Siman 321

Grinding is a primary category of labor, and it was present in the Mishkan in the grinding of herbs. The Rambam wrote regarding the derivatives of grinding at the end of chapter 8: "One who grinds the volume of a dried fig is liable, and anyone who crushes spices and herbs in a mortar—this is grinding and he is liable. One who cuts up detached vegetables—this is a derivative of grinding; and similarly, one who saws wood to benefit from its sawdust, or one who files a bar of metal—is liable as soon as he files any amount. But one who cuts wood is not liable until he reduces them to a size sufficient to cook the volume of a dried fig from an egg." Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, "from its sawdust," implies that if not so, he is exempt due to the principle of a labor not needed for its own sake; but it is impossible to say this, for the Rambam holds one liable for a labor not needed for its own sake. Rather, the intent is because of "destructive act," such as where he does not need to saw the wood to this measure, for if not so, this is not a destructive act (Lechem Mishneh). And the measure of a dried fig applies to one who grinds for food, like all measures of food; and for wood, it is like the measure of wood for carrying out, which is the volume of a dried fig from a hen's egg, as written in siman 301. And that which he wrote: "until he reduces them etc.," meaning that if he saws them, there must be enough in the sawdust to cook the volume of a dried fig from an egg, and if he cuts them, there must be that measure in the pieces. And know that cutting to size is not a derivative of grinding, but is a primary category of labor in its own right. And they said in the Gemara (74b) that when one cuts wood and is particular about the measurement, it is a derivative of cutting to size, and when he is not particular, it is a derivative of grinding, see there; and so it is with everything to which grinding applies.

That which he wrote, that one who cuts vegetables is liable on account of grinding, is from that which they said there: "One who cuts beets is liable on account of grinding." However, the Tosafot wrote there that grinding only applies specifically to beets, but other foods are permitted; thus far their words. And their intention is that even other vegetables besides beets are permitted, as is explained in the Hagahot Ashri; see there. And the Rosh wondered entirely at one who forbids cutting, and this is his wording: "And the commentary of Rashi is wonderous, for how does grinding apply to something that is food and is cut very thin? And the explanation of 'beets' is as Rabbeinu Chananel explained, palm wood etc., that when one breaks the fibers it emerges like fine flour, therefore one who crushes it is liable on account of grinding"; thus far his words. And I wonder at the Tur who wrote: "It is forbidden to cut the vegetable very thin, for it is similar to grinding"; thus far his words. This is not in accordance with the words of his father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, and he did not bring his opinion at all. And it appears from his wording that he holds that even though there is no liability for a sin offering in this, for in the Gemara the explanation is like his father, nevertheless, since Rashi and the Rambam forbade it, he did not have the heart to permit it, and therefore he wrote that it is similar to grinding.

The Rashba and the Ran wrote that this case of cutting beets is in order to eat it the next day or after some time, but to eat immediately—it is permitted, just as with borer, where at the time of eating one selects and eats, as was written in siman 319. And it is not specifically at the very moment of eating, but rather in order to eat immediately, and even one person may cut for all the members of the meal, just as with borer there (Beit Yosef).

And in the words of the Rambam there is a need for deliberation, for it seemingly appears from his words like the explanation of Rashi, that one who cuts a vegetable is liable on account of grinding, meaning into small pieces, for if it were into large pieces, we find that they would trim vegetables on Yom Kippur from the afternoon onwards (Tosafot 114b, s.v. "Ella"). But in chapter 21, law 18, he wrote: "One who cuts a vegetable very finely in order to cook it—this is a derivative of grinding and he is liable. Therefore, one may not crush fodder or carobs before an animal, but one may cut gourds and a carcass, because there is no grinding of produce" thus far his words. And here it appears that specifically in order to cook the vegetable he is liable, but to eat it raw—it is permitted, and so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, that this is the opinion of the Rambam. And afterwards he wrote that perhaps by rabbinic decree it is forbidden, and from his words it appears that also in chapter 8 the version in the Rambam before him was "in order to cook it," see there. However, in my humble opinion it is very puzzling, for what difference does it make in the labor of grinding whether it is in order to cook or not to cook. And should you say because the essence of grinding is with flour and it is in order to bake, behold in the Yerushalmi of "Klal Gadol" it says: "One who crushes salt, one who crushes peppers—is liable on account of grinding," and is all salt for cooking? And furthermore it says there: when one crushes garlic in a mortar—he is liable on account of grinding, and so too one who beats flax—is liable on account of grinding, and behold they are liable even for wood and metal when they file it, which is called "filing," as the Rambam himself wrote. And were it not for the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, I would have said that what the Rambam wrote, "in order to cook it," his intention was not specifically to cook it, but rather to say that he cuts it very finely to the extent of cooking it, for one who cuts for cooking cuts very finely.

And also regarding what the Rambam wrote, that one may cut gourds because there is no grinding regarding fruit, yet the Yerushalmi holds one liable for the grinding of peppers as I have written, and peppers are a fruit, as it is found in Berakhot (36b): "'And you shall count their fruit as forbidden'—to include a tree whose wood and fruit taste the same, and which is this—peppers," see there. And besides this I do not understand, for since he ruled that regarding vegetables there is grinding but not regarding fruit, therefore it is permitted to cut gourds, yet gourds are a type of vegetable as is proven in tractate Kilayim, and likewise in the words of the Rambam in chapter 3 of Kilayim where he wrote: "If his field was sown with a vegetable and he sought to sow another vegetable, even gourds," see there, and of necessity it is so, for it is neither a type of grain nor a type of seeds. And besides this, from where does he have it that there is no grinding regarding fruit.

And it appears in my humble opinion that there is another intention in his words, for grinding is only relevant to things that are typically cut very fine, regardless of what species they may be; however, it is not the way to cut fruits very fine, and this is also the case with gourds, as is known. And it is not specifically gourds, but rather the same law applies to any species of vegetable that is not typically cut very fine, such as with us, cucumbers are not cut very fine, whereas beets and cabbage, which are typically cooked, are cut very fine. And fruits are never cut very fine, and therefore the radish called "retach" is also known not to be typically cut very fine, but onions and garlic are typically cut very fine.

And behold, to clarify the law: according to Rashi and the Rambam, grinding applies to every species of vegetable, except that according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his understanding of the Rambam, it is only when one intends to cook it. And according to the Tosafot and the Rosh, there is no grinding at all in vegetables, and only regarding silka, according to the Tosafot, is there grinding, and this species is not common among us. And according to the Rashba and the Ran, the prohibition is only for later, but before the meal—it is permitted, as I have written. And it is a wonder regarding our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch, section 12, who stated his words completely without qualification as a prohibition. This is his wording: "One who cuts a vegetable very finely is liable on account of grinding." Thus far his words. And this is not like the Rambam, nor like the Tosafot and the Rosh, nor like the Rashba and the Ran, but rather like the opinion of Rashi. Yet truly there is no definitive proof from Rashi, for he only explained that "parim" means very finely, and perhaps he also holds like the Tosafot. And from this it is proven that the matter was weak in his hand regarding the explanation of the Rambam as I have written, and therefore he wrote without qualification that one is liable on account of grinding, and it requires further study.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: "And the same law applies that it is forbidden to cut dried figs and carobs before the elderly. And specifically fruits and the like are forbidden, but it is permitted to crumble bread before chickens, for since it has already been ground there is no concern, as there is no grinding after grinding. And all this only deals with one who cuts and leaves it, but if it is to eat it immediately—everything is permitted, just as it is with one who selects to eat immediately, which is permitted, as above in siman 319." Thus far his words. And behold, regarding this that it is permitted immediately, he ruled like the Rashba and the Ran; and for the Rosh it is simple that it is permitted, and likewise for the Tosafot; and even according to Rashi and the Rambam according to our explanation, in any case there is no proof that they do not hold accordingly. Therefore, that which is our custom on Shabbat morning to cut onions very thin to mix them with fat or to put them into the cholent—there is no prohibition, for since they do this before the meal, even an hour before the meal is called "immediately," as I wrote above regarding selecting in siman 319, section 12 and section 15, see there. And even though selecting is only permitted by hand, this is because the labor of selecting is by hand, but the labor of grinding is only with a vessel, and when it was permitted for immediate eating—it was permitted even with a vessel, for this is the manner of its eating (and so wrote the Pri Megadim).

And I have seen those who hesitate and forbid cutting onions with a hack-messer, but this is not clear to me at all, for this too is a knife. And in the Rivash (siman 184) he was concerned to forbid grating cheese with a sharp thresher, and this is called a reib-eisen, for this is made to grind very finely like flour, and in this it is properly the melakhah of grinding. But the knife called a hack-messer, it is a knife made in the shape of a half-circle and is like any other knife, and why should we say that the daughters of Israel act unlawfully. And I also saw one who wrote that if they cut the onions two or three hours before the meal - it is close to a liability for a chatat (Chayei Adam, klal 17). And I wonder, is it not that there are our teachers who permit it entirely: Tosafot and the Rosh and the Rambam according to the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that specifically to cook is forbidden. Furthermore, anything done before the meal for the sake of the meal - is called "immediately" and it is impossible to be exact, and according to what I wrote above in siman 319, it is called "not immediately" from the morning until the evening, but anything for that same meal - there is no concern. And certainly it is more correct to do it close to the meal, but when the guests of the meal are many, it is necessary to precede by some time to prepare for everyone.

However, that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that it is forbidden to cut dried figs and carobs before the elderly, this is a Tosefta in the first chapter of Beitzah, and in the Tosefta it is stated: "One may not crush etc., but one may crush with the handle of a knife or with a wooden stirrer and need not be concerned" thus far his words, meaning that by means of a shinui it is permitted, as will be explained regarding salt and peppers. And our teacher, the Rema, who wrote "to cut," did so because here we are dealing with cutting and it is all one, for what is the difference to me between crushing and what is the difference to me between cutting (see Magen Avraham subsection 14). And there is one who says that specifically for the elderly it is forbidden, but for one who is able to eat it as is—it is permitted (ibid.). And it is a wondrous thing, for if there is in this the prohibition of tochen, what is the difference to me between one who is able to eat and one who is not able to eat, and if so, regarding vegetables we should also say this, and we have not heard this distinction from the mouths of the poskim (also in the Mishnah Berurah he wondered at this), and see the following section.

However, regarding the primary text of the Tosefta, it is difficult for me, for the Rambam wrote that there is no grinding regarding fruits. And it is true that the Maggid Mishneh was troubled by this, and wrote that he found a version stating that there is no grinding except regarding fruits, but our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his book Kesef Mishneh, rejected this version with both hands, for indeed there is grinding even regarding earth, wood, and iron, as I wrote in section 1. However, according to what I wrote in section 6, it works out well, for his intention was because it is not the typical way to cut fruits very finely, see there. And according to this, the Tosefta speaks well, that for the elderly for whom it is necessary to cut them very finely—it is forbidden, and according to this, the ruling of the "there is one who says" in the previous section is well established, that for one who can eat it as is, there is no grinding regarding fruits. And it is obvious that immediately before eating—it is permitted for the elderly just as with vegetables. (And were it not for the words of the Rema, I would have said that the reason of the Tosefta is not because of grinding but rather because of smoothing, and as the Rema himself wrote in section 19, that it is permitted to smooth food on Shabbat and it is not because of smoothing, since it is possible to eat it without this, thus far his words, and if so, for the elderly who cannot eat them without this—it is forbidden because of smoothing. And for those who are able—it is permitted, like the words of the Magen Avraham, subsection 14, which we cited in the previous section, and delve into this.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: "It is permitted to crush peppers even many together, provided that one crushes them with the handle of a knife and in a bowl." Thus far his words. That is to say, even though one who grinds peppers is liable for a sin offering, nevertheless, by means of a change the sages permitted it (141a), for by means of a change it is not called a labor, and it is a labor performed in an unusual manner; therefore, what he needs for that meal—they permitted to him. And the change is that he crushes with the handle of a knife and not with a mill, and in a bowl and not in a mortar. And there is one who says that one change is sufficient: either with a handle even in a mortar, or in a bowl even not with a handle (Magen Avraham, subsection 9), but from Rashi there it is explained that two changes are required, for he wrote: 'Since he changes it from a mill and from a mortar.' Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly that we require two, and such is the primary ruling. And it is not specifically peppers, for the same law applies to all types of spices (ibid.). And they should be careful not to place the peppers or the spices inside an object and crush upon the object, for the scent is absorbed in it and it creates a scent, which even on Yom Tov is forbidden as was written in siman 511 (Turei Zahav, subsection 7). However, we have already explained that Shabbat is more lenient than Yom Tov regarding the matter of nolad, and most poskim permitted nolad on Shabbat, as the Tur wrote in siman 495. Nevertheless, ab initio one should certainly forbid it, for it is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that there is a prohibition of nolad on Shabbat as the Tur wrote there, and we explained this in siman 308 and in siman 320.

And also regarding salt, one may not crush the salt in a mortar even one of wood, but he may smash it with the handle of a knife or with a stirring spoon and need not be concerned. And specifically coarse salt, but salt that was fine originally and was cooked and became flakes—it is permitted to cut it with a knife just as one cuts bread, for there is no grinding after grinding, as therefore it is permitted to crumble bread before chickens. Nevertheless, in a mortar—even this salt is forbidden to crush, for it is a weekday activity (and the Pri Megadim wrote that sugar is also thus, see there, and see what I wrote in siman 320, section 24).

It is permitted to cut cooked or roasted meat very finely with a knife. This is not only according to the approach of the Tosafot and the Rosh, that even with vegetables there is no prohibition of grinding, but even according to those who hold that there is grinding with vegetables, nevertheless we require at the very least something that grows from the ground, but regarding the meat of living creatures, the category of grinding does not apply, obviously. Therefore, it is permitted even if not for immediate consumption, and even for one who cannot chew it otherwise it is permitted (Magen Avraham, subsection 10), since it is not within the category of grinding at all. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to cut raw meat very finely before birds, for since without cutting they are unable to eat it, he is making it food before the chickens, and it is forbidden to make food before an animal on Shabbat. And even though in siman 324 it will be explained that it is permitted to make food before an animal, nevertheless with very fine cutting – it is forbidden. And there is no correct reason for this, and indeed there is one who disagrees regarding this and permits it (Taz, subsection 9. And what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 10 in the name of the Shiltei HaGibborim, that regarding the matter of extracting, an animal is considered a product of the ground, see there, I do not know the comparison, for there he extracts the milk from the meat, and what relevance does it have to grinding? And delve into this).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: It is forbidden to grate cheese on Shabbat with a sharp, multi-toothed threshing instrument called a ralin, and in our language a reib-eisen or tartki. This is not because there is a prohibition of grinding regarding cheese, for it is similar to meat, but rather because since this vessel is designated for the purpose of grinding—as they grate radish and horseradish, which is called krain, upon it—it is forbidden to do anything with it. However, with a knife, it is permitted to cut into small pieces, and even if it is hard cheese, it is permitted (Magen Avraham, subsection 12). It is only with a vessel designated for grating, even a small vessel, that it is forbidden (ibid.). Similarly, it is permitted to cut it with an ax or a saw, as we learned at the beginning of the chapter "Kol HaKelim" (Shabbat 122b): "An ax to cut a cake of pressed figs with it, a saw to saw cheese with it" (ibid.).

It is simple that one who crumbles a piece of rotted wood into powder is liable for the category of tochen, and similarly one who crumbles a clod of earth is liable for the category of tochen, and similarly one who crumbles mud or dried manure, and similarly one who crumbles coals or crumbles the peels of foods and anything similar to this. And mud that is stuck to a garment—it is forbidden to scrape it off, for it is tochen, and in siman 302 this was explained; see there.

Kneading is a primary category of labor, and it was present in the Mishkan in the labor of the dyes. And it is stated in the Yerushalmi of the "Great Principle": "One who kneads bran, earth, eye-salve, a plaster, or dyes — is liable on account of kneading; the one who kneads, the one who smooths, and the one who shapes — all of them are on account of kneading." And prior to this it says: "One who crushes garlic and places liquids upon them — is liable on account of kneading," and similarly with red pigment when one places water — he is liable on account of kneading, and it is a type of dye, and this is when he kneads and makes the garlic and the red pigment into a single mass. And what are its subcategories: the shaper, which is that after the kneading he shapes the bread to give it a form, and the smoother, which is that he spreads liquids upon it after the shaping (Rashi, Pesachim 36a). And the Rambam at the end of chapter 8 wrote that a subcategory of kneading is one who kneads earth, see there, meaning that the primary category of labor is kneading dough. And earth and all that has been explained are subcategories. And the measure of kneading is like a dried fig in dough, which is human food, and in earth its measure is enough to make the mouth of a crucible of gold refiners, according to the measure of its carrying out that was explained in siman 301, and similarly each one is according to the measure of carrying out.

The Rambam wrote there: "There is no kneading with ash, nor with coarse sand, nor with bran, nor with anything similar to them. But one who places sesame seeds or flaxseeds and the like into water is liable on account of kneading, because they mix and cling to one another." Thus far his words. The Ra'avad contested him regarding what he wrote that there is no kneading with ash, for on the contrary, with ash, the mere placing of water constitutes kneading, and he is liable just as with sesame seeds and flaxseeds; see there. And their dispute depends on the sugya in the first chapter (18a); see there. The Tosafot, Sefer HaTerumah, and the Semag wrote like the Ra'avad. And one should not raise a difficulty against the Rambam—who ruled that bran is not subject to kneading—from the Yerushalmi that we cited, for it can be said that fine bran is one thing and coarse bran is another, and coarse bran is thicker than fine bran, as is explained in the second chapter of Challah and also explained at the end of the chapter "Klal Gadol"; see there. And they also disagree regarding coarse bran, and it will be explained in siman 324.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 21, law 33: "One who kneads is liable on account of kneading; therefore, one may not knead a large amount of flour from parched grain, lest he come to knead flour that is not parched, but it is permitted to knead the parched grain a little at a time. However, grain that has not reached a third of its growth, which they parched and afterwards ground with a coarse grinding, such that it is like sand—and this is what is called 'shatita'—it is permitted to knead a large amount of it at once with vinegar and the like. This is provided that it is soft, but if it is thick—it is forbidden, because it appears like kneading. And one must perform a change; how so: he puts in the shatita and afterwards puts in the vinegar." Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: both parched grain and shatita are not without kneading, and shatita is also parched grain, except that parched grain is from fully grown grain and shatita is from grain that has not reached a third of its growth. And what is parched grain: this is flour of grain that was dried while they were ears in the oven, and that flour is always sweet, and they mix it with oil and water and salt (Rashi, Shabbat 155b). Therefore, parched grain from grain that has finished growing, even though it is not subject to kneading because it was dried in the oven, nevertheless they decreed that one should not knead a large amount but only a little, a decree on account of finished flour, because it is close in its appearance to finished flour. But parched grain from shatita, where the grain did not reach a third of its growth and it has no resemblance to finished flour—it is permitted even in a large amount; however, with a thick mixture that appears like kneading, a change is required.

But the Tur has another approach in this, and this is the wording of the Tur: "Shetita, if it is thick—it is forbidden to knead much of it together, but rather a little at a time; and if it is soft—it is permitted to knead much of it together by means of a deviation. And what is the deviation: that he puts the flour first and afterwards the vinegar, whereas on a weekday he puts the vinegar first." Thus far his words. And he did not distinguish between kali and shetita, and everything is included in shetita; and thick is completely forbidden in a large amount, and soft requires a deviation. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 14 transcribed the words of the Rambam, except that our teacher, the Rema, in the place where he wrote that by means of a deviation much is permitted, emended: 'and even with soft' see there, meaning that even with soft one requires a deviation, but with thick a deviation is of no avail and it is forbidden to knead except for a little. And behold, the matter of kali is not known to us at all, and one can only learn from this regarding crushed matzah that returns to flour which is called matzah mehl, certainly its law is like shetita, and therefore it is forbidden to knead much of it on Shabbat, and even for a little one requires a deviation as with shetita, and there is one who forbids even by means of a deviation (Taz, subsection 11), but it is not so, and so he ruled in Terumat HaDeshen (siman 53) in a similar case. And he wrote that the deviation mentioned by the sages is sufficient: to put the flour first and afterwards the liquid, and only that its consistency be soft see there, and this is according to the Tur as I wrote. (And in my humble opinion, it would seem that crushed matzah is more lenient than kali, for it has already been kneaded once, and just as there is no grinding after grinding, so perhaps there is no kneading after kneading, and it requires further study.)

And know that in the Gemara there is a dispute of Tannaim regarding the adding of water to flour: whether one is liable immediately, as this constitutes kneading, or whether one is not liable until one mingles them. Rabbi holds that immediately upon adding water one is liable, and Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is not liable until one mingles them. The Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh ruled according to Rabbi Yossi, and it appears the opinion of the Ra'avad is also such. However, the author of Sefer HaTerumah ruled according to Rabbi, and such appears to be the opinion of the Semag and the Semak (see Beit Yosef). Accordingly, based on the Yerushalmi that we cited in section 17 that crushed garlic involves the prohibition of kneading, one must be careful when crushing garlic on Shabbat not to put a little liquid into it; rather, one should crush it and put it into the food. And the crushing itself is also forbidden on Shabbat unless it was crushed from the eve of Shabbat, and if not, one should cut it with a knife and put it into the food.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 15 and section 16: "Mustard that was kneaded on the eve of Shabbat, on the next day one may mix it either by hand or with a vessel, and one may put honey into it. But one may not beat it to mix it in this manner (meaning with force), but rather he mixes it a little at a time. Cresses that were crushed on the eve of Shabbat, on the next day one puts wine and vinegar, and one may not beat it but rather mixes it. And so too garlic that was crushed on the eve of Shabbat, on the next day one puts beans and grits, and one may not beat it but rather mixes it. And some say that one should not mix with a spoon but rather by hand, and some say that this permission to mix a liquid into mustard is specifically when it was put in while it was still day, but on Shabbat - it is forbidden to put liquid into mustard or into crushed garlic because of kneading. And if he puts the food first and afterwards the vinegar or the wine and mixes it with his finger – it is permitted, for it is a change as in the case of shetita above. And so we are accustomed to permit by means of a change, and in a place where it is the way to do so on a weekday, he should put the vinegar first on Shabbat and afterwards the food" Thus far their words.

The explanation of the matters: For the poskim who ruled like Rabbi Yossi that the mere placing of water into the flour is not called gibul, and therefore regarding these things—mustard, cress, and garlic—since the mustard was kneaded on Erev Shabbat and the cress and garlic were crushed on Erev Shabbat, it is subsequently permitted on Shabbat to place liquids into them. Only he should not beat them with force, as that is their kneading, but rather he mixes a little bit at a time gently. And the placing is of no consequence, as it is not kneading according to Rabbi Yossi. Nevertheless, regarding the slight beating, some say it should not be with a spoon but with his finger, or that he should shake the vessel itself. And when the mustard was not kneaded on Erev Shabbat, and the cress and garlic were not crushed on Erev Shabbat, even though the placing of the liquids is of no consequence, nevertheless he must necessarily knead a little or crush a little, for if not so, they are not fit for eating. And even if it was kneaded and crushed on Erev Shabbat, a complete kneading is forbidden on Shabbat, and there is a liability of a chatat for this. And even the mustard that was already kneaded, nevertheless its primary kneading is when it is mixed with the liquids, and beating with force is their kneading. Therefore, they only permitted to place a little at a time and to mix with a finger, or by shaking the vessel, and according to the first opinion also with a spoon, only being careful to beat lightly. And the "some say" hold like Rabbi, and therefore even the placing of the liquids into them must be while it is still day, for if not so, even the placing is like kneading according to Rabbi. And if they did not place liquids while it was still day, it is completely forbidden, but when they placed them while it was still day, it is permitted to add liquids on Shabbat. However, even according to this opinion, by means of a shinui it is permitted, as with the shetitah mentioned above. And even though it is not comparable, for shetitah does not involve gibul according to the Torah as I wrote, and therefore it is permitted by means of a shinui, whereas in these cases, one could say that they hold that even for a Torah prohibition it is permitted by means of a shinui, or perhaps they hold that in these cases as well there is no Torah prohibition. (See Magen Avraham subsection 22 who wrote that according to the "some say," even regarding the parched flour that was explained one must place the liquid on Erev Shabbat, but it does not imply this from the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. And according to what I wrote it works out well, for there the kneading is not mid-Oraita; and as for what they forbade regarding bran in siman 324, one could say that regarding animal fodder they were more stringent because it is a large amount and it appears like one who is kneading; and delve into this.)

According to this, for us, with mustard that is called "senf," one must prepare everything from the eve of Shabbat; and similarly with "chrein" into which one puts vinegar or "rossel," one must put it in from the eve of Shabbat, and on Shabbat it is permitted to add. But if they did not put it in from the eve of Shabbat—one should not put it in except by means of a change. And there are those who say that for us, since it is not made like a dough, there is no concern at all (Bach in the name of the Maharshal), and nevertheless it is difficult to rely on this, and they should be careful to do it by means of a change, which is that on a weekday one first puts the "chrein" in a vessel and pours vinegar or "rossel" upon it, and on Shabbat he should do the opposite. And he should not mix with strength but rather loosely, and everything similar to this (Ateret Zekenim subsection 12).

According to the opinion of the poskim who rule like Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] that the pouring of water constitutes gibul—it is forbidden to urinate on clay or on dust, for behold, when the urine mixes with the clay or the dust, it constitutes gibul (Magen Avraham subsection 19 and Eliyah Rabbah), and it is very difficult to be careful in this. However, it appears that the primary ruling follows Rabbi Yossi, for so ruled the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh, as I have written; and perhaps even according to Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] it constitutes a davar she'ein mitkaven, and even if it were a psik reisha, it would be a psik reisha d'lo nicha leih.

One who flays the hide—this is a primary category of labor (av melakhah), and it was in the Mishkan, where they flayed the hides of reddened rams and the hides of the tachashim. And its measure: if one flayed enough to make an amulet—he is liable. And its derivative (toledah): one who separates the dukhsustos from the klaf (the Rambam, chapter 11, halakhah 6). And it appears to me that also flaying the skin of a bird and the skin of a fish is a primary category of labor, for we say explicitly in Shabbat (108a) that they have hides. And one should not say that according to this, after cooking it should also be forbidden to flay the skin from them and eat it, and this is a daily occurrence that at the time of eating, one who likes the skin flays it bit by bit and eats it; for it can be said that at the time of eating, flaying is not applicable, just as with the labor of selection (borer) which does not apply at the time of eating, as we maintain: one selects food and eats in siman 319, and here too regarding flaying. Furthermore, after cooking they are like meat. But before cooking, it appears to me that even regarding those whose hides are like their flesh concerning impurity, nevertheless, concerning flaying on Shabbat it is a primary category of labor.

One who tans leather—this is a primary labor, and it was in the Mishkan like the flaying that we wrote of, and its measure is also enough to make an amulet. And whether one salts it or one tans it—he is liable, for salting is also a type of tanning. And the derivative of tanning: one who treads upon the leather with his foot until it hardens, or one who softens it with his hand and pulls it and levels it in the manner that the cobblers do—this is a derivative of tanning and he is liable (the Rambam there). And know, that in the Mishnah of the primary labors it counts salting and tanning as two, and the Gemara asks: salting is the same as tanning, and answers: remove one of them and enter scoring; see there. And with this the Yerushalmi is understood which said: what tanning was in the Mishkan, for they would score the hides; what is scoring? Ruling lines; see there. And it is not understood what it asks, "what tanning was in the Mishkan," for was it not in the tachash skins and the rams' skins dyed red? Rather, it is because in the place of tanning there was scoring, and it calls it by the term tanning because it was also relevant after the labor of tanning, for they would score them from the four sides to level them, and scoring was a primary labor (and the commentators struggled with this and it is clear as I have written, and we have already mentioned this in siman 242) and see in siman 327.

This is the wording of the Rambam at the end of chapter 11: One who marks a line in order to write two letters under that line is liable. Wood craftsmen who pass a red line over a beam so that they may saw in a straight line—this is a derivative of marking a line; and similarly, stonecutters who do so on stones so that they may split the stone in a straight line. Whether one marks with color or without color, he is liable. Thus far his words. Therefore, one must be very careful not to mark with a fingernail as well, as it is a primary labor. And see below, siman 340, that if the marking does not endure, it is not a labor; and it is known that on paper the marking endures, and it is proper to inform the masses who do not know that this is a primary labor.

The Rambam ruled there that there is no processing regarding foods, and this is explicitly stated in the Gemara (75b) that processing only applies to hides, a thing that endures for many days, and not to foods. Therefore, the salting of meat, even for a long time when one salts with much salt—nevertheless, there is no processing in this according to the Torah. And according to Rashi and Tosafot there, granted that according to the Torah there is no processing regarding foods, nevertheless, according to the Rabbis there is processing regarding foods (Tosafot ibid.). Therefore, later (108b) where it is forbidden to make strong salt water and to salt a radish, Rashi explained that it is because he is like one who processes or it appears like processing, and so wrote the Bartenura in the commentary on the Mishnah. However, the Rambam in chapter 22, law 6, does not hold accordingly.

This is the wording of the Rambam: "A person may mix water, salt, and oil and dip his bread in it or put it into a cooked dish, provided that he makes a small amount. However, a large amount is forbidden, because it appears as if he is performing one of the labors of cooking. Similarly, one may not make strong salt water, which is two-thirds salt and one-third water, because it appears as if he is making muries. It is permitted to salt an egg, but a radish and the like are forbidden, because it appears as if he is pickling preserves on Shabbat, and one who pickles is forbidden because it is like cooking. It is permitted to dip a radish and the like in salt and eat" Thus far his words. Behold, it is not due to the category of tanning that they forbade this, but rather because it appears as if he is performing a labor, and as if he is making muries, and as if he is pickling preserves.

But the Tur holds it is due to the reason of tanning, like Rashi and Tosafot, and this is the wording of the Tur: "One may not make a large quantity of salt water at once to put into preserved vegetables, for since he makes it in order to preserve them, it is similar to tanning, as the salt preserves them; but he may make a small amount of it to put into a cooked dish. And if he puts into it two-thirds salt—it is forbidden to make even a small amount of it. It is forbidden to salt four or five pieces of radish together, rather he dips each and every one individually and eats it, but it is permitted to salt eggs. The Rash wrote that one should not salt many beans or lentils together that were cooked in their skins." Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote that the prohibition is due to the reason of tanning.

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2 regarding the law of salt water, transcribed the wording of the Tur, that this is because of tanning; and in section 3 regarding the law of radish, he transcribed the wording of the Rambam, that this is like pickling preserves, see there. And it appears that he maintains there is no difference in the law. But in my humble opinion, there is a difference, for the Tosafot there wrote that when there is fat—there is no prohibition of salt water, because the fat sweetens the salt, see there, and so ruled the great Acharonim (Magen Avraham, sub-section 6 and 7). And such is the custom among us: when cutting many radishes or onions, we do not salt them, but first we place oil or fat upon them and afterwards salt them, and this is according to the reason of tanning, for in such a case there is no tanning. But according to the Rambam, whose reason is because it appears like performing labor or like pickling preserves, it appears that even in such a case it is prohibited. And you may know that it is so, for he wrote: "water and salt and oil etc.", and behold, he prohibits making a large amount even when there is oil. Aside from this, I wonder at the Tur and Shulchan Aruch that they did not mention the permission of fat which the Tosafot wrote, and the Mordechai also wrote this permission, see there. And why do we need the Tosafot and the Mordechai, is it not explicitly stated in the Mishnah itself? For we learned in a Mishnah: "These are the permitted ones: one places oil first etc." However, if so, even according to the Rambam it is permitted, and if so, it is difficult why they omitted this, and it requires further study. (And one cannot say that he maintains that only Rabbi Yose maintains this and we hold like the Rabbanan; for on the contrary, Rabbi Yose is more stringent, and since according to him it is permitted, all the more so according to the Rabbanan. And it is possible that he maintains that this permission is only for a small amount of salt water which Rabbi Yose prohibits, but for a large amount this does not avail. And according to this, they rightly omitted it, for a small amount is permitted anyway according to the Rabbanan. And this we can use to answer for the Rambam but not for the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, for the Tosafot and the Mordechai wrote explicitly that for us it is permitted, and delve into this.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: "There is one who wrote that it is permitted to dip several pieces of radish one by one individually, and to place them together before him in order to eat them immediately one after another." Thus far his words. The basis for the permission is from the Hagahot Maimoniyot (chapter 22, letter 10) based on the Yerushalmi in Kelal Gadol, which says: "A radish, one may bury it in salt, provided that one does not let it linger." See there. It emerges that the prohibition is only in salting them such that they will linger for several hours, but when his desire is to eat them immediately—it is permitted; and so wrote the author of Terumat HaDeshen (siman 53). According to this, that which they said in the Gemara there: "One may not salt a radish; Rav Nachman said, salting I will not salt, but dipping I will certainly dip," this is its explanation: To salt many together such that it will linger—is forbidden, but to dip at the time of eating—is permitted, even many, one by one. However, from the language of Rashi it is slightly implied that only one is permitted to dip in salt and eat, and therefore the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch were stringent in this (Taz subsection 1 and Magen Avraham subsection 6). But there is one who agreed with the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef (the Gra subsection 4), and from the words of Rashi there is no definitive proof (ibid.), and according to the Rambam it is obvious that it is permitted. Therefore, in my humble opinion, regarding a light prohibition such as this, one who relies on the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef—has not lost. However, among us the simple custom is that we do not salt beforehand until we place fat or oil in them.

It has already been explained in the name of the Tur that one should not salt many beans or lentils that were cooked in their skins, for since the salting is effective, it is like a radish; rather, one should dip each one in salt and eat. Similarly, one should not salt many raw cucumbers together, for it is common to pickle them and it is like a radish (Magen Avraham, subsection 7), but rather one dips each piece in salt and eats it. However, with oil and fat—everything is permitted, and similarly with salad, and one may first put the salt and afterwards put oil and vinegar. And the custom among us is to put vinegar into green onions or raw cucumbers, and there is no prohibition in this, only one should be careful to put it exactly at the time of eating. And it is not similar to salt, even according to those who prohibit putting salt on many radishes during the meal, for in this there is only a concern of pickling, and at the time of eating it does not appear like pickling. And there is one who prohibits putting wine or other liquids into vinegar, for this is like one who pickles pickles (Taz, subsection 3), and it is an excessive stringency, for we have not found regarding a liquid in a liquid that there should be a status of pickling for this. And so they are accustomed to put vinegar in wine or in water to drink them, and especially since the vinegar is less than them.

It is forbidden to salt raw meat or raw fish on Shabbat so that they do not spoil, and even in a case of loss—it is forbidden (Magen Avraham, subsection 7). However, to place cooked meat in vinegar to eat immediately—is permitted (ibid.). And meat that has not been rinsed, where the third day falls on Shabbat, and if they do not rinse it today it will be forbidden to eat it cooked, as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 69—it is forbidden to rinse it on Shabbat, since it is not a need of the day. However, by means of a non-Jew it should be permitted, on account of the loss. And there is one who forbids, because there is no loss in this, as he can eat it roasted (ibid.). And it is not so, for it is known that with us, who are not experts in fire-roasting, it is almost entirely a loss. And there are those who permit by means of washing his hands over the meat when he needs to wash his hands, and the meat is rinsed automatically, and it is correct. And it has already been explained in siman 308 that raw meat, even when it is not salted—it is permitted to move it; see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: "It is forbidden to salt cooked meat or cooked eggs to leave them." Thus far his words. And this prohibition has not been clarified, for regarding the matter of pickling preserves, it certainly does not apply; and if it is because it appears like tanning, even the one who forbids it in the Gemara (75b) only forbids salting when one requires it for a journey, where he salts a great deal, and in this the halacha does not follow him. If so, even if we say that it is forbidden by rabbinic law, it is only forbidden in such a case. Therefore, it can be said that what he said, "to leave them," means for the next day, as it is a labor for the sake of a weekday (and so it is explained by the Gra). And there are those who explained "to leave it for another meal" (Taz subsection 5 and Magen Avraham subsection 7), and the reason is: why should he salt it now? Let him salt it when he needs it. Therefore, if there is a reason that the salting is better for him now—it is permitted, such as when the meat is currently hot (Taz ibid.). And so it is implied in the source of the law in the Responsa of the Geonim who wrote: the reason for the prohibition is that meat does not spoil without salt (Beit Yosef), and it is as if one says, why should he trouble himself now for nothing. And the custom of the world when they cook tzimmes for the night meal and leave the meat which they call "tzimmes fleish," the next morning they salt it with salt and put in a little pepper, and in this way the taste is better the next day. And there is no prohibition in this, since it is better for him by salting it now, and particularly since the salting is not much and is not in the category of tanning.

Memachek is a primary labor, and what is memachek: one who removes hair or wool from the hide after death, until the surface of the hide is smoothed, and it was in the Mishkan with the skins of the reddened rams. And its measure is that he smooths a length of hide sufficient to make an amulet. And the derivatives of mochek are: one who plucks feathers from a bird—it is a derivative of mochek and he is liable; and similarly, one who smears a plaster of any size, or wax, or pitch, from among those things that are smeared until their surface is smoothed—he is liable on account of mochek; and similarly, one who rubs with his hand upon a hide stretched between pillars—he is liable on account of mochek; and similarly, the scribes who stretch the parchment and rub lime upon them so that they become smooth—he is liable on account of mochek.

It has already been explained in siman 252 that garlic, unripe grapes, and ears of grain that one crushed while it was still day—it is permitted to drink the liquids that emerge from them on Shabbat. And if they are lacking pounding, in that they have not yet been pounded—it is forbidden to finish their pounding on Shabbat, for this is the labor of their squeezing. But if they are only lacking grinding—it is permitted to finish their grinding on Shabbat. Therefore, it is permitted to finish the grinding of the groats called "gagelach" with a wooden stirrer called a "koch-leffel" in a pot on Shabbat after taking it hot from the oven, and there is no liability of stirring which is like cooking, since it has already been cooked completely, as I wrote there and in siman 318, for stirring is only before the completion of cooking. And also there is no concern of smoothing, for it is permitted to smooth food on Shabbat, since it is possible to eat it even without this. Therefore, it is permitted to smooth food on bread to spread it or in a bowl, even to return it from a full place to an empty place, in the manner that they smooth and spread cooked potatoes, and they call this "zu-ribene kasha." And even though regarding mustard and cress we forbade vigorous beating, this is because the liquid is created in them on Shabbat, which is not the case with food without liquid (Taz, subsection 14). And there is one who says that to stir much and to strike with the wooden stirrer against the sides of the pot or the bowl until the groats, meat, and water are mixed until it all becomes as one body—is forbidden on Shabbat just as with mustard and cress (Magen Avraham, subsection 28), and the Rambam in responsa permitted this; see there.

And all this is in a case where he can eat without the crushing and the spreading, but when without this he cannot eat—it is obvious that it is forbidden, for even though it is possible that there is no smoothing regarding foods, there is also no tanning regarding foods, and nevertheless it is forbidden by rabbinic law as has been explained (ibid. subsection 29). However, according to the opinion of the Rambam, even there there is no prohibition on account of tanning as we have explained, and nevertheless one should be stringent. And also aside from this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 19 that in any case, one who is stringent with a food of apples and the like, where such is its manner—may a blessing come upon him. Thus far his words. And the world is accustomed to permit pounding and spreading potatoes cooked in the cholent, and likewise legumes in the cholent. However, it is a light smoothing, and it is permitted according to all opinions. Furthermore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is forbidden to peel garlic and onions when he peels to leave them, but to eat immediately—it is permitted. Thus far his words. And the reason is because of borer, as written in siman 319.

Mehattekh is a primary labor, and this is the wording of the Rambam, chapter 11, law 7: "One who cuts from leather in order to make an amulet is liable, provided that he intends for its measure of length and its measure of width, and he cuts with intention, for it is a labor. But if he cut by way of destruction or without intention for its measure, but rather like one who acts absentmindedly or like one who plays—behold, this one is exempt (but it is forbidden). One who clips the wing—behold, this is a derivative of mehattekh and he is liable; and similarly, one who scrapes the heads of cedar poles is liable on account of mehattekh. And similarly, any cutting that a wood craftsman cuts from wood or a metal craftsman from metal—he is liable on account of mehattekh." Thus far his words. And in the Mishkan there was much cutting of the skins, the beams of the Mishkan, the stones, the silver, and the gold. And one who saws wood, if he cuts to a measure—he is liable on account of mehattekh, and if he intends for the sawdust—he is liable on account of tohen. And one who tears paper to cover a vessel or for wiping—he is liable on account of mehattekh, and similarly one who tears a type of merchandise and intends to tear from it a measure of such and such—he is liable on account of mehattekh, and similarly anything similar to this. And even in a case of mere tearing for destruction—it is forbidden by rabbinic law, according to the law of all who destroy, who are exempt but it is forbidden.

It is stated in the Gemara (128b): Bundles of savory, hyssop, and thyme (types of tough herbs): if he brought them in for wood—he may not use them on Shabbat (as they are muktzeh); for animal fodder—he may use them on Shabbat. And he may crush with his fingertips and eat, for he crushes the pods that contain the seed (Rashi), provided that he does not crush a large amount with his hand as he does on a weekday. And something similar to this has already been explained in siman 319, and an unspecified intent is like an explicit intent for animal fodder (Tosafot). And before the crushing, when he comes to nip off a small piece of them—he nips with his hand and eats by means of the crushing that was explained. And he may not nip with a vessel as he does on a weekday, and it also appears somewhat like cutting. And if he intends for a specific measure—it is a complete act of cutting, for the pods are like mere wood.

Just as we said regarding smoothing, that when one can eat without this there is no prohibition of smoothing, so too it is permitted to water that which is detached, meaning detached greens, so that they do not wither; since they are fit for eating without this—it is nothing. However, when it is impossible to eat without this—it is forbidden (Magen Avraham, subsection 13). And if there is a need for it today, there is one who permits (ibid.), and it requires further study. And it is obvious that the flowerpots in houses are like that which is attached, for they are perforated and stand upon the ground, and one who waters them is liable for a sin offering like one who sows, and it will be explained in siman 336 with the help of Heaven.

It is forbidden to scrape honey from the hive on Shabbat, because it is similar to detaching. And even though a hive is not like the ground, as we learned at the end of Shevi'it: that a beehive is not like the ground, and one who scrapes from it on Shabbat is exempt, see there—behold, all exemptions of Shabbat are "exempt but forbidden." And this is specifically when the honey is attached to the hive, but if they were detached from it while it was still day—it is permitted to take the honeycombs in order to eat the honey attached around them, but to crush it is forbidden, as written in siman 320, unless it was crushed while it was still day, for then it is permitted to take the honey that flows from it. And to take the combs to eat them all is forbidden because of borer, for behold, he selects it from the wax (see Magen Avraham, subsection 16). And it is forbidden to beat soft-boiled eggs in a bowl, which is called "zu-shlagen eier," for this is like a weekday activity, as it appears like he wants to throw them into a pot to cook (ibid. subsection 24). And there is one who wrote that a thing that is not fit to be eaten—it is forbidden to chew it with his teeth because of grinding (ibid. subsection 12), and it is a baffling thing and not logical at all. (And his proof that he hinted to page 133b regarding one who chews cumin with his teeth, where Rashi explained based on the reason that anything where it is possible to deviate—we deviate, and if this is not grinding why is the deviation necessary, as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote, see there. And it is not so, for this itself, that it is with his teeth, is a deviation, for by law it is permitted to desecrate Shabbat, as it is after the milah, as the Tosafot wrote in the Gemara, see there and examine carefully.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 17: "It is permitted to make oinomelin, which is old wine, honey, and peppers, because it is for drinking. But one may not make aluntit, which is old wine, clear water, and balsam oil, because it is for healing." Thus far his words, and this is in the Gemara (140a). And seemingly it is not understood, for all foods a person may eat for healing and all liquids one may drink for healing. However, the Rambam in chapter 22, law 11, corrected this, for he wrote: that this is not fit for the consumption of healthy people, see there; and if so, they are only for healing, and we do not know what this is.

He further wrote in section 18: "One may not soak chiltit neither in lukewarm water nor in cold water, for it is the way to soak it for medicinal purposes; however, one may place it into vinegar and dip his bread in it. If it was soaked from yesterday—it is permitted to soak it on Shabbat (for even without medicine it is a drink). And if he drank from it on Thursday and Friday and needs to drink also on Shabbat—it is permitted, for such is the way of its healing, to drink it seven consecutive days. Therefore, it is permitted to soak it in cold water and place it in the sun, because it is a danger if he does not drink from it." Thus far his words. And if there is no sun—it is permitted even by fire due to the danger (Magen Avraham subsection 27). And this too is not known to us at all, and this too is in the Gemara there. And there it is explained that it is not dealing with a sick person but rather with one who has a minor ailment, who has a heaviness of the heart, see there, and this is not an illness, and it would be forbidden to drink it on Shabbat. Rather, because he began beforehand—he is compelled to finish, for if not so, there is danger in the matter, and therefore if such a case should occur among us—it should also be permitted.