Siman 317

Tying is among the primary categories of labor, and likewise the untying of a knot. And where were they in the Mishkan? For the trappers of the chilazon would tie and untie (74b), as the nets with which they trap the chilazon are made of many knots, and they are permanent knots (Rashi), and they are also the work of a craftsman; and sometimes one needs to take threads from this net and add to that one, so he unties from here and ties there (ibid.). And in the Yerushalmi in the chapter "Klal Gadol" it is stated that in the sewing of the curtains and the weaving of the curtains of the Mishkan there was tying and untying, but our Talmud was not satisfied with that, see there. And a derivative of tying is one who twists ropes from palm leaves or from rushes—which is a type of soft wood from which they make ropes—or from wool threads or from linen threads or hair threads and the like; behold, this is a derivative of tying. And braiding and spinning are not relevant to this, for those are only with thin threads for the making of garments, and therefore there is only tying in this. And their measure: enough for the rope to remain in its twist without tying, such that his labor is sustained. And likewise, one who separates the twist—behold, this is a derivative of untying and he is liable, provided that he does not intend only to destroy. And its measure is like the measure of the one who twists; so wrote the Rambam in chapter 10, law 8, see there.

Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot (73a, s.v. 'ha-kosher'), were in doubt whether we require untying specifically for the purpose of tying, like tearing for the purpose of sewing, or not; and their opinion tends toward requiring specifically for the purpose of tying. The Rosh wrote similarly, and it is also implied somewhat in the Yerushalmi, see there. However, Rashi, of blessed memory, later at the beginning of the chapter "V'elu Kesharim" where we learned: "Just as one is liable for tying them—so is one liable for untying them," Rashi explained that the hunters of the chilazon occasionally need to untie the knots of permanent nets in order to shorten them or to widen them, thus far his words. Behold, for untying alone one is liable, and it is forced to say that his intention is to tie them afterward. He wrote similarly in "Klal Gadol" regarding the curtains of the Mishkan, see there. It is also implied by the words of the Rambam that we brought in the previous section, who wrote: one who separates the thread—is liable, provided he does not intend to cause damage. And if it should enter your mind that it is specifically for the purpose of tying, it would not be relevant to say that he should not intend to cause damage, as is understood; rather, certainly for untying alone one is liable if there is no damage in this. And this is the difference between tearing, which is certainly damage, therefore requiring for the purpose of sewing, which is not the case with untying, where the untying itself is the improvement. It is found, then, that this law is a matter of dispute, for according to Rashi and the Rambam one does not require untying for the purpose of tying, and according to the Tosafot and the Rosh one requires for the purpose of tying; and such appears to be the opinion of the Bartenura in the commentary on the Mishnayot.

There are three divisions regarding knots: liability for a chatat, exempt but forbidden, and permitted ab initio. According to the approach of the Rambam: any knot that is permanent, which one ties forever, and is the work of a craftsman, such that a layman is unable to make such a knot—one is liable for a chatat. And any knot that is permanent but is not the work of a craftsman, which even a layman can make, or the work of a craftsman but is not permanent, which he tied for a duration—is exempt but forbidden. And any that is not permanent and is not the work of a craftsman—is permitted ab initio.

This is the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 10: "One who ties a permanent knot and it is the work of a craftsman – is liable, such as the knot of camel drivers and the knot of sailors and the knots of straps of a shoe and a sandal that the cobblers tie at the time of their making, and anything similar to this. But one who ties a permanent knot and it is not the work of a craftsman – is exempt. And a knot that is not permanent and is not the work of a craftsman - it is permitted to tie it at the outset. How so: if a strap snapped for him and he tied it, a rope snapped and he tied it, or if he tied a rope to a bucket or tied a rein of an animal - behold, this one is exempt, and likewise similar to these knots which are the work of a layman and every person ties them permanently. And any knot that is not permanent and its tying is the work of a craftsman - behold, this is forbidden." Thus far his words. And he did not need to explain what are 'not permanent' and not 'the work of a craftsman,' because most knots in the world are so. (And it must be said according to the Rambam that that which they said at the beginning of the chapter 'And these are the knots' that the knot they tie in a nose-ring and the knot they tie in a ship's cable involve a prohibition, it is also a craftsman's knot, but it is not permanent.)

The method of the Tur, which is the method of Rashi, is not so, for there is no distinction between knots that are professional work and those that are not professional work, but rather between a permanent knot and one that is not permanent. However, regarding that which is not permanent, there are two types: namely, a knot that is untied every day is permitted ab initio, and a knot for a period of time is exempt but forbidden, and a permanent knot is liable for a sin offering even if it is not professional work. There are also opinions regarding the duration of time, as will be explained that some permit ab initio even for more than one day; however, this is the essence of this method.

This is the wording of the Tur: "Any knot that is intended to remain permanently—one is liable for a chatat for its tying and its untying, whether it is the work of a craftsman or a layman. And that which is intended to remain for seven days—one is exempt but it is forbidden… and that which is intended to be untied every day—it is permitted ab initio." Thus far his words. And his words require scrutiny, for previously he said that for permanently—one is liable, which implies explicitly that if it is not permanently—one is exempt but it is forbidden, and afterward he said that for seven days—one is exempt but it is forbidden, which implies that for more than this one is liable. And also, from that which he said for seven days—one is exempt but it is forbidden, it implies explicitly that less than this is permitted ab initio, and afterward he said that that which is intended to be untied every day—it is permitted ab initio, which implies that more than this is forbidden, and the commentators were hard-pressed regarding his intention (see Beit Yosef and Bach and Taz subsection 1, and the observer will see how much of a difficulty there is, see there).

In my humble opinion, it appears that the Tur took the definitive cases: for forever—one is certainly liable for a hatat; for seven days—it is certainly exempt but forbidden; and that which one unties every day—it is certainly permitted ab initio. However, between seven days and forever there are differences of opinion, as will be explained, and likewise between one day and up to seven days there are differences of opinion, and the Tur did not descend to decide this. When he came to rule the halacha, he ruled that only that which is made to be untied every day is permitted and no more, because there are various opinions regarding this. In Rashi there it is explained accordingly: that a knot which one leaves for a week or two weeks—one is exempt but it is forbidden, and that which they tie and untie every day—it is permitted ab initio, see there. There is one who wrote that more than seven days is considered permanent and one is liable for a hatat (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ri"f), and there is one who wrote that half a year is called permanent and one is liable for a hatat (ibid. in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham), and there is one who wrote that for more than one day it is forbidden by rabbinic law (ibid. in the name of Mahara"i and Orchot Chaim).

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema: "And there are those who say that any knot that is not made to be untied on that same day is called 'permanent,' and there are those who are lenient, saying that until seven days it is not called 'permanent.'" Thus far his words. And his intention is not that "permanent" refers to liability for a hatat, but rather that it is exempt but forbidden. And those who are lenient hold that until seven days it is permitted ab initio (Magen Avraham, subsection 1 and subsection 2), and this is the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book according to his understanding of the words of the Tur, see there, but it is not definitive. And there are those who disagree regarding this (Turei Zahav, subsection 1) and hold that it depends on his intent at the time of the tying (ibid. and in the Bayit Chadash), and this too is not definitive. And the primary law for the halachic ruling: that any knot that is not made to be untied every day, such as the knots of garments, a shirt, trousers, and the like, but rather it is their way for the knot to remain for several days or more than one day—in any event, it is forbidden to tie it on Shabbat and likewise to untie it, for in any place where tying is forbidden, untying is also forbidden.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And some say that one must be careful not to untie any knot that consists of two knots one on top of the other, for we are not experts in what is called a professional knot, for even if it is not permanent, it is forbidden to tie it, and the same law applies to untying it, and such is the custom. Nevertheless, it appears that in a case of pain one need not be concerned and it is permitted to untie it, for it is only a rabbinic prohibition, and in a case of pain they did not decree. And that which we require two knots one upon the other, this is when one ties two things together. But if one made a knot at one end of a thread or a cord—its law is like two knots." Thus far his words. And this is according to the view of the Rambam, that every professional knot is prohibited even if it is not permanent, and we are not experts in what constitutes a professional knot, and perhaps because the professional ties with great tightness and two knots are very tight, and in a single thing even one knot is tight. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 4, who wrote in the name of the Shiltei HaGiborim, 'however it appears from the wording of the Rif that it is a knot that they tie very tightly,' thus far his words, which implies that the Shiltei HaGiborim does not hold like our teacher, the Rema, and on the contrary, the Shiltei HaGiborim himself concludes that therefore two knots one on top of the other are forbidden, see there, and so wrote the Machatzit HaShekel, and there is some error here in the Magen Avraham, and examine it closely.)

However, the essence of these matters is perplexing, for if it depends only on strength, why did they say "the work of a craftsman," as it would not depend on craftsmanship but rather on tightness and looseness. Furthermore, since they said a permanent knot and the work of a craftsman, and every permanent knot is presumably made with strength, for how could they make a permanent knot with looseness, and the work of a craftsman is in addition to this. And it is simple that the work of a craftsman is that in the very making of the knot there is some craftsmanship, which a layman cannot perform. And it also does not seem correct to say that what the Rambam wrote—that a craftsman's knot that is not permanent is exempt but forbidden—that his intention was regarding a knot made to be untied every day. And in my humble opinion, it appears that the primary intention of our teacher, the Rema, is regarding the "there are those who are lenient" that up to seven days it is permitted ab initio, and when there are two knots one on top of the other, it is close to making the knot like the work of craftsmanship, and likewise with a knot at one end of a thread or a cord, or when it snaps in the middle and they tie it with strength so that it will be permanent (Shiltei HaGibborim). But those that are untied every day—certainly there is no concern, and in a case of pain—even with two knots they were not concerned, and even when tied for several days, for in a case of pain they did not decree. And all the more so in a case of a mitzvah, they wrote explicitly that knots which are exempt but forbidden, in a case of a mitzvah—it is permitted ab initio.

Regarding the matter of shoe and sandal straps, there are several distinctions of laws in the Gemara (111a), and this is according to the shoes and sandals of their days which had many knots and loops, and in our times they are not known at all. Also, the Rambam mentioned only the straps of a shoe and sandal that the craftsmen make at the time of their manufacture, and they are permanent, and one who ties or unties them is liable for a chatat; he also mentioned the straps of a shoe and sandal that one ties upon the foot at the time of putting them on, which is permitted ab initio, see there. And in the Gemara there are also straps for which one is exempt but it is forbidden, and these are those straps where one removes the shoe from the foot even without untying the straps, and only occasionally does one untie them, see there; and in the days of the Rambam there were no such straps, and therefore he did not mention them. The Tur did not mention them at all, because in his days there were no straps at all in the shoes as in our times, and if there are places where they make straps in their shoes, they shall be understood according to the details that have been explained.

The Rambam wrote there in law 4: "If the straps of a shoe or sandal slipped out, or if the majority of the foot slipped out—it is permitted to return the straps to their place, provided that he does not tie" thus far his words, and it is a Tosefta in chapter 13, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote it in section 2 (and it is a wonder regarding the Taz subsection 3 that he did not see the words of the Rambam and the Tosefta, see there). And this is its explanation: that the straps that go through the holes around the shoe slipped out entirely, or even if they did not slip out entirely but rather because of the majority of the circumference of the foot they slipped out—it is permitted to return them to their place. For even though with a new shoe it is forbidden to insert the straps on Shabbat, as it is fixing a vessel (Magen Avraham subsection 7), nevertheless when they slipped out—he is permitted to return them. However, if he wishes to tie them at their ends so that they do not slip out again—it is forbidden, as it is like a permanent knot. And even if only the majority slipped out such that he only needs to return one end, if he wishes to tie this one end—it is also forbidden. And in the Tosefta it says further: "If its toe-piece slipped out—he may return it, provided that he does not tie."

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: "And specifically if he can return it without exertion, but if it requires exertion for this—it is forbidden, for we fear perhaps he will tie it" Thus far his words. That is to say, the returning itself has no prohibition in it, since the straps were inside it, but rather that when the returning involves exertion—we fear that he will have pity on his exertion and tie them at their ends, so that they do not slip out another time and he would need to exert himself. And the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch took issue with him, for the Tosafot and the Rosh at the beginning of the fourth chapter wrote explicitly that in a place where there is a concern of tying, even in a wide hole where there is no exertion—it is forbidden, and in a place where the hole is narrow and there is exertion—it is forbidden due to exertion even without a concern of tying (Taz subsection 4 and Magen Avraham subsection 9 and Eliyah Rabbah and Tosefet Shabbat). And I say that there is no contradiction from there, for the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote regarding a cloak which is an outer garment and large in its size, and therefore when there is exertion it is certainly not proper to exert oneself so much on Shabbat, which is not the case with shoes which are small in size. And that which they wrote that when there is a concern of tying it is forbidden even in a wide hole where there is no exertion, this is in a place where it is their way to tie, as is clear from their wording where they wrote: 'For in a manner that it is common to insert and tie etc.' Thus far his words, that is to say that such is the way of the world, and our teacher, the Rema, was not dealing with such cases. And in the Hagahot Mordechai chapter 4, I found explicitly like his words, and this is his wording: "Our teacher Shmuel bar Natronai ruled that the straps of a jacket that slipped out—it is permitted to return them on Shabbat, and so ruled the Geonim… provided that it be in that manner where we do not need to fear perhaps he will insert it [tightly], such as when the hole is large, that he can return it without exertion" Thus far his words; behold, it is explicitly like the words of our teacher, the Rema. And even if we say that they argue with the Tosafot and the Rosh, since this is regarding a rabbinic matter we follow the lenient view, and so it appears in my humble opinion to be the primary view.

It has already been explained that with a new shoe it is forbidden to insert the straps on Shabbat, for he is fixing a vessel, and the same law applies to a garment or to trousers (Magen Avraham, subsection 7). However, a belt—it is permitted to insert into trousers in a place where it is customary to do so, because he does not nullify it there and will remove it again, and there is no fixing of a vessel here (ibid.). But a string or a cord—it is forbidden to insert, for he nullifies it there. And if it had already been there and slipped out—it has already been explained in the previous section.

And know that in the Tosefta, regarding all those of which it was taught "he may not tie," it says further: "A basket of dates and a rope of dates and a rope of dried figs—he may tear and eat, provided that he does not tie. This is the rule: Any knot that is permanent but he can untie it with one of his hands, or that is not permanent and he cannot untie it with one of his hands—one is not liable for it, until it is a permanent knot and he cannot untie it with one of his hands." Thus far its words, and none of the poskim brought this Tosefta. And according to the Rambam, it would be interpreted according to its plain meaning, that a professional knot presumably cannot be untied with one of his hands, and according to this, we have a definition of what is a professional knot. And according to Rashi, it would be interpreted that "permanent" is not called permanent until he cannot untie it with one of his hands.

And it appears explicitly that the poskim rejected this Tosefta from the halacha, because these are the words of Rabbi Meir who said in the Mishnah at the beginning of the chapter "And these are the knots" (Shabbat 111b) that for any knot that one can untie with one of his hands - one is not liable for it, and the halacha is not like Rabbi Meir, as the Bartenura and the Rambam wrote in the commentary on the Mishnah, because the halacha is like the sages, and they hold that this Tosefta was taught according to Rabbi Meir and is not the halacha. However, in any event, we have heard from this that a permanent knot does not need to be very strong, for even if one can untie it with one of his hands - one is liable for it. And according to this, one must warn the women who have many knots in their garments, and the knots are not made to be untied every day, and are made to beautify the garments but were made such that one can easily untie them with one of his hands - it is forbidden to untie them and to tie them, and they are close to coming to the prohibition of stoning. And so too regarding men with the knot at the back of the trousers, which is a permanent knot except that occasionally over a period of time they widen it or shorten it - that it is forbidden on Shabbat to untie it or to tie it, even though one can untie it with one of his hands. And also this knot and its like are a Torah prohibition, unless they are made with a slipknot, for then it is permitted to tie them and to untie them.

Sewing is a primary labor, and its measure is two stitches, such that he inserts the needle twice and draws out the thread and ties the two ends of the thread, for if not so, it does not endure. And with three stitches he does not need to tie, for even without tying it endures, and in the Mishkan there was sewing in the curtains that were torn. And one who tears in order to sew two stitches and is forced to do this, such as when the garment was not sewn evenly and protrudes a bit and he must tear the garment below and rub it a bit before him and the sewing settles (Gemara and Rashi at the beginning of the chapter HaOreg), and in the Mishkan it was in a curtain when a worm fell upon it and made in it a small and round hole, and it is necessary to tear below and above the hole so that the sewing will not be made with many wrinkles (Gemara and Rashi 75a). And we have already written in siman 313, section 6, that even though regarding extinguishing in order to kindle we require specifically that by means of the extinguishing the kindling will be better than without the extinguishing, and if not so it would be a labor not needed for its own sake, nevertheless regarding demolishing in order to build—this is not necessary, for the reason we explained there, and so it must be said regarding tearing in order to sew and regarding untying for the one who requires it to be in order to tie, for that same reason that was explained there; see there.

A derivative of sewing: One who glues papers together with paste, or skins to one another, or other types of goods when he glues them to one another—it is a derivative of sewing and he is liable, for what difference is there to me between joining by means of sewing or joining by means of glue. And even though for the sewing of the parchments of a Sefer Torah glue is not effective, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 278, it is different there because it is a law given to Moses at Sinai that specifically sewing is required, as we brought there from the Yerushalmi of Megillah, see there, and behold even sewing with threads is invalid, but rather specifically with sinews as is written there. But in all places, sewing and gluing are the same matter, regarding shaatnez and the like. And if you should ask that if so, tying and sewing are one and the same, for tying also joins things to one another. This is not so, for the joining of a knot is fit to be untied and returned to its original state, which is not the case with sewing and gluing, for when one wishes to return them to their original state, he must necessarily ruin them and tear them from one another, which is not the case with tying.

And the derivative of tearing was also written by the Rambam in chapter 10, law 11, and this is his wording: "And so too one who separates attached papers or attached skins and did not intend only to destroy—this is a derivative of tearing and he is liable." Thus far his words. And regarding tearing, he wrote previously: "One who tears in order to sew, but one who tears to destroy it—is exempt," see there, and regarding the separating of papers he did not write this phrasing. It appears to me that this is because every act of tearing is destructive, and of necessity requires "in order to sew." However, in the separating of papers, not every separation involves destruction, and therefore if he is not destroying—there is no requirement of "in order to fasten," just as with untying there is no requirement of "in order to tie" according to his approach, as I wrote in section 2, see there; but in the Tosafot it is explained otherwise, as I wrote there.

The Rambam wrote there: "One who tears in his anger or over one for whom he is obligated to tear—he is liable, because he settles his mind with this matter and his impulse will rest, and since his anger is soothed by this matter—he is like one who repairs and is liable." Thus far his words. This is according to his approach, as he ruled that a melakhah which is not needed for its own sake makes one liable, but according to the poskim who rule like Rabbi Shimon—he is exempt, and so it is in the Gemara (105b). And according to Rashi, of blessed memory, he is exempt according to Rabbi Shimon even regarding his deceased for whom he is obligated to tear, because the repair of a mitzvah is not considered by Rabbi Shimon to be called "needed for its own sake," as was written in the previous siman, section 27. However, the Tosafot wrote there that regarding his deceased—even according to Rabbi Shimon he is liable, because there is also in this a repair of the garment, meaning that through the tearing it is permitted for him to wear it, see there, and he is only exempt according to Rabbi Shimon in one who tears in his anger. And we have already written in the previous siman, section 26, that the Ra'avad and other Rishonim disagree with the Rambam, for even according to Rabbi Yehuda one is not liable for that which soothes his impulse since this is a great transgression, and the Rambam did not hold so, as was written there.

We say in the Gemara (48a): One may loosen the neck-opening on Shabbat but one may not open it, and one who opens a neck-opening on Shabbat is liable for a chatat. Rashi and Tosafot explained that one opens the neck-opening anew which was completely closed, and he tears the neck-opening and opens it. Therefore, Rashi explained that his liability is due to makeh b'patish, as this is the completion of the garment's labor; and "loosening the neck-opening" refers to when they tie it at the time of laundering, and it is a knot intended to be opened and therefore it is permitted ab initio. The Rambam there wrote simply that one who opens a neck-opening is liable for a chatat, and did not explain why he is liable. According to the Rambam, we are able to say that his liability is due to kore'a, since there is a constructive purpose in his tearing, as I wrote in section 19. And there are those who explain that "opening a neck-opening" is not the initial opening of a new opening, as it was already opened on a weekday but he closed it by means of a light sewing with a thread or a cord, and he opened this thread or cord on Shabbat—and he is liable due to the completion of a vessel (Kessef Mishneh in the name of the Ritva from the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel; and so I saw in the name of the son of the Rambam in the book Ma'aseh Rokeach; and according to this, the difficulty of the Gemara there is well-settled: "And what is the difference between this and the cover of a barrel," see there, and it answers "this is a connection etc." because he sewed it, see there and examine carefully).

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 3: "One may untie the neck-opening from a knot that a launderer tied, as it is not a permanent knot; however, one may not open it for the first time, as he is 'fixing a vessel,' even if it had already been opened but the craftsman went back and tied it or sewed it together in the manner that craftsmen do." Thus far their words. And some have written that this permission to untie the neck-opening applies when they are accustomed to untie it on that very day (Taz subsection 5 and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 11), and I wonder at this, for if so, what is the novelty and what does the Shas come to teach us regarding this statement that one may untie the neck-opening? And if it is because it teaches us that it is not a knot of professional craftsmanship, that would be fine according to the system of the Rambam but not according to the system of Rashi and Tosafot. Furthermore, the phrasing "which is not permanent" written by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch does not imply this. And in my humble opinion, it appears that this knot is for several days while the laundering continues, and nevertheless it is permitted ab initio since it is made for the purpose of opening it after the laundering, and this is what the Shas, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch come to teach us. That is to say, since it is not permanent such that there would be a Torah prohibition—the sages did not forbid it for the reason we have written. (And the Rambam omitted this law of untying the neck-opening, for since he wrote that any knot that is not professional craftsmanship is permitted, it is consequently included in everything; nevertheless, it requires some further study, and delve into it.)

And that which they wrote, that when the craftsman returned and tied it or sewed it, it is forbidden to open it, the intention is not that the knot is the work of a craftsman, but rather the intention is that he cannot untie it unless he cuts the threads, and therefore it is forbidden (Magen Avraham, subsection 11), for they permitted untying but not cutting the threads. And even though he is a destroyer, nevertheless it is forbidden by rabbinic law; and furthermore, when the craftsman returned and tied it or sewed it, when he comes now to open it, it is like a new act. And they wrote further: that therefore it is forbidden to sever or cut a pair of shoes sewn together in the manner that craftsmen do, even though the sewing is not lasting, for there is no distinction in sewing between that which is lasting and that which is not lasting; and there are those who permit in the case of sewing that is not lasting, and one should not permit it in the presence of an unlearned person. Thus far his words.

Superficially, it would seem that the first opinion which forbids detaching or cutting holds this reason because it maintains that detaching or cutting was never permitted, even though it is destructive. But the truth is not so, for they only forbade that which a craftsman does; even if it is not a craftsman's act, nevertheless it is like a new matter, according to the second explanation we wrote in the previous section, and even in this there are those who permit, because this is not related at all to the craft of the shoe. But a shirt or trousers or another garment where the laces became knotted such that it is impossible to untie them, which are called "far-knotted" — the great authorities ruled that it is permitted to detach them according to all opinions, for it is only made to be untied whenever one wishes, and even this should not be done before an unlearned person but rather in private (Magen Avraham ibid. in the name of Maharshal and Bach), and only with craftsman's knots is it forbidden to detach, but with other knots it is permitted. And if one is not accustomed to untie the knot of the shirt except from Sabbath to Sabbath — there are those who say that one should not untie them on the Sabbath (ibid.). And it appears to me that this is when one is particular not to untie them, but when one is not particular, rather sometimes he unties them every night and sometimes he does not untie them — it is permitted to untie them on the Sabbath, and such is the common custom.

We hold that a loop is not considered a knot and is permitted in every manner, even two loops one on top of the other and even if it is made to endure for a long time, for it is not a knot. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 that even if one makes one knot below—it is the custom to treat it as permitted. Thus far his words. However, in the Mordechai he wrote this as a prohibition, and so it appears, for what benefit is the loop above since beneath it there is a complete knot? They wrote that the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is specifically regarding a knot intended to be untied on the same day (Magen Avraham subsection 16 and Taz subsection 7), but it is not understood, for if so, there is no need for the permission of the loop, and if it is to inform us that it is not the work of a craftsman, what does this have to do with that? And perhaps because he already wrote that two knots one on top of the other are forbidden on the grounds that this is like the knot of a craftsman, as he wrote in section 9, he informs us that with a loop on top of a knot it is not so. Therefore, with a loop on top of a knot intended for a duration of several days, such as a lulav and the like—it is forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Tov, and one should only make a loop or a loop on top of a loop.

A bucket that stands near a well and one wishes to draw water with it by means of tying a rope—it is forbidden to tie the rope to it, because it is likely that he will nullify it and leave it thus in its tied state, and it would be a permanent knot. And even if his intention at the time of its tying is not to leave it there, we fear lest afterwards he will change his mind and leave it, for so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book in the name of the Kol Bo, and this is his wording: "Any knot that one sometimes reconsiders and nullifies forever, even though its initial making was not for the purpose of leaving it there—is forbidden. Therefore, it is forbidden to tie the strap of the trousers (behind him), for sometimes he reconsiders and nullifies it there forever until it wears out." Thus far his words (Magen Avraham, subsection 20).

And even if he wishes to tie a precious rope, such as a craftsman's rope which he would certainly not nullify to the bucket—nevertheless it is forbidden, for we decree regarding this rope on account of an ordinary rope. However, it is permitted to tie the bucket with a cord or with a belt and the like, for these are not of the species of ropes that we should decree on account of a rope, and therefore it is permitted to tie with them. But with a slipknot—it is permitted with a rope, and we do not decree regarding a slipknot on account of tying, for a rope may be confused with a rope, but a slipknot is not confused with tying (113a). And all this is regarding a bucket that is by the well, but a bucket that they use in the house and one takes it to draw water—it is permitted to tie it with a rope, because he will certainly untie it immediately. However, if this bucket is designated for drawing water—even if it is in his house, it is forbidden, as is understood.

It is permitted to tie a rope across the opening where an animal stands so that it does not exit, because he does not nullify this rope there, for when he needs to take the animal out, it is necessary for him to untie the rope, and it is the way of an animal to exit every day. Furthermore, he may even tie two ropes, one above the other, and we do not fear that perhaps he will untie one and leave the second and take it out with difficulty. Furthermore, he may even tie the rope at both ends of the opening, and we do not fear that perhaps he will untie one end of the rope and leave the second tied since the animal will exit with ease; nevertheless, we do not fear this because it is not the way of people to act thus, since for the most part there are doors, and this is a case where it has no doors or they fell, and one only does this as a temporary occurrence, and therefore we do not fear.

But it is forbidden to tie a rope to the cow around its neck and tie the second end to the trough where it eats, because it is very likely that one will untie one end and leave its second end tied, since this is necessary every day. However, with a craftsman's rope, where he will certainly untie both ends—it is permitted, and we do not decree it on account of an ordinary rope as we do with a bucket, because even an ordinary rope is not commonly a permanent tie, and therefore it is sufficient that they forbade it with an ordinary rope. And even with an ordinary rope which is forbidden, it is only when tying both ends now to the trough and to the animal. But if one side was already tied to the trough and he wants to tie it to the cow, or if it was tied to the cow and he wants to tie it to the trough—it is permitted with any rope, for presumably he will untie that side which he tied now and not the second side. And the general rule of the matter regarding knots: one must be careful to do so by means of a slipknot, which is permitted in every case, for there are types of knots on boxes of women's jewelry where the knots remain for a long time, and one needs caution in this and similar cases. And it is obvious that the knots of tzitzit are forbidden.