Siman 335

A barrel of wine or oil that broke on Shabbat—the sages decreed that one may not rescue all that he can, but rather food for three meals before the evening meal, food for two meals before the morning meal, and food for one meal before the third meal, just as with a fire in the previous siman. And the reason is also as it is there, for we fear that due to the preoccupation of the rescue he will forget that today is Shabbat, and will bring vessels through a reshut harabim to rescue. And even now that we do not have a reshut harabim, there is concern that due to preoccupation he will repair the barrel. And even if the barrel broke completely and the liquids fell onto the ground—he may not collect from the ground more than what he needs for Shabbat, for we decree lest he use a sponge, which means that he would place a sponge in the liquids to then drip it into a vessel. And even if there is a handle for the sponge, such that there is no concern lest he wring it out—nevertheless it is forbidden, for a sponge is a weekday activity and it is forbidden to do so on Shabbat. And also there is concern that he will forget about Shabbat and intentionally wring out the sponge; therefore, with a sponge, even what he rescues for the needs of Shabbat is forbidden.

And likewise they forbade smearing with oil, which is when one puts his hand in the oil and much oil clings around his hand, and he wipes it on a vessel so that the oil flows from his hand to the vessel, so that he does not act in the manner he acts on a weekday. And just as the law is regarding a fire that in one vessel he may save much—likewise here, for it is all one act of saving as I wrote there, and likewise he may say to others "come and save for yourselves," and according to all the laws explained regarding a fire, see there. And as we wrote there in the name of Sefer HaTerumah that the prohibition is only to the courtyard of his fellow even if they made an eruv, because it is exposed, and not to a house in the courtyard of his fellow, and likewise to his own courtyard it is permitted, see there, likewise here, if the saving is to his own courtyard or to a house in the courtyard of his fellow—he may save as much as he desires. And even the Tur who disagrees there might admit here, because the panic is not as great as it is regarding a fire (and according to this the difficulty of the Taz in subsection 2 is answered, see there and examine it closely).

And some say that all this applies when it broke or cracked significantly, for the panic is great and we fear he will forget it is Shabbat and bring a vessel through a reshut harabim or repair the vessel or sponge it up as has been written. But if it cracked and is dripping drop by drop, such that he is not so panicked—it is permitted to rescue with many vessels, and also to catch and combine when it broke at the top of the roof, as the matter of catching and combining will be explained, for it is forbidden in a case of breaking but in a case of drop by drop it is permitted.

And if the barrel broke on the top of his roof, how shall he rescue the three meals? For to go up to the roof is certainly forbidden due to "weekday activity" (uvda d'chol); he brings a vessel and places it beneath it on the ground opposite the barrel so that it flows into it. And that vessel may hold even a great deal, as has been explained, that with one vessel he may rescue as much as he desires, provided that he does not bring another vessel to catch from the air the wine or the oil that is spilling, or to join that vessel to the top of the roof so that the wine or the oil that is spilling falls there. For if you permit him another vessel, there is a concern that he will be frantic to bring many vessels; but with one vessel that he was permitted to rescue with—he may rescue even by means of catching or joining.

And know that there is a dispute among the great authorities regarding whether, if the one vessel that he placed on the ground is not sufficient for three meals, it is permitted to bring another vessel to catch and combine, for there is one who permits (Tosefet Shabbat). And there is one who prohibits (Pri Megadim), and seemingly this appears to be the primary view, for if not so, what does the Gemara come to teach us that he should not catch and not combine? Behold, even without this, it is prohibited to rescue in two vessels more than three meals (and what the Tosefet Shabbat wrote, that it is the common way of things, is a forced explanation). Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is permitted, if we examine closely why the Gemara (117b) needed to say: "provided that he does not bring another vessel and catch and combine," it should have said: 'provided that he does not bring another vessel,' just as regarding a fire, where rescue was only permitted with one vessel. Therefore, it seems in my humble opinion that certainly if along the span of the barrel two or three vessels can stand against it—it is permitted, for there is no concern here regarding a multiplicity of vessels, since it was only permitted to him along the span of the barrel and no more, and it is not similar to a fire, as is understood. And this is what the Gemara says, that another vessel by means of catching and combining is prohibited, for regarding this he was not permitted two types of rescue: one, the vessel that is on the ground, and one, this which he holds in his hand and catches or combines. But all this is when it is sufficient for three meals, but when it is not sufficient—it is permitted even by means of catching and combining, as with guests, which will be explained.

And if guests happened upon him such that he requires much beverage—he is permitted to bring another vessel and catch into another vessel and combine. And he may not catch and combine and afterwards invite guests; rather, first he invites and afterwards he catches and combines. And he may not practice deception by bringing guests who do not need to eat, though there is one who says that according to the opinion of the Rambam it is permitted to practice deception in this (Magen Avraham, subsection 2), for deception regarding a rabbinic prohibition is permitted, as we say this in Shabbat (139b). Therefore, if he transgressed and acted, such that he caught and combined and afterwards invited guests—it is certainly permitted.

If must drips from a vat of grapes that have not yet been trodden, for the liquid emerging from them is forbidden on Shabbat due to muktzeh, how may one place a vessel beneath it? For when the liquids fall into the vessel, the vessel will become a base for a forbidden object and forbidden to be moved, and it turns out that he nullifies a vessel from its prepared use. And one should not ask that even without this reason it is forbidden to rescue it, for they only permitted rescuing what is needed for Shabbat, and this liquid is forbidden due to muktzeh; for it can be said that we are dealing with a case where it dripped drop by drop and not a complete break, where it has been explained that in such a case one may rescue even a great amount that is not needed for Shabbat. Therefore, due to the rescue itself it would be permitted, but what shall he do regarding the vessel (and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham, subsection 3, which many found difficult, as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote).

And so he shall do: he shall place his bed or his table there and establish his residence there, and then that dripping will be before him like a graf shel rei, because it soils the ground and creates mud, and he may place a vessel there to receive the dripping so that it does not create mud. And he does not nullify it from its prepared state, because when it becomes full he will pour from it into another vessel in order to return it under the dripping so that it does not create mud, such as when the other vessel is attached or very large, so that it is impossible to place it under the tub, and with a graf shel rei there is no prohibition of moving muktzeh, as I wrote in siman 308. And even though it is prohibited to create a graf shel rei initially as I wrote there, here they permitted it because of the loss of his property. However, in truth it is impossible to pour into another vessel, for if so he would nullify it from its prepared state. And even though one could say that when it is attached the nullification of a vessel from its prepared state does not apply, according to what I wrote in siman 265 that the reason is because of building, since in any case it is built. However, there is one there who holds that the prohibition is because of destroying, see there, and therefore they wrote that the advice is to pour into the tub, for it is in any case prohibited because of the liquids that are in it; so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4, see there. But I do not understand, for the tub is leaking and how shall he pour into it? And it requires further study. And there is yet another piece of advice: to place beneath it a vessel with water, and the wine will be nullified in the water bit by bit and it will be permitted to move. And even if the wine increases over the water, there is no concern for the prohibition of muktzeh, for even regarding the matter of wine used for idolatry there are those who are lenient, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 134, and certainly regarding the prohibition of muktzeh one may rely on this. And from the perspective of a thing that has permitters there is no prohibition, for that is only with its own kind and not with a different kind, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 102, see there.

If fruits were scattered for him in a courtyard, one here and one there, and they are scattered over a large area of the courtyard—he may gather them bit by bit and eat. However, he may not collect them and place them into a basket or into a crate, so that he does not act in the manner that he acts on a weekday. But if they fell without being scattered—he may place them even into a basket or a crate, unless pebbles and dust of the courtyard became mixed with them, for then, in any case, there is no permission except to gather them one by one and eat, due to the prohibition of borrer; and how could he gather them and place them into a crate or a basket, for he would be selecting them from the dust, as I wrote in siman 319, see there, and also his intention is not to nullify the prohibition.