it’s not makeh b’patish. It could be boneh, perhaps a bigger problem, but makeh b’patish it’s not. This is apparently the point.

One Who Lances an Abscess – The Work of a Doctor

The Rambam says:

One who lances an abscess on Shabbat in order to widen the opening of the wound – is liable for makeh b’patish, for this is the work of a doctor. But if he only lances it to remove pus from it – this is permitted.

He says now, he’s going to learn another type of makeh b’patish, also apparently a toladah of makeh b’patish, right? Makeh b’patish is hitting with a hammer. When you hit with a hammer, I don’t have a hammer, I don’t have a hammer. In all those museums of the 39 melachot, the makeh b’patish they haven’t figured out how to do it. I don’t remember.

Anyway, one who lances an abscess on Shabbat – lancing means he opens, he has an abscess, such a blister, something like that, he gives it a squeeze, he opens it, in order to widen the opening of the wound – that is, in order to open the mouth, so that it should heal from it, so that it shouldn’t fill with pus, and he intends for healing to widen the opening of the wound, this is a matter of healing, it should come out, as you say pus should come out, air should come, it should be healed through this, apply medicine, I don’t know, medicine is another thing. This is liable for makeh b’patish, for this is the work of a doctor. That is, he wants to say because this is a repair, therefore this is the work of a doctor. He sees that this for this is the work of a doctor says that this makes it makeh b’patish. He sees that not the word is because it’s an opening made for bringing in and taking out.

But in truth, because this is the repair. Makeh b’patish means that it’s a small repair, adding a small thing. The work of a doctor, one of the things, he does other things also for the work of a doctor besides makeh b’patish, but besides this, this is one of his things. But if he only lances it to remove pus from it, this is permitted. This is completely permitted, because this is not a melachah, he’s not engaged in other words to make holes, he makes openings in abscesses, he doesn’t make openings in abscesses, he simply wants to remove the pus, this is a different action.

Making openings in abscesses, he simply doesn’t weigh abscesses on Shabbat.

One Who Scratches on a Stone and One Who Levels a Stone

The Rambam says:

One who scratches on a stone any amount – is liable for makeh b’patish. And one who levels a stone in the foundation of a building and fixes it with his hand and places it in its proper place – is liable for makeh b’patish.

One who scratches on a stone any amount – he makes it a bit smoother on a stone, yes, he makes it straight, he wants to fit it in, is liable for makeh b’patish – this makes sense, right?

And we don’t take, and one who levels a stone in the foundation of a building and fixes it with his hand and places it in its proper place – there’s a stone at the foundation, it needs to be very straight. He simply pushes it to be straight, afterwards they’ll build on it, it won’t be crooked. Basically he only pushed a stone, but he did it in such a way that this makes the entire building stand straight, so he is liable for makeh b’patish. If he places it initially, Master of the Universe, the next one doesn’t place it, it’s already lying there. He just gives it a push a bit so it should be clear, then he is liable for makeh b’patish.

One Who Plucks Lint from Garments

The Rambam says:

One who plucks lint from garments by hand – is liable for makeh b’patish. But if he removes them casually – he is exempt.

One who plucks lint from garments in Judea. Can someone explain what this means in English? What does this mean? On a certain type of garment that has such lint? Yes, lint. If it has a tool to remove, yes? Yes, it’s such a machine, not a machine, such a velcro, what’s it called? Such a sticky thing. Yes. One who removes lint from wool garments, is liable for makeh b’patish. Also, because this is how one finishes the garment. The garment comes like this, and this is the completion of the work of the garment.

I don’t believe that’s what it means here, because that’s something that attaches itself. We’re talking here about something more, we’re talking about that it wasn’t made well. I think that’s what he means here, that it’s just also a wool garment. It could be that this is a lint remover, he’s simply removed from the garment what attaches itself, dust. No, but it’s just such a wool garment, and not every garment has this. Certain types of garments, perhaps yes, I don’t know. Is this a cleaning or is this the finishing of the garment? I don’t know.

The next thing stands even clearer that it’s just a no. Ah, says the Rambam, as Yaakov already mentioned, this is only someone who is particular, he wants to be clean, he’s a better person, he doesn’t need to have the little dust particles on his garment. But if he removes them casually, gentlemen, he simply removes, blows off from his jacket, he is exempt. But he doesn’t do it initially, he’s exempt even so.

One Who Shakes Out a New Black Garment

The Rambam says:

One who shakes out a new black garment in order to remove the yellow and white from it so that it should look nice – is liable for a sin offering.

Laws of Makeh B’Patish (Completing a Vessel)

One who shakes a new black garment to remove the yellow and white from it, so that it should look good, is liable for a sin offering. There is something here, people have black garments. I don’t know what a black garment means. On this black garment, garment apparently means a piece of clothing, yes, not necessarily a tallit for mitzvah purposes. And it has some yellow or I don’t know, green, I don’t know some other colors, little hairs, he wants it to be black, and there shouldn’t be any white or yellow hairs from the merchandise. It should be shiny and nice. So if he does it so that he won’t accept it, this is the part of the Gemara “the garment and liable for a sin offering,” which is makeh b’patish from the Torah.

If someone is particular, he doesn’t care at all if it’s a Hasidic Jew, he goes with a hat here and there, then it’s permitted, then it’s permitted. For mourning he was only exempt, but one must know the difference. Someone is particular or it’s the way of business, what’s the difference? Ah, he’s also particular. I wouldn’t have known to say initially, because if you do it, the way of business means afterwards, “Ah, what did I do? Ah, I did this.” If one says that he’s particular, it’s clear that he is indeed somewhat particular. Ah, particular here, he gives a shake. He shakes and shakes himself. Ah, then that’s a different case.

Okay, this is the explanation of a new garment, which is the way how one does it. The new one, yes. From here come the people who don’t fold their new ones exactly. In short.

Thus far the laws of makeh b’patish.

—

Laws of Trapping (Tzeidah) – Primary Category of Labor

Foundation of Trapping: From an Unguarded Place to a Guarded Place

Now comes another primary category of labor that must be learned in this chapter, which is trapping. Here begins the new order of a book, yes, one catches an animal and from it makes a Torah scroll, as Rabbi Chiya did.

So, for which things is one liable for trapping? Everyone knows what trapping is, but which things?

The Rambam says:

One who traps something that is normally trapped – is liable.

“One who traps something that is normally trapped is liable.” You are liable specifically for something that it is the way to trap. We will be able, we will soon see things that it is not the way to trap, or they cannot be trapped, then one is exempt.

And this is when he brings it out from a place that is not guarded to a place that is guarded.

And this is, but also, what is trapping? “That he brings it out from a place that is not guarded to a place that is guarded.” You bring it in, you catch it in a place, you bring it into a place where you don’t need to catch it again afterwards.

Examples of Liable

How so? Such as one who chased after a deer until he brought it into a house or garden or courtyard and locked it, or drove a bird and brought it into a tower, or brought fish from the sea into a bowl of water – he is liable.

How so? “Such as one who chased after a deer until he brought it into a house or garden or courtyard, and locked it.” You ran after a deer until it went into a house or courtyard and you locked it. “Or drove a bird,” a deer, and now it’s stuck in your backyard, it won’t go out, you’ll easily catch it in one time, something like that. Or a bird needs to be a smaller thing.

Drove a bird and brought it into a tower – tower is said to mean a closet, something like that. A tower. A tower, but tower doesn’t mean, tower always in the Gemara means a closet. I mean no. I mean no. Therefore one says that a courtyard is a box. Yes, a closed place. Certainly it’s locked, because a bird in a courtyard is worth nothing.

Or brought fish from the sea into a bowl of water – a fish one must put into its bucket of water, which it has there. Then he is liable.

Examples of Exempt But Forbidden

But if he drove a bird into a house, or drove a fish and scorpion from the sea into a pool of water, or brought an animal and bird into a wide hall – he is exempt, because it is not complete trapping, perhaps he will need to chase after it.

But conversely, drove a bird into a house, if he stuffed a bird into his house, or drove a fish and scorpion from the sea into a pool of water – he only stuffed a fish into a pool, something, a pool means a pool, yes, such a small water that he made, or brought an animal and bird into a wide hall – if he has a large wide palace, hall means a palace, a large area, he is exempt.

Because it is not complete trapping, perhaps he will need to chase after it, he will need to catch it again, so you don’t have complete trapping, so it’s exempt. Yes, it’s not a place that doesn’t lack trapping. This is still a place lacking trapping, he will still need to run after the bird. But it’s still forbidden, but it’s exempt. Exempt but forbidden.

Deer and Lion – Special Laws

Specifically a deer and lion, it comes out a lion, that even in a small area it’s still very hard to catch it, so one is liable until he brings it into a cage, he must put it literally into its small cage, where there it is caught. Each thing is according to what it is, yes, according to what it is, so it must be caught. A bird is not caught until one puts it in a small box, a lion is not caught until one puts it literally into something where it cannot give one run away.

The application everyone understands, yes. Every place… every place… yes. Aha. Yes. If a Jew is like a bird or a lion, he is not in exile, he is not in the community. Every place… ah.

General Rule: What Does “Not Lacking Trapping” Mean

Every place where if he wants to reach the animal in one leap – walls close to each other

So now we will learn what is the meaning, a precise boundary, a precise rule, what does it mean that it doesn’t lack trapping. Every place where if he wants to reach the animal in one leap, in one run, does leap mean a run? Does leap mean swimming perhaps? Yes. But it doesn’t mean when one falls from the roof in a life-threatening situation. Yes. But it doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t fit the people. It means a grab. Good. With one grab.

Or the walls are close to each other. It’s still like a way that one can say, the walls are close one to the other, that in between there is no empty space. A large backyard is to say…

Laws of Trapping – Measurements, Species, and Derivatives

Measurement of “Small Place” Regarding Trapping

Speaker 1: Every place where one can reach the animal in one leap, in one run. Does leap mean a run? Does leap mean swimming perhaps?

Speaker 2: Yes, but it means, it means from the case of the fish in a basket.

Speaker 1: Yes, but it doesn’t make sense. It means a grab, good, with one grab.

Speaker 1: Or the walls are close to each other, it’s still a way that one can see. The walls are close one to the other, that between them there is no empty space. A large backyard you’ll see in the middle like the sun, because the shadow from one comes already to the other. If it’s close enough that the shadow from one wall comes to the other wall, this is a small place. And a deer runs in it, this is an animal. Deer means like a deer or another animal.

It’s interesting, because the measurement of twelve by twelve has to do with how high the walls are. If there are high walls, it can be quite large.

Speaker 2: I hear, a normal height.

Speaker 1: I don’t know. It’s a sign, it’s not clear what this is. He says such signs.

Speaker 1: A place larger than this, a larger place than this, a pool is exempt. Two signs. What still lacks trapping?

Speaker 2: Yes, such two interesting signs. It’s not clear what he means.

Discussion: Lacking Trapping and Completion of Work

Speaker 1: It’s interesting that we didn’t have on other labors, for example, that it’s lacking, that afterwards one didn’t need to do anything. A little sewing a drop, one will afterwards still on Shabbat need to still sew.

Speaker 2: Still sew, but the next piece.

Speaker 1: The labor must be finished. Even here he is apparently still exempt, he doesn’t say that it’s permitted.

Which Animals Are “Species That Are Trapped”

Speaker 1: Now, we learned earlier that it must be things that are species that are trapped.

Speaker 2: Yes, he says so, which things are species that are trapped?

Speaker 1: One of the eight creeping things mentioned in the Torah, which they have for example chovel, as we learned earlier, and one of the other detestable things and creeping things that have species of trapping, which people conduct themselves to trap them.

Speaker 2: Yes? That’s the meaning “that have species of trapping,” it’s the way of people.

Speaker 1: That is, the worms are in it. One who traps one of them, whether for a need or not for a need, but to play with it is liable, even if he doesn’t, he just doesn’t need the, I don’t know what he has, he just wants to play with it, he is liable, since he intended the essence of trapping.

Discussion: “To Play With It” and Labor Not Needed for Itself

Speaker 2: Why should the Rambam hold that it’s not labor not needed for itself?

Speaker 1: Liable but… ah, even if he only catches for fun, he says it’s not labor not needed for itself. Still he is liable. But according to the other opinion that it’s labor not needed for itself, if he just gives it a slap, it’s a slap.

Speaker 2: Let’s know exactly what “to play” means by him, what makes it one needed for itself? He wants to catch so that he can play with it.

Speaker 1: It’s actually not. Perhaps he means “to play” that he plays the “game” of catching?

Speaker 2: That’s the same intention.

Speaker 1: He catches it and goes to immediately free it afterwards.

Speaker 2: Yes, so indeed the Rema brings. What does he mean? That he catches. You’ve once seen, people go in the water, people fish and throw back in the fish. That’s such a “trap to play.” He has no “point” from this, he doesn’t need the fish, he just wants to play the “game” of trapping. So I think that’s what he means.

Speaker 1: Okay.

One Who Traps the Sleeping and the Blind

Speaker 1: A trap is a settlement which is a sign of an animal. If someone says he’s sleeping or he’s blind, one can’t catch him anyway, no. He’s still an animal, why? He can still run away, or because the type of species still lacks trapping. He wakes up, as he says, he wakes up when one catches him.

Derivative of Trapping – One Who Sends Dogs

Speaker 1: Now, now one must learn what is the derivative of trapping. Normal trapping is when you yourself go and run after the deer until it goes into the room and you lock the door, and the like. What if he sends other animals? He has a dog, or perhaps one can even ask about a “robot” or something like that.

Speaker 1: He sends dogs to trap deer and rabbits and the like. When yes, he sends a dog to catch the deer or the “rabbits.” The deer will flee from the dog and he will chase after the deer, and the deer runs after the dog, and the dog runs after it, based on how much he pushed the dog. He works together with the dog. The dog runs after it, he catches it, or conversely, he catches it and the dog runs after it, the dog catches it. He is a trapper and liable, he is a trapper and liable. So it also says by birds, also with a…

The Rema: Trapping with a Dog is a Gathering of Scoffers

Speaker 1: He brings that the Rema on Shabbat says on this law that this is not permitted to do even during the week. This is a “sport” which is a gathering of scoffers. With a dog.

Speaker 2: Just catching normally, a Jew catches in order to be able to eat. But this is a “sport.” Catching with a dog is a “sport,” a thing that one does for “fun.”

Speaker 1: Aha. And this is a gathering of scoffers.

Speaker 2: I understand this. The Rav spoke about this, yes, I remember.

Discussion: Is “Hunting for Fun” Permitted?

Speaker 1: It’s not so clear what this is. May one do “hunting” for “fun”?

Speaker 2: Yes, I asked the Rav, this is a danger. The Rav answered, I remember I asked him, he answered… an interesting thing in this. One must know, in any case, now one speaks of after the oath. So that I should see it in a manner. It’s the same thing, he has some manner that a horse can run after a manner, whatever, yes, once.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: So here is a novelty, that trapping one doesn’t need to do alone, he can do it together with his animal, or together with something else.

Two Who Did It by Trapping

Speaker 1: Now there was the interesting inquiry about that essentially two who did it, why exactly is there a pursuer?

Speaker 2: Yes, true. It’s the cases that there are, such cases happen one must speak about them. So between I take a bite.

Speaker 1: And if one traps with a dog, one certainly traps with another person sometimes. Because a deer, a dog is a dog, a dog is alone, a dog is not another person. Now one speaks with another person. A deer ran into his house, one locked it before the door. So the one who locked is liable, because the action of locking the door, that is the trapping of the deer. Well, two, two people locked together, they are exempt, because each one could have done it alone. So two who did it, if he cannot do it, and it’s two, they are liable, like the rule of two who did it that we already know.

Discussion: One Turns the Lock, One Turns the Door

Speaker 2: What if a person turns the lock, and a person turns the door?

Speaker 1: Very good. Then it’s very interesting, but one needs two people. It’s a heavy door, one needs two Jews to sit by the door?

Speaker 2: No, if one turns the door he is also liable.

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s simple. Now, even in a manner where one needs two people to fill the door, are both liable?

Speaker 2: No, the second is liable.

Speaker 1: One sat on the opening and didn’t fill it, but before that, who does he mean “one can”?

Speaker 2: Ah, it wasn’t an opening where one needs to have two people sit.

Speaker 1: No, if there is… right. You said that the first person sat there still before the deer came in.

Speaker 2: No, no, no, no. So it says here, so is the law. One sat, it can be that he is still exempt on this, but he sat next to the door, he did nothing. Why? Because as long as he sits there, there is still an open door, the deer can run out. He didn’t do any trapping.

Discussion: When the First Filled and the Second Comes

Speaker 1: What if… the first sat and he filled it. Afterwards the second came on the side, and the first left. Now the second makes the trapping, is the first liable, probably to be stringent. Why? Because he didn’t do the action of trapping, he sat by a closed door where his friend Reuven sat there. Just now Reuven stood up, but he thought that he would sit there. Even if he will sit there, even if Reuven left. He says to Reuven “I am permitted to sit in my place until evening and take the deer.” I may sit there until the afternoon, until after Shabbat, and take the deer.

One Who Locks His House to Guard It / A Bird Entered Under His Wings

Speaker 1: In practice, similar to one who locks a house to guard it, locks to guard within it, Shabbat before one within it. He thinks, my person just locked his door and just, he didn’t know at all, not even for something unintentional, he didn’t know at all that he had a deer, he did nothing. The same thing, the person, he sat down in a proper manner to sit there, the deer was already in the house when he sat there, and therefore to the guard, the same thing, a bird entered under his wings, which means only the action of trapping is forbidden, just to be there so they cannot run away from the animal, that’s no prohibition. The same thing a bird entered under his wings, that the bird has wings, when it goes in under the wings of a person, when it happened many times, wings of a person are his garments, so he sits and guards them until it gets dark, it was permitted, and we don’t send away, he did nothing. He can be exempt not caught in his way.

Novelty: Once the Trapping Happened, It Doesn’t Happen Again

Speaker 2: I think both laws mean basically that once the action of trapping happened, the person opens it, it’s contained and he can run away, a trapping already happened. One doesn’t say that the whole time happens again and again trapping.

Speaker 1: Right.

Exempt from Trapping – Old, Lame, Sick, Young

Speaker 1: A year it says a sign or sleeping is liable, but an old deer, or a lame one, or a sick one, or a young one, which cannot run well. Exempt, because it’s like it’s not trapped, like it’s trapped.

Speaker 2: No. As it is like it’s trapped, it cannot run away.

Speaker 1: Right.

One Who Traps an Animal and Bird in His Domain

Speaker 1: It asks, an animal and life perhaps from trapping, so the exempt what is the meaning and takes them out from what a trapping?

Speaker 2: Ah, is it those that one catches in a trap, meaning in a snare?

Speaker 1: So the exemption… already no longer applies to deer, gazelles, ibexes, as it says… “One who traps a wild animal or bird in his possession, such as geese and chickens and attic doves,” that is, things that already belong to him, it’s already in his house, he has a coop or he has a dovecote of doves etc., attic doves, then he is exempt. Why? Because they are already trapped, they come back every day, even if they fly around, they come home every day, so they are called “already trapped,” so it’s not called trapping. So says the holy Rambam.

Discussion: Exempt but Rabbinically Forbidden

Speaker 1: Here regarding this problem, yes, if a person has a bird, a pet bird, and the bird runs out, the Rambam says, he may catch it on Shabbos even lechatchila (from the outset).

Speaker 2: Ah, it says exempt, he may not. Um, exempt.

Speaker 1: There are those who say, the Mishnah Berurah says such a type of bird, for example a chicken, which is generally not trapping at all, because it doesn’t run away at all when it’s by its owner, it comes out that then it’s completely permitted.

Speaker 2: Okay.

One Who Traps Things That Are Not of the Species of Trapping

Speaker 1: “One who traps things that are not of the species of trapping,” these are things that one doesn’t normally trap, such as for example “locusts, grasshoppers,” I don’t know what grasshoppers are, some kind of bug, “hornets,” a bee, “a fly, mosquitoes, fleas,” flies, “and the like,” no one traps them, therefore he is exempt. The Sages perhaps said that even if one does trap sometimes, they shouldn’t continue doing it, not that one wants them.

Speaker 2: Right, there’s also such a thing that this isn’t called trapping, right, when one does want them, one wants to have them, not that one is trapping them in order to exempt them.

Speaker 1: But one sees that there is a certain leniency, there are things that one may, one doesn’t risk catching them.

Trapping Harmful Creatures – Snakes and Scorpions

Speaker 1: “One who traps harmful creatures, such as snakes and scorpions and the like, and even though they don’t kill,” even if it’s not readily dangerous, even a bee for example, bees, “behold they bite, it is permitted to trap them on Shabbos, provided that he intends to be saved from their harm,” that is, not that he should intend to catch them, then it’s a type of melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa (labor not needed for its own sake). No, he only wants to be saved, it’s not a melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa. And… he said that it’s a continuation. He said, exempt… once it’s exempt, it’s actually rabbinically forbidden. It’s a rabbinic prohibition. In a manner where it’s harmful, then regarding… why is it rabbinically forbidden? But if once one needs to be saved. If once one needs to be saved.

End of Chapter 14: The Law of Trapping Harmful Creatures

Continuation of the Reasoning Regarding Harmful Creatures

That is, not that he has an intention to catch because then it’s a question of trapping. No, he only wants to be saved, that is, he has no intention of melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa. And he says that it’s a continuation. He says once it’s exempt, there is a rabbinic prohibition. There is a rabbinic prohibition in a manner that it’s harmful, then one may remove it.

Question: Why a Rabbinic Prohibition if It’s Not Trapping at All?

He asks, but why is there a rabbinic prohibition if one only wants to be saved? He has no intention of trapping at all. If one says that it is indeed trapping, it’s because they are a danger, not because one wants to catch them. He asks, the Rambam learns that melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa is exempt, he should hold that here it’s even less than that. That’s the point, not clear.

So perhaps I’ll say? He asks that in the Gemara it’s implied that it has a law of melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa, but the Rambam rules differently. Anyway, we’ll say as you say, that here it’s even less. In short, it’s not trapping at all.

Law 25: Permission to Cover Harmful Creatures with a Vessel

“How should one do it? He covers them with a vessel, or wraps a garment over them and the like, provided that they don’t cause harm” — what does he do? He places a vessel over them, or he wraps a piece of cloth around them and the like, provided that they don’t cause harm, that is, he cannot kill them, but he can place a vessel over them so they won’t cause harm.

This is the law of something that disturbs, yes? It’s not a type of life-threatening danger, even simply that it’s harmful, one may not trap these types of harmful creatures.

—

End of Chapter 14 and Laws of Shabbos

Thus far Laws of Shabbos Chapter 14. Yes, this is a third of the Laws of Shabbos. More than a third, no? There are thirty chapters, no?