07. By Hand and Not with an Implement

    As we saw earlier (section 2), one may remove okhel from psolet in the normal way of eating if three conditions are met. One of the conditions is that the separating is done by hand and not with an implement designed for separating. For example, one may not use a strainer to separate seeds that are mixed together with their shells, even if he wishes to eat them immediately.

    Spoons and forks are not considered implements designed for separating. Rather, they assist the hand in grasping food. Therefore, one may use a spoon or a fork to remove okhel from psolet. For example, if a dish contains different types of food, one may use a fork to remove the type he wants, put it on his plate, and immediately eat it.

    One may not remove olive pits with a device specifically designed for this purpose, as it is an implement designed for separating (SSK 3:59).

    People often place grains of rice in salt shakers to prevent the salt from clumping. Although the holes of a salt shaker are small and only let the salt through (while blocking the rice), they nevertheless may be used on Shabbat, as their purpose is not to separate but to dispense salt. The proof of this is that people use salt shakers even when they do not contain grains of rice (see section 8 regarding a peeler, section 13 regarding a slotted spoon and Borer with a ladle, n. 15 regarding olives, and section 14 regarding a teapot).

    08. Removing Peels and Pits

    One may remove peels from fruit in order to eat them. Even though removing the peel is similar to removing psolet from okhel, it is not forbidden because this is the normal way to eat a fruit that has a peel. Therefore, one may peel garlic, onions, nuts, eggs, grapefruits, bananas, oranges, etc. for immediate consumption. However, one may not peel them to eat later on, because that is derekh melakha (Rema 321:19). For immediate consumption, one may remove a peel with a knife because it is a utensil designed to help one’s hand through derekh akhila and not derekh melakha (see Igrot Moshe OĤ 1:124).[8]

    When one who is eating a plum reaches the pit, he may throw it out and continue eating. One who is eating apricots or dates may open them (and check them for bugs), throw out the pit, and eat them, because this is the normal way of eating these fruits (MB 321:84).

    One who is cutting up a melon for immediate use may throw out all the seeds, because removing them is comparable to removing the peel of a fruit. Similarly, one may remove the peel of a melon or watermelon immediately before eating it. One may also remove the stem of a fruit before eating it (SSK 3:18 and 3:37-39; compare to section 10 below, which explains that one may remove watermelon seeds before eating watermelon).

    The poskim disagree whether removing the edible peel of fruits or vegetables, like those of apples, pears, cucumbers, and carrots, presents a problem of Borer. Some say that since the peel can be eaten, there is no issue of Borer, but rather it is like cutting a fruit in two. Thus, one may peel them even to eat later on, and may even use a peeler to do so. Others maintain that since one does not want the peel, it is considered psolet for him, and the rules of Borer apply to it. Accordingly, a peeler is considered an implement designed for separating, and therefore it absolutely may not be used. However, one who wishes to be lenient has support for doing so.[9] One may still peel these fruits with a knife for immediate consumption.


    [8]. Beit Yosef and Rema 321:19 quote Smag, Rabbeinu Yeruĥam, Smak, Terumat Ha-deshen, and Hagahot Maimoniyot, all of whom maintain that one may not peel garlic and onions for later because of Borer (though one may do so for immediate use, as that is derekh akhila). However, it seems from some Rishonim (Rabbeinu Ĥananel, Arukh, and Me’iri) that Borer does not apply to a case where the psolet and okhel are attached to each other. There is a dispute about what this means: Tal Orot explains that Borer does not apply at all to cases where the peel is fully attached to a fruit or vegetable, as with an orange. In contrast, in cases such as onions or garlic, where the peel is more loosely attached, Borer does apply (cited in Yalkut Yosef 319:57-58). Others explain that these Rishonim mean that when psolet and okhel are found side by side, whether joined completely or more loosely attached (like onion and garlic), Borer does not apply, because Borer is relevant only when psolet and okhel are mixed together (summarized in Menuĥat Ahava 2:7:39-41). In practice, since this is a case of uncertainty about Torah law, the vast majority of poskim rule stringently. This is the explicit ruling of Beit Yosef and Rema 321:19, and is the position of MA and MB 321:83 as well. Therefore, one may peel garlic and onions for immediate use only. However, where there are additional uncertainties, the lenient view is taken into consideration.[9]. There are three opinions on this matter:

    1) MA 321:30 and MB 321:84 forbid peeling apples for later. This implies that the rules of Borer pertain to the removal of a peel. This is also the opinion of Igrot Moshe OĤ 4:74, Borer 8. Similarly, Responsa Maĥazeh Eliyahu §51 forbids using a peeler, as does Ayil Meshulash, p. 104.

    2) SSK 3:34, nn. 88 and 90, presents as the first and primary opinion that if most people regularly eat the peel of a given fruit or vegetable, it may be peeled even with a peeler, and even for later consumption (this also seems to be the opinion of Pri Megadim as cited in SHT ad loc. 97).

    3) Some maintain that even if a peel is only eaten in distressing circumstances and only together with its fruit, Borer does not apply, since the peel is part of the fruit. We may combine this view with the opinion of Rabbeinu Ĥananel and others who maintain that Borer does not apply to removing peels (as explained in the previous note) as well as the opinion of those who maintain that one may perform Borer even with a utensil if it is for immediate use (as explained in n. 1 above). This is also the position of Menuĥat Ahava 2:7:13. Yalkut Yosef 319:58, 61 states that those who are lenient have an opinion to rely on. (We might suggest that even those who prohibit this do so rabbinically, which might be inferred from the laws of separating leaves that are edible but not usually eaten, as explained in MB 319:7.) She’arim Metzuyanim Ba-halakha §80, Kuntres Aĥaron 24 permits using a peeler on the grounds that it is comparable to a knife, rather than an implement specifically used for separating. It would seem that le-khatĥila one may rely on the second opinion, and there are grounds to be lenient in accordance with the third opinion as well.

    09. Bones in Fish and Meat

    When eating fish with bones, one may remove the bones in the course of eating. In other words, one may begin eating the fish, and when he gets to the bones that are in his way, he may remove them with his hand or a fork and continue eating. The same applies to eating meat with bones. For a small child, one may remove the bones from fish or meat before the child starts to eat, as this is the normal way of feeding children.

    Some, however, are stringent and maintain that removing bones from fish or meat is prohibited because it is removing psolet from okhel. In their opinion, one must remove the food from the bones. But the primary position is the lenient one, namely, that as one eats he may remove the bones from the fish or meat, as this is the normal way to eat them.[10]

    In contrast, if dried bones that have no meat on them are mixed into food, they are considered the same as all other psolet, and may not be removed from the food. Rather, one should eat the food and leave the bones on the plate (BHL 319:4, end of s.v. “mi-tokh”; Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Beshalaĥ 11).


    [10]. The stringent opinion: According to Ma’amar Mordechai 319:7 and Ĥazon Ish 54:3, one may not remove the bones. Rather, one must take the food and leave the bones on the plate. To do this, one may hold the bone with one hand or a knife, and remove the food with the other hand or a fork. Even though one hand is holding the bone, this is not considered removing psolet from okhel, because the other hand is actively taking the food. One may also put the food in his mouth and remove the bones from there. If a bone has a little fish or meat on it, he may remove it from the larger piece of fish or meat, eat what is stuck to it, and then throw it out. But if there is no food on it, one may not remove the bone.In contrast, many maintain that one may remove the bones from fish or meat for immediate consumption. There are three bases for this permissive ruling:

    The first basis – and the primary one – is that this is the normal way of eating fish and meat. This is the approach of BHL 319:4, s.v. “mi-tokh”; Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Beshalaĥ 10; and Yalkut Yosef 319:37 (based on R. Yaakov ibn Ĥabib and Tzemaĥ Tzedek).

    The second basis is that even if removing the psolet first is not the way that a particular food is eaten, nevertheless, the closer the removal of the psolet is to the time of eating, the more authorities permit it on the grounds that it can be considered derekh akhila. First, as we saw in n. 1, according to Rid and several other Rishonim one may remove psolet from okhel for immediate consumption. Even though SA 319:4 rules that this is forbidden, the permissive opinion may be combined with other mitigating factors to support leniency. Second, even following the ruling of SA, there is still a disagreement about whether the prohibition of removing psolet from okhel applies when the food is being prepared for absolutely immediate consumption. In such a case, Mahari Abulafia permits while Maharit Tzahalon forbids. BHL 319:4 s.v. “ha-borer” states that this is a disagreement among the Rishonim. According to those who are lenient, even if removing the bones first is not the normal way to eat fish, one may still remove them because any time close to consumption is considered derekh akhila. Third, Shevitat Ha-Shabbat (Borer, Be’er Reĥovot 3) states that according to all Rishonim, if one starts eating and reaches a bone, he may remove it, as this is not derekh melakha but derekh akhila.

    The third factor is that Rabbeinu Hananel and other Rishonim maintain that Borer does not apply when the psolet is attached (see n. 8 above). BHL derives something similar from Yam Shel Shlomo (See Menuĥat Ahava 7:14-15). This opinion can be combined with the other mitigating factors to support leniency.

    In practice, BHL attempts to find justification for those who remove bones from fish before serving it. Some are lenient only when it is for absolutely immediate consumption, and BHL agrees with this le-khatĥila. Shevet Ha-Levi 1:83 and Menuĥat Ahava 7:15 also present this approach. Igrot Moshe OĤ 4:74, Borer 7, is lenient if it would be difficult to eat the food otherwise (SSK 3:12-14 records both of these opinions). In the main text, I write that one may remove the bones as he eats, in order to comply with all the opinions that Shevitat Ha-Shabbat quotes as part of the second factor. Nevertheless, one who wants to feed fish to a small child may indeed remove the bones beforehand, since, as we have seen, this is the opinion of the vast majority of poskim.

    10. Removing Watermelon Seeds and Rotten Fruit

    While cutting a watermelon, one may remove the seeds by shaking out each slice. Any seeds that remain may be removed by hand or with a knife, because that is the normal way to eat watermelon. This is on condition that it is done for immediate consumption. Le-khatĥila one should remove the seeds with some type of shinui (Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Beshalaĥ 7). Some are stringent and require that one place the piece of watermelon into one’s mouth and remove the seeds from there (Ĥazon Ish 54:1), but in practice most poskim maintain that the seeds may be removed before the watermelon is placed into the mouth, because that is the normal way of eating.[11]

    If a fruit bowl contains a mix of good fruit and fruit that has begun to rot, one may remove all of the fruit that one wishes to eat or to serve guests at the upcoming meal (MB 319:7). If he does not intend to eat all the good fruit now, but is worried that the rotten fruit will cause the good fruit in the bowl to rot, he can spread out all the fruits so that they are no longer touching one another, but he may not separate the good fruit and bad fruit into separate piles.

    When dealing with a partially rotten fruit, the point where the rotten part touches the good part is considered a mixture. Therefore, cutting off the rotten bit is forbidden, because that would constitute removing psolet from okhel. The solution is to cut out some of the good part together with the rotten part.


    [11].Kaf Ha-ḥayim 319:47 and Yalkut Yosef 319:63 are lenient, following Ben Ish Ḥai. Igrot Moshe OḤ 4:74, Borer 7 is lenient when one does not have another option and for feeding a baby. SSK 3:17 cites both opinions and adds that one who is lenient and removes the seeds before eating has an opinion on which to rely. In n. 34, SSK states that R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is lenient because this is the way in which the watermelon is eaten. He points out that this case is less problematic than removing bones from fish. This is because it is possible to remove a bone together with some fish, put the combination into one’s mouth, eat the fish, and throw out the bone. In contrast, this cannot be done with watermelon seeds. The many poskim who permit removing fish bones before eating the fish would certainly be lenient regarding removing watermelon seeds before eating the watermelon.

    11. Straining Liquids

    Straining liquids can also involve a Torah prohibition, depending on the state of the liquid. If a liquid has psolet in it that makes it undrinkable, and straining makes it drinkable, then straining it is prohibited by Torah law. If the liquid is drinkable even without straining, one may strain it with a strainer even if this improves the drink slightly. The improvement does not fundamentally change it, and thus this is not prohibited.

    In an intermediate case, where the drink is cloudy and most people would not drink it without straining it unless they had no choice, one may not strain the drink using a strainer. There is a disagreement about whether one may strain it with a piece of cloth, which is an unusual way of straining. Most Rishonim allow this, while Rambam prohibits it. Aĥaronim write that one should be stringent and follow Rambam (SA 319:10; MB 42).

    Therefore, lees that are mixed with wine may not be strained to separate out the wine, since it is otherwise undrinkable. Doing so is prohibited by Torah law (SA 319:9; MB 32). If the wine is drinkable but so cloudy that most people generally would not drink it, one may not strain it with a strainer, and it is preferable not to do so with a cloth either. However, wine that is drinkable may be strained to improve its clarity. Since one could drink it even beforehand, straining it is not considered a melakha.

    Accordingly, since most people are used to drinking orange juice with pulp and do not strain it, one may remove the pulp with a strainer on Shabbat.[12]

    Similarly, one may turn on a filtered tap or pour water from a vessel with a built-in filter (such as a Brita pitcher). Since the water is drinkable even before it is strained, straining it is not considered a melakha.


    [11]. Kaf Ha-ĥayim 319:47 and Yalkut Yosef 319:63 are lenient, following Ben Ish Ĥai. Igrot Moshe OĤ 4:74, Borer 7 is lenient when one does not have another option and for feeding a baby. SSK 3:17 cites both opinions and adds that one who is lenient and removes the seeds before eating has an opinion on which to rely. In n. 34, SSK states that R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is lenient because this is the way in which the watermelon is eaten. He points out that this case is less problematic than removing bones from fish. This is because it is possible to remove a bone together with some fish, put the combination into one’s mouth, eat the fish, and throw out the bone. In contrast, this cannot be done with watermelon seeds. The many poskim who permit removing fish bones before eating the fish would certainly be lenient regarding removing watermelon seeds before eating the watermelon.[12]. Nevertheless, one may not strain the liquid from cooked vegetables because they are considered two different types of food, and if one wishes to eat only one of them, the other is considered psolet for him. In contrast, orange juice with bits of pulp is just one type of food, and therefore separating the pulp from the juice is not considered Borer (see R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach cited in SSK 3:53-54, 57 and n. 173; this approach is also found in Igrot Moshe OĤ 4:74, Borer 3).

    12. Separating Broth from Pieces of Food in Soup

    One may not separate the broth from the vegetables or noodles mixed into a soup. Although the broth, the vegetables, and the noodles are all edible, it is still forbidden to separate two types of foods (as we have seen in section 3). However, one may separate them in the normal course of eating, as long as the three conditions for derekh akhila delineated in section 2 are met (okhel from psolet, not with a specialized implement, and for immediate consumption).

    Therefore, if one wants to eat the broth immediately but not the vegetables (rendering them psolet for him), he may tip the soup pot and pour off the broth into a bowl. Although the broth is being removed from the mixture, it is not prohibited because the okhel is being removed from the psolet. However, one may not do this with the help of a strainer or even a utensil that is not specifically designed for separating (such as a fork or spoon) or a pot cover (by bringing it close to the bowl and opening it slightly, allowing only the broth to pass though). In contrast, one may use a ladle and fill it only with broth. Since using a ladle is the normal way of removing soup, it is not considered straining with a utensil.[13]

    If one wants to eat only the vegetables and noodles, he may not tip the pot to pour out the broth. This is considered removing psolet from okhel, which is forbidden even if his objective is to eat the vegetables and noodles immediately. In contrast, one may lift the ladle out of the soup while holding it close to the side of the pot, in such a way that it will fill with only vegetables and noodles, because he is merely taking the food that he wants and not performing an act of separation. Once the ladle is out of the pot, one may not pour broth from the ladle back into the pot, because that would indeed be removing psolet from okhel.

    If the vegetables and noodles fell to the bottom of the pot and there is clear broth above them, that broth is not considered mixed with them. Therefore, even one who wishes to eat the vegetables may remove the broth on top with a ladle or tilt the pot and pour off the broth. However, after pouring off this top layer of broth, one may not continue tipping the pot to remove the soup that is mixed with vegetables and noodles.[14]


    [13]. If one removes okhel from psolet for immediate consumption using an implement that is designed specially to separate (such as a strainer), he transgresses a Torah prohibition. If he separates using of an implement that is not designed specifically for straining (such as a fork or a pot cover), it is only rabbinically prohibited, since it is an unusual way of separating. SSK ch. 3 n. 177 rules that it may be prohibited to hold a spoon or ladle against the side of a pot to collect only vegetables, as this is straining with the help of an implement. For this reason, Menuĥat Ahava 2:7:34 forbids gradually filling up a ladle with soup in such a way that only liquid will fill it. Orĥot Shabbat 3:75-76 quotes lenient opinions on this matter. Nishmat Shabbat §144 does so as well. It seems that in practice one may be lenient since there is no prohibition on removing okhel from psolet in the normal way for fairly immediate consumption, and this position is reflected in the main text. Regardless, this is a case of doubt about a rabbinic law, where we typically rule leniently.[14]. Shabbat 139b and SA 319:14 explain that one may gently pour wine from one bottle to another. To avoid Borer, one must take care to stop pouring when the flow of wine stops, before the drops of wine percolating through the lees start to come out. In this case there is a disagreement about whether one may pour out those last drops of wine for immediate consumption. Most poskim permit this; since he wants the wine that he is pouring off, this is considered removing okhel from psolet, which is permitted for immediate consumption (MA; MB 319:55; Yalkut Yosef 319:45). However according to R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (in vol. 1 of his siddur) and Eglei Tal, what is left in the receptacle in his hands is the result of Borer, meaning that he has removed psolet from okhel, which is forbidden even for immediate consumption. In sum, according to most poskim, soup mixed with vegetables and noodles may be spilled off in order to eat the soup immediately. Although some prohibit this, maintaining that it is considered removing psolet from okhel, the halakha follows the majority of poskim who maintain that it is considered removing okhel from psolet. We may add to this the factor that some poskim permit removing psolet from okhel if it is for immediate consumption (Rid and Tur), as explained above in n. 1. Furthermore, some maintain that there is no prohibition of Borer for liquids unless the separating is performed with an implement that is specially designed for the purpose (Responsa Maharitatz Yeshanot §203). But one may not spill off the soup in order to eat the vegetables, since according to the majority of poskim that qualifies as removing psolet from okhel.

    13. Additional Laws of Separating Liquids from Solids

    Since pickles are large, they are not considered mixed with the brine in which they are pickled. Thus, when opening a jar of pickles, one may pour out the brine. In contrast, since canned peas and corn are small, they are considered mixed with the liquid in which they are canned. Thus, one may not pour out the water from these cans. Similarly, one may not pour off the oil or water from a can of tuna. If one wishes to serve the tuna without the liquid, he may use a spoon to remove the tuna from the container and move it to another plate. This way he is removing the okhel from the psolet for immediate consumption.

    It is uncertain whether canned olives are considered mixed with their brine or not. Since this is a case of doubt that relates to a Torah prohibition, we must be stringent. Therefore, one may not spill out the brine, and one may not use an implement designed to remove the olives. But one may use a fork or spoon to remove the olives from the brine in order to eat them immediately.[15]

    We have already seen (section 4) that if soup contains large chunks of meat or vegetables, they are not considered mixed with the broth, on account of their size. Thus one may take them out even if he wishes to eat them only later on. Similarly, one may remove the chunks using a slotted spoon, just as one may remove the chunks with a fork, since the prohibition of Borer does not apply in this case at all. In contrast, if the soup contains small pieces of meat or vegetables, it is considered a mixture. Therefore, one who wishes to remove the pieces for immediate consumption should remove them together with some soup using a regular spoon or ladle and not a slotted spoon, since doing so separates the pieces from the broth using an implement that facilitates separation. If there is no other implement handy, one may use the slotted spoon on two conditions: that he does not intend to separate the meat or vegetables, and that he does not keep the spoon over the pot in order to allow the soup to drain out (see Harĥavot 11:13:5 and SSK 3:58).

    One may spill soup mixed with remnants of food into a sink that has a strainer in it to protect the drain from getting clogged. Although the strainer will stop the food remnants from going down the drain, this is not prohibited. This is because Borer is applicable only when separating okhel from psolet; when one intends to use neither the liquid nor the food remnants, all of it is considered psolet (SSK 12:17).


    [15]. It is clear that pickles, on account of their size, are not considered mixed with the liquid. This is the opinion of SSK 3:23; Yalkut Yosef 319:48; and Orĥot Shabbat 3:25. The status of olives is questionable. If we consider them mixed with the liquid, then using a special implement to remove them is transgressing a Torah prohibition. On the other hand, if we say that on account of their size they are not considered mixed with the liquid, one may remove them even with the help of a special implement. However, since this is a case of uncertainty about a Torah law, one should be stringent. SSK 3:20 rules that one may not spill off water that gathers on top of leben (a Middle Eastern dairy product similar to yogurt), on the grounds that it is removing psolet from okhel. However, many are lenient because leben is relatively solid, and thus the liquid is not considered mixed with it (Yalkut Yosef 319:47; Orĥot Shabbat 3:28).In the main text, I write that one may remove tuna from the oil or water in which it is canned with a spoon (but not a fork), even if it will be eaten soon at the upcoming meal. Since one is not immediately putting the food into his mouth, using a fork is considered Borer with the help of a utensil. If he does wish to eat the tuna straight from the can, then he may use a fork, holding the forkful of food over the can for a bit so the liquid will drip off, since this is truly derekh akhila.

    14. Teapots and Tea Bags

    A teapot is used to cook tea leaves and prepare liquid essence of tea from them. At the mouth of the teapot is a strainer that prevents the tea leaves from pouring freely into the cup. When the tea leaves sink to the bottom of the teapot and there is clear tea essence above them, one may certainly pour the clear essence into a cup. But when the tea leaves and the water are mixed, some say that one may not pour the essence through the mouth of the teapot because the strainer separates the liquid essence from the tea leaves. Others permit this. Since it is easy to add hot water (from a kli sheni) to the teapot, ensuring that a large volume of liquid is not mixed with the essence, it is preferable to do this and thus avoid risking a possible prohibition of Borer. When it is impossible to add water, be-di’avad pouring out the essence through the strainer is permitted.[16]

    One may make tea by putting a tea bag into hot water (in a kli shlishi, as explained above in 10:8). However, when lifting the tea bag from the water, it is proper to take care not to hold it over the cup to allow the tea bag to drip the last few drops into it. This is because some maintain that the tea bag, which keeps the tea leaves from getting loose, is considered a utensil for straining, in which case holding it up would be considered separating the tea essence from the leaves using a utensil (see section 7). Instead, one should remove the tea bag from the cup and immediately put it in the garbage or into another cup. Some are stringent and lift the tea bag using a spoon, thus removing some tea along with the tea bag (see SSK 3:64).


    [16]. Some are stringent and do not pour through the strainer at all, even if the water on top is not mixed with the tea leaves that have sunk to the bottom. This is the approach of Siddur Beit Menuĥa; Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Beshalaĥ 18; Kaf Ha-ĥayim 319:113; and Shevet Ha-Levi 1:84. In contrast, some are lenient even when the tea leaves are mixed with the water. This is the approach of Yeĥaveh Da’at 2:51 and Menuĥat Ahava 2:7:43. The reason is that people are not truly bothered by tea leaves, and would be willing to drink tea with leaves mixed in, figuring that at worst their teeth will strain them out. Thus, this tea can be considered a liquid that most people can drink without straining (SA 319:10 and section 11 above). In the main text I follow the intermediate position, which is the opinion of Ĥazon Ish, OĤ §53, s.v. “min ha-amur” and Or Le-Tziyon 2:31:11. SSK 3:62 mentions the intermediate and lenient positions. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s rationale for leniency is mentioned in n. 140 there: that it may be permitted to separate with a utensil for immediate consumption. Shulĥan Shlomo 319:34:2 adds that if a few tea leaves are able to pass through the strainer, then there is no concern that this case is Borer.

    15. Removing Insects from Food, and Additional Laws

    If an insect falls into a cup of tea and is floating on top, some permit removing it on its own. Others are stringent and maintain that removing the bug on its own is Borer, because it is considered psolet that is being removed from okhel. It is proper to be stringent and remove the bug with a spoon in such a way that some liquid is removed with it. Alternatively, one can tilt the cup and pour off some tea together with the bug.[17]

    This also applies if a bug fell into soup or food. One may remove it with some of the food using a spoon. However, if multiple bugs fell into the soup or food, one may not remove them with a bit of food. This is because it is clear that what one actually intends is to remove the psolet, and therefore the okhel in the spoon is secondary to the bug. Since one is separating psolet from okhel, he is transgressing the prohibition of Borer. The way to get around this problem is to remove a large amount of food together with each bug, such as by using a cup, so that the majority of what is being removed is okhel. Then it is considered separating okhel from okhel, which is permitted.[18]

    One may rinse off fruits that have dirt on their peels for immediate consumption. However, one may not soak the fruit in water so that the dirt separates and sinks to the bottom.[19]


    [17]. Thus states Taz 506:3; MB 319:61; Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Beshalaĥ 13; and additional Aĥaronim. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi writes in his siddur writes that removing a bug might obligate a person to bring a sin offering (that is, it violates a Torah prohibition). In contrast, some are lenient and allow the bug to be removed by hand, either because a bug floating on top of water is not considered mixed (Mahari Ĥagiz) or because the prohibition of Borer for liquids only applies to using a strainer, and not to separating by hand (Responsa Maharitatz Yeshanot §203). Menuĥat Ahava 2:7 n. 106 and Yalkut Yosef 319:28 cite them at length, but nevertheless add that in practice it is preferable to remove the bug together with a little liquid using a spoon.[18]. See SSK ch. 3 n. 41 and ch. 5 n. 24 and Shulĥan Shlomo 319:43, which cite the following in the name of R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: One may not remove multiple bugs mixed into soup, even if one removes them together with a bit of soup. This is because even when it is just one bug, R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi in his siddur says one might violate a Torah prohibition. To be sure, many Aĥaronim maintain that the prohibition of Borer is not relevant here because the bug is floating on top and is not mixed in with the food. But if there are many bugs, then it is considered a mixture of okhel and psolet; thus, one who removes the bugs, even just using a spoon, is clearly focused on removing the psolet. That is all according to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. It is reasonable that if one removes a lot of food with each bug, then this is not considered removing psolet from okhel but rather removing psolet together with okhel.

    [19]. Shabbat 140a states that one may not soak cresses in order to remove the psolet stuck to them. This is recorded in SA 319:8. MB ad loc. 28-29 extends this law to other fruits and vegetables as well. According to BHL, this is prohibited by Torah law, while according to Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 5) it is rabbinic, since it involves a shinui. As a result of this, some prohibit washing off fruits (Minĥat Yitzĥak §38, which adds that minimally one should wash them with a shinui). Others prohibit washing many pieces of fruit (see Shevet Ha-Levi 1:52; Az Nidberu 1:15 and 8:6-7). However, most poskim maintain that there is no prohibition on washing fruit, either because there is no prohibition of Borer here at all, or because this is the normal way to eat. If the second reason is correct, then one may wash the fruit only for fairly immediate consumption. This is indeed the approach of Ketzot Ha-shulĥan §125, Badei Ha-shulĥan §16; Igrot Moshe OĤ 1:125; Tzitz Eliezer 6:37; SSK 3:22; Livyat Ĥen §52; Menuĥat Ahava 2:7:20.

    16. Utensils, Games, Silverware, and Books

    Just as the prohibition of Borer applies to food, it applies to other items as well, such as books, utensils, and clothing (Taz; MB 319:15). All the above rules for Borer with food apply to other mixtures as well. In other words, one may remove from a mix something he wishes to use immediately, because this is not derekh melakha but the normal way this item is used. However, one may not remove the item in order to use it later. Similarly, one may not sort a mix, and all the more so one may not remove the items he does not want.

    For example, if children mixed together pieces from different games, they may not be separated. But if the children wish to play with one of the games now, they may remove the desired pieces from the mix. This sorting is not considered derekh melakha but derekh misĥak (the normal way of playing), because a game normally begins with taking out its pieces.

    There is also a problem of Borer with mixed-up silverware. Although the pieces are large and the difference between the different types of silverware is apparent, nevertheless, when there are many pieces, they are considered mixed. Therefore, one may not sort silverware and place each type separately. However, when washing the silverware, one may dry each utensil separately and place it in the proper compartment, because this does not involve selecting the utensil from the mixture in order to sort it. Rather, one is taking each piece randomly in order to dry it, and once it is in his hand he may place it in the appropriate compartment.[20]

    Before a meal, one may take the mixed-up silverware and put the appropriate pieces next to each plate. The reason is that this is not a normal way of sorting, but rather the normal way one prepares for a meal. This permission is on condition that it is done close to the time of the meal.

    Borer can also apply to books. For example, if many different ĥumashim are mixed in a pile, and a synagogue attendant wishes to distribute the appropriate ĥumashim to worshipers, he may not remove the ĥumashim that are not being used from the pile. Similarly, he may not remove the appropriate ĥumashim from the pile long before the service. Rather, close to the time of services one may remove the appropriate ĥumashim from the pile, because this is not derekh borer but rather the normal way to take books to use.

    Books on a shelf are not considered mixed. Therefore, one may remove books he wishes to learn from, even if he will not actually use the books until hours later. One who used many books may return them to the bookcase on Shabbat for the sake of neatness. In the course of returning them, he may put each book in its proper place (R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in SSK 3, nn. 220 and 239).


    [20]. Yabi’a Omer 5:31 states, based on several Aĥaronim, that since pieces of silverware are large and the differences between the types are readily apparent, they are not considered mixed, and thus the prohibition of Borer does not apply to them. However, most poskim maintain that Borer does apply to a mixture of silverware. Since this is a case of doubt about a Torah law, one should be stringent. This is the approach of SSK 3:85, Menuĥat Ahava 2:7:27, and many others. We should note that one may wash and dry dishes on Shabbat only if it is possible that they will be used again on Shabbat; if they will not be used until after Shabbat, this is prohibited (SA 323:6; MB 29; below 22:15).

    17. The Melakha of Dash

    The melakha of Dash involves separating the grain kernels from their stalks. This is generally done with the help of a tool or an animal (as explained in section 1). Thus, one who goes through husks by hand to separate the kernels has not transgressed a Torah prohibition, as he is not performing Dash in the usual fashion with a tool. However, the Sages forbid this because he is still separating the wheat kernels from the stalks. This is all on condition that he rubs the stalks off of the kernel with his hands, without a shinui. If he wishes to eat unprocessed wheat, he may rub the stalks with a shinui; for example, by using his fingertips rather than the palm of his hand.[21]

    The prohibition of Dash is not limited to grains. Rather, any action that separates food from its natural setting is a violation of Dash. Therefore, one may not remove legumes like peas or beans from their pods. Doing so in the way that it is done commercially for huge amounts of produce is a Torah prohibition, while doing this by hand is a rabbinic transgression. However, one may do this by hand with a shinui. If the pods are green and edible, then one may remove the legumes without a shinui, because the prohibition of Dash applies only when the shell is inedible (MB 319:21).

    There is a tolada of Dash called Mefarek, which involves removing one thing from within another thing, and it constitutes a Torah prohibition as well. This includes squeezing grapes and olives (as will be explained below, 12:8) and milking an animal (as explained below, 20:4). Similarly, if one is interested in the liquid absorbed in a piece of clothing, one may not squeeze it out. The Rishonim disagree how egregious this action is. According to Rambam and Ramban, squeezing out clothing to extract the liquid absorbed in it is prohibited rabbinically, while according to Rabbeinu Tam and Rosh it is prohibited by Torah law (as explained in Harĥavot).

    While a woman may nurse her child, it is prohibited by Torah law for her to express milk into a container because of the tolada of Mefarek (SA 328:34-35). If a woman’s breasts are engorged and she is suffering as a result, she may express milk in such a way that it goes to waste, either into the sink or into a vessel that contains something that will ruin the milk. This is because when the milk goes to waste, the prohibition involved is only rabbinic, and the Sages are lenient where pain is caused (SA 330:8). One may also attach an electric breast pump to a timer and then pump milk when the machine turns on (see below, 28:7).


    [21].According to Rif, Rambam, Rosh, and Ramban, the permission granted in Beitza 13b to rub wheat stalks manually with a shinui refers to Shabbat, while on Yom Tov one may do so even without a shinui. According to Rashi and Tosafot, the permission to rub the stalks by hand with a shinui refers to Yom Tov, while on Shabbat even with a shinui one would be transgressing rabbinic prohibition. The halakha is in accordance with those who are lenient, since this is the opinion of most poskim. In additionthis is a case of doubt about a rabbinic mitzva, where we are generally lenient. This is also the ruling of SA 319:6. See Rema 510:1.

    18. Cracking Walnuts, Almonds, and Peanuts

    One may crack nuts on Shabbat, even though this constitutes removing food from its casing. This is not considered Dash because Dash is a melakha that is done commercially in the field or factory at the end of the harvesting process. Examples of this include removing kernels of grain from stalks in order to sell them or bring them to a mill, or removing peas and beans from their pods in order to sell them to the masses. In contrast, Dash does not apply to a fruit that is normally removed from its outer layer before eating. Since nuts are normally cracked right before eating, doing so is not considered Dash.

    Similarly, one may shell peanuts and slide off their thin, papery covering on Shabbat. Although nowadays the vast majority of nuts are shelled in the factory, nevertheless, since nuts are sold in their shells as well, cracking them in order to eat them is still not considered Dash.

    Almonds have an outer green hull and an internal hard shell. Generally almonds are sold with the outer hull already removed and the hard shell still intact. One may remove the hard shell in order to eat the almonds. But if the green hulls were left on the almonds, one may not remove them because of Dash (Rema 319:6; MB ad loc. 24). In contrast, one may remove the hull of a single almond and eat it, and then remove the hull from another one and eat it. Since one is shelling and eating only one almond at a time, this is not the normal, commercial way that Dash is performed, but rather derekh akhila (Kalkelet Shabbat).[22]


    [21]. According to Rif, Rambam, Rosh, and Ramban, the permission granted in Beitza 13b to rub wheat stalks manually with a shinui refers to Shabbat, while on Yom Tov one may do so even without a shinui. According to Rashi and Tosafot, the permission to rub the stalks by hand with a shinui refers to Yom Tov, while on Shabbat even with a shinui one would be transgressing a rabbinic prohibition. The halakha is in accordance with those who are lenient, since this is the opinion of most poskim. In addition, this is a case of doubt about a rabbinic mitzva, where we are generally lenient. This is also the ruling of SA 319:6. See Rema 510:1.[22]. Shevet Ha-Levi 1:81 is stringent regarding shelling multiple almonds. Menuĥat Ahava 2:6:3 rules similarly regarding almonds and peanuts. SSK ch. 3 n. 104 is lenient regarding shelling multiple almonds in order to eat them, maintaining that since they are generally sold with the hard shells, the removal of the latter is not derekh melakha but derekh akhila. Az Nidberu 12:7 rules similarly regarding peanuts. Since this is a case of doubt about a rabbinic law (since the peeling is done by hand and not with a utensil), the halakha follows those who are lenient, as does the custom here. One may also remove a peanut’s thin, reddish-brown peel. This is the approach of Or Le-Tziyon 2:31:7 and Yalkut Yosef 319:59. One who wishes to act in accordance with all the opinions should shell and eat the almonds and peanuts one at a time. This is because according to Tzemaĥ Tzedek and Kalkelet Shabbat, when done this way there is no prohibition of Dash at all. See Menuĥat Ahava, n. 16. In any situation where one is in doubt about whether removing a shell raises a problem of Dash, it is preferable to avoid the problem by shelling the units of food one by one and eating them. Similarly, when shelling with a shinui, such as with one’s fingertips, there is no prohibition of Dash.

    01. Toĥen

    Many items naturally exist as organic wholes, but people have learned to break them down and grind them in order to create new and wonderful things. By grinding wheat and other grains, we make flour, which in turn can be used to bake bread, cake, pasta, and the like. Cayenne pepper is made by grinding hot peppers, and coffee is made by grinding coffee beans. By grinding certain healing plants, medicines are made; by grinding other plants, dyes are prepared. Since grinding is a creative activity, it is included in the melakhot prohibited on Shabbat. Grinding metal and crumbling a block of dirt or clay are forbidden as well.

    Generally, grinding an object turns it into flour or powder, but the prohibition of Toĥen can also apply to breaking something down into small pieces. For example, one who chops trees into small bits of wood so that they will easily catch fire transgresses the prohibition of Toĥen (Shabbat 74b).

    If one wishes to grind hot peppers or the like to prepare food on Shabbat, he may do so as long as he incorporates two shinuyim (changes) into the process. Traditionally, grinding required two utensils: the mortar upon which the material to be ground was placed, and the pestle that was used to crush and grind this material. Grinding with these two utensils is prohibited by Torah law. Grinding using one of them is rabbinically prohibited. For Shabbat use, however, one may grind food as long as two shinuyim are made. For example, the handle of a knife can be used instead of a pestle, and a plate can be used instead of a mortar (SA 321:7). Although the Sages generally forbid food preparation involving melakha even when it is performed with two shinuyim, here they permit it since the action is considered derekh akhila rather than derekh melakha.

    The prohibition of Toĥen applies to natural items like plants, fruits, and metals, but does not apply to foods that have already been ground and then recombined. Therefore, bread, matza, cookies, chocolate, or hardened sugar may be made into crumbs (Rema 321:12). Similarly, one may crumble tobacco powder that has hardened. Furthermore, a sick person who has difficulty swallowing pills may crush them, since their components were already ground before they were made into a pill. In such a case there is no problem of Toĥen (SSK 33:4). Some maintain that one may crush the pills only for immediate use, and le-khatĥila this opinion should be followed (Ĥayei Adam 17:4). In any case, even when one may grind or crush something, one may not use utensils explicitly designed for these purposes, like a grater.

    One who scrapes off clay or mud that has hardened naturally from a surface and crumbles the dirt in order to use it transgresses a Torah prohibition. If he does not need the dirt, he is transgressing rabbinically. Therefore, if mud or clay has dried on clothes or shoes, it may not be removed if doing so will definitely make it crumble. Only if it is uncertain whether the mud will crumble may it be removed. Even if it is clear that it will crumble, if necessary it may be removed with a shinui. For example, one may remove the mud on his clothing by using the back of his hand, or he may use one shoe to rub the mud off of the other one.[1]


    [1]. Kol Bo maintains that removing mud from clothes by scraping it off is not prohibited since one has no interest in causing the mud to crumble. Besides, mud is considered already ground (and not an organic whole). However, Rabbeinu Peretz forbids this. SA 302:7 cites him as “yesh omrim” (there are those who maintain). Although some are lenient in practice (Ĥida; Yalkut Yosef 302:17, 321:22), most Aĥaronim defer to Rabbeinu Peretz’s opinion (SAH 302:17; Ĥayei Adam; MB ad loc. 36; Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Mishpatim 6; Kaf Ha-ĥayim ad loc. 49). In any case, when it is uncertain that the mud will in fact crumble, even those who prohibit would agree that it is a davar she-eino mitkaven and is therefore permitted (R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in SSK ch. 15 n. 103). It would seem that when dealing with mud and clay, as long as it will not crumble, removing it is not considered Toĥen. If it is clear that it will crumble but there is a great need to remove it, even those who forbid doing so would permit removing it if it is done with a shinui, because then the action becomes a shvut di-shvut (see BHL 302:6 s.v. “o”).

    02. Chopping Vegetables and Mashing Bananas and Avocados

    The Rishonim disagree whether the prohibition of Toĥen applies to chopping vegetables finely for salad. Some maintain that since cutting the vegetables into small pieces serves a purpose, the prohibition applies. However, according to the majority of Rishonim, this is prohibited only if the vegetables are otherwise inedible, such as when one chops vegetables in order to cook them. In contrast, if the vegetables are edible raw, there is no problem with chopping them. In practice, since this disagreement concerns a Torah law, one should defer to the stringent opinion. Thus one may not cut vegetables finely for a salad (SA 321:12). However, if the salad is being prepared right before the meal, even the stringent opinion permits it. In this case, the cutting is not derekh melakha but derekh akhila, as one may eat finely-cut food on Shabbat (Rashba; Beit Yosef; Rema 321:12). Le-khatĥila it is preferable, even when preparing salad for the upcoming meal, not to cut the pieces especially finely (Beit Yosef; MB ad loc. 45).[2]

    May one mash foods like bananas and avocados? Some are stringent and forbid doing so with a fork, including for immediate consumption. Even the stringent opinion permits mashing these foods with a spoon, because that is considered a shinui. However, the lenient position allows mashing bananas and avocados even with a fork for immediate consumption, and the halakha follows this position. Thus one may mash a banana or avocado with a fork for immediate consumption. As we have already seen, the prohibition of Toĥen is not relevant to food being prepared for immediate consumption, as long as the mashing is not done with a special utensil designed for this purpose.[3]

    One may use a meat knife to cut a roast into slices, even for later consumption. A knife may be used to slice hard cheese as well. Similarly, one may mash hard-boiled eggs with a fork. Even when it is permissible to cut something or crumble it, one may not do so with a utensil that is designed for this purpose, like a grater (SA 321:9-10). However, one may use a utensil that is designed for cutting things into large pieces. Therefore, one may use a cheese knife or an egg slicer, since its blades are far apart from one another. Similarly, one may slice a loaf of bread as well (SSK 6:3).[4]


    [2]. There are three opinions as to what constitutes Toĥen:

    1. a) According to Rabbeinu Ĥananel and Rosh, Toĥen is relevant only to making flour.
    2. b) According to most Rishonim, if cutting something into pieces makes it edible, one may not do so; but if it is edible as is, one may cut it. This is the position of Rid, Ritva, Ra’ah, and Ramban, and it is similar to Rambam’s position as well.
    3. c) Any time one cuts vegetables into small pieces, it is included in the prohibition of Toĥen. This is the opinion of Rashi, Or Zaru’a, and Yere’im. SA 321:12 defers to the opinion of those who are stringent. However, he adds, based on Rashba, that if the food is intended to be eaten immediately, one may cut it. Although almost all poskim agree that one may do so for immediate use, some cast doubt upon this leniency (Shiltei Giborim). Therefore, Aĥaronim write that le-khatĥila it is preferable not to cut salad especially finely (Beit Yosef; MB 321:45).

    [3]. There are several reasons for this permission:

    1. a) According to most poskim, the prohibition of Toĥen does not apply to fruits or vegetables that are edible (as we saw in the previous note).
    2. b) Even though SA 321:12 rules in accordance with those who are stringent, nevertheless, when the food is being prepared for immediate consumption, there is no prohibition (Rashba; Beit Yosef; Rema).
    3. c) Even if the prohibition of Toĥen were applicable, according to Igrot Moshe 4:74, Toĥen2, since these foods remain a solid mass even after being mashed, Toĥen does not apply here at all.
    4. d) Mashing with a fork already constitutes a shinui, as this is not the normal way to grind (Or Le-Tziyon 1:28). Yeĥaveh Da’at 5:27 and Menuĥat Ahava 2:8:12 permit this in practice. However, Ĥazon Ish OĤ §57 is stringent, and does not allow it even when the food being prepared will be consumed immediately. He also maintains that mashing is considered a type of Toĥen since it breaks down the structure of the fruit. He adds that if the mashing is done to feed the food to a baby, then it is prohibited based on MA 321:14, because it renders the food edible. SSK 6:1 and Hilkhot Shabbat Be-Shabbat 1:12:15 also state that one should be stringent. But they allow mashing with a spoon, as this definitely constitutes a shinui. Similarly, if the foods are very soft, then even those who are normally stringent allow mashing them with a fork. But in practice the primary position is the lenient one, as this is the position of practically all Rishonim.

    [4]. As explained in Terumat Ha-deshen §56, the permission to slice meat, cheese, and eggs is based on two principles:

    1. a) The prohibition of Toĥen fundamentally pertains to foods that grow in the ground.
    2. b) Most poskim maintain that the prohibition is limited to foods that cannot be eaten as is. Although it is true that some elderly people are unable to eat tough meat, nevertheless since most people are able to eat it, it is considered edible. However, one may not use a utensil that is specifically designed for grinding. According to MB 321:36 the prohibition is rabbinic, while according to Nishmat Adam 17:2 it is prohibited by Torah law.

    03. Lash

    The melakha of Lash refers to the act of kneading, forming dough out of flour and water. However, it also includes mixing any liquid with flour to form dough. Even if the liquid used is viscous, like honey or mayonnaise, it is still forbidden to mix it with flour. As long as one binds the flour and forms dough, this is considered Lash. Along the same lines, if one mixes water with dried earth in order to make bricks or spackle to plug holes in a wall, he transgresses Lash.

    One may not perform even a single component of the kneading process. Therefore, one may not pour water onto flour. Additionally, after dough has been formed, one may not shape it.[5]

    Lash involves forming something new with characteristics that differ from those of its component parts. Flour on its own and water on its own cannot rise and cannot be baked. Only after they are mixed together can they be made into bread and cookies. Similarly, dried earth or spackle on their own and water on its own cannot be used for building. Only after they are mixed together can they be used to form bricks or to plug holes in the wall.

    The Torah prohibition on Lash is limited to a thick mixture. Rabbinically, it is also prohibited to make a loose mixture (as will be explained in the next section). However, if the quantity of the solid added to the liquid is so minimal that it dissolves, the liquid retains its form, and no type of mixture results, then there is no prohibition of Lash. Therefore, one may add coffee or sugar to water, as the granules do not form a mass in the water. In addition, one may prepare infant formula by mixing the powder with water since the mixture does not form a mass; rather, the liquid retains its form, and can be drunk from a bottle. Thus there is no problem of Lash.[6] (One should prepare coffee in a kli shlishi to avoid violating the melakha of Bishul; see above, 10:7.)


    [5]. Everyone agrees that one who actually forms dough is transgressing a Torah prohibition, but the Tanna’im disagree whether adding water to flour is a Torah prohibition. According to R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi, one who adds water to flour is transgressing a Torah prohibition because he has taken the first step in the process of making dough; according to R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda, since one has not mixed the water and flour together, he has only transgressed a rabbinic prohibition (Shabbat 18a, 155b). Most poskim, including Rabbeinu Ĥananel, Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Ba’al Ha-Ma’or, Ramban, Or Zaru’a, Roke’aĥ, Rabbeinu Yeruĥam, and Me’iri maintain that the halakha follows R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda. However, according to Sefer Ha-Teruma, Yere’im, Smag, and Smak, the halakha follows R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi. (Le-khatĥila one should not wash his hands over dirt nor urinate into dirt, because R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda agrees that those actions are forbidden. In a time of need one may be lenient, as this is a case of a psik reisha de-lo niĥa lei involving a rabbinic prohibition. See MB 321:57.)There are some materials, such as ash, that are incapable of forming dough. If they are mixed with water they do form a type of mass, but it is not stable and it crumbles once it dries. There are three opinions regarding such materials:

    1. a) One may be more lenient regarding them. He may pour water on the ash, but mixing the two together is rabbinically prohibited (Rambam; Rid; Ritva; and implied by Rif and Rashi).
    2. b) One must be more stringent with them. Since they cannot really form a mass, one is liable as soon as water is poured on them, as even R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda would agree (following Abaye in Shabbat 18a; according to BHL 324:3 s.v. “ein” this is the ruling of Tosafot, Rosh, Raavad, Rashba, and Ran; it would also seem to be the opinion of Sefer Ha-Teruma and all who follow R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi’s ruling).
    3. c) They are the same as any other material that is subject to Lash. The Tanna’im disagree regarding the status of the prohibition of pouring water on them, but agree that mixing them is prohibited by Torah law (following the opinion of R. Yosef; Ĥazon Ish 56:3 maintains that this is the opinion of most of the poskim mentioned in BHL).

    [6]. If the mixture is likely to solidify and harden on its own, then when one adds the water he is already transgressing the Torah prohibition of Lash. This is because the essence of the melakha is joining discrete particles into one solid mass. Thus the Sages state that adding water to flax seeds is considered Lash, because the water causes the seeds to secrete a substance that causes them to stick to one another (Zevaĥim 94b). Similarly, it is prohibited by Torah law to put cement, water, and aggregate together to form concrete; although the mixture starts out loose and pourable, the concrete will subsequently solidify on its own (see Ketzot Ha-shulĥan 130:3). Therefore, one may not make gelatin desserts, as explained below in section 7.

    04. Preparing a Loose Mixture with a Shinui

    As we have seen, the Torah prohibition of Lash applies to forming a thick mixture. This means that many discrete particles become one solid mass that will not flow or spread out if left on a plate or bowl. In contrast, it is not forbidden by Torah law to form a loose mixture that can be poured from utensil to utensil and that spreads outward if left on a plate or bowl. This is because making such a mixture does not involve kneading, but only stirring. However, since one might mistakenly assume that if one may make a loose batter he may also make a thick dough, the Sages created a fence around the Torah and forbade forming a loose mixture. But one may make such a mixture with a shinui that serves as a reminder that there is a prohibition involved, ensuring that no one will end up making a thick mixture.

    The shinui may be in the order the ingredients are added to the mixing bowl. If normally the dry ingredients are added first, followed by the wet ingredients, the wet ingredients should be added first, followed by the dry ingredients. If normally the wet ingredients would be added first followed by the dry ingredients, that order should be reversed. When following this procedure, one must make sure to add the liquid all at once so that a thick mixture will not be formed in the process of making a loose one.

    Some maintain that it is unnecessary to incorporate an additional shinui during the stirring stage, as long as the mixture is not stirred as vigorously as one does during the week. Others are more stringent and require a shinui during the stirring as well. For example, instead of stirring the batter using a circular motion, one may stir in straight lines, from side to side, or perpendicularly. Alternatively, one might mix the batter with one’s finger, by shaking the bowl, or by pouring the batter from bowl to bowl. Le-khatĥila it is proper to comply with all the poskim and change both the order the ingredients are added and the way the batter is stirred.

    When the ingredients are not usually added in any particular order, the dry ingredients should be added first, followed by the wet ingredients. Additionally, the way the mixing is done should be changed.[7]

    One may add liquid to a thick mixture to make it thinner, since this is the opposite of kneading. Kneading leads to discrete units coalescing, while adding water weakens the cohesiveness of the component parts (BHL 321:15, s.v. “yakhol”).

    According to this, water may be added to raw tahini, since that makes it more liquid. However, some prohibit doing so, since during the process there is a stage in which the mixture becomes a bit harder (SSK 8:31). Nevertheless, halakha in practice follows those who are lenient, since the eventual result is a loose mixture. Additionally, since the sesame seeds in the tahini were ground and mixed before Shabbat, according to many the prohibition of Lash no longer applies (SA 321:15). In order to avoid any doubt, it is proper to mix with a shinui.


    [7]. According to Derisha, a number of Rishonim maintain that changing the order of the ingredients is sufficient. However, Terumat Ha-deshen §53 maintains that one must also change the manner of stirring. SA 321:14 rules that one need not change the manner of stirring (Menuĥat Ahava 2:9:43; Ĥazon Ish 58:5 s.v. “u-mashma” seems inclined to rule this way as well). However, according to MB 321:57 and Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Mishpatim 18, it is preferable to change the manner of stirring as well as the order of the ingredients.When the ingredients are not usually added in any set order, one should begin with the dry ingredients, according to Terumat Ha-deshen, Eliya Rabba, Tosefet Shabbat, and Ĥok Yaakov. However, according to Taz, since in such a case it is impossible to change the order of the ingredients, making such a mixture is simply prohibited. This disagreement is cited by MB 321:57. Since this is a rabbinic law, one may rely on those who are lenient (SSK 8:9; Menuĥat Ahava 2:9:39).

    05. Preparing a Thick Mixture with a Shinui

    The poskim disagree whether one may make a thick mixture on Shabbat using a shinui when the food is intended to be eaten on Shabbat. Some forbid this, arguing that the Sages permitted kneading with a shinui only in the case of a loose mixture, where the prohibition is only rabbinic. In contrast, a thick mixture may not be made even using a shinui, as it involves a Torah prohibition (Rambam). Others maintain that in order to make food for Shabbat, even thick mixtures may be made with a shinui (Tosafot).

    In practice, at a time of need, when it is a case of great necessity, one may rely on those who are lenient and prepare a thick mixture using a shinui. For example, when the only readily available baby food was a thick porridge prepared by adding water or milk to a dry mix of oatmeal or other grain, it was permitted to prepare this porridge with a shinui. Similarly, in times when there was no food available for animals other than a thick mixture of bran and water, it was permitted to make such a mixture with a shinui.

    The shinui is relevant both to the order in which the ingredients are added and to the manner of stirring. If there is a set order for the ingredients, it should be reversed. If there is no set order, the dry ingredients should be added first, followed by the wet ingredients. As for the manner of stirring, the spoon may be moved back and forth in a straight line or perpendicularly rather than with a circular motion. If this is not recognizable as a shinui, the spoon should be completely removed from the mixture after each stirring motion.[8]

    However, in practice, it is very rare for a leniency to be necessary here, since as a general rule there is no pressing need to prepare a thick mixture on Shabbat. Nevertheless, the lenient opinion is very important, because there are cases in which it is unclear whether a specific type of mixture would be prohibited because of Lash. In such cases, one can follow the lenient opinion and knead with a shinui. It is preferable to do so for fairly immediate consumption (when Rashba is lenient).

    In cases where practically all poskim agree that Lash applies to a particular type of mixture, one may not form it even with a shinui. For example, one may not mix sesame seeds or nuts with honey. Similarly, one may not mix butter, cocoa, and sugar together, since they form a thick mixture. Such mixtures are prohibited even if done with a shinui and for immediate consumption.[9]


    [8]. In Shabbat 156a we find that R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda permits making a thick dough of mursan (coarse bran) using a shinui. The law is dependent on two issues:

    1. a) Whom we follow in the disagreement between R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi and R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda (mentioned above in n. 5). If the halakha follows R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi, then the act of joining the two ingredients is forbidden by Torah law. If this is the case, then changing the order in which the ingredients are combined is not enough to permit an action that is otherwise prohibited by Torah law (Terumat Ha-deshen53). However, if the halakha follows R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda, then the joining of the materials is only prohibited rabbinically (and according to Tosafot it is permitted), so changing the order is a sufficient shinui.
    2. b) Whether the Sages permit making thick dough using a shinui. According to Rambam and those who agree with him, mursan is incapable of forming a proper dough, so mixing it is only prohibited rabbinically. Accordingly, the entire permission granted by R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda is limited to rabbinically prohibited kneading. (This is also the opinion of Rid and Ritva. SA quotes Rambam.) On the other hand, many Rishonim feel that mursan can be made into dough and doing so is thus prohibited by Torah law. Accordingly, R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda permits this kind of kneading with a shinui. (This disagreement is summarized in BHL 324:3 s.v. “ein.”) In times of necessity, one may be lenient. This is because according to most poskim, the halakha regarding adding water follows R. Yossi Be-Rabbi Yehuda; since even those who are stringent agree that mixing with a shinui is only a rabbinic prohibition, the halakha follows those who are lenient. It can also be inferred from Taz and BHL that most poskim are lenient.

    [9]. One can be lenient if a shinui is used, as long as there is also a substantive doubt about whether Lash applies to the mixture under consideration. However, if only a small number of authorities maintain there is no prohibition of Lash, their opinion is not enough to allow forming a thick mixture, even with a shinui. Let us mention two lenient positions that should not be taken into account since only a few authorities follow them:

    1. a) It would seem that Rashba 4:75 allows forming a thick mixture for immediate consumption, and a few Aĥaronim take this position into account in ruling leniently (see Livyat Ĥen67). On the other hand, many did not accept Rashba’s position, and some maintain that even Rashba was stringent in this case. Alternatively, it is possible that Rashba is lenient only when the mixing is done in the course of eating. This means that two foods on one’s plate may be mixed together and consumed (even then it is doubtful whether one may be lenient; see SSK ch. 8 n. 10).
    2. b) Some maintain that just as Toĥen pertains only to produce but not to meat and eggs, so too Lash applies only to produce (Maharshak; see Tzitz Eliezer 11:36). However, according to the majority of poskim, Lash does apply to other things besides produce, as Igrot Moshe states in OĤ 4:74, Lash8.

    06. Foods that Are Not Subject to Lash

    There is no prohibition of Lash for food that has been mashed. Since it has already been mashed and softened, the act of kneading does not fundamentally change it. Therefore, one may mix a dish of meat, potatoes, and barley that have fallen apart, and one may even add water to the mixture to form one mass. One may also add gravy to mashed potatoes and mix them together. Since the potatoes are already mashed, there is no prohibition of Lash (Responsa Rambam as quoted in Beit Yosef 321:19).[10]

    If a mixture was made before Shabbat but some liquid gradually separated from it, it may be mixed again on Shabbat since there is no prohibition of Lash for something that has already been mixed. Since all permit this, it is unnecessary to use a shinui, but one should still stir more slowly than on a weekday. For example, if oil has risen to the top of an eggplant salad, it may be mixed back in with the eggplant. Similarly, if peanut butter separated and there is oil floating on top, it may be mixed back in.

    Many poskim seemingly allow adding ingredients to a mixture that had been prepared before Shabbat. However, some are stringent. Therefore, the ingredients may be added with a shinui. For example, hot sauce may be added to hummus as long as it is mixed with a shinui. Similarly, if an eggplant spread was prepared before Shabbat and mashed in its juice, mayonnaise may be added to it on Shabbat with a shinui (see SA 321:15-16). We have already seen (in the previous section) that the shinui can involve moving the spoon back and forth in straight lines or perpendicularly when stirring. If this is not a recognizable change, the spoon should be removed from the mixture entirely after the completion of each stirring motion.

    One may mix cake crumbs with soft cheese or milk, since the crumbs were already kneaded when they were made into cake, and thus the prohibition of Lash no longer applies. However, some are stringent and maintain that once the baked item has been crumbled, the original act of kneading has been nullified. Therefore, one should mix the crumbs with a shinui, and do so only for immediate consumption.

    Another important principle is that Lash involves taking dry, discrete materials and binding them together. However, if the dry ingredients spread throughout the liquid to which they are added, this is not considered Lash. Therefore, one may add herbs to soft cheese, since the herbal leaves spread out and do not clump together. Similarly, one may mix granola into soft cheese, since the granola bits do not join together and become one mass, but rather adhere to the cheese. One may also mix strawberries or bananas with cream, since the pieces do not bind and become one. One may add sugar or cocoa to soft cheese, because the aim is not to bind the granules of sugar with the cocoa but rather to flavor the cheese.

    The Aĥaronim debate whether one may mix two viscous foods like soft cheese and honey. Some maintain that since they form a new thick mixture, it is considered Lash (SSK 8:16). Others maintain that the prohibition of Lash exists only when mixing dry ingredients with wet ones, while one may mix two wet ingredients together (Igrot Moshe, OĤ 4:74). In practice, one may mix the two foods with a shinui.


    [10]. Some permit stirring vigorously in the normal way (Taz), but many prohibit vigorous stirring (Baĥ, MA, Eliya Rabba, MB 321:77). Ĥazon Ish 58:9 maintains that if a food has dried out completely, like rice does after some time, it may not be mixed with liquids. In practice, in such a case one should mix with the shinui of stirring perpendicularly.

    07. Assorted Laws

    One may not make pudding if the mixture is thick enough that it cannot be poured. However, pudding that is loose and pourable may be made using a shinui. As we saw above in section 4, one should begin with the dry ingredients and then add the wet ones, and one should mix with a shinui (Igrot Moshe, OĤ 4:74, Lash §7). Let us reiterate that this shinui may be stirring with a back-and-forth or perpendicular motion instead of the normal circular motion. If this is not recognizable as a shinui, the spoon should be removed from the mixture after completing each stirring motion.

    One may not prepare a gelatin dessert by mixing powder and water together. Although the mixture starts out loose, ultimately it hardens. Thus one who mixes water with gelatin powder is transgressing the melakha of Lash (see n. 6 above).

    One may not prepare instant mashed potatoes, since adding water to reconstitute the mashed potatoes forms a thick mixture. However, one may prepare instant couscous by pouring water onto it from a kli sheni and stirring it with a shinui.[11]

    Everybody agrees that vegetables that are not cut finely may be mixed with oil or mayonnaise. Since the pieces are not tiny, they do not form a mixture. However, if the pieces are finely cut, the poskim disagree whether one may mix them with mayonnaise. Some maintain that one may do so as long as the vegetables do not form a solid mass (Maharshal). Others maintain that if they adhere to each other, even if they do not form a solid mass, it is prohibited (Taz). One who wishes may be lenient, but he should mix the vegetables with a shinui, and prepare the salad shortly before the meal (MB 321:68; see section 5, nn. 8-9).

    Preparing egg salad is also subject to dispute. On the one hand, there are reasons to be lenient: All the ingredients (eggs, onion, and mayonnaise) are already edible, and it does not become a homogeneous mixture like dough. On the other hand, it does generally form a thick mixture. In practice, one may prepare egg salad. The eggs may be mashed with a fork, as long as the mixing is done with a shinui and the preparation is done for fairly immediate consumption.

    The same procedure should be followed when making tuna salad with eggs and mayonnaise and when making chopped liver with eggs. Although the mixture they form is homogeneous, one may mix them with a shinui for fairly immediate consumption.[12]


    [11]. The poskim disagree whether one may form a mixture using matza meal. Many prohibit doing so, maintaining that the matza meal has been processed to such an extent that its original pre-matza kneading is no longer relevant (Taz; MB 321:57). Others are inclined to be lenient (AHS ad loc. 20; Maharsham). Since the issue is in doubt, a shinui should be incorporated. Preparing couscous is less problematic, since one could argue that the individual grains do not really stick together; in any case, in order to avoid any doubt, a shinui should be incorporated when making this as well.[12]. SSK 8:28 permits making egg salad using a shinui even when it becomes a thick mixture (as it permits mashing eggs and cooked potatoes with a fork), and adds in n. 92 that this is the widespread custom. It suggests a number of reasons for this leniency. For starters, the egg is cooked and ready to eat, and the salad is not really one homogeneous mixture. Furthermore, if the egg salad is being prepared for a meal, only a small amount is being prepared, which counts as a shinui. We should add that as we saw above in n. 9, according to Rashba one may form a mixture when preparing the dish for immediate consumption. Further, some maintain that Lash applies only to foods that grow in the ground. On the other hand, some consider egg salad comparable to vegetables, and are stringent if they form a mixture (Hilkhot Shabbat Be-Shabbat 13:31). As we saw in section 5, when in doubt one may mix with a shinui. This has an additional advantage, as it is likely that if one mixes with a shinui, the mixture will not become integrated into a solid mass.

    08. Squeezing Fruits

    Juicing – that is, squeezing fruits in order to release their juice – is a violation of the prohibition of Mefarek, a tolada of the melakha of Dash. While Dash involves separating wheat kernels from their husks, Mefarek involves separating juice from its fruit. It is prohibited by Torah law to squeeze olives to produce oil or to squeeze grapes to produce wine. Wine and oil are important liquids, and the majority of olives and grapes are grown in order to produce these liquids. In contrast, the prohibition of juicing other fruits, which are not grown primarily for their juice, is rabbinic.[13]

    One may not juice a fruit for the purpose of extracting its juice in order to drink it. However, if the purpose is to add flavor to food, one may juice fruit directly into food, since in such a case the squeezing is never viewed as producing a discrete quantity of liquid. The juice that is considered part of one food is simply transferred to another food. Therefore, one may squeeze grapes into food, a lemon into a vegetable salad, or an orange into grated carrots. Similarly, a lemon may be squeezed onto fried fish, even though the juice is not absorbed by the fish. Since it is meant to flavor the fish, it is secondary to it and considered a part of it (SA 320:4; SSK ch. 5 n. 15).

    If one wishes to squeeze a lemon in order to make lemonade, he should not squeeze it into an empty pitcher or into water. Rather, he should squeeze the lemon into the sugar in such a way that all the juice is absorbed by the sugar. This way, he is transferring the juice from one food to another, which is permitted.[14]

    One may squeeze out excess oil from fried foods, or excess liquid from pickled foods, in order to improve their taste. Similarly, these excess liquids may be squeezed into other food. However, if one wants the liquid that is being extracted, then squeezing these foods is prohibited (SA 320:7).

    One may cut a grapefruit and eat it with a spoon, even though in the process juice will flow from it. Since most of the liquid remains in the grapefruit, it is not prohibited. One may also cut up fruit for fruit salad, even though cutting the fruit will cause a bit of juice to flow out. This is not prohibited because one does not intend to separate the juice from the fruit, and most of the juice remains inside the fruit. If there is some juice remaining when one has finished eating the fruit salad or grapefruit, one may drink the juice.[15]


    [13]. In the past, some fruits were normally not juiced. Shabbat 144b permits juicing such fruit: “One may squeeze plums, quinces, and sorb apples.” Although according to a few Rishonim (Smak and Rabbeinu Yeruĥam) one may never juice any fruit, and a few Aĥaronim defer to their opinion (Ĥayei Adam 14:3; Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Yitro 3), the majority of Rishonim and Aĥaronim allow those fruit to be juiced (SA 320:1; BHL s.v. “mutar”). However, today there are no fruits that are not juiced. Therefore, one may not squeeze any fruit in order to release its juice.According to Ran, the Torah prohibition of juicing applies only to olives and grapes, because squeezing them creates important beverages – oil and wine. This is also implied by Rambam, and many Aĥaronim rule this way as well, including AHS 320:10. However, Rashi, Rashba, and Ritva maintain that it is prohibited by Torah law to juice any fruit, if the majority of that fruit’s crop is used to make juice.

    One may not wring out clothing that has absorbed liquid if one wishes to use the liquid, because of the prohibition of Dash. There is a disagreement whether this is prohibited rabbinically or by Torah law. If the wringing out will also clean the garment, then the Torah prohibition of laundering comes into play. (See above 11:17 and in Harĥavot; below 13:5 and Harĥavot.)

    [14]. However, SA 320:6 maintains that one may squeeze lemons into an empty pitcher; since people do not drink pure lemon juice, it has no importance. Thus, a lemon is categorized as a fruit that is never squeezed for its juice; as we saw in the previous note, according to most poskim, such fruits may be squeezed for their juice. In contrast, according to Ĥayei Adam 14:4, one may not squeeze a lemon even into sugar, since one intends to turn the lemon into a drink. Most poskim, however, maintain that one may squeeze a lemon into sugar (Ĥida; Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Yitro 5; and MB 320:22).

    [15]. Even though it is clear that cutting a grapefruit or orange will release juice, one may cut them because this is a case of an unintended psik reisha in a double rabbinic prohibition:

    1. a) The squeezing is not being done in the normal fashion.
    2. b) The prohibition of squeezing grapefruit and oranges, according to many, is only rabbinic. Many poskim have written this, including SSK ch. 5 n. 49. In Shabbat 143b, R. Yehuda maintains that if the juice left afterward on the plate flows out by itself from fruit designated for eating, one may drink this juice. If it flowed from olives and grapes, then even if they were set aside to be eaten, one may not drink the juice. (Since squeezing out the juice is a Torah prohibition, the Sages prohibited even juice that flowed out on its own.) This is the ruling of SA 320:1. Generally, when preparing fruit salad, even if grapes are used, most of the juice is from other fruits. Even if juice does flow out of the grapes, it mixes with the other fruits and their juice. Therefore, one may drink the juice that remains. (Orĥot Shabbat 4 n. 44 states something similar to this.) The poskim disagree whether one may suck the juice out of a fruit held between the teeth. In practice, regarding grapes we are stringent, as squeezing them is a Torah prohibition (Rema 320:1). However, once a grape is actually in one’s mouth, there is no problem of squeezing (MB ad loc. 12).

    09. Pickling and Salting Foods

    The Sages forbade pickling cucumbers (or olives and the like) in brine or vinegar, because pickling is comparable to cooking. Similarly, the Sages forbade salting foods if doing so fundamentally changes them, as is the case with radishes, onions, garlic, turnips, and cucumbers. Salt helps sweat these vegetables, extracting their bitterness, changing their textures, and improving their taste. Thus, salting is comparable to the melakha of Me’abed (below 18:6), and its impact on foods is similar to that of cooking (SA 321:2-6; MB ad loc. 15).

    One may salt an individual piece of a vegetable and then eat it, because this does not resemble pickling. Many also permit salting multiple pieces at once, as long as the pieces will be eaten soon (SA 321:4). However, the custom is to be stringent and eat each piece immediately after salting it. This is because if one waits to eat a salted piece until after additional pieces have been salted, it may look like he is pickling food (MB 321:20; Kaf Ha-ĥayim ad loc. 26).

    Salting multiple pieces together is permissible if one adds oil as well. This is because the oil reduces the saltiness, making it clear that one is not pickling, but rather flavoring his food (MB 321:14). Similarly, one may add salt to a cucumber and radish salad being prepared for the upcoming meal. This is because preparing the salad also involves adding oil and spices that weaken the salt, making it clear that one is not pickling (Taz 321:1; MB ad loc. 14). One may also add as much salt as one wishes to vegetables that are not normally pickled, such as tomatoes (SSK 11:2).

    The Sages also prohibited things that resemble pickling. Therefore, one may not prepare large quantities of salt water or other pickling agents on Shabbat. However, one may prepare a limited quantity of such mixtures – enough for dipping foods during the meal. Concentrated salt water (i.e., a mixture that is at least two-thirds salt) may not be prepared even in small quantities, since it resembles preparing brine to pickle fish (SA 321:2).

    10. Coloring Food

    There is an accepted principle that the prohibition of dyeing does not pertain to food. Therefore, one may add turmeric to a dish, even though it will color the food yellow. Similarly, one may dip bread in wine even though it will turn the bread red (SA 320:19). This is because the Torah prohibition is limited to long-lasting dyeing (like that of clothing or walls). Rabbinically, short-term coloring is prohibited as well. However, the short-term coloring of food is not included in this prohibition. This is because the primary concern with food is its taste, not its color; furthermore, people do not normally color most foods.

    Some are stringent and avoid coloring drinks, as the change made to them is more obvious. Additionally, it is somewhat more common to color liquids than solids, since liquids are sometimes used for dyeing clothing and walls. Therefore, even though drinks are made for drinking, and not for their appearance, it is rabbinically forbidden to color them (Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Pekudei 3-4). However, according to most poskim there is no prohibition of coloring even drinks. This is the halakha in practice (Darkhei Moshe 320:2). However, if possible, le-khatĥila it is preferable to defer to those who prohibit coloring drinks. Therefore, when mixing red and white wines, it is preferable not to pour the red into the white, as this will color the drink. Rather, one should pour the white wine into the red, because then the change in color is not obvious when the white wine becomes part of the red. Similarly, when preparing juice from concentrate, it is preferable to put the concentrate into the cup or pitcher first, and then add the water. This way the water is immediately blended with the concentrate, and the coloring is not obvious. Similarly, when preparing tea using liquid essence, it is preferable to put the essence in first and add the water to it (SHT 318:64-65; see above 10:8, which explains that one should pour the water from a kli sheni).[16]


    [16]. Most poskim maintain that the prohibition of dyeing does not apply to food and drink (SA 320:9; Darkhei Moshe ad loc. 2; Ĥakham Tzvi §92; Mateh Yehuda 318:2; and many others). However, some are stringent. For example, Nishmat Adam 24:3 is concerned that it may even be prohibited by Torah law if the goal of the dyeing is to sell the food. BHL 320:19 rejects this. Nevertheless, there is a rabbinic prohibition of preparing on Shabbat for weekdays, and therefore one may not dye food in order to sell it (see MB 320:56). Others maintain that while it is true that the prohibition of dyeing does not apply to foods, there is a rabbinic prohibition to color drinks (Rav Pe’alim, OĤ 3:11 and Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Pekudei 3-4; Ha-elef Lekha Shlomo §336; Lev Ĥayim 3:78). Although this is a rabbinic law, and most poskim are lenient (see Yabi’a Omer 2:20), le-khatĥila it is preferable to be stringent. Even those who are stringent allow mixing a clear drink into a colored one (Ĥesed La-alafim 320:6; SHT 318:65). If the intent is to color, then it is reasonable to be stringent even when it comes to food (Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Pekudei 3; Menuĥat Ahava 3:13:8 and nn. 26, 30; SSK 11:39). See Harĥavot.

    11. Writing, Building, and Spreading

    One may not write letters or draw pictures on a cake using candies or frosting. Though this is not prohibited by Torah law since the letters are not long lasting, it is rabbinically prohibited.

    If a cake has letters or pictures on it, one may not cut through the letters, but only between them. If the letters are formed in the cake or cookie itself, as is typically found on tea biscuits, they may be cut, as these letters are insignificant (below 18:3).

    If it is necessary to open a package of food that has writing on it, one should try to do so without tearing the letters. However, if there is no way around this, he may open the bag even if he will tear letters (as explained below in 18:3).

    One may not churn milk into butter on Shabbat. Many believe this is prohibited by Torah law as a tolada of Boneh, because it involves changing the food from a liquid to a solid (Shabbat 95a; MT 10:13). One also may not shape food into impressive designs, as this is a type of building (MA 340:17; Ĥayei Adam 39:1).

    One may spread food on bread or crackers, as the prohibition of spreading (Memare’aĥ) does not apply to foods. One also may change the appearance of the spread to make it look more appealing, smoothing it as desired. Thus, one may put hummus on a serving plate and spread it into a circle for aesthetic reasons since the food is already ready to eat, and smoothing it does not improve it in any way. Some are stringent and do not permit smoothing foods to make them look more appealing. One who chooses to be stringent should be commended (Rema 321:19).

    12. Ice and Water

    The Sages forbade crushing snow, hail, or ice in order to turn them into water, because this resembles a melakha (see the next paragraph). However, one may add ice cubes to water even though they will melt. Since he is not actively melting the ice, it is not prohibited (Shabbat 51b). One may chip away at a chunk of ice in order to put some into a cup or container, even though bits of ice may melt during the process, as it is not his purpose to turn the ice into water. Similarly, one may walk on snow even though as one walks a little snow will melt, because this is not his intention (SA 320:9-12).

    A few poskim (Sefer Ha-Teruma and Rosh) maintain that one may not crush ice and turn it into water because turning a solid into a liquid is considered producing something new. According to this, heating congealed gravy or the like is also prohibited, since heating the gravy will liquefy it. However, according to the majority of poskim, the prohibition of crushing snow is not because something new is being formed, but because crushing snow is similar to squeezing fruit in that both actions are done with one’s hands. According to them, one may liquefy congealed gravy indirectly by warming it (Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Smag, Smak). The Sephardic custom is to be lenient in this regard. The Ashkenazic custom is to be stringent le-khatĥila and refrain from liquefying congealed food by heating it. When necessary, even Ashkenazim may be lenient (SA 318:16).

    This is the law for making ice as well; Sephardic tradition allows it, while some Ashkenazim are stringent le-khatĥila. However, when necessary, such as on a hot day, even Ashkenazim may make ice (SSK 10:4). Some Ashkenazic poskim are lenient even le-khatĥila and allow making ice even if it is not a hot day. This is because ice does not have a sustained existence as a solid. It starts melting immediately upon being removed from the freezer, so making ice is not really creating anything new (Tzitz Eliezer 6:34; 8:12).

    One may add spices to foods even though they create a new smell in the foods. Although one may not cause clothing to smell nice by creating a new smell, there is no comparable prohibition for foods (SA 511:4; MB ad loc. 24).

    According to many poskim, one may not whip an egg or make whipped cream, because it looks like one is preparing them for cooking (Shabbat 109a following Rashi; MB 321:68). Others are lenient (see Livyat Ĥen §66).

    01. Introduction

    Clothing is very important, as it covers the body and protects it from heat and cold. Adam and Eve originally had no need for clothing, but after they sinned they developed an awareness of their nakedness and thus clothing became necessary. As long as Adam and Eve were pure, the physical world did not exert too strong a pull on them, and they were able to appropriately emphasize the spiritual aspect of their existence. For them, the body served as a practical tool for revealing the essence of the soul. But after they sinned, the body was weakened and the evil inclination was strengthened. The “lower” functions of the body exerted a disproportionately strong pull, while the soul was neglected and man’s divine destiny was forgotten. This is the source of shame. A person’s dignity can be attributed primarily to his creation in God’s image. This dignity is revealed through his soul, and expresses itself via Torah study and the performance of mitzvot and good deeds. When one forgets his destiny and lets his physical desires control him, he loses this dignity. Clothes that cover us externally serve to modify our attraction to the physical world, and help repair the damage caused by the sin of Adam and Eve. Covering the body allows the soul to reach greater expression. We can then perfect the body and give it full expression, with holiness and joy, guiding it toward Torah and mitzvot. Therefore, a person’s clothing is his dignity.

    Like every other good thing, clothing can be used correctly or incorrectly. Those who wear modest and pleasant clothes enjoy the true respect that results from emphasizing the spiritual. Those who wear immodest clothes emphasize the body and arouse the evil inclination. Instead of using clothes to emphasize the soul, they use them to further hide and conceal it. There is nothing more shameful than this.

    The sin of Adam and Eve led to an additional change as well. Man was expelled from the Garden of Eden into this harsh world. The ability of the body to take care of itself was diminished. Thus clothing became necessary to protect the body from the cold during the winter and from the sun’s rays during the summer. In the wake of the sin the body was doubly damaged: It could no longer serve as the complete instrument of the soul without clothing, and it could not even protect itself from the elements.

    Since clothing is a unique means of correction for man’s sin, clothes are not found in nature; rather, man must work and perform many activities in order to make them for himself. There are 13 melakhot involved in making cloth garments, and seven more in making leather garments.

    As we have seen, the 39 melakhot are the same melakhot that were performed in building the Mishkan. The sources of the melakhot connected with clothing are the melakhot that were involved in making curtains for the Mishkan, which were meant both to honor and conceal the divine glory.

    02. Melakhot Pertaining to Clothing

    There are 13 melakhot involved in making clothes (m. Shabbat 7:2):

    1) Gozez Tzemer (shearing wool; the laws pertaining to this activity will be explained below in 14:1): If plants are used to make the clothing, then one may not pick the plants on account of the prohibition of harvesting (below 19:6).

    2) Melaben (laundering): This includes removing debris and oil from the wool (as explained below in sections 3-8).

    3) Menapetz (combing wool): Combing through wool makes it easier to form the wool into threads. One who beats the sinews of an animal to make threads from them violates a tolada of this melakha.

    4) Tzove’a (dyeing): This involves infusing wool with dye in order to make colored thread and clothing from it (below 18:5).

    5) Toveh (spinning): This is forming threads from raw wool. Similarly, one who makes thread from raw materials like flax violates this melakha.

    Now we arrive at the melakhot that pertain to turning individual threads into one weave. As a rule, cloth is made from threads that run lengthwise (the “warp”) and threads that run widthwise (the “weft”). The warp threads form the foundation of the cloth, while the weft threads are interwoven perpendicular to them. In the past, hand-operated looms were used for weaving. This process involved a few more melakhot:

    6) Meisekh (warping): This involves setting up the warp threads on the loom.

    7) Oseh Shtei Batei Nirin (making two loops): In order to integrate the weft threads with the warp threads, one must first prepare the loom. Vertical cords (“heddles”) containing loops are suspended from two frames (“shafts” or “harnesses”). First the odd-numbered warp threads are threaded through the heddles of one harness and between the heddles of the other. Then the process is repeated with the even-numbered warp threads. This allows the weft threads to slip under and over those of the warp. Some say that the prohibition is to form two loops to hold the warp threads (Tosafot Rid on Shabbat 73a). Others maintain that only one who places two warp threads into these loops transgresses this melakha (Rashi, ad loc.).

    8) Oreg Shnei Ĥutin (weaving two threads): This is when one combines the weft threads with the warp threads, actually creating the weave.

    9) Potze’a Shnei Ĥutin (separating two threads): This is fixing the material by removing threads when there is a tear or imperfection in the weave. The melakha of Potze’a includes the prohibition of unraveling the hem of a woven item of clothing or a bandage.

    The general rubric of weaving also prohibits weaving a basket, net, or strainer, as well as weaving (“roping”) a rope bed. Each of these items is made with a crosshatch design, whether of thread, rope, or wicker (MT 9:16).

    Nowadays weaving is done with more advanced machines that perform all the above melakhot at once. One who turns on such a machine on Shabbat transgresses all of these melakhot simultaneously.

    Other melakhot connected to creating an item of clothing are:

    10) Kosheir (tying a knot)

    11) Matir (untying a knot): This is explained below in sections 13-15.

    12) Tofer Shtei Tefirot (sewing two stitches)

    13) Kore’a al Menat Litfor Shtei Tefirot (tearing in order to sew two stitches): This is explained below in sections 10-12.

    The melakhot connected with tanning leather are also connected to making clothes, since leather is used not only to create parchment, but also to make clothes and shoes. These melakhot are Tzad (trapping), Shoĥet (slaughtering; below 20:6-9), Mafshit (skinning), Me’abed (tanning), Memaĥek (smoothing), Mesartet (marking; below 18:6), and Meĥatekh (cutting; below 15:10).

    03. Libun and Kibus

    The melakha of Libun is cleaning wool or linen and whitening it before making it into clothes. Kibus, which refers to washing clothes, is a tolada of this melakha (MT 9:10-11).

    There are three stages of Kibus: soaking, scrubbing, and wringing. Since in each stage some of the dirt in the clothing is removed, each stage is prohibited by Torah law. We will now describe these stages in detail.

    First, Kibus is done by soaking an item of clothing in water. Soaking causes stains on the clothing to become lighter, and some of the dirt absorbed in the clothing is removed and transferred to the water. Therefore, it is prohibited by Torah law to soak dirty clothes in water. For example, one may not leave dirty baby clothes in water, even though he intends to do the primary washing after Shabbat, since the soaking begins the cleaning process.

    The second stage is scrubbing the clothing while it is still wet. This is the main phase of Kibus, because through the scrubbing, the dirt that is stuck to the clothing is removed, disappearing into the water.

    The third stage is wringing out the clothing and removing the water it absorbed. When the water is wrung out of clothing, the filth that was transferred to the water is removed as well. Since a little bit of dirt comes out with each wringing, it is prohibited by Torah law. Even if clothing got wet in the rain, one may not dry it by wringing it out, since this will definitely clean it somewhat as well. To ensure that one will not end up wringing anything out, the Sages forbade picking up clothing that is soaking wet. Despite this, one may continue wearing clothes that got wet in the rain. This permission even extends to a case where one had taken off the wet clothes; if he has nothing else to wear, he may put them back on. However, one may not move them around for no reason (SA 301:45-46).

    Sometimes there is a fourth stage – drying the clothes with heat. After wringing out the wet clothes, they are often placed on or near a heat source to dry. This evaporates the remaining moisture together with any remaining dirt, leaving the clothing clean and bright. This used to be part of the way that raw wool was processed. After it was sheared and washed, it was whitened in an oven. This action is called Libun and is prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, one may not place a wet coat or a wet towel next to a heater if the temperature will reach yad soledet bo (SA 301:46; see above 10:4).

    It is important to realize that it is not just laundering an entire garment that is forbidden. Even removing a single stain is prohibited by Torah law. This prohibition applies whether the stain is removed with water, spit, or any other cleaning agent, including kerosene or benzene. Similarly, if a greasy substance fell onto a garment on Shabbat, one may not spread talcum powder on it to prevent staining (SSK 15:27).

    The Sages also prohibited things that might cause others to think that one violated a Torah prohibition and washed clothing on Shabbat. Therefore, clothes that got wet on Shabbat may not be hung on a clothesline or the like. Rather, they should be hung somewhere that people do not generally hang clothing after it is laundered, such as over a chair or on a hanger. Nevertheless, clothes that were hung to dry before Shabbat may be left on the line over Shabbat (SA 301:45).[1]


    [1]. If a “dry clean-only” suit gets wet, it may be hung out on a clothesline, since no one will think that it was washed on Shabbat. Similarly, a hand towel that gets wet from normal use may be hung in its normal place. One may also hang out a plastic tablecloth, since it may be rinsed with water on Shabbat, as explained below in section 5. The general rule is that one may perform any action that will not lead people to suspect that he washed clothing on Shabbat. See SSK 15:13; Yalkut Yosef 302:79-82; Menuĥat Ahava 2:12:23.

    04. Soaking Clothes in Liquid

    As we saw above, the first stage in washing clothes is soaking them in water, since this soaking gets rid of some of the dirt. Even wetting a small part of an item of clothing is forbidden, because wetting cloth with water or another cleansing liquid is considered Kibus.

    The Rishonim disagree whether the prohibition of soaking clothes in water applies even to clothing that is not dirty. According to many Rishonim, it is only forbidden to wet clothing if it is dirty; but if the clothing is clean, one may wet it. Others maintain that one may never wet clothing, because any wetting accomplishes some minimal cleaning. In practice, since this is a disagreement pertaining to a Torah law, many Aĥaronim follow the stringent position, maintaining that even clean clothing may not be wetted.[2]

    However, one may wet clothing or any cloth item if this will make it dirty rather than clean. For example, one may use a towel to dry one’s hands, because the water from one’s hands does not clean the towel. On the contrary, it dirties it slightly. Some make a point of first air-drying their hands slightly and only afterward using the towel, so that the towel will absorb less water. In any case, the halakha is that one may wet a cloth in a way that dirties the cloth. This is true even if the towel is already dirty, as long as one’s intention is to dry his hands, not to remove stains (SA and Rema 320:10; BHL s.v. “de-lo”).


    [2]. Zevaĥim 94b states: “‘Soaking an item of clothing constitutes washing it.’ Rava is being consistent, as he also states: ‘One who threw a scarf into water is liable.’” According to Sefer Ha-Teruma, Or Zaru’a, Rosh, Smag, and Smak, the prohibition applies only if the item of clothing is dirty. This would seem to be Rambam’s position as well. Rosh writes that even if the item of clothing is blackened because of hard usage, as long as there is no stain, one may soak it. However, if one soaks it for the purpose of cleaning it, then even those who would otherwise permit this concede that it is forbidden (MB 302:46). According to Rashbam, Yere’im, and Tur, it is always prohibited by Torah law to wet an item of clothing (this is implied by SA 302:9 as well). Many Aĥaronim rule stringently, since this is a doubt about a Torah law, as we see in BHL 302:9 s.v. “she-yesh” and Kaf Ha-ĥayim 302:74. In my humble opinion, if the item of clothing is fresh from the wash and completely clean, even those who are stringent would concede that the prohibition is only rabbinic. Thus one may wash such clothing if truly necessary, in accordance with the opinion of most Rishonim (see BHL 302:10 s.v. “de-lo”).

    05. Cleaning Off the Table and Washing Dishes

    If a little water spills on the table, one may use a towel to clean it, as wetting the towel in this case dirties it rather than cleans it. Similarly, if a little wine or juice spilled on the table, one may wipe it up with a towel or cloth. Although the cloth will absorb some of the color of the wine or juice, and one may not dye on Shabbat, this is permitted because one’s intent is to clean the table, not dye the cloth. Also, the dyeing is ineffective; it merely dirties the cloth.[3]

    If a lot of water spills on the table or floor, it is rabbinically prohibited to soak it all up with a towel. This is due to the concern that once the towel absorbs a large quantity of water, one will wring it out, thus transgressing a Torah prohibition.[4] There are a few solutions to this problem:

    1) Multiple towels may be used, so that each one absorbs only a little water. Thus, there is no concern about wringing them out.

    2) A cloth that is not generally wrung out may be used, even if it absorbs a large quantity of water (MB 301:172). Thus, one may use a napkin or paper towel, since they are not wrung out but thrown away immediately.

    3) If it is not possible to utilize either of the first two solutions, two people may work together to mop up the liquid. First, they should place a towel on the water; then they can pick it up and put it in a bucket or elsewhere. The rabbinic prohibition to pick up clothes saturated with water was limited to one person; two people may do so because if one of them forgets and starts to wring the clothing, his friend will remind him that it is Shabbat (SSK ch. 15 n. 55). (This does not follow the stringent opinion requiring ten people, as explained in Harĥavot. See below 15:9 regarding permissible ways to clean the floor.)

    One may not use an ordinary sponge or scouring pad to wash dishes because it absorbs water and is then wrung out in the course of washing the dishes and afterward. However, one may use a plastic sponge if the fibers are not tightly packed and are not absorbent, and they cannot be wrung out. We will discuss the use of wipes below (14:6).

    If a dishrag falls into the sink, one may turn on the water even though the rag will get wet, because this is not considered cleaning or washing. If there is a wet rag in the sink, some allow picking it up and removing it. Since people are not insistent on using only dry rags, there is no concern that one might wring it out (Orĥot Shabbat 13:48). On the other hand, in practice, people are accustomed to wring it out. Therefore if one wishes to remove the rag from the sink, it is proper to use a fork or knife to do so. This shinui will serve as a reminder to him that it is Shabbat, ensuring that he will not wring out the rag.


    [3]. MB 302:55 states, based on Yere’im and SA 320:20, that if a colored drink spilled on a tablecloth and one wishes to clean it up, he should not drag the colored liquid over the tablecloth, because doing so will color additional parts of it. However, MB 302:59 adds that some are lenient because this coloring dirties the tablecloth. This is the opinion of Radbaz 4:131, Ĥakham Tzvi, Eliya Rabba, and others. On the other hand, Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Tetzaveh 6 is stringent. Nevertheless, in a time of need one may be lenient, since even according to those who are stringent this is a case of psik reisha de-lo niĥa lei as well as a double rabbinic prohibition (the coloring is done through a destructive action as well as a shinui). When such a combination of factors exists, we are lenient in cases of necessity. Livyat Ĥen §92 states something along these lines.[4]. We saw in section 3 that wringing is a stage of washing and is prohibited by Torah law. According to most poskim, the prohibition applies only to wringing out water, as is implied by SA 320:18. However, Ramban maintains that wringing out wine is prohibited as well, because wine can have a cleaning effect. Taz 320:12 maintains that there is no prohibition on wringing out red wine, in contrast to white wine. It is important to note that our discussion has only dealt with how wringing pertains to the prohibition of laundering. However, there is another possible issue here – the Torah prohibition of Dash, which applies to squeezing grapes and olives. Thus, if one squeezes liquid out of a towel, he may be transgressing the melakha of Dash. If one wants the squeezed-out liquid, Rishonim disagree whether this is prohibited rabbinically or by Torah law. In contrast, if one does not want the liquid, all agree that the prohibition is only rabbinic (as explained in 11:17 and in Harĥavot). If so, in our case, when one does not want the liquid he is wringing out of the towel, the prohibition would only be rabbinic. Furthermore, one may pick up the saturated towel, as we do not build fences around rabbinic prohibitions.

    06. Removing Mud from Leather Clothing and Shoes

    Leather clothes are different from normal clothes. Normal clothes made from threads of wool or linen and the like may not be soaked, because this cleans them. However, a leather item may be soaked in water. Only true washing, meaning vigorous scrubbing, is prohibited by the Torah for leather. The reason for this distinction is that unlike cloth garments, which absorb the water that permeates the threads and removes the dirt and stains, leather does not absorb water readily; since water does not permeate it, the water cannot remove the dirt absorbed in the leather. Although soaking leather in water might remove the dirt that is stuck on its surface, the dirt that is absorbed within it will not be removed. The only way to remove absorbed dirt from leather is by washing it – scrubbing it vigorously by rubbing the two sides together or by using a brush or the like. This constitutes the Torah prohibition of Kibus.

    Accordingly, if something disgusting fell on a leather item, it may be rinsed off, because rinsing leather removes only what is on the surface. However, one may not rub the dirty spot, because that will remove the absorbed dirt.[5]

    It is rabbinically forbidden to wring out a wet leather item. Wringing out cloth garments is forbidden by Torah law because the water is easily wrung out of them; since the wringing removes the dirt together with the water, this is considered a method of cleaning them. But leather garments are not normally wrung out during washing; it is difficult to do, and it is not a particularly good way to clean them. Therefore, wringing them out is only rabbinically prohibited (BHL 302:9, s.v. “asur”).

    If leather shoes get dusty, one may remove the dust with one’s hand or a rag, because the dust is not absorbed into them, but merely sits on the surface. However, one may not polish them with a brush or rag in order to shine them (on account of Memaĥek, below 18:6; see AHS 327:4; SSK 15:40).

    If clay or mud is stuck on a shoe or piece of clothing, removing it and crumbling it is transgressing a rabbinic prohibition pertaining to Toĥen. But if it is uncertain whether its removal will cause it to crumble to dust, it may be removed. When necessary, even if it is clear that it will crumble to dust, one may remove it with a shinui. For example, mud on a shoe can be removed by rubbing the shoes together, and clay on clothing can be removed by hitting it with the back of one’s hand (above 12:1 and n. 1).


    [5]. Generally, a leather garment is soft, and the consensus is that scrubbing it vigorously on Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law. Gently scrubbing it while it is submerged in water is forbidden as well (MB 302:41; BHL s.v. “aval”; it is unclear whether this is prohibited rabbinically or by Torah law). Some maintain that very gentle scrubbing is permitted (as explained by Tzitz Eliezer 5:10). In the case of hard leather, BHL ad loc. provides a summary of the different positions. According to Rashi and Ran, there is no prohibition of Kibus at all, as hard leather is like wood. According to Rif, Rambam, and Rosh, vigorous scrubbing is rabbinically prohibited. According to She’iltot, vigorous scrubbing is prohibited by Torah law. In practice one should be stringent, as most poskim maintain that this activity is prohibited, whether rabbinically or by Torah law.

    07. Nylon, Plastic, and Polyester Tablecloths and Clothing

    The prohibition of Kibus applies to clothes and pieces of cloth that absorb dirt. However, wooden furniture and plastic items, which do not absorb dirt, may be cleaned with water to remove dirt that is stuck to them. Based on this, it would seem at first glance that one may clean plastic or nylon tablecloths. Since they are made from one piece of nonabsorbent material, they do not absorb dirt; thus Kibus would not be relevant to them. Indeed, R. Ben-Zion Abba Shaul rules this way in practice (Or Le-Tziyon 2:24:6). However, most poskim maintain that since these tablecloths function the same way as when they are made of cloth, one should be stringent and avoid vigorously scrubbing them as one does when washing clothing. However, since they do not absorb water, one may rinse them and even gently rub them (Igrot Moshe, YD 2:76; Tzitz Eliezer 5:10; Yalkut Yosef 302:22).

    Another question arises regarding clothing, a tablecloth, or pantyhose made from synthetic material such as polyester. Everyone agrees that they may not be scrubbed or wrung out, because this would involve cleaning them in the way one normally washes clothing. The question is whether one may rinse them off or soak them in water. Some maintain that since the synthetic material itself does not absorb dirt or water, one may rinse clothing made of such material and even soak it. Soaking would only be forbidden if the clothing was made of natural fibers as well (SSK 15:7-8). Others maintain that even clothing that is fully synthetic may not be soaked; since dirt is absorbed between the threads, when the clothing is soaked or rinsed part of the dirt dissolves and disappears (Or Le-Tziyon 2:24:6). It would seem in practice that one may not soak clothing made from synthetics.

    One may clean contact lenses, both hard and soft. The law is more lenient in the case of contact lenses, compared to nylon tablecloths, which may only be lightly scrubbed, because not only are they non-absorbent, they are also not considered clothing, and therefore scrubbing them does not resemble Kibus (see Harĥavot). Similarly, one may clean a pacifier or the nipple of a baby bottle, or scrub it to remove stuck-on dirt. Since they are made out of rubber, Kibus does not apply; and since they do not look like clothing, scrubbing them does not resemble Kibus.

    08. Removing Stains and Dust

    As we saw above (section 3), Kibus is generally accomplished using water or other cleaning agents. However, even when one does not use water, one may not remove stains from clothing via scrubbing the way one does when washing. One may, however, remove a stain using a shinui. There are two types of stains: mild stains and serious stains. Mild stains may be removed using a minor shinui. When necessary, serious stains may be removed using a major shinui. Let us explain.

    A mild stain is one that would not prevent the clothing’s owner from wearing it in public. The Sages forbid removing such a stain by scrubbing it in the way one normally would when hand-washing it. However, one may remove this kind of stain by scrubbing it in an unusual way. Therefore, one may try to remove the stain by scratching it with a nail or a knife. After taking a brief break of a few seconds’ duration, he may scrape at it again. This is because as long as he stops between attempts, this does not resemble scrubbing clothing to wash it. Similarly, one may remove the stain with one rub of a dry rag or handkerchief. If necessary, after pausing for a few seconds one may rub the stain with the rag a second time. As long as the scrubbing is not constant, it is not considered the normal way to wash clothing.

    If the stain is so severe that one would not wear the stained clothing publicly, the stain may not be removed by scraping it or rubbing it with a rag, because that is exactly how one would remove such a stain during the week. There are even Rishonim who maintain that doing so is prohibited by Torah law. If, however, a major shinui is used, the poskim disagree whether there is still a rabbinic prohibition to remove the stain. If necessary, we rely on the opinion of those who are lenient. Therefore, at a time of need, such a stain may be removed with a major shinui. For example, one could rub the stained clothing that he is wearing against a door, closet, or bed. Alternatively, if he is wearing the stained clothing, he may rub or scrape away the stain by taking the sleeve with the stain and using the other unstained sleeve to rub or scrape it off in a way that does not resemble normal scrubbing. If the stain is thick, most of it may be removed by scraping it with a nail or a knife, or by rubbing it with a rag, as long as the entire stain is not removed this way. The rest must be removed with a major shinui.

    One whose clothing gets dusty may not remove the dust in the normal fashion by shaking out the clothing, hitting it, or rubbing it. However, one may flick the clothing with one’s finger, as this is a major shinui. When a couch is dusty, however, one may beat it to remove the dust. Since a couch is not considered clothing in which one is embarrassed to be seen, beating the dust out is not considered Kibus. However, one may not scrub the couch in the way one normally cleans it.

    If something unwanted is resting on a garment but not attached to it in any way, it may be removed. Therefore, one may remove a feather, cotton, a thread, or the like from clothing (Rema 302:1; SSK 15:33).[6]


    [6]. There are two pertinent halakhic discussions that inform this ruling. The first is found in Shabbat 141a: “R. Kahana said: ‘As for the clay on one’s clothing, one may rub it off from the inside but not from the outside.’” The prohibition is rabbinic because rubbing and scrubbing resemble washing. Shabbat 140a adds that one may not scrub a scarf in order to make it brighter. This is also the ruling of SA 302:5, 7. Aĥaronim disagree regarding a stain that needs to be scraped multiple times with a knife or a nail in order to remove all of it. Taz 302:6 maintains that scraping is not similar to Kibus and is permitted, while MB 302:36 and BHL 302:7 s.v. “de-havei” maintain that it is prohibited. This is the standard ruling. But if one pauses between each scrape, it is permitted, as this does not resemble Kibus.The second halakhic discussion involves a disagreement whether one may shake dust from a new black cloak, if the owner would not wear it outside in such a state. According to Tosafot, Rabbeinu Tam, Rosh, Magid Mishneh in the name of Rashba, Ran, Mordechai, and Raavad, one may shake the dust from the cloak, as there is no Torah prohibition of Kibus without a cleaning agent – water or a different substance. According to Behag, Rabbeinu Ĥananel, Rashi, Or Zaru’a, Yere’im, Sefer Ha-Teruma, and Shibolei Ha-leket, it is prohibited by Torah law. Since the dust disturbs the owner so much that he will not go outside wearing the clothing until it is cleaned, cleaning it is considered an act of Kibus. Since the normal way to remove dust from clothing is to shake it out, this is prohibited by Torah law. The same law applies to a stain that is so severe that one would not wear the garment outside. Removing the stain in the normal fashion would be prohibited by Torah law, according to the stringent position (see SHT 302:41 and BHL 302:1 s.v. “alei”). Indeed, the Gemara (Shabbat 147a) limits the prohibition on shaking to a new black item of clothing about which the owner is particular, and many rule this way in practice, including SAH 302:1 and Ketzot Ha-shulĥan §116, Badei Ha-shulĥan §3. However, BHL loc. cit. clarifies that everybody is assumed to be particular about a new black item of clothing; however, if the owner is particular about a different type of clothing, then even if it is not new and black, according to the stringent view it is forbidden by Torah law to clean such clothing. In practice, the position of SA 302:1 follows most Rishonim, who are lenient. This is the position of Yalkut Yosef 302:10 as well, except that in its opinion it is preferable to remove the dust with a shinui. Rema 302:1 writes that it is preferable to be stringent. According to Eliya Rabba, the halakha demands being stringent since many Rishonim are stringent, and furthermore it is a case of a doubt about a Torah law. This is also the opinion of MB 302:6; Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Vayeĥi 8; and SSK 15:26-30. However, Or Le-Tziyon 2:24:1 states that while it would be proper to defer to those who are stringent, since human dignity (kevod ha-briyot) is at stake here one can be lenient and remove dust or a stain using a shinui, which downgrades the disagreement to the level of a rabbinic prohibition. Accordingly, one may remove the dust from clothing using a shinui, such as flicking with one’s finger.

    Let us return to the case of a stain that the owner is particular about. During the week, one would remove it by scraping. Therefore, according to the stringent position, this is prohibited by Torah law. Since this is a case of uncertainty about a matter of Torah law, we are stringent (see BHL loc. cit. citing Behag; SSK 15:27). However, if one uses a major shinui, such as rubbing the stained clothing that he is wearing against the door, then even those who are stringent would agree that the prohibition is now only rabbinic. According to those who are lenient, since this act of rubbing is not a normal act of Kibus, it is permitted. One may rely upon this ruling since it is the majority opinion, the disagreement concerns a rabbinic law, and it pertains to kevod ha-briyot. If one removes only part of the stain by scraping or wiping it once, which is not the normal way of cleaning a stain, he may afterward remove the rest of the stain using a major shinui.

    09. Folding a Talit on Shabbat, and Additional Laws

    The Sages forbade folding an item of clothing on Shabbat because folding helps it maintain its shape, ensures that it sits right on the body, and prevents wrinkling. Therefore, when one folds clothes it looks like one is fixing a kli (see below ch. 15). Only if one has a new white garment that he can fold by himself, and he plans to wear it on Shabbat because he has no other appropriate clothing, he may fold it on Shabbat (Shabbat 113a). Based on this, some prohibit folding a talit after prayer services; since it will not be worn again that Shabbat, folding it constitutes preparing on Shabbat for the weekday. Additionally, if the talit is not new, one may not fold it because this act of folding is more significant than folding a new item (Ĥayei Adam 44:24). Some who are meticulous follow this position.

    In contrast, according to a minority position in the Rishonim (Orĥot Ĥayim), the type of folding that the Sages prohibited no longer exists. In the past, a clothes press operated by two people would be used to make the folds in clothing permanent. This is why the Sages only permitted folding a new white talit when the act is done by only one person. However, the type of folding we do nowadays is not so significant, and it does not look like “fixing” anything. Therefore, one may fold a talit along its original creases after services. Moreover, this is not considered preparing on Shabbat for the weekday. Just as a couch may be arranged on Shabbat even if no one is planning to sit on it, because its disarray detracts from the honor of Shabbat, so too a talit may be folded in order to honor Shabbat. Furthermore, doing so honors the talit as well; as an item used to fulfill a mitzva, it should not be left in an unfolded mess. Some prominent Aĥaronim follow this position and maintain that a talit may be folded normally on Shabbat. (See Kaf Ha-ĥayim 302:32 in the name of Yafeh La-lev; AHS 302:12; Or Le-Tziyon 2:24:3.)

    The middle position, which most poskim follow, is that a talit may be folded on Shabbat as long as it is not folded along the lines of the original creases. The prohibition of folding clothes on Shabbat applies only when they are folded according to set folds; as long as the folding does not follow the ironed-in folds exactly, it is not similar to the melakha of Metaken Maneh and is not prohibited. This is the halakha (SA 302:3; MB 302:18; Ben Ish Ĥai, Year 2, Vayeĥi 13; SSK 15:49; Yeĥaveh Da’at 2:40). It should be noted that in practice, today’s talitot are ironed in a way that makes them difficult to fold exactly as they were at the start. Therefore, one may fold his talit in the regular fashion after prayer services, since he is not folding on its ironed-in folds.

    A hat that got misshapen may be reshaped or straightened out on Shabbat. This is because it is a very simple thing to do, and is not considered fixing a kli (SSK 15:50).

    The poskim disagree whether one may fold paper into forms such as boats or airplanes, or to fold napkins into special shapes. One who is lenient has grounds for his leniency, and one who is stringent should be commended (as explained below in 15:7).

    10. Tofer

    The melakha of Tofer (sewing) refers to binding together curtains or material in a manner similar to the way the curtains were sewn for the Mishkan. The difference between Tofer and Boneh is that the former refers to joining soft objects together, while the latter refers to joining hard objects together.

    One who sews two stitches in a way that the stitches will last transgresses the Torah prohibition of Tofer. If the stitches will only last temporarily, he transgresses a rabbinic prohibition (Shabbat 74b; MB 340:27).

    Similarly, one may not tighten a thread that is starting to unravel. If this tightening will last, it is prohibited by Torah law; if it is temporary, the prohibition is rabbinic (Shabbat 75a; SA 340:6). Similarly, if a button comes loose, one may not pull its thread to tighten it (SSK 15:71).

    One may join two parts of a garment together using buttons and buttonholes, zippers,[7] snaps, or Velcro. One may do so even if he intends to leave them closed for an extended period of time. These connections are made to open and shut, so the prohibitions of sewing and tearing do not apply to opening and shutting them, just as the prohibitions of building and destroying are not relevant to opening and shutting windows or doors (see below 15:3).

    One may pull on a drawstring to tighten a hood or jacket, because this is not sewing but normal use of the clothing. Additionally, using the drawstring is different from sewing since it is generally threaded very loosely through its casing. One may also pull closed a drawstring that is threaded through loops at the waist (see SA 340:7).

    One may connect two parts of an item of clothing with a safety pin, since this does not resemble sewing. Some are stringent about this, but the halakha follows the lenient position. One who is stringent and refrains from using a safety pin that he plans to leave in for an extended period of time should be commended. In contrast, a brooch may be attached to clothing, even for an extended period, because it does not connect two pieces of cloth.

    Just as sewing is prohibited by Torah law, so is attaching one thing to another, which is a tolada of Tofer. Therefore, one may not attach papers or pieces of cloth to one another. If the attachment is long lasting, it is prohibited by Torah law, while if it is temporary the prohibition is rabbinic (see SHT 303:68).

    Similarly, it is forbidden by Torah law to staple papers together. Since the staple connects the papers with two holes, this is like sewing two stitches. But one may hold papers together with a paper clip, since this is an external connector and does not really join them together at all.


    [7]. One may not fix a broken zipper, because this would constitute fixing a kli. If it is not completely broken, and can be fixed by simply moving it up and down, this is permitted (SSK 15:78).

    11. Kore’a

    Fixing an item of clothing sometimes requires that it be torn in order to be re-sewn. This tearing constitutes the melakha of Kore’a. Tearing in order to sew is a violation of a Torah prohibition. In the Mishkan, worms would sometimes chew holes in the curtains. Mending the hole as is would leave the curtain rumpled. Therefore, the curtain needed to be torn apart and re-sewn.

    Purposeful, constructive (“le-to’elet”) tearing is prohibited by Torah law. One example of this is taking down a hem in order to lengthen an item of clothing. Non-purposeful, destructive tearing is prohibited rabbinically.

    Tearing plastic bags or plastic tablecloths from a roll in order to use them is prohibited by Torah law. Similarly, tearing toilet paper in order to use it is prohibited by Torah law. Some maintain that tearing along the perforations is also a transgression of the melakha of Meĥatekh. Tearing toilet paper with a shinui is a rabbinic transgression. At a time of need, such as in order to avoid serious embarrassment, the Sages permit violating their ordinances. Therefore, one who finds himself in a situation where he cannot wipe himself without tearing toilet paper may tear it in order to preserve his dignity. He should do so with a shinui, such as using his elbows to pull the paper from the roll. He should be careful not to tear along the perforations (SA 312:1; MB ad loc. 12; SSK 23:19; Orĥot Shabbat 11:40).

    If a book has some uncut pages, it is forbidden by Torah law to cut them on Shabbat. If the pages were cut properly, but they became stuck together by a stray bit of glue, they may be separated; this is because they were stuck together accidentally, with no intent of permanent attachment (MA 340:18; MB ad loc. 45). One may not pull apart tissues that were not cut properly and thus are still partially joined together at some points.

    Just as attaching papers or pieces of cloth is a tolada of Tofer, separating these attached items is a tolada of Kore’a. Therefore, one may not separate pages that were stapled together. Similarly, one may not tear out a page from a writing pad.

    One may tear open a bag containing food, just as one may peel an orange in order to eat it. This is because the tearing or peeling is not for the sake of the bag or the peel, but in order to eat what is inside. Similarly, one may open the top of a bag of sugar that is glued shut. Some are stringent and do not allow this, but the lenient position is the primary one (below 15:12).

    If one did not manage to remove the manufacturer’s tags from a new item of clothing before Shabbat, he may cut the plastic thread connecting it to the garment on Shabbat; the tags are only loosely attached to the clothing and thus are not considered sewn to it.[8]


    [8]. According to BHL 314:8 s.v. “ĥotalot,” there is no prohibition here of tearing a thread, since it is only tearing in order to sew that is prohibited by Torah law. While the Sages prohibited even tearing that is not for the purpose of sewing, they did not prohibit tearing a thread that is impossible to sew. Nevertheless, one may not tear a thread that is attached to the edge of a garment, because doing so is considered applying the finishing touch on the clothing, a violation of Makeh Be-fatish. This follows the stringency found in Menuĥat Ahava 3:16:8, in contrast to the leniency found in Orĥot Shabbat ch. 11 n. 26.If a dry cleaner stapled a tag to a garment in such a way that the tag is not visible, then it should not be removed. If it is visible, and people normally would not go out with it visible, at a time of necessity one may rely on those who maintain that this is an impermanent type of sewing, and remove it. (See Rema 317:3; MB ad loc. 21; Yeĥaveh Da’at 6:24.)

    Opening a letter: The poskim disagree whether one may open a sealed letter on Shabbat when there is a chance that its contents are relevant to Shabbat. According to Pri Ĥadash, Ĥayei Adam, and MB 340:41, this is forbidden because of Kore’a. However, according to Maharil, Taz, and MA, this is permitted because its seal was meant to be temporary. In a time of need, one may open such a letter as long as he makes a point of ripping it open and thus destroying the envelope (Ĥazon Ish and Yeĥaveh Da’at 6:24).

    12. Diapers, Adhesive Bandages, and Sticky Notes

    Diapers may be used on Shabbat just as they are used during the week. At first glance, one might think otherwise. Using a disposable diaper involves fastening tapes and then separating them. We saw earlier that one may not attach papers together on account of Tofer, and one may not separate them on account of Kore’a. However, since diapers are typically fastened using Velcro tapes that can be opened and closed multiple times, fastening them is comparable to buttoning and unbuttoning buttons, which is permitted. (One also does not need to worry about separating the Velcro when preparing the diaper for use, as explained in the note below.)

    Even diapers that use adhesive tape (rather than Velcro) may be used. Since this tape is made for temporary use, many poskim maintain that just as there is no prohibition of Tofer when sewing something that will be used only for a short period of time, so too one may fasten a diaper. It is also possible that even those who prohibit sewing or attaching items for a short period of time would be lenient in the case of diapers, because the tape in a diaper is meant to be reusable, so that the diaper can be adjusted as needed. Therefore, fastening them should not be considered sewing, and detaching them should not be considered tearing. Rather, fastening them is comparable to joining items together using buttons or Velcro. However, one should be careful in one regard. During the week, when dirty diapers are thrown away, they are usually taped up using the tabs, in order to confine the contents. Since this taping is likely to last a long time, it is proper to refrain from doing so on Shabbat.[9]

    Adhesive bandages (“Band-Aids”) may be used when needed, because sticking something onto the body is not considered sewing. If necessary, an adhesive bandage can also be used to hold a cloth bandage in place, because this is meant to last only a short time. (The laws pertaining to adhesive bandages and cloth bandages are explained below in 28:9.)

    One may use sticky notes to mark one’s place in a book. Since they are repositionable and designed to be used dozens of times, using them is comparable to fastening and unfastening buttons or Velcro, where Tofer and Kore’a are not concerns.


    [9]. When the diaper is closed using Velcro there is no problem at all, because Velcro is comparable to buttons. However, there are still diapers that are fastened with adhesive tapes, as was once standard. The law regarding diapers with these tapes hinges on a disagreement among Rishonim whether sewing and tearing is comparable to tying and untying. There is a principle in the laws of Kosheir that one may tie a knot if the knot will remain for a short time only, and one may untie such a knot as well. Some maintain that this permission pertains only to a knot that is designed to last under 24 hours, while others extend it to a knot that will last under a week (Rema 317:1). In a time of need, we follow this lenient position (BHL 317:4 s.v. “she-einam”). If it is a knot that will last until the item’s owner or buyer comes to retrieve it, Levush 317:3 explains that even if it ends up staying tied for more than a week, the knot is considered impermanent. Thus one may tie and untie it. This is the accepted ruling (see below, n. 10).According to Rabbeinu Yoel, Raavya, Rashbam, and others, this rule applies to sewing and tearing as well, and there is no prohibition of sewing when it will only last a short period of time. However, according to Rabbeinu Peretz and Mordechai, such sewing is rabbinically forbidden. R. Yosef Karo is stringent in SA 340:7, though it would seem that he is lenient in Beit Yosef 317:3. Tehila Le-David 340:6 resolves the discrepancy by explaining that R. Karo is stringent regarding Tofer but lenient regarding Kore’a; he also believes that this is the position of Rema. Others maintain that Rema is lenient regarding Tofer as well as Kore’a (SSK). Accordingly, following those who are lenient, one may fasten the tapes of a diaper and undo them, because this attaching is done for the short term, while for those who are stringent this is prohibited. Yeĥaveh Da’at 6:24 states, based on a number of Aĥaronim, that the halakha follows those who are lenient, and therefore one may use diapers with adhesive tapes. Another strong rationale for being lenient is that since the tapes are made so that they can be opened and closed multiple times, fastening them is not considered sewing. Rather, they are similar to buttons or Velcro, which may be used to connect and disconnect parts of an item of clothing (Orĥot Shabbat 11:36).

    As far as opening the tapes initially so that one can then fasten the diaper, based on Levush and those who rule like him (as explained in n. 10), one may open them even though more than a week has gone by since they were taped shut in the factory. Additionally, the taping done in the factory is not considered attaching because the intention is not to connect two items, but rather to prevent the adhesive from drying out (SSK 35 n. 67; some are stringent and make sure to open the tapes before Shabbat).

    After removing a dirty diaper, it is proper to avoid sealing it with the tapes, because this seal is intended to be permanent. Even so, I only wrote “it is proper” in the main text, because if we consider the tapes comparable to a button, there is no prohibition involved. Additionally, according to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in SSK 35 n. 67), since one only cares that it stays closed while it is in his garbage pail, this is considered a short-term seal.

    13. Kosheir and Matir

    The melakha of Kosheir refers to binding things together by tying them, while Matir refers to separating things by undoing this connection. Unlike Tofer, which refers to joining together soft things and uniting them, and unlike Boneh, which refers to joining together hard things and uniting them, Kosheir refers to connecting things without actually joining and integrating them together as one.

    As we have seen (9:2), all the melakhot that are forbidden on Shabbat have their roots in a melakha that was necessary to erect the Mishkan. This is true of Kosheir and Matir as well. It was necessary to tie the threads of the curtains that were cut during the weaving into knots. Additionally, it was necessary to tie knots in order to prepare nets for trapping snails. These snails provided tekhelet for dyeing the threads of the curtains. If a net was missing a strand, it was sometimes necessary to undo the knots from a different net and remove a strand from it (Shabbat 74b). (In y. Shabbat 15:1, Amora’im disagree whether tying the curtains of the Mishkan to the tent pegs was prohibited by Torah law.)

    There are four types of knots:

    1) A strong and durable knot that is not meant to ever be undone. Tying such a knot is prohibited by Torah law. Examples of this type of knot include the knots of tefilin and the knots of tzitzit. One should be careful to avoid tightening tzitzit knots on Shabbat.

    2) A knot that has an element of permanence, like a knot that one plans to leave intact for a week. Tying such a knot is rabbinically prohibited. Similarly, a professional knot tied by a craftsman, even if it is meant to last less than a week, has an element of permanence, and the Sages prohibited tying it on Shabbat.

    3) A temporary knot, which is meant to last for less than a week and is not a professional knot. One may tie such a knot on Shabbat.

    4) Knots that are so weak that they are not even categorized as knots. Examples include a single knot and a bow knot (the type used to tie shoelaces). One may use such knots to tie things together even for an extended period of time.

    The laws of untying knots are parallel to those of tying them. If tying a certain kind of knot is prohibited by Torah law, untying it is prohibited by Torah law as well; if tying it is rabbinically prohibited, so is untying it. If one may tie it, one may untie it as well. A knot that one may untie in principle but that in practice is difficult to undo, may be cut. However, one should not do so in front of an ignorant person, who may come to permit things that are prohibited (MB 317:7).[10]


    [10]. The Mishna (Shabbat 111b) and Gemara (112a) describe three types of knots. The first type, which includes a camel driver’s knot and a sailor’s knot, is prohibited by Torah law. The second type of knot is rabbinically prohibited, and the third type is permitted. There are two positions among Rishonim regarding the definitions of these types of knots. The first position, advanced by Rashi, Rosh, Sefer Ha-Teruma, Smag, Smak, Roke’aĥ, Or Zaru’a, and others, maintains that a permanent knot is prohibited by Torah law. If it is meant to last for an intermediate amount of time, it is rabbinically prohibited; and if it is meant to last for a short period of time it is permitted. An intermediate amount of time, according to Mordechai and Tur, refers to a week or less. Kol Bo and Hagahot Maimoniyot insist that an intermediate amount of time is 24 hours, while less than that is a short period of time. A permanent knot, according to most poskim (including Shibolei Ha-leket, Yere’im, Rivash, Taz, SAH, and MB) is one that is intended to last forever. Virtually all poskim agree with this. (Rabbeinu Yeruĥam maintains that half a year is enough to be considered permanent, while Rabbeinu Peretz says that even eight days counts as permanent; see Menuĥat Ahava 3:14:4.)The second position, advanced by Rabbeinu Ĥananel, Rif, Rambam, Rivash, and SA 317:1, maintains that if a knot requires a craftsman to tie it and is permanent, it is prohibited by Torah law. If it is a craftsman’s knot but it is not permanent, or if it is permanent but can be done by a layman, it is rabbinically prohibited. If it is a layman’s knot and is impermanent, then even if one plans to leave it for an extended period of time it is permitted. This is how the second position is understood according to most Aĥaronim (Pri Megadim; Maĥatzit Ha-shekel; BHL s.v. “she-eino”). However, according to Shiltei Giborim and Tehila Le-David 317:1, if the knot is meant for an intermediate amount of time, even though it is not a craftsman’s knot, Rif and Rambam would agree that it is rabbinically forbidden.

    The bottom line is that, since these are both important positions, it is proper to follow both of them even in a case of doubt about a rabbinic law. Therefore, I included both positions in the main text. However, if necessary, as long as the doubt is about a rabbinic law, one may be lenient. When there is an additional reason to be lenient, then one may be lenient even if it is not a time of need, and only those who are particularly meticulous would still be stringent.

    There are two cases that are points of contention separating the two positions:

    1. a) A craftsman’s knot that is made to last only a short period of time (either less than 24 hours or less than a week). According to Rif and Rambam, this is prohibited rabbinically; while according to Rashi and Rosh, it is permitted. However, since we try to follow both positions, we are stringent in this case.
    2. b) A layman’s knot that will last for an intermediate amount of time. According to Rashi and Rosh, this is rabbinically prohibited; while according to Rif and Rambam (following the way that most understand them), it is permitted. Since in any case some maintain that up to a week is considered short term according to Rashi and Rosh, a layman’s knot meant to last less than a week can be permitted. However, if it is meant to last a week or longer it should not be permitted, as this is the opinion of most poskim. After all, according to Rashi and Rosh it is certainly forbidden, and some maintain that even according to Rif and Rambam it is forbidden (Shiltei Giborim; Tehila Le-David).

    Based on the understanding of Levush 317:3, there is another leniency for knots. If a craftsman tied a layman’s knot intending for it to be temporary, but it was left for an extended period of time, it may be untied. For example, let us say that a shoemaker repairs a pair of shoes and ties them together to keep them paired until the owner comes to retrieve them, but the owner does not come for an extended period of time. Although the knot actually lasts an intermediate amount of time, according to Levush one may untie it. Taz and SAH, though, are stringent. It seems that SA 317:3 and MB ad loc. 21 would agree with Levush. This is because the temporary nature of the knot is absolutely clear. It is only because the owners did not come to reclaim the shoes that it has not yet been untied. It is not even being used to carry around the shoes. Besides, the whole disagreement between Taz and SAH on one hand and Levush on the other is relevant only to the position of Rashi and Rosh. In contrast, Rif and Rambam maintain that when a layman’s knot is made to last an intermediate amount of time, there is no prohibition of tying or untying it. The accepted ruling follows Levush, as SSK ch. 9 n. 60 states.

    In practice, although the principles of Kosheir and Matir are well defined, uncertainties have arisen regarding many knots that are common nowadays. These include questions about whether certain knots should be considered craftsmen’s knots or laymen’s knots, and whether certain types of knots are considered knots at all, as explained in the next paragraph in the main text. In each case, the halakha is based on consideration of all opinions and uncertainties.

    14. Prohibited Knots

    One may not tie a double knot even if he plans to untie the knot on the same day. Since this is a strong knot that can remain intact for an extended period, it may be that it is comparable to the knot of a craftsman (Shiltei Giborim). According to some Rishonim (Rif and Rambam), tying such a knot for the short term is rabbinically forbidden. All this refers to a tight double knot, which one might use to tie his shoes or to close a garbage bag. But a woman may tie a head scarf this way, since the scarf is not pulled tight. Those who are especially meticulous are stringent and do not use a double knot to tie their head scarves.

    If it happens that one’s shoes were tied with a double knot and this causes him anguish, he may undo the knot.[11]

    One may not tie off the end of a thread even with a single knot, the way one does when sewing or when tying the end of a tzitzit string. Since this knot is strong, it might be considered a craftsman’s knot. According to some poskim, if it is meant to be temporary it is rabbinically prohibited, while if it is meant to be permanent it is prohibited by Torah law (Smag; Rema 317:1). Similarly, one may not use a tight knot to tie a plastic bag with food in it, but one may use a bow knot or tie the bag handles together with one tie.


    [11]. According to Rashi and Rosh, any knot tied for a short period of time may be tied and untied. Accordingly, even a double knot that is generally tied for the short term may be untied. However, according to Rif and Rambam, who maintain that it is rabbinically prohibited to tie a craftsman’s knot for a short period of time, there is disagreement regarding a double knot. Shiltei Giborim states that we must take into account the possibility that a craftsman’s knot is defined by its strength; since a double knot is a strong knot, it should be prohibited as well. This is the position of Rema 317:1; Pri Ĥadash; Rav Pe’alim, OĤ 2:44. In contrast, AHS 317:3 and Ĥazon Ish 52:17 maintain that this constitutes a stringency, as a craftsman’s knot requires professionalism, while a double knot does not. Since many poskim who follow Rif and Rambam forbid a double knot, le-khatĥila one should avoid it. However, at a time of need, if one’s shoes were tied with a double knot he may undo them. According to Rashi and Rosh, one may do so because they were tied for only a short time; even according to Rif and Rambam, some are permissive. Furthermore, even according to those who prohibit this, the prohibition is rabbinic, so at a time of need one may rely on those who are lenient. All of this applies to a tight double knot, but untying the knot of a head scarf that is not pulled tight is not prohibited. (This is the approach of SSK ch. 15 n. 175; Menuĥat Ahava 3:14:5; see Orĥot Shabbat ch. 10 n. 16. However, Rav Pe’alim loc. cit. and Kitzur SA 80:45 are stringent.)

    15. Bow Knots and Single Knots

    A bow knot is not considered a knot because one pull undoes the whole thing. Even if one bow is tied on top of another, it is not considered a knot because both bows can be undone with one yank (SA 317:5; MB ad loc. 29). A single knot is not considered a knot either, since it does not last. Since bow knots and single knots are not considered knots, one may tie them even if one intends to keep them intact for a long time.

    Some maintain that a single knot with a bow on top of it (which is how many people tie their shoes) retains the status of a single knot. Accordingly, it is not considered a knot, and may be tied without any worries. Others are stringent and maintain that since the two knots together are stronger than one, it should be considered a regular “layman’s knot.” Accordingly, one may tie it if one intends that it last for less than a week. However, if it is meant to last for a week or more, one may not tie it. It is appropriate to follow this position le-khatĥila. However, one may tie a gartel around a Torah scroll using a single knot with a bow on top of it, even if it is intended to remain that way for many months.

    A single knot followed by a bow followed by a single knot, which people use when they wish to tie their shoes more tightly, is considered a regular knot. If it is meant to last less than a week, one may do so; if it is meant for a week or more, one may not do so. Some are meticulous and completely avoid tying such knots on Shabbat.[12]

    If one ties and unties his necktie each time he wears it during the week, he may tie it on Shabbat as well. If one ties his necktie and leaves the knot intact for an extended period of time, he may not tie it on Shabbat. In a case of necessity, he may be lenient and tie it on Shabbat, as long as he intends to undo the knot on Saturday night.[13]


    [12]. According to Agur, Rema 317:5, Levush, and the Vilna Gaon, a knot with a bow on top is not considered a knot at all, and may be tied even for an extended period of time. According to Mordechai, Taz, and MA, it is considered a layman’s knot, which, according to Rashi and Rosh, should not be tied for an intermediate amount of time. Many take this position into account and write that one may not leave one’s shoes tied for more than one day (MB 317:29; SSK 15:56). But it would seem that this is excessively stringent. In practice, one may tie such a knot with the intent to leave it intact for up to a week, because this is a case of a rabbinic rule with multiple doubts: a) If the halakha follows Rif and Rambam, since this is a layman’s knot that is not meant to be permanent, there is no prohibition according to the majority of poskim; b) according to Rema, it is not considered a knot at all, and may be tied even for an extended period of time; c) according to Mordechai and Tur, up to a week is considered short term. Therefore, even Rashi and Rosh would agree that there is no prohibition on tying this knot (and BHL 317:4 s.v. “she-einam” agrees that at a time of need one can be lenient). Even for those who are stringent, it is only a rabbinic prohibition. Therefore it is sufficient that we are stringent in avoiding tying a knot with a bow on top for more than a week.Regarding a Torah scroll, the custom is to be lenient and tie a knot with a bow on top, even for an intermediate amount of time. While some poskim are stringent even in this case if the knot is meant to last more than a day or a week (Minĥat Shabbat 80:155; SSK 15:56; Brit Olam, Ha-kosheir U-matir §4; Orĥot Shabbat 10:28), nevertheless, the lenient position is correct because this is another case of a rabbinic rule with multiple doubts: a) For those who follow Rif and Rambam here, there is no prohibition at all; b) even according to Rashi and Rosh, there is a disagreement whether there is a prohibition, and Rema maintains that this is not considered a knot at all; c) even according to those who are stringent, the prohibition is rabbinic. Rif, Rambam, and Tur rule that for the sake of a mitzva, the Sages permitted tying a knot that is rabbinically prohibited (SA 317:1; MB ad loc. 13). This is also the position of Tzitz Eliezer 7:29.

    Regarding a single knot followed by a bow followed by a single knot, the rule is the same as for a regular knot. Some are inclined to be stringent and consider it the equivalent of a double knot, which one may not tie even for a single day. However, many are lenient even regarding a double knot, and there is even more reason to be lenient here, where one good yank can undo the whole thing. Therefore, it should be considered a regular knot, and it may be tied for less than a week (see SSK 10:14-15 and Harĥavot 13:13:5).

    [13]. It is impossible to transgress a Torah prohibition with a necktie, because it certainly is not a craftsman’s knot and it is not meant to last forever. However, it would seem that if a necktie is tied for an intermediate amount of time, one transgresses a rabbinic prohibition according to Rashi and Rosh. Even though one yank can undo it, since it looks like a knot and can last for an extended period of time, it is considered a type of knot. However, be-di’avad it would seem that even one who usually ties his necktie for an intermediate amount of time may be lenient, as long as he plans to untie it on Saturday night. According to Rif and Rambam, since it is not a craftsman’s knot and is not intended to last forever, it is not prohibited at all. Even according to Rashi and Rosh, it may be that since one intends to undo it on Saturday night (as many people always do anyway) this is considered short term and is not forbidden (see SSK 15:62).

    16. Miscellaneous Laws

    One who twists fibers together to form a rope transgresses the prohibition of Kosheir, and one who pulls apart the strands of a rope transgresses Matir (MT 10:8).[14]

    One may not string pearls on Shabbat, because one may come to tie a knot at the end of the string. Similarly, if a pearl necklace snaps, one should not restring the pearls, because one may come to tie the string in a knot (MB 317:20). However, children may string beads that come in children’s craft sets and are not meant to last, since the knots of such necklaces are not permanent (SSK 16:22).

    Some maintain that one may not insert shoelaces into new shoes because this makes the shoe wearable, thus transgressing the prohibition of fixing a kli (Ketzot Ha-shulĥan §146, Badei Ha-shulĥan §3). Others maintain that one may not insert new laces even into old shoes (MB 317:18; SSK 15:64). Still others maintain that nowadays one may insert laces into new shoes, because the eyelets in modern shoes are wide, so inserting shoelaces in is easy and is not considered a melakha (Yabi’a Omer 9:108:162). In order to comply with all the positions, it is proper to insert the laces in an unusual way. For example, one can either skip some of the eyelets or lace only the top ones. This will ensure that on Saturday night he will need to re-lace the shoes in the normal way and therefore has not fixed a kli on Shabbat (SSK 15:64).

    One may thread a belt through the belt loops of a new pair of pants, since the belt is not meant to remain there forever. Similarly, one may insert a pillow into a pillowcase. However, one may not insert a tie or strap into a new dress or pair of pants if it is meant to remain there permanently, because doing so is fixing the item of clothing by making it wearable (MB 317:16; SSK 15:66).


    [14]. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was stringent and forbade closing a bag of food with a twist tie for more than 24 hours; since the twist tie will remain in its position, it is considered a knot (SSK ch. 15 n. 174). This is also cited in the name of R. Elyashiv in Orĥot Shabbat 10:30. However, it would seem that this should not be considered Kosheir; since it is not the act of twisting that keeps it in its position but the strength of the twist tie itself; twisting it is comparable to opening and closing a button, which is permitted. Indeed, a similar approach appears in Rivevot Ephraim 3:552; Shevet Ha-Levi 7:55; and Orĥot Shabbat loc. cit. in the name of R. Nissim Karelitz. In any case, since one does not intend to leave the twist tie closed forever and it is not a craftsman’s knot, there is certainly no Torah prohibition; and when there is a doubt about a rabbinic mitzva, we are lenient.

    Chapter Contents

    Peninei Halakha We use cookies to ensure the website functions properly and improve user experience. You can choose which types of cookies to enable.
    Cookie Selection