הלכות שבת בנושא של מלאכת קשירה , הרב מאיר אשכנזי ירחי כלה כפר חב"ד שנת תשפ"ד

There are two types, two methods, the artisan knot and the shoelace knot. Once upon a time, when they needed to connect something tightly and strongly, they would do it by tying it because there weren't as many means of gluing as there are today. When they made shoes, they had a method of making a very strong knot that wouldn't come undone. Therefore, the characteristic of an artisan knot is a strong knot, and there is an idiot knot, which is not a knot, which is a knot that is not so well known these days. A knot on top of a knot is considered a knot of artisan work. A tie on top of a knot is considered a knot of shoelace work. This is one component, and the second component is the time that the knot is supposed to exist from the person's intention. There are three modes in this: a knot of existence, a knot that is not of existence, and a knot that does not exist at all. That is, a knot of existence is a knot that the person intends at the time of tying to release this knot forever, from his point of view, this knot can last forever. I will emphasize that this knot is not intended to really last forever, from his point of view, this knot can last forever. The person knows that it is possible that a need to untie this knot will suddenly arise. It is still considered a knot of existence because the need that arises is an external need. From his point of view, this knot is tied forever, from where did the person come from? This definition comes from the meaning in the Shulchan Aruch, the Elder, and this definition comes from what was the rite that was in the Tabernacle, where was the tying in the Tabernacle? All the crafts were done in the rite and in the rite. These are the actions that were done in the establishment of the Tabernacle. In the establishment of the Tabernacle, the tying was in nets that were used to catch the snail for the color of the azure. In the nets, knots were constantly made. When the fishermen tied these knots, from their point of view, this knot was made forever. But they knew that there could be a sudden need to untie these knots. Because when the net is called or when it needs to be increased or decreased, the knots that were there before are opened and connected and tied again to the other part or in a place called, etc. So they knew that there could be a sudden need to untie these knots. But at the time, from their point of view, when this knot is tied, it is called a knot of existence. A knot that is not of existence. It is a knot that the person on his part determines a time, even a long time, even in two years. He determines a time at a certain time that he will untie this knot or by a certain date that he will untie this knot. It has to be a date of more than From one day according to the Elder Rebbe and more than a week according to the Torah after these dates, if a person sets a time to untie the knot, it is called a knot that is not of existence. And there is a knot that is not in existence at all according to the Elder Rebbe. The meaning is that the person intended at the time of tying to untie the knot on the same day according to the Torah. The meaning is that the person intends to untie the knot that week. So these are the two components and what is the ruling on the Mass? What is the ruling? So there is a very large disagreement among the Rishonim on this matter between the Riff and the Rambam and the Bain of the Head Remo and the Rebbe [music]. In order to commit to a work of skill from the Torah, both components must be present, both a knot of skill and a knot of existence. This means only if a person tied, for example, a knot on top of a knot and he tied it forever, he committed to this from the Torah. But if a person tied a knot, if one of the components was missing, this means if a person tied a knot of skill and a knot on top of a knot but he intended to untie it on a certain day, there is no prohibition on this. This is prohibited only according to the Rabbon. The same thing is true on the other hand, if a person tied a tie on top of a knot of stupidity but he did it forever, in this too he committed, only according to the Rabbon, there is no prohibition. There is a charge of trampling on this, and here is a third very important point according to the Riff and the Rambam: if a person ties a knot made by a craftsman in order to open it on the same day, a knot that does not exist at all, there is also a prohibition of dervon according to the Riff and the Rambam. Why does the elder Admor say that there is a decree here, Chazal decreed that if a person is allowed to tie a knot made by a craftsman, even to open it on the same day, a person is liable to tie a knot made by a craftsman that existed for a lifetime, and then he will violate the prohibition of trampling, and therefore Chazal forbade tying a knot made by a craftsman in any case. Let's summarize the matter. If there were both disadvantages, meaning both a knot made by a craftsman and a knot of existence, there is a charge of dervon on this. If there was a virtue and a disadvantage, there was a knot made by a craftsman that did not exist or a knot made by an idiot for its existence, there is a charge of dervon on this. And if there was a knot made by a craftsman that does not exist at all, there is also a prohibition of dervon on this, because Chazal forbade making any knot made by a craftsman because of a decree. This is the method of the Riff and the Rambam. So if so, for the mass, what knot is permissible to make according to the Riff and the Rambam, only a knot made by a craftsman? The layman who does not exist at all, that is, a person ties a tie on top of a knot in order to untie it that day. This is the only knot that is permitted to be made on Shabbat according to the Riff and the Rambam. This is actually the knot that we make on our shoes. Why are we allowed to untie the knot on Shabbat night when we go to sleep? We are allowed to untie the knot in our shoes. This is a knot that is a tie on top of a knot. Why are we allowed to untie it because on Friday morning when we tied this knot, we did it in order to untie it that day at night when we go to sleep on Shabbat night. So it is a knot of the act of untying that is not concluded at all in order to untie it that day. The same thing on Shabbat morning, we are allowed to tie our shoes with a tie on top of a knot. Why are we doing it in order to untie it that day? If it is on Shabbat at noon when we want to rest. If it is on Shabbat night, that is, that it is considered that day. This is the only knot that is permitted to be made on Shabbat according to the Riff and the Rambam. We are of course not talking about just one knot that does not have the law of a knot at all, that it is permitted to be done in any case, but the head disagrees on the Riff and the Rambam, and the head agrees and so the Harmo and the Elder Mor rule, they believe that there is no need at all. Whether the knot is the work of a craftsman or an idiot, all that determines when tying on Shabbat is only the length of time that the knot is going to last. A knot that a person makes for its existence is forbidden by the Torah, even if it is a knot made by a craftsman. A knot that a person makes for its existence is forbidden by the Torah, even if it is a knot made by a craftsman. A knot that a person makes for its existence, meaning to open it after a period of more than a day or more than a week. As we said, this is forbidden according to the Rabban. And a knot that does not last at all. A knot that a person makes in order to open it that day is completely permissible, whether it is a knot made by a craftsman or a knot made by an idiot. There are great areas of difference here. Is it permissible on Shabbat to tie a knot made by a craftsman in order to open it that day? Is it permissible on Shabbat to tie a knot made by a craftsman on top of a knot in order to open it that day? So according to the Riff and the Rambam, we said that a knot made by a craftsman is forbidden in any case, but according to the head, it is permissible to tie a knot made by a craftsman, a knot made by a craftsman on top of a knot in order to open it that day, because according to the head, it does not matter at all whether the knot is the work of a craftsman or an idiot. All that determines is how long you are going to leave the knot in place. And if you intend to open it that day, it is permissible to open it, it is permissible to tie it, and it is also permissible to untie such a knot. What is permissible for the mass? What is permissible for the mass? So For the Mass, the elder Admor rules that where a person has no sorrow, he should also fear the knowledge of the Riff and the Rambam and not tie a knot made by a craftsman on top of a knot, even to untie it on the same day. But where a person has sorrow, he should not fear the prohibition of incitement to aggravation, but rather it is permissible to untie a knot made by a craftsman that was made to untie it on the same day. The bottom line is, what happens if a person has short hair? He cannot tie a knot here and a tie on top of his shoes. He can only tie a knot on top of a knot, and he will have sorrow if he goes to synagogue with open, untied shoes. Is it permissible to tie such a knot on Shabbat or not? The answer is yes, because since the Rabbi's question is the same as the head, and since the Rabbi's question is the same as the head, and since the Rabbi's question is that where a person has sorrow, one should not take off his shoes with such a knot, it is permissible to tie such a knot. The same is also permissible to untie such a knot if a person has sorrow. If he cannot take off his shoes with such a knot, and we give a simpler example, this happens to everyone. It happens that on Shabbat, he ties his shoes in a knot with a tie on top of a knot as usual, but this This knot got complicated, got complicated and here a knot on top of a knot was created. Is it permissible to untie it on Shabbat or not? We want to go to rest. Is it permissible to untie it on Shabbat? So this knot is easier than the previous case because in this case we did not even intend to tie a knot on top of a knot. We intended to do a Niwa on top of a knot. It got complicated on its own, but beyond that, then anyway, it can be permissible according to everyone. But beyond that, when a person has a sorrow, if he does not untie these knots, if it will be difficult for him to take off his shoes, if it will be difficult for him to put on his shoes when they are tied on a knot on top of a knot, is it permissible for him to untie a knot on top of such a knot? Why? Because in general, this knot is made to untie it on the same day. And anyway, where a person has a sorrow, there is no need to be strict about tying it on top of a knot. It is permissible to untie it on Shabbat. And it is also permissible to tie it on Shabbat if a person has a sorrow. As we discussed, well, these are the laws. And here we will try to delve into it and understand that there are apparently several questions here. First of all, what does this disagreement of the first leaders depend on? What does the disagreement of the first leaders depend on? Is there a significance to the skilled knot in the work of a fitter or a permitter? This skilled knot is more serious than an idiot knot. Or is there no difference between a marked connection and a mass connection? There is no difference between them and all that determines is only the time that the connection is going to exist. What will the fundamental disagreement of the first two depend on? This is one question that needs to be understood and a second question that needs to be understood. This is according to the method of the head. According to the old man, there is an interesting thing that almost never occurs in Shabbat work. Shabbat work. The Torah prohibits actions that are not related to actions, perhaps more than actions. The Torah does not prohibit the prohibition of intentions. There is a concept of a calculated connection. The calculated connection says that a person must intend to do the work, etc. But the queen is the act. The Torah dictates the act when a person intends to do it in a work of ability according to the head and the height. And the old man says an interesting thing. The Torah does not actually teach the act itself. The Torah teaches the intention of the person. So then, that very act is a person tying a knot on a knot or tying a knot on a knot. Is it permissible to do it on Shabbat or not? So like this, if a person intends to leave this connection forever, it is a work of the Torah. If a person intends to open this connection today, it is permissible. What does that mean? Then the Torah has removed the intention or the act. This is something that needs to be understood in general. What is the prohibition on the intention or the mass? How can the same act be forbidden one time due to a crush and another time, depending on its intention, it will be completely permissible? And the third thing that needs to be understood is according to the method of the Riff and the Rambam. We said earlier, and the Elder Admor writes this in an explanation that according to the Riff and the Rambam, a knot of a skilled work done in order to open it on that day is forbidden by the rabbis because Chazal feared that if a person were allowed to make a knot that was marked in some case in order to open it today, he might tie a knot that was marked in any case. And so Chazal forbade a knot marked in any case. And here the question arises: why Chazal was so afraid? Apparently, in order to reach the prohibition of crushing, one has to go up two steps. If a person intended to make the knot that was marked in order to open it today, in order to reach the prohibition of crushing, he needs to do something to open it to open it, not to open it. True, but that is still not enough. When will it be a crush? Only if he does it in order to leave it in place. Oh, and he has it, he will do it, he will tie it. The connection so that it will remain forever, that is, you have to climb two steps here until you reach Yasser Trasza. Why did Chazal fear it so much? Maybe it's a decree for a decree. What's the logic here? So these questions will let us get into the issue. There is a verse from the Rebbe, and by the way, this verse is found in the conversation on Parashat Sachna that we read on Shabbat. Kuti Sis, Part One, on the work of the ability of the rabbi. There he writes a very great foundation in the kingdom of the rabbi. There he actually discusses it like this. He says this about the kingdom of the ability. We know that in order to make a commitment from the Torah, a person must tie the connection to its existence forever, in order to leave it forever. The Rebbe says, "What does this mean?" What does this need to leave it forever mean? Where does this come from? It's not written in the conversation, but I have to say it. There is a question here. There is a hidden question here. This is something that is not understood in all crafts. In other crafts, it doesn't matter how long a person intends to leave the craft. If a person digs a hole, it doesn't matter how long he intends to leave the hole. Even if he intends to close it in five minutes, it doesn't matter. If you dig a hole, you have violated a work. A person grinds if a person grinds, it doesn't matter how long a person intends to keep the work, it doesn't matter, a work of skill comes and they say so, not when you are obligated by the Torah, only if you intend to keep the connection for such and such a period of time, where does it come from at all? What does the period of time matter? So that's probably the hidden question here, and we'll get back to the conversation. The Rebbe says, what is the meaning of the matter of the time of the day? Apparently, this is a lesson in work of skill. It's a lesson in every work. There is a lesson if a person takes food from one place to another. He is only obligated by the Torah. Only if he took a shilling. In every work, there is a lesson in the prohibitions of the one who eats. So there is a lesson in the prohibitions of the one who eats. What is the lesson in work of skill? The lesson in work of skill in order to commit to it from the Torah is if he did it for its existence. We understand for its existence. It is a lesson in royalty. It is already beginning to be accepted. It exists. There exists a lesson in every work. But here the Rebbe asks, if it is only a matter of a lesson in royalty, how can it be that the Torah permits a connection that is not a connection for a certain period of time that a person determines that he will open it after a certain period of time? How can there not be an iso in this? Trampling Why wouldn't it be forbidden by the law of the shiur? If a person takes out half of a grove, it is permissible on Shabbat. There is no stoning for it and kidnapping, but it is forbidden from the Torah. Those who take out a shiur are forbidden to shoot. So how can it be that if the matter of existence and all is a shiur, how can it be permissible to tie it not to its existence and there is no prohibition from the Torah? Therefore, the mountain says, it should be said that the matter of existence is not a shiur in monarchy. It creates the body of the work for its existence. It creates the very monarchy. What does it mean? It says like this. We know that the dead and the customs are these actions that were important in the establishment of the Mishkan. Tying was not important. It is not an important action. Why is it monarchy? Tying is a work because because the knot unites and connects two things. Therefore, tying with monarchy is what gives the importance to the action that it will be monarchy. In any case, the Rebbe says, "It comes out to its existence." This is what causes the knot to be a work because when a person ties this knot to the world, he has connected, he has united two things. But if a person ties this thing in order to untie it at a certain moment in time, it turns out that it is not He joined two things together, he brought them closer together, he did not act here as a true connection, because already at the time of tying he determined that he would loosen it, that he would separate the things, so this is not an action, it is not an act of union, therefore a connection that is not for its existence, it is not a monarchy, because there is not even the beginning of a monarchy in it, because all that is qualified as a monarchy is only because of the connection and union created by tying. This is what counts as the action, and therefore it is monarchy. This is the conversation, this is what concerns us right now from the conversation, and here we will begin to observe what is meant, what is the secret behind this wort of the Rebbe. We can learn things in two ways. We can learn simply that in tying, the act of labor is the act of making, as we learn simply, the connection and union created here. Because of this, that is, this is the result from the poem. Since there is an important result of connection and union from the poem, therefore the act of making is monarchy. That is, monarchy is the act of making. The connection and uniqueness is the result, but the result causes importance in the action, and therefore the act of tying and monarchy. We can study the Rebbe's words in more depth. The Rebbe means much more than that in terms of the text. Fathers of Crafts In terms of crafts, when a person ties, it is not considered that he is doing an act of tying. This is not the point. When a person ties, he is a connector. I am not saying, I am not referring to his action. He is doing an act of tying. He is doing a mass of connection. This is what he is doing. What is tying? Tying is the essence. It is a way of one of the ways of acting on a connection, but what does he actually do? A work of connection. In other words, you will call it a connection of connection. And the tying is just a way of acting on the connection. In this, we will understand more about the difference between a connection made for its existence and a connection that is not made for its existence. A connection made for its existence is a mass of connection. Because a person is a capacity in order for things to be connected to the world, and in any case, a royal mass is being made here. Therefore, this is a work from the Torah. In contrast, when a person ties with the intention of opening the connection, there was no royal mass at all. No, there was no royal mass here. Only the result. A royal mass was not there because this act is not defined as a mass of connection. When a person intends to open the connection after a certain period of time, then from the symbol, or it was not here. Therefore, such an action is permitted from the Torah. Thus, we can learn more deeply the words of the Rebbe in the conversation, but according to this, we will look at it from what it is. A second explanation before this. According to this, we can return to the dispute between the Rishonim that we brought up earlier between the Riff and the Rambam and the Rasa and the Rama and the Rebbe teach that the work of a tying is the work of a maker. Therefore, they believe that it does not matter at all whether the type of knot is the work of a craftsman or the work of an idiot. Also, a knot of a misa edyo of ani and on top of a knot, such a knot can last a long time. If a person took if he had small clothes for his children and he took the clothes and closed them in a bag and threw them in the bins, he does not know if he will ever open it. This is a knot made for the world. Maybe suddenly a knot will be formed. They will ask him if he has small clothes, so he will give them, but from his point of view, he does not see that he has ever used these clothes. This is a knot of this anib and on top of a knot made for the world. This is a knot that as long as this watering can sits in the bins, it will not be opened. Therefore, it does not matter whether it is a knot and from or an idiot's knot. As long as the person tied this knot for the world, he is making a misa edyo here. So in any case, there is a royal misa here, therefore he is obligated from the Torah, in contrast to this if the knot is not from Today, since we do not make a connection here, therefore this is from the Torah, there is no prohibition in this, so this is the method of the head, which is the method of the Riff and the Rambam. Simply, it was possible to learn that the Sherif and the Rambam also go the same way. They also say that the work of skill is the work of a composer, according to the Rebbe's principle in the conversation, but they teach that in spite of this, there is a condition of a master's mass. There is still a condition why, because that means that it is clear that the knot of a master's work is a stronger knot than the knot of a rabbi's work. A knot and a knot, even if the person on his part tied it to the world, this knot is liable to be caught in something and opened, and it turned out that there was no connection here. A person could come and easily pull the lace and here the knot is opened. The Riff and the Rambam believe that indeed what works is the royal Misha, what creates the work of the work, this is the light of the day. This is the knot, but there still needs to be a layer of protection from reality as well, to ensure that there is really a knot here that creates a strong knot, therefore a knot is needed on top of a knot. Thus, it was possible to learn, but the truth is that this is not an explanation in the Riff and the Rambam. According to the Riff and the Rambam, it is possible to prove the This is a complete calculation in the words of the Elder Rebbe. I will only say one sentence according to the Riff and the Rambam. It should be said that they do not study like this move of the Rebbe in the conversation. According to their opinion, the queen of ability is the act of tying, not the work of connecting. The work of ability is the act of tying. Because the act of tying itself, because the connection is a creation, and the Torah does not want a person to create important things on Shabbat, this is the reason that according to their opinion, the kingship that exists only in the connection of mass and number, because mass and number are an important connection, this is a connection of creation. This is exactly what the Torah is ten, which is not true in me, and on a connection from the Torah, there is no important creation here. Therefore, the Torah is not ten. This is complete evidence for this. I will say only one sentence from the short time in the conversation. Who will teach the conversation? And it is very good to teach the conversation. The Rebbe there divides between the work of result and the work of ability. The Rebbe says that sometimes there are actions that are of the full body and there are actions that are only conditional, and the Rebbe there says that in the works that the action is of the body of royalty, the prohibition to do them on Shabbat is because of a decree that the Prophets will allow a person to do. Part of the body of the work itself, he will come to complete the work, but in the case where a person has done an action that is not part of the body of the monarchy, but is only a condition, here the prohibition is not from a decree, but only from the fact that the action he did is similar to the monarchy. We will not go into this matter in the conversation. The Rebbe there lays a foundation, and it is a very great foundation in the Sabbath works. We will only take this matter and it does not appear there in the conversation and examine it with us in the work of the ability. It is simply amazing to my ears that the old Admor left me. To my ears, the old Admor left me. The Rebbe repeats this matter so much in the conversations. When the old Admor brings the riff when he talks about a work that is a misha of an artisan, the old Admor writes that it is forbidden to make a connection of an artisan, even if he does not conclude at all because of a decree. But when he talks about a connection of a craft that is forbidden to make for its existence, he writes that there is a prohibition in this, there is no decree in this. We see something very, very clear here. The old Admor teaches by the riff method that the connection of an artisan is the body of the monarchy and the matter of its existence is only a condition. What does it mean that the name Somon is the body of the monarchy? We will return Why did we say Torah Ten on Shabbat to create important works, works of art, a connection, a connection on a connection, are considered a work, therefore Torah Ten is to do them, but what the Torah says is that the Torah gives a condition that the work exists only with the connection, which is for its existence, why because if the connection was not for its existence, it harms the importance of the work, if a person painted a very beautiful painting, and what he says, I intend to read it for another five minutes, but I have no need for it, it harms the importance of the work, when a person created a work and also intends to leave it and not harm it, then there is an important work here, therefore the Torah removed this, but but the body, the work of fitness, is the mass and the number, and the existence is only a condition, so in conclusion we have here two modes, in the first, what is the work of fitness, is the work of fitness, is it the connection, and then for its existence, it creates the monarchy, and then there is no difference with the connection, is it Missy the craftsman or Miss Idiot, or is the work of fitness the connection itself, the creation of the connection, and then only the connection of Miss Human and monarchy, and for its existence, it is only a condition, these two modes are not just two modes, and they are not, and they are not, Among them, it is not only the nef kamina that we know between the method of the rif and the head as we mentioned is it permissible to make a knot of the artisan in order to open it on the same day but that both of these approaches cause a humming result of the nefka minah nefka minah very important on Shabbat A person finished the Shabbat meal and he uncovered the dishes and the tablecloth once he put it in a bag in a large garbage bag and he wants to tie it How is he allowed to tie this bag is it allowed is he allowed to tie it with a tie on top of a knot A very simple question Is it allowed to tie this bag with a poor and on top of a knot So there are the last ones that we will analyze it for a moment A person ties with a poor and on top of a knot Indeed, but he ties it in order to exist forever Why because when they throw this influence into the truck and then in sorting the influence Although there is a strong compression there But this knot is likely to remain The bag is expensive And so it came out from watering everything that is inside it But this knot many times Maybe most of the times it will remain So that means it is me and on top of a knot that was made forever It is allowed to do this on Shabbat According to the head And the old Admor, this is a fundamental risa niva on a knot that is made forever is forbidden from the Torah according to the rif, in any case it will be the foundation of the rabbis, but it is interesting that there are later scholars who talk about the ones who ask Zomer who discuss this question and they claim that this kind of knot is considered a non-business knot at all. Thus they claim that a knot that a person ties a garbage bag in order to throw it away is considered a non-business knot at all. If he ties the bag and intends to throw it away that day, why is it important? Because since the person only needs the knot for that day, then from his point of view the knot is made without that day. He only needs the knot as long as this bag is in his house. So he tied the bag. He doesn't want the thread to spread out and come out of the bag when he throws the bag away and it will already be in the trash. He doesn't care if it opens there. So he tied the knot only. He only needs the knot for that day. So this is called a knot that is made for that day. It is a knot that is not concluded at all. In a word, it is permissible to tie it in the self and on a knot. This is how some of the later scholars claim and they provide very interesting proof. At first glance, it is very interesting. They prove it from what happened on Yom Kippur. There were two goats that looked exactly the same. There was the goat that went to Hashem Hos and there was the goat that went to Zozel. They tied the Zozel goat with a toothpick between the horns so that they would not get confused. After it was a fate that they would not get confused about which goat they took. Later, at a certain point, the priest took the goat and walked with it a very, very long way, 12 kilometers, and went to throw it to Zozel. This knot was supposedly me and on top of the knot, this knot It is not written that they opened it when it is not written that the priest opened this knot before he threw the goat, so what comes out in the Temple? I tied it and on top of a knot that was made forever. How is that permissible? Rather, what should be said about it is that since the need for this knot was only for Yom Kippur itself, because on that day the goat had already been thrown away, and when they threw it away at all, this knot was no longer needed, even when they took it out of the Temple, they would no longer have proven the knot. So anyway, since the need was only for that day, it is considered a knot made for that day, a knot that is not closed at all. And anyway, the same will be true regarding the issue of the bag that we discussed. The problem is that this principle does not fit with what is written in the Shulchan Aruch. The Elder Admor The Elder Admor talks about how the Lulav is danced. The Elder Admor writes like this: The Lulav can be tied by bindings, meaning rings, and it can be by knots. The Elder Admor says that a person who did not recite the Lulav on the eve of the Sabbath should be careful. The Elder writes: The old man does not tie the lulav with knots, using aniyo or on a knot or a knot on a knot in a drum. Rana says the old Admor, do not tie it to anything because it is a knot of existence that is not a life six to allow Loomis why is it right that the person is not busy he will leave it everyone leaves Amal The old Admor in this matter stems from the Rebbe's passage in the conversation that we explained that this is the method of the head and the Edomite says what is the work of skill we learned in the words of the Riff and the Rambam that it is a creation and the intention of the person acts importance in the creation a knot of existence a creation that a person intends to leave it intends to break it to destroy it is not an important creation so here we can also understand that the time that the person needs the knot also affects the importance of the creation if he does not need it then it is not an important creation from his point of view but if according to the old Admor, according to the head the connection of the few species will remain and not because it is not broken then it means that at the time of tying you made a connection taxes connection taxes is the monarchy so it does not matter how long you need it and therefore if so for the mass it is forbidden to tie A tie on top of a knot, the bag of influence, even if a person intends to throw it away that same day in the trash outside, why? Because here is a tie on top of a knot that was made for its existence, according to the Elder Admor, according to his opinion, it is made for its existence. So there is a prohibition against trampling on it. Only according to the Riff and the Rambam can we discuss it. Maybe it will only be a spur to the occasion, as we said. In a short time, we will get to another question. We will discuss it again and it is very interesting. Is it permissible for a person to wear the tallit on Shabbat? And usually we notice that the knots of the tallit on Shabbat are not tight enough. On Shabbat, it is impossible to strengthen the knots. So this is how it goes from Shabbat to Shabbat. And the question arises: Is it permissible for a person to strengthen the knots of the tzitzit on Shabbat or even add a knot if he lacks a knot? Add a knot on top of a knot, but to do it with the intention of untying these knots on the eve of Shabbat? It is a knot on top of a knot that we do not tie at all. Maybe this is the solution. Is it permissible to do this or not? So then it is very interesting. In the Mishnah, it is clear that it is forbidden to do this. Why because there is a dispute? There is, I mean, this is how there is a difference. What is the ruling in this case? That a person makes a knot and intends to untie it even on a day, but the way of the world is to leave such a knot forever, the Mishnah clearly proves. He brings the Bis Meir, this is not his method. He brings the Bis Meir, who says that those who follow the world's opinion do not follow the person's own opinion. And if the way of the world is to leave this knot forever, even if the person himself intends to untie this knot that same day, it is considered a knot of its existence. According to this, of course, it is forbidden to tie the tzitzit on Shabbat, to tighten the knots even in order to untie it that same day, because since the way of the world is to leave the tzitzit knots and not untie them, it is a knot that is made forever. Since this is the way of the world, it does not matter what he thought, it is considered a knot of its existence. But when we delve into the words of the Rebbe the Elder in the sign of the 7th, we see that this Rebbe is unbelievable. Where did the Rebbe the Elder get this at all? At the beginning of the sign, the Elder is talking about the method of the Riff and the Rambam. The Rebbe the Elder clearly evaluates it differently than Avis Meir. He writes that the knot of its existence and its existence all depends on the opinion of the person who ties the knot. If he intends to untie the knot, it is a knot that cannot be concluded at all. Everything depends on the opinion of man, but when the old Admor brings the method of bringing the method of the riff, then he writes like this in section 6. In section 6, the old Admor writes like this and so on, and so on, in those related to it, which are miss adios and all the vedom line shosu for its existence. The old Admor suddenly hangs the matter of its existence in all the world's way, not in the intention of this man himself. Where did the old Admor take it from? This question of whether it depends on the opinion of man or on the way of the world is a dispute between the head and the riff. But according to what we have discussed, then we can understand things well because according to the old Admor, the work of fitness is the queen of the author. The work is not the act of tying, not the creation that is in tying. The work is the act of connecting. In any case, when you come to discuss the connection, whether it is for existence or not, the opinion of the world does not matter. What does it matter? The connection in the tassel is you. You are the world that ties it to the world. The world leaves this connection to the world, but you intend to untie the connection. If I made a connection or not, then it depends only on you whether this connection will actually remain to the world. That is, you made a connection. What does it matter what the world would do? In this case, I mean, according to the old rabbi himself, and we conclude that according to the old rabbi himself, it was actually permissible to tie the tzitzit on Shabbat or to tighten the knots with a knot on top of a knot in order to untie these knots on that day. But what if we learned earlier that the old rabbi writes that where there is no sorrow, then from the rabbi, one must take into account the opinion of the rabbi to act according to the rabbi's method? And since we said now that according to the rabbi, we follow the opinion of the world, as is accurate from the words of the old rabbi, then according to the rabbi, it would be forbidden to tie the tzitzit on Shabbat, so it is forbidden to tie it for mass, but according to the head and the old rabbi themselves, it actually should have been something that was permitted to be done. There is power.