No sugar, thank you. A drop, a drop, just to make, to mituk (sweetening). Okay, he has some she'elot (questions) over here. The siman (section) is yud-daled. Let’s see if we can read teshuvah (responsum) yud-daled in Halachah Shelemah. It discusses hagbahat vehanmachat shtender (raising and lowering a lectern) with a screw: raising or lowering the shtender by firmly tightening the screw; harkavat kabayim (crutches); putting a wheel back on a stroller, a cab; and other cases of binyan ustirah (building and demolishing) on karka (ground). It also discusses a cover attached to the ground, such as the stick used to hang the paper in a bathroom; inserting a drawer or a shelf into a cabinet—sometimes shelves come off, and you want to put one back on—and hanging a picture on a wall.
He goes to the sugya (Talmudic discussion) and has siman tzad alef and tzad bet. This morning we have to go through the two tzdadim (sides). We’ll go through them quickly. It’s a big siman, but we’ll cover the highlights.
It starts with the Gemara in Shabbat: hamachzir mitah shel perakim (bed made of components) beShabbat. Be'ofen takua (in a firmly fitted manner), he is chayav (liable). If you bang it in, then you are chayav. According to Rashi and the Ran, and according to the Rif, who cite the Yere'im, the obligation is mishum makeh bepatish (final hammer blow). But there is no prohibition of boneh (building), because ein binyan ustirah becheilim (no building or demolishing vessels) at all. If you hold ein binyan ustirah becheilim, then a mitah shel perakim is a kli (vessel), and there is no building or demolishing. You’re always in a Catch-22: if it isn’t building, it’s makeh bepatish, so you get the other side.
Rashi explains: techilah vegamro vena'asah oseh kli, vechayav mishum makeh bepatish (he begins and completes it, making it a vessel, and is liable for makeh bepatish). The Ramban says that one who puts a mitah shel perakim back together be'ofen takua is chayav mishum boneh, as explained in Divrei Shalom. It is brought in the previous siman that he listed three situations in which one is chayav mishum boneh with vessels.
The first is if you make a kli from scratch. If you build a kli that wasn’t there before, how can you say there is no building or demolishing vessels? That is certainly building. The second is a kli that came apart and needs an expert to put it back together. From the time it came apart and an ordinary person cannot put it back together, it loses its status as a kli, because it now needs an expert. At that point, it is as if you are building it from scratch. The third is putting the parts of a kli back together be'ofen takua: if you bang them in, you are chayav mishum boneh, even if an ordinary person can put it back together. Those are the Ramban’s three situations.
The Ramban writes that, accordingly, even with a mitah shel perakim, he is inclined to agree with the Rashbag: there is no building except when it is be'ofen takua, firmly fitted. See the previous siman, where the Rashba, the Ritva, the Me'iri, and the Ran also mention building with vessels when you make a kli from scratch, or when you put back together a kli that came apart and an ordinary person cannot put it back together. But it is not clear from their words that they also mention the Ramban’s third novelty. The Rashba did not give the Ramban’s third novelty—that even if an ordinary person puts a kli back together by tekiah (firm insertion), there is building. They hold only the first two cases.
We find, then, that when making a kli from scratch, or putting back together parts of vessels that came apart in a way that requires an expert, all the Rishonim (early authorities) agree there is an obligation of building. Everyone agrees about those first two rules: making a kli from scratch, or needing an expert to put it back together. There is no one who disagrees, except perhaps Rashi, who says there is no building or demolishing vessels and does not give these rules. But the Ra'avad, the Ritva, the Rashba, and the Ramban all hold this way.
But with a kli that came apart in a way that any ordinary person can put it back together, the Rashba, the Ran, the BaHaG, the Ritva, the Rosh, the Shitah leRan, Tosafot, Or Zaru'a, Hashlamah, and Re'ah say this is included in the principle that we hold ein binyan ustirah becheilim. Rather, one is chayav mishum makeh bepatish. You are not off the hook: you will be chayav makeh bepatish. The Ramban, however, says that even in this case there is building with vessels. When you put it back together again by tekiah, you will be chayav mishum boneh. For now, we are discussing the case where you are finishing.
Now let’s come to the Tosefta brought in the Gemara: keneh sayadin (painters' pole) lo yachzir (should not be put back together), ve'im hechezir patur aval asur (exempt, but prohibited). What is a keneh sayadin? Rashi explains: hatach umallbin habayit besid. The person is a painter; sayad means a painter. Apparently, painters had poles made of sections, which they connected to reach high places. They put a matlit (cloth) at the end of the pole so they could reach the high spots. They put the cloth on its end and dipped it in cement, lime, or paint to paint the house.
When he is working low down, he can use a short pole. As he goes higher, he adds one section to another to reach the higher spots. The Tosefta says he is exempt because it is not complete: he has to keep taking it apart. So the Tosefta teaches a novelty: it is not considered boneh, or he is patur, because it is not complete; he is always taking it apart. It sounds as if, with a keneh sayadin, even if he fits the poles together firmly, there is no prohibition from the Torah, since it says patur. Gemar melachah (completion of the labor) is relevant only with a permanent harkavah (assembly).
With keneh sayadin, he has to take the assembly apart when he gets to a low place. The assembly is ara'it (temporary), since the kli is not completely ready for all its uses. This is a kli that is complete only when you have finished making it, and you do nothing else to it. Here, it is a temporary item until you get to the next place.
Even though Rashi explains the mitah shel perakim as a portable bed, seemingly you are always putting it together and taking it apart so they can travel. So why does Rashi say one is chayav, and why does the Gemara say chayav? According to the Tosefta’s rule, anything temporary that you take apart again should be patur. The answer is that taking apart the bed is not for the sake of using it. Once the kli is assembled, it has reached completion for its use. That is not so with the painter’s pole. Its use is not complete when you put the upper pole on, because sometimes you need it to be short. The use of the bed is complete once you have built it; you do not need to do anything else to make it functional. It is as functional as it can be.
The painter’s poles have a function when they are tall and a function when they are short. Therefore, you cannot say the use is complete once you add the sections, because the pole has a different function when it is short. Since you are going to change it for a different function, that is not completion of the kli. Taking the bed apart to carry it is only incidental. But with the painter’s pole, why do you take it apart? To use it. You are not taking it apart to put it in a closet. The function is putting it together and taking it apart. Baruch Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech ha'olam shehakol nihyah bidvaro. Anyway, that is a nice chiluk (distinction).
It is explained in the Me'iri that we learn from the Rishonim that even with a painter’s pole one is chayav if he connects it by tekiah. Until now we were discussing where you put it together loosely, without having to bang anything in. But the Rishonim say that if they bang it in, even though the assembly is destined to come apart when they need to work somewhere low, the assembly for working somewhere high has reached completion for that use. Taking it apart is not for the sake of that high use; it is for the separate use of working somewhere low. This is like a mitah shel perakim, which is destined to come apart, but its use is complete once it is assembled.
Some opinions hold that the keneh shel sayadin is actually chayav if you did it bechozek (firmly). Even though you might return to the rule that it is temporary, they hold that it is chayav. The Taz writes that when someone puts a mitah shel perakim back together be'ofen takua, he is chayav mishum makeh bepatish, not because of building, if you hold ein binyan as the reasoning for vessels. This is the view of most Rishonim: if an ordinary person can put it back together, it is not considered building. With this mitah shel perakim, any ordinary person can put it back together, so if it is not building, it is makeh bepatish. In addition, Rashi’s view is that building with vessels is not applicable.
The Taz then writes about nodot shel bedil (tin containers), which have a boreg (screw). Since their main use involves taking them apart all the time, it is not called completion of the labor, even if he tightens the screw firmly. The Pri Megadim writes on this: kelim she'i efshar lehishtamesh ki im al yedei peiruk vehiduk (vessels that can be used only by taking apart and tightening). That is how you use them: on and off, open and close. They are not makeh bepatish, because they were made for that purpose in the first place.
That is a very important principle: whenever the use is to open and close something constantly, it is not called makeh bepatish, because you have not finished the kli. The kli always has another use.
The Chayei Adam writes that one who fits the parts of vessels together is chayav mishum makeh bepatish. This does not include vessels whose covers are made with a screw, since they are made to be opened and closed constantly. Again, we are getting more clarity: there is boneh and there is makeh bepatish, but the sevara (reasoning) here is that anything constantly opened and closed cannot be called makeh bepatish, because I am not finished with it. Makeh bepatish means that I have put the final finishing touches on the kli, and now I am done. Here, they make a distinction: if the way the kli is used is by constantly changing it from one state to another, you cannot say that turning the screw is makeh bepatish, because in five minutes you are going to turn it the other way to use it differently.
We should not challenge this from the case of the painter’s pole. There, it says patur, not mutar. The Taz is saying that if you constantly change something with a screw, it is mutar. With the painter’s pole, they did not say mutar; they said patur. The reason is that when you add the extra poles, the kli has reached completion for use in a high place. The fact that you usually take the poles apart does not change the fact that the use in a high place is complete. In fact, taking them apart cancels that use in a high place. Therefore, the assembly for use in a high place is considered completion of the labor.
That is not so when you tighten a cover on a kli to protect what is inside it. The case is someone who has a lid and tightens it with a screw. It is not considered completion, because it goes on and off. The Taz’s case of nodot shel bedil is about a screw that you tighten so the cover stays on, and then undo so the cover comes off. They say it is permitted because it goes on and off. But the painter’s pole also goes on and off. The answer is that, with the painter’s pole, once you attach another section, the use in a high place is complete. When you take it apart, you have undone that use in a high place and are now creating a new use.
Someone asked, “Why doesn’t he say, ‘At this point I finished my closing’?” The answer is that you cannot consider the assembly a gemar melachah for use, because for the cover to continue serving its purpose with the contents, you have to take it off to empty the food and fill the kli with other food. Taking the cover off is part of using it to protect the food. Therefore, tightening it onto the kli is not considered completion of the labor.
The reasoning is that a kli serves food in two ways: it stores it, and then I have to eat from it or take the food out and refill it. When is it ever finished? It would never be finished. It is not a seal. Someone asked, “What do you mean it would never be finished?” The answer was that you are asking whether you are always going to turn it this way and that way, so we are not going to say there is completion. “Right, it’s not complete.” Someone else said, “It has to be complete at some point.” The reply was, “That is the function.” Another person said, “He puts it on the shelf, and now it is complete.” The response was that this is a different matter: we are not talking about building the kli. Building that kli would make you chayav. We are talking about a kli that is already built. You put flour inside and put the cap on with the screw to keep it there. That is not called completion, because the kli serves the flour by putting it in and taking it out.
Someone asked, “Can I see that sevara again? You’re never done.” No, you have those watches where they... they have the glasses, they put a different lens in and it goes on, goes off, all those things. It is all one continuous use. The answer was that the text says: mah she'ein ken betoke'a hakisui lakli she-shimushu lishmor mah shebe-toch hakli (that is not so when tightening the vessel’s cover, whose use is to protect what is inside it). Once you close it, you cannot call it completion of the labor for its use, because for the cover to continue serving the food, you have to take it off to empty out the food and use the kli for something else. It is all one continuous use.
Now we come to the shtender. It can be raised or lowered with this screw. When you tighten it to the desired height, it cannot be raised or lowered again unless you loosen the screw. According to the reasoning we have seen, it seems there is a Torah prohibition of makeh bepatish. Each assembly at the desired height is a separate use of the kli. This would be like the Rishonim who say that with the painter’s pole, once you add the section and fit it firmly, you are chayav. For that use, you are done.
Although, seemingly, there is room to distinguish between a shtender and a painter’s pole. With the painter’s pole, the extra sections that he connects are not taken apart later in order to use them by themselves. They stop being used until he needs them again. When he takes the pole apart, those sections are put away; they are used only for the high place. So their assembly is completion of the labor.
But with the shtender, when you tighten the screw for use at a certain height and later want to lower it, you use that same part of the shtender in the other position. All parts of the shtender are used whether it is high or low. There is no part that is not being used at all times. Since you have to undo the part that was fitted in order to use it for another purpose, one could say that it has not reached completion of use. That is not so with the painter’s pole: the extra pole I attached is complete for use in a high place, and I will never use it for anything but that. It has no function in a low place. When I use it in a low place, I take those sections off and put them away.
It seems, though, that the case of the painter’s pole itself proves this distinction is not decisive. Each time you attach extra poles, the poles needed for the low place have to be released from the additional upper poles so that you can use them in the low place. It is clearly destined to be undone for use in a low place. Nevertheless, once you fit the extra poles together, all the poles are considered a kli whose labor is complete for use in a high place, even though some of the poles remain in use at the bottom. The bottom poles stay in place, and we still call it makeh bepatish when you finish assembling the upper ones. So you could argue that the shtender also remains in place; that does not matter. In the end, you are changing its use from high to low. Therefore, when you fit the parts of the shtender together, even if one part has to be released so it can be used at another height, it may still become fully joined with the other part for this use. According to that view, this would be prohibited.
In Menuchat Ahavah, our rabbi, the Chacham there, follows Rashi’s view that even if you connect a keneh sayadin firmly, it is only an isur (prohibition) derabanan (rabbinic), since it is normally taken apart. Nevertheless, he writes that there is a side to say that raising and lowering the shtender is liable, because generally people do not constantly change the height. They do so only sometimes, when there is a need. If so, it is like a mitah shel perakim or a keneh menorah (lamp stand), which is chayav mishum makeh bepatish.
The more permanent it is, the more it is makeh bepatish; the more you change it, the more... One could argue that a person finds a height he is comfortable with and leaves his shtender there. There could be a distinction between a shtender in a beit midrash and one at home. In a beit midrash, each person comes and sits in front of the shtender and adjusts it higher or lower. Chacham Ben Tzion wanted to distinguish between a shtender in a beit midrash and one at home. At home, it is my shtender, and I am the one using it. Once in a while, if I sit differently, I might adjust it. But I am not making a rule out of that. A person, as a general rule, yode'a tzaddik nefesh behemto (a righteous person knows his animal’s needs). In a yeshiva, certainly, each person adjusts it according to his height, especially the ones on the floor or on a table.
That is the side for saying it is prohibited. How can you make a chiluk? With the poles, you are adding pieces together; this is one item. They wanted to make that chiluk, but they are saying that when you make the painter’s pole taller, the bottom part also stays in place and is still needed. You are still chayav when you make it taller or shorter, even though the bottom part stayed and the low part was never removed. With the shtender, when you make it taller, you are right that it is still there, but they still held that it is chayav. What if you had a pole that adjusts?
Now, Rabbotai, the permitted side. Menuchat Ahavah is machmir (stringent) regarding the shtender and its screw. I am reading it so we can understand the reasoning more clearly. Maran writes besiman shin-yod-gimmel se'if vav about a mitah shel perakim: asur lehachzirah, uvidka im taka chayav chatat (it is prohibited to put it back together, and if he fitted it firmly, he is liable for a sin offering). Maran clearly holds that with a mitah shel perakim, if you fit it firmly, you are chayav. That is like the Ramban. It must be according to the Ramban’s view, because the Ramban’s principle is ein binyan ustirah becheilim. However, if you fit it firmly, then it is building. That is one of his three exceptions: making a kli from scratch; putting back together something that came apart and requires an expert, since it is as if the kli was nullified and you are building it from scratch; and needing tekiah even when an ordinary person can do it.
The Magen Avraham says it is mishum she'oseh kli (because he is making a vessel). The Pri Megadim writes that his intention is mishum boneh, and he also writes that it was explained as mishum makeh bepatish. The Mishnah Berurah mem-alef writes: asur, gezerah shema yitka biteidot umasmerim, dehavei gemar melachah vechayav mishum makeh bepatish (it is prohibited, lest he fit it with pegs and nails, which would complete the labor and make him liable for makeh bepatish). He then brings another view: ve'yesh omrim decheivan she'oseh bazeh kli gamur, chayav mishum boneh (some say that since he is making a complete vessel, he is liable mishum boneh). So the Mishnah Berurah brings two views: is it makeh bepatish, like Rashi, or boneh, like Tosafot Yeshanim? Either way, you are stuck.
The Magen Avraham then writes about a kos shel perakim, a cup that comes apart and can be attached together. It seems to me that its parts are made with grooves around them; that means they have a screw. They put the base in, insert a peg, and turn it like a screw to attach it. They are tightened firmly. According to everyone, that is prohibited, and it is not like the covers of vessels that are made to be opened and closed constantly. With the cup, they probably assembled it once and left it that way for a longer time.
It is explained that the Magen Avraham’s view is like the Ramban. At the beginning of the siman, he explains that one who fits parts of a kli together is chayav mishum boneh, even if an expert is not needed to put it back together. With a mitah shel perakim, you do not need an expert, and Maran still says you are chayav if you fit it firmly. Why? Because that is the Ramban’s view.
The Magen Avraham refers the reader to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch about chotamot shebekarka, seals in the ground, such as the cover of a pit, which has a rope tied to it. You can untie it, because it is not a permanent knot and is not meant to stay tied. But it does not come apart and get cut because of demolishing; that applies specifically when it is made to remain in place and not to be opened on Shabbat. If it is not made to remain in place at all, it is permitted. For this reason, it is permitted to remove a board placed in front of an oven and smeared with clay, because it is not made to remain in place. Nevertheless, the Mordechai and the Magen Avraham bring proof that when something is not made to remain in place, there is no building or demolishing. Therefore, with vessel covers, one may be lenient, since they are normally tightened and taken apart constantly.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav, the Gra"z, writes that even though everything depends on whether it is made to remain in place, the permission to reassemble parts of vessels be'ofen takua does not apply only to covers whose disassembly is part of their use to protect food. It can also be permitted when something is normally taken apart for another use, because if the usual practice is to tighten and take it apart constantly, it is temporary.
The Shulchan Aruch also discusses meal utensils made of separate parts, such as a kaf (spoon), a mazleg (fork), and a knife that are taken apart at mealtime and then connected again. It is permitted to take apart and reassemble drinking utensils. Specifically, a cup that does not need to be taken apart every time is made to remain in place, so building and demolishing can apply to it. That is not so with meal utensils that are put together and taken apart all the time. According to this approach, it depends on how often you do it.
The Aruch HaShulchan discusses one kli, a fork that is taken apart so it can be fitted onto a kaf. Each time you take it apart, it is not necessary for the use you are making of it at that moment, but for another use. Even so, he permits it because it is not made to remain in place. So, even though each time you put the fork together you complete it as a spoon for the use you need, it does not matter, because as soon as you are done, you take it apart and assemble it again.
According to this, a shtender that is normally raised and lowered all the time should be permitted. The Minchat Yitzchak writes that it depends on whether it is made to remain in place each time, or whether its usual use is to raise and lower it. They understand this approach to mean that everything depends on frequency.
We find that, according to the Magen Avraham, Malbushei Yom Tov, the Gra"z, and the Aruch HaShulchan, the reason covers may be permitted even when they are tight is that they are regularly assembled and disassembled, so this is not called building. The same applies to vessels that do not have to be taken apart for the use they are serving at the time, but are normally taken apart for another use. Even though I take it apart after I finish one use and now do it for a different use, the rest of the world says: no, you are done with that item. This view says that because it is a type of kli that is constantly changed and taken apart, as the Aruch HaShulchan writes about a knife and a fork, a shtender whose normal use is to be raised and lowered may be adjusted. The Minchat Yitzchak writes this, and the Or LeTzion also writes that if it is customary to raise and lower it, it is permitted.
According to this, we have to explain the kaneh shel tzayadim. If it is always being changed from high to low and back again, why does the Tosefta say patur? Seemingly, according to this approach, it should be permitted, even though its function changes. The answer suggested is that when the Rishonim explain that fitting these vessels together is mishum boneh, they may be speaking about a painter’s pole that is fitted firmly, even though the custom is to take it apart, but it is only patur aval asur because it is temporary and not made to remain in place. There is still a question: why is it prohibited rabbinically if it is normally built and taken apart? Perhaps the Rishonim who explain that fitting these vessels together is mishum boneh are discussing a pole that was not normally taken apart constantly, but was kept assembled for several days.
In practice, we come out with an even greater kula (leniency). He says that he heard in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that a shtender that can be raised and lowered by means of a screw is permitted, even if sometimes a person leaves it for a month or longer, because it is designated for this. He raises it when he wants and lowers it when he wants. He added that this reasoning is correct. It further says there in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that if a child comes and wants to use the shtender, the person will certainly lower it for him. Therefore, it is not considered made to remain in place, and it is permitted. Grip Fischer also writes this.
He holds that it is enough that it can be adjusted; it does not have to be adjusted frequently. But it is difficult to reject the many Rishonim who say that one who puts a mitah shel perakim back together by tekiah is chayav mishum makeh bepatish, because he completes the kli. We mentioned that when an ordinary person can put it back together, the obligation is mishum makeh bepatish. The Rashba and the Ran, and others, hold that way.
According to their view, one can prove that whenever someone fits parts of vessels together, he is chayav mishum makeh bepatish, even if the connection is not made to last. Rather, the matter depends on whether his action brings the kli to completion for use. First, many of them explain that one is chayav mishum makeh bepatish even with a painter’s pole if he fits it firmly, even though it is normally taken apart when he needs to work somewhere low. Maran adds to this. How can you consider the screw a firm insertion? He does not accept that it is. He accepts that if you are doing it, you are leaving it for a long time, and then you run into a problem.
Someone asked, “Isn’t this different from the mitah shel perakim? That is made of separate parts. The shtender is really one piece, built to stay together. Shouldn’t there be a difference between putting separate things together and something built as one piece? It should be even more lenient than the cap. The cap is also two pieces. Here, it is one item, made to be adjustable.” The response was, “I hear where it comes from.”
As we discussed yesterday, this issue is also found when assembling the seat of a stroller: you press the straps or connectors in the seat into the holes in the stroller. The seat connects and tightens firmly, and does not come loose at all. In our view, that kind of connection is considered a complete tekiah, even though it is done easily, especially since it is normally left that way for a long time. Grip Fischer writes that a connection made with springs is also considered tekiah. That is a novelty: once you call that tekiah, it means not necessarily a nail and hammer; it means that it is fitted firmly.
With adjustable crutches, which are made of two parts that fit into each other, you pull out a pin and put it into another hole so the crutch will stay at the desired height. The pin is pressed from the inside into the hole by a spring. The inclination is that it is prohibited to adjust it, since it is made to stay that way for as long as this person uses it. I suppose that means the person’s height does not change. It is a real tekiah, since it holds firmly.
The same applies to putting back the wheel of a stroller when it has come out of place. When you insert it, it catches there by means of a spring. These springs are everywhere. It is prohibited to put it back, since it remains in place. The book Hilchot Shabbat writes in the name of Grish Elyashiv that something fitted by means of springs is considered tekiah.
Once you say a spring is considered tekiah, then even if the usual way is to assemble and disassemble a stroller seat all the time, the matter depends on whether tekiah that an ordinary person can do makes one chayav mishum boneh or makeh bepatish. If you hold makeh bepatish, there is no problem, because it is constantly being changed. But if you hold it is mishum boneh, the frequency does not matter. Frequency is relevant to makeh bepatish; if you hold it is mishum boneh, it is mishum boneh.
The Mishnah Berurah brought two views about a mitah shel perakim: is it boneh or makeh bepatish? If you say makeh bepatish, perhaps this case is not makeh bepatish because it is constantly changed. But if you hold it is boneh, then, according to those who say it is mishum boneh, it is permitted because it is temporary. It would be prohibited mishum makeh bepatish, though, because that is completion of the labor: you finish it and want to use it. Taking it apart is not necessary for the use itself; when I take it out, I am putting it away. This is like the painter’s pole. That is why, mishum makeh bepatish, one is chayav even if he wants to take it apart.
But with a tray attached to a baby’s high chair by clips, and which is not normally firmly fitted, it is like covers of vessels. If the concern is boneh, it is made to be taken apart all the time. If the concern is makeh bepatish, it has to be taken apart all the time for the use itself. The use is to let the child in and out, and to take the tray on and off; that is its use. Someone said, “I don’t think I ever took the tray off.” Another replied, “Maybe the mother does, when the child gets a little older.”
He then returns to the stroller seat. Even if the usual practice is to take the seat off the stroller so the seat can be used somewhere else, for the baby to sleep in it, that is not connected to the first use. It is a separate use, not a continuation of the first one. It is like the painter’s pole, and there is a concern of a Torah prohibition of makeh bepatish, because it is done by tekiah. Someone asked, “Like the Mishkan?” The answer was, “No.” Asked whether he was saying the person is chayav, he answered, “Yes, he wants to say chayav.” Someone added, “And the high chair too?”
Another view says that the tray of the baby’s chair is like covers of vessels: if it is boneh, it is normally taken apart; and if it is makeh bepatish, it must be taken apart for the use itself. The tray is always moved in and out; you are never finished with it. Someone asked whether this would be a major chumrah (stringency) if he prohibited clicking it into place. The response was that Grip Fischer and Grish Elyashiv are among those who prohibit it. Someone asked, “Is this clicking considered tekiah?” Another said, “That is the problem. Once you call it tekiah, yes.” Someone objected that it is not tekiah, because it is going in and out. The response was, “We hold it is boneh; it is mutar.” The Mishnah Berurah brought two sides, so we have to ask the poskim (halachic decisors).
They discussed Reish-Samech-Zayin and whether the case was actually about a click or two separate parts of a stroller. One person thought it had to click into the stroller and then come out when you wanted to use it differently. Another said that the text says: hineh b'se'if zayin, salei yeshivah letinok. If it is customary to assemble and disassemble a baby’s seat or cradle from time to time, it is permitted to do so on Shabbat, provided he does not fit the pegs or screws firmly. If it is left there for a long time, it is prohibited in any case. They said, “If the usual practice is to change the seats from time to time, it is permitted.” They agreed that there are many opinions.
They asked whether the spring connection is considered firm, and whether it is enough simply to click it in. One person said that if it is firmly fitted, it is prohibited; if it is not, it is permitted. Another asked why the text specifically says pegs. The reply was that it might be a simple case involving pegs; perhaps they did not have a stroller like that, and the stroller they had required screwing the parts in. We cannot say what Chacham Ben Tzion holds if he did not discuss springs. Someone pointed out that even a belt used to secure a baby in a seat has clips that click. They agreed that there are many opinions.
At the end of the teshuvah, he brings the Chazon Ish. He cites Chelek heh, amud reish-samech. It is permitted to adjust it even if you do it only occasionally, or even if you do not regularly adjust it. He holds like Rav Shlomo Zalman: since it is flexible and made to move up and down, he would permit the clicking. But he has a question about that.
We didn’t get to mitah shel traskal (folding bed) yet, but we learned in the Gemara that it opens and closes and is not made of parts. There, the Gemara said it is muttar. It is like a folding chair: it is all attached; nothing is coming apart. All these cases we were talking about over here are apart.
The last case is a drawer in a cabinet attached to the ground, or a cabinet that holds mem se'ah (forty se'ah) and therefore has the status of an ohel (tent). It seems that since the drawer is normally left in the cabinet, and it is not normally removed at all, it is no different from a window shutter or an upper row that is considered part of the building because it is fixed in place, even though it is not fitted firmly there. It also seems that with shelves in a cabinet, if they fall out, one should not put them back because of the concern of boneh on the ground. They ask whether the aron is attached to the wall—I think so—or whether it is too heavy to move. And one should not remove them from the cabinet either.
Someone asked, “Even though there is no tekiah? The pegs are already there, and I am just putting the shelf in.” The answer was that this is like the top stone on a wall, which we said is chayav even without cement. The comparison is to the top stone discussed by the Rambam: the bottom stone needs metzaded (positioning sideways), the middle stone needs cement, and the top stone is behanachah be'alma (by mere placement). Since the drawer or shelf is normally left in place, it is considered part of the building because it is fixed there, even if it is not fitted firmly. So if the shelves fall out, one should not put them back because of the concern of building on the ground, and one should not remove them from the cabinet.
The only thing we really have to ask the poskim of our time about is this clicking. What about items that click into place? Does the spring connection count? Then the toilet-paper holder might also be a problem: the spring mechanism clicks into place. Someone said, “I don’t know whether I would call that firm.” Another said that for that item, it is as firm as it is meant to be. They asked whether it is like the stroller, or like the cap on food. The response was that with the paper roll, when the paper is finished, you have to put another one on, so it is constantly being taken on and off.
They returned to the question of tekiah. Someone said that once there is tekiah, you are stuck. Another pointed out that with a mitah shel perakim, even though you take it apart in the morning and at night, if you fit it firmly you are chayav chatat. They asked how that differs from threading a cap. The answer was that there is no screw in an ordinary cap. Tekiah is by means of another object; tekiah is by means of a nail, not just two items being put together. The Taz was discussing a screw that you tighten so the cap stays on, and then undo so the cap comes off.
Someone suggested that the case might be a jar with a lid and a separate metal piece that screws on, like jars used for pickles. They noted that modern jars have ridges that are part of the kli, whereas in the case being discussed they were putting in a boreg (screw). The reason it was permitted was that it was continually being used and undone. But once you fit something firmly, the question is whether you are done with it. The rabbis said that once you fit a mitah shel perakim firmly, you are done with it for that use, even if you change it morning and night. That changing is only a side point.
Someone said, “Just read me Maran.” Maran says that if you fit a mitah shel perakim firmly, you are chayav chatat. Another asked what the novelty of “if he fitted it firmly” is. The answer was that it is prohibited to fit it firmly in the first place, and if he did, he is chayav. Maran holds that if he did fit it firmly, he is chayav, either mishum boneh or mishum makeh bepatish. The question is whether this clicking is considered fitting it firmly. According to Maran, it does not sound as if the temporary nature of the mitah shel perakim changes the ruling once it is fitted firmly. That is like the Ramban: you are right that there is no building or demolishing vessels, but where you fit it firmly, there is building with vessels. If this clicking is considered fitting it firmly, we have a problem.
Someone said, “Everything we have clicks.” Another asked, “Why would that be anything different than the stick that goes in the gate that's locked? Draw the parallel to that. Remember that was mutar (permitted).” They left the question open.
Ribbi Chananyah ben Akashya omer, ratzah ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu lezakot et Yisrael, lefikach hirbah lahem Torah umitzvot, shene'emar, Hashem chafetz lema'an tzidko, yagdil Torah veya'adir (Rabbi Chananyah ben Akashya says: The Holy One wished to grant merit to Israel; therefore He gave them abundant Torah and commandments, as it says, The Lord desired, for His righteousness' sake, to make the Torah great and glorious).
Yitgadal veyitkadash shemeh raba (May His great name be exalted and sanctified). Amen.
Be'alma di vera chir'uteh, veyamlich malchuteh, veyatzmach purkaneh, vikarev meshicheh (In the world He created by His will; may He establish His kingdom, bring forth His redemption, and bring near His Messiah). Amen.
Bechayeichon uvyomeichon uvchayei dechol beit Yisrael, ba'agala uvizman kariv, ve'imru amen (In your lives and days, and the lives of all Israel, speedily and soon; and say amen). Amen.
Yehe shemeh raba mevarach le'alam ul'almei almaya (May His great name be blessed forever and for all eternity).
Yitbarach, veyishtabach, veyitpa'ar, veyitromam, veyitnase, veyithadar, veyit'aleh, veyithalal, shemeh dekudsha berich hu (May the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, be blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, elevated, honored, raised, and lauded). Berich hu.
Le'ela min kol birchata veshirata, tushbechata venechemata, da'amiran be'alma, ve'imru amen (Beyond all blessings, songs, praises, and consolations spoken in the world; and say amen). Amen.
Titkabal tzleothon uv'uthon dechol beit Yisrael kedam avuhon devishmaya, ve'imru amen (May the prayers and supplications of all Israel be accepted before their Father in Heaven; and say amen). Amen.
Yehe shelama raba min shemaya, vechayim tovim aleinu ve'al kol Yisrael, ve'imru amen (May there be abundant peace from Heaven and a good life for us and all Israel; and say amen). Amen.
Oseh shalom bimromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu, ve'al kol Yisrael, ve'imru amen (May He who makes peace in His heights make peace for us and all Israel; and say amen). Amen.
Gabi, mabruk. How are you, buddy? “Third time’s a charm.” “Come, I’ll come to Pesach.” “All right. Now you get—they have New York. It’s time for New York.” “My father also said he has a check.” “Then you give it to you, and then you send it from this year.”