Borer
[1] (Halacha 838)
The Rebbe wrote1: 'Even though the Torah states simply "you shall not do any melachah," and it did not specify which act is called melachah and which act is not called melachah .. nevertheless, from the fact that the Torah juxtaposed the passage of Shabbos to the work of the Mishkan, to teach that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos, from here we learn that any melachah that was significant in the Mishkan is called melachah with respect to Shabbos .. and the count of all the melachos that were in the Mishkan is thirty-nine, and they are called the avos melachos'.
These melachos are enumerated in the Mishnah in Maseches Shabbos2, and one of the melachos is the melachah of Borer (selecting), a melachah that existed in the Mishkan with the dyes with which they colored, as Rashi wrote: 'but all the earlier ones were with the dyes of techeiles, argaman, and tola'as shani'.
And as the Rebbe wrote3: Borer is one of the avos melachos, for in the Mishkan they would select the waste out of the dyes'.
The severity of the melachah4:
In the sefer of Rabbi Shmuel Aboab it is written5: 'Borer — this melachah is among the difficult ones on Shabbos, to be careful in all its fine details and distinctions, for most of them involve a full Torah prohibition .. for even without a vessel, where there is no concern about this at all for holy Jews, there are among the selectings those for which one is liable a chatas, and it is hard for the people to properly master them, for it requires great diligence and remembering the particulars in their precise form, and their safeguarding was given specifically only to one who studies them carefully and constantly reviews them, and even then his heart may misgive him .. therefore it appears that the upright path for every single man, one clean of all sin with Hashem's help, is that a person should always instruct within his household to set aside from erev Shabbos every fruit and food in a vessel by itself without waste, which is an easy thing to do and to conduct oneself with, and thereby he removes himself from several serious doubts close to a chatas and perhaps certainties involved in the matter6, and his soul will delight in richness to eat in honor of Shabbos without hesitation or fear of transgression, chas veshalom, and the reason is that with one kind selecting does not apply, and he may eat and set aside as he wishes, as they said of blessed memory in the name of the Terumas HaDeshen of blessed memory'.
And these are the words of the Ben Ish Chai7: 'And it is known that the halachos of Borer on Shabbos are many, and a person requires great safeguarding not to err in them, because a person is accustomed to this on weekdays'.
★ ★ ★
Question: Is it permitted on Shabbos to remove food from waste by hand insofar as it is for the purpose of eating?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos8 says: 'The Rabbis taught: If there were before him kinds of food, he may select and eat, select and set aside. But he shall not select, and if he selected he is liable a chatas. What is being said? .. Abaye said: he selects and eats for immediate use, and selects and sets aside for immediate use, but for later that day he shall not select, and if he selected he has become like one selecting for storage, and is liable a chatas. The Rabbis said this before Rava; he said to them: Nachmani spoke well'.
a) And Rabbeinu Chananel explained: 'And "for immediate use" — as Abaye said, as long as he sits at the table9 and eats, as we learn in the Talmud of Eretz Yisrael: one who selected food from food — Chizkiyah said he is liable, R. Yochanan said he is exempt; a beraisa contradicts Chizkiyah, which said he selects and eats, selects and sets aside on the table; Ravin bar Chiya said: it is to be interpreted as where the guests were eating one course after another'.
And so the Meiri wrote: 'And if he wishes to select food from waste for himself, he is permitted to select by hand to eat for immediate use, and it is explained in the Talmud of the West: as long as he is seated at the table, and not specifically that he eat immediately after the selecting, but rather as long as he is seated and intends to eat them or to feed them to those at the table before clearing the table, it is "immediate," and it is permitted, for this is nothing but like one who cracks the nuts and eats what is inside them and discards the rest; and anything for the need of a later time, even for later that day, is forbidden, for he has become like one selecting for storage and is liable a chatas'.
And from their words it is understood that it is permitted to select only truly for immediate use, that is, within the course of the seudah10.
b) However, we find Rishonim who wrote that insofar as one selects before and close to the seudah, it too is considered "immediate"11, as the Hagahos Mordechai wrote12: 'select and set aside for immediate use — the Ra'avan explained: to select and set aside a mouthful and put it in his mouth; alternatively, to select enough for his seudah to begin and finish after his selecting, but to eat after an hour he has become like one selecting for storage'.
And the implication of the matter is that it is permitted even to select right before the seudah for the need of the seudah, as the Beis Yosef wrote13: 'for specifically to begin and to eat after his selecting is permitted, but to eat after an hour he has become like one selecting for storage'.
c) But Rabbeinu Yerucham14 wrote: 'And even by hand, which we said is permitted, it is specifically for immediate use, meaning for that same seudah, but for later that day, meaning that he selects and sets aside for the need of another seudah of that same day, is forbidden'.
And the Beis Yosef there explained that Rabbeinu Yerucham holds that specifically if it is before a seudah and he selects not for the imminent seudah but for the one after it, then he is liable; but 'if he selects after a seudah, whatever he selects for the need of another seudah on that same day is "immediate"; and if he selects during a seudah, he may select only for the need of that seudah alone; and likewise if he selects before a seudah, he must eat them during the first seudah, and if he delayed any of them until after he rose from his seudah, it is not called "immediate" and he is liable'15.
Thus we have seen that the Rishonim disagreed as to what is the time within which it is permitted to select for the need of immediate eating. 1) Some wrote that it is permitted only for what is within that same seudah. 2) Some wrote that for the need of the seudah it is permitted to select if he does so before the seudah - in close proximity. 3) Some wrote that it is permitted even if he does so a long time before the seudah, provided that he does not do it for the seudah that follows it.
In the next halacha we shall see how the halacha was decided in practice.
--------------
Notes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' שא ס"א ↩
2 עג, א. שם סי' שיט ס"א ↩
3 ולהעיר ממ"ש בעל המאור שבת לז, ב מדפי הרי"ף, והרמב"ן בחידושיו שבת קו, א ↩
4 ספר הזכרונות הל' שבת פ"א ↩
5 וראה ג"כ מ"ש אדמו"ר הזקן בהלכתא רבתא שבסידור ↩
6 ש"ב בשלח בהקדמה. וראה ג"כ משנה ברורה סי' שיט הקדמה ↩
7 עד, א ↩
8 וכן הביא משמו הרא"ש שבת פ"ז סי' ד: 'ושיעור לאלתר פר"ח ז"ל שיעור מה שמיסב על השולחן לאותה סעודה'. וכן הביא הר"ן ↩
9 וראה גם דברי המרדכי שבת רמז שסא: 'ולבו ביום לא יברור הלכך יזהר אדם משני מיני פירות שנתערבו וכל שכן פסולת שנתערב עם אוכל שלא יברור אלא דרך אכילתו יקחם ויאכלם' ↩
10 ולכאו' הדבר גם תלוי בביאור 'בורר ומניח' ↩
11 ריש פרק כלל גדול. וראה מרדכי השלם הע' טו ואילך בפירוש וכוונת דבריו ↩
12 או"ח סי' שיט ↩
13 תולדות אדם וחוה נתיב יב ח"ח עו, ד ↩
14 אך ראה בדרישה סק"א שביאר שרבנו ירוחם לא חולק על דברי שאר הראשונים הנ"ל וכוונתו שעומד לאחר סעודה ורוצה להכין לסעודה הבאה אסור ↩
[2] (Halacha 839)
In the previous halacha we saw the views of the Rishonim regarding selecting food from waste.
In practice the Mechaber wrote1: 'In order to eat for immediate use, it is permitted'. And he did not explain in his words what the parameters of "immediate use" are2.
The Rema added to the words of the Mechaber and wrote: 'And whatever he selects for the need of that seudah at which he is seated immediately is called "immediate," and even if others eat with him, it is permitted. Therefore it is permitted to select the vegetable that they call salatin from the moldy leaves in it, whatever needs to be eaten at that seudah'.
The Ateres Zvi wrote3: 'And whatever he selects for the need of that seudah. Even though he does not eat immediately, nevertheless, since he selects to eat at the first seudah that he will eat after the selecting, it is called "immediate"; but to select for another seudah, such as one who selects for the shacharis seudah, he is not permitted also to select for the evening seudah, but only for the shacharis seudah alone'. And he further wrote4: 'Therefore it is permitted etc. That is to say, even though he does not eat immediately, nevertheless, since he eats it at the first seudah'.
Thus according to his words the main point is that it is permitted to select only for the need of the adjacent seudah, and not for the need of a seudah after that.
The Mechaber further wrote5: 'One who chops the vegetable very fine is liable on account of Tochen (grinding)'.
And the Rema wrote in a gloss: '.. and all this speaks only of one who cuts and sets aside, but if it is to eat it immediately, all is permitted, just as it is with one selecting to eat immediately, which is permitted, as above in siman 319'.
And the Magen Avraham wrote on this6: 'And in any case it is forbidden to do so until leaving the beis haknesses, for we require truly close to the seudah, as written at the beginning of siman 319, and so it is implied in the Ran at the end of chapter 15'7.
Thus we have seen in the Poskim several opinions and parameters regarding the "immediate" that was stated in the permission to select food from waste: 1) selecting for the need of the imminent seudah, [and not when it is for the need of the seudah after it]. 2) that it be truly close to the seudah, 3) at the seudah itself. And in the next halacha we shall see the words of the Poskim in practice and the words of the Rebbe.
★ ★ ★
Question: We saw that some wrote that it is forbidden to select 'after an hour, as the Hagahos HaMordechai wrote in the name of the Ra'avan, who wrote: 'alternatively, to select enough for his seudah to begin and finish after his selecting, but to eat after an hour he has become like one selecting for storage'.
What is the intent of the words that one should not select in order to eat 'after an hour' — is "an hour" to be taken literally, but if he eats within an hour of the selecting it is permitted, or is the intent that one should not select for a later time even if it is within an hour?
Answer: The Eglei Tal8 was in doubt about this and wrote: 'And it needs examination whether it is specifically truly close to the seudah, but anything where there is a slight interval, even less than an hour, is forbidden. And that which the Mordechai said "after an hour," is it "after a time," or perhaps "an hour" specifically?'
And in the continuation of his words it appears that he holds that indeed only after truly an hour is it forbidden. But anything that he selects for a near time, even if there will be an interval between the selecting and the seudah, if it is less than an hour it will be permitted, as he wrote: 'We have no basis to permit except for truly immediate use, or within the hour explicated in the Mordechai to permit .. and it still remains a question to me regarding what we learned from the Mordechai, that within an hour is permitted. It may be said, specifically that he eats what he selected within an hour of his selecting. But within an hour of his seudah, and at the beginning of his seudah he eats other things, then it is forbidden. And accordingly the words of the aforementioned Magen Avraham are upheld, that he requires truly close to his seudah, that is, if he eats what he selected after an hour from his selecting and at the beginning eats other things. And it requires examination'.
And based on this he wrote9: 'It is not called eating for immediate use except up to an hour close to his selecting. And if he is seated immediately at the seudah, even though he tarries in eating other things more than an hour until he comes to eat the selected items, it is permitted to select for the need of that entire seudah, since he is seated immediately at the seudah truly close to his selecting. And if he is not seated truly immediately, he should select only what he will eat within an hour close to his selecting ..'.
The Ben Ish Chai too10 appears to have held that the measure of an hour means sixty minutes, as he wrote: 'And if it is to eat for immediate use, it is permitted. And anything that he selects to eat after an hour is considered selecting for afterward and is forbidden. And if he selects for a seudah that he begins after less than an hour, it is permitted, even though the seudah at which he eats — his eating there extends many hours — it is permitted'.
But the Rav Chaim Naeh11 rejected this understanding of the Eglei Tal and wrote: 'And it is difficult to say in the Mordechai's intent that "an hour" means an hour out of the twelve hours of the day, for the Rashba in a responsum, cited by the Beis Yosef in siman 321, wrote two expressions, "after an hour" and "after a time," regarding pirim silka (chopping beets), for at first he wrote regarding one who chops in order to eat it the next day or even later that day, "and after an hour," and at the end he wrote that even though there is on that very side a liability of chatas when he sets aside "after a time," and even later that day; thus it is explicit in the Rashba that "after an hour" and "after a time" are one and the same, and it is reasonable that the Mordechai too intended this, and not an hour out of the twenty-four hours of the day-and-night'.
And so the Igros Moshe wrote12: 'This "hour" of the measure of an hour is only the time that is the way for this woman who prepares the food for the seudah, and before that, even a small hour, is forbidden'.
Thus we have seen that some wrote that within an hour before the seudah one may begin to prepare for the seudah; however, many Poskim rejected this and wrote that the intent of the words that one should not 'select to eat after an hour' is "after a time," and thus it is forbidden to select when it is not truly immediately close to the seudah, even if he will eat within an hour.
In the next halacha we shall see the view of the Rebbe and how to conduct oneself in practice
--------------
Notes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' שיט ס"א ↩
2 אמנם בהמשך דבריו בס"ג לגבי דגים כתב: 'כגון שבירר שחרית לאכול בין הערבים, חייב'. אך עדיין לא מבואר מה השיעור המותר לכתחילה ↩
3 ס"ק ד ↩
4 ס"ק ה ↩
5 סי' שכא סי"ב ↩
6 ס"ק טו ↩
7 ז"ל הר"ן (שבת מב, ב מדפי הרי"ף): 'והיינו טעמא דדוקא מן המנחה ולמעלה שרי משום דקודם לכך נראה כמתקן לצורך היום אבל מן המנחה ולמעלה דרכן של בני אדם לתקן מאכלם לצורך הערב' ↩
8 בורר ביאורים אות ט ↩
9 שם ה"ה ↩
10 ש"ב בשלח ס"א. וראה ג"כ בשו"ת רב פעלים ח"א או"ח סי"ב ↩
11 קצוה"ש ח"ה בסופו דף סה ↩
12 או"ח ח"ד סי' עד הל' בורר אות יג ↩
[3] (Halacha 840)
In the previous halacha we saw that some wrote that one can select the food from the waste in the hour before the seudah; however, there are Poskim who rejected this understanding and wrote that here the intent of "an hour" is the time close to the seudah, and not a unit of time. Likewise we saw that some wrote that it is always permitted for the need of the imminent seudah, and some wrote during the course of the seudah.
Question: What is the view of the Rebbe?
Answer: a) The Rebbe wrote1: 'And likewise one who selects food from the waste not to eat for immediate use but to set it aside to eat it after a time, even on that same day, has become like one selecting for storage and is liable, for it does not apply here to say "this is the manner of eating," since he does not eat for immediate use. And it is not called "immediate" except truly close to the seudah2; but if he will not eat until after an hour it is forbidden. Yet anything close to the seudah is permitted to select for the need of that entire seudah, even though it will extend some time, and even if others are seated with him it is permitted to select for the need of all of them; and if any of his selecting remained until after the seudah, it is of no concern, since he selected permissibly, provided that he does not act with cunning'.
And in the continuation of his words3 he wrote: 'And likewise it is permitted to peel grain and kinds of legumes that were rubbed out from the ears and pods from erev Shabbos, only that he be careful not to peel except what he needs to eat for immediate use, and not in order to eat after an hour, as will be explained in siman 321. But (according to all opinions) it is forbidden to shell the pods on Shabbos and remove the legumes from within them .. but kinds of legumes whose pods are not fit for eating, there is no permission at all to remove the legumes from within them on Shabbos unless the legumes are not attached at all to the pods, having already detached from them on erev Shabbos, but merely resting thus within them, then it is permitted to remove them, whatever he wishes to eat from it for immediate use, but not in order to eat after an hour on account of the prohibition of Borer'.
That is, the parameter of "immediate" is close to the seudah and 'not after an hour' (and as stated, regarding the parameter of this 'hour' the Poskim disputed whether the intent is not after a time, or within sixty minutes of the seudah), and then it is permitted even if the seudah extends a long time
b) Afterward, regarding the selecting of lettuce leaves, the Rebbe writes4: 'He selects the vegetable from the leaves, that is, the food from the waste, and he must be careful not to select until after leaving the beis haknesses, so that it be truly close to the seudah, and then it is permitted to select whatever he needs to eat of it at that seudah'.
That is, the selecting of the lettuce must be only upon leaving the beis haknesses, so that it be truly close to the seudah.
c) Afterward5, regarding two kinds of food that are mixed, the Rebbe wrote only the expression "immediate" and did not mention "within an hour."
d) Afterward, regarding the selecting of two kinds of fish, he wrote6: 'Two kinds of fish are called two kinds of food, and it is forbidden to select by hand except the kind that he wishes to eat for immediate use, and not from seudah to seudah'.
That is, the permission of selecting is on condition that it be for the imminent seudah, and not for the seudah after it
Thus we have seen that the Rebbe mentioned several different expressions for the time permitted for selecting.
And some wrote7 that indeed in the words of the Rebbe there are different measures that depend on the different cases:
1) In removing food from actual waste the measure is: 'truly close to the seudah and not in order to eat after an hour,' and in removing the leaves of the vegetable the measure is 'after leaving the beis haknesses,' and also with two kinds of food the measure is shorter.
[And regarding the reason for the distinction between the cases, they wrote to explain, according to their understanding of the view of the Rebbe, that food from waste is permitted within the measure of truly an hour (which is a longer time than leaving the beis haknesses8), because with food from waste this appears as the manner of eating and not selecting; whereas with two kinds of food, since it is all food, insofar as he does not eat immediately it is not understood what the food is, and this appears as the manner of preparing the food, and not the manner of eating; and also with lettuce leaves it speaks of leaves fit for eating with difficulty, and therefore there is room to say that he wishes to eat the less good leaves and its law is like two foods, and therefore the measure is shorter9].
2) Regarding two kinds of fish, the view of the Rebbe is that the prohibition is specifically from seudah to seudah, and when he selects for the need of the imminent seudah it is permitted even if it is several hours before it, as the Beis Yosef wrote in the view of Rabbeinu Yerucham10, and they wrote several approaches in this11.
However, some wrote12 that the Rebbe does not intend these distinctions, and his intent in all the places is one, that it is permitted to select only close to the seudah during the time that is the preparation for the seudah, [such as from the time when they leave the beis haknesses, when he goes home to have the seudah], and this time is the same in all kinds of selecting. And apparently this is reasonable13.
Thus in practice it is permitted to select food from waste truly close to the seudah, according to the time needed for the preparation of the food.
--------------
Notes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' שיט סעיפים ב - ג ↩
2 ולהעיר מלשון אדמו"ר הזקן בסי' רסג קו"א ס"ק ב: 'ומה שכתב השו"ע מיד לאו דוקא תיכף ומיד אלא לאלתר' ↩
3 ס"ט ↩
4 ס"ד ↩
5 ס"ה ↩
6 ס"ו ↩
7 ראה אהלי שם ח"ח ע' רו ואילך ↩
8 שהרי בפשטות לא ממתינים שעה מהיציאה מהבית כנסת עד לסעודה אלא אוכלים מיד, כמבואר בדברי אדמו"ר הזקן שו"ע או"ח סי' רעא ס"ב ↩
9 בהלכתא כרב (ע' שנח הערה 6) כתב לבאר באופן אחר שבעלים אין רגילות לקלף יותר מוקדם מכיון שמתייבשים מהר ולכן אין זה דרך אכילה אלא בסמיכות לסעודה ממש ↩
10 הובא בהלכה 838 ↩
11 ראה שו"ע הרב המבואר כנישתא דבי רב ע' תתקט ↩
12 וראה מה שהאריך בכל זה בשבת כהלכה ח"ב פי"ב ביאורים אות יג, ותוספת ביאור אות י, ודבריו מסתברים ↩
13 ובהקדים שהדיוק הראשון שלהם מבוסס על ההבנה שהובאה בהלכה הקודמת (וכמ"ש האגלי טל) ששעה היינו שעה כפשוטו שעה של ששים דקות, ולפי"ז הי' אולי מקום לדייק שלגבי חסה נראה מלשון אדמו"ר הזקן שמדובר על כמות זמן פחות משעה (אמנם גם זה צ"ע שהרי אדמו"ר הזקן נקט בב' המקומות את אותו הלשון *סמוך לסעודה ממש*), אך כבר כתבנו בהלכה הקודמת שהעיקר כהבנה ששעה = היינו זמן, כלומר הזמן הנצרך לתיקון אותו מאכל בסמיכות לסעודה, וא"כ הכוונה בלאלתר היינו שזה רק לצורך הסעודה הקרובה, ובזה עצמו בזמן הקרוב לסעודה, וא"כ יוצא שבכל מאכל זה לגופו, אם מאכל מסויים מצריך התעסקות יותר משעה יהי' מותר, ומאידך דבר שההתעסקות איתו מעט זה כגון חסה, זמן ההכנה שלה יהי' יותר קצר. ומש"כ אדמו"ר הזקן *ביציאה מבית הכנסת*, הרי זה בא לשלול מברירה *לפני ההליכה לבית הכנסת* שזה כמה שעות, ולכן כתב את האופציה השניה שהיא אחרי החזרה מבית הכנסת, שאז מטבע הדברים זה כבר בסמיכות לסעודה ממש. ולפי זה גם לגבי הדיוק השני אין כוונת אדמו"ר הזקן להתיר כו"כ שעות לפני הסעודה הראשונה, אלא בעיקר לשלול את ההכנה לסעודה השניה ↩
[4] (Halacha 841)
In the previous halacha we saw that it is permitted to select food from waste on Shabbos, provided that it be close to the seudah
Question: Why was selecting food from waste for immediate use permitted?
Answer: Regarding the reason for the permission to select the food from the waste for immediate use, we find several Rishonim who wrote that this is not the manner of selecting, as Rashi wrote1: 'Food from the waste - it is not the manner of selecting. And "selects and sets aside for immediate use" - to eat for immediate use, for this is not the manner of those who select'. And so it is explained in Tosafos on the sugya there, and in Rabbeinu Yehonasan of Lunel.
And from their words one can understand that the foundation of the permission is the deviation from the manner of the melachah, for this is not the way to select2.
However, we have found among the Rishonim those who wrote more than this, that the foundation of the permission is that eating from waste for immediate use is the manner of eating, and therefore it is permitted, as the Rashba wrote3: 'For similar to what they said regarding Borer: if there were before him two kinds of food, he selects and eats, selects and sets aside; he shall not select, and if he selected he is liable a chatas. And Abaye explained that this is what it says: he selects and eats for immediate use, selects and sets aside for immediate use, but for later that day he shall not select, and if he selected he has become like one selecting for storage and is liable a chatas. This shows that anything one eats for immediate use in the manner that people ordinarily eat, even though there is on that very side a liability of chatas when he sets aside for a later time and even later that day'.
And so the Mordechai wrote4: 'But for later that day he shall not select; therefore let a person be careful with two kinds of fruit that were mixed together, and all the more so waste that was mixed with food, that he shall not select except in the manner of his eating — he takes them and eats them'.
And in the chidushim attributed to the Ran5 he wrote: 'But for the moment, to eat for immediate use, when he eats from the waste it is only the manner of eating, for he is occupied with something permitted; whereas if it were waste from food, even to eat for immediate use it is forbidden, for it is always the manner of selecting and he is liable, for he is occupied with something forbidden'.
And in the chidushim of R. M. Kazis it is explained6: 'For one who selects food from waste to eat for immediate use, it is not considered selecting at all, since, since he takes the food and immediately puts it in his mouth, it is only taking the food from its place to eat it. And also when he places the food before him to eat it at that seudah, it is not considered selecting, for such is the manner of eating, that one takes what he wishes to eat and places it before him and afterward eats it. But when he sets it aside for a later time, it is certainly selecting, since he does not take it to eat it now but to clean it of the waste in it so that it will be clean when he wishes to eat it. But one who selects waste from food, even to eat it for immediate use, it is selecting, for he does not take what he wishes to eat, but takes the waste so that the food will remain clean, and therefore it is selecting and he is liable'.
This foundation was cited in the Magen Avraham7: 'But the reason is that with one who selects by hand to eat for immediate use, it is not called selecting, for it is the manner of eating; and likewise the reason with one who chops to eat for immediate use, as written in siman 321:12, see there in the Beis Yosef; and therefore with kinun and tamchui it is forbidden to select even to eat for immediate use, and likewise waste from food is forbidden, and all the more so it is forbidden to squeeze unripe grapes; know this, for the Ran wrote the reason that milking a goat is forbidden on account of selecting food from waste — would it then be permitted in order to eat for immediate use? Rather it is as we said, and it is a simple matter'.
And so it is explained in the words of the Rebbe8, to distinguish between the manner of eating, which is permitted, and preparation of the food, which is forbidden: 'And if he selects the food by hand in order to eat for immediate use, it is permitted because taking the food from within the waste in order to eat it immediately is not at all a form of melachah, for such is the manner of eating, since it is impossible to eat all the food together with the waste, and the Torah forbade it only to do it with a vessel designated for that, namely a sieve and a strainer; but taking the waste is not the manner of eating but the manner of preparing the food so that it be fit for eating, and this is a full melachah, and therefore even if the food is more than the waste and there is more effort in selecting the food, nevertheless he shall not select the waste, even to eat for immediate use'.
And in this manner he wrote9 regarding sucking fruits on Shabbos: 'And nevertheless, with other fruits besides olives and grapes there is room to be lenient, for there is an aspect to be lenient in sucking fruits and to say that such is the manner of their eating, and anything that is the manner of eating is not at all a form of melachah, and even the Sages did not decree concerning it, as written in siman 319 regarding selecting food from the waste'.
And so he wrote10 regarding cutting a vegetable fine on account of the melachah of Tochen: 'But it is permitted to cut very fine in order to eat for immediate use, or for others to eat for immediate use, or for chickens to eat for immediate use, because they did not forbid a person to eat his food in large or small pieces; therefore such is the manner of his eating, to eat also in small pieces, and anything that is the manner of eating has no aspect of melachah, as written in siman 319 regarding selecting food from the waste in order to eat it for immediate use, that it has no aspect of melachah, since such is the manner of eating, and it is permitted even lechatchilah'.
And the Ben Ish Chai wrote in Shu"t Rav Pealim11: 'And this is that the reason Chazal permitted selecting food from waste in order to eat for immediate use is not because the melachah of Borer was permitted for immediate use, but rather for the reason that anything one selects for immediate use is the manner of eating, and behold he is engaged in eating, for it is impossible to eat the waste together with the food, and this is not included in melachah, as is explicit in the Levush and in the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbeinu Zalman, and likewise you will find this matter explicit in the words of the Ran in his chidushim'.
Thus we have seen that the reason for the permission of food from waste for immediate use, according to many Poskim and among them the Rebbe, is because this is not selecting, which is the preparation of the food, but rather it is the manner of eating, and therefore it is permitted lechatchilah12.
--------------
Notes:
1 שבת עד, א ↩
2 וראה קרית מלך רב הל' שבת פ"ח הי"ב. בנין שלום שבת בורר ס"א ע' יד ואילך. מחנה יוסף שבת סי' לא ↩
3 שו"ת ח"ד סי' עה ↩
4 שבת רמז שסא ↩
5 שבת עד, א ↩
6 שבת ע' 160 - 161 ↩
7 או"ח סי' שכ ס"ק ז ↩
8 שו"ע או"ח סי' שיט ס"א ↩
9 סי' שכ ס"ב וראה ג"כ שם ס"ח ↩
10 סי' שכא ס"י ↩
11 ח"א או"ח סי' יב ↩
12 וראה בספרים שנסמנו בהערה 2 הנפקא מינא בין הטעמים ↩
[5] (Halacha 842)
Question: When it is permitted to select food from waste for immediate use, is this specifically when the one selecting eats from it, or also for others?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 74a says: 'The Rabbis taught: If there were before him kinds of food - he selects and eats, selects and sets aside'. And Tosafos wrote: 'selects and sets aside - meaning for the need of others'.
However, some wrote that Rashi's view is to forbid selecting for others, as the Be'er Heitev wrote2: 'R. Y. Abulafia — his words were cited in Maharit Tzahalon siman 203 — wrote that it appears from the words of Rashi that even for immediate use it is specifically when he selects for himself that it is permitted, but for others it is forbidden; and Maharit Tzahalon there rejected his words and wrote that even for others it is permitted'.
And the Chida wrote3: 'And although the ordained Rav Mahar"i Abulafia in a responsum, cited in Shu"t Maharit Tzahalon in the aforementioned siman, wrote that Rashi disagrees with this, the Rav Maharit Tzahalon already girded his sword and struck the ground with the rod of his mouth, and with a spirit of wisdom proved plainly that there is no distinction between for himself and for others, from the body of the sugya4, for we say: when Rav Dimi came he said it was the Shabbos of Rav Bibi, and R. Ami and R. Asi happened there, and he threw before them a basket of fruit, and I do not know whether it was because he held that food from waste is forbidden, or because he intended a generous eye. And if you say that selecting for the need of others is forbidden, what was his doubt? It is obvious that this is why he did not select, because it was for the need of others. And to me the lowly one, an open rebuke is good, and it is a correct proof, and all that Mahar"i Abulafia wrote on this and wondered at it — his words are not understood, and I do not know what this wonderment is, for the aforementioned proof of Maharit Tzahalon is sound and good and simple, as the one who examines it will see. And the Rav Maharit Tzahalon already, in the second responsum, returned to enlarge and strengthen his words, see there well'.
And in practice the Rema wrote5: 'And even if others eat with him, it is permitted'.
And the Levush explained6: 'And even if others eat with him, it is permitted for one to select on behalf of all of them, for this is called "immediate"'.
And so the Maamar Mordechai wrote7: 'And even if others eat with him, it is permitted — he derived this from the words of Tosafos of blessed memory, who explained "selects and sets aside" as meaning for the need of others, and the intent is that one may select for the need of all those at the seudah, and so Maran of blessed memory wrote explicitly in the Beis Yosef siman 321 in the law of the insalata .. and the matter is clear as we wrote, that their intent of blessed memory is to say that it is not necessary that each one select his own portion that he needs, and it is simple'.
And more than this the Chida wrote8 that one may select for the need of others who are eating even though the one selecting himself does not eat from it, and these are his words: 'It appears that Moreinu HaRav Mordechai did not use this expression "others eat with him" precisely, which implies that in any case we require that he eat with them, and he teaches us that if they eat with him and he increases on their behalf it is permitted, but if he does not eat with them at all and what he selects is entirely for the need of others it is forbidden. Rather the truth is that even if he selects entirely for the need of others it is permitted. And this expression of Moreinu HaRav Mordechai is not precise. Know this, for the root of this gloss is from the words of Tosafos on 74a, who explained "selects and sets aside" as for the need of others. And it implies for the need of others even though he does not eat with them. And so it is proven from what Maharit Tzahalon wrote in a responsum siman 203, folio 160a, see there. And note this'.
And so the Mishnah Berurah wrote9 that although the Rema wrote "others who eat with him," this is not precise, and that so it is implied from the Darkei Moshe HaAroch10.
Except that the Kaf HaChaim wrote11: 'However, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (?) letter alef wrote that this matter does not emerge from a dispute, for there are those who say we require specifically that he eat with them, see there, and therefore it appears that one should be stringent and eat from that same thing that he selects for the need of others'.
And in the view of the Mechaber, although he did not cite this law at all, the Chida wrote12: 'Many thought that since Maran did not write so and set upon his table the words of Tosafos, he disagrees in this, and were concerned for the view of Maran. And I say that although this matter was not stated explicitly except in the words of Tosafos alone, nevertheless it appears that all the Poskim concede this, and did not take care to explain it because it was simple in their eyes. And in such a case, sometimes Maran too in the Shulchan Aruch omits the matter, the matter being simple, and chooses brevity. And so too here, that Maran holds that all the Poskim concede this law, and it was not explained in their words because it is simple. And he too therefore omitted it. And the proof of this is that in the Beis Yosef siman 321 he wrote as law regarding the matter of the insalata that even if one cuts for the need of all those at the seudah it is permitted, for Tosafos explained "selects and sets aside" as meaning selecting for the need of others, end of quote. Thus he wrote as law like the view of Tosafos'.
The Rebbe13 wrote: 'And even if others are seated with him, it is permitted to select for the need of all of them'.
The Rav Chaim Naeh14 cited the words of the Mishnah Berurah in the name of the Chida that even one who does not eat with them may select for them, (and see also in the notes at the end of volume 5, where he cited a further proof for this, see there).
And in Halachta KeRav15 he wrote to prove that so is the view of the Rebbe, based on what he wrote in siman 321:10 regarding the melachah of Tochen concerning cutting a vegetable very fine: 'But it is permitted to cut very fine in order to eat for immediate use or for others to eat for immediate use'. And in this manner here regarding the melachah of Borer; and that Rabbeinu did not write so explicitly is because it is not his way to write novel halachic rulings explicitly, but he hinted at this in se'if alef in what he wrote, that the foundation of the permission is when it is the manner of eating and not the preparation of the food (as explained in the previous halacha), and consequently it is understood that one who does so for the need of others who eat for immediate use is also the manner of eating.
And so it is in practice in Shabbos KeHilchaso16.
Thus in practice it is permitted to select food from waste for immediate use not only for himself but also for others who eat with him, and more than this, even if he himself does not eat from it, it is permitted for him to select for others who eat from it.
--------------
Notes:
1 עד, א ↩
2 שו"ע או"ח סי' שיט ס"ק ב. וראה באריכות בשו"ת מהריט"ץ (ישנות) סי' רג, השקו"ט בינו למהר"י אבולעפיה ↩
3 ברכ"י סי' שיט ס"ק ב ↩
4 עד, א ↩
5 שו"ע או"ח סי' שיט ס"א בהג"ה ↩
6 או"ח סי' שיט ס"א ↩
7 סי' שיט ס"ק ב ↩
8 ברכי יוסף שם ס"ק א ↩
9 סי' שיט ס"ק ו ↩
10 אך ראה מ"ש בשבת כהלכה פי"ב ציונים והערות אות ט ↩
11 או"ח סי' שיט ס"ק יג ↩
12 שם ס"ק ב ↩
13 או"ח שיט ס"ג ↩
14 קצוה"ש סי' קכה ס"ק ז ↩
15 סי' שיט ס"ג הערה 4 ↩
16 נסמן בהערה 10 ↩
[6] (Halacha 843)
Question: Is it permitted to select food from waste in a case where it is intended from the outset for animals?
Answer: It is stated in the Tosefta1: 'If fruits were mixed for him with fruits, he selects and eats, selects and sets aside on the table, selects and throws before his animal; if he selected these by themselves and these by themselves, or picked from among them dust and pebbles, this one is liable'2.
From the words of the Tosefta it is understood that the selecting permitted for a person's need is likewise permitted for the animal's need
And so it appears from the words of the Rashba3: You asked whether it is permitted to crumble crumbs of bread to place before the chickens on Shabbos, whether there is concern on account of grinding or not .. Answer: it is reasonable that this matter of chopping beets (pris silka) is specifically with one who chops very fine in order to eat it the next day or even later that day and after an hour, because the way of beets is to chop them very fine in the evening when cooking them, and anything whose way is thus and he sets it aside after an hour, he is liable; but to eat it immediately it is permitted, for they did not forbid a person to eat his food in large or small pieces. For similar to what they said4 regarding Borer: if there were before him two kinds of food, he selects and eats, selects and sets aside; he shall not select, and if he selected he is liable a chatas. And Abaye explained that this is what it says: he selects and eats for immediate use, selects and sets aside for immediate use, but for later that day he shall not select, and if he selected he has become like one selecting for storage and is liable a chatas. This shows that anything one eats for immediate use in the manner that people ordinarily eat, even though there is on that very side a liability of chatas when he sets aside for a later time and even later that day; and so too here it is like it .. and from the Yerushalmi too we learn that everything depends on whether he does and eats for immediate use, or does and sets aside for later that day. For that which crushes the head of garlic makes him liable on account of threshing and on account of striking with a hammer (makeh bepatish); yet to eat for immediate use they already permitted in the Gemara in chapter Tolin5, where it was stated there: mustard that one kneaded on erev Shabbos, the next day he may stir it in a vessel but may not stir it by hand; and we concluded he may stir it whether by hand or in a vessel. And therefore even to crumble before the chickens whose sustenance is upon you to feed them is permitted for immediate use, for we render it food'.
The Shiltei Giborim6 wrote on the words of the Rashba: 'And according to the words of the Rashba, if the chickens do not eat those crumbs immediately it is forbidden to crumble for them'.
However, the Eglei Tal7 commented on his words: 'And I do not know his intent in this, for certainly if he cuts to place before the chickens so that they eat immediately, even if the chickens do not eat it, there is no prohibition, since his intent is that they eat immediately, and all the permission of eating for immediate use is because the Torah forbade purposeful labor (meleches machsheves), and since his intent is to eat immediately this is not the intent of melachah. And likewise regarding Borer, it is taught in the Tosefta chapter 17 of Shabbos, and the Rashba copied it: if fruits were mixed for him with fruits, he selects and eats, selects and sets aside on the table, selects and throws before his animal; if he selected these by themselves and these by themselves, or picked from among them dust and pebbles, this one is liable. And the permission of the first clause is because he eats for immediate use. And see in the Yerushalmi chapter 23. Behold, he need not be concerned lest the animals not eat'8.
And so the Pri Megadim wrote9, cited by the Mishnah Berurah10: 'And I the poor one ask a small question, namely: if that which selecting by hand to eat for immediate use is permitted, as in se'if alef (for it is not the way of those who select, as per Rashi\'s explanation Shabbos 74a s.v. uborer umaniach, and likewise cutting a vegetable in siman 321:12 in the gloss), is it specifically for a person, or is it permitted for an animal too in such a manner. .. It may be said, from what the Magen Avraham [siman] 321 [s.k.] 15 wrote, that cutting for chickens is permitted, [citing the] Ran [Shabbos 32a s.v. amar Rav Papa], and he learned it only from Borer, this shows that selecting for an animal to eat it immediately is permitted'11.
And so the Eglei Tal wrote12: 'One who selects to feed an animal, its law is like human food. And it is permitted to select food from waste with his hands to feed the animal for immediate use'.
And so it is ruled in Shabbos KeHilchaso13, except that he wrote that one who is stringent to watch that the animal or the fowl indeed eats from what he selected has grounds for his stringency, even though there is no obligation to conduct oneself so.
Thus in practice it is permitted to select food from waste even for the need of animals, and in the next halacha we shall see what the law is regarding selecting waste from food for the need of animals.
Notes:
1 שבת פי"ז ה"ו ↩
2 הובאה ברשב"א (שבת קמג, ב). מאירי (ביצה יד, ב). ועוד ראשונים ↩
3 שו"ת ח"ד סי' עה (הובא בב"י או"ח סי' שכא) ↩
4 שבת עד, א ↩
5 שם קמ, א ↩
6 שבת לב, א אות ג ↩
7 מלאכת טוחן אות כג ↩
8 וראה מה שהאריך לבאר בזה בשבת כהלכה פי"ב ביאורים אות ט ↩
9 או"ח משב"ז סי' שיט ס"ק ה ↩
10 ביאור הלכה סי' שיט ס"א ↩
11 וראה שבת כהלכה שם שהפמ"ג הוכיח את דבריו עפ"י המג"א בסי' שכא, וכדברי המג"א כן פסק אדמו"ר הזקן שם ס"ח ↩
12 מלאכת בורר אות יג. [ובביאורים אות כג כתב שזה נלמד מהתוספתא] ↩
13 פי"ב סמ"ג ↩
[7] (Halacha 844)
In the previous halacha we saw that just as it is permitted to select food from waste for the need of people, so it is permitted to select for the need of animals.
Question: Is it likewise permitted to select waste from food in order to feed the waste to the animals?
Answer: It is written in Tosefes Yerushalayim1, and the Maharsham cited it in Daas Torah2: 'And it appears that if he selects the waste to place before his animal, its law is like food from the waste, for it is taught in the Tosefta (chapter 17): if fruits were mixed for him with fruits, he selects and eats etc., and selects and throws before his animal; if he examined these by themselves etc., he is liable'.
And so the Ben Ish Chai wrote3: 'If there are before him food and waste, and he wishes to select the waste to feed it to the animal for immediate use, this is one who selects the waste from the food, since, since now he wishes for the waste in order to feed it to the animal, the waste is considered food, and it is one who selects food from waste, as mentioned in the Mishbetzos Zahav siman 319 s.k. 5, see there'.
That is, according to their view, when the Tosefta permitted selecting for the need of an animal, then the waste that the animal eats has the law of food.
Except that in the sefer Shemiras Shabbos KeHilchaso4 he wrote in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that all the permission is when the person selects the waste from the food and his purpose is to feed the animal with the waste; but in a case where his purpose is not only for the need of the animal but also for the food that remains for the need of the person, that it be clean without the waste (which he removed for the animal), this is forbidden, and these are his words: 'And I heard from Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, of blessed memory, that one may not select the waste from the food even if his intent is to feed it immediately to his animal, if his intent is that the food not be mixed with waste and he does not intend to eat immediately, as we find, siman 319 se'if 5, that one who selects lupines is liable, on account of it being considered like one who selects waste from food; and it implies that even if he selected in order to eat the lupines immediately, see there in the Eshel Avraham and in the Orchos Chaim s.k. 7; and one cannot say that we find the Mishnah Berurah is lenient to remove a bone from fish and to suck it, even though it is waste .. for it may be said that there it is different, for it is combined with the fact that in any case many are lenient and hold that it is the manner of eating, and it is not selecting .. and also since it is possible to suck the bone, it is not considered truly waste; and in any case it appears that if only the waste is fit for the animal, and not the food, it is reasonable that then it is permitted to select the waste from the food and to feed the animal for immediate use, end of his words .. But regarding the essence of the law of selecting waste from food for the need of an animal, it requires examination in the Daas Torah at the beginning of siman 319 s.v. ochel, and the Kaf HaChaim there s.k. 51, who permit it. And Rav Shlomo Zalman, of blessed memory, answered that they permit when, through removing the waste for the need of the animal, he prepares the food that he wishes to eat immediately, and what we forbade speaks of when he does not wish to eat it immediately, even if the animal itself will eat immediately, end of his words'.
Thus according to his words, in a case where he selects the waste for the benefit of the animal but his intent is also that the food that remains for the person be clean, the matter is permitted only insofar as he eats the food immediately; and according to his words this is also the intent of the aforementioned Poskim, that although it apparently appears from their words that they permitted selecting for the need of an animal in any manner, it must be said that they spoke of a case where the person eats the prepared food immediately.
But many Poskim wrote that the words of Rav Shlomo Zalman are forced5, and from the plain wording of the Poskim it appears that they permitted selecting for the need of the animal in any manner, as it is written in Shabbos KeHilchaso6: 'But it is difficult, in my humble opinion, to fit this explanation of his into their words, since, as we emphasized in the words of the Maharsham, he writes: '.. he selects the waste and gives it to his animal, it is like one who selects food from waste'. And likewise in the words of the Ben Ish Chai, he terms the selecting of the waste for the animal that 'the waste is considered food, and it is one who selects food from waste'; and if it is as the words of Rav Shlomo Zalman, that they speak of a manner where he himself also wishes to eat for immediate use the remaining food that became "selected" through this selecting, then it is understood and simple that his food is not considered "waste," and at most it is like one who selects food [for his animal] from food [for himself], and nothing more. Except that what Rav Shlomo Zalman writes there at the conclusion of his words, that his intent to forbid is 'if he intends also for himself that the food be clean of waste' and he does not intend to eat for immediate use, but if his intent is only to feed the animal, then it is indeed permitted to select the waste for it — these words can be fit also into the words of the Maharsham and the Ben Ish Chai, though on the other hand they ought to have explained and clarified their words, and not left them ambiguous in a way that implies permission in any manner'.
Thus in practice, for the need of an animal it is permitted to select the waste from the food, since for it this is food7, [and there is one who was stringent that insofar as he does this not only for the animal but also for the benefit of the food that remains for human consumption, then the person must eat it immediately].
--------------
Notes:
1 הל' שבת ע' 24 ↩
2 או"ח סי' שיט ↩
3 ש"ב בשלח סי"ד. הובא בכף החיים או"ח סי' שיט ס"ק נא ↩
4 פ"ג הערה יד ↩
5 וראה שו"ת מגדנות אליהו ח"ג סי' מד. קובץ פעמי יעקב גליון לג ע' מז ואילך. פסקי תשובות סי' שיט אות ט הערה 58 ↩
6 פי"ב בתוספת ביאור אות ח ↩
7 כתב שם הבן איש חי: 'מיהו כתבתי שם *אם הוא בורר הפסולת מתוך האוכל יעשה בצנעה מפני החשד, דהרואה אינו יודע שיש לו צורך עתה בפסולת להאכילה לבהמה, וחושב דאין לו צורך בה ועובר על איסור תורה, דבורר פסולת מאוכל גם לאלתר אסור, ומצינו בהלכות שבת דחשו משום מראית העין בכמה דברים* .. ואין לומר דאין לגזור גזרות מדעתנו דהא מצינו להט"ז בסי' ש"ך ס"ק י"ב, דאסר לשאוב מן הנשפך על המפה בתוך הכף, ופירש הגאון מש"ז ז"ל טעמו של הט"ז, משום מראית העין יע"ש, ולכן גם בכה"ג יש לחוש משום מראית העין, לכך כתבתי דעושה בצנעה, בשביל שלא ראיתי דבר זה מפורש להדיא בפוסקים, *ומ"מ נראה דאם בורר הפסולת לצורך הבהמה, ומניח את הפסולת לתוך הסל המיוחד להאכיל בו את הבהמה, אין לחוש משום מראית העין, דהכלי מוכיח דבעי ליה לבהמה*, ומצינו כיוצא בזה בגמרא דביצה דאמרינן שובכו מוכיח עליו, וכן מצינו עוד כיו"ב, כן העליתי בסה"ק מקבציאל בס"ד'. אמנם הגרע"י בהליכות עולם ח"ד פרשת בשלח הערה ט (ותוכן הדברים הובא בילקוט יוסף שבת ח"ג הערות על בורר אות מד), כתב שאין לחוש בזה למראית עין, ועפי"ז כתב בילקוט יוסף שבת ח"ג דין הבורר לצורך אחרים סל"ו: *'והמיקל שלא לחוש למראית העין בזה, יש לו על - מה שיסמוך'* ↩
[8] (Halacha 845)
Question: What is the law in a case where a person selected food from waste for immediate use - close to the seudah, but in the end this food was not eaten; is there an unwitting transgression here?
Answer: The Beis Yosef wrote1: 'And likewise if he selects before a seudah he must eat them during the first seudah, and if he delayed any of them until after he rose from his seudah, it is not called "immediate" and he is liable'.
And the Levush2: 'He shall not select except during the seudah or close to it before he eats, and he shall not select except what is needed for that seudah, so that none be left over, and if they are left over he has performed an av melachah'.
Thus from their words it appears3 that a person who selected permissibly close to the seudah, and in practice left over some of the food uneaten, transgresses regarding it.
But the Malbushei Yom Tov4, [cited by the Eliyah Rabbah5] wrote: 'And it does not appear to me [correct], since he acted permissibly and in accordance with the law he should not become liable retroactively'.
And the Tehillah LeDavid wrote6: 'It implies that he disagrees only regarding the liability of a chatas, but he too concedes that it is forbidden to leave over'.
And further we have found that the Acharonim disagreed regarding a person who selected for the purpose of eating for immediate use, and after the selecting reconsidered — regretted, and decided that he does not wish to eat it for immediate use, that Rav Yosef ben Gu'aya in Tal Oros7 wrote: 'However, there is room for doubt8 if he selected food from waste and his intent was to eat it for immediate use at that very seudah, and then reconsidered afterward and set it aside for later that day for another seudah, whether he is liable on account of Borer or not; do we say that since at the time of the selecting his intent arose to eat it for immediate use at that seudah, there is thereafter no concern in the matter to eat it for immediate use, or not; or perhaps if he did not eat it for immediate use and set it aside for later that day for another seudah it is not called "immediate" and it is like one selecting for storage and he is liable. And it appears that it is reasonable that anything where the selecting was done permissibly, since his intent was to eat it for immediate use, there is thereafter no concern in the matter whether he eats it for immediate use or not, for certainly they only forbade when he selects from the outset, at the time of the selecting, for another seudah or for later that day, which is like one selecting for storage; but if the selecting is done permissibly, since his intent was to eat it for immediate use at that seudah, and then he reconsidered to set it aside for another seudah, there is thereafter no concern in the matter'.
But the Pri Megadim9 wrote: 'And if he selected for immediate use and afterward reconsidered "and delayed" it for the evening seudah, it is not proper to do so, but a liability of chatas retroactively it appears not, for the Torah forbade purposeful labor (meleches machsheves); and see Beis Yosef and Levush'10.
Thus the Acharonim disagreed regarding a person who selected in order to eat for immediate use, and afterward regretted and decided not to eat it, whether this is permitted lechatchilah, or whether there is in it an aspect of prohibition.
The Rebbe11 wrote: 'But anything close to the seudah is permitted to select for the need of that entire seudah, even though it will extend some time, and even if others are seated with him it is permitted to select for the need of all of them, and if any of his selecting remained until after the seudah, it is of no concern, since he selected permissibly, provided that he does not act with cunning'.
And the Acharonim disagreed regarding his words, that the Ben Ish Chai in Rav Pealim12 wrote: 'And I saw the Gaon Rabbeinu Zalman of blessed memory in the Shulchan Aruch se'if 3, who wrote: if any of his selecting remained until after the seudah it is of no concern, since he selected permissibly, provided that he does not act with cunning, end of quote. And it appears that there are two types of leftover: the first, such as one who selected during the seudah ten pieces in order to eat all of them for immediate use, and afterward reconsidered and took from the selected five pieces to eat them for immediate use, and set aside five for the evening — that in this manner even Rabbeinu Zalman of blessed memory concedes that it is forbidden to do so; and the second manner, that he selected ten pieces in order to eat for immediate use, and placed all of them before him in order to eat them, but was unable to eat all of them, and necessarily some of them were left over at the end of the seudah — and in this manner the Gaon Rabbeinu Zalman of blessed memory permitted setting aside for another seudah, since in truth he did not reconsider and did not retract from his original intent, and on the contrary he placed everything before him in order to eat them, and had he been able to eat all of them he would have eaten them, and they were necessarily left over, and therefore he wrote that it is permitted, provided that he does not act with cunning to select much at first, an amount that he cannot eat for immediate use; and in this manner it appears all concede that it is permitted and there is no prohibition'.
That is, the Ben Ish Chai holds that the Rebbe agrees with the Pri Megadim that with one who reconsiders there is a problem, except that the Rebbe spoke of a case where, from his standpoint, he intended to eat, and also in practice attempted to eat, except that for some reason (such as that he became already sated) he is unable to continue eating, that in this it is permitted even lechatchilah and he need not force himself and eat.
But the Tehillah LeDavid wrote: 'It implies that it is permitted lechatchilah to leave over, and if he left over it is permitted to eat it13'.
From his words it appears that he understood in the view of the Rebbe like the words of the Tal Oros, that a person who reconsidered and regretted, there is in this no aspect of prohibition whatsoever14.
Thus a person who selected in order to eat for immediate use and reconsidered and decided to eat afterward does not thereby transgress the melachah of Borer, and some understood in the words of the Rebbe that this is permitted even lechatchilah, provided that he does not act with cunning! And some wrote that only what remains from the seudah is permitted (and it is forbidden to change and leave it over for afterward), and therefore15, although lechatchilah it is proper to be concerned for the stringent opinions, yet when there is an important reason, one may rely on those who permit.
--------------
Notes:
1 או"ח סי' שיט ↩
2 או"ח סי' שיט ס"ב ↩
3 But see what the Ben Ish Chai wrote in Shu"t Rav Pe'alim vol. 1, OC siman 12: 'However, the matter is puzzling: how can one be liable for this, given that regarding the laws of Shabbos we require meleches machsheves (purposeful, calculated labor) .. And if so, one must reconcile the words of Maran z"l, who wrote that one is liable, and the words of the Levush, who wrote that if he leaves some over he is indeed performing an av melacha. It may be explained that he is speaking of a case where, from the moment he sorted, he intended to leave some of them over for the afternoon seudah; and thus the Rav Tal Oros explained his words. But the words of Maran are difficult to explain in this manner, and if we explain the words of Maran as saying he is liable rabbinically, that is an enormous stretch .. It emerges accordingly that the view of Maran z"l has not become clear to us, in a case where one sorts for immediate use and then changes his mind and sets it aside for the afternoon seudah — whether he holds one is liable by Torah law, or whether it is forbidden only rabbinically'. However, in Shevisas HaShabbos vol. 2, Be'er Rechovos os 9, he wrote in the name of Tal Oros that even the Beis Yosef and the Levush concede that one who prepared permissibly — according to what he thought he needed, and in practice some was left over for him — does not transgress retroactively; and they were speaking of one who from the outset prepared, in the first seudah, more than the quantity he needs. And see Shabbos Kehalacha ch. 12, Biurim os 15 ↩
4 On the Levush there, os 3 ↩
5 s"k 4 ↩
6 siman 319 s"k 2 ↩
7 p. 155 ↩
8 And see Kiryas Melech Rav (of Mahar"i Navon) Hilchos Shabbos ch. 8, halacha 12 ↩
9 OC Mishbetzos Zahav siman 319 s"k 2 ↩
10 And see Mishnah Berurah Sha'ar HaTziyun s"k 5, Shevisas HaShabbos there, Shemiras Shabbos KeHilchesah ch. 3 note 229. Machon L'Shabtecha siman 319 Hilchesa Gevirta halacha 2. Shabbos Kehalacha there in Tosefes Biur os 12 ↩
11 OC siman 319 se'if 3 ↩
12 Shu"t vol. 1 OC siman 12. And see also Ben Ish Chai year 2, Beshalach se'if 3 ↩
13 And see there, where he discusses the words of the Rebbe: why do we not decree lest he increase [the amount] for another seudah? And he writes: 'And do not say that since he can sort close to the seudah permissibly we do not suspect lest he increase impermissibly, and it is not comparable to that ruling of the Rashba z"l explained in siman 318 s"k 9, for there we suspect lest he not find a non-Jew to do it for him' ↩
14 And so it appears that Shevisas HaShabbos there understood the words of the Rebbe, and that this is why he wrote *'provided that he not act deceitfully (ha'arama)'* ↩
15 See Shabbos Kehalacha there, end of se'if 1 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha - Minhogei Chabad'
Join the WhatsApp group