Melacha of Tying: Difference between revisions

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 10:

== The Tzemach Tzedek's Commentary ==

Initially it appears the Gemara's conclusion learns the obligation of tying from Rava regarding chilazon trappers. However, examining Rashi's commentary on the Mishna shows he brings Abaye's explanation. This is puzzling. The Tzemach Tzedek proves from this that the basic obligation of tying is actually learned from Abaye, as there were no challenges to his explanation regarding tying itself - the challenge was only regarding untying. However, we need ~~Rava's~~ teaching to learn that tying applies specifically to permanent knots, as this is primarily learned from Abaye's explanation. While Rava's case sometimes involved opening and untying the knot, as Rava himself states "the chilazon trappers would tie and untie", since at the time of tying there was no obligation to untie it, it's considered a permanent knot~~. But without Abaye's teaching,~~ we ~~wouldn't~~ know that a permanent knot ~~specifically means one not intended to be untied~~.

Initially it appears the Gemara's conclusion learns the obligation of tying from Rava regarding chilazon trappers. However, examining Rashi's commentary on the Mishna shows he brings Abaye's explanation. This is puzzling. The Tzemach Tzedek proves from this that the basic obligation of tying is actually learned from Abaye, as there were no challenges to his explanation regarding tying itself - the challenge was only regarding untying. However, we need Abaye’s teaching to learn that tying applies '''specifically''' to permanent knots, as this is primarily learned from Abaye's explanation. While Rava's case sometimes involved opening and untying the knot, as Rava himself states "the chilazon trappers would tie and untie", (since at the time of tying there was no obligation to untie it, it's '''considered''' a permanent knot but we don’t know that it has '''must''' '''specifically''' be a permanent knot.)

== The Halacha ==

Line 16:

From the Torah one is only liable for a permanent knot meant to remain forever, meaning he ties it intending it to remain as long as possible and as long as he doesn't need to untie it. Even though he may need to untie it soon and will untie it, since when tying it he doesn't set a specific time to untie it, and it could remain forever, this is called a permanent knot and one is liable for tying and untying it. But if he sets in his mind any specific time that he will definitely untie it, even if it's a very long time, this is not considered permanent from the Torah and he is exempt for both tying and untying it. However, the Rabbis also consider this permanent since it remains for some time, and it is forbidden both to tie and untie it.

[[Category:Mitzvos]]

[[he:מלאכת קושר]]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == The Tzemach Tzedek's Commentary ==
-Initially it appears the Gemara's conclusion learns the obligation of tying from Rava regarding chilazon trappers. However, examining Rashi's commentary on the Mishna shows he brings Abaye's explanation. This is puzzling. The Tzemach Tzedek proves from this that the basic obligation of tying is actually learned from Abaye, as there were no challenges to his explanation regarding tying itself - the challenge was only regarding untying. However, we need Rava's teaching to learn that tying applies specifically to permanent knots, as this is primarily learned from Abaye's explanation. While Rava's case sometimes involved opening and untying the knot, as Rava himself states "the chilazon trappers would tie and untie", since at the time of tying there was no obligation to untie it, it's considered a permanent knot. But without Abaye's teaching, we wouldn't know that a permanent knot specifically means one not intended to be untied.
+Initially it appears the Gemara's conclusion learns the obligation of tying from Rava regarding chilazon trappers. However, examining Rashi's commentary on the Mishna shows he brings Abaye's explanation. This is puzzling. The Tzemach Tzedek proves from this that the basic obligation of tying is actually learned from Abaye, as there were no challenges to his explanation regarding tying itself - the challenge was only regarding untying. However, we need Abaye’s teaching to learn that tying applies '''specifically''' to permanent knots, as this is primarily learned from Abaye's explanation. While Rava's case sometimes involved opening and untying the knot, as Rava himself states "the chilazon trappers would tie and untie", (since at the time of tying there was no obligation to untie it, it's '''considered''' a permanent knot but we don’t know that it has '''must''' '''specifically''' be a permanent knot.)
 == The Halacha ==
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 From the Torah one is only liable for a permanent knot meant to remain forever, meaning he ties it intending it to remain as long as possible and as long as he doesn't need to untie it. Even though he may need to untie it soon and will untie it, since when tying it he doesn't set a specific time to untie it, and it could remain forever, this is called a permanent knot and one is liable for tying and untying it. But if he sets in his mind any specific time that he will definitely untie it, even if it's a very long time, this is not considered permanent from the Torah and he is exempt for both tying and untying it. However, the Rabbis also consider this permanent since it remains for some time, and it is forbidden both to tie and untie it.
+[[Category:Mitzvos]]
+[[he:מלאכת קושר]]