Arukh HaShulchan Yomi · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 312:8-313:4
Sugya Map
The transition between Hilkhot Eruvin and Hilkhot Boneh on Shabbat marks a conceptual shift from the definition of spatial boundaries to the definition of structural integrity. In Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 312:8, the author grapples with the metaphysical boundaries of space through the mechanism of pi tikrah yored ve-soteim (the edge of a roof conceptually descends and seals). Immediately following this, in Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 313:1-4, the focus shifts to the physical acts of construction (Boneh) and dismantling (Soter) within vessels (kelim) and temporary structures (ohel aray).
The underlying conceptual map of this sugya can be delineated as follows:
[Spatial & Structural Assembly on Shabbat]
|
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| |
[Spatial Metaphysics: 312:8] [Structural Assembly: 313:1-4]
| |
(Pi Tikrah Yored Ve-Soteim) (Binyan Be-Kelim & Ohel)
| |
+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+
| | | |
[Virtual [Structural [Ontology [Mechanics
Partitions] Baselines] of Kelim] of Ohel]
Primary Sources
- Virtual Partitions: Eruvin 25a and Eruvin 94b – The Amoraic debate regarding the parameters of pi tikrah yored ve-soteim under beams, arches, and sloped surfaces.
- Vessel Assembly: Shabbat 47a and Shabbat 102b – The classic sources for the mechanics of Ein Binyan Be-Kelim (there is no building in vessels) versus the prohibition of toke'a (tight wedging).
- Tent Construction: Shabbat 137b and Shabbat 138a – The definition of Ohel Aray (temporary tent) and the permissibility of extending an existing structure (tosefet ohel).
Nafka Minot (Practical Legal Ramifications)
- Carrying Under Modern Overhangs: Whether a modern porch, awning, or pergola without physical walls can be classified as a private domain (reshut ha-yachid) solely based on the virtual descent of its roofline.
- Modular Assembly: The halachic status of assembling modular furniture (e.g., Ikea products), children's toys (e.g., Lego, K'Nex), or specialized medical apparatus on Shabbat.
- Deployable Covers: The permissibility of opening strollers with retractable canopies, umbrellas, or putting lids on large storage bins.
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
The following key passages from the Arukh HaShulchan form the textual baseline of our inquiry:
On Spatial Metaphysics (312:8)
"...זה שפי תקרה יורד וסותם, היינו דווקא כשהתקרה היא ישרה, אבל אם היא משופעת – לא אמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם. וכן אם אין לה מחיצות כלל, אפילו שתי מחיצות זה כנגד זה, לא אמרינן פי תקרה..."
"...This rule that 'the edge of the roof descends and seals' is specifically when the roof is flat; however, if it is sloped, we do not say 'the edge of the roof descends and seals.' Furthermore, if it has no walls at all, even two parallel walls, we do not invoke this principle..."[^1]
On Structural Assembly in Vessels (313:1)
"...כלל גדול אמרו בשבת: אין בניין בכלים ואין סתירה בכלים. והני מילי כשאין הבניין מעשה אומן, או שאינו תוקע בחזקה. אבל אם הוא מעשה אומן או שתוקע בחזקה, יש בניין בכלים ויש סתירה בכלים..."
"...A great principle was stated regarding Shabbat: 'There is no building in vessels, and there is no destroying in vessels.' This applies specifically when the construction is not the work of a professional craftsman, or when one does not wedge the pieces together tightly. However, if it requires professional skill or is wedged tightly, there IS building in vessels and there IS destroying in vessels..."[^2]
Linguistic Nuances
- "יורד וסותם" (Yored ve-soteim): Literally "descends and blocks." The Arukh HaShulchan uses the word soteim (seals/blocks) rather than soger (closes), indicating a total conceptual blockage of spatial flow, transforming a semi-public space into a private partition.
- "אין בניין בכלים" (Ein binyan be-kelim): The word binyan (building) is contrasted with tikkun (fixing). By framing the exemption as ein binyan, the Halacha asserts that a vessel, by definition, lacks the spatial permanence (karqa) required to trigger the primary labor (av melacha) of Boneh.
Readings
The conceptual landscape of these passages is shaped by a multi-layered dispute among the Rishonim, later systematized by the Acharonim. We must analyze these views through three distinct lenses: the spatial metaphysics of pi tikrah, the ontology of binyan be-kelim, and the structural mechanics of ohel.
=============================================================================================
Conceptual Area Rishon/Acharon Core Thesis Halachic Mechanism
=============================================================================================
Pi Tikrah Rashi Virtual extension of existing Mechitzah Halachit
(Eruvin 25a) walls down to the earth (Formal Legal Wall)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pi Tikrah Tosafot Reclassification of the space Shem Tikrah
(Eruvin 25a) underneath a flat surface (Spatial Shelter)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binyan Be-Kelim Rambam Torah prohibition of Boneh Gmar Melacha
(Shabbat 22:25) applies when tightly fastened (Finalization of Vessel)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binyan Be-Kelim Rashi Tight wedging is Boneh; Metaltel vs. Mechubar
(Shabbat 74b) loose fit is entirely permitted (Mobility vs. Fixedness)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binyan Be-Kelim Chazon Ish Transient assembly is not Derekh Tashmish
(OC 50:9) Boneh if designed for disassembly (Ordinary Use)
=============================================================================================
Reading A: The Spatial Metaphysics of Pi Tikrah (312:8)
The mechanism of pi tikrah yored ve-soteim allows us to view the edge of a roof as if it projects vertically downward to create a virtual wall. But what is the metaphysical nature of this virtual wall?
The Rashi School: Formal Wall Reconstruction
Rashi Eruvin 25a, s.v. "פי תקרה" conceptualizes pi tikrah as a legal fiction that physically constructs a wall (mechitzah halachit). This means the virtual wall possesses all the halachic properties of a physical wall.
Consequently, for Rashi, this virtual wall can combine with other physical walls to complete an enclosure. However, because it is a "wall," it requires a structural anchor. It cannot hang in a vacuum. Therefore, Rashi demands at least some physical walls or posts (lechin) to anchor the virtual descent.
The Tosafot School: Spatial Reclassification
Tosafot Eruvin 25a, s.v. "פי תקרה" reject the idea that pi tikrah builds a virtual wall. Instead, they argue that pi tikrah is a principle of spatial reclassification. A flat, elevated surface of a certain size (at least four tefachim wide) defines the volume of space directly beneath it as a distinct, sheltered zone.
The virtual "walls" are not walls at all; they are the natural boundaries of the roof's shadow. Because it is a spatial reclassification rather than a wall, Tosafot are far more lenient regarding the requirement of physical side walls. The roof itself, by virtue of its horizontal presence, defines the space.
The Synthesis of the Arukh HaShulchan
The Arukh HaShulchan (312:8) navigates this dispute with a view toward practical application. He rules that we cannot invoke pi tikrah if the roof is sloped (משופעת).
Why? If pi tikrah were a formal wall-builder (Rashi), a slope should not prevent the edge from projecting downward. But if pi tikrah is a spatial reclassification based on the concept of a "shelter" (Tosafot), a sloped roof lacks the structural definition of a flat ceiling (tikrah). It is classified as a wall that meets another wall, not a roof that defines a space below.
Furthermore, he requires at least two parallel physical walls (שתי מחיצות זה כנגד זה) to trigger pi tikrah. This shows he adopts Rashi's requirement for a physical anchor: virtual walls cannot manifest out of nothing.
Reading B: The Ontology of Boneh Be-Kelim (313:1-2)
The Gemara Shabbat 47a states: "אין בניין בכלים ואין סתירה בכלים" (There is no building or destroying in vessels). Yet, the Gemara immediately qualifies this: if one wedges parts together tightly (toke'a), it is forbidden under the biblical prohibition of Boneh (or Makah Be-Patish). How do we understand this tension?
[Is there Binyan in Kelim?]
|
+------------------------+------------------------+
| |
[Rambam's View] [Rashi's View]
(Quantitative Shift) (Qualitative Shift)
| |
Tight fastening is Loose assembly is
Boneh/Makah Be-Patish completely permitted;
due to craft-perfection tightness makes it "ground-like"
1. The Rambam: Quantitative Shift (Craft Perfection)
The Rambam Rambam, Shabbat 22:25 posits that Ein Binyan Be-Kelim is a general principle, but it is overridden when the assembly reaches a level of professional craftsmanship (מעשה אומן) or extreme tightness (תוקע).
For the Rambam, the exemption of kelim is not absolute. It is a quantitative distinction: because vessels are mobile, ordinary assembly does not look like "building." However, once you join parts so tightly that they cannot be easily separated without tools, you have performed a permanent act of creation. This is classified as either Boneh (if assembled from scratch) or Makah Be-Patish (if it represents the final completion of the vessel's utility).
2. Rashi: Qualitative Shift (Mobility vs. Fixedness)
Rashi Shabbat 74b, s.v. "חבית" views the exemption of Ein Binyan Be-Kelim through a qualitative lens. Boneh is a labor fundamentally linked to the ground (karka). A vessel, by definition, is mobile (metaltel). Therefore, no matter how complex the assembly, it can never truly be classified as Boneh on a biblical level unless it is attached to the ground.
When the Gemara forbids toke'a (tight wedging), Rashi understands this as a rabbinic safeguard (gezeirah), or a localized application of Makah Be-Patish (the finishing blow), but not true Boneh. If it is not wedged tightly, it remains entirely permitted because its mobility prevents it from ever entering the category of "building."
3. The Chazon Ish: The Concept of "Derekh Tashmish" (Ordinary Use)
The Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 50:9) introduces a foundational distinction to explain how modern modular items fit into this debate. He argues that we must distinguish between:
- Assembling a structure: Joining parts to create a unified object that is meant to remain assembled. This is Boneh, even in vessels, if fastened tightly.
- Ordinary use of a vessel (Derekh Tashmish): Operating an object whose very design and function require constant assembly and disassembly (e.g., a thermos with a screw-on lid, or a folding table).
When an object is designed to be opened, closed, assembled, and disassembled as part of its normal operation, the act of joining the parts is not considered Binyan at all. It is simply using the vessel (tashmish).
The Arukh HaShulchan (313:2) anticipates this distinction. He notes that a bed composed of loose slats (מיטה של שיפין) is forbidden to assemble only if it is put together in a way that requires force or tight wedging (toke'a). If it is designed to be slotted together loosely and taken apart daily, it does not fall under the prohibition of Boneh because that loose assembly is its normal mode of use.
Reading C: The Mechanics of Ohel Aray (313:3-4)
The prohibition of making a tent (Ohel) on Shabbat is a derivative (toledah) of Boneh. The Gemara Shabbat 137b distinguishes between a permanent tent (Ohel Keva), which is biblically forbidden, and a temporary tent (Ohel Aray), which is rabbinically forbidden.
[Defining an Ohel (Tent)]
|
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| |
[The Ran's View] [Arukh HaShulchan]
(Creation of Protected Space) (Functional Shelter Requirement)
| |
Focuses on the roof (Gag) Focuses on the purpose:
creating a new domain Does it serve to shelter
underneath what is beneath it?
1. The Ran: Creation of Protected Space
The Ran Shabbat 138a explains that the core of the prohibition of Ohel is the creation of a roof (gag) that shelters a space of at least one tefach (handbreadth).
If you spread a sheet over a frame, you have created a new domain underneath. This is forbidden because it mimics the construction of a house.
However, if there is already a pre-existing roof of at least one tefach in place before Shabbat, adding to it (tosefet ohel) is permitted because you are not creating a new sheltered space; you are merely expanding an existing one.
2. The Arukh HaShulchan's Distinction: Vessel Covers vs. Tents
In 313:4, the Arukh HaShulchan addresses a crucial boundary case: spreading a sheet over a barrel or vessel. Why is covering a barrel not considered making a temporary tent (Ohel Aray)? The barrel cover certainly acts as a roof over the empty space inside the barrel.
The Arukh HaShulchan resolves this by analyzing the purpose of the cover:
- An Ohel is a structure meant to shelter the space underneath it for use (e.g., to walk under, sit under, or store items in a way that utilizes the open space).
- A Cover (Shomre) is meant to protect the vessel itself or its contents. It does not create a usable space; it seals an existing container.
Therefore, placing a lid on a pot, a cover on a barrel, or a sheet over a food tray is completely permitted. It is classified as using a vessel (tashmish keli), not creating a tent (ohel).
He writes:
"...ולפיכך כיסוי כלים אינו קרוי אהל, שהרי אינו עשוי להגן על מה שתחתיו אלא לשמור את הכלי..."
"...Therefore, the covering of vessels is not called an 'ohel,' because it is not made to shelter what is beneath it, but rather to protect the vessel itself..."[^3]
Friction
The integration of these spatial and structural concepts reveals deep tensions within the halachic system. The most significant clash occurs between the exemption of Ein Binyan Be-Kelim (no building in vessels) and the strict prohibition against assembling specific objects, such as a multi-branched candelabrum (menorah) or a bed of trade-pieces (mita shel shefayim).
The Kushya (The Structural Contradiction)
If the Halacha categorically asserts that Ein Binyan Be-Kelim—meaning that the labor of Boneh does not apply to mobile utensils—then any assembly of a vessel should be permitted on a biblical level, and at worst, rabbinically restricted.
Yet, we find the following contradictory rulings:
- In Shabbat 47a, the Gemara states that assembling a collapsible candelabrum (menorah shel perakim) is a biblical violation of Boneh (according to Rav) or Makah Be-Patish (according to Shmuel).
- In Shabbat 102b, the Gemara rules that one who refits a handle into an axe-head is liable for a chatat (sin offering) under the biblical prohibition of Boneh.
- Conversely, we rule that one may insert a plug (beraza) into a wine barrel Shabbat 139b or screw a lid onto a jar, even though this firmly connects two distinct pieces to create a single functional unit.
How can we reconcile these cases? If there is no Binyan in vessels, why is the axe-handle or the candelabrum a biblical violation, while the barrel plug and the jar lid are completely permitted?
If the distinction relies entirely on "tightness" (toke'a), this seems conceptually weak. In both cases, the parts are tightly joined to function. A loose axe-handle is useless, and a loose barrel plug will leak. Why does one trigger a biblical violation while the other is permitted?
=============================================================================================
Case Halachic Status Sefaria Source Conceptual Mechanism
=============================================================================================
Axe-Handle Biblically Shabbat 102b *Yitka* (Tight wedging)
Forbidden (Chatat) creates a permanent,
single-body unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Menorah shel Biblically/ Shabbat 47a *Shema Yitka* (Fear of
Perakim Rabbinically tight wedging) due to
Forbidden precision assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrel Plug Permitted Shabbat 139b *Derekh Tashmish* (Normal
(Beraza) use); designed for
temporary insertion.
=============================================================================================
The Terutz (The Conceptual Resolution)
To resolve this fundamental friction, we must look to the classic analysis of the Kehillot Yaakov (Shabbat, Siman 38) and the Arukh HaShulchan (313:2). They resolve the contradiction by dividing the physical acts of joining objects into three distinct conceptual categories:
[The Three Categories of Assembly]
|
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| | |
[1. Unified Fusion] [2. Functional Joint] [3. Dynamic Tashmish]
(e.g., Axe-Handle) (e.g., Menorah/Bed) (e.g., Barrel Plug/Lid)
| | |
Biblical Boneh Rabbinic/Biblical Completely Permitted
(Permanent unity) (Depends on tightness) (Inherent design)
Category 1: Unified Fusion (True Boneh)
When two parts are joined so tightly that they lose their individual identities and become a single, unified entity, this is classified as Unified Fusion.
Fitting an axe-head onto a wooden handle is not "assembling a vessel." It is creating the vessel itself. Once joined, they are never meant to be separated.
This is why the axe-handle is a biblical violation of Boneh. The exemption of Ein Binyan Be-Kelim only applies to assembling parts of an already-existing vessel, or joining pieces that retain their separate identities. It does not apply to the initial creation of a single tool.
Category 2: The Functional Joint (The Gray Area of Toke'a)
This category includes items made of distinct parts that remain recognizable as separate pieces, but must be joined firmly to function (e.g., a bed frame, a multi-branched candelabrum).
Here, the rule of Ein Binyan Be-Kelim applies in principle: because the parts remain distinct and are designed to be disassembled eventually, there is no biblical Boneh.
However, because these items require structural stability, there is a strong concern that the user will wedge them together with great force (yitka). If they wedge them tightly, it mimics Unified Fusion (Category 1).
Therefore, Chazal enacted a rabbinic decree (shema yitka): they prohibited even loose assembly of these items, because the average user tends to tighten them to ensure they do not fall apart.
Category 3: Dynamic Tashmish (Ordinary Operation)
This category covers items whose regular, designed use involves constant opening, closing, joining, and separating (e.g., a barrel plug, a bottle cap, a folding chair).
In these cases, there is no prohibition of Boneh, nor is there a rabbinic decree of shema yitka.
Why? Because the act of separation is so integral to the item's daily use that the assembly never represents even temporary permanence. The user has no interest in wedging the plug permanently into the barrel, because they must remove it to refill the barrel.
Since permanence is never the goal, the act remains in the category of tashmish (ordinary use) and is completely permitted.
The Arukh HaShulchan (313:2) uses this framework to explain why we can put a plug into a wine barrel on Shabbat:
"...ובזה לא שייך גזירה שמא יתקע, דכיון שהוא תמיד לפתוח ולסגור, אין דרך לתקוע בחזקה..."
"...And in this case, the decree of 'lest he wedge it tightly' does not apply; since it is constantly opened and closed, it is not the normal practice to wedge it with force..."[^4]
This conceptual division resolves our friction:
- The axe-handle is Category 1 (Unified Fusion - Biblical Boneh).
- The candelabrum is Category 2 (Functional Joint - Rabbinically forbidden due to shema yitka).
- The barrel plug is Category 3 (Dynamic Tashmish - Completely permitted).
Intertext
To fully understand the Arukh HaShulchan's rulings, we must examine how these principles operate in other areas of Halacha, specifically the laws of Sukkah and the broader laws of tents.
Cross-Reference 1: The Spatial Tension in Sukkah (19b)
The spatial metaphysics of pi tikrah yored ve-soteim analyzed in Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 312:8 is deeply connected to the laws of Sukkah. The Gemara Sukkah 19b discusses a case where a Sukkah is built under a balcony or overhang. Can we use the principle of pi tikrah to view the edge of the balcony as descending to form the virtual walls of the Sukkah?
[Pi Tikrah: Shabbat vs. Sukkah]
|
+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| |
[Shabbat Domain] [Sukkah Dwelling]
| |
Allows virtual walls to Requires physical,
prevent carrying; focus perceptible partitions;
is on legal boundaries. focus is on a "dwelling."
The Gemara notes a fundamental distinction between Shabbat and Sukkah:
- For Shabbat: We are lenient. Pi tikrah can descend and seal a space to permit carrying, because the goal of Shabbat partitions is to establish legal boundaries to prevent public carrying.
- For Sukkah: We are far more stringent. A Sukkah requires a recognizable, physical dwelling (dirat keva or dirat aray). A virtual wall created by pi tikrah does not offer physical shelter or privacy.
Therefore, while pi tikrah can conceptually complete a wall to permit carrying on Shabbat, it cannot serve as a primary wall of a Sukkah if it is completely imperceptible to those sitting inside.
This comparison highlights a vital point made by the Arukh HaShulchan: Shabbat laws of partitions are conceptual, whereas the laws of construction (Boneh) are physical.
When dealing with Eruvin (312), we can rely on virtual metaphysics (pi tikrah). But once we cross into Boneh (313), we enter the realm of physical reality. Virtual walls cannot help us avoid the physical prohibition of building a tent (Ohel).
Cross-Reference 2: Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 315 (The Definition of Tefach)
The Arukh HaShulchan's discussion of Ohel Aray (313:3-4) directly references Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 315:1, which details the laws of spreading canopies.
[Is the Canopy an Ohel?]
|
+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| |
[Width < 1 Tefach] [Width >= 1 Tefach]
| |
Permitted to roll out Forbidden to roll out
(Not classified as a roof) (Classified as a temporary tent)
The Shulchan Aruch rules that if a canopy is rolled up, and one rolls it out on Shabbat, it is forbidden if it has a width of at least one tefach (handbreadth).
If it is less than one tefach wide, it is not classified as a "roof" and may be deployed.
The Arukh HaShulchan (315) connects this back to his analysis in 313:4: the one-tefach threshold is the minimum size required for a space to be halachically significant.
If a structure does not shelter a space of at least one tefach, it lacks the physical dimension of an Ohel, and deploying it is simply considered using an object, not building a shelter.
Psak/Practice
How do these conceptual distinctions apply to modern life? We can derive clear practical rulings for several common contemporary scenarios based on the Arukh HaShulchan's analysis.
=============================================================================================
Modern Application Halachic Status Conceptual Basis
=============================================================================================
Lego/K'Nex Permitted for Designed for constant assembly and disassembly;
Children lacks permanence (Category 3 - Dynamic Tashmish).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ikea Furniture Strictly Unified Fusion (Category 1); parts are screwed
Forbidden (Torah) together tightly to remain permanently assembled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umbrellas Strictly Creates a temporary tent (*Ohel Aray*); mechanism
Forbidden stretches fabric tightly (*Makah Be-Patish*).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stroller Canopies Permitted Pre-attached to the frame; deploying it is merely
to Open extending an existing tent (*Tosefet Ohel*).
=============================================================================================
1. Lego and Children's Toys
Are children permitted to play with Lego or K'Nex on Shabbat?
- The Ruling: Most contemporary authorities (including the Shmirat Shabbat Ke-Hilchatah 16:19) permit Lego play for children.
- The Logic: Lego blocks are designed to be put together and pulled apart constantly. They are never meant to remain assembled permanently.
Therefore, they fall under Category 3 (Dynamic Tashmish). There is no Boneh because the assembly is temporary by design, and there is no rabbinic decree of shema yitka because the blocks do not require tools or force to join.
However, building highly complex models that are intended to be kept on display for long periods should be avoided, as this moves the activity closer to Category 1.
2. Assembling Modular (Ikea) Furniture
Can one assemble a modular shelf or chair using plastic pegs or tension joints on Shabbat?
- The Ruling: This is strictly forbidden under the biblical prohibition of Boneh.
- The Logic: Even if no metal screws or tools are used, the parts of the furniture are assembled to remain together permanently.
This falls under Category 1 (Unified Fusion). Once assembled, the shelf is a single, permanent unit. The exemption of Ein Binyan Be-Kelim does not apply to the initial creation of a functional piece of furniture.
3. Opening Umbrellas vs. Retractable Stroller Canopies
Why is opening an umbrella universally forbidden, while opening a retractable stroller canopy is permitted?
- The Umbrella: Opening an umbrella is forbidden for two reasons:
- It creates a temporary tent (Ohel Aray) of significant size.
- The tension mechanism stretches the fabric tautly over the metal ribs. This act of tightening is classified as Makah Be-Patish (completing the tool) or Boneh, similar to wedging a joint tightly (toke'a).
- The Stroller Canopy: This is permitted because the canopy is permanently attached to the stroller frame before Shabbat.
When you open it, you are not creating a new tent; you are merely extending an existing one (tosefet ohel aray), which is permitted.
Furthermore, because the canopy is designed to fold and unfold constantly as part of the stroller's normal operation, deploying it is classified as Category 3 (Dynamic Tashmish).
Takeaway
The laws of Shabbat draw a clear distinction between virtual boundaries and physical construction: we can use legal fictions to define space (pi tikrah), but physical assembly must be governed by the nature of the object.
An item designed for constant, dynamic use is permitted to be assembled because its transient nature makes it a tool in use, whereas any assembly aimed at structural permanence or requiring tight wedging is forbidden as an act of creation.
References
[^1]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 312:8. [^2]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 313:1. [^3]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 313:4. [^4]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 313:2.
derekhlearning.com