Shulchan Aruch Combined OC 319

‫שלחן‬
‫ערוך‬
‫אורח דעה‬
‫יורה‬
‫חיים‬
‫‪TRANSLATED‬‬
‫‪& EXPLAINED‬‬
‫הלכות שבת‬
‫בורר (א)‬
‫שלחן‬
‫ערוך‬
‫אורח חיים‬
TRANSLATED
& EXPLAINED
Copyright © 2022 by
Machon Smicha LLC
Online Rabbinical Ordination Program
onlinemachon.com
info@onlinemachon.com
Compiled & Edited by:

Rabbi Yitzchak Sultan
Rabbi Elisha Pearl
Rabbi Shlomo Chaim Kesselman
Rabbi Aryeh Wells
Templates, Layout & Cover by:
beishasforim@gmail.com
All rights reserved.

This publication, or any part thereof, may not be
reproduced in any form, or by any means, including
electronic, photographic, or mechanichal, or by any sound
recording system, or by any device for storage or retrieval
of information, without the written permission of the
publisher.
Hilchos Shabbos
Borer (Book 1)
Siman 319 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Separating On Shabbos
Se'if 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Se'if 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Se'if 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Se'if 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
‫ט"ז מגן דוד‬ ‫הלכות שבת‬ ‫שיט‬ ‫אורח חיים‬ ‫מגן אברהם נ"י‬ ‫א‬
‫שיט ‡ )א( לאכול לאלתר וכו'‪ .‬לאו דוקא לאלתר אלא באותו‬ ‫שיט ‡ א( בנפה חייב‪ .‬שזהו דרך ברירתו‪ :‬ב( לאלתר מותר‪.‬‬
‫סעודה דהא בגמ' איתא ת"ר היו לפניו ב' מיני אוכלין‬ ‫ודוקא אוכל מתוך הפסולת ]מגיד משנה[ עיין לקמן סעיף‬
‫בורר ואוכל בורר ומניח ולא יברור ואם בירר חייב חטאת ואיכא‬ ‫ד' ה'‪ :‬ג( מותר לברור הירק‪ .‬דוקא אוכל מתוך הפסולת‪ .‬ועמ"ש‬
‫הרבה אוקימתות לפרש ברייתא זו והמסקנא אביי אמר הכי‬ ‫סוף סימן תרי"א דאפילו אין העלין הללו פסולת גמור שראוי‬
‫קאמר בורר ואוכל לאלתר בורר‬ ‫לאכילה ע"י הדחק אסור לברור‬
‫ומניח לאלתר ולבו ביום לא‬ ‫‚ ד( ומניח‬ ‫הפסולת ע"ש‪:‬‬
‫יברור ואם בירר נעשה כבורר‬ ‫סימן שיט‬ ‫השני וכו'‪ .‬כונת רמ"א למ"ש‬
‫לאוצר וחייב חטאת‪ :‬ואגב‬ ‫דיני הבורר בשבת‪.‬‬ ‫הטור דאותו שרוצה לאכול‬
‫אזכיר מה שקשה לי מאי‬ ‫ובו יז סעיפים‪:‬‬ ‫חשוב‬ ‫עתה חשוב כאוכל והשני‬
‫דוחקיה דאביי לפרש כן‬ ‫פסולת וא"כ צריך לברור זה‬
‫הברייתא דרך נעשה ולמה לא‬ ‫שרוצה לאכול ולהניח השני אבל א א הבורר אוכל מתוך פסולת או שהיו לפניו‬
‫פירש דג' בבי קתני לאלתר שרי‬ ‫שני מיני אוכלים ובירר מין ממין אחר‬ ‫איפכא לא דהוי פסולת מתוך‬
‫לכתחלה לאכול ולהניח לבו‬ ‫בנפה ובכברה חייב בקנון ובתמחוי פטור‬ ‫א( ]א[‬ ‫אוכל וכ"כ התרומת הדשן‪:‬‬
‫ביום פטור אבל אסור ולאוצר‬ ‫ה( לא מקרי ברירה‪ .‬אא"כ קצת‬
‫חייב חטאת וכדרך שפי' רב‬
‫אין ראוי לאכול אלא ע"י הדחק אבל אסור ואם בירר ב בידו )כ„י( )א( לאכול‬
‫יוסף לפי תירוץ שלו בשלמא‬ ‫ב( ]ב[ לאלתר מותר‪:‬‬ ‫וכמ"ש סעיף א' דאז פטור אבל‬
‫לעולא ולרב חסדא ולרב‬ ‫אסור ואע"פ שמחבץ ומשמר הגה וכל מה שבורר לצורך אותה סעודה שמיסב בה מיד‬
‫המנונא אין לפנינו רק ב'‬ ‫מקרי לאלתר )המ‚י„ פ"ח ורבינו ירוחם נ˙יב י"ב ח"ח וב"י וטור‬ ‫חייב משום בורר התם בדברים‬
‫חילוקים על כן מוכרחים אנו‬ ‫ור‡"˘( ואפילו אחרים אוכלים עמו שרי )˙וס' פר˜ כלל ‚„ול(‬ ‫לחים עמ"ש סעיף ט"ו ]מגיד‬
‫לפרש על ב' דברים דהיינו‬
‫ולכן ג( מותר לברור ]ג[ הירק שקורין שלאט"ן מן העלין‬
‫מותר לכתחלה וחיוב חטאת‬
‫המעופשין שבו כל מה שצריך לאכול באותה סעודה )ב"י סימן ˘כ"‡ וב„רכי מ˘ה סי' ˙רי"‡ ‡ו˙ ב'(‪:‬‬
‫משא"כ כאן שיש לפנינו ג'‬
‫חילוקים דהיינו לאלתר ובו‬ ‫ב ג הבורר אוכל מתוך הפסולת בידו להניחו אפילו לבו ביום נעשה‬
‫ביום ומניח למחר למה לא‬ ‫כבורר לאוצר וחייב‪:‬‬
‫נפרש הברייתא ג"כ הכי‪ .‬ונראה‬ ‫ומניח השני‬ ‫ד( ]ד[‬
‫ג ד היו לפניו שני מיני אוכלים מעורבים בורר אחד מאחד‬
‫לענ"ד דהך היתר דלאלתר הוא‬
‫פשוט דאל"כ ודאי היאך אפשר‬
‫כדי לאכול מיד‪:‬‬
‫לאכול כל אדם דודאי לא יקח‬ ‫הגה ושני מיני דגים מקרי שני מיני אוכלים ואסור לברור אחד מחבירו אלא‬
‫המאכל כולו בפעם אחד לפיו‬ ‫בידו כדי לאכלו מיד אע"פ שהחתיכות גדולות וכל אחת ניכרת בפני עצמה‬
‫אלא יקח אחד אחד לפי ראות‬ ‫אבל כל שהוא מין אחד אע"פ שבורר חתיכות )ב( גדולות מתוך קטנות ה( לא מיקרי‬
‫עיניו מה שיקח תחלה יקח‬
‫וא"כ קשה פשיטא דשרי‪ .‬וגם מ"ש מניח לאלתר קשה פשיטא כיון דמותר לאכול הנברר הוא הדין להניח מותר לאכול המונח‬
‫לאלתר באותה סעודה ועל כן הוצרך לפרש דמה שכתב אח"כ לא יברור לבו ביום יש בו חיוב חטאת וא"כ הוא אמינא דאף להניח‬
‫לאכול לאלתר אסור משום דאי שרית ליה להניח לאותה סעודה שמא יניח לבו ביום ויהיה חייב חטאת משא"כ אם לא היה חיוב‬
‫חטאת רק פטור אבל אסור אין שום סברא לטעות ולגזור עבורו במניח לאותה סעודה על כן הוכרח אביי לפרש )המשנה( ]הברייתא[‬
‫על ב' דרכים זה נ"ל נכון‪) ‚ :‬ב( גדולות מתוך קטנות‪ .‬דבתרומת הדשן סימן נ"ז כתב שאין איסור ברירה אלא בב' מינים דבגמרא‬
‫איתא היו ב' מינים לפניו ודוקא ב' מינים דנקט דכל היכא דאיכא למימר דוקא לא אמרינן לאו דוקא‪ .‬ותמוה לענ"ד דלפי הנראה‬
‫לרבותא נקט ב' מינים דבא' פשיטא ששייך ברירה במה שרוצה להניח אלא אפילו ב' מינים דכבר ניכר ומופרש כל א' מחבירו ואין‬
‫באר הגולה‬
‫ד‪ .‬רמב"ם שם הי"ג‪:‬‬ ‫ג‪ .‬שם אוקימתא דאביי‪:‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬תוס' וכ"כ ר"ח והרמב"ם שם‪:‬‬ ‫שיט א‪ .‬שבת ע"ד והרמב"ם בפ"ח הי"ב‪:‬‬
‫באר היטב‬
‫ולאלתר ומהריט"ץ שם התיר להסיר הצרעה מן הכוס בשבת מטעם‬ ‫שיט ‡ ]א[ בנפה‪ .‬שזהו דרך ברירתו‪] :‬ב[ לאלתר‪ .‬ודוקא אוכל מתוך‬
‫אחר דאין ברירה בלח‪ .‬וגם את הצרעה ישלח‪ .‬דלא שייך ברירה אלא‬ ‫הפסולת עיין ס"ד‪ .‬הר"י אבולעפיא הובאו דבריו במהרי"ט צהלון‬
‫מה שצריך לפשפש ולברור אבל דבר שצף למעלה כבר ברור הוא והוי‬ ‫סימן ר"ג כתב דמדברי רש"י נראה דאפילו לאלתר דוקא כשבורר‬
‫ליה כמשחיל ביניתא מחלבא דאין זה בורר ע"ש‪ .‬והיד אהרן כתב עליו‬ ‫לעצמו מותר אבל לאחרים אסור ומהרי"ט צהלון שם דחה דבריו וכתב‬
‫דהיתר זה הוא דחוק מאוד‪ .‬והט"ז סימן זה ס"ק י"ג ובסימן תק"ו ס"ק‬ ‫דאפילו לאחרים שרי‪ .‬עוד כתב שם מהר"י אבולעפיא דהרמב"ם ס"ל‬
‫ג' כתב דאין להסיר הצרעה והזבובים מן הכוס דה"ל בורר פסולת מתוך‬ ‫דבורר פסולת מתוך אוכל נמי מותר לאלתר ולפי זה כתב דלהסיר‬
‫אוכל אלא ליקח מן המשקה קצת עמהם‪] :‬ג[ הירק‪ .‬דוקא אוכל מתוך‬ ‫הצרעה מן הכוס מותר להסירה כשהוא לאלתר‪ .‬ומהרי"ט צהלון שם‬
‫הפסולת ואפילו אין העלין הללו פסולת גמור שראויים לאכילה ע"י‬ ‫דחה דבריו והעלה שדעת כל הפוסקים דפסולת מתוך האוכל אסור‬
‫הדחק אסור לברור הפסולת‪ .‬מ"א‪] ‚ :‬ד[ ומניח‪ .‬רצה לומר דאותו‬ ‫אפילו לאלתר והנוטל פסולת מתוך האוכל לעולם חייב אפי' ביד‬
1 Orach Chaim Se'if 1 Siman 319
SIMAN 319 | ‫סימן ˘יט‬

˙‫בורר ב˘ב‬‰ ‫„יני‬
Separating on Shabbos
What is borer? / When and how may borer be done? / What is considered a ta’aroves? / Other halachos of borer
‡ ‫סעיף‬ 1
‫ | ר‡"˘ ˘ב˙ פר˜ ז הלכה „ | רמב"ם הלכה ˘ב˙ פר˜ ח הי"ב‬.„‫ ˘ב˙ ע‬:˙‫מ˜ורו‬
Introduction:
What is borer? The Mishnah 1 enumerates the 39 forbidden melachos of Shabbos. The seventh is
borer (lit. separating).
In the Mishkan, various plant based substances known as samemanim were used to create the dyes
for the animal hides that were used to cover the Mishkan. 2 When working with these samemanim,
those building the mishkan would remove the pesoles (undesirable parts) from them. Thus, since
this was one of the categories of labor in building the Mishkan, it becomes a paradigm of forbidden
labor on Shabbos. 3
Shulchan Aruch Harav4 succinctly states the prohibition of borer: “if one removes pesoles (undesirable
material) from ochel (desirable material) even with one’s hand, and even with the intention to eat
the food immediately, they are in violation of the prohibition of borer.”
As will become clear this seemingly simple definition has innumerable nuances, to the point the the
Mishnah Berurah 5 writes that “It is very prevalent that people stumble (i.e. inadvertently violate)
borer due to lack of knowledge (of its many intricacies).”
What is the difference between borer, zoreh, and meraked? 6: After listing the 39 melachos,
the Gemara 7 wonders: “Isn’t zoreh (winnowing) identical to borer (separating), which in turn is
identical to meraked (sifting)?”
Sources & Notes

1. Shabbos 73a. Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 7:1. L’Maaseh vol. 1 Orach Chaim, Siman 39 and Shabbos
2. See Rashi to Shabbos 73a s.v. Ha’ofeh. Levush Siman 1. K’halachah 14:1 for a clear discussion of the differences.
3. Shulchan Aruch Harav 319:1. Finally, a helpful resource is Rav Yosef Tzvi Rimon’s Shabbos,
4. 319:1 vol. 1 discusses these three melachos in general and vol. 2
5. Introduction to Hilchos Shabbos. discusses their details.
6. Shabbos 73b. See discussion in Shiurei halachah 7. Shabbos 73b.
Rashi 8 explains that all three seem to be actions that involve removing ochel (lit. food, something
desirable) from pesoles (lit. waste, something undesirable).
Abaye and Rava answer the Gemara’s question by saying that even though they are similar, since
they were important for the building of the mishkan, each one is counted as its own melachah.
That said, there are still differences between the three.
Borer and zoreh can be seen as similar because they both deal with the process of separating mixtures
into their individual components. Meaning, they both involve the idea of discerning and isolating
the desired part of a mixture from the undesired part. However, the two are not the same, since
zoreh involves separating undesirable parts from desirable parts using wind, or a similar method.
This was typically done in the process of threshing grain where the lighter chaff would be blown
away by the wind, leaving the heavier grain behind. In contrast, borer is performed by hand (or
via a utensil), and is considered a distinct category of melachah. 9
Borer is also similar to meraked. This is because meraked also involves the process of selection or
separation. However, their primary difference lies in the method of separation. In the case of
meraked the separation is done with a specialized utensil, and one is in violation of it even if one
separates the desirable material from undesirable. 10
Procedurally, when it comes to siddura d’pas (the order of making bread) the three melachos follow
one another. For after threshing the grain, one throws the grain into the wind (zoreh). Then one
engages in borer, separating pebbles and dirt from the grain by hand. And then, one takes the
grain and sifts it, separating the bran from the grain, and making flour.
Is borer always assur? In its discussion of Borer, the Gemara 11 cites a Braisa that appears to
simultaneously permit and prohibit borer. 12 This seemingly explicit contradiction prompts the
Gemara to propose several different interpretations of this Braisa. Each proposed interpretation
provides its own nuanced explanation on which kind of selection (borer) is permitted on Shabbos,
and which kind is not.
There are five opinions amongst the Amoraim:
1) Ulla: The Braisa permits separating items intended for consumption on the same day, but
prohibits separating items intended for use on the next day.
2) Rav Chisda: The Braisa allows separating items in a quantity less than the 'shiur' (a specified
amount that, if exceeded, would make one liable to bring a korban chatas (sacrifice to atone for
an inadvertent sin)). However, it forbids separating a quantity more than the 'shiur.' 13
3) Rav Yosef's: The Braisa allows separating items with one's hands, but not with a utensil. Mid'oraisa
Sources & Notes

8. S.v. Hachi Garsinan Heinu Zoreh. him types of foods–he may select and eat, select and place
9. For more on this conceptual distinction, see Shiurei aside. And one may not select, and if he selected–he is liable
halachah L’Maaseh vol. 1 Orach Chaim, Siman 28, p. 185. for a sin offering.”
10. Shiurei halachah L’Maaseh vol. 1 Orach Chaim, Siman 13. Ramban [Shabbos 74a s.v. V’chi] discusses Rav
28, p. 186. Chisda’s rationale. See 319:16 where his opinion is quoted
11. 74a with practical ramifications.
12. The Braisa reads, “The Sages taught: If one has before
one may not separate with a nafah (sieve) or a k’varah (strainer). Mid’rabbanan, one may not even
separate with a konoin (triangular basket) 14 or a tamchui (serving plate). 15
4) Rav Hamnuna: The Braisa permits separating oche from pesoles, but not the other way around.
5) Abaye: The Braisa allows separating items l’alter (for immediate consumption). However, it
forbids separating items with the intention of consuming them later (even that day), as this is
equivalent to separating items for storage, which is forbidden.
The Rishonim 16 follow Abaye's interpretation, because when the Sages presented Rava with the
various interpretations, he expressed particular approval for Abaye's understanding.
Why is borer permitted under certain conditions? Rashi 17 explains that the act of borer is only
prohibited under specific circumstances, and each interpretation of the Braisa outlines different
conditions under which borer might be allowed. This is because, under these conditions, the act of
sorting or selecting is not considered derech melachto (the typical way of performing the melachah)
and is therefore permitted.
Ran 18 explains that borer is permitted under certain conditions because it is performed in a manner
consistent with normal eating habits, a concept referred to as derech achilah. Any sorting or
selecting that is deemed consistent with the typical way of eating is not considered a violation of
the melachah.
The poskim, including Magen Avraham, 19 Shulchan Aruch Harav 20 and Mishnah Berurah, 21 use the
term derech achilah to explain the cases where borer is permitted. 22
Conversely, taking pesoles out of ochel is not considered derech achilah, but rather tikkun ma’achal
(preparing food to make it suitable for consumption) which is one step removed from derech
achilah. 23 Therefore, it is assur.
May one separate a mixture of two foods? A standard case of borer involves separating ochel and
pesoles. But what if neither member of the mixture is pesoles, and it's just two foods that one wants
to separate from each other because he only wants to eat one?
Tosfos 24 and Rosh 25 address this question. They rule that if one has two foods in front of them, but
only wants to eat one of them, the desired food is considered the ochel, and the undesired one the
Sources & Notes

14. Rashi [s.v. B’konoin] explains that a konoin is a 18. Meyuchas L’ran [Shabbos 74a].
wide vessel with a narrow opening. Someone who wanted 19. 320:7
to separate lentils would put lentils on the wide side and the 20. 319:1. See Shabbos K’halachah 12:1, 47.Tziyunim
lentils would roll through the thinner opening and the refuse V’Hearos 1.
would remain in the vessel. 21. 319:6
15. Mishnah Berurah [319:2] explains that a tamchui is 22. Shabbos K’halachah 12:1 p. 92 emphasizes the
a large dish. criterion of derch achilah.
16. Rabbenu Chananel [Shabbos 74a] Rif [Shabbos 32a] 23. Shulchan Aruch Harav 319:1.
Rosh [Shabbos 7:4] Ritva [Shabbos 74a s.v. Amruha] 24. Shabbos 74a s.v. Hayu. See Pri Megadim 319, MZ 2.
17. Shabbos 74a s.v. Ochel, V’borer 25. Shabbos 7:4
pesoles. 26 Therefore, one may only separate the desired food from the undesired, and it is forbidden
to separate the undesired from the desired. 27
Rambam 28 maintains that borer also applies to two types of food. However, he does not clarify
whether he holds like Tosfos in considering the undesired one pesoles. 29 Accordingly, Eglei Tal 30
understands that Rambam holds that borer can also be violated by sorting two types of food into
two separate locations, which according to Tosfos could theoretically be permitted. 31
Rama 32 Magen Avraham 33 and Shulchan Aruch Harav 34 and Kaf Hachaim 35 all rule in accordance
with Tosfos. Yalkut Yosef 36 also follows Tosfos, but writes that the Shulchan Aruch’s view on this
question is not clear.
Shabbos K’halachah 37 rules further that if the two foods are desirable to two different people, one
may separate out the foods from the mixture without following the rules of borer.
May one separate with a utensil or tool? The Gemara continues that there are two versions of a
certain Braisa, which discusses whether or not someone who separates two types of food on Shabbos
is chayav to bring a korban chatas (sin offering) or patur (exempt). 38 39 The Gemara resolves this
contradiction by dividing the case of separating two types of food into two distinct cases. If one
separates two types of food with a konoin (triangular basket)or tamchui (serving plate) they are
patur. If one separates with a nafah (sieve) or a k’varah (strainer) they are chayav.
Rashi 40 explains that using a large dish such as a tamchui (serving plate) to separate two foods is
patur since it is an abnormal way of separating. Even using a konoin (triangular basket) 41 which
has a thick side and thin side to allow lentils to roll out leaving behind the refuse is only forbidden
mi’drabbanan, since it is not the normal way of borer.
However, it is assur mid’oraisa to use a nafah (sieve) or a k’varah (strainer) because these tools are
Sources & Notes

26. Shabbos K’halachah 12:9 clarifies that this is true 35. 319:22
even if one’s preferences are just at the present moment, but 36. 319:22
they will want the other food later. 37. 12:66* citing Pri Megadim in Rosh Yosef Shabbos 74,
27. Beis Yosef [ 319:3:2] implies that this logic is and Rav Shlomo Zalman in Shulchan Shlomo 319:15.
compelling since the Braisa compares separating two 38. Based on Shabbos 3a, Rambam [Hilchos Shabbos 1:3]
types of food to separating ochel from pesoles. Since Tosfos clarifies that as a general rule in Hilchos Shabbos, “patur”
explains that when there is a mixture of two types of food, the means assur mid’rabbanan, while “chayav” means assur
undesired one is considered pesoles; therefore, separating one mid'oraisa.
food from another is just like separating ochel and pesoles. 39. Rav Ashi cites a Braisa which states that someone
28. Hilchos Shabbos 8:13 who separates two different foods on Shabbos is patur. The
29. Beis Yosef implies that Rambam agrees with Tosfos. Gemara challenges Rav Ashi based on a Braisa, which states
30. Zoreh 1:1:2 the opposite — that in such a case one would be chayav.
31. Pri Megadim in Rosh Yosef [Shabbos 74a s.v. V’heneh] 40. S.v. Patur
agrees with Eglei Tal. Rambam’s view regarding taking the 41. Rashi [s.v. B’konoin] explains that a konoin is a wide
undesired from desired is discussed by Acharonim, as well vessel with a narrow opening. Someone who wanted to
as separating them into two piles. separate lentils would put lentils on the wide side and the
32. 319:3 lentils would roll through the thinner opening and the refuse
33. 319:4 would remain in the vessel.
34. 319:5. See analysis in Shabbos K’halachah 12:9, 66*.
designed specifically for the purpose of borer, and separating with them is considered a normal
act of borer.
Tosfos concludes the discussion with three halachos:
1) It is permitted to separate for immediate consumption using one’s hands.
2) It is forbidden mid’rabbanan to sort using a konoin or tamchui.
3) It is forbidden mid’oraisa to use a nafah or k'varah.
This is unlike the opinion of Rashi who holds that it is permissible to separate for immediate
consumption, even with tools designed to separate.
Rambam, 42 Tur, 43 and Mechaber 44, and Shulchan Aruch Harav 45 rule like Tosfos.
May one separate for others? Tosfos 46 interprets the Gemara to mean that just as one is permitted
to separate for one’s own immediate consumption, one is also permitted to separate for someone
else’s immediate consumption. Rama rules like Tosfos.
In summary, which conditions are necessary to permit borer? Rosh 47 summarizes that l’halachah
there are three necessary conditions to permit borer:
(1) The ochel must be separated out l’alter (for immediate use). This is based on Abaye’s explanation
of the Braisa, which the halachah follows.
(2) The ochel must be separated out from the pesoles, whereas it is forbidden to separate out the
pesoles from the ochel. 48
(3) One must separate with one’s hand and not with a kli borer tool. 49
Most Rishonim agree with Rosh that all three conditions are necessary to permit borer. 50 Shulchan
Aruch Harav 51 rules this way as well.
Mechaber defines three types of borer. The type from the other type, ‫ ַח ָ ּיב‬‰‫ב ¿כ ָב ָר‬ƒ ‫ ּו‬‰‫ – ¿ ּבנָ ָפ‬if one
first is borer for which the transgressor is chayav does either of these kinds of sorting with a sieve or
mid'oraisa. strainer, he is biblically liable for transgressing
˙‫מ ּ˙ו… ¿ך ּ ¿פס ∆…ל‬ƒ ‫בּ ו… ≈רר ‡ ∆…כל‬‰ַ – One who sorts out food the prohibited melachah of borer.
from waste, ‫לים‬ƒ ‫מינ≈ י √‡ ָכ‬ƒ ‫י ּו ¿ל ָפנָ יו ׁ ¿˘נ≈ י‬‰ָ ˘∆ ׁ …‫ – ‡ו‬or if Mechaber rules on the second type of borer, which
there are in front of him two different types of is assur mid’rabbanan.
food, ‫מין ַ‡ ≈חר‬ƒּ ‫מ‬ƒ ‫מין‬ƒ ‫ – וּבו… ≈רר‬and he sorts out one ‫ ּ ָפט ּור ֲ‡ ָבל ָ‡ס ּור‬,‫ – ¿ ּב ָ˜נו… ן ּו ¿ב ַ˙ ¿מח ּוי‬If the sorting is
Sources & Notes

42. Hilchos Shabbos 8:12 the two seemingly contradictory Braisas.
43. 319:1 50. Rabbenu Chananel [Shabbos 74a-b], Rif [Shabbos
44. 319:1 32a] Rambam [Shabbos 8:12-13] Tosfos [74a s.v. Borer and
45. 319:1. V’hatanya] Ran [Shabbos 32a s.v. Nimsa] and Tur.
46. Shabbos 74a s.v. Borer. There is a minority view of Tosfos Rid [Sefer Hamachria
47. Shabbos 7:4 23] who holds that it is permitted to separate pesoles from
48. Rosh quotes this from Rabbenu Chananel. Ran ochel if it is done by hand and for immediate consumption.
[Shabbos 32a s.v. Nimsa] proves this condition from the case See Birkei Yosef [319:2].
discussed in se’if hei. 51. 319:1. For discussion see Shabbos K’halachah 12:43.
49. This condition is based on Rav Ashi’s resolution to
instead performed with a triangular basket or with ‫ – ְו ָכל ַמה ּ ׁ ֶש ּבוֹ ֵרר ְלצ ֶֹר ְך אוֹ ָת ּה ְס ֻﬠ ָּדה‬And any sorting
a serving plate, the sorter is exempt according to which a person does for the purpose of a meal ‫ׁ ֶש ּ ֵמ ֵסב‬
Torah law, yet doing so is still forbidden according ‫ – ָּב ּה ִמ ָ ּיד‬which he will be immediately sitting down
to rabbinic law. to, 52 ‫ – ִמ ְק ֵרי ְל ַא ְל ַּתר‬is considered immediate. ּ‫ַו ֲא ִפ ּלו‬
Mechaber rules on the third type of borer, which ֹ‫ – ֲא ֵח ִרים אוֹ ְכ ִלים ִע ּמו‬And even if others are eating with
is entirely permissible. him ‫ – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬it is permitted. ‫ְו ָל ֵכן ֻמ ָּתר ִל ְברֹר ַה ָ ּי ָרק ׁ ֶש ּקוֹ ִרין‬
‫ ֻמ ָּ˙ר‬,‫‡ם ≈ ּב ≈רר ¿ ּביָ „ו… ) ּ¿כ ≈„י( ∆ל ¡‡כ…ל ¿ל ַ‡ ¿ל ַּ˙ר‬ƒ ‫ – ¿ו‬And if one ‫ – שלאטי"ן‬Therefore, it is permitted to remove the
sorts food from waste with his hand (in order) to green called “lettuce” ‫ – ִמן ֶה ָﬠ ִלין ַה ְמ ֻﬠ ּ ָפ ׁ ִשין ׁ ֶש ּבו‬from
eat that food immediately, it is permitted, even the rotten leaves that are with it, ‫יך ֶל ֱאכֹל‬ְ ‫ָּכל ַמה ּ ׁ ֶשצָּ ִר‬
according to rabbinic law. ‫ – ְּבאוֹ ָת ּה ְס ֻﬠ ָּדה‬as much as is required for that meal.
Rama adds.
Discussions & Explanations

May one perform (permissible) from pesoles since for his friend the desired item
borer for others? is being removed.
Rama writes that it is permitted to separate for
immediate consumption even for others eating at Rav Nissim Karelitz 55 is unsure about this point
the meal. 53 because perhaps his actions are considered borer
for himself since the primary intention is to make
Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 54 extends this one’s own salad more enjoyable. In that case, the
to someone who is separating for someone else’s action is forbidden since one is removing pesoles
immediate consumption even though one’s main from ochel.
purpose is to remove the food he doesn’t like. For
example, if one does not like onions in his salad Shabbos K’halachah 56 even permits performing
and someone else at the table does, he can remove the permitted borer for animals (for example doing
the onions for the other person, even though his borer to feed one’s pets or livestock on Shabbos). 57
primary intention is to separate the onions out Shabbos K’halachah 58 further permits performing
of his salad. His action is viewed as borer ochel permitted borer for seasonings, herbs, or spices
Sources & Notes

52. Lit. reclining. separate the hay from the thistles immediately before feeding
53. See Shabbos K’halachah 12:4, 35, 43. While Shabbos the goats. This would constitute a permissible form of borer,
K’halachah rules that practically, one may separate for others because it meets the conditions of sorting food from waste,
even if he is not eating together with them, he notes that using it immediately, and doing so by hand. It is important to
Shulchan Aruch Harav’s [319:3] formulation that, “if others note that there is no need to watch the goats to ensure they
are eating with him, one may do borer for everyone” that eat right away. The key factor is the intention of immediate
ideally one may only do borer for others if they are partaking use during the sorting process.
in the same meal. 58. 12:44. See there for extensive discussion. He
54. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 3:8. acknowledges that some poskim say that the conditions for
55. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 84 25:5 s.v. Yesh]. permitted borer should not apply to seasonings because
56. 12:43 with biuruim #9. See Pri Megadim MZ 319:5 the seasonings are not directly edible, and there is a step
and Biur Halachah 319:1 s.v. kedai. between one’s act of separation and the subsequent eating.
57. He adds that one need not make sure that the He pushes back that since one’s intention is to ultimately eat
animal(s) eat. So, for example, a goat herder could manually the seasonings, the heter of borer still applies.
that are used in cooking to enhance the flavor of What about sorting two foods
a dish. (Examples can include salt, pepper, garlic, from each other, intending to
oregano, basil, thyme). eat neither immediately?
Pri Megadim 65 questions if sorting two types
How ruined does the of foods, both of which one does not intend to
pesoles need to be? eat right away, is borer. He suggests that perhaps
Magen Avraham 59 rules that removing lettuce the melachah of borer only applies when there is
leaves that are partially moldy from the other ochel and pesoles (or at least, out of two foods, one
good tasting leaves is considered borer. 60 This is undesirable one), and that since in this case since
true even though the partially moldy leaves would one wants both equally, it is impossible to consider
be edible if one was very hungry and didn’t have either to be the pesoles, so therefore it should be
other food. 61 permitted.
The poskim 62 extrapolate from this that One of Pri Megadim's 66 proofs is from se'if tes
mid’rabbanan, pesoles is not only things that are vav where it is permitted to strain apart an egg
entirely inedible, rather, it includes things that are yolk from the egg white. The reason it is permitted
edible if someone is in dire need. is because one isn't separating the yolk to eat it
separately, rather for its color. Pri Megadim infers
Regarding lettuce, Biur Halachah 63 clarifies from this that if one separates two items not to eat
that if outer leaves of lettuce become moldy it either, that is not borer.
is permitted to remove them even though it is
pesoles from ochel, since it is similar to peeling a Biur Halachah 67 rejects Pri Megadim’s
fruit close to when one intends to eat the fruit. 64 suggestion, and holds that it is assur. He learns
However, if the bad leaves are scattered then it is this from the simple language of Rambam 68 which
only permitted to take the good ones from the bad implies that it is forbidden mid’oraisa. 69 He also
ones. makes a kal v’chomer: If when taking pesoles from
ochel and the pesoles remains in its place, it is
Sources & Notes

59. 319:3 64. Broadly speaking in Hilchos Borer there is no
60. Shabbos K’halachah 12:71 expands this to include distinction between fruits and vegetables.
cases such as taking burnt food out from unburnt food of the 65. MZ 319:2
same type, or wormy vegetables out of worm-free vegetables. 66. MZ 319:12
61. Shabbos K’halachah 12:71 qualifies that if the moldy 67. 319:3 s.v. Hayu
fruits or vegetables are such that one would cut away the 68. Hilchos Shabbos 8:13
moldy pieces and then eat the rest of the fruit, then it would 69. In fact, Pri Megadim [Rosh Yosef to Shabbos 74a
be permitted to remove them, like it is permitted to do borer s.v. Vheneh] clearly notes that Rambam forbids in his case
within one kind. He reasons that the fruit does not entirely since according to Rambam, the prohibition of separating
have the status of pesoles, since part of it is edible. two foods is violated by sorting them into two locations,
62. Shulchan Aruch Harav [319:4] and Mishnah Berurah irrelevant of which one he wants. His suggestion to permit
[319:7]. Even though Eliyah Rabbah [319:5] challenges this was only for Tosfos and Rama who define the food that
Magen Avraham’s proof, the poskim accepted Magen one does not want as pesoles, that in this case perhaps there
Avraham’s ruling. See also Shabbos K’halachah 12:71. is no pesoles.
63. 319:1 s.v. Min
considered borer, certainly when taking both Gra 74 one may be lenient, since it was shogeg (by
items into two new locations is it borer. He also mistake).
rejects the proof from the egg case. 70
Shabbos K’halachah 75 rules that if one did not
Rav Ovadia Yosef 71 wrote that Biur Halachah’s intend to do borer, and they selected the pesoles,
proofs aren’t compelling since ultimately it is then one may throw it away, and they need not
difficult to consider either food to be pesoles in return the pesoles to the pile. Therefore, for
this case. Therefore, even though he ruled strictly example, if one inadvertently picked a rotten
about this question, he would consider this safek grape out of a bowl of grapes, they may throw that
to be a factor to add in where there are other grape away.
reasons to be lenient.
Are the following items
What if one accidentally considered klei borer?
does (forbidden) borer? Based on the fact that borer, even ochel from
If if one accidentally does borer, Pri Megadim 72
pesoles, and even for immediate use, is still
suggests that the food is forbidden even after forbidden with a kli borer, the poskim discuss if the
the fact. Biur Halachah 73 notes that according to following items are considered klei borer or not: 76 77
Sources & Notes

70. Biur Halachah rejects the proof because one is not moisture and prevent the salt from clumping together. When
preparing either food for consumption at any point. (This one shakes out the salt, technically, they are separating the
follows the explanation of Bach and Levush in se'if tes vav. salt from the rice.
See there for other approaches.) The yolk is getting mixed However, according to Rav Shlomo Zalman’s interpretation,
into mustard and the white is going to waste. However, when if the intention is immediate use of the salt (the desirable
sorting two foods, both will be consumed later; therefore, item), using such a salt shaker is not considered borer.
sorting them is a melachah that enhances each type of food. The separation of the salt from the rice is not the primary
71. Yabia Omer 5:31:5 intention, but rather a byproduct of the process of dispensing
72. EA 319:1. salt for immediate use. Therefore, using the salt shaker
73. 319:1 s.v. Haborer. would not fall into the category of 'borer' in this context.)
74. 318:1. on Shabbos. None of these are classified as 'borer' utensils
75. 12:5. He bases this ruling on Ketzos Hashulchan under these circumstances.
125:47. See further discussion in Shabbos K’halachah there However, many others disagree.
tziyunim v’hearos 10. 77. Orchos Shabbos [v. 1 ch. 3 fn. 79] asks why a tamchui
76. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [ Shemiras Shabbos is a kli borer since its shape does not aid borer. He answers
K'hilchasah [ch. 3 fn. 140]] suggests that even when using that the reason a kli borer is forbidden is because it gives one’s
a utensil that serves to separate items, it is not considered actions significance to be considered a melachah. Therefore,
a borer utensil if the food it is used on is intended for any kli with any shape could be a kli borer. However, that is
immediate consumption. To illustrate, this means that only if one’s action is an action of separating, and the kli gives
it is permissible to use things like a tea bag, a teapot,( If it the status of a melachah. However, if it is primarily an action
one is planning to consume tea immediately, Rav Shlomo of eating, then the kli is not a kli borer. This could be the
Zalman’s interpretation would permit one to use a tea bag intent of Chazon Ish — that a teapot is not a kli borer because
(which separates tea leaves from the liquid) because the final the person pouring tea is doing an action in the process
intention is immediate consumption of the tea. The same of drinking tea and not separating. Similarly, Rav Shlomo
principle applies when using a teapot that contains a built- Zalman Auerbach's leniency could be understood that a kli
in strainer to separate tea leaves from the poured tea.) or borer which is always used for immediate consumption is
even a salt shaker containing rice( which is added to absorb not a kli borer because the action is not defined as an act of
Knives, spoons and forks: out chicken from vegetables even if one only wants
Eglei Tal and Pri Megadim permit using
78 79 to serve the chicken, even though one does not eat
a knife for permitted instances of borer. Chayei chicken with a spoon.
Adam 80 and Eshel Avraham Tinyana 81 extend this
to allowing a spoon. Shulchan Aruch Harav appears to rule leniently
on this matter. 87 This is inferred from his writing 88
Rav Moshe Feinstein 82 ruled that the that it is permitted to collect the cream floating
classification of a fork or spoon as a kli borer hinges on top of milk if it is done for immediate
on whether it assists in the act of separating. If consumption. Mishnah Berurah 89 understands
it does, it's considered a "kli borer" and its use is this as only permitting to pour out the cream but
prohibited by mid’rabbanan. However, if it merely not to use a spoon to take it out. However, Ketzos
acts as an extension of the hand, serving to prevent Hashulchan 90 understands this as permitting
messiness or reach distant items, it's not deemed a using a spoon. 91
kli borer. Minchas Yitzchak 83 agrees. 84
Mishnah Berurah’s own opinion on the matter
Shabbos K’halachah rules categorically that
85 isn’t clear, as in some places 92 he indicates that a
one may use any utensil which is not specifically spoon is a kli borer and in some places 93 indicates
designated for borer to separate ochel from pesoles it is not. Some 94 explain that Mishnah Berurah
for immediate consumption. Using a fork, knife, agrees with Rav Moshe’s distinction. Meaning,
or spoon is considered like an extension of one’s he permitted separating a thick item from gravy
hand. 86 Shabbos K’halachah extends this leniency with a spoon since that could just as well be
to even allow using a utensil for the explicit accomplished with one’s hand, however, he forbade
purpose of borer in the context of eating. For separating fat from on top of non-homogenized
example, it is permitted to use a spoon to separate milk with a spoon since that is something that is
nearly impossible to do with one’s hand. Similarly,
Sources & Notes

separating. Shabbos K’halachah grounds his ruling on Shuclhan Aruch
78. Borer 10:1, Tochen 23:1 Harav 319:18
79. 319 MZ 3 s.v. ha 87. This is the consensus amongst Chabad poskim. See
80. Klal 82, Nishmas Adam 2. Shemiras HaShabbas p. 91n9.
81. 319 s.v. Zerikas Eshel Avraham Tinyana is a work by 88. 319:18
the Butcatcher Rebbe, Rav Avraham Dovid of Butchatch. Not 89. Shar Hatziyun 319:58
to be confused with Eshel Avraham, the work by Pri Megadim 90. Badai Hashulchan 125:8, 9, 15, 24.
on Magen Avraham. 91. The Ketzos Hashulchan infers in a few places to be
82. Igros Moshe OC 1:124 stringent on this matter, see end of Badai Hashulchan 125:24,
83. 1:76 125:14, Ketzos 125:3. Shabbos K’halachah questions why
84. Orchos Shabbos [1:3:85] and Shabbos Kitchen [p. 135] Ketzos infers to be stringent when according to Ketzos the
concur. Yabia Omer [7:40:8] holds that cutlery is never a kli Alter Rebbe is lenient.
borer and is more lenient than Igros Moshe. 92. 319:55 and 62
85. 12:49-50. See extensive analysis in Tziyunim V’Hearos 93. 319:66
85, and in Biurim # 12. See also 12:80. 94. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [ch. 3 fn. 141], Rav
86. See Shabbos K’halachah ch. 12 Tosefes Biur #9 Shlomo Amar [Shma Shlomo 1:5], Yalkut Yosef [319 fn. 10],
where he takes issue with Rav Moshe’s distinction between and Rav Yosef Tzvi Rimon [Shabbos v. 2 p. 606]. See, however,
prohibited and permitted modes of borer with a spoon, and Orchos Shabbos [v. 1 ch.3 fn. 98] for another resolution to
rules that it should always be permitted. the contradiction in Mishnah Berurah.
he forbade taking congealed fat from a dish of kli that is designated for immediate consumption
gravy with a spoon. after the borer isn’t a kli borer. So too, the teapot
is always used for borer before immediate
Pot covers: consumption and is permitted.
Rav Moshe Feinstein held that a pot cover is
a kli borer mid’rabbanan since one utilizes it to However, many other poskim disagree. 100
make borer easier. Therefore, for example, it is
assur to hold a pot cover close to the side of the However, everyone agrees that it is permitted
pot allowing the liquid to drain while retaining the if the tea leaves have settled on the bottom of the
solid food in the pot. 95 teapot and one pours slowly, as long as one leaves
some tea at the bottom. 101
Teapots:
Chazon Ish writes that tea leaves mixed into
96
S lotted spoons:
tea in a teapot can be separated by being poured Ketzos Hashulchan 102 rules that using a slotted
through a slotted spout of the teapot. He considers spoon, 103 a perforated serving spoon, to separate
this as borer ochel from pesoles with one’s hands, out solids from a liquid is forbidden since it is a
and not a kli borer. 97 kli borer. 104
Ketzos Hashulchan 98 and Rav Shlomo Zalman Orchos Shabbos 105 writes that it is forbidden
Auerbach 99 were lenient because they hold that any even according to Chazon Ish cited above since
Sources & Notes

95. Halachos of Shabbos [Borer fn. 241] quoting Rav must be strict. Kaf Hachaim [319:113] also seems to forbid
Moshe Feinstein, Shabbos Kitchen p. 161. Rav Shlomo Zalman this type of teapot. Orchos Shabbos [v. 1 ch. 3 fn. 85] quotes
Auerbach [Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [ch. 3 fn. 176]] and Rav Shmuel Auerbach as forbidding because the theories
Rav Elyashiv agree. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 7 fn. 103] and Orchos which do not consider it a kli borer have no basis.
Shabbos [1:3:76] agree. However, Orchos Shabbos [v. 1 ch. 3 101. Ayil Meshulash [7:30] and Orchos Shabbos [1:3:77]
fn. 83] quotes Rav Shmuel Auerbach who held that it is not based on se’if yud daled.
a kli borer and is just a way of avoiding getting one’s hands 102. 125, Badei Hashulchan 28
dirty. 103. A slotted spoon is a spoon-like utensil with slots,
96. 53 s.v. Min ha’amur. holes, or other openings in the bowl (the scoop part). These
97. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 7 fn. 84] explains that Chazon openings allow liquid to pass through while retaining the
Ish’s reason is that since the teapot was made to pour tea larger solid pieces on the spoon.
and not to separate between the tea leaves and the tea, it is For example, if one is cooking pasta in a pot of boiling
not a kli borer. water, they may use a slotted spoon to scoop out some pasta
Rav Chaim Kanievsky [Taama D’kra n. 41, cited by Orchos to test if it is done. The water drains through the slots in the
Shabbos v. 1 ch. 3 fn. 86] testifies that in practice they were spoon, but the pasta stays on the spoon. This could be an
lenient in Chazon Ish’s home. instance of borer since the spoon can be seen as a tool for
Rav Ovadia Yosef [Yachava Daas 2:51] is also lenient and separating undesirable parts (e.g., the boiling water) from
his reason is that he writes that most people would not care desirable parts (e.g., the pasta).
if the tea leaves got into their tea. In that case, it is permitted 104. This is the consensus amongst contemporary
to strain out the leaves based on se’if yud. poksim. See Rav Wosner [Shevet Halevi 5:58], Ayil Meshulash
98. 125 Badei Hashulchan 21. [7:34], Shabbos K’halachah 12:51 and Shabbos Kitchen [p.
99. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [ch. 3 fn. 140] 160], all of whom agree.
100. Shevet Halevi 1:84 writes that because Chazon Ish 105. 1:3:(82).
himself only wrote this as a possibility and not l’halachah one
the spoon is made to separate out gravy, unlike a for such an activity, such as a knife. However, in
teapot which is primarily made to hold and pour the case of a fruit or vegetable with an edible peel,
tea. 106 such as an apple, one may use a peeler, since the
peel is fundamentally “food” so the rules of borer
On the other hand, Rav Ovadia Yosef 107 is do not apply to it.
lenient because based on Maharitatz 108 that
there’s no borer of a solid from a liquid since it Ketzos Hashulchan 112 and Shemiras Shabbos
isn’t normal to remove solids from a liquid with K’Hilchasa 113 accept Eglei Tal’s distinction. 114 Rav
one’s hand. Also, a person isn’t insistent that all of Nissim Karelitz 115 and Shabbos K’halachah 116 rule
the liquid drains from the spoon. 109 that a peeler is a kli borer since it is made to do the
activity of borer. 117 Therefore, they forbid using a
Peelers: 110 peeler on Shabbos in all cases.
Eglei Tal 111 distinguishes between using peelers
for two different types of fruits: For fruits or However, Rav Moshe Feinstein 118 was lenient
vegetables with an inedible peel, such as an since a peeler is essentially a sophisticated knife,
avocado, one may not not use a peeler for them on but doesn’t aid the borer. Rav Ovadia Yosef 119 also
Shabbos. This is because the peeler is a designated rules leniently because the peel is attached to the
utensil for removing the peel, and thus falls under fruit and is not considered a ta'aroves (mixture of
the category of borer. Removing such a peel is only two separate entities) at all. 120 121
permitted with a utensil not specifically designated
Sources & Notes

106. Rav Wosner [Shevet Halevi 8:58] agrees. not record the stringency against using peelers for fruits and
107. Yalkut Yosef [319:42 v. 3 p. 306] quoting his father. vegetables whose peels are usually eaten, nor does Rabbi
Or Letzion [2:31:10] agrees. Shimon Gadasi’s Shmiras HaShabbos. See however Rav
108. 203, discussed in se'if tes zayin. Yisrael Baran’s B’Din Borer Ochel Mitoch Pesoles who argues
109. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [3:58] offers a similar that the Alter Rebbe would forbid peelers available at http://
rationale. shulchanharav.com/contents.asp?aid=138041
110. Shabbos K’halachah devotes an entire chapter to 117. Ayil Meshulash [7:19] Orchos Shabbos [3:87] and
this question. Shevet Halevi [5:58]. Eglei Tal [Borer n. 6] implies that it is
111. Borer 6n12 a kli borer if it is used for fruit that the majority of people
112. 125:16. Badei Hashulchan 42. 126:3. peel first. Ayil Meshulash [7:(5*)] quotes Rav Karelitz who
113. 3:34-35 adds that a peeler can separate the peel more precisely than
114. For extended discussion of this question, especially a knife.
Tzemach Tzedek’s opinion on the matter Piskei Dinim 319, 118. Shabbos Kitchen [p. 160:(104)].
14d see Shabbos K’halachah Tosefes Biur 13:1, Rav Yosef 119. Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 231].
Yeshaya Braun’s B’Inyan Borer B’Kiluf Peiros and B’Inyan 120. Yalkut Yosef [319:61] agrees See also se’if daled.
Kiluf Perios L’Daas HaTzemach Tzedek V’Hanafka Minah 121. Another reason to forbid a peeler is because it
L’Maaseh, printed in Kovetz Hearos Tmimim V’Anash might be considered uvdin d’chol (weekday activities).Rav
Tzemach Tzedek vol. 1 pp. 48-66. See also Divrei Shalom Yaakov Kamenetsky [Emes Lyakov [510:(473)]] held that
319:9. using a peeler was uvdin d’chol, similar to the special knife
115. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 68 and 87] as well as Rav Elyashiv for the melachah of tochen, which Mishnah Berurah [ 321:45]
quoted in Shalmei Yehudah [6:(27)]. considers uvdin d’chol. However, Yalkut Yosef [319:(72)]
116. 13:4, with further analysis at 13n5 and 13n9. Shabbos is lenient since it is considered just like a knife. Shemiras
K’halachah does however record grounds for leniency 13:9 Shabbos K'hilchasah [3:34] says that considering this uvdin
with respect to fruits and vegetables whose peels are eaten. d’chol is an overextension of the category which does not
Notably, in terms of Chabad Pesak, Ketzos Hashulchan does apply here.
Does removing a tea bag because the bag is a kli borer. To avoid this, one
count as an act of borer? should remove the tea bag with a spoon. 123
Minchas Yitzchak 122 raises an issue with
removing a tea bag from a cup. As the tea bag Rav Elyashiv, however, permitted removing the
is removed, the drops dripping out are being bag if one doesn’t try to ensure that drops come
separated from the tea leaves. Even though one out of the bag in the process. Since one isn’t trying
is separating ochel (the drops) from pesoles (the to separate those drops from the leaves, it isn’t
leaves) for immediate consumption, it is still assur borer. 124 125
‫סעיף ב‬ 2
‚‫י‬-‫ „"ה ˙נו | רמב"ם הלכו˙ ˘ב˙ פר˜ ח הלכה יב‬.‫ ר‡"˘ ˘ב˙ פר˜ ז הלכה „ | ר"ן ˘ב˙ לב‬:˙‫מ˜ורו‬
Introduction:
What is the time limit of immediate consumption? Rosh 126 and Ran 127 hold that any borer done
for the same meal is considered borer for immediate consumption.
Beis Yosef 128 infers from Rabbenu Yerucham 129 that any time after one meal one may separate for the
next meal. However, one may not separate before or in the middle of one meal for a future meal.
Mordechai 130 holds that it is only permitted to separate immediately before the meal, i.e., after
the borer, one begins eating that which he sorted. Beis Yosef supports this from the language of
Rambam. 131
Beis Yosef also suggests that Rambam means that borer ochel from pesoles must be done immediately
before eating, whereas separating one food from another may even be done a few hours in advance
(unless it is for another meal). Even so, Beis Yosef concludes that he is not sure how Rambam knows
to make such a distinction. 132
Sources & Notes

122. 4:99:2 127. Shabbos 32a s.v. Tanu.
123. Shabbos Kitchen [p. 161] rules that one must do so 128. 319:1.
if a spoon is available, and this in fact the prevalent minhag 129. 12:8.
hayeshivos. 130. Shabbos 7:361.
124. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 7 fn. 100]. Menuchas Ahavah 131. Hilchos Shabbos 8:12-13
[2:7:44] agrees for other reasons: it is a pesik reisha 132. Rav Hershler [Ramban Shabbos 74a fn. 278] explains
(inevitability) which one does not care about the results, the that the basis for this distinction is that borer of pesoles from
bag is not designed for borer, and it is grama. ochel is forbidden because it improves the ochel. However,
125. For an extended analysis of this issue in light of borer of ochel from ochel does not improve the ochel. Instead,
Shulchan Aruch Harav and Ketzos Hashulchan, see Shiurei the primary prohibition to separate ochel from ochel is only
halachah L’Maaseh vol. 1 Orach Chaim, Siman 36. if the two types are separated for storage. See Biur Halachah
126. Shabbos 7:4. [319:3 s.v. Le’echol].
Tur adds that it is not an issue for there to be leftovers after a meal for which one has done borer. 133
Shulchan Aruch Harav 134 and Mishnah Berurah 135 agree.
Rama codifies Rosh’s opinion that only borer for the meal one is already sitting at is considered
immediate. Taz 136 agrees. 137
Mechaber rules what is considered borer for it for later, ‫פ ּל ּו ¿לבו… ַ ּב ּיו… ם‬ƒ ‡ֲ – even to eat the sorted
immediate consumption. out food that same day, ‫ ּ¿כבו… ≈רר ¿ל‡ו… ָˆר‬‰ ∆ׂ˘‫ – נַ ֲﬠ‬it is
˙‫ ּ ¿פס ∆…ל‬‰ַ ‫מ ּ˙ו… ¿ך‬ƒ ‫בּ ו… ≈רר ‡ ∆…כל‬‰ַ – One who sorts food from forbidden, and is as if he has done borer for the
waste …‫ – ¿ ּביָ „ו‬with his hand …‫ ּניחו‬ƒ ‰ַ ‫ – ¿ל‬and leaves purpose of storing ‫ – ¿ו ַח ָ ּיב‬and is liable.

How long is considered l’alter so that the borer will take place close to the meal
(immediately before the meal)? in a literal sense.” The halachic term for “close to
Pri Megadim 138 writes that one may not engage the meal” is known as samuch l’seudah. 141
in removing ochel from pesoles until soon before
the meal. However, Eglei Tal 142 and Ben Ish Chai 143 write
that if one separates within an hour of the meal,
Shulchan Aruch Harav 139 emphasizes one may it is permitted. Similarly, Rav Wosner 144 held that
only engage in permitted borer immediately before within a half-hour is considered immediately
a meal. He clarifies 140 that this means “one should before the meal even if there will be time for a
not engage in permitted borer until after shul ends, break after the borer before the meal.
Sources & Notes

133. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 79 25:4 s.v. Adam] writes that it is 136. 319:1
forbidden to separate more than one type of food that one is 137. Biur Halachah [319:1 s.v. Kol] quotes Tosefes
definitely going to eat. It is even forbidden for one who is not Yerushalayim who argues with Rama because it appears
sure how much he will eat but just wants to do all the borer from the Yerushalmi that preparing for the same meal is not
while preparing the food. However, he allows preparing considered immediate. Nonetheless, Biur Halachah accepts
for a baby as much as one thinks the baby might eat, even Rama as the halachah because the Bavli implies otherwise.
though the baby might decide not to eat it all. Similarly, it is 138. EA 319:6.
permitted to prepare a large quantity for one’s guests even 139. 319:3-4. See further discussion in 321:10. Based
though it is unlikely that they will actually eat all of it. Ketzos on Magen Avraham 321:15. There, Shulchan Aruch Harav
Hashulchan 125:40 and Shabbos K’halachah 12:55 also rule explains that the basis of the heter of l’alter is that it is
leniently on preparing a large quantity for guests. Shabbos considered derech achilah.
K”halachah even extends this leniency to allow doing borer 140. 319:4 and 321:10.
so that the guests will have food to take home. 141. See extensive discussion of this point in Shabbos
However, Shevus Yitzchak [p. 239] rules strictly and K’halachah 12:53, especially with Biurim #13. See also
forbids even preparing for guests, with the exception of analysis in Rav Tzadok Hakohen of Lublin’s Tiferes Tzvi on
the amount of food that is likely to be eaten. Rav Shlomo Yoreh Deah 2:28:17.
Zalman Auerbach [Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 3:(129)] 142. Borer 5 esp. 5:9. See Shabbos K’halachah Tosfes Biur
is only lenient if the guests will not eat at all, unless there is 12:10 who offers a lengthy refutation of Eglei Tal’s lenient
extra food on the serving plate. In that case it is permitted opinion.
because it is considered as though the borer of the extra food 143. Shanah Beis Beshalach n. 1. Shu”t Rav Pealim 1
has an immediate result of honoring one’s guests. Orach Chaim 12.
134. 319:3 144. Kovetz M’beis Levi [v. 6 p. 41]
135. 319:5
Rav Moshe Feinstein 145 writes that it is only so the food will be ready in time for the meal.
permitted to do borer for the amount of time it If a permissible borer must be done during this
takes to prepare for the meal. For example, if it preparation, then they may do so.
takes one five minutes to do the borer making the
salad for the meal, they may do so only five minutes Furthermore, if one prepares food before a meal
before the family is going to have the meal. There that will improve if left out for a bit of time, such
may not be any breaks before the borer and the as techina, they may prepare the food in advance
meal. Rav Ovadia Yosef 146 agrees with Rav Moshe’s of the meal in order for that food to improve. This
definition of “close to the meal.” is considered derech achilah. 150
Chazon Ish 147 also held that permitted borer Is there a limitation on what
may only be performed in the time it would take containers one may perform
to prepare a meal. Howver, unlike Rav Moshe who permitted borer into?
offers a more variable timeframe, Chazon Ish gives Eglei Tal 151 writes that one may not perform
a fixed timeframe during which one can do borer. permitted borer into a container that one would
He says that one may only do it during a fixed use to store food. Instead, they may only perform
of a half-hour before the beginning of the meal, the borer m’yad l’peh (literally: from one’s hand
irrespective of the meal's size, even if it is a very to one’s mouth, meaning that one intends to
big meal which requires a lot of preparation. 148 eat the food immediately, a standard even more
immediate than l'alter), or onto the plate or table
Shabbos K’halachah 149 explicitly takes issue he is eating on.
with this chumra and says that one merely must
calculate how much time it will take to engage in The overwhelming majority of poskim do not
all the necessary preparations for the meal. Then, accept this added stringency. 152
one may start preparing that much time before
the meal. For example, if one is preparing an May one do borer that is
elaborate meal for many guests that will take two necessary to be done in advance
hours to prepare, they may begin preparing two to prepare food for later?
hours before the meal, with some time for leeway Mechaber is explicit that it is only permitted
Sources & Notes

145. 4:74:13 that would take more than 30 minutes, in which case it would
146. Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 180] be permitted to do borer more than 30 minutes before the
147. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 77] meal. Chazon Ish was stringent about both questions. Borer
148. To clarify, there are two issues at hand: the first is can never be done more than 30 minutes before the meal
whether l'alter means a specific amount of time, and the and also there cannot be a break between the act of borer
second is whether there can be a break between the act of and the meal.
borer and the meal. Ben Ish Chai and Rav Wosner hold that 149. 12:56. See there Tziyunim V’Hearos 96 where he
l'alter is fixed at 30 minutes and it is fine to have a break develops his arguments for this point.
between the act of borer and the meal. Rav Moshe holds that 150. Shabbos K’halachah 12:59 citing Rav Shelomo
it is not a fixed amount of time but rather the exact amount Zalman Auerbach’s pesak recorded in Shemiras Shabbos
of time necessary to do the act of borer. Also, he holds that K’halachah ch. 3n200.
there may not be any break between the act of borer and the 151. Borer 5, cited in Ketzos Hashulchan 125:8
meal. That could be a leniency if preparing for a large meal 152. See Shabbos K’halachah 12:45, with biurim #11.
to separate for immediate use but not for Rav Elyashiv 154 and Rav Nissim Karelitz 155 are
later that day. However, the question arises: strict even if one will eat the food immediately
What about borer where there is an immediate after it is heated/cooled, since at the time of the
accomplishment, but the ultimate purpose is only borer one is not eating the food.
later? Is that forbidden or permitted?
However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 156
There are several examples of this: introduces a compromise, in that he is lenient for
foods that are regularly heated/cooled in advance.
1) Is it permitted to separate food from a In that case, separating to heat/cool is part of derech
refrigerator on Shabbos morning to heat it up achilah, and is permitted. 157 Shabbos K’halachah
so that it will be hot by the seudah (meal)? Is offers the example of separating out frozen cakes
it permitted to take a drink out of a mixture of to defrost, saying that this too is permitted even
drinks to put it into the refrigerator to cool down if one will only eat the cakes several hours later
for the meal? when they defrost.
On the one hand, the separation is for later that 2) If one is leaving their house and needs to take
day, not for immediate consumption, and should an item with them for later on, is separating it out
therefore be forbidden. However, on the other from a mixture of other entities considered borer
hand, one is doing borer on food that needs to be for immediate use? For example, if one is leaving
heated/cooled, and the activity of putting it in a the house on Shabbos with a baby, and wants to
place that warms/cools it is an immediate use of take along a change of clothing for later that day,
the separated entity. 153 may they separate the clothing from the clothing
drawer to take it with? Or is that considered
Sources & Notes

153. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [3:78] rules that traditional Ashkenazi Jewish dish. It is prepared by slow-
anything with an immediate toeles (purpose) is considered cooking calves' feet to create a jelly-like consistency when
for immediate use. Similarly, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach cooled. The dish is often flavored with garlic, onions, salt,
[Shulchan Shlomo 319:6:5] writes that it is permitted to and pepper) to eat later that day; this is because it does
separate out a paper or sefer to check that one has it or does not matter when one puts it in. But if putting it in earlier
not have it, even though one is only planning on using that and being left there makes the food taste better, then it is
paper or sefer later that day. This is permitted because if he permitted. The reason is that just like it is permitted to do
has the paper or sefer he has an immediate comfort from the borer for a meal of a hundred people, well in advance of
knowledge that he has it, and if he does not have it, then he the meal, or to separate for a food which is a later course
will go find someone else who does have it. in that meal because that is included in derech achilah; so
154. Ayil Meshulash [8:(80)]. Shevus Yitzchak [p. 230] too it is derech achilah to do borer in advance to make the
quotes that Rav Elyashiv explains that taking out the food to food taste better if people usually do that. The same applies
heat it up is not considered part of the derech achilah but seen to separating and then putting food in the refrigerator for
as part of the preparation of the food. He is only lenient if it is a child to eat, or separating and then heating up the food.
separated five to ten minutes before actually eating the food. It is considered derech achilah if that is the norm. Shemiras
155. Chut Shani [v. 2 25:4] Shabbos K'hilchasah [3:(222)] brings a proof for this from
156. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [3:(222)] Me’or Rashba [Avodas Hakodesh 1:8, as understood by Machatzis
Hashabbos [letter 8:1]. Shabbos K’halachah 12:60. Hashekel 510:2] that separating flour on Yom Tov for after it
157. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that this is will be baked is considered an immediate use. Ayil Meshulash
true even for Biur Halachah [319:4 s.v. Chayav] who forbids accepts this proof. See Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 78 fn. 70] who is
peeling an onion to put it in p’tcha (jellied calves' feet, a hesitant about this proof.
separating for later in the day? clearly being done for the benefit of using the set
table later during the meal, it is considered borer
Rav Shmuel Wosner 158 ruled leniently, but for later in the day and forbidden.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 159 and Rav Nissim
Karelitz 160 ruled strictly. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 163 ruled lenient
since the goal of the borer to make the table look
3) Regarding separating a food before leaving nice is accomplished immediately.
the house for a child to eat as a snack on the
walk, most poskim 161 hold it is forbidden, but Rav 5) Regarding doing borer to lend an item to
Wosner is lenient. a friend now even if the friend will only use it
later on, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 164 ruled
4) Regarding setting the table much in advance it permitted. It is considered borer for immediate
of the meal, because people like to see it set for use, since one’s use with the item is completed
kavod Shabbos even though they’re not going to when he lends it.
eat until a while later, is that borer for immediate
use, or for later in the day? 6) Regarding removing a siddur or something
expensive that fell into the garbage, Rav Shlomo
Rav Elyashiv 162 holds that it is not considered for Zalman Auerbach 165 isn’t sure. The immediate
immediate use. Since no one separates silverware accomplishment is saving the item, but really it is
purely for the pleasure to see the set table, and it is not going to be used until later. 166
Sources & Notes

158. Otzros Hashabbos [3:67] Kovetz M’beis Levi [v. 6 p. in advance so that he doesn’t need to do it in the middle of
42 and v. 19 p. 29]. He does not explain his logic other than the night, Rav Shlomo Zalman forbade doing the borer in
that it is considered for immediate use. Piskei Teshuvos [319:8 advance because it is not considered derech achilah.
s.v. V’yesh] explains that this approach compares preparing 160. Chut Shani [2:25:4]
for a trip outside to preparing before the meal even for the 161. Az Nidbaru [8:6:3] Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 78] Ayil
end of the meal. Meshulash [8:24, 19:32]. See Rav Elyashiv [Ashrei Ha’ish
159. Me’or Hashabbos [letters 8:1]. Rav Shlomo Zalman 2:25:12] who similarly forbids separating for a salad that
Auerbach writes this as a consequence of his approach to one is then going to bring to someone else’s house for a meal,
permit borer to make a food taste better by having it done a since the walking is a break between the borer and eating,
few hours before the meal. That leniency is based on derech unless it is a neighbor.
achilah, and has to be the norm. In this instance, he was 162. Shevus Yitzchak [p. 226].
discussing a case where a young mother was leaving her 163. Me’or Hashabbos [letter 8:2]
house with her baby to go to her parents house, and Rav 164. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [3:(206)].
Shlomo Zalman forbade doing borer to get a change of 165. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [3:(206)]. See
clothing in case the baby gets dirty later that day. In that discussion in Shabbos K’halachah [12n76] and Biurim
case, it isn’t the norm for people to separate an extra change [12:21].
of clothing with them when leaving the house, so it is not 166. Seemingly, it is permissible to decide to use the
considered derech achilah. He also discusses there someone siddur immediately after removing it from the garbage in
who is sick and needs to separate out a pill for the middle order to save it from being desecrated.
of the night. Even though he wants to do it a couple hours
‚ ‫סעיף‬ 3
‫ „"ה ה‡ | מר„כי ˘ב˙ רמז ˘ס‡ | ˙רומ˙ ה„˘ן ס' נז‬:‚‫ רמב"ן ˘ב˙ ˜מ‬:˙‫מ˜ורו‬
Introduction:
What constitutes a ta'aroves ? The prohibition of borer only applies to separating items in a
mixture (ta’aroves). 167 What is considered a ta’aroves? The Rishonim address this:
Ramban 168 implies that it is not considered borer to pick up fruit that fell into dirt because the
fruit are large and recognizable. 169 Similarly, Terumas Hadeshen 170 infers from Mordechai 171 who
rules that a person should be careful not to separate two types of fruits that are mixed together,
that borer is only forbidden if the foods are mixed up and the pieces are not recognizable.
However, ultimately, Terumas Hadeshen concludes that there is borer even if the entities are
recognizable and large, because the exact definition of a ta'aroves is unclear and it is a question of
a potential issur d’oraisa.
Does the prohibition of borer apply to one min? Trumas Hadeshen 172 infers from the Gemara
that borer applies to any case of sorting a mixture of two types of ochel, but never in a case of
sorting from a mixture of the same type of ochel.
That said, even though two types of fish are both fish, they are nonetheless considered two different
minim. 173 Therefore, it is still forbidden to separate one type of fish from the other.
Mechaber defines a permitted case of borer for food from the other ַ ‫ ּנ‬ƒ ‫ – ּו ַמ‬and place it down
‫יח‬
immediate consumption: Rama adds.
‫בים‬ƒ ‫לים ¿מע ָ…ר‬ƒ ‫מינ≈ י √‡ ָכ‬ƒ ‫י ּו ¿ל ָפנָ יו ׁ ¿˘נ≈ י‬‰ָ – If a person has ‫ – ַה ּ ׁ ֵשנִ י ְּכ ֵדי‬i.e., the second one, in order 174
before him two types of foods that were mixed Mechaber continues.
together, „‫ – בּ ו… ≈רר ∆‡ ָח„ ≈מ ∆‡ ָח‬he may sort out one „‫מ ָ ּי‬ƒ ‫ – ∆ל ¡‡כ…ל‬to eat immediately.
Sources & Notes

167. Shabbos K’halachah 12:12. See there in note 21 172. 57
where he proves that borer only applies to a ta’aroves based 173. Shabbos Kitchen [p. 125 fn. 21] explains that two
on a close reading of Shulchan Aruch 319:6 “two types of types of fish are two minim, even if they taste the same,
food which are mixed” and Magen Avraham 319:15 who because they are called by two different names.
says “it is possible that borer only applies to things that are 174. Based on Rosh [Shabbos 7:4] and Trumas Hadeshen
mixed.” See also Or Sameach Shabbos 8:11 who writes “Borer [57] Rama inserts two words into the language of Mechaber
is defined as pertaining to things that are mixed together, who quotes Rambam. Why did he do that? Pri Megadim [EA
but with respect to things that are not mixed, borer is not 319:4] explains that it is clear from the language of Rambam
relevant.” See also Shabbos K’halachah 12:68. and Mechaber that it is permissible to separate out either of
168. Shabbos 143b s.v. ha. Ramban writes that picking the two types of ochel for immediate consumption. The word
dirt out of a mixture of fruit and dirt is borer. However, “umeyni’ach” in Rambam means that he leaves one of the sets
picking up the fruit from the floor where there is dirt of ochel for later.Meaning, when separating ochel from ochel
looks like borer, but is not actually borer mid’oraiysa. Toras it must be immediate and with one’s hand, but it is allowed
Hemalachos [Borer fn. 14] infers from this Ramban that he to take either type and there’s no consideration of ochel from
holds that there is no ta'aroves with large items like fruit, pesoles. This is unlike Rosh who equates ochel from pesoles
unlike Trumas Hadeshen. with desired ochel from undesired ochel. The undesired ochel
169. Rashba s.v. nitpazru, Ritva s.v. tanu, and Meyuchas is considered like pesoles. That is why Rama added two words
L'ran s.v. nitpazru quote this Ramban. into Rambam so that his words could be understood inline
170. 57 with Rosh. The two words he added after “umeyni’ach” result
171. Shabbos 7:361 in translating the phrase to be that one leaves over the second
Rama defines a specific case of sorting fish in which borer — ‫ – ַאף ַﬠל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ַה ֲח ִתיכוֹ ת ְ ּגדוֹ לוֹ ת‬even if the pieces they
the above halachah applies: sorted out are large, ‫ – ְו ָכל ַא ַחת נִ ֶּכ ֶרת ִּב ְפנֵ י ַﬠ ְצ ָמ ּה‬and each
‫ – וּ ׁ ְשנֵ י ִמינֵ י דָּ ִגים ִמ ְק ֵרי ׁ ְשנֵ י ִמינֵ י ֳא ָכ ִלים‬Two different types is recognizable as its own separate piece.
of fish are considered two different types of food; Rama adds that sorting out pieces of fish based on size
ֹ‫ – ְו ָאסוּ ר ִל ְברֹר ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֲח ֵברוֹ ֶא ָּלא ְּביָ דו‬therefore, it is forbidden is permitted as long as the pieces are all the same type:
to sort out one type of fish from the other except if by ‫ – ֲא ָבל ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּ א ִמין ֶא ָחד‬But (in) all (cases) in which
hand ‫ – ְּכ ֵדי ְל ָא ְכלוֹ ִמ ָ ּיד‬and for immediate consumption. one sorts from a set of only one type of fish, ‫ַאף ַﬠל ּ ִפי‬
If someone sorts two types of fish without fulfilling these ְ
‫ – ׁ ֶש ּבוֹ ֵרר ֲח ִתיכוֹ ת ְ ּגדוֹ לוֹ ת ִמ ּתוֹ ך ְק ַטנּ וֹ ת‬even if one is sorting
two conditions, they have committed a forbidden act of out large pieces from small pieces, ‫לֹא ִמ ְק ֵרי‬
Sources & Notes

one so that he eats the first one immediately. This would Mordechai and Biur Halachah [319:3 s.v. umeyni’ach]
indicate that there is one type that one is allowed to take and reject this possibility from the halachah since we accept
the second type, the undesired type, that may not be taken. the position of Rosh and Rama that the undesired food is
Nonetheless, Maamar Mordechai [319:4] quotes Rav considered pesoles for all purposes and it is only permitted
Dovid Aramah who indeed explains for Rambam that to take the desired food from undesired food [Halachos of
although when separating two types of ochel one may not Shabbos [Borer fn. 20] agrees.] Sephardim are also strict
separate for later in the day, for purposes of taking the ochel about this. [Kaf Hachaim 319:22 and Yalkut Yosef [319 fn.
from pesoles it isn’t completely considered pesoles. Since both 22] are strict. See, however, Rav Shlomo Amar [Shma Shlomo
foods are completely edible it is permitted even to separate 1:6] who holds that the technical halachah is like Rambam
the undesired food, pesoles, from the desired food, ochel. and Mechaber, but in practice it is proper to be strict.]
While his interpretation in Rambam is viable, Maamar
‫ט"ז מגן דוד‬ ‫הלכות שבת‬ ‫שיט‬ ‫אורח חיים‬ ‫מגן אברהם נ"י‬ ‫ב‬
‫שייך בזה עירוב אפ"ה לא יברור‪ .‬ותו דבאוכל המעורב עם‬ ‫משנה הלכות שביתת עשור[‪ :‬ו( לאכול בין הערבים‪ .‬היינו‬
‫פסולת הוא במין אחד והוא הדין אם אין שם פסולת רק שרוצה‬ ‫מסעודה לסעודה וכמ"ש ]גבי דגים[ ועיין ב"י‪ „ :‬ז( הבורר‬
‫להניח קצת ממנו מקרי אותו השיור פסולת כמ"ש הטור בסמוך‬ ‫פסולת‪ .‬עיין סימן תק"י ]סעיף ב'[ דביום טוב מקלינן וכן כתב ב"י‬
‫בב' מינים והוא הדין בזה דמ"ש‪ .‬וכן משמע בדברי רבינו חננאל‬ ‫והעולת שבת עשה עצמו כאלו לא ידע את יוס"ף‪ :‬ו ח( ויש‬
‫שמביאים התוספות פרק כלל‬ ‫מחמירין‪ .‬דס"ל דדוקא לרכך‬
‫גדול וז"ל פירש רבינו חננאל‬ ‫ברירה ואפילו היו שני מינים ובורר משניהם ביחד‬ ‫]ה[‬ ‫שרי אבל לפרק הדגן מתוך‬
‫דבאוכל מתוך אוכל שייך‬ ‫השבלים הוי תולדה דדש‬
‫הגדולות מתוך הקטנות או להיפך שרי הואיל ואינו בורר‬
‫ברירה שבורר אותו שאינו חפץ‬
‫מין אחד מתוך חבירו )˙רומ˙ ה„˘ן סימן נ"ז(‪.‬‬
‫לאכול מתוך אותו שרוצה‬
‫לאכול דאותו שאין חפץ בו‬ ‫ואם בירר והניח לאחר זמן אפילו לבו ביום כגון שבירר שחרית ו( לאכול‬
‫חשיב פסולת משמע אפילו‬ ‫]ו[ בין הערבים חייב‪:‬‬
‫במין אחד הוה כן דמקרי פסולת‬
‫ד ז( ה הבורר ]ז[ פסולת מתוך אוכל אפילו בידו אחת חייב‪:‬‬
‫מה שאינו רוצה לאכול עתה‬
‫הגה )ג( ואפילו האוכל מרובה ויש יותר טורח בברירת האוכל אפילו הכי לא יברור הפסולת‬
‫ובוררו להניח על סעודה אחרת‬
‫ואסור‪ .‬ותו יש לתמוה על‬
‫אפילו כדי לאכול לאלתר )ב"י(‪:‬‬
‫שהעתיק רמ"א דגדולות מתוך‬ ‫ה ו הבורר תורמוסין מתוך פסולת שלהם חייב מפני שהפסולת שלהם‬
‫קטנות לא מקרי ברירה‬ ‫ממתקת אותם כשישלקו אותן עמהם ונמצא כבורר פסולת מתוך אוכל‬
‫דבתרומת הדשן משמע דבמין‬
‫וחייב‪:‬‬
‫אחד לא הוה כלל ברירה אפילו‬
‫בשוין אלא דבב' מינים כתב‬ ‫ו ז אין מוללין מלילות אלא מולל בשינוי מעט בראשי אצבעותיו‪:‬‬
‫שיקח משני המינים להשהותן‬ ‫הגה ואע"פ שמפרק האוכל מתוך השבלים הואיל ואינו מפרק רק כלאחר יד כדי לאכול‬
‫לסעודה אחרת דבזה הוה כמו‬ ‫שרי ח( ויש ]ח[ מחמירין )מר„כי ור"ן פר˜ ˜מ‡ „יו"ט( )ד( ולכן אסור לפרוק האגוזים לוזים או‬
‫מין אחד ע"כ‪ .‬וכבר דחינו זה‬
‫דלרבותא נקט ב' מינים וכל שכן מין אחד וכן משמע דברי הטור שהתחיל הבורר חייב וכו' ואח"כ כתב הלכך היו לפניו אוכלין‬
‫עם פסולת שלהן וכו' ואח"כ כתב היו לפניו ב' מיני אוכלין וכו' משמע דמתחלה במין אחד קאמר וכתב תרומת הדשן שם דאחד‬
‫מהגדולים היה נזהר לברר דוקא מה שרוצה לאכול עתה אפילו במין אחד והוא חולק עליו‪ .‬ובמהרי"ל כתב בהלכות פסח )הל' יו"ט‬
‫אות ח( ולדוך מצה ביום טוב של פסח מותר דקי"ל אין טחינה אחר טחינה אך יזהר שלא יברר הפרורים הגדולים מתוך הקטנים כי‬
‫איסור בורר יש באוכלין עכ"ל ורש"ל פ"ק דביצה בספרו סימן מ"ב מביאו אלא שתמה עליו דהא ברירה מותר ביום טוב אלא‬
‫שלכתחלה ימעט בטרחה עכ"ל‪ .‬משמע דבשבת מודה רש"ל דיש בזה משום ברירה וכיון דיש כאן חשש איסור דאורייתא יש‬
‫להחמיר אפילו במין אחד ולא יברור אפילו במין אחד ואפילו גדולות מתוך קטנות רק מה שהוא רוצה לאכול עתה או שיקח סתם‬
‫מן הבא בידו להניח לסעודה אחרת לא בדרך ברירה כנלע"ד‪) „ :‬ג( ואפילו האוכל מרובה‪ .‬בטור כתוב דאם הפסולת מרובה על‬
‫האוכל אסור אפילו לטלטלו שהאוכל בטל ברוב פסולת ומכל מקום לוזים ובטנים שנשתברו ועדיין מעורבין בקליפתן אע"פ‬
‫שהקליפות מרובות על האוכל לא מקרי פסולת מרובה על האוכל כיון דאורחייהו בהכי הוי כמו שומר לפרי עכ"ל אלא דבקליפה‬
‫הירוקה אסור לפרקה בשבת כמ"ש רמ"א בסמוך‪ .‬הב"י הקשה דכאן משמע דכל שבורר בידו אע"ג דמטיל לתוך כלי אפילו לנפה‬
‫וכברה מותר אם הוא לאלתר וקשה לו ממ"ש בפ"ק דביצה )יד‪ (:‬דביום טוב בורר כדרכו בחיקו בקנון ותמחוי ובחיקו משמע שבורר‬
‫בידו ונותן לתוך חיקו ודומיא דחיקו הוה קנון ותמחוי וא"כ לא שרי אלא לברור ולהניח בידו אבל להניח בקנון ותמחוי אסור אע"פ‬
‫דאין בורר אלא בידו לאכול לאלתר‪ .‬ונ"ל דהא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא דחיקו היינו שבורר ונותן לתוך חיקו ונפה וכברה וקנון ותמחוי‬
‫היינו שעושה הברירה בהם עכ"ל‪ .‬ומו"ח ז"ל פי' הך בחיקו ג"כ אברירה שפורס טליתו על חיקו ובורר עליו‪ .‬עוד כתב שטעות היתה‬
‫לשון המשנה לפני הב"י שאוסר ביום טוב בקנון ותמחוי וליתא דלא אסרה המשנה ביום טוב אלא בנפה וכברה וכו' עכ"ל‪ .‬ובאמת‬
‫]דברי הב"י[ צדקו יחדיו בשניהם דלשון לתוך חיקו ודאי קאי על הנתינה אחר הברירה לתוך חיקו דהכי איתא בהדיא בגמ' שם‬
‫ז‪ .‬ביצה י"ב שבת קכ"ח וכחכמים‪:‬‬ ‫ו‪ .‬שבת מימרא דחזקי' וכפירוש הרמב"ם בפ"ח שם‪:‬‬ ‫ה‪ .‬רמב"ם פ"ח מהלכות שבת שם‪:‬‬
‫]ו[ בין הערבים‪ .‬היינו מסעודה לסעודה‪] „ :‬ז[ פסולת‪ .‬וביום טוב‬ ‫שרוצה לאכול עתה חשוב כאוכלין והשני חשיבא פסולת ואם כן צריך‬
‫מקלינן דאין ברירה ביום טוב‪ .‬כן כתב בית יוסף מגן אברהם עיין שם וכן‬ ‫לברור זה שרוצה לאכול עתה דחשוב כאוכל ולהניח השני אבל איפכא‬
‫כתב היש"ש פרק קמא דביצה סימן מ"ב‪ :‬ו ]ח[ מחמירין‪ .‬דסבירא ליה‬ ‫לא דהוי פסולת מתוך אוכל וכן כתב הת"ה‪ .‬מגן אברהם‪] :‬ה[ ברירה‪.‬‬
‫דוקא לרכך שרי אבל לפרק הדגן מתוך השבלים הוי תולדה דדש ואסור‬ ‫וט"ז חולק וכתב דיש להחמיר אפילו במין אחד ולא יברור אפילו במין‬
‫אבל כשנתפרק הדגן מן השבלים מערב שבת מותר לקלפו לכולי עלמא‬ ‫אחד ואפילו גדולות מתוך קטנות רק מה שהוא רוצה לאכול עתה או‬
‫עיין סוף סימן שכ"א ושרביטין של קטניות משמע דאסור לפרכן‬ ‫שיקח סתם מן הבא בידו להניח לסעודה אחרת לא דרך ברירה עיין שם‪:‬‬
‫ – ְּב ֵר ָרה‬it is not considered borer. sorted out one type of fish from the other. 175
Rama adds that sorting out pieces of fish based on Mechaber rules that it is even forbidden to sort for
size to eat immediately is permissible even if the set is a meal later in the day because this is not considered
comprised of two different types of fish: “immediate.”
‫ – ַו ֲא ִפ ּלוּ ָהיוּ ׁ ְשנֵ י ִמינִ ים‬And even if there are two ַ ‫ ּנ‬ƒ ‰ƒ ‫‡ם ≈ ּב ≈רר ¿ו‬ƒ ‫ – ¿ו‬And if one sorts out one food and
‫יח‬
different types of fish mixed together, ֶ ֵ‫וּ בוֹ ֵרר ִמ ּ ׁ ְשנ‬
‫יהם‬ leaves it ‫ – ¿ל ַ‡ ַחר ז¿ ַמן‬for a later time, ‫פ ּל ּו ¿לבו… ַ ּב ּיו… ם‬ƒ ‡ֲ
‫ – ְּביַ ַחד‬and he sorts from the two together — ‫ַה ְ ּגדוֹ לוֹ ת‬ – even with the intent to eat it that same day — ‫ּ¿כ‚ו… ן‬
‫ – ִמ ּתוֹ ְך ַה ְ ּק ַטנּ וֹ ת אוֹ ְל ֶה ֶפ ְך‬the large pieces from the small, ‫ ם‬ƒ‫ ַﬠ ¿ר ַ ּבי‬‰ָ ‫רי˙ ∆ל ¡‡כ…ל ≈ ּבין‬ƒ ‫ – ׁ ∆˘ ≈ ּב ≈רר ׁ ַ˘ ֲח‬for example, he sorts
or the opposite (small from large) — ‫ – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬it is permitted in the morning something to eat in the afternoon —
ֹ‫ – הוֹ ִאיל ְו ֵאינוֹ ּבוֹ ֵרר ִמין ֶא ָחד ִמ ּתוֹ ְך ֲח ֵברו‬because he has not ‫ – ַח ָ ּיב‬he is liable for having transgressed Shabbos.

How is this se'if not a repeat there are two recognizably different types of food,
of se'ifim alef and beis? it is still forbidden to separate them. But certainly
se'if alef established that it is permitted to it is borer to separate within one type of food;
separate ochel from pesoles or desired ochel from and whatever one wants to leave behind is called
undesired ochel for immediate consumption. Se'if pesoles.
beis added that it is forbidden to separate for a
non-immediate use. Why then does Mechaber add Proofs for Taz:
se'if gimmel, which also explains that it is permitted
to separate desired ochel from undesired ochel? 1) Trumas Hadeshen quotes a practice of one
of the great Torah sages who was careful not to
Biur Halachah 176 answers that the novelty of separate even within one min for later in the day.
this se'if is at the end where Mechaber adds that Although Trumas Hadeshen himself disagreed
it is forbidden to separate desired ochel from with this stringency, Taz accepts that stringency.
undesired ochel for a later use. Se’if beis taught
that it is forbidden to separate ochel from psoles for 2) Another proof for Taz is from Maharil. 178
later, whereas se’if gimmel extends that prohibition Maharil writes that one should be careful not to
to separating ochel from ochel. separate large matzah crumbs from small matzah
crumbs because this constitutes borer. Even
Does borer apply to one min? though big and small pieces of matzah are one
Rama holds that borer does not apply to one min, Maharil forbids separating them.
min. Taz 177 argues. He says that the reason the
Gemara mentions two different types of food is 3) Shevisas Hashabbos 179 quotes Chizkiyah’s 180
in order to teach a greater nuance: even though opinion in the Yerushalmi 181 which teaches
Sources & Notes

175. For example, a person is permitted to sort out the 179. Borer fn. 11
small pieces of salmon and gefilte from a mixture of larger 180. Chizkiyah Ben Rabbi Chiyya. A first generation
sized pieces of salmon and gefilte. Amora from Eretz Yisroel, and a grandson of the great Amora
176. 319:3 s.v. shney Rav. Not to be confused with Chizkiyah, the king of Yehuda
177. 319:2 who lived nearly 1000 years earlier.
178. Hilchos Pesach. 181. 7:2
that separating pomegranates from within same kind 188 (i.e., all animal tissue) … and the
pomegranates is borer. This indicates that there is prohibition of borer only applies when separating
borer even within one min. two types or when removing waste from food,
which are like two types.” 189
Most poskim 182 disagree with Taz and rule
in favor of Rama. Regarding matzah, Magen This means that even though the act of nikur
Avraham 183 explains that the Maharil means appears to be a form of borer, it's not considered as
that matzah pieces and crumbs are two different such in this case. This is because all the materials
minim. 184 Regarding the Yerushalmi, 185 Aruch involved – the permitted and forbidden parts of
Hashulchan 186 explains that the strict view the animal – are of the same type, i.e., animal
expressed in the Yerushalmi reflects Chizkiyah’s tissue. The prohibition of borer only applies when
opinion. Ultimately, however, the Yerushalmi two distinct types are being separated, or when
accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan who waste is being removed from food. Based on
maintains that separating one type from itself, Shulchan Aruch Harav’s principle, Piskei Teshuvos190
such as pomegranates from pomegranates, or figs develops a very practical set of leniencies :
from within figs is not considered borer.
“Regarding items that are identical in type
What is Shulchan Aruch Harav’s and taste, but one is prohibited and the other
view on borer within one t ype? is permitted, such as meat and dairy spoons
Elsewhere, Shulchan Aruch Harav 187 writes: "It is thaht got mixed, 191 fruit that is untithed that
permitted to perform nikur (removal of forbidden got mixed with tithed fruit, or even analogously
fats and sinews) on an animal on Yom Tov … This whole matzahs that got mixed with broken ones 192
is because nikur is not considered a complete (where the whole ones are needed for lechem
melachah, even though it involves separating food mishneh) 193 and so forth... most poskim permit
from food. This is not an issue since it's all of the separating them.” 194 195
Sources & Notes

182. Shulchan Aruch Harav 319:6, Mishnah Berurah separating one type from another type where it is recognizable
319:15 that the two entities are distinct. Recognizability then is the
183. 504:9 key criterion that defines borer. So, when there are two types
184. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [ch. 3 fn. 62] explains of food, even if both are desirable, given that the difference
that the crumbs and pieces are considered two minim since between the two is recognizable, borer can be applicable.
they have different functions. The crumbs are useful for However, in the case of one type, even if part of it is pesoles,
matzah-balls or cakes, and the pieces are useful for eating and even forbidden, if the difference is not recognizable, then
by themselves. Shabbos Kitchen p. 126 has some applications borer does not apply.
of items in the same category but serve different functions 188. For similar logic, see Shulchan Aruch Harav 305:28
and are considered two minim: soup spoons and teaspoons, in the context of mefarek (dismantling/unpacking).
kitchen knives and table knives, and large plates and small 189. Shulchan Aruch Harav 319:5.
plates. 190. (Shabbos) p. 159, Introduction to Hilchos Borer.
185. 7:2 191. See elaboration on this point in Shabbos K’halachah
186. 319:6 12:105. He notes that Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 3:80 is
187. 500:18, based in part on Magen Avraham 500:12. See stringent on this issue. Shabbos K’halachah there in 12n209
also Pri Chadash 500:6. See extended analysis of this point and Biuruim 12:3 writes a lengthy rebuttal of Shemiras
in Shabbos K’halachah 12:11, biurim 3. Shabbos K’Hilcasha’s opinion. See there.
Shabbos K’halachah explains the rationale for this din 192. Shabbos K’halachah 12:11.
as follows: The rule is that borer only applies when one is 193. Note however, that Shemiras Shabbos K’Hilchashah
In addition, for those who follow the Chabad which are considered two minim. 202
Minhag 196 to pour off the froth at the top of a
beverage, it is permitted to do so on Shabbos based Interestingly, Shevisas Hashabbos 203 permits
on this principle, since even though one does not straining cooked vegetables or noodles from the
want to drink the froth, it is the same type as the water in which they are cooked. He considers these
beverage. 197 foods to be the same min as the water in which
they are cooked because people eat these foods
When dealing with foods, what along with the water. He proves this principle
is the definition of a min? 198 based on a Gemara 204 where Rav Chisda permits
Shabbos K’halachah 199 defines the parameters straining melon juice from the middle of a melon
of two minim as different having different name, in order to drink the juice. 205 Shevisas Hashabbos
taste, or use. It follows from this that fried salmon derives this from the Gemara which asserts that
and cooked salmon are considered two minim, any group of foods which most people would eat
even though both are salmon, since their tastes together as one unit is considered to be all of the
are sufficiently different. 200 Chicken and beef are same min and not a ta'aroves.
also different minim, even though both are called
“meat.” 201 The same is true even of two types of Rav Moshe Feinstein 206 disagrees with Shevisas
meat from the same animal, such as liver and beef, Hashabbos and holds that in general, solids and
Sources & Notes

3:28 rules that doing so is forbidden. Shabbos K’halachah Mishpat Hilchos Shemiras Guf V’Nefesh 9.
12:73 agrees and offers the following rationale: Broken 197. Shabbos K’halachah 12:111 with notes 17-18 there.
matzos and whole matzos are strictly speaking the same type, 198. The concept of min (type) comes up in many areas
but if someone uses the whole ones for lechem mishneh, that of halachah. For example, in Hilchos Kashrus, this is a very
renders the broken ones pesoles. significant discussion in Yoreh Deah 98:2. The definitions
194. See note 7 there for a list of the relevant poskim. In of min often vary between halachic contexts, so for each
Shemiras Hashabbos pp. 98-99, Biur Hilchos Shabbos p. 134 Halachic context, it is important to determine what the
and Or Hashulchan 319:9 (aliba d’hilchasa) Rabbi Shimon parameters of min (type) are.
Gadasi suggests that Piskei Teshuvah’s reading of Shulchan 199. 12:74, based on Pri Megadim EE 319:5. See also
Aruch Harav is the normative Chabad Pesak. Shabbos K’halachah, biurim 12.
195. Shulchan Aruch Harav [ 461:27] notes that the The details and level of specificity of what are in fact
custom is not to eat folded over pieces of Matzah. [ The considered two types is a matter of considerable debate
issue with folded-over matzah, or folded dough, in regard amongst the poskim. See there in Shabbos K’halachah for
to Pesach is a concern of chametz, or leavening. extensive discussion, for example, he cites the discussion in
According to halachah, matzah must be baked quickly the poskim as to whether whole-wheat bread and white bread
(within 18 minutes from the time water touches the flour) to are considered different minim.
ensure it does not become chametz. If dough is folded over, 200. See Chayei Adam 16:5, cited in Mishnah Berurah
there is a risk that the inside of the fold may not get fully 319:15.
baked and could potentially become chametz, even while 201. Shvisas HaShabbos Borer 5.
the rest of the matzah remains unleavened. This could occur 202. Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 3n58.
if the heat does not fully penetrate the fold, and the dough 203. Be'ar Rechovos [Merakaid fn. 26]
within the fold has time to rise.] Based on the principle just 204. Shabbos 109a
established it would follow that one could separate folded 205. This proof is based on the interpretation of Rabbenu
over matzah from flat matzah, since the two are the same Chananel cited by Tosfos [Shabbos 109a s.v. shrika] who
type. [Shabbos K’halachah 12:11] explains that one is permitted to separate the juice from the
196. Based on the Gemara in Chullin 105b which is melon since it could be eaten together with the melon.
accepted l’halachah in Shulchan Aruch Harav Choshen
the liquid in which they are in are considered two However, in the cases of vegetables or
separate minim. 207 Rav Nissim Karelitz 208 agrees noodles cooked in water, both the food which
that any mixture for which people would have a is being cooked and the water have independent
reason to desire only one of the items is considered significance. Therefore, it is considered a ta'aroves
a mixture of two separate minim. 209 of two minim.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 210 holds that in Are slightly different tastes still
order for a mixture to be considered of one min, considered the same min?
it must fulfill the following two conditions: 1) it Mishnah Berurah 212 rules that it is permitted
must be eaten by the majority of people as one to separate pieces of fish as long as they all have
unit, and 2) either the two parts of the mixture the same taste. Therefore, a mixture of burnt and
must naturally grow together, or the secondary unburnt pieces of fish is considered a mixture
part which is mixed into the host item must not of two different minim, and it is forbidden to
have an independent significance. He applies these separate out the non-burnt pieces. Rav Nissim
two conditions to the following examples: Karelitz 213 limits this to cases in which one food is
intrinsically worse than the other. However, if both
1) The melon juice is not considered significant groups of food are good, only that one is slightly
independent from the melon because it grows better than the other, then both of the groups are
naturally together with the melon. This is the considered to be of the same min. For example, if
reason why if the juice is normally eaten together there are two challos, one of which is better baked,
with the melon it is considered to be of the same it is not considered borer to separate them.
min.
Chaye Adam and Mishnah Berurah rule that
2) In se'if yud, the reason why the small pieces grilled meat and cooked meat are two different
of dirt or chips found in wine are considered to minim. 214
be of the same min as the wine (as long as most
people would drink it with the pieces), is because Mishnah Berurah 215 cites Pri Megadim 216 who is
those pieces have no independent significance. unsure if sweet and sour apples are considered one
or two minim. He adds that if the sour apple one is
3) Mishnah Berurah 211 allows straining almond not edible or only edible in extreme circumstances
milk from crushed almonds because the milk (such as a case where one is starving and has no
‘grows’ naturally together with the almonds. other food available), then it is considered pesoles. 217
Sources & Notes

206. Igros Moshe 4:74:2 people drink it that way. One is not insistent on removing the
207. The case of Gemara Shabbos 109a was discussing a dirt or chips, he just prefers the wine to be clear.
person who does not really care to separate the melon from 210. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [ch. 3 fn. 164 and 173]
the juice, except that he prefers to have more of the liquid 211. 319:34
because of its medicinal value. 212. 319:15
208. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 98] 213. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 81 25:5]
209. He writes that separating water from noodles is 214. 319:15
forbidden for someone who cares to separate them because 215. 319:15
there is a reason to distinguish between them. However, dirt 216. MZ 319:2 s.v. vhinei
or chips in wine in se'if yud is considered one unit if most
Shevisas Hashabbos 218 rules that whole-wheat the peel and apple seem to be of the same min? 226
and white bread or two different types of cake are
considered two different minim. Shemiras Shabbos Mishnah Berurah and Rav Moshe Feinstein 227
K'hilchasah 219 agrees. rule in accordance with Magen Avraham that an
apple and its peel are two different minim, and
Do two types of colors make therefore one is only permitted to peel an apple
something considered two minim? right before eating it. Magen Avraham considers
Rama codifies Terumas Hadeshen that there the peel to be a separate min from the apple
is no borer for one min. Rav Mordechai Bennet 220 because he considers it to be pesoles (despite it
writes that white and black figs are considered being edible).
to be of the same min and therefore it is not
considered borer to sort the two. Similarly, Chut Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 228 writes that
Shani 221 rules that candies with different colors but Magen Avraham’s ruling was limited to Magen
identical taste are considered to be of the same Avraham’s time period and region in which most
min, despite their varying colors. 222 people did not eat apple peels. Fundamentally,
Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah argues that Magen
Are an apple and its peel Avraham would agree with the Pri Megadim’s
or chicken and its skin rationale in a time and place where people
considered the same min? eat apple peels. Therefore, Shmiras Shabbos
Rama 223 rules that one may only peel an onion K'hilchasah’s rules leniently. He allows peeling an
right before eating it, and Magen Avraham 224 rules apple even with a peeler, and much in advance of
that the same is true for an apple. If someone actually eating it.
peeled either of these for a later use, that is
considered borer. Rav Moshe Feinstein 229 holds that one may
remove chicken skin from chicken. This is
Pri Megadim 225 wonders why peeling apples because the skin itself is considered to be a piece
should be considered borer. Given that most of chicken. Just as one would be permitted to cut
people eat the peel along with the apple, shouldn’t off a piece of chicken skin even not immediately
Sources & Notes

217. Shabbos Kitchen p. 125 is strict and considers red and 225. EA 321:30
green apples to be two minim because they have a different 226. Eglei Tal [Borer fn. 12] agrees.
taste. Similarly, red and green grapes are considered two 227. Igros Moshe 4:74:8
minim. 228. 3:34. In the footnote [ch. 3 fn. 88] he adds that even
218. Borer n. 5 someone who usually does not eat the peel can peel it since
219. Ch. 3 fn. 62 it is objectively one min with the apple. It is not similar to
220. Magen Avos cited by Daf Al Hadaf [Shabbos 74a] Biur Halachah [319:10 s.v. hoil] who writes that a person
based on Beitzah 10b who is finicky about the food they eat may not do borer
221. v. 2 p. 99 on something that they find distasteful even though most
222. Shabbos Kitchen [p. 125 fn. 21] explains that if there people eat it. Biur Halachah’s stringency is not applicable
is a real reason to be concerned about the color, such as for here because he was discussing dirt in wine. Dirt is not a food
coordinating a color scheme at a simcham then the colors item, thus it falls under stricter standards for borer. However,
would be considered two minim. the peel is edible, thus it has more lenient borer standards.
223. 321:19 229. Igros Moshe 4:74:8
224. 321:30
prior to eating, one may cut off skin. 230 Shemiras – either immediately before, or during, the meal.
Shabbos K’hilchasah 231 and Shabbos K’halachah
rule in accordance with this leniency as well. 232 Grilled chicken: Orchos Shabbos 237 rules that
one may remove the skin of grilled chicken, even
Orchos Shabbos 233 limits Rav Moshe’s heter, not immediately prior to eating, because everyone
writing that the heter only applies in a time period eats it. 238
and region where everyone eats chicken skin.
However, in a time and place where not everyone Removing feathers from chicken skin: Shemiras
does, it is considered borer to remove it. Therefore, Shaboos K’hilchashah 239 and Shabbos K’halachah 240
Orchos Shabbos concludes that the skin may only suggests that this would not be a problem of borer,
be removed immediately before eating. 234 but could be a violation of gozez (shearing). Ketzos
Hashulchan 241 rules leniently on this.
Rav Nissim Karelitz 235 asserts that chicken skin
is definitively classified as food. He proposes that What about one who is
the avoidance of chicken skin consumption is makpid (particular)?
characteristic of individuals with selective eating Even in a case in which the halachah deems a
habits. Therefore, according to him, chicken skin certain group of items to be all of the same min,
should never fall under the category of pesoles, and Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 242 rules that if one is
its removal is permissible at all times. makpid (particular) not to eat some items in that
group for some reason, then it is considered borer
However, in practical terms, Rav Nissim Karelitz for them to remove the items they do not want to
advocates a more conservative approach. 236 He eat. 243 Pri Megadim 244 has a similar consideration
advises that, ideally, the removal of chicken skin for a mixture of sweet and sour apples: if someone
should be timed to coincide with meal preparation dislikes sour apples, then it is borer for them to
Sources & Notes

230. Rivevos Efraim 5:267 agrees. 241. 143, Badei Hashulchan 1 s.v. V’Hinei.
231. 3:30. He offers four reasons as to why this act of plucking is
232. 12:127. See also 13:9. dissimilar to the geder (classification) of gozez (shearing)
233. 3:93, v. 1 p. 166 in the mishkan.
234. Chazon Ovadia [v. 4, p. 195] and the English 1) Unlike the melachah of gozez in the mishkan, this act
translation of Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 3:30 agree, of plucking is not for the sake of making the skin fit for use,
without adding that the halachic status depends on the but rather it is for the purpose of making the chicken edible.
locality. However, Ayil Meshulash 6:18 quoting Rav Elyashiv 2) In the case of a cooked chicken, the purpose of the
and Az Nidbaru 7:16:1 rule strictly and treat chicken and its plucking is not even for the sake of improving the chicken.
skin as two minim. 3) After having been cooked, the feathers become
235. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 81]. substantially changed such that they lose the category of
236. He reaches this conclusion since although he holds feathers relative to the melachah of gozez.
that his analysis is correct, he does not think it is sufficient 4) The cooking process inherently removes the feathers
to permit running the risk of violating a melachah. Thus from the skin, so removing them is no longer an act of
while it is analytically true, it is best to practically be strict. plucking.
237. Ch. 3 fn. 106 Based on the above, Ketzos Hashulchan concludes that
238. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 6 fn. 55] agrees. removing the feathers is permitted.
239. 3:30. 242. Ch. 3 fn. 62
240. 12:127.
separate out the sour apples. reject this suggestion because Trumas Hadeshen
and Rama apply borer to fish, which also does not
Does the prohibition of borer grow from the ground. 251
apply to non-food items?
Taz 245 rules that even though the primary 2) Aruch Hashulchan 252 writes that generally
examples of borer brought by the Gemara and there is no borer with keilim because keilim are
Rishonim are mixtures of food and waste, the large and recognizable..
laws of borer can apply to other mixtures of other
items as well. He proves this point based on Rashi 246 Shulchan Aruch Harav, 253 Mishnah Berurah, 254
who writes that separating rocks out of dirt so Ketzos Hashulchan, Shabbos K’halachah 255 and
that one has pure dirt to make into earthenware the overwhelming majority of poskim 256 accept
is considered borer. the ruling of Taz and apply borer to clothing and
other keilim.
Achronim cite two primary lines of argument
against Taz. Tiferes Yisrael 257 agrees with Taz and suggests,
based on Rashi, 258 that it is even forbidden to
1) Rabbi Akiva Eiger 247 suggests that zoreh separate a desired kli from an undesired one
(winnowing), which follows threshing, does not because the leniency that permits removing
apply to non-food items because the Gemara 248 ochel from pesoles for immediate consumption is
limits the melachah of dosh (threshing) to things limited to removing food. However, most poskim 259
that grow from the ground. Some Achronim 249 disagree with the Tiferes Yisrael and hold that it
suggest that the laws of borer are the same as zoreh, is permitted to separate a desired kli from an
and therefore borer does not apply to non-food undesired one for immediate use.
items. Nevertheless, almost all of the poskim 250
Sources & Notes

243. His proof comes from Biur Halachah [319:10 s.v. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 3:1, Shabbos Kitchen p. 122,
hoil]. See se'if yud where this is explained. and 39 Melachos (v. 2, p. 382). Yabia Omer 5:31 holds that
244. 319:2 s.v. v’heneh the view of Or Same’ach and Aruch Hashulchan, who hold
245. 319:12 that there is no borer for kelim, is used as one factor to be
246. Shabbos 74b s.v. sheva lenient, but not on its own.
247. Responsa 20 257. Kalkeles Hashabbos, Borer n. 7
248. Shabbos 75a 258. Rashi [Shabbos 74b s.v. Sheva] writes that picking
249. Chemdat Yisrael cited by Minchas Yitzchak 1:75:1 large rocks from among the dirt is borer. This implies that
and Yabia Omer 5:31:3 borer for non-foods is permitted if taking the desired from
250. Minchas Yitzchak 1:75:2 and Yabia Omer 5:31:3 the undesired. But in s.v. Chayav he implies that it is borer
251. Yabia Omer 5:31:3 quotes Chemdas Yisrael who to separate even good reeds from bad ones. This implies
makes this suggestion and Eglei Tal n. 21 who rejects it. that it is forbidden even when taking the desired from the
252. 319:9 undesired. Kalkeles Hashabbos follows the implication from
253. 319:8 this Rashi.
254. 319:15 259. Minchas Chinuch [Mosach Hashabbos, Borer n. 7],
255. 12:3 Shulchan Aruch Harav 319:15, Chaye Adam 16:5, Mishnah
256. Shulchan Aruch Harav 319:8, Chaye Adam 16:5, Berurah 319:15, Aruch Hashulchan 319:9, and Halachos
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 80:17, Minchas Yitzchak 1:75, Shabbos p. 132.
How do the halachos of borer holds that seforim on a shelf are not considered
affect these non-food items? a ta'aroves. 268 Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Elyashiv,
Based on the fact that according to most, borer and Rav Nissim Karelitz agree with Chazon Ish 269
also applies to non-food items, the poskim discuss as does Shabbos K’halachah. 270
the halachos regarding the following items:
2) Stacked up: seforim stacked in a pile are
S eforim: 260
considered a ta'aroves.
The majority of poskim including Chazon
Ish, 261 Rav Elyashiv, 262 and Rav Moshe Feinstein 263 3) Placed on a table: If the seforim are on top of
Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah and Shabbos each other all over a table and all mixed up, then
K’halachah 264 all rule that borer does apply to they are certainly considered a ta'aroves. However,
seforim. if the seforim are spread out in such a way that
they do not appear to be mixed up, they are not
Therefore, it is forbidden to remove chumashim considered a ta'aroves. 271
from a pile of chumashim and siddurim with the
intent of putting the chumashim away together. 265 Other rules regarding sorting seforim are:
Even in the case of two seforim which are
chumashim, if one is Chumash Bereishis, and 1) Rav Elyashiv and Rav Nissim Karelitz permit
another is Chumash Bamidbar, and a third is selecting one sefer at a time in order to learn from
Chumash Devarim, separating them out from one it a bit and then return it to its correct place. This
another would be considered borer. 266 is permitted even though one’s primary intent is
to separate. 272
What is the definition of a ta’aroves when it
comes to seforim? 2) It is permitted to return an entire pile of
mixed books to a shelf as a mixture. 273
1) On the shelf: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 267
advises that one should use a sefer immediately 3) Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 274 allows one to
when removing it from a group of seforim on pick up one sefer at a time, without consideration
a shelf because the group of seforim could be for which sefer it is, and then return it to its proper
considered a ta'aroves. Chazon Ish disagrees and place. 275
Sources & Notes

260. See extensive discussion in Shabbos K’halachah 269. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 18 fn. 15]
12:112-119. 270. 12:114.
261. Ayil Meshulash 18:1 quoting Rav Nissim Karelitz 271. Ayil Meshulash 18:2 based on the general discussion
who heard this from his uncle, the Chazon Ish. of what is called a ta'aroves discussed above. Shabbos
262. Ayil Meshulash 18:1 K’halachah 12:117 agrees. See 12n225 for details.
263. 4:74:12 272. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 18 fn. 10]. See, however,
264. See Shabbos K’halachah 12:112-119. discussion by drying each piece of silverware separately and
265. Rav Elyashiv cited by Shevus Yitzchak p. 47 then putting them back in the right place.
266. Shabbos K’halachah 12:112. 273. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 18 fn. 14] quoting Rav Nissim
267. For sources on Rav Shlomo Zalman’s opinion, and Karelitz
discussion thereof, see Shabbos K’halachah 12n219. 274. 3:88
268. Orchos Shabbos [ch. 3 fn. 17] 275. His reason seems to be that since his intent is to
4) Rav Moshe Feinstein 276 rules it is forbidden look beautiful and organized, since relative to the
to search for a sefer in a dark room, because it is goal of the table looking beautiful and organized,
not clear where the sefer is located. However, Rav that happens l’alter, immediately after one sets it. 281
Nissim Karelitz, 277 rules leniently because even That said, if each of the different types of cutlery
though in practice, one may have to search for were already in separate compartments, one
the sefer from amongst all the other ones, it is not should endeavor not to mix them when setting
intrinsically considered a ta'aroves with the other the table, but instead, put out each set of cutlery
seforim. one at a time. 282
Practically, if the seforim are considered to be When putting away cutlery: If the utensils are
in a ta’aroves, one may take seforim for immediate not mixed together, but instead, each is in its own
use (l’alter). Even if one is taking seforim for the place, one may remove them from a table without
purpose of using them in a beis medrash, separating restriction. The problem arises when there is a
them out of the pile is considered l’alter. 278 mixture of keilim, and one wants to separate out
the dirty utensils from the clean ones. In such a
Cutlery: 279 case, one may first remove the clean cutlery, and
When setting a table: One is permitted to set them aside for later use, and only then remove
separate out the relevant cutlery to prepare for a the dirty cutlery. 283
meal following the conditions of permitted borer.
One may separate out forks, knives, and spoons, As a general rule, it is forbidden to separate
immediately before a meal for meal preparation. 280 cutlery to be put away in the right sections on
Furthermore, one may even separate out the Shabbos. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 284 rules
cutlery for nonstandard use such as using the that one may select one piece of cutlery from a
utensils to designate where someone is sitting group of cutlery at random and return it to its
(using cutlery on a plate to “save a spot”), or correct place — as long as one does not intend to
even to use the cutlery as a heker (sign used to select a specific type, and they wash and dry the
avoid accidental transgression of halachah; used utensil before returning it. This is not considered
in various domains such as kashrus and niddah borer because there is no intention to select a
observance). One is even permitted to engage in specific type of cutlery. Once the piece of cutlery
permissible borer on cutlery long before the meal is in one’s hands for washing and drying, they are
begins if their intention is that the table should permitted to return it to its correct place. 285 .
Sources & Notes

clear the table, he is allowed to pick up one at a time. Once 281. Shabbos K’halachah 12:104, citing Rav Shlomo
he picks up one to clear it and it is no longer in a ta'aroves, he Zalman Auerbach in his letter B’pninei Ha’maor cited at the
can put it away. See Nishmas Shabbos 4:158 who is troubled end of the work Maor Hashabbos vol. 1, 8:2.
with this leniency since it is a pesik reisha d’nicha leh that 282. Shabbos K’halachah 12:103 citing Shemiras Shabbos
he is doing borer. K’hilchasah 3n213.
276. Halachos of Shabbos [Borer fn. 371] 283. Shabbos K’halachah 12:106.
277. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 18 fn. 16]** 284. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 3:85
278. Shabbos K’halachah 12:115 285. Rav Wosner [Kovetz M’beis Levi v. 6 p. 42] agrees.
279. For extensive detail, see Shabbos K’halachah 12:102- However, Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 76] argues that picking out
109. something at random to then put it away in its proper place
280. Shabbos K’halachah 12:102. is borer. It is only permitted to pick up an item at random
Rav Nissim Karelitz 286 more strictly rules that if such as for example, if they are in a pile of recently
it bothers one that the cutlery are mixed together, laundered clothing, one may not sort them to put
and one’s intent is both to dry and separate them; them away in the relevant place in a closet or
then even if they randomly select one piece at drawer. 293 However, in a case of great need, one
a time, they are still forbidden to return them may disperse the clothing, by throwing the entire
because of their intent to separate. Only if one’s pile out around a room, and then pick up the
intent is only to dry the cutlery; then as long as clothing one by one.
they select one piece at a time, may they return the
pieces to their right place. Rav Elyashiv 287 agrees. Selecting clothes for others: Just as one is
permitted to perform permitted borer on foods, so
Shabbos K’halachah 288 rules that if one separates too, one is permitted to perform permitted borer
out the dirty cutlery for the purpose of washing it, on clothing for others. 294
that is considered a permitted case of borer since
one wishes to wash it l’alter, however, this washing If clothes are hanging on top of another, or on
l’alter is only permitted if one intends to use the a hanger, and an article of clothing one wants is
utensil to eat immediately. 289 under many others, then one may remove the
clothing obstructing the desired one to get to it. 295
Clothes: 290 Ketzos Hashulchan 296 adds that one should be sure
Selecting clothes: If one has many different to return the clothing they removed to their prior
types of clothing mixed in with one another, and place.
wants to take one type of clothing, if one merely
moves the other clothing aside in the closet or Diapers:
drawer to get to the desired clothing, the action is Diapers come in different types, such as thick
not considered borer, 291 so long as one intends to and thin, as well as different sizes. If the difference
use the item immediately. 292 is between thick and thin, then one may sort
them however they like, since the diapers are
Sorting clothes: If clothes are mixed together, fundamentally of the same type. However, if they
Sources & Notes

if he does not care at all about the fact they got separated. clothing, but merely moving them to the edges of the trunk,
Shabbos Kitchen [p. 121 fn. 8] explains that Rav Shlomo this is similar to the case of the fly [mentioned by the Alter
Zalman Auerbach holds that it is forbidden to pick out one Rebbe in Piskei Hasiddur] which one may move to the
item at random and put it away. But picking up one piece side of the cup. Now although Pri Megadim questions the
of silverware at a time to dry it is considered taking it for a permissibility of removing pesoles on sauce, that case is not
purpose, and once it is separated he does not need to put it similar to ours, since, in his case the pesoles has absolutely
back into the mixture. no use, while here the pesoles will eventually have a use, one
286. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 71] merley does not want it now.
287. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 11 fn. 20*] 292. See Shabbos K’halachah 12:92n195.
288. 12:107 and 12n210 there. 293. Shabbos K’halachah 12:94.
289. See extensive discussion of this issue in Shabbbos 294. Shabbos K’halachah 12:96.
K’halachah 12:108-109. 295. Shabbos K’halachah 12:99, based on Mishnah
290. For a thorough discussion, see Shabbos K’halachah Berurah 319:15. See also Biur Halachah there s.v. Le’echol
12:92-101. M’yad. Shabbos K’halachah expounds on this point in Biurim
291. Ketzos Hashulchan. Badei Hashulchan at the end 12:25.
of Siman 125. He explains “since one is not removing the 296. 125, Badei Hashulchan 47
are different sizes, and one size does not fit any of removing pesoles from ochel because the action is
the babies in the house, in which case that size is part of the game (just like removing and placing
unusable, one may not sort such diapers. 297 down the tiles the player does want). All of the
tiles are considered ochel. Therefore, even the act
Games: 298 of discarding a tile is considered selecting ochel
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 299 rules that from ochel. (Even though one could argue that the
playing chess does not violate the prohibition player wants to win, and therefore he desires the
of borer, because both players only remove the tiles that are good for him to win, nonetheless, Rav
pieces they need. Therefore, this is analogous to Osher argues that it is also considered ochel since
removing ochel from pesoles for immediate use. he is using everything to play.)
Similarly, Or Letzion 300 writes that playing a puzzle
is not borer, as long as the player takes the pieces (3) An act of borer must have a speficic purpose
he wants from the ones he does not. and use. However, if the activity is only to separate
for fun, then it is not considered borer.
Rav Osher Weiss 301 discusses playing Rummikub
on Shabbos. In the game, each player has several (4) Maharshag 302 holds that there is no borer on
numbered tiles. At points in the game, a player a set that will not remain separated.
will select the specific tiles that they need to make
a pattern or to add onto a pre-existing pattern. Rav Osher writes that even though these reasons
This is considered removing ochel from pesoles are clear, he is not confident enough to pasken on
for immediate use. However, at other points in this as the halachah. Shabbos K’halachah rules
the game he takes the tiles he does not want and lenienty on playing rummikub. 303 However, Avnei
places them down, which would be considered Yoshpeh 304 rules leniently and allows borer with
separating pesoles from ochel. Rav Weiss is lenient chess, checkers, or cards based on the first reason
and permits both actions for the following reasons: alone. 305
1) All of the tiles are considered to be of the Do items touching each other
same min, and according to Rama in se'if gimmel constitute a ta'aroves?
there is no borer for a set of objects of the same Practically, the poskim 306 rule that any set of
min. objects in close proximity 307 that people would
consider to be mixed together is considered a
2) Discarding unwanted tiles is not considered ta'aroves. But, if one consider the set to be a
Sources & Notes

297. Shabbos K’halachah 12:72-72*. like he proves from Mishnah Berurah [319:15] that the pieces
298. See discussion in Shabbos K’halachah 12:120-124. of chicken would be considered one min, so too are game
299. Shulchan Shlomo 314:1:1 pieces.
300. v. 2 ch. 42 fn. 6 306. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [Meor Hashabbos vol.
301. Minchas Asher [Shabbos, Teshuva 6 p. 327] 1 letter 8*:2-3], Rav Shmuel Wosner [Kovetz M’beis Levi v.
302. 1:54 and 57 6 p. 41], Ayil Meshulash [ch. 4 fn. 42] quoting Rav Nissim
303. See discussion in [12:124], and [12n233]. Karelitz, and Toras Hamelachos n. 14.
304. 8:74 Shabbos K’halachah 12:13, note 23 there, and 12:15.
305. He considers all of the game pieces to be like 307. Ketzos Hashulchan. Badei Hashulchan 125:14
different pieces of a chicken, such as the thigh and leg. Just approvingly cites Eglei Tal [Borer 11:1] as saying that borer
group of separate items, then it is not considered 2) A ta’aroves limited to the point of contact:
a ta'aroves. If something is not a ta’aroves, then Magen Avraham 313 rules that removing cream
removing the pesoles is permitted. from milk is considered borer. This seems to
contradict a different ruling of his where he does
On this basis Shabbos K’halachah 308 rules that not rule decisively that it is forbidden to remove
so long as two minim are in proximity, but are not the congealed fat from the gravy below it. 314
mixed together, i.e. one is not surrounded by the
other, borer does not apply. How is the case of skimming fat off gravy any
different from the case of skimming cream off
Examples of this include: two fruits touching milk? Igros Moshe 315 answers that Magen Avraham
each other, a group of fruits on a plate which forbids to skim cream off milk because both cream
appear to be separate, even a rotten apple next to and milk are liquids and are therefore not really
good apples. 309 separate; however, he rules that skimming fat off
gravy could be permitted because the fat is solid
There are many possible types of ta'aroves, each and therefore completely separate from the liquid
with their own halachos: gravy below it.
1) A complete ta'aroves: The items in this In these types of mixtures, there is only a
type of mixture are completely mixed together. ta'aroves at the point of contact; 316 therefore, the
Examples of this category include: rocks in grain, 310 poskim 317 write that one is permitted to separate
sediment in wine (se'if tes), and a drawer of shirts.311 part of the pesoles not touching the ochel as long as
some of the pesoles is left together with the ochel at
Rav Nissim Karelitz and Rav Pinchas Sheinberg the point of contact. Rav Ovadia Yosef 318 holds that
hold that it is possible to have a ta'aroves cream floating on top of milk does not constitute
composed of items that are next to each other but a ta’aroves because the cream is recognizable as
not touching, such as items left on a table in an separate from the milk below it.
unorganized way. 312
Sources & Notes

only applies when “the pesoles obstructs the ochel. However 314. 319:15
if the pesoles and ochel are in near proximity to one another, 315. 4:74:6
then separating is not classified as borer.” 316. Ayil Meshulash 4:16
Shabbos K’halachah [12:15n27] demonstrates that 317. Mishnah Berurah 319:62, Chazon Ish 53, and Ayil
Shulchan Aruch Harav in Piskei Hasiddur accepts this Meshulash [4:18 and fn. 53] based on se'if yud daled. Chayei
definition of Eglei Tal as Shulchan Aruch Harav there [s.v. Tov Adam [16:10] writes that it is only permitted to take the cream
Limnoa] writes “if any piece of shell is found among pieces (ochel) from the milk (pesoles) for immediate consumption,
of nut or almond, or among whole ones, if one removes it, even the part of the cream that is not touching the milk.
one is liable for a sin-offering… on account of selecting waste Mishnah Berurah [Shaar Hatziyun 319:59] argues that it
from within food.” is permitted to remove the cream even for non-immediate
308. 12:15. consumption since there is no ta'aroves not at the point of
309. Shabbos K’halachah 12:15. contact between the cream and milk. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 95]
310. Yerushalmi [Shabbos 7:2 49b] explains that Chaye Adam holds that the entire mixture is
311. Ayil Meshulash 4 considered one ta'aroves, but he sides with Mishnah Berurah.
312. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 4 fn. 41] 318. Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 235]
313. 510:13
Shabbos K’halachah 319 offers a more cases of a challah. 330
two items touching where the two items are clearly
distinct, and rules that Borer does not apply to 4) A mixture of objects that touch each other
them: side by side or on top of each other: Magen
Avraham 331 does not rule clearly as to whether
One may take a carrot of gefilte fish, a cherry off separating congealed fat from gravy is borer.
of cake, 320 or a worm off a fruit. 321 In all of these Perhaps an act of separating is only considered
cases, although the items are touching, since they borer when separating items that are actually
are clearly distinct, they are not considered a mixed together. But a case such as removing fat
mixture. 322 from on top of gravy would not be considered
borer because the parts are merely touching. In
3) Attached items: Most poskim 323 hold that practice, the poskim are stringent and do not
separating two items that are attached is borer, permit the sorting of objects, even when they are
even though each item is clearly defined and merely touching.
recognizable. However, Maharshal, 324 holds that
there is no borer of attached items becuase each An example of this type of ta'aroves would be
one is clearly recognizable. Aruch Hashulchan 325 a group of coats hanging in a stack, one on top
and Rav Ovadia Yosef 326 agree. of the other, from a hook. 332 Mishnah Berurah 333
does not consider it borer to remove the top layer
Examples of this category of borer include: of coats from the hook in order to retrieve a coat
separating the rotten part of a fruit from the fresh from the bottom layer. 334
part, 327 peeling a fruit, 328 separating the fat off of
a piece of meat, 329 and removing the sticker off of Rav Ovadia Yosef 335 is lenient and does not
Sources & Notes

319. 12:17 point of contact between the fruit and the peel is a ta'aroves.
320. See further discussion in Shabbos K’halachah 329. Shabbos Kitchen p. 130
12:133. 330. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 3:35 is lenient to
321. See also Shabbos K’halachah 12:86. Shabbos remove a sticker on a challah since it is similar to a peel.
K’halachah clarifies that the worm is not muktzeh. See there Though, in fn. 95 he questions this comparison since it is
in Biurim 12:23. possible to eat around it and leave it until afterwards. Shabbos
322. For further elaboration, see Shabbos K’halachah Kitchen p. 162 is strict to forbid removing a sticker from fruit
12:88-91. unless one takes a part of the fruit with it.
323. Magen Avraham 510:4, Shabbos Kitchen p. 130, Ayil 331. 319:15
Meshulash 4:23 332. Mishnah Berurah 319:15
324. Yam Shel Shlomo [Beitzah 1:42] 333. Mishnah Berurah 319:15, Biur Halachah 319:3 s.v.
325. 319:21 Miyad
326. Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 195] 334. Ayil Meshulash [4:17] holds that this leniency
327. Ayil Meshulash 4:23 to permit picking up the top layer to reach the bottom
328. Rama 321:19. Eglei Tal [Borer fn. 11] wonders why should only be applied to items that are layered but not to a
peeling fruit is borer at all given that there is no ta'aroves — complete ta'aroves or even items touching each other. Rav
the fruit and the peel are merely touching. He answers that Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [Meor Hashabbos v. 3 letter 40:2]
the Yerushalmi means that removing a peel from fruit is borer and Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 180] imply that this leniency is
only if there are many fruits mixed up with their peels. Ayil relevant to any ta'aroves.
Meshulash [ch. 4 fn. 49] argues that peeling is borer and the 335. Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 180]
consider items that are next to each other to be cited by Rama above, who concludes that there
a ta'aroves. 336 Shabbos Kitchen 337 explains that is borer even if the entities are recognizable and
this type of mixture would only be considered a large. Trumas Hadeshen explained that because
ta’aroves if it was unorganized; but if instead the the exact definition of a ta'aroves is unclear and it
different sets of objects were organized into rows, is a question of a potential issur d’oraisa we have
then the group of objects would not be considered to be strict even with entities that are recognizable
a ta’aroves. For example, a random assortment of and large. In fact, this is a reason some poskim
pieces of cake on a platter would be considered a reject Aruch Hashulchan’s approach. 341
ta'aroves; whereas if the pieces are separated into
rows so that they are not overlapping, then the Rav Ovadia Yosef 342 explains that Aruch
assortment would not be considered a ta'aroves. Hashulchan means that a mixture of items
which are readily recognizable as different is not
What if the items in the ta’aroves considered a ta’arvoes, while Trumas Hadeshen
are large and distinct? means that it is forbidden to do borer on a mixture
Aruch Hashulchan 338 writes that if the items in of large recognizable items that require some
question are large and recognizably separate, there analysis to differentiate. Therefore, it is possible
is no ta’aroves and it is permitted to separate them. to reconcile Aruch Hashulchan with Trumas
With this, he explains that the reason why the Hadashen. 343
Rishonim do not forbid cases of separating keilim is
because they are large and therefore recognizable What is the minimum
as separate items. 339 The Rishonim only forbade number of items which would
doing borer on mixtures of foods such as figs and constitute a ta'aroves?
grapes because they are small and therefore not as Rav Wosner 344 holds that two items touching
recognizable as separate items. 340 Although Aruch each other are not considered a ta'aroves, while
Hashulchan supports his approach with other Rav Elyashiv 345 holds that even three items are not
Rishonim, seemingly it is against Trumas Hadeshen, yet a ta'aroves.
Sources & Notes

336. Rav Ovadia bases this on Eglei Tal [Borer fn. 11] approach.
and Or Same’ach [Hilchos Shabbos 8:11]. 342. Yabia Omer 5:31:4
337. p. 129 and p. 171 343. Shulchan Aruch Harav [ 319:6] explains that Trumas
338. 319:9 Hadeshen is discussing a case in which a set of one type of
339. Or Same’ach [Shabbos 8:11] agrees. large items is mixed together with another set of small items
340. Other examples of food mixtures that would of a different type. In that case, Trumas Hadeshen considered
constitute a ta'aroves for this reason include mixtures of peas that perhaps it shouldn’t be a taaroves, but ultimately he is
and carrots, raisins and peanuts, and grapes and cherries strict. However, if both types of these items were large, then
[Halachos of Shabbos p. 135]. certainly it would be considered borer to sort the mixture
341. Rav Moshe Feinstein [Mesores Moshe v. 3 p. 97] and Trumas Hadeshen didn’t even consider that potentially
disagreed with this Aruch Hashulchan because it was it isn’t a ta'aroves.
contradicted by Trumas Hadeshen. Shevitas Hashabbos Tehillah L’dovid n. 8 notes this. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 4 fn.
[Bear Rechovos 26] also disagrees with Aruch Hashulchan. 46] disagrees with Shulchan Aruch Harav because the simple
Seemingly, all the poskim who are strict about borer with language of Trumas Hadeshen implies otherwise. .
kelim also disagree with Aruch Hashulchan because Aruch 344. Kovetz M’beis Levi [v. 6 p. 41]
Hashulchan permits borer with kelim as a result of his 345. Cited by Shabbos Kitchen p. 130
Are mixed bottles a ta’aroves? together. Such a case is common at a simcha or
Pri Megadim rules that several wine and beer
346
very large meal. 350
bottles mixed together and standing next to each
other on a shelf or in a pantry would be considered Are large solids in a soup
a ta'aroves. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 347 considered a ta'aroves?
qualifies that this is only true if there are a lot of Shevisas Hashabbos 351 states that an egg floating
bottles mixed up together and they appear to be a in water isn't considered ta'aroves. 352 In a similar
ta'aroves; however, generally bottles in a row like vein, Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Chaim Pinchas
on the door of a refrigerator they would not be Sheinberg assert that a matzah-ball floating in
considered a ta'aroves. 348 soup isn't viewed as a mixture with the soup, due
to the matzah-ball's size and rerahcognizability. 353
Are items left on a table a ta’aroves?
Rav Nissim Karelitz 349 rules that the silverware Shabbos K’halachah expands this lenient view
on a table is not considered a ta'aroves because even further. He states that any large solid object
each piece of silverware has its own designated in a liquid or liquidy-mixture is not considered
place; however, a group of pieces of challah left part of the mixture since it is clearly individuated.
on a table would be considered a ta’aroves if they Thus, one may remove it on Shabbos. It follows
are all collected in one place and only some of the then that one may remove chunks of meat,
pieces are edible. A group of empty and full bottles potatoes, fish balls or matzah-balls, and even a bag
left on a table is considered a ta’aroves if when one of rice or kishke from a soup or cholent. 354
takes a glance at the table they appear to be mixed
Sources & Notes

346. MZ 321:10 that is not borer. He is only focused on clearing the table
347. Meor Hashabbos [letter 8:3-4]. He compares it and not separating.
to taking a sefer from a shelf of seforim. See also Shabbos 351. 319:25. Ketzos Hashulchan 125:14 cites and accepts
K’halachah 12:16. this position.
348. Shvus Yitzchak p. 59 also quotes Rav Elyashiv who 352. Shevisas Shabbos 319:25 explains that a solid would
argues that taking empty bottles from among full bottles only be considered part of the mixture if it is difficult to
when the bottles are next to each other on a shelf or table locate, such as small wood chips, or insects, which are
is borer. But to pick one bottle that is different than the difficult to remove. In contrast, an egg is completely separate
others and is recognizable from among others is not borer. from the soup or stew that it is in. Ketzos Hashulchan argues
However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [Meor Hashabbos that the key criterion is not the ease with which something
letter 8:3-4] permits taking the empty bottles from among can be removed, but rather recognizability. Therefore, eggs
the full ones if they do not appear to be a ta'aroves. or meat chunks which are very recognizable as distinct are
As established, the standards here are more intuitive, than not considered mixed, while wood chips are.
formal. So, intuitively, bottles on a refrigerator door are less 353. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 6 fn. 271]. Peninei halachah
“mixed” than bottles in a cupboard or a box. [Shabbos 11:4] agrees. He adds that according to Maharitatz
349. Chut Shani [Shabbos v. 2 p. 74] cited in se'if tes zayin that an insect in soup is not a ta'aroves,
350. He gives two solutions of how to clear the table if certainly this is true. However, the nuance here is that this
there is a ta'aroves: 1) It is permitted to just take whatever is true even for Taz and most Achronim who disagree with
comes to one’s hand without paying attention to the category. Maharitatz.
This is allowed if one does not then place each item in its 354. Shabbos K’halachah 12:21 uses this to ground a
specific place and just puts them somewhere else together. significant leniency. If there are large items such as matzah-
2) If everyone's job is just to gather one type of thing, such balls in soup, or kishke in cholent, one may remove them
as one person gets the silverware and another the drinks, from the liquid stew even with the intention of saving them
Rav Nissim Karelitz 355 and Rav Elyashiv 356 of fruit and some leaves in front of them. The
challenge the comparison between a matzah-ball Gemara leaves open two possible interpretations
in soup and an egg in water. They argue that the of Rav Beivai’s actions: 1) either he spilled the
matzah-ball and soup can indeed be considered bowl because he held that it was even forbidden
a mixture, because the soup is absorbed into the to separate ochel from pesoles on Shabbos, or 2) he
matzah-ball, and the soup also seeps into the did so to honor his guests by displaying a generous
crevices on the matzah-ball's rough surface. 357 amount of fruit.
On the other hand, an egg has a smooth surface Rashi 362 notes that when Rav Beivai poured out
and doesn't absorb the liquid surrounding it, the fruits, the ochel spread out on its own (without
so the two remain distinct and do not form a necessitating separating it from the leaves).
ta'aroves. 358 Therefore, they hold that the situations
of the matzah-ball and the egg cannot be directly Based on this Gemara, Rav Moshe Feinstein 363
compared. writes that it is permitted to spill out a mixture
across a table or floor so that it will no longer
However, all agree that when it comes to small be considered a ta'aroves. Shabbos K’halachah 364
pieces of vegetables or meat mixed in soup or stew, rules this way as well.
the melachah of borer applies. Even though these
food items are solid and can be distinguished However, Rav Elyashiv, 365 explains that Rav
as individual elements, their small size makes Beivai was only allowed to disperse the fruits in
them integral parts of the mixture. 359 Therefore, front of Rav Ami and Rav Assi because doing so
extracting them from the mixture is considered was derech achilah for immediate consumption.
an act of borer, and is prohibited. 360 However, it is forbidden to disperse a ta'aroves for
later consumption, or to remove the pesoles from
Is it permitted to the ochel, because both cases are cases of borer
disperse a ta'aroves? d’oraisa.
The Gemara 361 says that Rav Dimi related an
incident involving Rav Ami and Rav Assi, who Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 366 writes that it
visited Rav Beivai on Shabbos. During their visit, is permitted for someone to scatter a mixture so
Rav Beivai overturned a bowl containing a mixture that someone else can take from it, whereas it is
Sources & Notes

for after Shabbos. See there Biurim 4*. For more on vegetables 359. As seen above, for Shevisas Shabbos this is because
in soup, see Shabbos K’halachah 12:80. they are difficult to remove. For Ketzos Hashulchan it is
355. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 98] because they are too not sufficiently recognizable as a distinct
356. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 6 fn. 272] entity.
357. While Shabbos K’halachah [3:19] does not accept 360. Shabbos K’halachah 12:21
this rationale in the case of solids such as matzah-balls, he 361. Shabbos 74a with Rashi’s [s.v. v’shada] explanation,
does accept it in the case of ground solids, where the liquid 362. [s.v. v’shada]
more deeply permeates the solid, such as in the case of oil 363. Igros Moshe 4:74:11
in a tuna-fish can. Thus, while one may pour the water off 364. 12:14.
the tuna fish cans top, they may not squeeze the tuna-fish to 365. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 9 fn. 85]
extract the water from it. 366. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [ch. 3 fn. 6]
358. Ayil Meshulash [ch. 6 fn. 272]
not clear that it is permitted for one to scatter the Rather, sorting ochel from ochel is treated like
mixture with the intent of taking from it himself. 367 sorting ochel from pesoles. Therefore, it is only
permitted to do so for immediate consumption,
Is there a difference between or for consumption at one’s next meal.
separating ochel from ochel
and ochel from pesoles? Kaf Hachaim 375 accepts Magen Avraham’s
According to Machatzis Hashekel, Magen understanding of Mechaber as the halachah. 376
Avraham 368 implies that sorting ochel from pesoles However, Or Letzion 377 holds that it is forbidden
is only permitted for immediate consumption. mid’rabbanan to do borer a few hours in advance
However, it is permitted to separate ochel from of a meal even in the case of sorting ochel from
ochel for an upcoming meal. 369 370 371 ochel. 378
Machatzis Hashekel 372 adds that Magen Avraham Why is borer not a melachah
only means this according to Mechaber. Because, she’einah tzrichah l’gufah?
Mechaber, who quotes Rambam, implies that Baal Hameor 379 writes that although borer is a
there are differences between ochel from ochel and melachah she’einah tzrichah l’gufah (a melachah
ochel from pesoles. Therefore, Magen Avraham’s not for the purpose of the product) because
distinction makes sense. But, for Rama, it is clear one's intention is to throw out the pesoles, which
from se'if alef that he does not allow borer a few does not directly affect the ochel; nonetheless the
hours before the meal, and he does not distinguish melacha of borer is still forbidden mid'oraisa.
between ochel from pesoles and ochel from ochel.
Ramban 380 argues that it’s not a melachah
Biur Halachah 373 and Shulchan Aruch Harav 374 she’einah tzrichah l’gufah, since by removing the
agree with Machatzis Hashekel that the halachah pesoles, the sorter is enhancing the ochel. Yeshuos
does not follow this opinion of Magen Avraham. Yakov follows Ramban's approach and therefore
Sources & Notes

367. Rav Wosner [Kovetz M’beis Levi v. 6 p. 42] writes se'if beis.
that in theory, it is permitted to do this, but in practice he 371. Machatzis Hashekel explains that he writes that it
would not advise it since it is hard to scatter so that it is not is permitted to separate for another meal for one type of
a ta'aroves at all. Rav Karelitz [v. 2 p. 76] is unsure if it is ochel. He implies that for two types of ochel, it is forbidden
permitted if one’s intent is to separate. to separate for another meal, but doing it a few hours in
368. 319:6 advance of the meal is permitted.
369. Pri Megadim [EA 319:6] explains that Magen 372. 319:6
Avraham is bothered by the seeming redundancy between 373. 319:3 s.v. shbirer
se'ifim alef through gimmel. Although Mechaber in se'if 374. See 319:5 and Tehilah L’Dovid 319:5 as well as
alef already mentions that separating for later that day Shabbos K’halachah 12 with biurim 17.
is forbidden, when he writes the same condition in se'if 375. 319:35
gimmel for separating ochel from ochel, he adds, like from 376. Aruch Hashulchan [319:13-15] also seems to accept
the morning to the afternoon. Magen Avraham infers that this distinction of Beis Yosef.
in se'if alef it is forbidden to separate except for immediate 377. 1:27:5
consumption for the meal that is about to begin; whereas in 378. Yalkut Yosef [siman 319 fn. 23] quotes both Kaf
se'if gimmel, it is permitted even a few hours before the next Hachaim and Or Letzion and does not resolve it.
meal, as long as it is not from before lunch for seuda shelishis. 379. 37b
370. This corresponds to the view of Rambam as 380. Chiddushei Haramban [Shabbos 106a]
understood by Beis Yosef, explained in the introduction to
limits the d’oraisa violation of borer to cases in Biur Halachah 381 argues that the poskim accepted
which one removes pesoles from the ochel for se'if alef which establishes that separating two
the purpose of enhancing the ochel so that it is foods is a melachah mid’oraisa even though they
not mixed into the pesoles. However, if there are hold melachah she’einah tzrichah l’gufah is patur.
two types of ochel and one takes the one they do The explanation is that even when separating two
not desire, then he is doing a melachah she’einah types of ochel, the sorter is enhancing both foods
tzrichah l’gufah because the ochel he wants is not because each becomes more accessible through
enhanced by the separation. the act of separation.
„ ‫סעיף‬ 4
‫ „"ה בורר | רמב"ם הלכו˙ יום טוב‬.„‫ | ˙וס' ע‬:‫ „"ה ‚מ' | מ˘נה ˘ב˙ ˜לז‬.‫ ור˘"י ˘ם „"ה מי | ר"ן ביˆה ז‬:„‫ מ˘נה ביˆה י‬:˙‫מ˜ורו‬
‫ והלכו˙ ˘ב˙ פר˜ כ‡ הלכה יז‬,‫טז‬-‫פר˜ ‚ הלכו˙ טו‬
Introduction:
Is Shabbos the same as Yom Tov? There is a machlokes Rishonim regarding doing borer on Yom
Tov, if sometimes it may be permissible to do borer by way of removing the pesoles from the ochel,
depending on what is the majority in the mixture, and what is easier to separate. 382 There is also
a machlokes whether the same halachos apply to Shabbos, or just to Yom Tov. 383
Sources & Notes

381. 319:3 s.v. le'ochel ochel, and it is easier to remove the pesoles, Beis Hillel hold
382. The Mishnah [Beitzah 14b] teaches that Beis that one may even remove the pesoles. According to Rashi, a
Shammai hold that on Yom Tov, a person should make person could always take out either ochel or pesoles from the
sure to only separate ochel from pesoles, whereas Beis Hillel mixture, as long as it is the part of the mixture that is easier
holds that a person may separate how they normally separate to separate out; however, if the mixture is a majority pesoles,
during the week. then the entire mixture is muktzeh, including the ochel.
The Gemara then quotes a Braisa which explains that this Ran [Beitzah 7a s.v. Gemara] quotes an opinion which
dispute is only relevant in cases in which there is more ochel argues that the question of the Gemara is not about muktzeh
in the mixture than pesoles. However, if there is more pesoles at all. Instead, the Gemara means that it is obvious that if a
than ochel, everyone agrees that one should remove the ochel mixture is a majority pesoles, and it is harder to remove the
from the pesoles. pesoles, then one must take the ochel. Therefore, this can not
The Gemara then questions how it could ever be permitted be the meaning of the Braisa. Therefore, the Gemara answers
to do borer on mixtures that contain more pesoles than ochel. that, of course if a mixture is a majority pesoles, one should
(Rashi [s.v. Mi] explains that if the pesoles is a majority, the remove the ochel because it is easier to remove the ochel than
ochel becomes nullified by the pesoles and the whole mixture the pesoles. However, the case of the Braisa is a mixture that
becomes muktzeh). is a majority pesoles, but from which it is nonetheless harder
The Gemara answers that the type of mixture on which to remove the ochel. In such a case, the Braisa teaches that
everyone agrees that the ochel should be removed from the everyone agrees that one must remove the ochel from the
pesoles is one in which, despite having a majority of ochel, pesoles. According to this approach, one could always take
it is still more difficult to remove the pesoles than the ochel. whichever is easier and the mixture never becomes muktzeh.
Rashi summarizes three halachos which this Gemara Beis Yosef understands this to also be the understanding of
teaches: (1) If the mixture is a majority pesoles, then the Rambam [Hilchos Yom Tov 3:15-16.]
entire mixture is muktzeh. (2) If the mixture is a majority 383. Tur accepts Rashi’s understanding of the Gemara
ochel, but it would nonetheless be more difficult to remove and applies it to Hilchos Shabbos, whereas Rambam only
the pesoles than the ochel, then one should instead remove writes these halachos for Yom Tov.
the ochel from the pesoles. (3) If the mixture is a majority
Mechaber and and Rama 384 rule like Rambam 385 who rules that for Shabbos, one should separate
ochel from pesoles, without any distinctions as to whether the majority is ochel or pesoles, or which
is easier to separate. 386
Mechaber rules that it is forbidden to separate majority of the mixture is food:

out pesoles from a mixture of ochel and pesoles: ‫ – ַו ֲא ִפ ּלוּ ָהא ֶֹכל ְמ ֻר ֶּבה‬And even if the food is a majority,
‫מ ּ˙ו… ¿ך ‡ ∆…כל‬ƒ ˙‫בּ ו… ≈רר ּ ¿פס ∆…ל‬‰ַ – He who sorts out pesoles ‫ – ְויֵ ׁש יוֹ ֵתר ט ַֹרח ִּב ְב ֵר ַרת ָהא ֶֹכל‬and there is a greater toil
(waste) from the ochel (food), ˙‫פ ּל ּו ¿ ּביָ „ו… ַ‡ ַח‬ƒ ‡ֲ required to sort out the ochel from the pesoles, ּ‫ֲא ִפ ּלו‬
‫ – ַח ָ ּיב‬even if he does so with one hand, he is liable ‫ – ָה ֵכי‬even so, ‫ – לֹא יִ ְברֹר ַה ּ ְפס ֶֹלת‬one should not sort out
i.e. has violated the laws of Shabbos and subject to the pesoles from the ochel ‫ – ֲא ִפ ּלוּ ְּכ ֵדי ֶל ֱאכֹל ְל ַא ְל ַּתר‬even
consequences. in order to eat immediately.
Rama notes that this halachah even applies when the

When spilling one min out is holding the cup together with the rest of the ochel
of another, which is ochel in their hand. Therefore, when the person spills
and which is pesoles? out the insect, it is considered separating ochel
The Alter Rebbe in Piskei Hasiddur 387 rules that from pesoles which is permitted for immediate
a person may pour insects or other pesoles out of a consumption. This implies that the food that
cup together with some liquid. Although one may remains in the person’s hand is considered the
not blow the insect out of the cup, they may blow dvar hanivrar (item that was separated). And
on it so that it gets close to the edge of the cup therefore, pouring out an insect while holding the
and then spills out more readily along with other rest of the water in the cup is a case of separating
liquid. ochel from pesoles. 388
The rationale for this leniency is that the person However, there are many sources which indicate
Sources & Notes

384. See Biur Halachah 319:1 s.v. Haborer 388. Eglei Tal [Borer n. 3 fn. 5] makes this point explicitly.
385. Hilchos Shabbos 8:13 See also Shu”t Divrei Nechemiah 21. See Shabbos K’halachah
386. They also do not hold like Rashi who holds that the biurim #5. Shabbos K’halachah strongly disagrees with the
entire mixture which is a majority pesoles is muktzeh. Bach Eglei Tal’s explanation of the Alter Rebbe’s opinion. See there
[319:3] holds like Rashi and even writes that Mechaber does and in Shabbos K’halachah’s Tosefes Biur section 12:3.
as well. Chaye Adam [16:1] is strict for Bach and writes that The claim that the object poured out of the kli is the dvar
at least one may not separate from a mixture if it is majority hanivrar, and not the object that remains in the kli is not
pesoles. However, Eliya Zuta [319:3] argues that Mechaber only the opinion of Magen Avraham. It is also the consensus
mentions nothing about this and implies that he does not among most poskim, including Eliah Rabbah (319:23) Tosefes
hold like Rashi. Also, he proves this from Mechaber in siman Shabbos (319:28). This is also the simple reading in Taz
510:2 who allows borer even if there is more pesoles. Aruch 506:13.
Hashulchan 319:13 agrees. Tehilah L’Dovid 319:21 writes “the Magen Avaraham
387. Hilchasa Rabsa Lshabata s.v. Shelo, printed in reasons that the status goes after what remains in its original
Shulchan Aruch Harav vol. 2 p. 902. (Kehos 2002). For place, that which is removed from its place is considered
extended analysis of this point, see Shabbos K’halachah selected from what is in the original place ”
12:22-27 especially with Biurim #5, which offers six pages Shabbtos K’halachah develops four arguments against
of analysis on the Alter Rebbe’s opinion on this matter. the Eglei Tal’s understanding of the Alter Rebbe. The first
the opposite — that the food poured off is the dvar off cream (ochel) from on top of undesired milk
hanivrar: 389 (pesoles) into another container is considered
borer ochel from pesoles. This implies that the food
1) Rashi 390 explains that a konoin is a large that was poured off is the dvar nivrar. 401 Mishnah
tray where the lentils roll down and off, and the Berurah 402 agrees.
pesoles remains behind. Nonetheless, sorting with
a konoin is only forbidden mid’rabbanan. 391 This (5) Rav Moshe Feinstein 403 considers rinsing
implies that the item that falls from the keili is the a fruit in a stream of water with the purpose of
dvar hanivrar. 392 removing the dirt from it to be an act of sorting
pesoles from ochel. This implies that he considers
2) Magen Avraham 393 holds that for immediate the item that falls off in the stream to be the
use, one is permitted to pour from one vessel to dvar hanivrar and not the item remaining in the
another while leaving the sediment behind in person’s hand.
the first vessel, because such an act is a form of
separating ochel from pesoles. This implies that Other poskim who support
the item poured out is the dvar hanivrar. Shulchan Alter Rebbe’s position
Aruch Harav 394 and Mishnah Berurah 395 agrees. Although not all poskim agree with the Alter
Rebbe's ruling in Piskei Hasiddur, Eglei Tal 404
3) Magen Avraham 396 rules that pouring off and some other Sephardic poskim do agree, and
congealed fat (pesoles) from the gravy of a cooked provide examples:
dish (ochel) is an act of separating pesoles from
ochel. 397 Shulchan Aruch Harav 398 and Mishnah 1) Or Letzion 405 subscribes to this opinion
Berurah 399 agree. and applies it to a slotted spoon: when one takes
food with a slotted spoon and the liquid drains
(4) Shulchan Aruch Harav 400 rules that pouring through its holes, the ochel that remains on top is
Sources & Notes

is that given that the Alter Rebbe explains that his objective [ch. 7 fn. 21*] make this argument.
in Hilchasa Rabbasa L’Shabbata is to rule more strictly 393. 319:15
in order to ensure that one will not violate Shabbos, it is 394. 319:18
unreasonable to suggest that the Alter Rebbe would offer a 395. 319:55
definition which would disagree in a more lenient fashion 396. 319:15
against most Achronim. 397. Tehila L’dovid 319:29 notes this seeming
The other three arguments rely on a close reading of the contradiction.
Alter Rebbe’s formulation. See there. 398. 319:19
Shabbos K’halachah. 399. 319:55
389. According to those who disagree with Alter Rebbe, 400. 319:18 and Kuntres Acharon 510 s.v. Kasav. See
pouring off the insect is considered pesoles from ochel, Shabbos K’halachah ch. 12 biurim 5 for discussion of the
which is forbidden. However, there are other factors that contradiction between Shulchan Aruch Harav and Piskei
could be discussed to be lenient including Taz’s view that Hasiddur.
it is permitted to separate good with bad. Alternatively, 401. This is also implied by Magen Avraham 510:13 and
according to Maharitatz an insect floating in liquid isn’t a Mishnah Berurah 510:23
ta'aroves at all. 402. Shaar Hatziyun 319:58
390. 74a s.v. B’konoin 403. Igros Moshe 1:125
391. Mishnah Berurah 319:2 quotes this Rashi. 404. Borer n. 3 fn. 5
392. Orchos Shabbos [ch. 3 fn. 62] and Ayil Meshulash 405. 2:31:10
considered the dvar hanivrar. 406 that the item poured off is the dvar hanivrar. 414
Rav Elyashiv and Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah
2) Rav Ovadia Yosef 407 agrees and permits seem to agree. 415
spilling off the watery liquid which collects on
top of a yogurt container. 408 Shabbos K’halachah 409 Chazon Ish 416 discusses a person who uses both
however, disagrees with Rav Ovadia’s application, of his hands to separate ochel from pesoles so that
and forbids merely pouring off the liquid from the the ochel remains in one hand and the pesoles in the
yogurt. Instead, he rules that one must pour out other. Although he is not sure if this is considered
some yogurt with the liquid, or leave some liquid separating ochel from pesoles or pesoles from ochel,
in the yogurt. he does rule that if one hand pulls part of the food
and the other hand holds back the rest of the food,
3) Similarly, Rav Ovadia permits using a salt- then the food being pulled is considered the dvar
shaker with rice in it because he considers the hanivrar.
salt that is poured out to be the dvar hanivrar;
therefore he considers separating the salt from the Separating pesoles from ochel for
rice through the holes of the salt shaker to be an absolutely immediate consumption
act of sorting ochel from pesoles. 410 Birkei Yosef 417 cites a dispute as to whether or
not an act of borer of pesoles from ochel permitted
Mishnah Berurah seems to hold like Magen if it is done absolutely right before consumption,
Avraham and Shulchan Aruch Harav as opposed m’yad l’peh (literally: from one’s hand to one’s
to the Alter Rebbe’s ruling in Piskei Hasiddur. mouth).
Ultimately, Mishnah Berurah seems to contradict
himself. 411 1) Mahari Abulafia holds that it is permitted
and it is only forbidden if done in preparation
Ayil Meshulash 412 and Orchos Shabbos 413 rule before a meal or further in advance (l’alter).
Sources & Notes

406. Orchos Shabbos [v. 1 ch. 3 fn. 82] agrees. congealed fat is the dvar hanivrar. See there how they explain
407. Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 229] Mishnah Berurah in his introduction.
408. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 95] agrees. 412. Ch. 7 fn. 3
409. 12:26 413. 1:3:62
410. Yalkut Yosef [siman 319 fn. 52] 414. Shabbos Kitchen [p. 134 fn. 40] agrees.
411. 319:55 twice implies like Magen Avraham, while 415. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 3:20 forbids pouring
his introduction to siman 319 n. 2 implies otherwise. In off the liquid from the yogurt based on Mishnah Berurah
319:58, he writes that it is permitted to pour an egg from 319:55. He seems to treat removing this liquid as separating
one half of the shell to the other to separate out the yolk to pesoles from ochel, unlike Shulchan Aruch Harav in his
eat immediately. As he pours the egg from one shell to the Hilchasa Rabbasa L’Shabata. Rav Elyashiv [Hilchos Shabbos
other, the egg white spills. This implies that the yolk left in his B’shabbos v. 1 9:52] and Ayil Meshulash 6:76 agree. They all
hand is considered the dvar hanivrar. Rav Shmuel Auerbach permit it if he pours the liquid together with some yogurt.
[Orchos Shabbos ch. 3 fn. 62] explains that since in one’s Az Nidbaru 1:21 writes that one should not rely on Shulchan
action of pouring the yolk from one shell to another they are Aruch Harav in his Hilchasa Rabbasa L’Shabata to consider
focused on the yolk, the objective is to try and to catch it in the item poured out as the dvar hanivrar because the rest of
the other shell. Thus, the yolk is the dvar hanivrar. However, the poskim reject it. Toras Hashabbos p. 100 agrees.
when one pours off the congealed fat from the cooked dish 416. 54:2 and 54:5
he is focused on removing the congealed fat. That is why the 417. 319:5
2) Maharitatz is strict and does not permit any May one separate bones
act of borer pesoles from ochel, even in cases of from fish or meat? 421
m’yad l’peh. Maamar Mordechai 422 rules that it is forbidden
to separate bones from fish in preparation for a
Birkei Yosef concludes that it is hard to be meal, and that this prohibition is even in force
lenient because the earlier poskim do not make while eating because removing the bones is
Mahari Abulafia’s distinction. separating pesoles from ochel.
Biur Halachah 418 quotes Ramban as a proof Biur Halachah 423 takes issue with this stringency
for Mahari Abulafia and Rosh as a proof for noting that the prevailing Jewish custom is to be
Maharitatz. lenient on removing bones from fish while eating.
Rosh, whom Mechaber cites in se'if tes zayin, In order to justify the prevalent custom, which
writes one is permitted for one to drink water must be justified given its prevalence among G-d
through a cloth on top of a cup because the food fearing Jews, Biur Halachah offers two reasons to
is not being improved through the act of drinking; be lenient:
instead, the water is being filtered through the act
of drinking, which is not considered a melachah. 1) During the actual eating m’yad l’peh there
This implies that the Rosh disagrees with Mahari is something to rely upon according to Mahari
Abulafia. If Rosh agreed he would have just Abulafia.
explained that it is permitted because the water
is being consumed absolutely immediately. Yabia 2) Because the ochel is attached to the pesoles,
Omer 419 rejects this proof arguing that it could it is not borer to separate the pesoles. Maharshal
nonetheless be forbidden because a cloth is used develops this point 424 writing that removing a
which is like a kli borer. nut from its shell is not borer because the nut
is attached to the shell and therefore it is all
Most poskim do not rely on Mahari Abulafia. 420 considered one type of food without any pesoles. 425
Sources & Notes

418. 319:4 s.v. haborer that it is not borer at all if two things are attached, as he
419. 7:40:8 proved from peeling. However, if it is done for immediate
420. Kaf Hachaim 319:41 is strict. Rav Ovadia Yosef consumption even Magen Avraham would agree, as is the
[Kol Sinai Borer fn. 1, cited by Tiferes 319:44] holds that it is case by peeling. See se'if vav for another application of
acceptable to rely upon Mahari Abulafia. Maharshal.
421. See extended discussion in Shabbos K’halachah 425. Chazon Ish 54:4 questions the defense of Biur
12:125-127. Halachah. Fundamentally, Maharshal holds that peeling
422. 319:7 is not borer, but that is contradicted by Rama 321:19.
423. 319:4 s.v. mitoch How could he say that Magen Avraham would agree with
424. Yam Shel Shlomo [Beitzah 1:42] cited by Magen Maharshal regarding a case of separating for immediate use?
Avraham 510:4. Biur Halachah adds that even though Magen Shever Halevi 1:83 answers that Biur Halachah’s proof from
Avraham questioned Maharshal because in siman 321:19 Maharshal was only relevant to separating nuts from shells
Rama holds that peeling fruit is borer, fundamentally he but not peels from fruits. See Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 195]
agrees. He was only questioning the Maharshal’s assertion cited below in se'if tes zayin who supports this approach of
Biur Halachah 426 compares this concept to 1) Biur Halachah permits removing the bones
peeling a fruit, which is permitted for immediate along with a little bit of fish. Chazon Ish 432 argues
consumption even though it is an act of removing that because one’s intent is to separate the bones
pesoles from ochel. The reason it is permitted from the fish and that goal gets accomplished, it
is because the peel is attached to the fruit and is considered borer. 433
therefore not considered pesoles.
2) Chazon Ish 434 says that it is permitted to
Chazon Ish 427 disagrees: In the case of peeling, separate the bones by putting the fish and bones
the only reason why one is permitted to take the in one’s mouth and then removing the bones from
pesoles from the ochel is because it is impossible one’s mouth.
to separate the ochel from the pesoles (as Biur
Halachah 428 writes later on). However, in the case 3) Alternatively, Chazon Ish 435 recommends
of bones, it is possible to separate the ochel from separating the bones from the fish by using a fork
the pesoles by removing the fish from the bones. to take some fish while leaving behind the bones.
Shabbos K’halachah 429 asserts that even Chazon He even allows using a fork to take fish while
Ish would agree that one may remove the small holding back the bones with a knife.
bones from fish for the sake of small children.
In summary, while Biur Halachah defends the
The consensus among Chabad poskim 430 is to minhag of removing bones from fish right before
permit removing small bones from fish or meat eating, Chazon Ish disagrees. 436
while eating, since doing so is considered derech
achilah. Shabbos K’halachah 431 however rules Other solutions include: taking some fish
strictly on removing large bones from fish or together with the bones, separating the bones
meat. Instead, one may pull the meat off the bones, from one’s mouth, or taking the fish from the
since doing so is considered removing ochel from bones. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 437 agrees
pesoles. with these last two solutions.
There are three other methods that poskim Rav Moshe Feinstein 438 is lenient and permits
suggest for removing fish bones: separating the bones right before eating for a child
Sources & Notes

Maharshal. elderly person. See se'if tes zayin where this Biur Halachah
426. See also Ketzos Hashulchan 125:16, Badei Hashulchan is explained in light of Taz 319:13.
24, citing the Tzemach Tzedek’s Piskei Dinim 14b. 434. 54:5
427. 54:3 435. 54:5
428. 321:19 s.v. liklof 436. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 3:14 is only lenient
429. 12:125 if there is no other option, such as to separate it with one’s
430. See Tzemach Tzedek Piskei Dinim 319 s.v. V’Shittah mouth and spit out the bones, or to separate it with both
Daled. Ketzos Hashulchan 125:16 and Badei Hashulchan hands.
there 44. Shabbos K’halachah 12:48, 125. 437. 3:12
431. 1:125. See extensive analysis there at 12n237. 438. Igros Moshe 4:74:7 explains that in cases where it
432. 54:3 is impossible otherwise to remove the fish from the bones,
433. Shabbos Kitchen pp. 148-149 accepts Biur Halachah it is similar to peeling fruit, and it is permitted to separate
in a case of great need such as for feeding a young child or pesoles from ochel.
or for someone who can not remove the bones like Ketzos Hashulchan if one can not spit out the
from in their mouth. seeds, but the others poskim rule stringently. 448
The Sephardic poskim rule that it is permitted. 439 Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 449 rules that one
may rely on the leniency which permits removing
May one remove seeds the seeds by hand. He adds that doing so is less
from plums or peaches? problematic than removing fish bones, for in the
Shabbos K’halachah 440 rules that one may case of fish, it is possible for one to hold the bones
remove such seeds before eating the fruits, as this with their hand and take the fish with the other,
fits into the category of permissible borer. whereas in the case of melon, it is not practical to
hold on to the seeds in one hand while pulling the
May one remove seeds melon with the other. Since there is no way to easily
from watermelon? separate the good from the bad it is permitted to
The same principles which apply to removing rely on the lenient opinions to remove the seeds
bones from fish also apply to removing watermelon m’yad l’peh. 450
seeds from watermelon. The most ideal technique
is to put the melon and seeds in one’s mouth and Shabbos K’halachah 451 rules that ideally one
then either spit out the seeds or remove the seeds should shake out the seeds out of the melon.
from one’s mouth. 441 Whatever remains in the melon can be removed
using a spoon or a knife. He reiterates that this
Ketzos Hashulchan, 442 Ben Ish Chai, 443 and Rav may only be done soon before eating the melon.
Ovadia Yosef 444 are lenient. They permit removing So, in the case of a cantaloupe or honeydew, one
the seeds directly since it is done m’yad l’peh, for may cut or scoop out the seed-filled middle part of
literally immediate consumption, and the seeds the melon before serving the melon, particularly
are attached to the melon. However, they add that because such seeds generally remain intact, and
first one should try to shake off the seeds 445 and do not come out when shaken. However, it is
whatever one can not remove should be removed forbidden to use a specially designated melon-
by hand. 446 Rav Moshe Feinstein 447 rules leniently seed remover, as such is considered a kli borer. 452
Sources & Notes

439. Ben Ish Chai [Beshalach n. 10], Chazon Ovadia [v. seeds indirectly with a small shinui (a deviation from the
4 p. 196], and Or Letzion 31:5 normal way of performing an action, used to permit certain
440. 12:128. actions that would otherwise be prohibited on Shabbos). An
441. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 3:17 based on Chazon example might be by using an unusual tool (like a plastic
Ish 54:5 spoon instead of one's fingers) or by using an unconventional
442. 125 Badei Hashulchan 43 method (like shaking the slice gently to dislodge the seeds).
443. Beshalach n. 7 447. Igros Moshe 4:74:7
444. Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 195] 448. Rav Wosner [Kovetz M’bet Levi v. 6 p. 41] forbids
445. Shabbos K’halachah 12:29 rules that one should removing watermelon seeds even right before eating.
shake off the seeds. He bases this on Hilchasa Rabbasa 449. 3:17
L’Shabbata s.v. Shelo. 450. Shabbos Kitchen p. 148 writes that it is permitted to
Shabbos K’halachah 12:30 adds that based on this one may remove each seed together with some watermelon. This is
shake out crumbs or other debris from a shtreimel of sheitel comparable to Biur Halachah’s leniency in the previous case.
(wig) immediately before one intends to use them. 451. 12:129.
446. Ben Ish Chai adds that it is admirable to remove the 452. 12:130
May one cut out the half, eat the fruit and leave behind the peel.
rotten part of a fruit? Nevertheless, it is not necessary to do so because
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 453 is not sure the normal way to eat fruit is by peeling it first.
whether it is permitted to cut out a rotten part Therefore, the main factor which determines if
of a fruit in order to immediately eat the rest of the act of peeling is permitted is whether or not
it. Seemingly, this should be considered an act of doing so is the normal way to eat it. Therefore it
borer pesoles from ochel and therefore forbidden. is permitted to cut out the rotten part of the fruit,
Nonetheless, there are two reasons to permit it: given that it is the normal way of eating it.
1) It is comparable to removing bones from fish, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auberach leaves this
where the ochel and pesoles are attached. This is a question unresolved.
reason to consider it not to be a ta'aroves at all, like
Biur Halachah writes about removing fish bones Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah 454 and Rav
above. Ovadia Yosef 455 are lenient to permit it, 456 and Rav
Nissim Karelitz 457 forbids doing so unless one cuts
2) It is comparable to the case of peeling a fruit, out some of the good part of the fruit together
in which it is permitted to remove pesoles from with the rotten part.
ochel for immediate consumption. However, the
reason Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach thinks the The same rules apply to removing worms from
case of removing the rotten part of the fruit might fruit. One may cut out the worm close to when
be different from peeling, is because in the case of one intends to eat. 458
peeling, is impossible to take the ochel from the
pesoles, whereas here it is possible to cut off the However, one is forbidden to remove a moldy
good parts of the fruit and leave behind the rotten fruit from among whole fruits in order to prevent
part. them from being damaged by the moldy fruit.
Similarly, one may not cut off a moldy part of a
That being said, even in the case of peeling a fruit in order to preserve the rest of the fruit if
fruit, it is theoretically possible to eat the fruit one’s intention is not to eat the fruit immediately. 459
without peeling it — one could cut the fruit in
Sources & Notes

453. Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah [ch. 3 fn. 60] Shabbos K’halachah (Biurim 13:1 s.v. V’Hineh Mah) argues
454. 3:23 that the Alter Rebbe in Hilchasah Rabbasa L’Shabbata should
455. Chazon Ovadia [v. 4 p. 179] also accept this opinion.
456. See also Orchos Chaim (Spinka) 319:2 Minchas See also Shu”t Divrei Nechemia siman 21 and Tehilah
Yitzchak vol. 5, 38:2. Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 3n56 L’Dovid 319:4, both of whom offer rationales which indicate
citing Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach also leans toward that this should be permitted.
accepting this leniency. See Shabbos K’halachah 12:83 and 457. Chut Shani [v. 2 p. 89], Ayil Meshulash [ch. 4 fn. 62]
Biurim 22 where he argues for this point at length, based on 458. Shabbos K’halachah 12:85.
Pri Megadim MZ 319:3, Kaf Hachaim 319:15, Ben Ish Chai 459. See Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 3:25 3n65.
(Shanah 2, Parshas Beshalach 6]. Shabbos K’halachah 12:84, 12:131.

Shulchan Aruch Combined OC 319

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shulchan Aruch Combined OC 319

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‫שלחן‬

Compiled & Edited by:

Templates, Layout & Cover by:

All rights reserved.

SIMAN 319 | ‫סימן ˘יט‬

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Discussions & Explanations

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Discussions & Explanations

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Discussions & Explanations

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Mechaber rules that it is forbidden to separate majority of the mixture is food:

Discussions & Explanations

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

Sources & Notes

You might also like