Choresh: Defining the Melakha
THE LAWS OF SHABBAT
By Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon
Shiur
#30:
Choresh, Part I
May children play in a sandbox on Shabbat? Is there any problem in pulling a
wagon over dirt? May one sweep the floor
of a house or a yard? May one wash a
floor that has become dirty?
I)
Defining the Melakha
The Mishna (73a) counts the
melakha of
choresh (plowing; the action is known as
charisha) as one of the thirty-nine melakhot: The primary labors
are forty less one: sowing, plowing
One would have thought that the order should have been reversed first
choresh and then
zoreia, since plowing generally precedes sowing. The Gemara (73b) explains that the
Mishna is dealing with the land of Israel, where the practice is to plow twice:
once before sowing (zeria), and another time after sowing, in order to
cover the seeds with dirt. The
Mishna teaches us that even the charisha
which comes after zeria is forbidden
because of choresh.
The Gemara continues and says: Plowing,
digging, and trenching are all the same
melakha. Rashi explains: All
of them serve to soften the ground.
According to this explanation, choresh
includes every act which comes to loosen the soil and soften the ground;
consequently, digging and trenching, which also break up the ground, make one
liable because of choresh.
It appears that Rashi derives this definition from the words of the
Gemara in Moed Katan (2b).
In the Gemara there, Rabba determines that one who waters seeds on Shabbat is
liable because of choresh: Just as
the way of plowing is to soften the ground, these too soften the ground. According to him, the irrigation
causes a loosening of the soil, and this is precisely the essence of
choresh, to soften the ground. (Rav Yosef, on the other hand, argues
and believes that one who waters is liable because of
zoreia, since the irrigation promotes plant growth; see our series on
the melakha of
zoreia).
Later on in the passage in Shabbat, the Gemara states that the
classification of removing a mound (a protrusion from the surface of the ground)
varies: in a house (i.e., the dirt floor of a dwelling), one is liable for
boneh (building); in a field, one is
liable for choresh. Rashi explains here as well that one
is liable for choresh in a field
because this act softens the ground.
The continuation of the Gemara states that the classification of sealing
a hole in the ground also varies: in a house, one is liable for
boneh; in a field, one is liable for
choresh. This apparently has no connection to
softening the ground. Rashi
explains:
If one has a hole
and fills it with dirt, this is choresh,
because the dirt with which one fills it is loose and good for sowing,
and one smoothes the patch and makes it level with the ground which is to be
sown in the field.
In other words, the essence of the
melakha of choresh is
preparing the ground for sowing, and the condition for this is that the
ground must be soft, because only such ground accommodates sowing. Therefore, whether one makes the
ground soft or whether one puts loose dirt into a hole in the ground, one is
liable because of choresh.
Another approach to the definition of the
melakha of choresh emerges
from Rabbeinu Chananel (74a), based on the Yerushalmi (7:2). Rabbeinu Chananel writes as follows:
Plowing, trenching
and digging are all the same melakha
Anything which serves to improve the terrain in the field renders one liable
because of choresh, and anything
which is done in the house in order to level [the floor] renders one liable
because of boneh. [That which is done] in order to
level the terrain of a field renders one liable because of
choresh, as it says (Yeshayahu 28:25) When he has leveled the
surface
And anything which
serves to benefit of the terrain renders one liable because of
choresh, as is explicitly
mentioned in the Yerushalmi.
This is similar to what Rabba says about filling in a hole; this too is
smoothing the surface of the ground.
According to this approach, the
melakha of choresh does not relate
specifically to softening and loosening the dirt, but rather to every action
which beautifies and improves the ground.[1]
Filling a hole does not soften the ground, but it does cause the surface
to be level, and this improves the terrain, as can be seen from the verses
referenced from Yeshayahu (28:24-25): When a farmer plows for planting,
does he plow continually?
When he
has leveled the surface, does he not sow caraway and scatter cumin?
In other words, smoothing the surface of the ground is one of the
actions of charisha, and afterwards it
is possible to start the act of zeria
and to scatter seeds (such as caraway and cumin) on the ground.[2]
A similar approach emerges from the Rambam (8:1):
One who plows any
amount is liable. One who weeds at
the roots of trees
in order to improve the terrain, this is a
subcategory of choresh
Similarly, one
who levels the surface of a field by knocking down and smoothing out a hillock
or filling up a dell is liable because of
choresh.
In any case, according to Rabbeinu Chananel and the Rambam, it is clear that not every
activity which improves the terrain is included in the prohibition of
choresh, but only something which
prepares the ground for zeria. The Or Zarua (Vol. II, Ch. 55) writes
the same: Anything which is for the benefit of the ground and improves it for
the purposes of sowing renders one liable because of
choresh, and the Acharonim rule accordingly.
To sum up this section, according to Rashi, the definition of charisha
is specifically softening the ground to prepare it for zeria,
while according to Rabbeinu Chananel and the Rambam, charisha includes any
actions which beautify and improve the terrain in preparation for
zeria.
When One
Does Not Intend to Sow
Does the prohibition of choresh
exist only when the person actually intends to sow in that ground? The Gemara simply states that in a
field, one is liable for choresh, and
it is implied that this matter does not depend on ones intent. The Chiddushim Ha-meyuchasim La-Ran writes (ad loc.):
If a person has a
mound
in a field, one is liable for a choresh because many times a person plows with the sole intent of
turning over the soil to improve the field, not for sowing. Thus, any improvement (tikkun) of the field is significant because of
choresh.
However, if the terrain is totally unfit for sowing, the
prohibition of choresh does not apply. The Gemara in Pesachim (47b)
indicates that the prohibition of choresh
is not applicable to rocky ground, which cannot be sown, and the Or Zarua (cited
above) and others write the same.
What is the rule for ground which is fit for
zeria if it is not designated for sowing and there is no intent
to sow it (for example, regular dirt in public spaces)? The Gemara says, as we have noted,
that one who levels the ground in a field is liable for
choresh, while one who does so in a house is liable for
boneh.
From the words of the Magen Avraham (526:10), it appears that in a place
which is neither a field nor a house there is no prohibition from the Torah of
choresh. The Eglei Tal (Choresh, 16) believes that every place falls into the category of either
field or house:
It is clear that the
house is not a house per se, but any place of residence
The field denotes
any place which is fit to be sown and is not designated as a residential area or
a public thoroughfare. In an area
which is designated for residence, one is not liable for
choresh, because if one were to sow in
it, one would negate its residential status
If so, it is not considered improvement to prepare the place for sowing,
because if one sows there, it will ruin its current purpose
According to this, every place must
necessarily be one of the two, house or field, that if it is a residential area
or a public thoroughfare, it is considered a house, and one is liable for
boneh; if it is not residential, one
is liable for choresh.
According to him, if a tract of land is fit for
zeria, even if it is not specifically
designated as agricultural land, preparing it for
zeria constitutes a tikkun,
and such an act is included in the melakha
of choresh. Only when the ground is designated
for residential use do we say that there is no issue of
choresh in making it ready for
zeria, as it were, since this is an act of
kilkul (ruination), as the zeria
precludes any residential use.
(Nevertheless, smoothing the surface of the ground is forbidden with this type
of land as well because of boneh,
since level ground is also better for residential purposes).
Halakhically, it makes sense to adopt the view of the Eglei Tal, that
the prohibition of choresh applies
also to ground which is not designated for
zeria, because the Rishonim and Acharonim discuss various
questions pertaining to incidental acts of
choresh e.g., dragging furniture, pulling wagons or playing marbles
and the like, as we shall see below but none of them notes that this
melakha applies only to a field designated for agricultural use, which is
not common in settled areas. This
silence indicates that the prohibition is applicable to normal dirt in a public
place as well, since it is fit for zeria,
even if it is not designated for this.[3]
II)
Trenching
One of the actions mentioned by
the Gemara (73b) is trenching, making a rut in the ground. This prepares the ground for sowing,
and is forbidden by the Torah because of choresh. Making a furrow in
a houses dirt floor, on the other hand, is generally forbidden rabbinically,
since this is considered kilkul and
not tikkun. However, one who makes a rut or
depression in the ground of the house in order to use it for any purpose is
liable for boneh (Rashi, 73b, s.v.
Patur, following the Gemara, 102b).
Dragging
Objects
Is it permissible to drag objects on unpaved ground, which is likely to
cause the creation of a trench in the dirt?
Since in this situation the person does not intend to make a furrow, this
depends on a Tannaitic dispute about whether an unintentional act (davar she-eino mitkavven) is
permitted. In fact, this is exactly
the situation of the Tannaitic dispute, as explained in the Mishna and Gemara,
Beitza 23b:
Rabbi Yehuda says:
One may not drag any object, except for a wagon, because it compacts [the
earth]
Rabbi Shimon says:
One may drag a bed, chair or bench, as long as one does intend to make a
trench.
Rabbi Shimons view is accepted halakhically: a
davar she-eino mitkavven is allowed,
and therefore one is allowed to drag objects on the ground, if one has no
intention to make a trench.
However, the Gemara notes in a number of places (75a, 103a, et al.) that
Rabbi Shimon concedes that such an act is
forbidden in a case of pesik reisha,
i.e., when there is certainty that the act done will bring about the result of a
forbidden melakha. Therefore, one should not drag
objects in the dirt if this will definitely cause the making of a rut in the
dirt. This is how the Shulchan Arukh
rules (337:1):
A
davar she-eino mitkavven is allowed,
as long as it is not a pesik reisha. Therefore, one may drag a bed, chair
or bench, whether large or small, as long as one does not intend to make a
trench.
The
Magen Avraham (ad loc., 1) points out that the allowance of the Shulchan
Arukh to drag even large objects does not relate to particularly heavy objects,
since these objects certainly make a trench in the ground. This is what the Mishna Berura (ad loc., 4) writes in his name:
The Magen Avraham
writes that the especially large objects may not be dragged on the ground,
because it is a pesik reisha they
will certainly create a trench.
One should note that making a trench in this situation is not forbidden
on a Torah level, because it is not done normally, with a hoe and the like, but
rather backhandedly (Rashi, 46b, s.v. Issura). This is particularly true when this
is done in the house, because then the act is considered
kilkul (Rabbeinu Tam,
Sefer Ha-yashar 233; Shaar Ha-tziyun 337:1); however, the law of
pesik reisha applies even to labors
forbidden only rabbinically (Magen Avraham, ad loc. 1).
Similarly, one should not sit on a chair which stands on the ground if
sitting on it will definitely cause the legs to make a trench in the ground. However, it is permissible to
remove an object which is stuck in the ground, since the trench existed even
before the removal of the object (Gemara, 113a; Mishna Berura 498:91).
On Paved
Ground
Is one allowed to drag heavy objects on paved ground? From the words of the Gemara (29b),
it would appear that dragging objects is even forbidden on such surfaces:
In an upper room
with marble floors, Abin of Sepphoris dragged a bench before Rabbi Yitzchak ben
Elazar, who said to him, If I hold my peace
a disaster will result: there is a
decree in a marble room because of an ordinary room.
In other words, it is forbidden to drag heavy objects over a paved floor
because of a rabbinical decree, lest one come to drag them over unpaved ground.[4]
However, as we shall see at length in our next shiur,
there is an argument among the Rishonim about whether this decree is
applicable in a locale in which all of the houses have paved floors. According to Tosafot (29b, s.v.
Gezeira), this decree only applies in a place where some houses are not
paved, in which there is a concern that a person may come to drag objects even
in these houses, but in a place in which all of the houses have paved floors,
there is no reason to forbid it. On
the other hand, the Ramban (95a,
s.v. Hakha) rules that one should not distinguish between different
locales.
Halakhically, the Mishna
Berura rules (Shaar Ha-tziyun 337:2) leniently in accordance with the
view of Tosafot, taking into account additional factors that favor this
leniency:
It makes sense that
if the entire town is paved with stone or paneled with wood, one should be
lenient about this
bearing in mind that even when it is not paved, there is no
true dragging on a Torah level for many reasons.
First, the trench that one will make in this is digging backhandedly. Furthermore, one damages the house by
making ruts in it; one does not improve it.
Above all, one has no intention for this, and it is only an unwanted
pesik reisha
As is explained above in the gloss to
316:3, the view of the Rema is clear: he holds, generally, that with regard to a
doubly rabbinic prohibition [two mitigating factors that would each reduce the
severity to rabbinic], an unwanted pesik
reisha is allowed, even though here we are stringent about this
. In any case, if the whole town is
paved, one should enlist the view of the
Tosafot as well
that we do not
make a decree in such a case because of that which is not paved
His reasoning is as follows: Logically, one should have been lenient
even in a case of unpaved ground, since this is an unwanted
pesik reisha at the confluence of two
mitigating factors that would reduce the severity of the act to a rabbinic
prohibition (backhanded acts and acts of
kilkul). Though generally in
such a case we are stringent, this confluence makes room to rely on Tosafot and
to be lenient in a place that all of the houses are paved.
Dragging
a Wagon over Dirt
From the abovementioned Mishna in Beitza, it is clear that, even
according to Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids dragging objects even if there is no
certainty that this act will make a ditch (since a
davar she-eino mitkavven is forbidden), it is permitted to drag a wagon
over dirt, because it compacts [the earth].
This is because the wagon does not create a ditch by moving the dirt to
the side, like the leg of a chair or a table; rather, it compresses and
consolidates the earth under it.
Creating a rut in such a way is not forbidden because of
choresh.
What is the significance of the manner in which a trench is formed? According to Rashis approach, this is easily
explained. As cited above, Rashi
explains that the basis of the melakha
of choresh is softening the ground. Thus, when one digs in the ground
and moves the dirt to the side, the dirt crumbles and becomes soft; however,
when one compacts and compresses the dirt below, there is no softening of the
ground.
The explanation of the Rambams view seems to be that since the normal way of preparing the ground
for zeria is by digging, the making of
a trench by compaction is not derekh
charisha, the normal way of plowing. As such, the tracks created bear no
similarity to the standard furrow or ditch, and this is not included in the
melakha of
choresh, particularly when a person is not at all interested in the
creation of a trench.
However, the Gemara indicates that this rule of pulling a wagon on top
of dirt is subject to a later Tannaitic dispute: there are those who say that
Rabbi Yehuda allows dragging a wagon on dirt because it compacts the earth, but
there are those who say that Rabbi Yehuda is stringent about this. However, according to Rashi ibid.
(s.v. Trei), the dispute relates to a side question:
One believes that
the wagon is like any other object in that one may make a trench by dragging it,
as sometimes the wheels do not turn, and it is dragged and digs [into the
ground]. The other one believe that
this is uncommon, and it only compacts [the earth] as it rolls.
In other words, according to all views, the making of a trench through
compaction is not forbidden because of choresh, and the dispute is about the question of whether one must be
concerned about a situation in which the wheels of the wagon will become stuck
and will make a rut in the manner of digging.
This statement of Rashi is very significant. As mentioned, the halakhic consensus
follows the view of Rabbi Shimon,
that a davar she-eino mitkavven is
allowed, and we do not forbid the dragging of objects unless there is certainty
that they will make a trench. Is it
permitted to move a heavy wagon through dirt, when it is certain that this will
create tracks in the ground? In
light of this Rashi, this should be permitted, as according to all views, making
a trench by way of compaction is not forbidden because of choresh. The Tannaitic dispute in the view of
Rabbi Yehuda relates to a concern that the wagon will make a rut in the way of
digging, and since this concern is not in the category of a
pesik reisha, then halakhically, in
accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon, we need pay no attention to it.
Indeed a number of halakhic authorities have ruled in accordance with
this approach (Kaf Ha-chayim 337:4; Chut Shani, Vol. I, p. 95, in the name of
the Chazon Ish): one may move a heavy wagon over unpaved ground, since the wagon
does not excavate the dirt but merely compacts it, and there is no act of
choresh in this. This lenient view can be taken as
authoritative, especially given that this is, in any case, a rabbinic
prohibition, since the charisha is
backhanded, and generally also falls into the category of
kilkul.[5]
A Sandbox
Unlike normal rocks, twigs or dirt, which would have the status of
muktze and a rabbinic ban against moving them on Shabbat, the sand in a
sandbox is not muktze, as this is designated for childs play. (Nevertheless, beach sand or
construction sand and the like are forbidden because of muktze.) However, one should warn children not
to build or dig in the sand, as this would fall under
boneh or choresh respectively.
If the sand is very soft, so much so that if one digs a hole, the sand
falls back into it and fills it, there is no prohibition to build in it (Mishna Berura 308:143, following Tosafot
39a, s.v. Ikka). In any case,
one should warn children not to add water to a sandbox, since there may then be
a problem of kneading. Moreover,
this will help stabilize the sand and prevent it from collapsing, and as such
playing with it would then be forbidden because of
boneh or
choresh.
These laws apply equally to a sandbox which has a solid bottom and is
thus not attached to the ground, since the prohibition of making a depression
applies equally to dirt detached from the ground and in a vessel (Mishna Berura 498:91).
[1] This approach finds
support in the Gemaras ruling
(103a) that one who plucks endives is liable even for a small quantity, if one
intends to improve the terrain.
While the Ramban (111a)
raises the possibility that the liability there is for harvesting, not for
plowing, nevertheless, in his conclusion, he writes, following the Tosefta,
that the liability is also because of
choresh. This is what the Meiri
(103a) writes as well.
[2] The Yerushalmi
(7:2) counts many other acts which improve the terrain as forbidden because of
choresh: fertilizing the ground,
removing stones from it, etc.
[3] Nevertheless, the
Mishna Berura indicates otherwise.
In the Shaar Ha-tziyun (336:18), he rules that it is forbidden to pour
water only in a field which is designated for
charisha, implying that if it is not
designated for charisha, the
prohibition of choresh is not
applicable. We have cited this in
his name about zoreia as well. (The source is the words of the Or
Zarua, Vol. II, Ch. 54; however he does not say designated for plowing, but
rather normally plowed, and his intent may be that it is fit for plowing).
It may be that the Mishna Berura follows the view of the Magen Avraham mentioned
here, not the view of the Eglei Tal; if so, there is more room for leniency in
this regard.
However, the Orechot Shabbat (Ch. 18, n. 8) writes that it may be possible to
integrate their views by distinguishing between different acts: acts which are
characteristically part of charisha,
such as leveling the surface, are forbidden even in a field which is not
designated for charisha, while
irrigation, which is not characteristically associated with
charisha, is forbidden only in a field
which is designated for charisha. This answer is somewhat innovative,
but because the Mishna Berura does not explain himself in the context of
choresh, and since one may distinguish
between irrigation and plowing, we have brought here the words of the Eglei Tal
for the practical ruling.
[4] In fact, while the
Gemara addresses the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids a davar she-eino
mitkavven, the same should apply according to the view of Rabbi Shimon
regarding heavy objects since there is a
pesik reisha of making a groove if it is dragged over unpaved ground. Indeed
the Magen Avraham (337:1) and the Mishna Berura (337:4) rule accordingly.
[5] The Az Nidberu (Vol.
V, Ch. 21) writes that even if the wagon for some reason digs up the ground
instead of flattening it, it is permissible to move it over roads, sidewalks,
etc., since in our time the entire town is paved, and therefore one has no
reason to be stringent about paved ground, as the Mishna Berura rules above.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!