txt/Responsa/Acharonim/Responsa Chatam Sofer/English/Sefaria Responsa Anthology.txt

Responsa Chatam Sofer
שו"ת חתם סופר
Sefaria Responsa Anthology
https://www.sefaria.org

Responsa Chatam Sofer

Orach Chayim



Teshuva 1



Teshuva 2



Teshuva 3



Teshuva 4



Teshuva 5



Teshuva 6



Teshuva 7



Teshuva 8



Teshuva 9



Teshuva 10



Teshuva 11



Teshuva 12



Teshuva 13



Teshuva 14



Teshuva 15



Teshuva 16



Teshuva 17



Teshuva 18



Teshuva 19



Teshuva 20



Teshuva 21



Teshuva 22



Teshuva 23



Teshuva 24



Teshuva 25



Teshuva 26



Teshuva 27



Teshuva 28



Teshuva 29



Teshuva 30



Teshuva 31



Teshuva 32



Teshuva 33



Teshuva 34



Teshuva 35



Teshuva 36



Teshuva 37



Teshuva 38



Teshuva 39



Teshuva 40



Teshuva 41



Teshuva 42



Teshuva 43



Teshuva 44



Teshuva 45



Teshuva 46



Teshuva 47



Teshuva 48



Teshuva 49



Teshuva 50



Teshuva 51



Teshuva 52



Teshuva 53



Teshuva 54



Teshuva 55



Teshuva 56



Teshuva 57



Teshuva 58



Teshuva 59



Teshuva 60



Teshuva 61



Teshuva 62



Teshuva 63



Teshuva 64



Teshuva 65



Teshuva 66



Teshuva 67



Teshuva 68



Teshuva 69



Teshuva 70



Teshuva 71



Teshuva 72

Indeed, I have seen what is written in Noda BiYehuda, Second Edition, §30 regarding a parasol, namely: that he suspects it of obligating a sin-offering [for one who opens it on Shabbat] according to the opinion of Rif, who maintains, on Shabbat 138, that if there is a [square] handbreadth in the roof of a cloak, or within three handbreadths of its roof, it requires a sin-offering; if so, the same applies in the present case, where there is a handbreadth within three handbreadths of the roof, which descends diagonally to offer protection and shade to one who carries it. This constitutes the inclines of an ohel (lit. “tent,” referring to any sheltering structure), which are considered walls. It is thus an ohel with walls, and one who constructs it on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering. 1In truth, here and now, the masses carry them on Shabbat, though they are opened by non-Jews. But so what? Instructing a non-Jew [to perform an act forbidden on Shabbat] is rabbinically prohibited (ibid. 150a), and even if opening a parasol would only be prohibited rabbinically, instructing a gentile would nevertheless be a rabbinic prohibition on a rabbinic prohibition (shvut di-shvut) where it is not for the sake of a mitzva. So who permitted this for them?
After close scrutiny, I say that carrying a parasol on Shabbat is not merely a teaching for the pious, and one who guards his soul will distance himself from it. Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, it is not what the eminent sage thought, for a melakha  that does not correspond to the Tabernacle service has no liability on Shabbat. This is the formulation of the Yerushalmi [Shabbat 52b] at the end of chapter “Klal Gadol”: “What is the binyan (construction, one of the melakhot) that was in the Tabernacle? They would place beams on their bases. But wasn’t that temporary (lit. “for an hour”)? R. Yose says: Since they would travel and camp in accordance with God’s word, it is as though they were camped forever. R. Yose b. Bon said: Since the Almighty promised to take them into Eretz Yisrael, it is as though it was temporary—thus he says that temporary binyan constitutes binyan; thus he says that even irregular binyan [constitutes binyan]; thus he says that even if it is placed atop something else [it is still binyan]; thus he says that even binyan atop vessels (constitutes binyan). [No]—binyan atop bases is like [building on] the ground.” Maimonides likewise rules in Laws of Shabbat 10:12 that binyan atop vessels does not constitute binyan, and Magid Mishneh explains that it is dissimilar from the Tabernacle since the bases were akin to the ground. Magen Avraham cites this at the end of [Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim] §315. This Yerushalmi is cited by Rashba in his novellae on Shabbat, chapter “Haboneh” [102b, the end of s.v. “hai”].
From this [passage in the] Yerushalmi, I derive three reasons why a parasol has not a trace of a Torah prohibition in any way.
First, it is temporary binyan. The meaning of temporary binyan is that it is made, from the outset, to be built and demolished and rebuilt and re-demolished at all times, just as the Tabernacle was built. There is a disagreement among Amoraim: according to the one who maintains that since they camped at God’s word the binyan was considered permanent, we may thus return to the principle that temporary binyan is not binyan. Since we find that the our Talmud [Bavli] states anonymously in the chapter “Ba-meh Madlikin” (Shabbat 31b), in the discussion of one who makes charcoal, in a passage about one who demolishes in order to build at the same location, that since Scripture states that they camped according to God’s word, it is considered an established place, and this is not rejected, we may derive from here that this is the ruling. This is further implicit in Tosafot on Shabbat 94a, s.v. “R. Shimon poter.” Since the halakha is that a temporary binyan does not constitute a binyan, and a parasol, of course, is constructed temporarily. See also Mo’ed Katan 9a, which offers a contrived answer as to why they were concerned [about the fact that they had participated in the construction of the Temple on Yom Kippur] and does not answer that one might distinguish between the construction of the Temple, which does not even supersede the holidays, whereas the “Days of Training” (“yemei ha-mili’im”) [for the construction of the Tabernacle] even supersedes Shabbat, for they erected and dismantled it every day. Perforce, then, building and dismantling it temporarily, every day, was a temporary construction, like a parasol, and is dissimilar to the construction of the Tabernacle at a place of encampment—“by God’s word they encamped.”
Secondly, we find nowhere in the Temple that there was an ohel that moved from place to place by means of someone carrying it himself. Thus, Noda BiYehuda’s lengthy discussion of a moving ohel is irrelevant to the laws of Shabbat, for it pertains to the laws of ritual impurity. On Shabbat, there is no melakha except for that which was done in the Tabernacle. See Tosafot on Shabbat 5b s.v. “egoz al gabei mayim,” [which states that] even though when it comes to acquisition, we maintain that a boat is considered to be at rest and moved by the water, with regard to Shabbat, [placing something there] is not considered putting it down (“hanaha”) since they did not hide objects in this manner in the Tabernacle. The present case is similar. There is a clear proof of this from Shabbat 43b: “If a corpse is lying in the sun, two people come and sit beside it. They feel hot underneath, so each one brings a couch and sits upon it. They feel hot above, so they bring a mat and spread it above them. Each one then turns up his couch, slips out from under it, and leaves, and the wall is thus consequently erected on its own.” At first glance, this requires explanation: they are making a real ohel with themselves as the walls and the ohel spread over their heads. They themselves form the sides. Moreover, they are not moving, but are fixed to their place. Thus, we do not find an ohel like this in the Tabernacle, in which a man holds a shelter over himself, and certainly if he is walking around with this shelter, and we may reason a fortiori from an ohel built above vessels to one carried by a person.
Thirdly, an ohel is not forbidden at the Torah level unless the walls reach the ground, as was the case in the Tabernacle, and as both Rashi and Rif stated precisely about a folded cloak, and as Tosafot on Shabbat 138a, s.v. “kisei” state. Now, Noda BiYehuda states that a wall of a handbreadth is sufficient for the purposes of Shabbat, and I say that is correct—provided that it reaches the ground, even if its height is a mere handbreadth. However, a wall suspended in the air, and to which additions are not generally made, and which cannot be pulled down to the ground, is certainly not an ohel on the Torah level. The agreement of Peri Megadim is implied in Eshel Avraham 315:7.
Since this prohibition is not at the Torah level, there is consequently no rabbinic prohibition either. After all, a folded cloak that is opened by a string may be opened even ab initio. Here too, the loops and hooks are like strings, as Noda BiYehuda states himself. Here it is even better, because from the outset this is its intended usage; it is like a wedding canopy, about which Rif and Maimonides (22:30) are lenient because that is their intended usage. Therefore, one it is plausible to say that it is permissible even on the rabbinic level. If so, at the very least they may be opened by a non-Jew, and there is no reason to make a big fuss about this. 
I have written my humble opinion, here in Pressburg, Monday, the Fast of Esther, 5573.
The insignificant Moshe Sofer 

Yoreh De'ah



Even HaEzer



Choshen Mishpat



Collected Responsa