הסדרה בהלכה - שמות יט - אילו קשרים שחייבים עליהם

As for the tabernacle, make it of ten strips of cloth; make these of fine twisted linen, of blue, purple, and crimson yarns, with a design of cherubim worked into them.

HALAKHAH: “The following are the knots,” etc. What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. But was this not temporary? Rebbi Yose says, because they were travelling and camping by the Word, was it not permanent? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were temporary. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin needle-workers. If a thread broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin, that it should be an entity. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates or a plate of palm leaves one may tear and open, only one may not tie.

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who ties and one who unties. The Gemara asks: Where was there tying in the Tabernacle? Rava said: They tied the tents of the Tabernacle to the pegs. The Gemara rejects this: And is that considered performance of the labor of tying? That was tying a knot in order to untie it. When the children of Israel departed from an encampment, they dismantled the Tabernacle, which involved untying all of the knots. One is not liable for tying a temporary knot on Shabbat. Rather, Abaye said: As the weavers of curtains for the Tabernacle, when a thread would rip, they would tie it. Rava said to him: You have resolved the problem with regard to the labor of tying; however, with regard to the labor of untying, what can be said? Where, in the construction of the Tabernacle, was the labor of untying performed? And if you say that it was performed if one found two threads with knots tied next to each other, he untied one and left one tied; now, before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so, as the curtain would look flawed, in the Tabernacle, before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, would one do so? Rather, Rava said, and some say that Rav Elai said: The trappers of ḥilazon, whose blood was used in the Tabernacle as a dye, tie and untie their nets.

And these are knots for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering if one tied them on Shabbat: A camel driver’s knot and a sailor’s knot, both of which are meant to be permanent. And just as one is liable to bring a sin-offering for tying these knots, so too, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for untying them. Rabbi Meir says a principle: For tying any knot that one can untie with one of his hands, one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, because a loose knot of that sort is not considered permanent even if that was his intention. You have knots for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering as one is liable for tying a camel driver’s knot and a sailor’s knot; however, it is nevertheless prohibited to tie them. A woman may tie closed the opening of her robe with straps, as well as the strings of her hairnet and the laces of her girdle, i.e., a wide belt tied with laces. One may also tie the straps of a shoe or a sandal, as well as the spouts of wine or oil jugs. One may also tie a garment over a pot of meat. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One may tie a rope across an entrance before an animal so that it will not go out. One may tie a bucket with a belt on Shabbat, as he will certainly not leave it tied to the bucket, and therefore it is not a permanent knot. But one may not tie a bucket with a rope. Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so. Rabbi Yehuda stated a principle: With regard to any knot that is not permanent, one is not liable for tying it.

HALAKHAH: 2. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, if one opens the hem which is connected to the garment. Rebbi Yose said, if one opens a [split] garment which is made like two sheets. If shoe or sandal laces were dislocated, one removes and returns them, only one may not knot them. If its nose was dislocated, there are Tannaim who state, it is permitted to put it back, and there are Tannaim who state, it is forbidden to put it back. They wanted to say, he who says that it is permitted, if there is one hole; he who says that it is forbidden, if there are two holes. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in both cases it is following him who says that there are two holes. What about it? He who says that it is permitted, if they are loose; he who says that it is forbidden, if they are squeezed. Do they disagree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? Since it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meїr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.” This implies that they do not disagree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rebbi Abba said, the Mishnah is about a rope hanging down, a rope tied hanging down. “To a belt but not to a rope, but Rebbi Jehudah permits it.” Therefore the rabbis do not? But because the earlier statement was in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, so also this is in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “Rebbi Jehudah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So is the Mishnah: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent and which is temporary.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are a camel driver’s knot and a sailor’s knot? If you say that these are a knot that one uses to tie a strap to the camel’s nose ring in order to pull it and a knot that one uses to tie a rope to the ring [isterida] fixed to the bow of a ship when the ship is docked, then these knots are not meant to be permanent, as they are periodically untied. Rather, a camel driver’s knot is the knot that fixes the nose ring itself in the camel’s nose, and the sailor’s knot is the knot that fixes the ring itself to the ship. These knots are never untied and are permanent. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says a principle: For tying any knot that one can untie with one of his hands, one is not liable for tying it. Rav Aḥadvoy, brother of Mar Aḥa, raised a dilemma: With regard to tying a bow, what is the ruling according to Rabbi Meir? Is it permitted to tie it tightly on Shabbat or not? The dilemma is: Is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir merely that because one can untie the knot with one of his hands it is not considered a permanent knot, and this bow too, he can untie it with one of his hands and therefore he would not be liable for tying on Shabbat? Or perhaps the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is because typically a knot that can be untied with one hand is not particularly tight, and this bow is tight and therefore it is prohibited to tie it on Shabbat. This dilemma is not resolved, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in the mishna. On the one hand, you said that there are knots for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering as he is for tying a camel driver’s knot and a sailor’s knot, which would seem to indicate that although there is no Torah liability, there is a rabbinic prohibition. And then it was taught that a woman may tie the opening of her robe, indicating that doing so is permitted even ab initio. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: There are knots for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for tying them on Shabbat as he is for tying a camel driver’s knot and a sailor’s knot. And which are these? A knot with which one ties a strap to the camel’s nose ring and a knot with which one ties a rope to the ring fixed to the bow of a ship, with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering, there is none; however, there is a rabbinic prohibition. And there are knots that are permitted to be tied on Shabbat ab initio. And which are these? The knot that a woman uses to tie the opening of her robe.

We learned in the mishna: And it is permitted to tie the straps of a shoe or a sandal on Shabbat. It was stated with regard to one who untied the straps of a shoe or a sandal: One baraita taught that one who did so on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering; and it was taught in another baraita that one is exempt by Torah law, and it is prohibited to untie those straps ab initio; and it was taught in another baraita that it is permitted to untie these knots ab initio. This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement with regard to a shoe and another statement with regard to the straps of a shoe; and this is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement with regard to the straps of a sandal and another statement with regard to the straps of a sandal. The Gemara explains: The apparent contradiction between one statement with regard to a shoe and the other statement with regard to a shoe is not difficult, as that baraita, which teaches that one is liable to bring a sin-offering, is referring to a shoemaker’s knot, which is permanent as it holds the shoe together. The baraita that states that he is exempt by Torah law and it is prohibited by rabbinic decree is referring to the shoe worn by Sages, as they often tie their shoes loosely so they can easily put on and remove their shoes. The baraita that teaches that it is permitted to tie shoes ab initio is referring to such knots used by the residents of the city of Meḥoza, who are meticulous in their dress and who tie and untie their shoes every day. Similarly, the contradiction between one statement with regard to the straps of a sandal and the other statement with regard to the straps of a sandal is not difficult, as that baraita, which teaches that one is liable to bring a sin-offering, is referring to Arab sandals, for which shoemakers tie permanent knots. And the baraita that teaches that he is exempt by Torah law and it is prohibited by rabbinic decree is referring to straps that they, i.e., ordinary people, tie. The baraita that teaches that it is permitted to tie and untie the straps of a sandal ab initio is referring to a sandal shared by two people who alternate going out at different times. They untie and retie the straps each time to ensure that the sandals will fit properly, like the sandals of Rav Yehuda; as Rav Yehuda, brother of Rav Sala Ḥasida, had a pair of sandals, and sometimes he would go out wearing them and sometimes his child would go out wearing them. Rav Yehuda came before Abaye and said to him: What is the ruling in a case of this kind? May I tie the straps on Shabbat? Abaye said to him: Doing so renders you liable to bring a sin-offering.

A person who ties a knot which is intended to remain permanently and which can be tied [only] by craftsmen is liable. Included in this category are the knots tied by camel drivers, the knots tied by seamen, the knots tied by shoemakers when making shoes and sandals.
One who ties a knot that is intended to remain permanently, but does not require a craftsmen [to tie it], is not liable. A knot that will not remain permanently and does not require a craftsman may be tied with no compunctions. How is [the intermediate category] defined? If one of a person's sandal straps tore and he tied it, a rope tore and one tied it, one tied a rope to a bucket, or one tied the bridle of an animal, the person is not liable. The same applies to all other knots that do not require professional expertise, but are always tied with the intention that they remain permanently.
Any knot that is not intended to remain permanently is forbidden to be tied using a knot that requires professional expertise. A woman may tie the opening of her cloak although it has two openings. She may tie the strands of a hairnet although it hangs loosely on her head.
One may tie the straps of shoes and sandals that are tied around one's foot when donning them. One may tie pouches of wine and pouches of oil although they have two protrusions. One may tie a pot of meat although it is possible to remove the meat without untying the knot.
One may tie a bucket with a linen cord, a belt or another similar entity, but not with an ordinary rope. One may tie a rope before an animal or tie it to an animal's foot so that it will not go out, although this involves two knots.
If a rope is tied to a cow, one may tie it to its feeding trough. If a rope is tied to a feeding trough, one may tie it to a cow. One may not, however, bring a rope from one's home and tie it to [both] a cow and a feeding trough. If, however, one has a weaver's rope which one is permitted to carry, one may bring it and tie it to both the cow and the feeding trough.
[The rationale for these laws is that] all [the above] knots do not require professional expertise, nor are they intended to remain. On the contrary, a person ties them and unties them at will. Therefore, it is permitted to tie them with no compunctions.
One may untie the openings of baskets of dates and dried figs, break off or cut off the cord, take them and eat them. Any substance that is fit to be used as animal fodder may be used for tying on the Sabbath. Therefore, if the straps of a person's sandals snapped in a carmelit, he may take a moist reed that is fit to be eaten by an animal, wind it around [the sandal] and tie it.
If a sandal strap slips from its place, or one's foot slips from the sandal, one may return the strap to its place, provided one does not tie a knot. It is permitted to tie a loop [on the Sabbath], for it will not be interchanged with a knot. Therefore, if a rope snapped, one may gather the two ends together, wind a linen cord around them and tie a loop. It is permissible to tie a knot that is not permanent in nature for the purpose of a mitzvah. For example, one may tie a knot to calibrate one of the Torah's measures.
One may tie a harp string that snaps in the Temple, but not anywhere else. One may not tie a harp string for the first time on the Sabbath, even in the Temple. A person is liable for untying any knot that he is liable for tying. Whenever a person is not liable for tying a knot, he is not liable for untying it. Whenever a person is permitted to tie a knot, he is permitted to untie it. A person who winds together a rope from palm branches, love grass, strands of wool, strands of flax, strands of goat's hair or the like is liable for performing a derivative of the [forbidden] labor of tying.
The minimum measure for which one is liable is a length of rope sufficient to remain wound without being tied, for then the work the person performed is permanent.
Similarly, a person who unwinds cords performs a derivative of the forbidden labor of untying and is liable. [This applies] provided one's intent is not merely destructive in nature. The minimum measure for which one is liable is the same as that for winding a cord. A person who sews two stitches is liable, provided he ties the stitches at both ends so that they will remain and not slip out. If, however, one sews an additional stitch, one is liable even if one did not tie [the ends], for one's stitching will remain.
A person who pulls taut a thread used for sewing on the Sabbath is liable, because this activity is necessary for sewing. A person who tears [a length of a garment] sufficient to tie two stitches for the sake of tying two stitches is liable. In contrast, one who tears with the intent to ruin is not liable, for [his activity] is destructive in nature.
A person who tears in a fit of rage or [one who rends his garments] for the sake of a deceased person for whom he is required to rend his garments is liable, for by doing so he settles his mind and calms his natural inclination. Since his anger is soothed through this act, it is considered to be constructive in nature and he is liable.
A person who makes an opening for a neck [in a garment] on the Sabbath is liable. A person who attaches paper or hides together with scribe's glue and the like is liable for performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of sewing.
Conversely, a person who separates papers or hides that are stuck together is liable for performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of tearing if his intent is not merely destructive. A person is liable for building even the slightest amount.
A person who levels the floor inside a house is liable. Whether he lowers a raised piece of earth or fills a cavity, he is considered to be building and is liable.
When one person places down a stone and another the mortar, the one who places down the mortar is liable. For the highest row [of stones], one is liable merely for lifting up the stone and placing it on the mortar, since other mortar is not placed upon it.
A person who builds on a base of utensils is not liable. A person who erects a permanent tent is liable for performing a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building.
Similarly, a person who fashions an earthenware utensil - e.g., an oven or a jug - before they are fired [in a kiln] is liable for performing a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building.
Similarly, one who makes cheese performs a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building. One is not liable until one makes an amount of cheese equivalent to the size of a dried fig.
A person who inserts the blade of an axe onto its handle or one who performs any similar activity performs a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building. Similarly, one who attaches one piece of wood to another, whether he attaches them with a nail or by inserting one piece of wood into another until they become a single entity, is liable for performing a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building. A person who makes even the slightest hole in a chicken coop to let light in is liable for building.
A person who returns a door of a well, a cistern, or a wing of a building [to its place] is liable for building. A person who demolishes even the slightest amount is liable, provided he demolishes with the intent to build. If his intent in demolishing is merely destructive, he is not liable.
A person who demolishes a permanent tent or separates a piece of wood attached to another is liable for performing a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of demolishing, provided his intent is to improve it [afterwards]. A person who gives the [final] blow with a hammer is liable. [Similarly,] a person who performs any activity that represents the completion of a task is liable for performing a derivative of dealing [the final] hammer blow.
What is implied? A person who blows a glass vessel, one makes a design, or even a portion of a design, on a utensil, one who planes [the edges of a utensil], one who makes a hole of even the smallest size in a piece of wood, a building, a piece of metal, or a utensil is liable for performing a derivative of dealing [the final] hammer blow.
One is not liable for making [a hole] unless it can be used to bring in and bring out. A person who pierces a blister on the Sabbath to widen the opening of the wound, as physicians do, with the intent of widening the opening of the wound is liable for performing [a derivative of] dealing [the final] hammer blow, for this is a labor performed by a physician.
If one pierced it to remove its pus, [the act] is permitted. One who files a stone to even the slightest degree is liable for performing [a derivative of] dealing [the final] hammer blow. A person who aligns a stone in the foundation of a building, adjusting its position with his hands and settling it in its proper place, is liable for performing [a derivative of] dealing [the final] hammer blow.
A person who removes threads, straws, or splinters of wood from a garment by hand - for example, the splinters that are found in woolen garments - is liable for performing [a derivative of] dealing [the final] hammer blow. [This applies] provided the person is disturbed by them. If, however, he removes them as a matter of course, [without thinking,] he is not liable.
A person who shakes out a new black garment to make it attractive and to remove any remnants of white wool adhering to it, as is a tailor's practice, is liable to bring a sin offering. If he is not disturbed by them, it is permissible [to do so]. A person who traps a living creature from a species that is common to trap - e.g., beasts, fowl, or fish - is liable provided he traps them in a place where no further efforts are required to trap them.
What is implied? One chased after a deer until one caused it to enter a room, a garden, or a courtyard, and one locked it inside, one caused a fowl to fly into a closet and locked it, one removed a fish from the sea and placed it in a bowl of water. [In all these instances,] the person is liable.
If, however, a person caused a bird to fly into a room and locked it, caused a fish to swim from the sea into a pool of water, or chased a deer until he caused it to enter a large hall, and locked it, he is not liable. [The living creature] is not completely trapped, for if he to desired to take it, he would have to chase it and trap it in [this new place]. Therefore, a person who traps a lion is not liable until he causes it to enter the pen in which it will be enclosed. [The following] - a place in which if a person ran, he could reach the animal in a single movement, and a place so narrow that the shadow of both walls would merge in the middle - are considered to be small places. If one chased a deer or the like into such a place, one is liable. If a place is larger than this, a person who chases an animal or a fowl into it is not liable. [The following principle applies regarding] the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah and similarly, other creeping animals and crawling things: When a species is usually trapped, a person who traps any one of them - whether for a purpose, or without a purpose, even merely for the sake of sport - is liable, since he intended to trap and actually did so. A person is liable for performing a [forbidden] labor even if he has no need for the actual labor he performed.
A person who traps an animal that is sleeping or a blind animal is liable. When a person sends out dogs to trap deer, rabbits, and the like, the deer flees because of the dog, and the person chases after the deer or stands before it and as such, frightens it so that the dog can catch it, he is liable for [performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of trapping. The same applies with regard to [trapping] fowl. When a deer enters a room and one person closes it, the latter is liable. If two people close it, they are not liable. If the door cannot be closed by a single person and they both close it, they are both liable.
When one person sat in the entrance and did not block it, and a second person sat down and blocked it, the second person is liable.
When the one person blocks the entrance when he sits down, and a second person sits down next to him [in a manner that also obstructs the entrance], the first person [alone] is liable. [This applies] even if he later rises and leaves, [and the second person remains blocking the entrance], for the second person has not done anything. He is permitted to remain seated in the doorway until the evening and then take the deer. To what could this be compared? To one who locks his house to protect it and finds a trapped deer inside.
If a fowl enters under the edge of a person's clothes, he may [continue] sitting and watch it until nightfall. It is [then] permitted [to take it]. A person who traps a deer that is old, limping, sick, or small is not liable.
A person who releases an animal, a beast, or a fowl from a trap is not liable. A person who traps a beast or a fowl that is in his domain - e.g., ducks, chickens, or doves from a cote - is not liable. A person who traps a living being whose species is not usually trapped - e.g., locusts, wild bees, hornets, mosquitoes, fleas, and the like - is not liable. Crawling beasts that are dangerous - e.g., snakes, scorpions and the like - may be trapped on the Sabbath. [This leniency is granted] even when they are not deadly, but merely bite, provided one's intent is to prevent [someone from] being bitten.
What should one do? Place a utensil over them, cover them with something, or tie them so they cannot cause damage.

1. The Laws of Tying and Knots on Shabbat, 7 Seifim: One who ties a permanent, craftsman’s knot is chayav. For example, the camel riders knot, the sailors knot and the knots tying shoe and sandal straps tied by the leather workers when manufactured etc. However, one who ties a permanent knot that is not a craftsman’s knot is patur. RAMA: There are those who disagree and say that one is chayav for tying a permanent knot even if it is a layman’s knot. [Rashi; Rosh; R' Yerucham; Tur] Others say that any knot that is not intended to be opened that very day is called a permanent knot. [Kol Bo, etc] Others are lenient and say that a knot tied for less than seven days is not called a permanent knot. [Tur; Mordechai] One is initially permitted to tie a knot, provided it is neither a permanent nor a craftsman’s knot. RAMA: The same rule applies to untying a knot as with its tying (Tur). How is this applied? If one’s strap tore and one tied it, or if a rope snapped and one tied it, or if one tied a rope to a bucket, or if one tied an animal’s rein one is patur. The same applies to all such knots which are simple but made to last. Any craftsman’s knot tied temporarily is forbidden (but not chayav). Tying a temporary knot for the sake of a mitzvah is permitted, for example in order to measure a halachic requirement. RAMA: Some say that one should not untie any double knot, because we are not certain as to the definition of a craftsman’s knot and even such a temporary knot is forbidden to tie or untie and such is the custom. (Hagahos Alfasi) Nevertheless when it causes distress it may be untied, being it just a rabbinical prohibition and when distress is involved Chazal did not impose a prohibition. The prohibition of a double knot applies to the tying of two ends but tying a single knot in the same string or thread is equivalent to tying a double knot. (Sma"g)