Siman 319

Selecting food from within waste is a primary category of labor, and similarly, one who winnows in the wind to select the grain from the chaff is a primary category of labor. And we do not say that the wind completed the labor and not the person, for regarding Shabbat the Torah prohibited "thoughtful labor," and when he causes the winnowing and the wind assists him, it is thoughtful labor; therefore, he is liable for causing this winnowing. And even though regarding damages this is called causation and he is exempt, nevertheless regarding Shabbat this is called an action and not causation, for this is the way of the labor of winnowing and his intent was fulfilled, as he is pleased with the wind, and it is included in the general rule of "you shall not do any labor" (Bava Kamma 60a, and Rashi and Tosafot ibid.). Therefore, even though regarding Shabbat we also expound: "it is the doing that is prohibited, but causation is permitted" (Shabbat 120b), however, this is not called causation regarding Shabbat, for the way of its labor is such, and regarding Shabbat the Torah prohibited thoughtful labor, that which is considered labor among people. And similarly, one who sifts flour to separate the bran from the flour—is a primary category of labor. And these three were considered primary categories of labor, and all of them were in the Mishkan in the labor of the dyes, for they selected, sifted, and winnowed them in the wind.

And even though these three, when we examine them closely, are all one labor—to separate the food from the refuse—the Gemara (73b) indeed raised this difficulty. This is the wording of the Shas: "Zoreh is the same as borer, and is the same as meraked. Abaye and Rava both said: Any matter that was in the Mishkan, even though there is another that resembles it, is counted." That is to say, since we learn the labors of Shabbat from the Mishkan, therefore, anything where there is a distinction in the labors, even though their foundation is one, each is considered on its own. And this is it: borer is by hand, zoreh is by wind, and meraked is with a sieve, and they were counted as three. And one must warn specifically with its name, and if they warned regarding borer because of zoreh or meraked, he is not liable for stoning, and likewise for all of them, because they were divided into three avot.

The derivatives of these labors: One who curdles, who places congealed milk in a vessel and the milk-water, which is the whey, drips out—and this is called "serovetka"—is liable on account of borer (95a). And so it appears to me that when they make butter and there remains in them the liquid called "mashlinka," and he pours them from the butter or takes the butter from within them—he is liable on account of borer. And so those who make cheeses by means of setting with rennet, where the waste remains in them and he takes them from the waste—it is a derivative of borer. And one who strains dregs is either a derivative of borer or a derivative of meraked, and in the Gemara (138a) there is a dispute regarding this: for Rava said it is on account of borer, and Rabbi Zera said it is on account of meraked, and it has not been clarified for us like whom the halacha follows. And it appears that even to the Rambam the halacha was not clear, for he wrote in chapter 8, law 11: "And so one who selects dregs from within liquids—this is a derivative of borer or a derivative of meraked and he is liable." Thus far his words. And according to this, when they come to warn him, they should either warn him on account of the straining itself, for we have already clarified in siman 242 that even when one warns on account of the derivative—he is liable. However, if they wish to warn on account of the primary labor, they must warn him for both. And this is not called a "doubtful warning," and furthermore, the Rambam ruled that a doubtful warning is considered a warning in chapter 16 (law 4) of Sanhedrin. And the measure of all of them is like a dried fig, and for straining it appears to me that its measure is a revi'it, according to the law of most liquids (and according to Rashi 138a, a warning for meraked is sufficient).

In the Yerushalmi in the chapter "Klal Gadol" on the Mishnah of the primary categories of labor, it says: "Rabbi Yudan said: There is one who selects pebbles all day and does not become liable, and there is one who takes the volume of a dried fig and immediately becomes liable. How is this so? He was sitting on top of a pile and selected pebbles all day—he does not become liable; he took the volume of a dried fig into his hand and selected—he is liable." Thus far his words. We have learned from this that anyone who selects or winnows, as long as he has not finished selecting or winnowing the pile before him—he is not liable. However, by rabbinic decree it is certainly forbidden, and therefore the poskim did not mention this. However, regarding sifting this does not apply, for in sifting, the good flour falls through the holes of the sieve, and the flour with the waste remains in the sieve, and once a dried fig's volume of good flour has emerged—he is liable; and similarly in selecting food from waste, when he has selected a dried fig's volume—he is liable. And regarding winnowing this does not apply, for the wind only knocks down the chaff, and when one winnows with a winnowing shovel—it is a derivative of winnowing and he is liable. And know that in the language of the poskim, and similarly the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in this siman, they included everything in the term "selecting," for the distinctions in names have no practical difference except regarding the matter of warning, but regarding the matter of the prohibition it is all one, and also in the Gemara (74a) it is so, see there (where it says: "one may not select with a sieve or a sifter," see there. And it is stated in the Yerushalmi that regarding chaff, sand, and dust—one is liable on account of sifting, see there, for in every matter there is a liability of sifting).

There is no distinction in borer between one who selects food from within waste and one who selects waste from within food—for in all of them one is liable for a chatat. And so it is explicitly in the Gemara, for in one place it says (138.): "What is the way of a borer—he selects food and leaves the waste," and in another place it says (74.): "Waste from within food he shall not select, and if he selected—he is liable for a chatat." And according to the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot there, the matter is as follows: that one always selects the minority from within the majority, for when the waste is the majority it is the way to select the food, and when the food is the majority it is the way to select the waste, see there; however, as a matter of law it is all one, even from the Torah. And according to the Rambam there is a distinction, for in waste from within food—he is always liable, even if he selected by hand in order to eat immediately—he is liable. And in food from within waste: to eat immediately—it is permitted, as will be explained with the help of Heaven; and so regarding a meraked we say there: "What is the way of a meraked, waste is above and food is below," see there. However, if the sifting is the opposite, food above and waste below—he is also liable, for what is the difference.

The obligation regarding borer is not specifically for food and refuse, for the same law applies even to two types of food mixed with one another, such as figs and grapes, and he selected one type from the second—he is liable. For when he selected the type he desired, the second type which he did not desire became like refuse in relation to the type he desired (Tosafot 74a, s.v. 'Hayu'). The Rambam wrote similarly, and in the Yerushalmi there is a dispute regarding this, and he ruled like the one who holds him liable; see there. And it says there that this is specifically with two types, but with one type, to select the large ones from the small ones or vice versa, or black ones from white ones and such like—it is not called borer. This is the wording of the Yerushalmi: "One who selected foods from within foods: Hezekiah said—he is liable... according to the opinion of Hezekiah, even [large] rounds from within [small] rounds, even pomegranates from within pomegranates? Or perhaps so, even people from within people," thus far its words. And this is its explanation: that it asks if according to the opinion of Hezekiah it is also forbidden with one type to select one from the other, and it rejects this: 'Or perhaps so, even people etc.', meaning that if so, you would also say when one selects people from among people you would say that there is borer in this, in wonderment, and it went to extremes to reject this matter. And I saw one of the great authorities who wrote that even with one type borer is applicable (Taz, subsection 2), and these are astonishing words. (The Tosefet Shabbat also challenged him, and the Eliyah Rabbah appears to have understood the Yerushalmi as saying this simply, that according to Hezekiah this too is called borer; see there. And his words are astonishing, for the Yerushalmi says this in the language of a question and rejects it, and so the Pnei Moshe explained; see there. And that which the Taz brought from the Maharil regarding crushed matzah, certainly flour from crumbs is borer even from one type, and similarly the white of an egg from the yolk or vice versa, as the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 16, and similarly in the Rambam and Tur and Shulchan Aruch specifically two types of food; and examine this carefully.)

The obligation of borer is not specifically regarding types of food, for behold we say in Shabbat (74b): "Rava said: One who makes a barrel is liable for seven sin offerings; one who makes an oven is liable for eight sin offerings; one who makes a reed basket is liable for eleven sin offerings." Rashi explained: regarding a barrel, he selected the large pebbles from within them—behold there are two; and regarding an oven, he also explained similarly; and regarding a reed basket he wrote: "A beehive of reeds... he selected the beautiful ones, behold this is borer etc." see there. Behold, borer applies to everything. And the logic is so, for behold in the Mishkan there was borer with the dyes, and they too were not for eating (and so wrote the Taz in subsection 12).

And according to this, a great question must be asked, for how can we find our hands and feet in several matters? For example, when spoons, forks, and knives are lying mixed together, and we currently need knives and we select the knives from among them, or the spoons, or the forks. And similarly, when many garments are hanging on the wall and one needs two or three garments, and one takes all the garments from the wall and selects the needed garments and hangs the rest back on the wall. And similarly, if many books were lying mixed one on top of the other and one currently needs certain books, and one selects them and takes them. And similarly, on the table of the wealthy there are several types of small and large bowls, and for every food they select different bowls, and similarly in several matters; and if there is borer in everything, we would not find our hands and feet in many matters.

The answer to this matter is from two perspectives: The first is that regarding a matter that is very recognizable to the eye of the observer—the concept of borer does not apply to it, for this is not borer but merely taking, and all these things we have considered are visible to the eye, such as with clothes, vessels, and books, as is understood. And one should not say that two types of fruit are also visible to the eye, such as figs and grapes, for it is not so; because of their smallness and their abundance, one must select one from the other, which is not the case with clothes, vessels, and books. And the second: for it will be explained that at the time of eating, one may take food from the midst of waste and eat, for this is not the way of borer and the way of eating is such, and consequently, in all things that we need now—to wear the clothes, to use the vessels, and to study from the books—it is like the time of eating and borer does not apply to it. (And certainly to select books from one another in order to place them in their locations, or clothes from one another in order to hang them, and similarly with vessels, there is no permission according to this reason, but according to the first reason there is no prohibition in the matter, and one should look into this and examine it well.)

At the time of eating, one may select the food from within the waste and eat, for if not so, how would it be possible to eat on Shabbat? For every person, at the time they take with their hands to eat, must necessarily take the food and leave the waste, and in several types of foods there is waste; rather, certainly at the time of eating it is not relevant to say "selection." And specifically with his hand, but with a sifter or a sieve—it is selection. And likewise, specifically when he takes the food and leaves the waste, but if he takes the waste and throws it away, and afterwards eats the food—it is selection and he is liable for a chatat. And such is the law regarding two types of foods: when at the time of eating he takes that which he desires to eat and leaves that which he does not desire to eat—it is permitted; but if he takes that which he does not desire to eat and places it aside, and afterwards eats that which he desires to eat—it is selection and he is liable.

This is the wording of the Rambam there: "One who selects food from out of waste, or if there were before him two types of food and he selected one type from the other: with a sieve or a winnowing fan – he is liable; with a kanon or a tamchui – he is exempt; and if he selected by hand to eat immediately – it is permitted. And one who selects waste from out of the food, even with one hand – he is liable… One who selects food from out of waste by hand in order to set it aside even for that same day – he is considered like one who selects for a storehouse and is liable. If there were before him two types of mixed food – he may select one from the other and set it aside to eat immediately, but if he selected and set it aside for a later time, even for that same day, such as if he selected in the morning to eat in the afternoon – he is liable." Thus far his words. And we have learned from his words that anything that is not for eating immediately – in every case it constitutes borer and he is liable, and when he desires to eat immediately – it is permitted to select the food from out of the waste by hand and eat, but with a sieve or a winnowing fan – he is liable, and with a kanon and a tamchui, which are types of vessels like a kind of tube that is wide in the front and narrow in the back, and he places legumes with the waste in the wide part and shakes it, and the legumes, because they are round, fall through its narrow mouth and the waste remains inside (Rashi 74a) – and there is no liability for a chatat in this, for this is selecting in an atypical manner, and the primary form of borer is with a sieve or a winnowing fan (ibid.). And when he selects the waste – even by hand he is liable, and likewise with two types of food as has been explained.

And what is called "immediately"? Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: That which one selects for the needs of that same meal in which he is sitting down immediately is called "immediately," and even if others are eating with him it is permitted. Therefore, it is permitted to select the vegetable called "salat-in" from the decayed leaves within it, whatever is needed for that meal. Thus far his words. And we have learned from his words that everything one prepares before the meal for all the members of the meal—the category of "selection" does not apply to this, specifically regarding the selection of the food from the waste, and not the reverse as I have written. Therefore, they should be careful not to select the decayed parts, and even if they are fit to be eaten in a case of pressing need, since he does not want to eat them now, they are considered waste (Magen Avraham, subsection 3), for even regarding two types of complete foods it is so, as I have written. (And that which he said, that it is permitted also for the sake of others, is explained in the Gemara there: "One selects and eats immediately, one selects and sets aside immediately," and the Tosafot wrote: one selects and sets aside for the needs of others; see there.)

And behold, the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch is like the wording of the Rambam, and from their words it is clarified that whether it is food from waste or food from food: when one selects with his hand the food he wants to eat immediately for the meal prepared before him—it is permitted ab initio; and if he selects for a later time—it is considered like selecting for storage and he is liable. However, I have a powerful precision in their words: why regarding food from waste did they write: "One who selects food from waste to leave it even for that same day—it is considered like selecting for storage and he is liable," whereas regarding food from food they wrote: "And if he selected and left it for a later time, even for that same day, such as one who selects in the morning to eat in the afternoon—he is liable." Thus far their words. And why did they not write this wording previously regarding one who selects food from waste?

And it appears in my humble opinion that behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work addressed this, and wrote that from this wording it is implied that in one who selects food from within waste, even if he selected to eat in three or four hours – he is liable, and in food from within food – he is not liable unless he selected in the morning to eat in the afternoon. However, he does not know from where the Rambam has this distinction, and if he did not intend this, why did he change the wording. And his opinion is that only after an hour is he liable, and so wrote the Mordechai; see there. And according to this I am wondered, for if so, why did he also in the Shulchan Aruch write this wording, and according to this it appears that it was not clear to him.

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that it is certainly so: that regarding food from within food, the liability is only from the morning until the afternoon, but this is not so regarding food from within waste. This is proven from the sugya of the Shas, for on the baraita of two types of food, Ulla established it as follows: one may select and eat for that day, one may select and set aside for that day, but for the next day he shall not select, and if he selected he is liable for a sin offering. And Rav Chisda raised a difficulty against this: is it permitted to bake for that day? Is it permitted to cook for that day? Until Abaye subsequently established it: one may select and eat immediately, one may select and set aside immediately, but for that day he shall not select, and if he selected he is liable. And it must be understood what was the opinion of Ulla; did he not know that it is forbidden to perform melakha for that day? However, the matter is as follows: certainly in one who selects food from within waste, which is the essence of the melakha of selection, Ulla also would have held that when he selects for after an hour—he is liable. Rather, here, in one who selects food from food, where both are complete foods but we call "waste" those which he does not desire to eat, he was of the opinion that specifically when he has no desire at all to eat on Shabbat but rather for the next day, this one is considered food and this one as waste. But when he selects to eat on that day—it is nothing, for perhaps he will decide later to eat the second as well. However, Rav Chisda did not hold this reasoning, and Abaye explained that even for that day he is liable. Nevertheless, we do not make them a distant dispute, and the reasoning is also thus: that we require at any rate from meal to meal, which is from the morning until the afternoon, and regarding this it is relevant to say "food," for he will eat it in the morning meal, and regarding this "waste," for he will not eat it. But until after an hour or two or three, it is not relevant to call the second "waste," for perhaps until the second meal he will decide to eat the second as well (and the term "immediately" in the Gemara is not specifically "at once," as we find in Gittin 27, see there).

And know, that according to the Rambam, anyone who selects refuse from within food is liable, but this is not the opinion of the Tur, who holds that if the food is the majority, one may select the refuse. Furthermore, when the food is the majority, one selects the refuse, but when the refuse is the majority, it is forbidden even to move it, for the food is nullified by the refuse. And when does one select the food and leave the refuse: when the food is essentially the majority, but in the exertion of the selection there is more exertion in selecting the refuse, such as when it is fine, in such instances one takes the food and leaves the refuse, see there, and this is the approach of the Tosafot there. But the poskim did not agree to this, and this is what our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 4: "One who selects refuse from within food, even with one hand, is liable. And even if the food is the majority and there is more exertion in selecting the food—even so, one shall not select the refuse, even in order to eat immediately," thus far their words, and this is to exclude the words of the Tur. And also that which the Tur wrote, that when the refuse is the majority it is forbidden to move it because it is nullified by the majority, they also omitted. And their reasoning is clear, for how does nullification of food by refuse apply? Behold, it is perforce not nullified, for it stands to be eaten, and especially if the refuse is fit for animal consumption, behold it is permitted to be moved.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: That two types of fish are called two types of foods, and it is forbidden to sort one from the other except by hand in order to eat them immediately, even though the pieces are large such that each one is recognizable on its own. However, anything that is one type, even though one sorts large pieces from small ones—it is not called sorting. And even if they were two types and one sorts from both of them together the large ones from the small ones or vice versa—it is permitted, since one is not sorting one type from the other. Thus far his words, and his source is from the Terumat HaDeshen (siman 57). And he explained there that even though, ostensibly, the term sorting only applies when they are mixed such that they are not recognizable, and so it is explained from the wording of the Mordechai, and if so, since the fish are large pieces and each one is recognizable on its own, sorting should not apply, nevertheless one should not be lenient without clear proof; see there, and therefore our teacher, the Rema, wrote it without qualification. And nevertheless, it seems to my humble opinion that this is specifically when the pieces are numerous, but with four or five pieces where one takes one or two of them—it is not called sorting, and behold, this is a daily occurrence where they bring on the platter beef and chicken, which are certainly two types, and the mistress of the house takes the chicken from the platter to set aside for Shabbat morning. And so too with fish where they take two types like pike and carp, and she takes from the platter a piece or two or three pieces to set aside for Shabbat morning and without intent she takes from one type, is there Heaven forbid a concern of sorting in this? Rather, it is certainly as we have said. And know, that it is simple that even in one type, if some are a bit difficult to eat due to some reason—they are like refuse (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And sour and sweet apples, when both are fit for eating, it seems to me that they are not called two types. But apples and pears—they are two types. And so too when many pieces of bread of grain and of wheat are placed on the platter—they are two types, but grain and grain, even though one is sifted more, which they call sitnitsa—they are one type. (And in truth, if we come to judge the law of sorting regarding any two foods even if they are few, you have not left a way to live, and Heaven forbid to say so. And so it seems to my humble opinion that sorting is only when one acts in the manner of sorting with fine scrutiny to sort this from that, but with a mere taking, sorting does not apply.)

The poskim wrote that one who selects lupines from their waste is liable; that is to say, even though selecting food from waste is permitted when one wishes to eat immediately, nevertheless, regarding lupines, it is like selecting waste from food. The reason is because their waste sweetens them when they are boiled with it, and it is like selecting waste from food and he is liable. This law has not been clarified for us because we do not know what a lupine is. The matter, according to what appears from the Gemara, is: the lupine is essentially bitter and the waste sweetens it, and therefore the selection of the lupine is considered like waste from food and he is liable, and in places where this species exists they must do so, which is to say, to select them on the eve of Shabbat.

I have seen one who raises a general difficulty regarding the obligation of borer, that one who selects waste from food is liable; but is this not a melakhah she-einah tzerikhah le-gufah, for he has no need for the waste at all and his intent is only to cast the waste away from him, and it is like one who carries out a corpse to bury it (Mishnah Berurah in the name of Yeshuot Yaakov). And I wonder at this comparison, for with a corpse one has no need for the melakhah at all, but with borer one needs the food and cannot eat it except by separating the waste from it; if so, it is tzerikhah le-gufah. And perhaps you will say, would it not have been better for him if the waste had not been mixed in at all? If so, we would say this regarding several melakhot. Furthermore, our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, already taught us (31b, s.v. 've-soter') that in all melakhot we are liable just as it was in the Mishkan even if it is not tzerikhah le-gufah, such as in one who demolishes in order to build, even though the building is not better by way of the previous demolition; and similarly in one who tears in order to sew, and in one who extinguishes in order to kindle, it is necessary that the kindling be better by way of the extinguishing, and that is to make charcoal, and if not so, it is a melakhah she-einah tzerikhah le-gufah. Nevertheless, in demolishing and tearing this is not required, because in the Mishkan it was so; and now, borer too, since it was so in the Mishkan—he is liable, and we have already written this in siman 313.

It is stated in the Yerushalmi in the chapter "Klal Gadol": One who crushes garlic, meaning one who crushes the garlic, when he breaks the heads it is on account of dash, when he selects the husks it is on account of borer, etc. And it appears in my humble opinion that this is its explanation: that he takes many garlic bulbs and crushes them together, and through this the heads fall from them, and only the husks of all the garlic bulbs are mixed with the garlic and he selects the husks from the food, and therefore he is liable for the heads on account of dash, which is to say mefarek which is a derivative of dash. And when he selects all the husks from the garlic bulbs—he is liable on account of borer. But one who peels each garlic bulb individually and cuts the head and peels the husk, as is done with onions—there is in this neither disha nor borer, just as we perform actions every Shabbat where we peel onions and garlic bulbs one by one, just as we eat walnuts and almonds, where for each nut one throws away the shell, and this is the manner of their eating.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought this Yerushalmi at the end of siman 321 in his great work, and this is his wording: "The Smag, Smak, and the Terumah wrote that even so, it is not forbidden to peel garlic and onions to eat immediately, for that which is in the Yerushalmi refers to one who peels to leave aside, etc. And Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote that what the Yerushalmi forbade regarding removing its peel is specifically in order to crush it, but if he removes the peel to eat it as is – it is permitted, and such is the law regarding small onions. And Rabbeinu Peretz wrote specifically a little at a time, but to peel a large collection together – it appears like borer and is forbidden." Thus far the words of Rabbeinu Yerucham, see there. And based on this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote there: "It is forbidden to peel garlic and onions when he peels to leave aside, but to eat immediately – it is permitted, and see above, siman 319." Thus far his words.

And ostensibly it is implied from their words that to peel many garlics and onions is considered borer and is forbidden if one does not eat them immediately. And besides that it is not understood how borer applies to this, it is against an explicit Gemara in Beitzah (13b) regarding one who peels barley, where Rav and Rabbi Chiyya's wives would peel for them cupfuls, see there, and what is the difference to me between peeling barley or peeling onions and garlic. Furthermore, this pertains to mefarek, as Rashi explained there, and not to borer. Therefore, it appears to me that this is the explanation: their intention is not when one peels them and leaves the peels by themselves, but rather one peels them and the peels are mixed with them, as we explained regarding the Yerushalmi, and in this borer certainly applies. And regarding this they said that to eat immediately is permitted, and that is either to select the food and eat, or even to take the waste is permitted according to the opinion of the Tosafot and the Tur that we wrote in section 16 when the food is plentiful, see there. And Rabbeinu Yerucham permits even not for immediate use, for the Yerushalmi is dealing with one who peels in order to grind it, and in that case the selection is difficult. But in order to eat it as is—it does not become mixed, and there is no borer in this. And the Rav, our teacher Peretz, forbids in a large gathering, and this is all when they are mixed together, and also the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is so when they are mixed together, even though he did not write this explicitly, for if not so, borer does not apply to this. (And I have elaborated on this because it is the way of the daughters of Israel who store the feet for the Sabbath day in the morning, and some leave this for seudah shlishit, and they peel several onions and garlic for that purpose, and the author of the Magen Avraham raised an outcry over this, and therefore we have come out to find merit that they act according to the law, and delve into this.)

In ancient times they would eat melilot, as it is written: "and you may pluck ears with your hand," which means they would take stalks of grain and extract the food from within the stalks and eat, in the manner that we extract legumes from their pods, and extracting is a derivative of threshing. For this reason, the sages said in Shabbat (128a) regarding types of spices in such cases, that one may rub with his fingertips by means of a change, and not with the palm of his hand as he does on a weekday, and he rubs it with the fingertips and the food falls from it. And they did not decree lest he rub in his usual way with his whole palm, because even if he rubs [this way] he is not liable for a sin offering, for the primary definition of extracting is when one takes the food and extracts it with his hand directly. But when he rubs and the food falls, its prohibition is rabbinic even when he does so with the whole hand. Therefore, since they only permitted rubbing with his fingertips—we have no concern, and this is the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam in chapter 21. And there are some of our teachers who forbade rubbing grain and legumes entirely on Shabbat, as is implied in Beitzah (13b) that they only permitted rubbing on Yom Tov and not on Shabbat, and that which they permitted on Shabbat there, they only permitted in order to soften the food.

The primary view is according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, and the Tur ruled likewise, and this is what our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 6: "One may not rub ears of grain, but rather he rubs them with a slight change with his fingertips. And even though he detaches the food from within the stalks, since he only detaches in an atypical manner in order to eat (immediately) – it is permitted. And there are those who are stringent, and therefore it is forbidden to detach hazelnuts or large walnuts from within their green husks, and it is good to be stringent since he can eat them thus without detaching." Thus far his words, meaning to break them and eat them without detaching. But when he breaks them - it is permitted to peel the thin skin that is upon the food, for regarding this detaching does not apply, as detaching is only with the upper husk. And likewise with all types of legumes, the thin skin that is upon the fruit itself - it is permitted to peel it according to all opinions (the Graz), and he should only be careful that he does not peel more than what is needed for that eating which he desires to eat now, and not to store them for after a while (ibid.).

Behold, according to what has been explained, it is forbidden according to all opinions to detach by hand the food from within the stalks, and according to this, one must cry out against the practice of many who eat legumes such as "arbes" and "babes" when they are in their pods, and they detach them directly from the pods and eat, for behold, this is complete mefarek. And they do not rub them but rather break and extract the food, and it appears that not only is it forbidden, but there is a liability for a chatat in this, for behold, this is mefarek. And behold, regarding the legumes called "arbes," some have answered that since the pods are also fit for eating, this is not mefarek, but what shall we do regarding "babes," for these are not fit for eating, and also regarding "arbes," not all the pods are fit for eating. Therefore, one is obligated to inform the masses that there is no permission in the matter, and one who does so is liable if they were not detached from their place of attachment in the pods from the eve of Shabbat, and on Shabbat he may extract them one by one to eat them immediately, and the geniuses of the world have already cried out against this and there is no permission in this. (See Magen Avraham subsection 8, and Taz subsection 4, and the Ha-Geraz in section 9; and see Eliyah Rabbah subsection 12 who brought a reasoning in the name of Maharbi Shimon, the teacher of the Maharil, that mefarek is only in grain, where the food is merely resting in the stalks and not attached. But legumes are attached to the pod like fruit to a tree, and in this it is tilshah and not mefarek. Thus it results that the pod is like a branch that was severed from the tree, from which it is permitted to pluck the fruits, as written in siman 336; so it appears in my humble opinion to be the explanation of the matters. And perhaps this is what the Taz intended there when he noted to see in siman 336 section 8, for there this law was explained, see there. And all Torah scholars and those who fear G-d do not eat from pods on Shabbat, and also from the beginning of siman 510 it is explained as a prohibition, see there.)

If one had wheat that was rubbed from the eve of Shabbat but they are still mixed with their chaff—he may not winnow them with a kanon or a tamchui, and certainly not with a nafa or a kevara, as this involves borrer and he would be liable for a chatat. And he also may not winnow them with both his hands, meaning that he pours from hand to hand until the chaff is removed, for this is a weekday activity. Rather, he winnows with one hand and with all his strength, meaning that he takes them in hand and raises the hand and lowers it until the chaff passes, in order to do it by means of a shinui. And to blow with his mouth—it appears that it is certainly permitted.

Food mixed with waste that is forbidden to be sorted—it is also forbidden to place them into water so that the waste remains below, such as when the waste is soil, or so that it floats above, such as when it is straw, for this is also sorting and is forbidden. And similarly karsinim, which is a type of vegetable common in the Land of Israel and in Babylonia that contains waste—one may not soak them in water in order to float the waste to the top, and one also may not rub them by hand in order to remove the waste, because this is like sorting. However, one may place them in a sieve, but he may not sift. And even though the waste falls through the holes of the sieve on its own, and it turns out to be sorted, since he did not perform an action in this but only placed them in the sieve in the manner that one places them on any location and the waste only falls on its own—we have no concern with it, and for us it is not known what this is.

A strainer in which one strains dregs, even if it was hanging from the eve of Shabbat over the vessel into which the dregs flow—for in such a manner it is permitted on Yom Tov—nevertheless, on Shabbat, it is forbidden to place dregs into it to strain them, and one is liable for a chatat, as it is a derivative of borer or meraked (Gemara 138a). However, if one placed the dregs into it while it was still day, and the nature of the dregs is not to exit immediately, one may place water upon them on Shabbat so that they remain clear. And so we learned in the Mishnah (139b): One may place water upon dregs so that they may be clarified, and one may strain wine with cloths or with an Egyptian basket, meaning, so that the dregs shall be clarified and flow well.

And that which we filter wine, this is its explanation: that water and wine and all types of liquids that are fit for the drinking of most people, even though fastidious individuals would not drink them unless they filter them again—for example, if there is a small amount of floury sediment or some thin splinters—this is not called borer, since they are fit for drinking without the filtering. And if they are completely turbid, it is certainly forbidden, but it is not called borer because of some individuals who do not desire to drink without filtering. However, regarding the manner of filtering, there are distinctions: water and white wine—it is forbidden to filter them with cloths for another reason, and that is because of the prohibition of melaben, for the soaking of a garment is its laundering, as is written in siman 302. And with them, it was only permitted to filter with a mishmeret designated for that purpose even if it is made of cloth, for since it is made for this, he is not concerned with wringing it and is also not concerned with its whitening at all; therefore, its whitening is of no significance to forbid even if we say its soaking is its laundering. But with a cloth, the primary prohibition is lest he wring it since he is particular about it and it is laundering, and consequently regarding it we say its soaking is its laundering, but not with a mishmeret. And according to this, red wine and beer and other liquids that do not whiten and one is not concerned about wringing them—as will be explained in siman 320—for they soil the cloth and it is like the way of dirtying, which was explained in siman 302, it is permitted to filter them with a cloth. But when one filters with a cloth, the sages, of blessed memory, warned that he should not bend the cloth into it like a cavity because of shinui, so that he does not act in the way he acts on a weekday. And any place where it is permitted to filter with a cloth, it is also permitted to filter with an Egyptian basket, and this is a basket made of papyrus and types of willow, provided that he does not raise the basket from the bottom of the lower vessel because of shinui—and not that he should not raise it at all, but rather that he should not raise it a tefach, but less than a tefach is permitted. And a vessel made like a sieve with which one filters—its law is like a mishmeret, since it is designated for that purpose (Magen Avraham, subsection 13). And the Tur wrote the reason for raising a tefach is because of ohel, for anything that is a tefach high is an ohel; see there. And according to this, even with a cloth there is reason to be concerned because of ohel. Therefore, there is one who says that it is not permitted with a cloth unless it does not cover the entire opening of the vessel, for in this case it is not an ohel. But when it covers the entire vessel, it is forbidden because of the reason of ohel (Taz, subsection 11), and see what I wrote in siman 320, section 30.

And know that the Rambam, of blessed memory, prohibits using a mishmeret entirely, for in chapter 8, law 14, he wrote: "One who strains wine or oil or water, and similarly other liquids, in their mishmeret – is liable, provided that he strains the volume of a dried fig. But one may filter wine that contains no dregs or clear water with cloths or an Egyptian basket so that it will be extra clear etc." Thus far his words. And in chapter 21, law 17, he wrote: "Even though it is permitted to filter clear wine and clear water with cloths or an Egyptian basket – one may not make a hollow in the cloth, so that he does not act in the manner he acts during the weekday and come to strain with a mishmeret. And similarly, it is forbidden to hang the mishmeret in the manner he acts during the weekday, and come to strain." Thus far his words. Behold, he prohibits using a mishmeret entirely. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 10, that according to the Rambam, a mishmeret is forbidden even for clear wine and water; see there. And his reasoning appears to be from that which we learned in a Mishnah: "And one may put wine into cloths and into an Egyptian basket," implying specifically with them and not with a mishmeret, for with a mishmeret there is reason to decree that he might also put in those that are not clear, as is his way during the weekday.

But the words of the Rambam are against an explicit Gemara (139b): "Zeiri said: A person may place clear wine and clear water into a strainer on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned." Furthermore, it was taught there: That during the time of the winepresses, when all wines are turbid and people drink them with their dregs, a person may mix a barrel of wine, its wine and its dregs, and place it into a strainer on Shabbat and he need not be concerned, see there; and how could he rule against the Shas. And it is even more wondrous that he wrote this law there in chapter 8, and this is his wording: "And so too wine from its press, as long as it is fermenting, one may stir a barrel with its dregs and place it into cloths, for the dregs have not yet separated from the wine thoroughly, and all the wine is like a single body; and so too mustard and anything similar to it," thus far his words, and he changed the language of the Shas from "strainer" to "cloths." And there is one who wrote that the Rambam interpreted these "strainers" as being cloths (Lechem Mishneh). And certainly he interpreted it so, but it is a wonder from where he derived to interpret it so. And it appears that he was forced to this from that which was taught in the Mishnah previously: "One may not hang a strainer on Yom Tov, and one may not place [wine] into a hung [strainer] on Shabbat; one may place water upon the dregs so that they may be clarified, and one may strain wine with cloths, etc.", and since it left out the strainer that it was dealing with—and it should have said: 'and one may strain wine with it and with cloths'—learn from this that with a strainer, not at all. And for this reason, he was forced to interpret the "strainer" mentioned in the Gemara as cloths.

According to what has been explained, any liquid that is drunk as it is—one is permitted to strain it. Therefore, all types of brine from pickled cucumbers, such as brine of ogurkes or beet juice—one may strain them, for they can be drunk even without straining. Similarly, a liquid that contains straw or wood chips or flies—one may blow the waste to one side and drink, since without this it is drinkable (Be'er Heitev in the name of Leket HaKemach, subsection 10). Similarly, a drink of almonds crushed from the eve of Shabbat—it is permitted to strain them, since one can drink them without straining (Magen Avraham, subsection 12). Similarly, regarding vinegar when it is slightly thick—it is permitted to strain it, unless it is very thick such that it is impossible to drink it without straining, for then it is forbidden to strain it (Turei Zahav, subsection 10). And any turbid liquid that is impossible to drink—it is forbidden to strain it, and any that is possible to drink—it is permitted to strain it (Magen Avraham, subsection 12).

It is not called borer except when one selects and afterwards drinks, but if at the time of drinking he prevents the waste from entering his mouth—it is not called borer. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 16: "Water that contains worms—it is permitted to drink them through a cloth on Shabbat, for borer and meshamer are only relevant when one prepares the matter prior to eating or drinking. But if at the time of drinking he prevents the waste from entering his mouth—this is not a form of melakha and is permitted." Thus far his words. And the issue of melaben in a small amount of water with a cloth that has no dirt on it is not relevant here, as was written in siman 302, and therefore for one who forbids there—it is forbidden (Magen Avraham, subsection 17). And this applies to water, but regarding other liquids—melaben is not relevant, as has been explained. And it appears to me that even regarding water, one who relies on the first opinion mentioned there has not lost out, since our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled without qualification to permit it. Furthermore, it appears to me that in this case even according to the latter opinion mentioned there it is permitted, for this is called "by way of soiling," as it is known that one who drinks in such a manner, dirt adheres to the other side of the cloth. And when flies fall into a cup—one should not remove the flies alone even at the time of drinking, but rather he should take them with a little bit of liquid (Turei Zahav, subsection 13), and such is the custom. And so too with all types of waste that one throws away during eating and drinking—he should throw them with a little bit of food and a little bit of liquid.

A vessel into which one pours wine from the barrel—one should not forcefully place straws or wood chips into its mouth, for you have no greater strainer than this; so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 13. And they questioned him, for in the Gemara (139b) they said: "A person should not pack palm fibers into the mouth of a barrel's spigot, because it appears like a meshameret." And the Ran explained that it is not a literal meshameret, since dregs pass through it, but since there are wood chips and impurities that do not pass through them, it resembles a meshameret. Thus far his words. And how could he write that you have no greater strainer than this? This requires further study (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). However, Rashi also explained there: "Because you have no greater strainer than this," see there (and it requires further study regarding the Magen Avraham, who did not notice this). And in truth, it is not difficult at all, for a meshameret is a vessel made for straining, and this is what the Shas says, that it appears like a vessel made for straining, though it is not a vessel made for straining. But regarding the essence of the law of the prohibition of straining—you have no greater strainer than this.

It is permitted to pour gently from one vessel to another, provided that one is careful that when the stream ceases and small sparks begin to descend, which are blown at the end from within the waste, he shall stop and leave them with the dregs. So too, when one drinks tea or coffee, the waste remains at the bottom, and he should not pour until the actual waste, for if he does not do so, these sparks and this waste prove that he is performing the act of borer; but when the waste is not recognizable, it is not borer. However, regarding tea or coffee at the time of drinking, we have no concern with it, for just as we hold that one may perform borer of food from within waste and eat, as this is the manner of eating, so too this is the manner of drinking. However, when he is not drinking himself and pours from vessel to vessel, he must be careful in this, and so too with the drink of beer and other drinks: at the time of drinking, one need not be careful in this, and only when he pours not at the time of drinking must he be careful.

Fat that floats on a cooked dish and one wishes to remove the fat and eat the dish - it is forbidden to pour it all out, because they are two types and they are subject to borair, and the dish that he wishes to eat immediately is called "food," and the fat that he wishes to leave is called "refuse," and there is borair in this. Therefore, he should be careful not to remove all the fat, but rather to leave a bit with the dish. However, milk that has been set in a vessel, and on top it is fat and is called "smetana," and below it is "sour milk" - it appears that it is one type and borair does not apply to it. Nevertheless, if we consider this as two types and he does not intend to eat both of them immediately, he should be careful to leave a little "smetana" with the "sour milk." And it is obvious that one should not skim even a bit of "smetana" except when it is needed to eat on Shabbat, for if it is not needed for Shabbat - it is forbidden to exert effort on Shabbat for the sake of a weekday, and if perhaps there is a loss in this, it should be done by a non-Jew (the HaGra"z).

It is permitted to elevate the barrel upon something so that the wine will flow from it well, and even though through this the wine also descends from within the dregs—it is not considered like borer as long as the droplets do not begin to descend from the dregs, as has been explained. And similarly, it is permitted to place water upon the dregs in the barrel so that they will absorb the taste of the wine, and there is no concern of borer in this. Provided that one drinks from them on that same day (the Ha-Gra"z), for it is forbidden to exert effort on Shabbat for that which is not needed for it on Shabbat.

The mustard that is called "senapt" contains a small amount of waste, and it is not complete waste, for they too are fit for eating. And they had a strainer with which they would strain the mustard, and therefore even though according to the Torah there is no borer in this, nevertheless by rabbinic decree it is forbidden, because it appears like one who selects food from the waste, since he casts the waste outside. And it was their way to prepare the mustard with an egg, such that the yolk descends below and the white remains above with the waste. And this the sages permitted: when the mustard is placed in the strainer from the eve of Shabbat, it is permitted to place an egg in it on Shabbat to improve the appearance of the mustard. And it is not considered like borer that the white remains with the waste, even if we consider the white and the yolk as two types, since he only comes to improve the appearance, and all the more so since in truth it is one type, and it has already been explained that regarding one type borer does not apply; except that nevertheless, if the straining was for the purpose of eating the egg itself, the white could be considered waste by rabbinic decree, because it is not fit for eating as it is raw. Therefore, certainly to break an egg and separate the white and eat the yolk is certainly forbidden by rabbinic decree, for it appears like actual borer, but with mustard or other food items where he only needs the yolk for the appearance, we are not concerned with borer in such cases. And nevertheless, with his actual hands it is forbidden to separate the white from the yolk, but rather by placing it into some object, and the white is separated from the yolk on its own, in this they permitted when he only needs the yolk for the appearance. (So it appears in my humble opinion regarding this law from the words of the Rambam and the later authorities, see Magen Avraham subsection 16, and what the Taz wrote in subsection 12 that borer applies even to one type of food, his words have already been rejected, and also from the words of the Gr"z it appears as I have written, see there and examine carefully.)

The Rambam wrote in chapter 7, law 6: "And so too, one who takes milk and places rennet into it in order to curdle it—behold, he is liable on account of a derivative of borer, for he has separated the whey from the milk. And if he pressed it and made it into cheese—he is liable on account of boneh, for anyone who gathers part to part and attaches everything until they become one body—behold, this is similar to building." Thus far his words. And so he wrote in chapter 8, that curdling is a derivative of borer, and this is explicit in the Gemara (95a). And the Rambam wrote in chapter 21, at the end of law 17, and this is his wording: "And so too, one who curdles—it is a derivative of borer; therefore, even though one may put sesame seeds and nuts into honey—he may not curdle them with his hand." Thus far his words. And in the Tosefta it is explained that the liability is on account of givul, and Rashi explained curdling: that one makes a kind of reed vessel and places the congealed matter inside it, and the milk water, which is the whey, drips out. Thus far his words. And the words of the Rambam refer to the cheeses called "Hollander," and the words of Rashi refer to our simple cheeses, and in both of them the liability is on account of borer, and we have already explained this in section 3.

It is forbidden to place dregs into a beverage in order to clarify it, even though it is fit for drinking on Shabbat, because through this the dregs of the beverage itself also descend to the bottom of the vessel, and it is like one who curdles, and this is a derivative of borer (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). And it is not known to us what this is; also that which was mentioned regarding sesame seeds and nuts into honey, we also do not know what this is.

I saw one who wrote in this language: "The Rambam wrote in chapter 21: It is forbidden to hang a strainer in the manner that one does on a weekday lest he come to strain, thus far his words; this implies that even to hang another thing upon it, it is forbidden to hang it, yet the plain meaning of the Gemara and the poskim implies that there is no prohibition in this" (Magen Avraham, end of subsection 19). And I do not know of any such implication; on the contrary, they explicitly said at the beginning of "Tolin" that it is forbidden by rabbinic law to hang it, so that he should not act in the manner that he acts on a weekday, and consequently the hanging itself is a weekday activity even though his intention is for another thing.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman: "One who spits into the wind on Shabbat and the wind scatters the spit is liable for the category of zoreh." Thus far his words. And this is from the Yerushalmi in the chapter of Klal Gadol, which says there: "If one spat and the wind blew it away, he is liable for the category of zoreh." See there. But it is a wonderous matter, for he is not pleased at all by this scattering, and a psik reisha that is not pleasing to him is exempt, as was written in siman 242. Furthermore, what is the relevance of zoreh to this? In zoreh there is a separation of food from chaff, and here it is entirely waste. It appears more likely that it is a printing error, and it should say: 'for the category of zorek,' meaning when the wind blew it four amot.