Siman 314

That which they said in the Gemara (at the beginning of the chapter "Kol HaKelim"): "There is no building in vessels and there is no destroying in vessels," the intention is not according to its plain meaning, for if so, there would be no prohibition from the Torah to make a vessel on Shabbat; rather, they only said this regarding the stringencies that the sages applied in this matter, such as there, where it deals with the removal and returning of doors. And similarly in Eruvin (35a) they said this regarding the Mishnah where the key to the tower was lost and the eruv was there, that he is able to break it and take the eruv, as it was taught in a Mishnah: "A person may break a barrel to eat dried figs from it," because it is a way of destruction, and more will be explained regarding this. And similarly in the first chapter of Beitzah (10a) they said this regarding the removal of shutters, and similarly later there (22a) regarding the setting up of a menorah, see there, for all these matters have no prohibition of building at all from the Torah, but rather it is from the Rabbis that they prohibited it as a fence for building and destroying, and regarding this they said: "There is no building and there is no destroying in vessels," and beyond this, this statement is not found.

And so it is clear from the words of the Rambam, for in chapter 10 where he enumerates the primary categories of labor and enumerates building there, he did not distinguish between vessels and buildings. On the contrary, he wrote there in law 13: "And so too one who makes an earthen vessel—this is a derivative of building and he is liable, and so too one who curdles cheese... one who inserts the handle of an ax... and so too one who fastens wood to wood...—this is a derivative of building and he is liable." Thus far his words. Behold, he holds one liable for vessels just as for a building, and even for curdling cheese, in his opinion, one is liable for a sin offering. And where did he mention this? In chapter 22, for from chapter 21 onwards he deals with rabbinic prohibitions, as he began there by saying: "It is stated in the Torah 'you shall rest,'" see there. And he wrote there in law 25: "One who fastens is liable under the category of building, therefore all doors attached to the ground may not be removed or replaced, a decree lest one fasten them. But the door of a chest, a box, or a cabinet may be removed... and one may not replace a candelabra of segments... because it appears like building, and if he replaced it—he is exempt, because there is no building in vessels and there is no demolishing in vessels." Thus far his words. Behold, he only wrote this regarding something that appears like building, but regarding actual building—the law of a vessel is equal to the law of a building attached to the ground.

And so wrote our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, in Eruvin (34b, s.v. "ve-amai hu") and this is their wording: "Furthermore, building and tearing down also apply to a vessel, as it says in [the chapter] HaBoneh: 'One who inserts a handle into the eye of a hoe is liable for building.' And that which it says nearby, that the master holds it is a vessel and there is no building in vessels, this refers to those cases where it says one may remove but not replace, for it is not a complete building and tearing down, or as it establishes in the conclusion regarding a lock tied with a string, and specifically in such a case it is permitted. But to break the vessel and destroy it is forbidden, for building and tearing down certainly apply to vessels. And that which it permits to break the barrel, it establishes this in Beitzah (33b) as referring to a mustaki, meaning pieces joined together etc." Thus far their words, behold it is explicitly like our words. And behold, this is the general overview of the matters, but regarding the details of the matters, what they permitted in vessels and what they did not permit, will be explained in this siman with the help of Heaven.

And know that regarding the matter of building vessels, there is a contradiction in the Rambam, for in chapter 10, halacha 14, he wrote: "One who makes any size hole in a chicken coop so that light may enter for them is liable on account of boneh." Thus far his words. And at the beginning of chapter 23, he wrote: "One who makes a hole that is made to bring in and take out, such as a hole in a chicken coop which is made to bring in light and take out the heat, behold, he is liable on account of makeh b'patish; therefore, they decreed against every hole, etc." Thus far his words. And there is one who says that his liability is on account of both: on account of boneh and on account of makeh b'patish (Lechem Mishneh in chapter 10), and according to this, he should have written both in one place. And there is one who answered that in chapter 23 it deals with a coop that is not attached to the ground, which is not subject to boneh (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And this too is not correct, for in any event, in chapter 10 why is he not liable on account of makeh b'patish? Furthermore, it has already been explained that regarding a Torah-level building, there is no distinction between a building and a vessel. And I do not know why the great authorities exerted themselves, for the Rambam explains his words well, as in chapter 10 he wrote: "any size hole" because it is for light, and for light any size is sufficient even for a person, as is explained in Bava Batra (59a), see there, and this is the dispute of Rav and Shmuel at the beginning of the chapter "HaBoneh," and he ruled like Rav. And in chapter 23 it deals with a large hole, since it is also to take out the heat, any size is not sufficient, and it is the final labor in the coop. And there is no issue of boneh in this, for the building is already finished, and the liability is only on account of makeh b'patish. And the source of this law is from another place in the chapter "Chavit" (Shabbat 146a): "Rabbah said: By Torah law, any opening that is not made to bring in and take out is not an opening, and it is the Rabbis who decreed on account of a chicken coop which is made to bring in air or light and to take out heat, etc.," and this is the foundation of the entire chapter 23, see there (and I saw that the Chayei Adam also wrote similarly to this, see there).

The sages taught in the Mishnah (146a): "A person may break a barrel to eat dried figs from it," and the Rambam in chapter 23, law 2, wrote according to the wording of the Mishnah. It is clear that even with a whole barrel one may do so, for the reason that any destruction that is not for the purpose of building—there is no prohibition from the Torah, as it is a destructive act and its prohibition is rabbinic. Therefore, they did not decree regarding vessels when one wishes to eat of the fruits, and in such cases there is no destruction regarding vessels as I have written. However, we only learned there: "Provided that he does not intend to make a vessel," meaning that he should not be precise to make a fine opening, for if so, it would be like destroying for the purpose of building, which is forbidden even regarding vessels as I have written, and so wrote the Rambam.

There is a question regarding this: if so, in the Mishna in Eruvin (34b), where if one placed the eruv in a cabinet and locked it with a key and the key was lost—it is a valid eruv, and the Shas labored to find reasons for this, yet he cannot reach the eruv, see there. And now it is difficult: he can break the cabinet and take the eruv, just as one breaks a barrel to take the dried figs. And indeed, in the Yerushalmi there, it says regarding this Mishna that the Mishna is dealing with a cabinet of stone which is impossible to break, but in a cabinet of wood, he breaks it and takes the eruv like that case of one who breaks the barrel to eat the dried figs, see there; therefore the Yerushalmi labors to find another reason for the permission as in our Shas. And also in our Shas it says there: "Here we are dealing with a cabinet of bricks etc.," and therefore it labors to find another reason. And that which it says, "Here we are dealing with a cabinet of bricks," is not because originally it did not think so, but rather this is its explanation: in a cabinet of bricks where there is no mortar between them, as is explained there (and see Rashi, and the difficulty of the Tosafot there is answered, and examine it closely). And there is one who answered that only with a barrel, which is not of great size, is it permitted, for there is no "demolishing" regarding vessels, but a cabinet which is large in size and similar to a building, they did not permit breaking it (Ran on the barrel there).

However, our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, inferred from this difficulty regarding a chest that it does not deal with a complete barrel, for with a complete one it is certainly forbidden to break it just as with a chest. And here it deals with a mustaki, meaning a broken barrel joined together with pitch, for so the Shas establishes it in Beitzah (33b) according to Rabbi Eliezer who disagrees there regarding a chest, see there; and let us say that even according to the Rabbanan we require this establishment. And so wrote the Rosh, and so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 1, and they did not bring another opinion at all. And I do not know, since it is a rabbinic matter, why they did not bring the opinion of the Rambam and the Ran to be lenient, and especially since according to the Yerushalmi it is also so, and such is the opinion of Rashi and the Bartenura who wrote: A person may break the barrel—because there is no prohibition at all in one who acts destructively. Thus far his words. Meaning, and therefore they permitted it in a barrel so that he may eat (Ran). And since Rashi and the Rambam and the Ran and the Bartenura permit it, why did they not bring their opinion at all? It requires further study.

This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch: "There is no building or tearing down regarding vessels. And these words apply when it is not actual building, such as a barrel that does not hold forty se'ah that broke and one joined its shards with pitch—he may break it to take what is inside it, provided that he does not intend to pierce it with a fine hole that would serve as an opening, for if so, it would be 'fixing a vessel.' But if it is whole—it is forbidden to break it even in a manner that does not make it a vessel, and even a mere hole is forbidden for him to pierce in it anew. And even if it has a new hole, if it is to widen it—it is forbidden, provided that he intends for this." Thus far their words. And know, that this "which does not hold forty se'ah" was added by our teacher, the Rema, and according to this I am very wondered by him, for since he distinguishes between a large vessel and a small one, that in a small one it is permitted and in a large one it is forbidden, and this is like the final resolution in section 6, and if so, it follows that this is not similar to a tower, and the difficulty of our teachers the Tosafot is removed, if so, why did he not bring the opinion of those who permit breaking even in a whole barrel. And behold, I have heard that there are those who are accustomed to break the head of a bottle containing wine or other liquids if they cannot open the seal, and according to the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it is forbidden. However, in my humble opinion, one should not rebuke them, because according to the opinion of many of our teachers it is completely permitted as I have written. And I found that the Rashba in Shabbat there also disagrees with the Tosafot, and concludes that even in a whole barrel it is permitted to break, and according to this it is simple that those who do so have upon whom to rely, upon five fathers of the world, and so ruled one of the great Acharonim (the Gra, subsection 2).

And this is what they wrote, that when one intends to make a fine hole it is "fixing a vessel"—certainly if the hole is large enough to insert and remove, it is a Torah prohibition, and if it is small it is prohibited by rabbinic law (see Taz, subsection 1). And that which they wrote, that it is prohibited to make even a mere hole, is difficult, for a hole is certainly prohibited even according to those who permit breaking (the Gara). And it must be said that their intention was a hole made by way of breaking where its use is minimal, whereas in breaking the use is significant, and they did not mean a literal hole made with fine intent. And that which they wrote, that it is also prohibited to widen it, the intention is not literally to widen it, for it is obvious that this is more prohibited than breaking. Rather, their intention is that one uses it and through this it widens a bit on its own. However, if he does not intend for this—it is permitted, as it is not a "psik reisha," and for this they wrote: "provided that he intends for this," meaning that in his use he intends for it to widen, for with intent it is prohibited (and the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 4, is resolved).

And if a knife was stuck into a barrel from Erev Shabbat—it is permitted to remove it and insert it even though through this the hole is widened slightly, for since the knife is stuck firmly, therefore when one removes it and inserts it the hole is widened. And since there is no Torah prohibition in this, the sages were lenient regarding it when it was inserted from Erev Shabbat. However, some say that this is specifically when one also removed the knife once while it was still day, for then on the second time it will not widen so much. But if one did not remove the knife even once while it was still day—it is forbidden on Shabbat to remove it and insert it, because it is a pesik reisha, for the hole will certainly widen and it is forbidden, as he is making a hole and an opening for the barrel. And there is one who says that for a great need one may permit even without having removed the knife while it was still day (Taz subsection 2 and Magen Avraham subsection 5), and one may rely on this in a case of necessity, and see what I wrote in section 26.

If there was a hole in the barrel and it was plugged, if it is below the dregs—it is forbidden to open it, because since it is below and the entire weight of the wine is upon it, he certainly plugged it well and it is a superior plugging as if there had never been a hole, and if they open it now it is like a new hole; and even if the faucet was there—it is forbidden. And if the hole is above the dregs and was plugged—it is permitted to open it, for certainly this is not a fine plugging and it is not like a new hole. And it is permitted to open it even with a drill that they call a "kreutzer," for in the place of an old hole one may drill even with a drill, such as in the place of the stopper when it broke or in another place. And therefore the common custom is that they open the plugging of a glass bottle even with a drill when there are no letters on the plugging, for this is not like opening a hole, since it is above and its plugging is not a plugging, and this is not like a new hole in a barrel. And therefore if the faucet in the barrel broke and he cannot remove it—he may drill it with a drill, and all the more so it is permitted to take another faucet and strike the inserted faucet until it comes out if he needs to drink the wine on Shabbat, provided that it is not opposite the dregs.

And there are those who disagree with all that has been explained, and they hold that that which the sages permitted (146a) to open an old hole—this is specifically in a clay barrel where the sealing is not thorough. However, in a wooden barrel where the sealing is thorough and they tighten it significantly, if they sealed it with the intent that they would never open it, such as if they cut the part protruding above and leveled it with the barrel—it is like piercing a new hole and is forbidden; and in a case of need, one may rely on the first opinion. And know that even according to those who disagree, this is not relevant to the opening of a glass bottle, for here even according to those who disagree it is permitted, as they seal it in order to open it.

It is permitted to place a hollow reed into a barrel to bring out wine through there, even if it was never in it. And we do not fear that perhaps it will not be to his measure and he will fix it, for one may not fix a vessel on Shabbat, and also in this act of inserting it, this is not like fixing a vessel, as it is prepared for this. But it is forbidden to place a leaf of myrtle or of another tree into a barrel and make it like a gutter so that the wine will flow through there, for we decree that if you permit it in this case, he will say that it is permitted to fix a gutter, as he is making it like a gutter. And although there is no fixing of a vessel in this, as it is not permanent—nevertheless we decree lest he say: just as it is permitted to make a gutter from a leaf, so too it is permitted from another thing; but a hollow reed involves no action other than inserting it. And there is another reason in the Gemara (ibid.) to forbid with a leaf, lest he sever it from the tree. And there are those who hold that the primary prohibition is for this reason, and therefore if he has many severed ones such that he will not come to sever—it is permitted, and this is the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur. And if the leaf was placed in the barrel while it was still day—it appears that it is permitted.

It is permitted to strike off the head of a barrel with a sword, and even to strike off the body of the barrel along with the stopper is permitted when the barrel is broken and joined with pitch (Magen Avraham, subsection 7), for he does not intend to make an opening, since he is removing its head. And consequently, according to the opinion of the Rambam and his faction that we cited, it is permitted even with a whole barrel. And to strike off the head of the stopper is permitted even according to the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in a whole barrel, for the stopper is not a permanent connection to the barrel. But to pierce it on its side, whether of the barrel or of the stopper, is forbidden, for on its side he certainly intends to make an opening, and an opening is forbidden even in a stopper even though it is not a permanent connection to the barrel, for an opening is forbidden everywhere. And even with a spear which makes a large hole, it is forbidden on its side, even though it does not resemble an opening, for ultimately he intends to make an opening. But to pierce the stopper on top is permitted, for he does not intend to make an opening, as it is not the way to make an opening on top of a stopper but rather to remove it entirely, and even in a whole barrel it is permitted according to all opinions. And the reason: for on the side it is worthwhile for him, as the stopper remains as it was at first and dust will not fall into it, but on top dust would fall into it, and it is better for him to remove the entire stopper, and therefore he does not intend to make an opening. This is not the case with the barrel itself; he intends to make an opening even on top, for it is better for him to have another opening in the barrel besides the stopper. And there is one who permits even in the barrel on top (Turei Zahav, subsection 6) for the reason that dust will fall into it, but this is not the primary view, for behold, he could make a stopper for it just as with the first stopper, but a stopper for a stopper has no utility (and the Magen Avraham, subsection 8, and the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 8, also ruled accordingly, see there).

Baskets or sacks that contain fruit and their openings are tied with ropes, it is not only necessary to say that it is permitted to untie the ropes, for this is not a permanent knot, as they tied them in order to untie them, but even if it is difficult to untie them—one may cut the rope with a knife or undo the strands of the rope. And this is not a labor, for this is exactly like one who breaks the shells of walnuts and almonds for the sake of the food within them. And this is not in the category of a destroyer for which it would be at least initially forbidden, for that refers to a destroyer within a labor, but here it is not a labor. And so they said in Shabbat (146a): 'Wrappers of dried figs and of dates—one may untie, and unravel, and cut,' and so in Eruvin (35a, see there in Rashi and Tosafot starting with 'Ba'ei'), and so in Beitzah (31a): 'Seals that are in the ground—one may untie the knot but one may not unravel and one may not cut,' for this is like the destruction of a building. But seals that are in vessels—one may untie, and unravel, and cut, because there is no destruction in vessels in this manner. And according to the Rambam it is forbidden to undo the strands of the rope, but rather one snaps it.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7: Seals that are on vessels, such as a chest, a box, or a cabinet, whose cover is tied to them with a rope—one may untie it or cut it with a knife or untie its braid. And specifically in the manner of a rope knot and the like, but locks of wood or of metal—it is forbidden to undo or to break, for regarding vessels as well, complete building and complete destroying apply. And for this reason, it is forbidden to remove the hinges called "gonzes" and in our language "zavieses" that are at the back of the boxes if the key is lost, and there are those who permit in this. And the breaking of locks of boxes—there is one who permits and there is one who forbids, and one should permit through a non-Jew. Thus far his words, and it requires clarification.

The explanation of the matters is as follows: It has already been explained that complete building and demolishing apply also to vessels. Therefore, a lock, which is a complete vessel—there is complete demolition in its breaking, and it is forbidden. Regarding the hinges of vessels, it was explained in the previous siman, section 28, that the prohibition is only regarding returning them lest one hammer, but to remove the door of a chest, a box, or a cabinet—there is no prohibition. It is an explicit Gemara: "The door of a chest, a box, or a cabinet—one may remove it but not return it" (122b), and in its plain meaning, it implies removing them from the hinges. However, not everyone agrees with this, as the opinion of the Mordechai in the name of our teacher Peretz is that this refers to a case without hinges, but to remove the hinges from them or them from the hinges—this is complete demolition like the breaking of a lock, and it is forbidden. But the opinion of the Ri of Chinon in the Mordechai there is that it is not comparable to a lock which one must break, whereas the removal of hinges involves no breaking, and it is an inferior demolition and is permitted. And there is no nullification of a vessel in this, for even without the hinges it is a vessel. However, it is obvious that it is forbidden to place them on the hinges and fix them with nails, for this is certainly repairing a vessel (Magen Avraham, subsection 10) and is close to a Torah prohibition, whereas the removal of hinges is an act of destruction.

And that which we wrote, that the breaking of locks is certainly forbidden, this is the opinion of the Rosh, of blessed memory. However, in the Semak he wrote that even regarding this the great authorities disagreed, and there is one who permits (Tur), for he holds that the locks of vessels are not called "demolishing." And it is possible that even the one who permits only permitted the locks of small boxes, and not of a chest, box, or cabinet, which appear like building. And in this, the primary ruling is certainly like the Rosh, and only by means of a non-Jew is it to be permitted; and similarly, regarding the removal of hinges, one should not permit it except by means of a non-Jew, and even this specifically when there is a great need for it, and so one should instruct (according to what I have written, you will understand the words of the Beit Yosef at the end of section 7, which the Taz in subsection 8 wondered about; see there and examine closely).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, further wrote in section 8: "Baskets of dates and of dried figs: if the cover is tied with a rope—one may untie and undo the twists of the rope, and one may cut even with a knife and even the body of the baskets, for all of this is like one who breaks nuts or almonds in order to take the food that is within them." Thus far his words. And in this he did not innovate anything, except for what he wrote that even the body of the baskets may be cut at the time he cuts the rope, and this is certainly puzzling to permit the destruction of a finished vessel. Therefore they wrote that these baskets are not finished vessels (Magen Avraham subsection 12 and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 15), and it appears that they are made of reeds and are perforated and are only made so that the dates will ripen within them. And it appears to me that this is only according to the system of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 7, that this case of "a person may break a barrel to extract dried figs from it" is only with a broken barrel that is stuck together with pitch. But according to the Rambam and his faction, as we wrote there, that it is permitted even with a complete one since it is by way of destruction, if so, here too even with baskets that are finished vessels it appears there is no prohibition. And one must deliberate on this, because one can distinguish from there, as it is necessary for the opening of the barrel, but here one only needs to open the tying of the rope; therefore it is possible that here, according to everyone, it is prohibited with a vessel, and so one should instruct. And we have already written that according to the Rambam it is prohibited to undo the twists of the rope.

He further wrote in section 9: "It is permitted to detach and cut the knots of the spit that they tie on a roasted lamb or fowl." Thus far his words. That is to say, that they tie the ends with a string or other matter, as is common among us when they fill the intestines they tie the ends with a string so that the filling does not fall out of it, and this too is like the breaking of nuts and almonds. And even though cutting is among the primary categories of labor even regarding a detached object, that is when one cuts to a measure for some purpose, but here it is merely destructive, and a destructive act in cutting a detached object for the sake of Shabbat is permitted even ab initio (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). But if it is tied to some vessel, it is prohibited as a rabbinic destructive act, such as a vessel that has hoops upon it called "reifen," to remove the hoops from upon it so that the vessel opens and he may take what is there, such as small barrels—it is prohibited (ibid.), and only through a non-Jew is there room to permit it (ibid.). And it was taught in the Tosefta, chapter 9: "A person may tear the skin from over the mouth of a barrel of wine etc." see there, and this is like the cutting of strings from the knots of the spit, for the skin is also not a vessel. And he must only be careful that the tear should not be like a fine opening, as the Tosefta concludes: "provided that he does not intend to make a spout" see there, that is to say, to make it like a flask, for that is like the making of a vessel and is prohibited; rather, he tears it with a long tear in a manner that it does not have the form of a flask, and so too anything similar to this.

He further wrote in section 10: Seals that are in the ground, such as the door of a pit to which a rope is tied—one may untie it, as it is not a permanent knot, for it is intended to be untied. However, one may not break or cut it, due to the prohibition of destroying (since it is attached to the ground). And this is specifically when it is made to remain so as not to remove it on Shabbat, but if it is not made to remain at all—it is permitted. And for this reason, it is permitted to remove a board that they place before the oven and smear with clay, for it is not made for permanence. Thus far his words. For when it is not made to remain even for one day—it is not called building, and since it is not called building—it is not called destroying. And even though at the beginning of siman 313 we brought from the Yerushalmi that temporary building is considered building, see there, that is at any rate for one day and not less than that. And the proof is that he derives it from the Mishkan as explained there, and their encamping was not for less than a full day, as is explicit in the Torah in Parshat Behaalotecha. And even though it is written there: "And there were times that the cloud remained from evening until morning etc.", nevertheless, presumably at night they did not erect the tents nor did they unload the burdens until the morning; however, the matter requires further study. (And there is one who says that this which they wrote, that it is not a permanent knot, is specifically when it was his intention to untie it at the conclusion of Shabbat, for if not so, it is somewhat of a permanent knot. And in my humble opinion it is not so; regarding a food item, even according to the "there are those who say" in siman 317 that even for one day it is called somewhat of a knot—this is regarding things that there is no necessity to untie, and not regarding types of food, for if not so, even until the conclusion of Shabbat there is a twenty-four hour period, and delve into this.)

And behold, until now it has been explained that it is forbidden to make a hole in a barrel on Shabbat. And what is the law when there was a hole in the barrel and one sought to plug it on Shabbat? The Rambam wrote in chapter 23, law 3, and this is his wording: "Just as it is forbidden to open any hole—so too it is forbidden to plug any hole. Therefore, it is forbidden to plug a hole in a barrel even with something that cannot be smeared and does not lead to squeezing, such as if one plugs it with a splinter or a small pebble. But if one placed food there in order to store it and the hole happened to be plugged—it is permitted, and it is permitted to practice deception in this matter." Thus far his words. That is to say, he should take the food item and say that he wants to store it in the hole, and through this the hole is plugged on its own. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 11, wrote that only a talmid chakham is permitted to practice deception in this way, see there. And so it is explained in the Gemara (139b), which says there that this is a deception regarding a rabbinic prohibition, and a young Torah scholar will not come to do it ab initio, see there. However, the Rambam explains that it refers there to the second matter of crossing in a ferry, see there, because that is a public matter, and not to this matter of storing in a hole, as there is no publicity in it. And according to the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, specifically a talmid chakham may do so. And it appears that even though regarding several matters the status of a talmid chakham does not exist in this time, nevertheless regarding this matter where the Rambam permits it to every person, we can say that even according to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch the status of a talmid chakham exists in this time (Magen Avraham, subsection 16).

And know that the Rambam there, later in law 11, wrote: "One who spreads a plaster on Shabbat is liable on account of smoothing the skin; therefore, one may not plug a hole with wax or the like, lest he spread it. And even with fat one may not plug the hole, as a decree on account of wax." Thus far his words. And it is not understood why he specifies on account of spreading, for in any matter it is prohibited to plug. And the Maggid Mishneh answered that there it deals with a complete plugging, meaning that the plugging object enters into the entire cavity of the hole, and in this "building" is applicable and it is prohibited with any matter; but here it deals with plugging only the mouth of the hole from above, for in this "building" is not applicable and it is permitted, and only with a matter that involves spreading or a concern of spreading is it prohibited, and other matters are permitted in such a case; see there. And there is one who answered that this is the explanation: that it is certainly prohibited with any matter, and only with a matter that involves spreading is an additional prohibition of spreading added (Kesef Mishneh). And in my humble opinion, it can be answered that his intention is that with a matter of spreading, even if his intention is to store it—it is prohibited, such as when he stores a piece of wax or thick fat there. (And it is only difficult to me that wax is muktzeh and regardless is prohibited to move, and regarding fat one can say it is fit for eating, and it requires further study.) (And the Magen Avraham in subsection 16 wrote that he prepared the wax from yesterday, see there; and it requires further study what preparation is applicable to a matter that is not fit for any permitted labor, and if he prepared it to plug the hole, he should have plugged it while it was still day.)

The Tur wrote: "It is forbidden to place wax or thick oil in the hole of a barrel, because he is performing memareiach. A barrel that was punctured and the wine is exiting from it—it is forbidden to place any cloth in it to plug it, and if he acts with artifice and says that he is placing it there to store it: it is forbidden for an ordinary person, but for a young Torah scholar it is permitted." Thus far his words. And from his words it appears that he is stating two things, for previously he was not dealing with a hole from which wine exits, but rather where there are mere cracks that over time could become a hole, but now building is not applicable to it, and only with a substance that one smears is it forbidden. And so it is implied from the commentary of Rashi (146a) who wrote that he smears the wax around the hole to make it adhere to the walls of the vessel, see there, and he did not write inside the hole but rather around the hole, as they do with cracks. And in the second law there is an actual hole from which wine exits, and so Rashi explained regarding this law (139b), see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 11 wrote: It is forbidden to put wax or thick oil in the hole of a barrel to plug it because he is performing memareiach, but with other things that do not involve memareiach (since the wine does not exit through there) – it is permitted. And if the wine was exiting through the hole - it is forbidden to plug it, and even to put something in it by way of artifice, saying that he only intends to hide it there. And if he is a talmid chacham - it is permitted to use artifice in this manner. Thus far his words. And he distinguishes between when the wine exits through the hole, for then it is like fixing, and when it does not exit it does not appear like fixing. And they challenged him, since the hole is there, what does it matter to me if there is wine in it or there is no wine in it (Taz subsection 10 and Magen Avraham subsection 15). And it seems to me in his intention that the hole is small such that the wine does not exit through there, and this is similar to that which we explained. (And in the gloss of the Rema it is written: 'since the wine does not exit then', and it must be said that it is not capable of exiting, and the word 'then' is perhaps an error. And what the Magen Avraham wrote in the name of Bedek HaBayit that it is permitted to plug with wood, the intention is by way of a bung so that it will be possible to remove it from there, and see the Taz who elaborated and his words require further study, see there and delve into it.)

He further wrote in section 12: "A knife that is stuck into a wall from before the day — it is forbidden to remove it on Shabbat, since it is a connected thing. But if it is stuck into a bench, and likewise in any detached thing — it is permitted to remove it; and if he inserted it and withdrew it from before the day in the wall — it is permitted." Thus far his words. And this "and if he inserted it" was written by our teacher, the Rema, and according to what he himself wrote at the end of section 1, even in a detached thing it was not permitted except in such a manner, and as I wrote in section 10, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, himself does not distinguish except between detached and connected, as is apparent from his wording. However, because according to the essential law of the Gemara, even in a connected thing if he inserted it and withdrew it from before the day it is permitted, and in a detached thing we do not require it because there is no building in vessels in such a manner, and as he wrote in his great book, but the world is accustomed to forbid even in vessels without "inserted it and withdrew it," and therefore our teacher, the Rema, wrote here according to the essential law, and at the end of section 1 he wrote according to the custom of the world (so it appears in my humble opinion).