Siman 302

We say in the Gemara (147a): "One who shakes his garment on Shabbat is liable for a sin offering. And we only said this regarding new ones, but regarding old ones we have no concern. And we only said this regarding black ones, but regarding white and red ones we have no concern, and provided that he is fastidious about them." And according to this, the prohibition is only regarding black and new garments and that he is fastidious about this. Rashi explained: 'One who shakes it from the dust — for this is its laundering.' But the Tosafot, in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel, wrote that it does not seem so, that from dust it would be laundering; rather, he shakes it from the dew that is upon it, for in this case laundering and bleaching are applicable.

The Rosh, the Ran, the Mordechai, and the Rashba agreed with the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel, and it is also explained thus by the Ra'avad in the glosses to chapter 10, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (the words of the Ra'avad are cited in the Maggid Mishneh there). But the Rambam in his explanation in law 18 explains in a completely different manner, and this is his wording: "One who shakes a new black garment in order to beautify it and to remove the white wool clinging to it in the manner that craftsmen do—is liable for a sin offering; but if he is not fastidious—it is permitted." Thus far his words. Behold, according to his explanation, this is only regarding the completion of the labor, to remove the white wool that adhered to it at the time of the labor, and his liability is due to makeh b'patish, which is the liability of every completion of labor. And according to his explanation, it works well why the fastidiousness is only regarding a black garment, for white on black is very noticeable; but according to the explanation of Rashi and Rabbeinu Chananel, it is not so understood why there is no fastidiousness regarding white and red ones. Furthermore, according to their explanation, it is not understood until when it is called new, and they wrote that it had not been used so much but is still in its newness (Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham), and this too is without a fixed limit.

And behold, for the halacha, we certainly must be concerned for all the interpretations; however, the primary halacha is according to the interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel that the shaking is from the dew, for so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and this is the opinion of the majority of the poskim. And in the Gemara there it is explained that one who is not fastidious about its shaking—it is permitted for him even ab initio to shake it, see there. And the explanation of the words of the Gemara is as follows: that for red and white garments, or old black ones, presumably one is not fastidious about shaking them from the dew; but if it is known to us that one is fastidious about shaking them—it is certainly forbidden, just as with new black ones, when it is known that he is not fastidious it is permitted—so too the reverse.

Therefore, it appears clear that this applies only to dew, but regarding rain that fell upon the garment, and certainly a garment that fell into water—on all types of garments one is meticulous to shake them out if they are not very old. This is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: "And certainly it is forbidden to shake out a garment that was soaked in water or upon which rain fell, and specifically regarding a new garment that one is meticulous about." Thus far his words. That is to say, in such cases, one is meticulous regarding all garments when the garment is in its newness, such that it is not called an old garment. He further wrote: "There are those who say that it is forbidden to shake out a garment from the dust that is upon it if one is meticulous about it, and it is good to be concerned for his words." Thus far his words, and this is the position of Rashi that we have written.

As is known among us, regarding all expensive garments of silk or of fine wool, people are meticulous to shake them out because of the rains, and not specifically new ones, but rather until they have become completely old. And all the more so regarding garments which have fine furs upon them, such as sabel, ilke, marder, fuchs, and schlamen, and those of other types of animals, and likewise those who wear hats of fine furs, for it is obvious that they are very meticulous that rains should not fall upon them, and certainly one who shakes them out on Shabbat is liable. Therefore, it is necessary to warn the people about this very much, for this is according to the core of the law, and not as a stringency.

It is stated in the Gemara (75b): "One who removes knots from a garment is liable on account of makeh b'patish." Rashi explained: "The ends of threads hanging from a cloth at the place of knots, when a thread was severed and they tied it, and similarly straws and thin splinters that were woven into it unintentionally and one removes them from it after the completion of the weaving—this is the completion of the labor, and he is liable on account of makeh b'patish." Thus far his words. This is the wording of the Tur: "One who removes from a garment splinters and knots that remain in it from the weaving, if he was meticulous not to wear them until he removes them—he is liable for a chatat." Thus far his words, and this is according to the explanation of Rashi. And he added: "if he was meticulous," for if he is not meticulous—certainly there is no prohibition, and so it is in the Gemara ibid.

The Rambam there wrote: "One who picks off growths that are upon garments, such as those growths of wool cables—is liable on account of makeh b'patish. And this is provided that he is particular about them, but if he removed them in a casual manner—he is exempt." Thus far his words, and so wrote the Shulchan Aruch in section 2. And he was precise in his wording not to say: 'but if he is not particular,' which would imply that we require that we know he is particular, for it is not so, as even in an ordinary case we say he is particular. Rather, this is what he is saying: And this is provided that he is particular about them, meaning that his picking them—he picks them in order to beautify it. But if he removed them in a casual manner, meaning that he is not concerned at all not to wear it until he picks them, but rather what he picks now is not for the sake of beauty but a mere casual act without any intent—for in such cases it is permitted. And this is because he holds that in an ordinary case he is certainly particular, for it is the way of people to be particular about this. (And he would explain in the Gemara there: 'And this is provided that he is particular about them'—likewise in this manner, and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham sub-section 5 and the Taz sub-section 2, but what the Taz wrote that this is like the Tur—according to what I wrote it is not so, and examine carefully.)

And I heard another explanation, namely, that it is known that tailors first insert long threads into the garment with a few stitches in order to join the upper and lower parts until they finish the sewing of the garment, and at the completion of the garment they remove all these threads from the garment, and they are called "stirigovanies." Therefore the Gemara called it "akufi," because these threads surround the entire garment, and this is the final labor of the garment—therefore one is liable for it because of makeh b'patish. And as for the law, all the explanations are true and there is no dispute regarding this, for all of them constitute the completion of the garment, rather one master explains it this way and one master explains it that way. (And perhaps this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 5, in the name of the Shiltei HaGibborim, who wrote: "One who removes the basting that the tailors make," see there.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: "But it is permitted to remove feathers from a garment on Shabbat." Thus far his words. There is one who was concerned for a prohibition (Magen Avraham, small subsection 4, in the name of Zichronot), but there is no dispute here, for certainly according to the interpretation of Rashi, who interpreted that one who shakes his garment from dust is liable—in this case too it is prohibited if he is fastidious about it, obviously. However, according to most poskim that one is only liable for dew and not for dust—all the more so regarding feathers there is no fastidiousness. And our teacher, the Rema, says as follows: that even though he previously brought that one should be concerned for the interpretation of Rashi—nevertheless, regarding feathers it is permitted. And the reason is because the majority of people are not fastidious about this, for we see that many go out with feathers on their hats; but one who is fastidious—it is certainly prohibited, and so one should instruct (so it appears to me). And they wrote that one who has flax seed or food sitting on his garment—it is permitted to peel it off (ibid.), for the category of melaben does not apply to this. There is one who wishes to be stringent regarding a black and new garment (Mishnah Berurah), but it is not clear, for the name of libun does not apply to this at all. And one whose garments became entangled in thorns—he separates them privately and lingers so that they do not tear, and if they were torn—he is not liable, for it is a thing that is unintentional (ibid.). But to take them with force—they will certainly tear, and it is a psik reisha. (And what he wrote there in the name of the Zichronot, regarding growths that even when one is not fastidious it is prohibited, I am astonished, for in the Gemara there it is the opposite.)

The Rambam wrote in chapter 22, law 22: "It is forbidden to fix the sleeve of garments and to break them into many folds in the manner that they fix garments on a weekday when they launder them, and likewise one may not fold garments on Shabbat in the manner that they do on a weekday with garments when they are laundered. And if he did not have another vessel to change into—it is permitted to fold it and spread it out and cover himself with it in order to be adorned by it on Shabbat, provided that it is a new white garment, for it becomes crushed and soiled immediately. And when he folds, only one person shall fold, but to fold by two—it is forbidden." Thus far his words. And it is explained that all these matters are due to the reason of fixing vessels, and this is not a simple folding but rather a folding like a craft action, as he wrote regarding the sleeve "into many folds," meaning many wrinkles, but with a simple folding—there is no concern in any case. And the first law is in Beitza (23a) and the second is a Mishnah in Shabbat (113a). And we further learned there: "And one may arrange the beds from the nights of Shabbat for Shabbat, but not from Shabbat for the conclusion of Shabbat." And this law the Rambam wrote in chapter 23, law 7, and there too he explained the reason because it is like one who fixes, and the Ra'avad wrote that the prohibition is because he exerts effort for a weekday; see there.

And there is a practical halachic difference between the reasons, for according to the Rambam, who does not hold of the reason of exertion—it is permitted to fold a garment with a simple folding that does not involve the fixing of a vessel even for a weekday, and according to the Ra'avad it is forbidden due to the reason of exertion from Shabbat for a weekday. And it appears to me that according to the Ra'avad, even this matter of folding vessels—it is forbidden for the needs of a weekday even if it does not involve the reason of fixing, for this is the opinion of our teachers the authors of the Tosafot there, who wrote: "From here we learned that it is forbidden to fold the tallitot of the synagogue because they are for the needs of tomorrow." Thus far their words. And regarding a tallit, as it appears, the fixing of a vessel does not apply to its folding; rather, the prohibition is because of exertion. (However, to cast a garment without any folding at all—is not the way of people, and the intention is also regarding some precise folding, but a folding that is not precise—even according to his view is permitted, and this is the intention of the Mordechai in the next section.)

And in the Mordechai there he wrote, and this is his wording: "The Raviah wrote: Learn from this that white tallitot that one does not need on that same day after leaving the beit knesset—it is forbidden to fold them, whether they are new or old, and even by one person. And these words apply to the order of its original folding, but not in the order of its folding—it is permitted even by two people." Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought this in section 3, and wrote that this stands to reason; see there. And this is certain, that even according to the Tosafot and the Ra'avad, that the reason is because of unnecessary exertion—there is also a practical difference between the order of its folding and not in the order of its folding, and the Mordechai holds this as well, and therefore makes this distinction. And in the Tur the reason is explained as being because of fixing, as he wrote: that for new and white ones the fixing is not so great; see there, and from Rashi it is also explained thus; see there. And in our time there are many who fold their tallitot on Shabbat, and it can be said that they hold that in our folding there is no fixing at all, and the reason of exertion they do not hold, like the opinion of Rashi and the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And so wrote the Kol Bo, and this is his wording: "And now that they are accustomed to fold all garments, it is possible that our folding is not similar to their folding, for they were very particular to smooth its creases, and we do not do so." Thus far his words. (The Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote the law of a sleeve in the laws of Yom Tov in siman 519, and the law of spreading the beds they did not bring at all, and it requires further study.)

Regarding that which we do not arrange the beds from Shabbat for the conclusion of Shabbat, it appears that this is when the beds stand in a bedroom, where people do not go all day. But for us, where it is one of the rooms of the house, and if they do not arrange them it is unseemly—it is permitted to arrange them for the sake of the beauty of the house, and especially for the honor of Shabbat (Magen Avraham, subsection 6), and such is the simple custom in every place. And there is further reason to say the rationale is because we only hold by the reason of "preparing," and with our arrangements it is not called "preparing," as the Kol Bo wrote in the previous section; for behold, they also practiced folding the fine tablecloths after the meal, and we have not heard of anyone who protests this, and perforce one must say according to the reason of the Kol Bo. And this is what the Mishnah said: that we arrange the beds from the night of Shabbat for Shabbat, and the intention is that to sleep in them it is better to arrange them while it is still day (ibid.). However, as is known, the arrangement not for sleeping is more beautiful than the arrangement for sleeping, and therefore while it is still day they arrange with adornment for the honor of Shabbat not in the manner of sleeping, and after the meal they arrange in order to sleep; and see what I wrote above in siman 262.

A press of a homeowner, which is a vessel with which they press garments after laundering, and they are two planks of wood with the garments between them and there is something that tightens them—one may loosen the tightening to take garments from it for the needs of the Shabbat; but that of a craftsman—it is forbidden, because it is inserted with strength and its loosening is similar to demolishing, and according to the Rambam the reason is due to muktzeh. And to press them on Shabbat—it is certainly forbidden even with that of a homeowner (Mishnah 141a), and regarding that of a craftsman we learned there that one should not touch it at all, either due to muktzeh according to the Rambam as this is like muktzeh due to monetary loss since he is meticulous about it, or because we fear lest he come to loosen it (see Magen Avraham subsection 7).

A shirt after laundering becomes stiff, and one rubs it with the hands to soften it—it is permitted to soften it on Shabbat, for this is not like laundering, as his intention is only for softening, and when it softens slightly he ceases rubbing, and it is not like laundering. However, a scarf—it is forbidden, because he intends to polish it and it is like laundering, and hats and other linen garments have the same law as a scarf. And among us there is no scarf, and also the polishing of hats is not known to us, and it appears that this is only with linen garments that after laundering become stiff, and through the rubbing it is softened, and even its laundering brightens through the rubbing (Rashi 140a). And among us there are no linen garments except for a shirt and trousers, and also we have not seen that they become stiff after our washing, and they have already said in Ketubot (10b): "Our ironing is like their laundering," and Rashi explained: "For their waters were effective for laundering... and with our laundering the garment is not whitened until it is ironed," see there. (And the custom of the world is to rub them with the hands; so wrote the Magen Avraham in subsection 8, and according to what I wrote, it is well understood.)

Mud that is upon his garment and he wishes to remove it—he may rub it from the second side of the garment, for the matter is not evident to appear like laundering, and it is not actual laundering, for he does not apply water there (Rashi 141a), but he may not rub it from the outside, for it appears like laundering. And he may scrape the mud either with his fingernail or with a knife, for there is no melakhah in this. And some say that this is specifically when it is moist, but if it is dry—it is forbidden to scrape it, for it is grinding. And even though it is a melakhah she-einah tzerikhah le-gufah, it is forbidden by rabbinic law, and according to the Rambam it is forbidden by Torah law. And there is no distinction regarding which garment it is, whether of linen, or of wool, or silk (ibid. subsection 16). And this is specifically when there is a substance of mud, for when he scrapes it, crumbs fall and it resembles grinding. But if there is nothing there but the appearance of mud—it is permitted, for this is not grinding (Taz subsection 6), and so too with all types of filth that are upon the garment, for in truth even the concern of grinding is only a mere stringency, for is this a type of grinding and does he need this, for he is not pleased with this at all (ibid.).

But a shoe—it is forbidden to scrape it whether with a knife or with a fingernail, whether it is new or old, because he peels the leather and it constitutes memachek. And mud that is on his feet or his shoes—he may wipe it on a wall or on a beam but not on the ground, lest he come to level pits. That is to say, that he will forget and intend to level the pits, for if not so, it would be a davar she'ein mitkaven, and it is not a pesik reisha (Magen Avraham, subsection 10). And a shoe with iron—it is forbidden, for it constitutes memachek if the iron is sharp at its head. Therefore, by us, where before the synagogue there is a sharp iron, which on weekdays they wipe the shoes with—they should be careful not to do so on Shabbat (Turei Zahav, subsection 3). However, if the iron is thick at its head—it is permitted, and nevertheless one should be stringent even in such a case (see Magen Avraham, subsection 17). And there is one who forbids wiping on a wall of stones because it appears like adding to the building, and there is one who permits both on a wall and on the ground, for on a wall this is not the way of building and on the ground it is a davar she'ein mitkaven. And the same law applies that it is permitted to remove the mud or excrement with a small shard that is fit to be moved and does not have muktzeh, such as one that is fit for covering a vessel and the like.

If there was some matter of filth on the garment, such as saliva or excrement and the like—one may wipe it with a rag but not with water. And it is not only necessary to say that laundering the spot with water is forbidden, but even to pour a little water on the soiled spot is forbidden, for this is its laundering, and laundering is a primary category of labor on account of whitening. Any rinsing in water is forbidden for a garment, and even when one wipes with a rag—he should wipe it lightly and not with pressure lest he squeeze, and whether it is permitted with other liquids will be explained in siman 319 with the help of Heaven. However, a soiled shoe—it is permitted to place water upon it to rinse it, but to actually launder it, meaning that he rubs one side of it against its other side—is forbidden. And the reason is that regarding hard leather, laundering is not applicable at all, and even regarding soft leather where laundering is applicable—nevertheless, specifically complete laundering is forbidden. But we do not say regarding leather as we do regarding a garment, that its soaking or placing water upon it is its laundering (Rashi 142b), and so it is explicit in Zevachim (94b) see there. (And there are those who forbid laundering leather in any manner, and this position requires great study.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9: That a garment which has no dirt upon it—it is permitted to place a small amount of water upon it, but not a large amount, lest he wring it out; and some forbid it in any case. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: For our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, at the end of the fourteenth chapter, raised a difficulty regarding that which we say in Yoma (77b): "One who goes to greet his teacher on Yom Kippur—he walks in water up to his neck," and in Beitzah (18b), that a niddah who has no garments—she acts with artifice and immerses in her garments on Shabbat; yet surely its soaking is its laundering. And they answered that we only say this when there is dirt upon it, and since through this the dirt is removed—it is properly considered like laundering. But when there is no dirt upon it at all—laundering is not applicable, for behold, it does not require laundering; and this is the view of the first opinion. Nevertheless, a large amount of water is forbidden, as a decree lest he wring it out. And as for why they did not decree there—because regarding a matter of a mitzvah, the rabbis did not decree. And they further answered that we do not say "its soaking is its laundering" except when he washes by way of cleaning, but when it is by way of becoming dirty, such as there where he walks in water and dirties his garments—in this, laundering is not applicable, for behold, on the contrary, he soils himself through this. And according to this answer, we do not say the first distinction between whether there is dirt upon it and whether there is no dirt upon it, and in all cases it is forbidden; and this is the view of the "some forbid." And it appears that the poskim took the second answer as the primary one. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 19, that when he does not care about its water it is permitted, as written in siman 301, section 46; and I wonder, for there we are dealing with carrying it when it fell into water, and not regarding the matter of placing water upon it, and it requires further study.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: "One who washes his hands—it is good to rub them with force against one another and to remove the water from them as much as he is able, before he wipes them with a cloth." Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: "And there are those who wrote that one need not be concerned for this, for we do not say 'soaking a garment is its laundering' in such a case, as this is only by way of soiling, and such is the custom. Therefore, it is permitted to wipe one's hands on a garment in which a child has urinated in order to nullify it, for this is only by way of mere soiling. However, it is forbidden to place actual water upon the urine in order to nullify it." Thus far his words. And behold, this is certainly a settled halacha that regarding any way of soiling, laundering is not applicable, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also holds so; therefore, he did not write that one is obligated to rub them, but rather it is good to rub them, because according to the first resolution of the Tosafot that we brought in the previous section, this reasoning is not necessary as I have written, and to this our teacher, the Rema, comes to say that there is no one who is concerned for it at all, because the poskim took the second resolution as the primary one, as I have written.

There is one who wrote that even though it is permitted by way of soiling, nevertheless, to move it afterward is forbidden, as a decree lest he wring it out (this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 22) when he is particular about its water. In my humble opinion, we only say this regarding a large amount of water, and not regarding the wiping of the hands that was explained. And to put actual water—it has already been explained that it is forbidden, and the proof is from the towel in the previous siman, section 121, see there; and wiping the hands is only effective for urine and not for excrement (ibid. subsection 24). It is proper not to take a child in one's lap, so that he does not urinate on him and he will need to seek a permit, but he should take him on a pillow, so that when he urinates, he will urinate on the pillow (ibid. subsection 23). And a woman who washes a child in water should be careful to wash him with her hands and not with a cloth, such that she places the cloth in the water (ibid.), for in this there is a complete act of wringing. And that which was explained that it is forbidden to put actual water on the urine—it is even forbidden to wash his hands over them (ibid. subsection 26), and it was only permitted to wipe his hands with it. And one should not ask what this will avail, for in siman 77 it was explained that even to diminish urine one needs a revi'it of water to nullify it. For that is when the urine is distinct, but here regarding the urination of a child—it is only "moist enough to moisten" on the garment, and therefore wiping it is sufficient (ibid. subsection 25).

One whose hand became soiled with mud or with excrement—he may wipe it on a horse's tail or a cow's tail, or on a stiff cloth made for holding thorns, such as a thick sack or a mat. But not with a cloth used for wiping hands, so that he does not act in the manner he acts on a weekday, and come to wash the cloth. And it seems to me that people are not careful regarding this, and perhaps it is because nowadays there is no concern lest he wash it, for even on a weekday it is not the way to wash it immediately when it becomes soiled, but rather until many items requiring washing are gathered, and they wash them all together or give them to a laundress. (This law is a Tosefta in chapter 17, halacha 5, and there it does not conclude "lest he come to wash," see there, and only the Rambam in chapter 22, halacha 19 concluded thus, and so wrote the Shulchan Aruch in section 11; and according to the Tosefta one must say that it is only because of a weekday activity. And it appears that it was difficult for the Rambam what weekday activity would be relevant to this, and therefore he wrote the reason of washing.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: "It is forbidden to dry a cup that contained water or wine with a cloth, because he may come to perform sekhitah." Thus far his words. And the whole world is not careful in this, as the Radbaz wrote in his responsa (siman 213). And the truth is that the prohibition is not understood at all, for would drying a cup lead to sekhitah? And how is this worse than drying hands? And if in drying hands it is in the manner of soiling—here too it is in the manner of soiling. And even if we say that his intention was a narrow cup where it is necessary to squeeze—this too is not understood, for do the walls contain enough moisture for sekhitah? And especially regarding wine, where there are many opinions that sekhitah does not apply to it, as written in siman 319, and all the more so with a cloth designated for this, which is certainly permitted (Magen Avraham, subsection 27, see there), and the essence of this law requires further study.

He further wrote in section 13: "One may not look on Shabbat into a metal mirror that is sharp like a scalpel, for we fear perhaps he will remove dangling hairs with it, and even if it is fixed to the wall. But it is permitted to look into a mirror where there is no such concern, even if it is not fixed." Thus far his words. And in Yoreh Deah siman 156 it was explained when it is permitted to look into a mirror, and when it is forbidden even on a weekday because of "a man shall not wear etc." And this matter of a metal mirror sharp like a scalpel—it is not common in our lands, and we do not know what this is.