Siman 337

It has already been explained several times that an unintentional act is permitted even regarding a Torah labor, provided it is not a pesik reisha, meaning that if the labor is necessarily performed—one is liable by the Torah. And it is not only according to the one who holds that a labor not needed for its own sake carries liability, but even according to Rabbi Shimon—one is liable in a case of pesik reisha. And even though anything unintentional is automatically not needed for its own sake, we explained in siman 242, section 32 in the name of the Tosafot that whenever we are witnesses that it is pleasing to him, it is like one who intends for it and it is needed for its own sake. And in the name of the Rambam we explained there in section 34, that whenever one does not intend for another thing, it is automatically like one who intends for this, see there. And not only regarding a Torah prohibition is a pesik reisha forbidden, for even regarding a rabbinic prohibition a pesik reisha is forbidden, unlike the one who is lenient regarding a rabbinic prohibition (Magen Avraham siman 314, subsection 5, see there).

And it has already been explained that every type of digging in the ground and every type of trench is a derivative of plowing, and likewise every type of leveling pits, such as where one removed a mound or where there was a low place and one raised it to level it—it is a derivative of plowing. And this is in a field, but in a house—one is liable for building. And so the Sages, of blessed memory, said (73b): If one had a mound and removed it or if one had a pit and filled it: in a house one is liable for building, in a field for plowing. Except for one who digs a pit and needs nothing but its earth—one is exempt even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds one liable for a labor not needed for its own sake, because it is a destructive act (ibid.), and it is prohibited by rabbinic law like all exemptions of Shabbat, which are exempt but prohibited.

Therefore, the sages said (29b) that a person is permitted to drag a bed, chair, or bench on the ground, whether large or small, provided that he does not intend to make a furrow; for then, even if he makes a furrow, it is a davar she'ein mitkaven, and it is not a psik reisha, since it is possible that he will not make a furrow. Therefore, if they are very large such that he will certainly make a furrow—it is forbidden, and even on a marble floor, as we decree on account of a place that is not paved (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). However, if the entire city is paved—we do not decree regarding this city on account of another city (Tosafot 29b, s.v. "gezeirah"). and even though digging by means of dragging is certainly not a melakhah according to the Torah, for complete digging is with a hoe and a pick and not by means of dragging, and it is only a rabbinic prohibition, nevertheless, a psik reisha is forbidden even regarding a rabbinic prohibition, as has been written (Magen Avraham, ibid.).

And I have a question regarding this: what prohibition is there when one makes a furrow in a house? Granted, in a field it is like plowing, but in a house, which is like building as has been written, this is only when one levels pits, such as a mound and he removes it or a pit and he fills it, as has been written. But when one makes a furrow in a house whose floor is level, on the contrary, it is destructive and not building, and in the Gemara there it is explicitly proven that it deals with a house. And it must be said that we concern ourselves lest he make the furrow in a place where there is a pit, or perhaps we concern ourselves that afterwards he will fill the furrow.

It is permitted to sprinkle the house with water so that the dust does not rise, for he does not intend at all to level the hollows but only that the dust should not rise, and there is no pesik reisha here that he will level the hollows, even on a floor that is not paved. However, to sweep the house with brooms called "besims" is a dispute among the great authorities: the Rif permits it entirely even on an unpaved floor, as he holds that this is not a pesik reisha that through this he will level hollows; and the Rambam in chapter 21 permits it on a paved floor and forbids it on an unpaved floor, as he holds that this is a pesik reisha, understood as being that through the sweeping it is nearly certain that he will level the hollows. However, on a paved floor it is permitted, and we do not decree on account of an unpaved floor. And even though he himself wrote there: "One may not smear the ground, nor rinse it, nor sweep the ground even if it is paved," for we decree on account of an unpaved floor, and so it is explained in the Gemara there, nevertheless, regarding sweeping where the necessity is great, they did not decree (Maggid Mishneh). And the opinion of Ri, the author of the Tosafot, and the Rosh is that sweeping is forbidden even on a paved floor, for we decree on account of an unpaved floor. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that such is the custom and one should not change it; see there. However, among us, we sweep on the grounds that all our floors are paved and it is not relevant to decree on account of an unpaved floor, for we do not decree even one city on account of another city as has been written, and certainly nowadays when in all places the floors are paved. And there is no difference between wood paving and stone paving, and we are not concerned with the gaps between stone and stone, for regarding sweeping there is no such concern, as the gap between slab and slab is minimal. And although the Tosafot (95a, s.v. 'shari') wrote this reasoning, they wrote it there regarding rinsing, because it is the nature of water to enter every narrow place, which is not the case with sweeping.

However, through a non-Jew it is certainly permitted to sweep, and even though if we were to say that it is a pesik reisha it would be a "statement to a non-Jew" regarding a rabbinic prohibition which is forbidden, nevertheless, since he does not intend for this—a statement to a non-Jew is permitted even in a case of pesik reisha, as I wrote in siman 253. And there is one who forbids even through a non-Jew (Magen Avraham, subsection 3 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo), but the custom is to be lenient (ibid.). And so too it is permitted to sweep by himself with a light object, such as a garment or a cloth or a goose wing, which are light and do not level pits. And even if there are nut shells on the ground which are muktzeh—it is permitted to sweep them for two reasons: the first is that it is like a "vessel of excrement," and the second is that it is "tilul min hatzad" for the sake of a permitted purpose, and it is permitted as I wrote in siman 311.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is forbidden to sweep clothes with brooms made of splinters, so that their splinters do not break. Thus far his words. From this it is clear that the actual cleaning of clothes is permitted on Shabbat, as I wrote in siman 302, and only with those of splinters is there a prohibition. But with those of pig hair where breaking is not applicable—it is permitted to clean the clothes of feathers and the like, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote there, that it is permitted to clean a garment of feathers on Shabbat; see there. Also regarding the sweeping of the house, one must be careful of things where there is a concern of breaking (Magen Avraham, subsection 5), and above in siman 302, section 9, we brought that there is one who forbids removing the feathers, and we explained there that they do not disagree; see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: "It is forbidden to tilt a barrel on the ground, for since it is heavy, one will certainly come to level pits, and it is a pesik reisha." Thus far his words. That is to say, to tilt with force, but with a mere placement—we have no concern with it. And on a floor—it is permitted in any manner. And similarly, when one needs to pour out a barrel, he should not tilt it on its side to press it into the ground, but rather he lifts and pours for the reason that has been explained.