The seventh chapter of mishnayos Shabas has this general rule ("כלל"):

Whatever is fit for storing and people store that [amount of it], and he carried it out on Shabas, he's liable therefor to bring a korban chatas. Whatever is not fit for storing, or people don't store that [amount of it], and he carried it out on Shabas, he's not liable, except one who stores it.

The subsequent mishnayos — off and on for the next three chapters (!) — give specific examples of this: how much food is fit for storing, how much wine, how much rope, how much hide, how much ink, how much wood, and so on and so forth.

And this is all codified in the Rambam (Shabas chapter 18), as well as in the halachic restatements of the Rif and Rosh (ad loc.).

But it's not in the Shulchan Aruch. Or at least: There's no reference to Shulchan Aruch in the En Mishpat – Ner Mitzva for any of these mishnayos, and I can't find them in the Shulchan Aruch anywhere.

Why not?

I was thinking to answer as follows (but this answer doesn't work, as I'll show). It may be because Shulchan Aruch is not concerned with nowadays-impractical topics like korbanos. Whether a prohibition is mid'oraysa (divinely imposed) or mid'rabanan (rabbinically imposed) is important even nowadays, but — I thought — carrying out even less than a worthwhile amount of a substance is forbidden mid'oraysa (because of the principle of "chatzi shiur asur min hatora", "a part-measure is forbidden mid'oraysa"), which renders these mishnayos relevant only to the issue of korban and thus moot nowadays. However, that's not the case: Aruch Hashulchan (301:34) clarifies that "a part-measure for all labors except carrying out is forbidden mid'oraysa". So that proposed answer doesn't work.

  • Perhaps, in spite of the fact that there are nafka minos between biblical and Rabbinic law even nowadays, where the distinctions between them are less likely to be very practical, the Shulchan Aruch is not as inclusive. If memory serves, this is not the only instance of this type of omission in the Shulchan Aruch. – Loewian Dec 30 '15 at 14:25
  • Does the end of the Tur here answer your question? he.wikisource.org/wiki/… – Double AA Dec 30 '15 at 15:04
  • @DoubleAA, I don't know whether by "isura" he means mid'oraysa, in which case his statement does (according to the AHS) not apply to the halachos I'm asking about, or whether by "isura" he means even mid'rabanan, in which case his statement answers my question if it applies to the halachos I'm asking about (and I have no reason to think it does/doesn't). Thanks for the link, though: I hadn't seen that. – msh210 Dec 30 '15 at 15:22
  • Do these Halachot get codified in any later codes or quoted in any later responsa? – Isaac Moses Dec 30 '15 at 15:29
  • @IsaacMoses I haven't seen them in MB 301 or, um, is it 303? the one that discusses bame haisha yotz'a. AHS discusses them (as alluded to in the question). I haven't checked elsewhere. Why do you ask? – msh210 Dec 30 '15 at 16:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .