Daily Quote:
Darkness is not banished with a broom[The sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (1880-1950)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shemot, 1st Portion Exodus 1:1-1:17 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 1
1And these are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt; with Jacob, each man and his household came: אוְאֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל הַבָּאִ֖ים מִצְרָ֑יְמָה אֵ֣ת יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב אִ֥ישׁ וּבֵית֖וֹ בָּֽאוּ:
And these are the names of the sons of Israel: Although [God] counted them in their lifetime by their names (Gen. 46:8-27), He counted them again after their death, to let us know how precious they are [to Him], because they were likened to the stars, which He takes out [From beyond the horizon] and brings in by number and by name, as it is said: who takes out their host by number; all of them He calls by name (Isa. 40:26). [From Tanchuma Buber, Shemot 2; Exod. Rabbah 1:3] ואלה שמות בני ישראל: אף על פי שמנאן בחייהן בשמותן, חזר ומנאן במיתתן [אחר מיתתן], להודיע חבתן שנמשלו לכוכבים, שמוציאן ומכניסן במספר ובשמותם, שנאמר (ישעיהו מ כו) המוציא במספר צבאם לכולם בשם יקרא:
2Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. ברְאוּבֵ֣ן שִׁמְע֔וֹן לֵוִ֖י וִֽיהוּדָֽה:
3Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin. גיִשָּׂשכָ֥ר זְבוּלֻ֖ן וּבִנְיָמִֽן:
4Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. דדָּ֥ן וְנַפְתָּלִ֖י גָּ֥ד וְאָשֵֽׁר:
5Now all those descended from Jacob were seventy souls, and Joseph, [who] was in Egypt. הוַיְהִ֗י כָּל־נֶ֛פֶשׁ יֹֽצְאֵ֥י יֶֽרֶךְ־יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שִׁבְעִ֣ים נָ֑פֶשׁ וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הָיָ֥ה בְמִצְרָֽיִם:
and Joseph, [who] was in Egypt: Now were not he and his sons included in the seventy? What then does this teach us? Did we not know that he was in Egypt? But [this clause comes] to inform you of Joseph’s righteousness. He, the Joseph who tended his father’s flocks, is the same Joseph who was in Egypt and became a king, and he retained his righteousness. [From Sifrei, Ha’azinu 334] ויוסף היה במצרים: והלא הוא ובניו היו בכלל שבעים, ומה בא ללמדנו, וכי לא היינו יודעים שהוא היה במצרים, אלא להודיעך צדקתו של יוסף, הוא יוסף הרועה את צאן אביו, הוא יוסף שהיה במצרים ונעשה מלך ועומד בצדקו:
6Now Joseph died, as well as all his brothers and all that generation. ווַיָּ֤מָת יוֹסֵף֙ וְכָל־אֶחָ֔יו וְכֹ֖ל הַדּ֥וֹר הַהֽוּא:
7The children of Israel were fruitful and swarmed and increased and became very very strong, and the land became filled with them. זוּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל פָּר֧וּ וַיִּשְׁרְצ֛וּ וַיִּרְבּ֥וּ וַיַּֽעַצְמ֖וּ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֹתָֽם:
and swarmed: They bore six children at each birth. וישרצו: שהיו יולדות ששה בכרס אחד:
8A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know about Joseph. חוַיָּ֥קָם מֶֽלֶךְ־חָדָ֖שׁ עַל־מִצְרָ֑יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא־יָדַ֖ע אֶת־יוֹסֵֽף:
A new king arose: [There is a controversy between] Rav and Samuel. One says: He was really new, and the other one says: His decrees were new. [From Sotah 11a, Exod. Rabbah 1:8] Since the Torah does not say: The king of Egypt died, and a new king arose, it implies that the old king was still alive, only that his policies had changed, and he acted like a new king. [Rashi on Sotah 11a] ויקם מלך חדש: רב ושמואל חד אמר חדש ממש. וחד אמר, שנתחדשו גזרותיו:
and who did not know: [means that] he acted as if he did not know about him. אשר לא ידע: עשה עצמו כאלו לא ידע:
9He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we are. טוַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֶל־עַמּ֑וֹ הִנֵּ֗ה עַ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל רַ֥ב וְעָצ֖וּם מִמֶּֽנּוּ:
10Get ready, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they increase, and a war befall us, and they join our enemies and depart from the land." יהָ֥בָה נִתְחַכְּמָ֖ה ל֑וֹ פֶּן־יִרְבֶּ֗ה וְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־תִקְרֶ֤אנָה מִלְחָמָה֙ וְנוֹסַ֤ף גַּם־הוּא֙ עַל־שׂ֣נְאֵ֔ינוּ וְנִלְחַם־בָּ֖נוּ וְעָלָ֥ה מִן־הָאָֽרֶץ:
Get ready, let us deal shrewdly with them: Heb. הָבָה. Every הָבָה [found in the Torah] is an expression of preparation and readiness. That is to say: Prepare yourselves for this. הבה נתחכמה לו: כל הבה לשון הכנה והזמנה לדבר הוא, כלומר הזמינו עצמכם לכך:
let us deal shrewdly with them: With the people [of Israel]. Let us act shrewdly regarding what to do to them. Our Rabbis, however, interpreted [that Pharaoh said], Let us deal shrewdly with the Savior of Israel [thus interpreting לוֹ as to him] by afflicting them [to die] with water, for He has already sworn that He would not bring a flood to the world. (But they [the Egyptians] did not understand that upon the whole world He would not bring [a flood] but He would bring it upon one nation In an old Rashi manuscript.) from Sotah 11a] נתחכמה לו: לעם. נתחכמה מה לעשות לו. ורבותינו דרשו נתחכם למושיען של ישראל לדונם במים, שכבר נשבע שלא יביא מבול לעולם (והם לא הבינו שעל כל העולם אינו מביא, אבל הוא מביא על אומה אחת):
and depart from the land: against our will. Our Rabbis, however, interpreted [i. e., depicted Pharaoh] as a person who curses himself but ascribes his curse to others. And it is as if it were written: and we will depart from the land, and they will take possession of it. [From Sotah 11a] ועלה מן הארץ: על כרחנו. ורבותינו דרשו כאדם שמקלל עצמו ותולה קללתו באחרים, והרי הוא כאלו כתב ועלינו מן הארץ והם יירשוה:
11So they appointed over them tax collectors to afflict them with their burdens, and they built store cities for Pharaoh, namely Pithom and Raamses. יאוַיָּשִׂ֤ימוּ עָלָיו֙ שָׂרֵ֣י מִסִּ֔ים לְמַ֥עַן עַנֹּת֖וֹ בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם וַיִּ֜בֶן עָרֵ֤י מִסְכְּנוֹת֙ לְפַרְעֹ֔ה אֶת־פִּתֹ֖ם וְאֶת־רַֽעַמְסֵֽס:
over them: Over the people. עליו: על העם:
tax collectors: Heb. שָׂרֵי מִסִּים, lit., tax officers. מִסִּים denotes an expression of a tax (מַס), [so מִסִּים denotes] officers who collect the tax from them. Now what was the tax? That they build store cities for Pharaoh. מסים: לשון מס, שרים שגובין מהם המס. ומהו המס, שיבנו ערי מסכנות לפרעה:
to afflict them with their burdens: [I.e., with the burdens] of the Egyptians. למען ענתו בסבלתם: של מצרים:
store cities: Heb. מִסְכְּנֹתעָרֵי. As the Targum renders: קִרְוֵי בֵיתאוֹצָרָא, cities of storehouses], and similarly, Go, come to this treasurer (הַסּוֹכֵן) (Isa. 22:15), to the treasurer appointed over the storehouses. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:10] ערי מסכנות: כתרגומו. וכן (ישעיהו כב טו) לך בא אל הסוכן הזה, גזבר הממונה על האוצרות:
Pithom and Raamses: which were originally unfit for this, and they strengthened them and fortified them for storage. את פתם ואת רעמסס: שלא היו ראויות מתחלה לכך ועשאום חזקות ובצורות לאוצר:
12But as much as they would afflict them, so did they multiply and so did they gain strength, and they were disgusted because of the children of Israel. יבוְכַֽאֲשֶׁר֙ יְעַנּ֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ כֵּ֥ן יִרְבֶּ֖ה וְכֵ֣ן יִפְרֹ֑ץ וַיָּקֻ֕צוּ מִפְּנֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
But as much as they would afflict them: In whatever [way] they set their heart to afflict [them], so was the heart of the Holy One, blessed be He, to multiply [them] and to strengthen [them]. וכאשר יענו אתו: בכל מה שהם נותנין לב לענות, כן לב הקב"ה להרבות ולהפריץ:
so did they multiply and so did they gain strength: Heb. כֵּן יִרְבֶּה וְכֵן יִפְרֹץ, lit., so will they multiply and so will they gain strength. [It means, however,] so did they multiply and so did they gain strength. Its midrashic interpretation is, however: The Holy Spirit says this: You [Pharaoh] say, Lest they multiply, but I say, So will they multiply. [From Sotah 11a] כן ירבה: כן רבה וכן פרץ. ומדרשו רוח הקודש אומרת כן אתם אומרים פן ירבה, ואני אומר כן ירבה:
and they were disgusted: They were disgusted with their lives. (Others explain: And the Egyptians were disgusted with themselves, and it is easy to understand why.) Our Rabbis, however, interpreted it to mean that they [the Israelites] were like thorns (כקוצים) in their eyes -[from Sotah 11a] They we ויקצו: קצו בחייהם. ורבותינו דרשו כקוצים היו בעיניהם:
13So the Egyptians enslaved the children of Israel with back breaking labor. יגוַיַּֽעֲבִ֧דוּ מִצְרַ֛יִם אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּפָֽרֶךְ:
with back-breaking labor: Heb. בְּפָרֶ. With hard labor that crushes the body and breaks it. בפרך: בעבודה קשה המפרכת את הגוף ומשברתו:
14And they embittered their lives with hard labor, with clay and with bricks and with all kinds of labor in the fields, all their work that they worked with them with back breaking labor. ידוַיְמָֽרֲר֨וּ אֶת־חַיֵּיהֶ֜ם בַּֽעֲבֹדָ֣ה קָשָׁ֗ה בְּחֹ֨מֶר֙ וּבִלְבֵנִ֔ים וּבְכָל־עֲבֹדָ֖ה בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה אֵ֚ת כָּל־עֲבֹ֣דָתָ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־עָֽבְד֥וּ בָהֶ֖ם בְּפָֽרֶךְ:
15Now the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one who was named Shifrah, and the second, who was named Puah. טווַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם לַֽמְיַלְּדֹ֖ת הָֽעִבְרִיֹּ֑ת אֲשֶׁ֨ר שֵׁ֤ם הָֽאַחַת֙ שִׁפְרָ֔ה וְשֵׁ֥ם הַשֵּׁנִ֖ית פּוּעָֽה:
to the midwives: Heb. לַמְיַלְּדֹת. This is an expression similar מוֹלִידוֹת, [meaning] causing to give birth, but there is a light form and there is a heavy form, similar to שׁוֹבֵר, breaks, and מְשַׁבֵּר, shatters, דּוֹבֵר, says, and מְדַבֵּר, speaks. So are מוֹלִיד and מְיַלֵּד. Rashi classifies the Hebrew conjugations, those that have a dagesh in the second root letter, and those that do not. Of the seven conjugations, three have a dagesh, and four do not. Since it is more difficult to pronounce the letters with the dagesh, those conjugations are referred to as the heavy form, and those without the dagesh are referred to as the light (קַלִּים) [Sefer Hazikkaron] למילדת: הוא לשון מולידות, אלא שיש לשון קל ויש לשון כבד, כמו שובר ומשבר, דובר ומדבר, כך מוליד ומילד:
Shifrah: This was Jochebed, [called Shifrah] because she beautified [מְשַׁפֶּרֶת] the newborn infant. [From Sotah 11b] שפרה: זו יוכבד על שם שמשפרת את הולד:
Puah: This was Miriam, [called Puah] because she cried (פּוֹעָה) and talked and cooed to the newborn infant in the manner of women who soothe a crying infant. פּוֹעָה is an expression of crying out, similar to “Like a travailing woman will I cry (אֶפְעֶה) " (Isa. 42:14). Rashi on Sotah 11b explains that she played with the infant to soothe and amuse him. פועה: זו מרים שפועה ומדברת והוגה לולד כדרך הנשים המפייסות תינוק הבוכה. פועה לשון צעקה, כמו (ישעיהו מב יד) כיולדה אפעה:
16And he said, "When you deliver the Hebrew women, and you see on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall put him to death, but if it is a daughter, she may live." טזוַיֹּ֗אמֶר בְּיַלֶּדְכֶן֙ אֶת־הָ֣עִבְרִיּ֔וֹת וּרְאִיתֶ֖ן עַל־הָֽאָבְנָ֑יִם אִם־בֵּ֥ן הוּא֙ וַֽהֲמִתֶּ֣ן אֹת֔וֹ וְאִם־בַּ֥ת הִ֖וא וָחָֽיָה:
When you deliver: Heb. בְּיַלְדְכֶן, like בְּהוֹלִידְכֶן. See Rashi on preceding verse. בילדכן: כמו בהולידכן:
on the birthstool: Heb. הָאָבְנָיִם, the seat of the woman in childbirth, but elsewhere (Isa. 37:3) it is called מַשְׁבֵּר Similar to this, [we find] who does work on the אָבְנָיִם (Jer. 18:3), the seat [i.e., place] of the tools of a potter. (Compare commentary digest in Judaica Press Jer. 18.3.) על האבנים: מושב האשה היולדת, ובמקום אחר קוראו משבר, וכמוהו (ירמיהו יח ג) עושה מלאכה על האבנים, מושב כלי אומנות יוצר חרס:
if it is a son, etc: Pharaoh cared only about the males, because his astrologers told him that a son was destined to be born who would save them. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:18] אם בן הוא וגו': לא היה מקפיד אלא על הזכרים, שאמרו לו אצטגניניו שעתיד להוולד בן המושיע אותם:
she may live: Heb. וָחָיָה, וְתִחְיֶה, she may live. וחיה: ותחיה:
17The midwives, however, feared God; so they did not do as the king of Egypt had spoken to them, but they enabled the boys to live. יזוַתִּירֶ֤אןָ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹת֙ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים וְלֹ֣א עָשׂ֔וּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר דִּבֶּ֥ר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ן מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרָ֑יִם וַתְּחַיֶּ֖יןָ אֶת־הַיְלָדִֽים:
but they enabled the boys to live: They provided water and food for them. [From Sotah 11b] [The word וַתְּחַיֶּיןָ is found in verse 17 and again in verse 18.] The first is translated וְקַיָּמָא, and they enabled to live, and the second וְקַיֵּמְתִּין, and you enabled to live, because in Hebrew, for the feminine plural, this word and others like it are used as the third person past tense and the second person past tense, e.g. “And they said (וַתֹּאמַרְןָ), ‘An Egyptian man מִצְרִי) (אִישׁ ’” (Exod. 2:19), the past tense, like וַיֹּאמְרוּ for the masculine plural; you have spoken (וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה) with your בְּפִיכֶם (Jer. 44:25), an expression like וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה, the equivalent of דִבַּרְךְתֶּם for the masculine plural. Similarly, You have profaned (וַתְּחַלֶּלְנָה) Me before My people (Ezek. 13:19), the past tense, an expression like חִלַּלְךְתֶּם, the equivalent of וַתְּחַלּלוּ for the masculine plural. If it was necessary to supply the infants with food, Ohr Hachayim asks why the midwives did not do it prior to Pharaoh’s decree. He answers that the Torah means that despite Pharaoh’s decree, the midwives continued their previous practice, that is, supplying needy children with nourishment. He suggests further that they particularly sustained the male children lest one die and they be suspected of being responsible for his death. Rashi explains that in the Hebrew, there is a conversive vav, (turning past into future and future into past). Therefore, since the future forms of the feminine plural, both in the second person and in the third person, are identical, the same is true for the past forms with the conversive vav. [Mizrachi] In Aramaic, however, since there is no conversive vav, the two past forms are different. [Divrei David] ותחיין את הילדים: מספקות להם מים ומזון. תרגום הראשון וקיימא והשני וקיימתין, לפי שלשון עברית לנקבות רבות, תיבה זו וכיוצא בה, משמשת לשון פעלו ולשון פעלתן, כגון (שמות ב יט) ותאמרנה איש מצרי, לשון עבר, כמו ויאמרו לזכרים, ותדברנה בפיכם (ירמיהו מד כה) לשון דברתן, כמו ותדברו לזכרים. וכן (יחזקאל יג יט) ותחללנה אותי אל עמי, לשון עבר חללתן, כמו ותחללו לזכרים
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 77 - 78
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 77
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 77
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 by Asaph, a psalm.
2. [I raise] my voice to God and cry out; [I raise] my voice to God and He will listen to me.
3. On the day of my distress I sought my Lord. My wound oozes at night and does not abate; my soul refuses to be consoled.
4. I remember God and I moan; I speak and my spirit faints, Selah.
5. You grasped my eyelids; I am broken, I cannot speak.
6. I think of olden days, of ancient years.
7. During the night I recall my music, I meditate with my heart, and my spirit searches:
8. Is it for eternity that my Lord forsakes [me], nevermore to be appeased?
9. Has His kindness ceased forever? Has He sealed the decree for all generations?
10. Has God forgotten mercy? Has He in anger restrained His compassion forever?
11. I said, "It is to ter- rify me that the right hand of the Most High changes.”
12. I remember the deeds of Yah, when I remember Your wonders of long ago.
13. I meditate on all Your works, and speak of Your deeds.
14. O God, Your way is in sanctity; what god is as great as God?
15. You are the God Who works wonders; You make Your might known among the nations.
16. You redeemed Your people with a mighty arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah.
17. The waters2 saw You, O God, the waters saw You and trembled; even the deep shuddered.
18. The clouds streamed water, the heavens sounded forth, even Your arrows flew about.
19. The sound of Your thunder was in the rolling wind; lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
20. Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; and Your footsteps were not known.3
21. You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument(Metzudot).
2.Of the Red Sea.
3.The waters returned to cover the trail.
Chapter 78
This psalm recounts all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, from the exodus of Egypt to David's becoming king over Israel.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Listen, my people, to my teaching; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles of long ago;
3. that which we have heard and know [to be true], and that our fathers have told us.
4. We will not withhold from their children, telling the final generation the praises of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders He has performed.
5. He established a testimony in Jacob, and set down the Torah in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to make known to their children,
6. so that the last generation shall know; children yet to be born will rise and tell their children,
7. and they shall put their hope in God, and not forget the works of the Almighty; and they shall guard His commandments.
8. And they shall not be like their fathers, a wayward and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart straight, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.
9. The children of Ephraim, armed archers, retreated on the day of battle.2
10. They did not keep the covenant of God, and refused to follow His Torah.
11. They forgot His deeds and His wonders that He had shown them.
12. He performed wonders before their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.3
13. He split the sea and brought them across; He erected the waters like a wall.
14. He led them with a cloud by day, and all night long with the light of fire.
15. He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them to drink as if from the abundant depths.
16. And He brought forth flowing waters from the rock, and caused waters to descend like rivers.
17. Yet they again continued to sin against Him, to provoke the Most High in the parched land.
18. And they tested God in their hearts, by requesting food for their craving.
19. They spoke against God; they said, "Can God set a table in the wilderness?
20. True, He hit the rock and waters flowed, streams gushed forth; but can He also give bread? Will He prepare meat for His people?”
21. And so the Lord heard and was enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob; wrath, too, flared against Israel.
22. For they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation,
23. [though] He had commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven.
24. He had rained upon them manna to eat, and given them grain of heaven.
25. Man ate the bread of angels; He sent them [enough] provisions to satiate.
26. He drove the east wind through the heaven, and led the south wind with His might.
27. He rained meat upon them like dust, winged birds like the sand of seas;
28. and He dropped them inside His camp, around His dwellings.
29. And they ate and were very satiated, for He brought them their desire.
30. They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths,
31. when the wrath of God rose against them and slew their mighty ones, and brought down the chosen of Israel.
32. Despite this, they sinned again, and did not believe in His wonders;
33. so He ended their days in futility, and their years in terror.
34. When He slew them they would seek Him, they would return and pray to God.
35. They remembered that God is their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
36. But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and deceived Him with their tongue.
37. Their heart was not steadfast with Him; they were not faithful to His covenant.
38. Yet He is compassionate, pardons iniquity, and does not destroy; time and again He turns away His anger, and does not arouse all His wrath.
39. He remembered that they were but flesh, a spirit that leaves and does not return.
40. How often they provoked Him in the desert, and grieved Him in the wasteland!
41. Again and again they tested God, and sought a sign from the Holy One of Israel.
42. They did not remember His hand, the day He redeemed them from the oppressor;
43. that He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan.
44. He turned their rivers to blood, and made their flowing waters undrinkable.
45. He sent against them a mixture of beasts which devoured them, and frogs that destroyed them.
46. He gave their produce to the grasshopper, and their toil to the locust.
47. He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with biting frost.
48. He delivered their animals to the hail, and their livestock to fiery bolts.
49. He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, rage, and affliction; a delegation of messengers of evil.
50. He leveled a path for His anger, and did not spare their soul from death; He delivered their animals to pestilence.
51. He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Ham.4
52. He drove His nation like sheep, and guided them like a flock in the desert.
53. He led them in security and they did not fear, for the sea covered their enemies.
54. And He brought them to the boundary of His holy place, this mountain which His right hand acquired.
55. He drove out nations before them, and allotted them an inheritance [measured] by the cord; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
56. Yet they tested and defied God, the Most High, and did not keep His testimonies.
57. They regressed and rebelled like their fathers; they turned around like a deceptive bow.
58. They angered Him with their high altars, and provoked Him with their idols.
59. God heard and was enraged, and He was utterly disgusted with Israel;
60. And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shilo, the Tent where He had dwelled among men.
61. He put His might into captivity, and His glory into the hand of the oppressor.
62. He delivered His nation to the sword, and was enraged with His inheritance.
63. Fire consumed His young men, and His maidens had no marriage song.
64. His priests fell by the sword, and their widows did not weep.5
65. And the Lord awoke like one who had been asleep, like a warrior shouting [to sober himself] from wine.
66. He beat His enemies into retreat, and dealt them eternal disgrace.
67. He was disgusted with the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.
68. He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loves.
69. And He built His Sanctuary [permanent as] the heavens; like the earth, He established it forever.
70. And He chose David His servant, and took him from the sheep corrals.
71. From following the nursing ewes, He brought Him to shepherd His nation Jacob, Israel His inheritance.
72. And he tended them with the integrity of his heart, and led them with the skill of his hands.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
2.The Ephraimites escaped Egypt before the other tribes, but were defeated when trying to enter the land of Canaan.
3.Capital of Egypt (Radak).
4.Progenitor of the Egyptians.
5.They died before being able to weep (Targum).
--------------------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 10
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 10
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Sunday, Tevet 15, 5776 · December 27, 2015
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Sunday, Tevet 15, 5776 · December 27, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 10
After elaborating in the previous chapter on the ongoing battle between the divine and animal soul over mastery of a Jew’s body, the Alter Rebbe now proceeds to explain that one who vanquishes his animal soul and transforms its evil into good — is a tzaddik.
This level of tzaddik comprises two general categories. The “perfect tzaddik,” also called the “tzaddik who knows only good,” is he who has transformed all the evil of his animal soul to good; while he who has not completely eradicated and converted the evil within him is termed “an imperfect tzaddik” and “a tzaddik who knows (i.e., possesses some vestige of) evil.”
The difference between the two sets of descriptive terms — “complete” and “incomplete” tzaddik, and the tzaddik “who knows only good” or “who knows evil” — is as follows. The former set describes the degree of the tzaddik’s love of G‑d, for it is this love that earns for him the title “tzaddik”. In the case of the “complete tzaddik” it is a complete and perfect love; while the love of the “incomplete tzaddik” is imperfect. The latter set of terms refers to the conversion of the animal soul’s evil to good; an individual in whom it has been entirely transformed is termed “a tzaddik who knows only good,” whereas one in whom a vestige of evil remains is termed “a tzaddik who knows evil.”
It goes without saying that “evil” in this context refers only to the promptings of evil that may be harbored in the heart; not, of course, to actual evil expressed in thought, speech, or action.
והנה כשהאדם מגביר נפשו האלקית
When a person causes his divine soul to prevail over the animal soul,
ונלחם כל כך עם הבהמית עד שמגרש ומבער הרע שבה מחלל השמאלי
and when he wages war against the animal soul to the extent that he banishes and eradicates its evil fromits abode within him, namely, the left part [of the heart],
כמו שכתוב: ובערת הרע מקרבך
as is written:1 “And you shall eradicate the evil from your midst,” which implies that one ought to eradicate the evil within himself;
(The person who has in fact eradicated evil from his heart has not only banished the external, practical expression of evil — evil thoughts, words or actions — but has eradicated the evil itself: it has no place in his heart; he no longer desires evil.)
ואין הרע נהפך לטוב ממש
as to one who achieves this goal, but finds that the evil has nevertheless not actually been converted into good, in which case his entire capacity for desire would now be directed only toward good and holiness; since with him this is not the case,
נקרא צדיק שאינו גמור
he is called “an incomplete tzaddik.”
וצדיק ורע לו, דהיינו שיש בו עדיין מעט מזער רע בחלל השמאלי
[He is also called] “a tzaddik who knows evil,” meaning that some vestige of evil still lingers within him, in the left part [of his heart],
אלא שכפוף ובטל לטוב מחמת מיעוטו
except that it finds no expression at all, not even in evil desires, because [the evil,] by reason of its minuteness, is subjugated and nullified by the good, and cannot therefore be sensed.2
ולכן נדמה לו כי ויגרשהו וילך לו כולו לגמרי
Hence, he (the tzaddik) may imagine that he has driven it out and it has quite disappeared.
אבל באמת אלו חלף והלך לו לגמרי כל הרע שבו, היה נהפך לטוב ממש
In truth, however, had all the evil in him departed and disappeared, it would have been converted into actual good.3
This requires explanation: Perhaps the incomplete tzaddik feels no desire for evil because he indeed no longer has any evil, having converted it to good; why must we say that he only imagines himself to be altogether free of evil?
To explain this, the Alter Rebbe continues with a clarification of the term “complete tzaddik.” The explanation in brief:
As stated in the previous chapter, the complete tzaddik is able to convert his evil to good only by dint of his great love of G‑d, a love known as “love of delights.” Accordingly, the “incomplete tzaddik,” who has yet to attain to this lofty level of love, has obviously not yet accomplished this conversion.
“Love of delights,” then, is the ultimate criterion of where the tzaddik stands vis-a-vis the eradication of his evil.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
וביאור הענין
The explanation of the matter is as follows:
כי הנה צדיק גמור שנהפך הרע שלו לטוב, ולכן נקרא צדיק וטוב לו
A “complete tzaddik,” in whom the evil has been converted into good, and who is consequently called “atzaddik who knows [only] good,”
הוא על ידי הסרת הבגדים הצואים לגמרי מהרע
has attained this level by completely removing [his] filthy garments from evil.
דהיינו למאוס מאד בתענוגי עולם הזה, להתענג בם בתענוגות בני אדם
This means: he despises utterly the pleasures of this world, finding it repugnant to derive from them that pleasure which other people derive,
למלאת תאות הגוף בלבד, ולא לעבודת ה׳
namely, the pleasure of merely gratifying the physical appetite, instead of using this pleasure toward the service of G‑d.
For physical pleasures dedicated to serving G‑d are in fact holy; e.g., the pleasure of “enjoying the Shabbat” with food and drink. It is not such pleasure that is repugnant to the tzaddik, but pleasure for the sake of self-indulgence.
מפני היותם נמשכים ונשפעים מהקליפה וסטרא אחרא
He despises such pleasures for they are derived from and receive their spiritual sustenance from the kelipahand sitra achra, the very antithesis of holiness.
וכל מה שהוא מהסטרא אחרא, הצדיק גמור הוא שונאו בתכלית השנאה
For the “complete tzaddik” utterly hates whatever is of the sitra achra,
מחמת גודל אהבתו לה׳ וקדושתו, באהבה רבה בתענוגים וחיבה יתרה הנזכרים לעיל
because of his great love, a “profuse love of delights,” and his superior degree of affection for G‑d and His holiness, as mentioned above (in ch. 9, where the Alter Rebbe explained that “love of delights” is the ultimate level in the love of G‑d). To resume: Because of the tzaddik’s great love for G‑d and holiness he utterly hates the kelipah and sitra achra —
כי הם זה לעומת זה
since they, i.e., holiness and kelipah, are antithetical; his love of G‑d therefore evokes a commensurate degree of hatred for sitra achra.
כדכתיב: תכלית שנאה שנאתים, לאויבים היו לי, חקרני ודע לבבי וגו׳
So it is written:4 “I hate them with a consuming hatred, says King David of those who oppose G‑d, they have become enemies to me; search me, he says to G‑d, and know my heart.”
This means: “By searching me and knowing how great is the love of You borne in my heart, You will know how great is my hatred toward Your enemies”; for, as stated, love is the measure of hate.
וכפי ערך גודל האהבה לה׳, כך ערך גודל השנאה לסטרא אחרא והמיאוס ברע בתכלית
Hence, according to the abundance of love towards G‑d, so is the extent of hatred toward the spiritual sitra achra which nurtures the physical pleasures, and the utter repugnance of the evil of physical pleasures;
Since the sitra achra is spiritual, and hence distant from physical man, the term “hatred” is appropriate to it; with regard to the evil of physical pleasures, which are closer to man, the term “repugnant” is applicable: the repugnance of having something odious placed before one’s very eyes.
כי המיאוס הוא הפך האהבה ממש כמו השנאה
for repugnance is as much the exact opposite of love as is hatred.
In any event, we have established that this tzaddik’s utter despisal of evil is predicated on his loving G‑d to the greatest degree. He is therefore called a “complete tzaddik,” since the quality by virtue of which he is termed a tzaddik, i.e., his love of G‑d, is on the highest and most complete level. He is also called a “tzaddik who knows only good” — he possesses only good, having transformed all the evil within him to good.
Hence the “incomplete tzaddik,” whose “love of delights” is imperfect, must also be lacking in his hatred of evil. This, in turn, indicates that he retains some vestige of evil, albeit unfelt. He is therefore called “a tzaddik who knows evil.”
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Devarim 21:21. |
| 2. | See ch. 1, note 6. |
| 3. | The Rebbe notes the apparent contradiction between the two statements made here concerning the tzaddik’s evil nature: on the one hand we are told that the evil is completely driven out and eradicated, and on the other hand it is stated that it is converted to good. The Rebbe remarks: There are actually two aspects to the “evil nature”: the power of the animal soul, and its “filthy garments,” the evil desires into which the animal soul’s energy has been channeled. These “garments” cannot be elevated or converted; they must be removed and eradicated. The energy of the animal soul and its tendency to find evil outlets for its energy can then be converted to good by “clothing it in clean garments,” i.e., channeling this energy into holy outlets. If the energy has not yet been transformed into good, clearly some of the “filthy garments” must have remained. |
| 4. | Paraphrase of Tehillim 139:22-23. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Sunday, Tevet 15, 5776 · December 27, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 320
Working on Shabbat
"You shall not do any manner of work"—Exodus 20:10.
We are forbidden from performing work on Shabbat.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 320
Working on Shabbat
"You shall not do any manner of work"—Exodus 20:10.
We are forbidden from performing work on Shabbat.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Working on Shabbat
Negative Commandment 320
Translated by Berel Bell
The 320th prohibition is that we are forbidden to do melachah1 on Shabbos.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2, ["It is Shabbos to the L‑rd, your G‑d;] do not do any melachah."
If the act was intentional, but the court has insufficient proof, Scripture3 specifies the punishment as kores.4 If the act was intentional, and there is sufficient proof,5 the punishment is execution by s'kilah.6 If the act was unintentional, he must bring a sin-offering.7
The details of this commandment are discussed in the tractate Shabbos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Although melachah is commonly translated as "work," it actually indicates any one of 39 specific activities singled out by Torah tradition. Included among the 39 are such actions as writing, carrying outside, and tying a knot, even though they do not correspond to the English word "work."
2.Shmos 20:1. Devarim 5:14.
3.Ex. 31:14.
4.See Principle 14, where the Rambam defines kores as losing one's portion in the World to Come (unless the person does teshuvah before death). See also Hilchos Teshuvah, Chapter 8, Halachah. 1.
5.Literally, "the testimony was accepted." This phrase includes such requirements as prior warning of the defendant (hasra'a), testimony of at least 2 witnesses, etc. See N352.
6.Commonly translated as "stoning," it actually consisted of being thrown from a high platform. Only if the person did not die from the fall were actual stones used. See P229.
7.See P69. This offering is called a "fixed sin-offering" to distinguish it from the offering of adjustable value. See P72.
-------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 3
• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 3
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Terumot - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
There is no minimum requirement for the great terumah according to Scriptural Law, as [implied by Deuteronomy 18:4]: "The first of your grain," i.e., even the slightest amount. Even one kernel of grain fulfills the requirement for the entire grain heap. As an initial and prefatory measure, one should separate only according to the measures specified by our Sages. In the present age, when [the terumah] will be burnt because of impurity, a person may separate even the smallest amount as an initial and prefatory measure.1
Halacha 2
What is the measure that our Sages established? A generous measure is one fourtieth [of the crop]. The average [measure] is one fiftieth and a parsimonious measure is one sixtieth.
Halacha 3
As an initial and preferred measure, we may separate one sixtieth [of the crop] as terumah from species to which the priests do not pay attention, e.g., carobs2 and kilisin beans.
[Similarly,] we [may separate] one sixtieth [of the crop as terumah] in the following situations: terumah separated from produce grown from terumah,3terumah that is mixed [with tevel],4 or impure terumah that became impure against one's will or inadvertently,5 terumah taken from consecrated crops,6terumah [separated in] the Diaspora, terumah from ketzach, kilisin, carobs,7poor quality wild figs, red barley kernels, and the like,8 and produce grown in a flower-pot that does not have a hole.9
Similarly, when guardians separate [terumah] from the produce of orphans, they should separate one sixtieth.10
Halacha 4
One should not11 separate this terumah with a measure, a scale, or by number, because [the Torah] did not specify a measure for this [allocation]. Instead, one makes an estimation and separates one fiftieth12 according to his conception.13One may, however, separate terumah from [produce that is] measured, weighed, or counted.14 He should not separate terumah using a basket or a container whose measure is known.15 He may, however, separate terumah by [filling] half or a third of their measure. One should not separate terumah [by using] half [a measure of] a se'ah, because its half is also a measure.
Halacha 5
When a person separates a large measure of terumah,16 as long as he leaves a certain portion as ordinary produce,17 [the separated portion] is terumah. If, however, he said: "All of this produce is terumah," his statements are of no consequence.18
If a person intended to separate one tenth [of his crop] as terumah, but it happened that he actually set aside one sixtieth, [the separated portion] isterumah.19 If, however, he intended to sixtieth as terumah, but it happened that he actually set aside one fiftieth, [the separated portion] is not terumah.20
Halacha 6
When a person sets aside terumah and it happened that he gave one twentieth [of his crop],21 [the separated portion] is terumah.22 If he set asideterumah and it happened that he gave one sixtieth [of his crop] and hence, he added more produce for the sake of terumah,23 the tithes must be separated from that additional amount.24 The priest must separate them and only then may he partake of it.25
If a person set aside terumah26 and it happened that he gave one sixty-first [of his crop], [the separated portion] is terumah, but he must set aside a second portion to complete the measure that he originally intended to give. This additional measure may be set aside with a measure, a scale, or by number.27He should set aside [the terumah] only from the produce that is encompassed [in the same area] as is true with regard to the initial separation [of terumah].28
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
When a person separates a portion of terumah from one grain heap and a portion of terumah from a second grain heap of the same species, he should not separate terumah from one grain heap for the other.31
[The following rules apply when a person] says: "The terumah for this grain heap is in its midst." If he specified a place - on the north side or the south - he has designated terumah and is obligated to separate terumah from that [portion of the grain heap]. If he did not specify a place, his statements are of no consequence.32
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
[Produce] that is usually measured in volume, should be measured in volume. [Produce] that is weighed should be weighed and if it can [easily] be counted, it should be counted. If it could [easily] be counted, weighed, or measured in volume, it is praiseworthy to count it,38 more praiseworthy to measure its volume, and most praiseworthy to weigh it.39
Halacha 12
The mitzvah [to separate] terumat ma'aser is for a Levite to separate it from the tithe [given] him, as [Numbers 18:26] states: "When you take the tithe from the children of Israel...."40 An Israelite may separate terumat ma'aser and give it to a priest41 and then give the tithes to a Levite after separating the terumat [ma'aser] from it, i.e., a tenth of a tenth.
Halacha 13
When an Israelite separates the first tithe while the crop is still stalks [of grain] and gives it to the Levite before it was threshed and before he separated the great terumah, the Levite is not required to separate the great terumah from it after he threshes it, only terumat ma'aser.42
If, however, the Israelite threshed [the crop]43 and separated a tithe of the grain and gave it to the Levite before he separated the great terumah, the Levite is obligated to separate the great terumah and terumat ma'aser, since [the crop] has already been [separated into kernels of] grain, the obligation [to separate] terumah has fallen upon it, as [implied by the phrase]: "The first of your grain."44
Halacha 14
When a Levite took grain while it was in stalks, he should not give the terumahto the priest in stalks. Instead, we penalize him [and require him] to thresh [the crop], winnow it, and give the priest a tenth of a tenth of the kernels of the grain.45 He is not required to give him a tenth of the straw or the chaff.46 If he set aside terumat ma'aser while the crop was in stalks as it was given to him, he must crush it and give the priest the kernels and the straw.47
Why did they penalize him and make him crush it? Because he accepted the tithe while it was in the stalks and thus precluded the separation of the greatterumah.
Halacha 15
When an Israelite tells a Levite: "My father told me: 'I have ma'aser for you in my possession,' we are not concerned about [the possibility of] it containingterumat ma'aser. [We are confident] that his father separated the terumat ma'aser. Therefore he commanded him that the [entire] tithe should be given to the Levite.48
If [the Israelite] told [the Levite]: "My father told me: 'I have a kor49of ma'aserfor you in my possession,' we are concerned about [the possibility of] it containing terumat ma'aser.
Halacha 16
Terumat ma'aser that is an eight of an eight [of a log]50should be brought to a priest. For less than that, [we do not trouble him] to bring it to a priest.51Instead, he may throw it into the fire and burn it.52 With regard to wine and oil, by contrast, even the smallest amount [of terumat ma'aser] should be brought to a priest53 provided it is definitely terumat ma'aser and ritually pure.54 If it was ritually impure or if it was demai,55 if it does not contain [the above] measure, he is not required to trouble himself with it. Instead, he should burn it.
Halacha 17
We should separate the great terumah only from [produce] in the same location.56 What is implied? A person had 50 se'ah in one room57 and 50 se'ahin another,58 he should not separate two se'ah from one room for the entire 100 se'ah, for he would be separating produce from one location for produce from another.
[After the fact,] if one separated terumah from one location for produce in another, the separation is effective,59 provided the produce separated [asterumah] is protected. If, however, a person possessed jugs of oil and/or wine and saw that they were breaking, should he say: "These are terumah for the produce in my home,"60his words are of no consequence.61
Halacha 18
When produce is scattered in a room or there are two granaries in the same room,62 one may separate terumah from one for the entire amount.63When sacks of grain, spheres of dried figs, or jugs of figs are in the same place, one may separate from one for the entire amount. With regard to jugs of wine, until one has sealed their lids closed, he may separate terumah from one for the entire amount.64After they have been sealed, he must separate terumah from each one individually.65
Halacha 19
When a person was gathering bunches of vegetables and leaving them in [his] garden, he may separate terumah from one for the entire amount.66 If he brings another type of produce between them, he must separate terumah from each one individually. If he brought several species together in a container, e.g., cabbage on top, cabbage on bottom, and another species in between, he should not separate terumah from the top head for the bottom head.67
Halacha 20
Terumat ma'aser may be separated even if [the produce] is not in the same location. [This is implied by Numbers 18:28]: Separate terumah "from all of your tithes."70 [Implied is that] even if there is one [collection of] tithes in one city and another [collection of] tithes in another city, one may separate terumat [ma'aser] once for all of them. Torah scholars separate even terumat ma'aseronly from [produce] in one location.71
Halacha 21
When a Levite possessed [produce from] the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser was not separated and he left it so that he could continuously separate terumat ma'aser [for other crops] from it while it is still tevel, his actions are viable. [This is derived from Numbers 18:24]: "For the tithes of the children of Israel [from] which they will separate terumah...." Implied is that [the tithes] can be transformed into terumat [ma'aser] in their entirety.
Halacha 22
If one separated terumat ma'aser first and then left [the produce] so that one could continually separate terumat ma'aser for other produce from it until it becomes terumat ma'aser in its entirety, at which he would give it to a priest, his actions are of no consequence.72 [This is derived from ibid.:29]: "The sacred portion from it." Implied is that when its sacred portion is in it,73 it can be made terumat [ma'aser] for other [crops]. If its sacred portion is no longer in it, it cannot be made terumat [ma'aser] for other [crops]. Similarly, when a person sets aside crops to separate the great terumah from them, they must be tevel with regard to terumah.74 If a person sets aside crops to separate the tithes from them, they must be tevel with regard to the tithes.75
Halacha 23
When terumah and the tithes are separated, we separate them in proper sequence.
What is implied? Before everything, one separates bikkurim.76 Afterwards, [he separates] the great terumah, the first tithe, then the second tithe or the tithe for the poor.77 If a person separated the second [tithe] before the first, or the tithes before terumah, or terumah before bikkurim, his actions are effective despite the fact that he has transgressed a negative commandment.78
What is the source which teaches that a negative commandment is involved? [Exodus 22:28] states: "Do not delay your fullness offering or your priestly heave-offering."79[Implied is a command] not to delay [the separation of produce] that should come first. Lashes are not given [as punishment for the violation] of this prohibition.80
Halacha 24
When a person desires to separate the great terumah and terumat ma'aser at the same time, he should separate 1/33.33 of his crop.81 He should say: "One hundredth of [the produce] that is here - i.e., on the side of the produce which I set aside - is ordinary produce.82 The remainder of what I separated isterumah for the entire crop. The tithes which are necessary to be separated for these hundred portions83 of ordinary produce are at the side of [the produce] that I separated. The remainder of what I separated aside from theterumah is terumat ma'aser on the entire amount."84
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Since the produce will ultimately be burnt, there is no purpose in setting aside more than the very minimum. The Radbaz notes that the priests are also given the opportunity to benefit from impureterumah, because they use it as fuel. Why then shouldn't they be given a full measure of impureterumah? He explains that since this is not the primary use of terumah, our Sages did not feel that for the minimal benefit the priest receives from burning the terumah, it was necessary to require the people to separate a larger amount.
|
| 2. |
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:3, there are certain species of carobs which are generally not eaten by humans. There is no obligation to separate terumah from them according to Scriptural Law. Here we are speaking about carobs from which one is obligated to separate terumahaccording to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, since they are not considered important by the priests, there is no need to separate more than the minimal amount.
|
| 3. |
As explained in Chapter 11, Halachot 21 and 27, when produce that is terumah is sown, according to Scriptural Law, the produce which grows is ordinary produce and terumah and tithes must be separated from it. Nevertheless, our Sages were stringent and declared that the entire crop should be considered as terumah and sold to the priests (at a price substantially less than that of ordinary produce). Since the owners are required to consider the entire crop as terumah, our Sages did not require them to separate more than a sixtieth to be given as terumah (Tosefta, Terumot, ch. 5).
|
| 4. |
Tevel is produce from which terumah and tithes were not separated. As indicated by Chapter 13, Halachah 1, if there are more than 100 times the amount of tevel as terumah, it is necessary to remove the amount of terumah that became mixed with the tevel and then separate the terumah. Since the person is already separating the amount of terumah from the mixture, our Sages did not require him to separate a large quantity of terumah from the tevel. As noted in Chapter 13, Halachah 2, more stringent laws apply when terumah becomes mixed with less than 100 times the amount of other produce.
|
| 5. |
The Radbaz questions: Why is it not sufficient to separate the slightest amount as terumah as is the practice in the present age (Halachah 1)? He explains that in the present age, all terumah will become ritually impure. Hence, there is no need to give a significant amount at all. In the time of the Talmud, by contrast, significant amounts of terumah that is pure must be separated. If an inconsequential amount of impure terumah would be separated, people might refrain from giving an appropriate amount of pure terumah.
|
| 6. |
I.e., crops that were consecrated after the work involving their harvest was completed (at which time the obligation to separate terumah became incumbent upon them), but from which terumahwas not actually separated. There is no need to separate terumah from crops that grew in a field belonging to the Temple treasury.
|
| 7. |
Note, however, Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:3.
|
| 8. |
I.e., all of these species are types of produce that are not usually considered valuable.
|
| 9. |
This leniency is granted for the obligation to separate terumah from such produce is merely Rabbinic in origin. Hence it is sufficient to separate one-sixtieth as an initial measure.
|
| 10. |
Because special consideration is given to the orphans' property.
|
| 11. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:7), Rambam states that separating terumah in this manner is "forbidden." The commentaries question whether his use of different wording in this halachah indicates a change of position or not.
|
| 12. |
This is the average measure. Our translation follows authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text reads "one sixtieth."
|
| 13. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumah 1:7) derives this from Numbers 18:27: "And your terumah will be considered for you...." Venechshav translated as "considered" shares the root chashavmeaning "thought" or "estimate." Implied is that terumah should be given by estimation. Although this verse is speaking about terumat ma'aser which must be separated by exact measure (see Halachah 10), we follow the principle (see Rashi, Pesachim 24a): If a concept explicitly stated with regard to terumat ma'aser cannot be applied to it, we assume that it is referring to the greatterumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
| 14. |
I.e., one measures the produce and then separates terumah by estimation (ibid.).
|
| 15. |
For that is obviously equivalent to separating with a measure.
|
| 16. |
I.e., a measure above that stated by the Sages.
|
| 17. |
I.e., he did not designate the entire crop as terumah.
|
| 18. |
For Numbers 15:21 speaks of giving "from the first of your kneading." Implied is that one must give "from the first," but not all the first [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:5, based on the Jerusalem Talmud)].
|
| 19. |
For he had intended to give this amount of produce - and more - as terumah (Kessef Mishneh). And when giving terumah, one's deed must be aligned - at least partially - with his intent. Since theterumah is acceptable, there is no need for the person to supplement the amount separated and give the amount he originally intended (Radbaz).
|
| 20. |
For he had not intended to give this amount as terumah (ibid.).
|
| 21. |
I.e., without either desiring to give this amount or having a desire to give a lesser amount. Note the gloss of the Radbaz who suggests that there is a printing error in the text.
|
| 22. |
The fact that he gave a larger measure than usual as terumah does not disqualify his gift.
|
| 23. |
So that he would not be giving a parsimonious measure.
|
| 24. |
Although normally, there is no obligation to separate tithes from terumah, since the portion he separated originally fulfilled his obligation, it immediately became necessary to separate tithes from the remainder of the produce.
|
| 25. |
He must observe all the obligations required when partaking of terumah.
|
| 26. |
With the intent of giving the measure required by our Sages.
|
| 27. |
Although initially, one should not give a measured amount of terumah as stated in Halachah 4, in this instance, he is required to give a measured amount so that he will give the amount that he originally intended.
|
| 28. |
As is required by Halachah 17, as an initial and preferable measure.
|
| 29. |
In contrast to the situation described in the previous halachah, in this instance, the person originally intended to separate more. Hence, what he separated is not considered as terumah.
|
| 30. |
Since the separation was not effective, that portion is considered as tevel and terumah must be separated from it. Since it was set aside as a separate portion, the terumah should be separated from it and not from other produce. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot4:1).
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's interpretation of that mishnah and maintains that the separated produce is in fact terumah. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's interpretation.
|
| 31. |
For as mentioned above and in Halachah 17, preferably, one should separate terumah from the grain for which it is being separated and not from other grain.
|
| 32. |
And he may separate terumah from other produce. The rationale is that terumah is called "the first." Implied is that it must be set aside from produce that is not "first" and in this instance, that has not been done (Siftei Cohen 331:45).
|
| 33. |
I.e., he designated a certain portion of the first grain heap as terumah.
|
| 34. |
I.e., the terumah for the second grain heap should be separated in a way entirely parallel to the separation from the first. It should be taken from an equivalent place and have the measure. Our translation is based on the version of the Mishneh Torah possessed by the Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh and their interpretations of that text. There are other slightly different versions of the text.
|
| 35. |
As stated in Halachah 12, after a tenth of the produce is given to the Levites, they must separate a tenth of that tenth and give it to the priests as terumat ma'aser.
|
| 36. |
I.e., in contrast to "the great terumah," as mentioned in Halachah 4.
As stated in the notes to that halachah, a verse ostensibly referring to terumat ma'aser (Numbers 18:27) states: "And your terumah will be considered for you...." Venechshav translated as "considered" shares the root chashav meaning "thought" or "estimate." Implied is that terumahshould be given by estimation. Nevertheless, according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumah 1:7), that verse refers to the great terumah and not to terumat ma'aser (Radbaz).
|
| 37. |
When it will be destroyed because of impurity.
|
| 38. |
I.e., separating the terumat ma'aser after counting it is praiseworthy [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:6)].
|
| 39. |
For in this way, the measurement is most precise.
|
| 40. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 129) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 396) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 41. |
I.e., the Torah's requirement is for the Israelite to give the tithes to the Levite and for the Levite to separate one tenth of the tithes as terumat ma'aser. Nevertheless, if the Israelite desires to fulfill this mitzvah, he has the option. It is not considered as if he is usurping the Levite's right.
The Radbaz notes that the source for this concept (Gittin 30b) also implies that terumat ma'asercan be separated by estimation and finds it somewhat problematic to derive one concept from that source, but not the second. Nevertheless, he concludes that this is in fact the Talmud's conclusion.
|
| 42. |
Berachot 47a derives this concept from the exegesis of Numbers 18:26 which speaks of taking "a tenth from the tithe." Implied is that only a tenth is separated from the tithe and nothing more.
|
| 43. |
And completed all the other tasks to make it obligated for tithing.
|
| 44. |
I.e., once produce has been reduced to kernels of grain, the obligation to separate terumah takes effect. Hence, the Levite must separate terumah from the tithe as well as terumat ma'aser.
|
| 45. |
I.e., he is penalized by being required to perform the work necessary to process the stalks of grain until they are reduced to kernels.
|
| 46. |
For the obligation to tithe is incumbent only on the food and not on the other parts of the plant.
|
| 47. |
He is required to perform the tasks necessary to process the grain for the reasons mentioned above. Nevertheless, he must give the priest the chaff because he designated it as terumah while it was in its stalks. That sacred designation does not depart from the chaff when the kernels are separated from it.
|
| 48. |
I.e., his statements indicate that his father desired that the entire tithe be given to the Levite. Hence, we assume that he already separated the terumat ma'aser.
|
| 49. |
The mention of a measure indicates that he expects the Levite to separate the terumat ma'aserrequired for this measure.
The Ra'avad challenges the Rambam's ruling, noting that it is the opposite of the standard text of the Talmud (Gittin 30b). The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that the version of the Talmud possessed by the Rambam differed from the standard version and indeed, possesses an advantage over it.
|
| 50. |
This measure, a kortov, is slightly less than 5 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 9.5 cc. according to Chazon Ish.
|
| 51. |
Because such a small amount is of little value.
On the basis of the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 11:4), the Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that even the slightest amount of pure grain should also be brought to a priest if there was a definite obligation to tithe. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh acknowledge the validity of Ra'avad's questions, but offer possible resolutions for the Rambam's approach.
|
| 52. |
He must, however, separate it. Otherwise, it is forbidden to benefit from the tithes.
|
| 53. |
For even a small amount of these substances is of value for a priest (Radbaz).
|
| 54. |
If it was not ritually pure, it would be of little benefit to the priest, for he could use it only as fuel. Hence we do not require that it be brought to him.
|
| 55. |
Produce from which we are uncertain whether the tithes had been separated and hence, require that the tithes be separated again. Since the tithes are being separated merely as a safeguard and thus it is possible that there is no Scriptural obligation from this crop, we do not trouble him to bring a priest a very small amount.
|
| 56. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9). Note the contrast to terumat ma'aser as stated in Halachah 20.
|
| 57. |
We have chosen this translation for bayit based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh to Halachah 18 where he explains that when one grain heap is in a room and another in the loft of the same building, they are considered as being in the same place. This interpretation enables us to understand an otherwise difficult passage in the Tosefta, Terumot 3:9.
|
| 58. |
Everything that is in the same room is considered as being in the same location even if the two piles of produce are not touching each other (Radbaz; see the following halachah).
|
| 59. |
The Siftei Cohen 331:49 explains the rationale for the above restriction and why it is not binding after the fact. As mentioned above, according to Rabbinic Law, one must separate between one fortieth and one sixtieth of the crop as terumah and that separation must be made by estimation. Hence, in order to make an appropriate estimation, one must be in the same place as the produce. Nevertheless, since according to Scriptural Law, one fulfills his obligation with even one grain, after the fact, such a separation is not disqualified.
|
| 60. |
And thus try to receive something of value for the wine and/or oil that will be spilled.
|
| 61. |
Since the jugs are breaking, we considered them as having been broken already and the produce as having been spilled. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:25) states that in the present age, when terumah is destroyed regardless because of its impurity, even when the jugs are breaking, the separation is effective.
|
| 62. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9). Note the contrast to terumat ma'aser as stated in Halachah 20.
|
| 63. |
Since they are in the same room, they are considered as being in the same place.
|
| 64. |
It is considered as if they were all mixed together [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 3:12)].
|
| 65. |
Each closed jug is considered as a separate entity, even though they are all in the same room.
|
| 66. |
For the entire garden is considered as a single entity.
|
| 67. |
Since there are other species between them, they are not considered as of the same group.
|
| 68. |
The fact that they are in the same granary causes them to be considered as a single entity.
|
| 69. |
I.e., provided he has not begun removing produce from the granary.
|
| 70. |
The Rambam is not quoting the verse as it appears in the Torah.
|
| 71. |
The Siftei Cohen 331:48 describes this as the most choice way of observing the mitzvah. The Radbaz emphasizes that this is a stringency that Torah scholars have accepted upon themselves and, according to the Rambam, is not even a Rabbinic obligation. The Ra'avad explains that an Israelite need not separate terumat ma'aser from produce that is in one place, but a Levite must. The Kessef Mishneh does not accept that position and quotes sources in support of the Rambam's view.
|
| 72. |
And it is as if terumat ma'aser has never been separated for the produce for which he intended that it serve that purpose.
|
| 73. |
I.e., terumat ma'aser has not yet been separated.
|
| 74. |
I.e., terumah has never been separated from them. See Chapter 5, Halachah 12.
|
| 75. |
I.e., the tithes have never been separated from them. See Hilchot Ma'aser 1:7.
|
| 76. |
The first fruits.
|
| 77. |
I.e., either one or the other. For in the year the second tithe is separated, the tithe for the poor is not separated.
|
| 78. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 154) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 72) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 79. |
"Your fullness offering" refers to bikkurim for they are separated when the produce becomes full. "Your priestly heave-offering" refers to terumah. Thus the bikkurim precede terumah. See alsoTerumot 3:6-7.
|
| 80. |
Temurah 4b explains that this prohibition is considered as correctable by the fulfillment of a positive commandment, for one may make separations in the proper order. See the gloss of Radbaz.
|
| 81. |
I.e., three hundredths of his crop. An average donation of terumah is one fifitieth, two hundredths. And terumat ma'aser is one tenth of the first tithe, another hundredth. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:2).
|
| 82. |
This refers to the portion that will be separated as terumat ma'aser. Initially, it is to remain as ordinary produce, so that the prohibition against making the separations in improper sequence is not violated. See Ra'avad.
|
| 83. |
I.e., including that which was separated as terumah.
|
| 84. |
In this way, he will have separated terumah, the tithes, and terumat ma'aser in proper sequence.
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Six, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Seven, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Eight
• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download
• Shabbat - Chapter Six
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Six, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Seven, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Eight
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Shabbat - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
It is forbidden for us to tell1 a gentile to perform work on the Sabbath on our behalf, although they are not commanded [to observe] the Sabbath.2 [This applies] even when the instructions were conveyed to them before the Sabbath and we do not require [the products of] their work until after the Sabbath.
The above is forbidden as a Rabbinical prohibition to prevent the people from regarding the Sabbath lightly, lest they perform [forbidden] labor themselves.3
Halacha 2
[The following rules4 apply] when a gentile performs a [forbidden] labor on the Sabbath on his own accord:5 If he performed it on behalf of a Jew, it is forbidden to benefit from that labor6 until one waits the amount of time necessary to perform the labor on Saturday night.7
[The latter leniency is granted] provided the matter is not public notice - i.e., everyone knows that a particular task is being performed for a person on the Sabbath.8
If [the gentile] performed [the labor] for his own sake alone,9 it is permitted to benefit from it on the Sabbath.
Halacha 3
What is implied? If a gentile kindled a candle [for his own benefit], a Jew is also permitted to perform activity by its light.10 If [the gentile] kindled the light on behalf of the Jew, it is forbidden.11
Similarly, if a gentile made a ramp to descend from a ship [himself], a Jew may descend after him.12 If he made it for the Jew, it is forbidden.13 If he filled a trench with water to allow his animal to drink, a Jew may have his own animal drink afterwards. If he did so for the sake of the Jew, it is forbidden.14
If a [gentile] gathered grass to feed his animal, a Jew may bring his animal to eat from it15 provided that the gentile does not know this Jew. [If he does, it is forbidden,16] lest he bring more on his behalf at which point he would be performing a [forbidden] labor on behalf of a Jew. Similarly, whenever there is a possibility that the gentile will add more [on a Jew's behalf], [a Jew] should not benefit unless [the gentile] does not know [the Jew].17
Halacha 4
In contrast, when a matter concerns a situation where there is no concept of increasing or decreasing [one's efforts for the sake of the Jew] - e.g., a light or a ramp18 - since [the gentile] performed these activities for his own sake, a Jew may benefit from them afterwards on the Sabbath, even when [the gentile] knows him.
[The following laws apply when] a lamp is kindled at a gathering [of Jews and gentiles] on the Sabbath: If most of the people in attendance are Jewish, it is forbidden to benefit from the light, since the one who kindles it does so for the sake of the majority.19 If the majority are gentiles, it is permitted to benefit from the light. If the proportions are equal, it is forbidden.20.
Halacha 5
[The following principles apply when] gentiles make a coffin, dig a grave, or bring flutes to play mourning dirges on behalf of a deceased person:
If this was done discreetly, one must wait until that activity could have been carried out on Saturday night, and then the person may be buried using the above. If, however, the grave was located in a public square, the coffin was placed upon it, and all those who pass by say, "This activity that the gentiles are performing on the Sabbath is for the sake of so and so," that Jew may never be buried using the above, for this is a matter of public knowledge.24
Another Jew, however, may be buried using the above, provided that the people wait the amount of time necessary for these activities to have been performed [after the Sabbath has concluded].25 The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] a gentile brings flutes on the Sabbath to mourn a deceased person: Even though he brought them from just outside the wall,26 we are required to wait the time it takes to bring them from a close place27 after the Sabbath has concluded, and afterwards we may mourn with them.28 [This restriction stems from our suspicion] that he brought them from another place at night, and then entered with them in the morning.
If one is certain that they were brought from another place on the Sabbath, one should wait [the amount of time] until it was possible to bring them from that place after [the conclusion of] the Sabbath.29 [The above leniencies apply] only when [the flutes were not brought] in a public square, as mentioned above.
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply with regard to] a city inhabited by both Jews and gentiles that possesses a bathhouse that is open on the Sabbath: If the majority [of the bathers30] are gentiles, it is permitted to bathe in it on Saturday night immediately [after the conclusion of the Sabbath].
If the majority of the bathers are Jewish, one must wait [the time it takes] for the water to heat.31 [The rationale is that] the water was heated for the majority of [the city's bathers]. If [the numbers of Jews and gentiles are] equal, one must wait [the time it takes] for the water to heat.32 The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 8
A Jew who instructs a gentile to perform a [forbidden] labor on his behalf on the Sabbath commits a transgression and should be given stripes for rebellion33 [as punishment]. Nevertheless, he is permitted to benefit from the labor on Saturday night after waiting the time it takes for the labor to have been performed.34
The following is the sole reason35 for which [the Sages] forbade using [the products of forbidden labor] until the time to perform the labor passes on Saturday night: If one permitted the use of [the products of forbidden labor] immediately [on Saturday night], a person might tell a gentile to perform a [forbidden] labor on his behalf, so that [after the conclusion of the Sabbath], it will be immediately available for him. Since, however, [the products of forbidden labor] are forbidden until the time it takes for the labor to have been performed passes, he will not instruct a gentile to perform this task. It does not bring him any benefit at all, for on Saturday evening he must wait the time it takes for the labor to have been performed on the Sabbath.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
What is implied? On the Sabbath, a Jew may instruct a gentile to climb a tree or to swim across water to bring him a shofar or a knife for circumcision. Similarly, [one may instruct a gentile] to bring hot water from one courtyard to another to wash a child or a person experiencing difficulty,40 although an eruvwas not made to join them.41 The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 11
When a person buys a house in Eretz Yisrael from a gentile,42 he is permitted to tell the gentile to compose a deed of sale on the Sabbath.43 Giving the gentile instructions [to perform a forbidden labor on the Sabbath] is a Rabbinic prohibition, and because [of the importance] of settling Eretz Yisrael44the Sages did not enforce their decree in this instance.
Similarly, the above principles apply when one purchases a house from [a gentile] in Syria, for Syria is equivalent to Eretz Yisrael in this regard.45
Halacha 12
When a person contracts a gentile for a task and sets the price, the gentile [is considered] as acting in his own interests.46 [Therefore,] even if he performs the task on the Sabbath, it is permitted.47 Similarly, it is permissible to hire a gentile for a prolonged period, although he performs [forbidden] labor on the Sabbath.48
What is implied? When a person hires a gentile for a year or two as a scribe or as a weaver,49 it is permissible for the gentile to write or weave on the Sabbath. It is as though he contracted him to write a scroll or weave a garment, [in which case, he may] perform the task whenever he desires. [This leniency is granted] provided he does not pay him on a day to day basis.50
Halacha 13
When does the above51 apply? When the matter is discreet, and everyone52is not aware that the [forbidden] labor being performed on the Sabbath is for the sake of a Jew. If, however, it53 is a matter that is well known, open, and of public knowledge,54 it is forbidden [for a gentile to perform such work]. A person who sees the gentile working does not know that he has been hired on a contractual55 basis and will say that so and so56 hired a gentile to work for him on the Sabbath.
Halacha 14
Therefore, [the following rules apply when] a person hires a gentile to build a courtyard or a wall or to harvest his field, or [hires him to work] at building his courtyard or planting a vineyard for him for a year or two:
If the project is located in a city57 or within its Sabbath limits, it is forbidden for the Jew to allow them to work on the Sabbath,58 because of [the impression this might create in the mind of] an observer who is unaware that they were hired on a contractual basis. If the project is located beyond the Sabbath limits, it is permitted, for there are no Jews who will see the laborers at work on the Sabbath.
Halacha 15
Similarly, it is permitted for a Jew to hire out his vineyard or his field to a gentile, although the latter will sow and plant them on the Sabbath, since an observer will know that they have been hired out or given [to the gentile] under a sharecropping agreement.59
[In contrast,] when an enterprise60 is known by the name of its Jewish owner and is not of the type that is hired out or contracted out under a profit sharing agreement by most people in that city, it is forbidden to be hired out to a gentile.61 The gentile will perform work in the establishment on the Sabbath, and [in the public's mind, the establishment] will be associated with the name of its Jewish owner.62
Halacha 16
It is permitted to lend63 and hire out64 utensils to a gentile although he will perform [forbidden] labors with them on the Sabbath,65 for we are not obligated to have our utensils rest [on the Sabbath].66 It is, however, forbidden to [lend or hire out] one's servant or livestock67 [to work on the Sabbath], for we are commanded that they rest.68
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply when a Jew] enters into a partnership with a gentile concerning labor, merchandise, or the operation of a storefront:69 If such a stipulation was made at the outset,70 it is permissible71 for the profits from the Sabbath - whether large or small - to be designated for the gentile alone, and the profits of another day to be given to the Jew alone in exchange.72
If, however, such conditions were not made at the outset, when [the two] come to divide the profits, the gentile should take all the profits of the Sabbath for himself alone, and then the remainder should be divided [equally].73 The [gentile] need not give [the Jew] anything extra for the Sabbath unless a stipulation to that effect was made at the outset.74 The same principles apply if [a Jew and a gentile] hired a field under a partnership arrangement.75
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
A Jew should not give utensils to a gentile artisan to fashion81 on Friday, despite the fact that he has established a set price,82 unless there is time for him to remove them from [the Jew's] home before nightfall.83
Similarly, a person should not sell, lend, pawn, or give a present of his possessions to a gentile unless [the gentile] can leave the entrance of [the Jew's] house with that article before the Sabbath. As long as [the gentile] is in [the Jew's] house, no one knows when he gave it to him. Thus, should the gentile leave [the Jew's] house on the Sabbath with [the Jew's] possessions in his hand, it would appear that the object was lent, pawned, agreed to be worked on, or sold on the Sabbath.84
Halacha 20
[The following rules apply when] a person gives a gentile a letter to bring to another city. If he fixed a fee for conveying [the letter], it is permitted [even if the gentile conveys it on the Sabbath].85 [This leniency applies] even when [the Jew] gives [the letter] to [the gentile] on Friday at nightfall, provided [the gentile] leaves [the Jew's] home before the commencement of the Sabbath.
When a fee was not fixed [beforehand, the following rules apply]: If there is a designated person in the city86 who collects letters and sends them to other cities with his agents,87 it is permitted to give a gentile the letter,88 provided there is time [on Friday] for the letter to reach a house adjacent to [the city's] wall before [the commencement of] the Sabbath, lest the home of the gentile who collects and sends letters be located there.89
If there is no person designated to fulfill this function and the gentile to whom one gives the letter is the one who brings it to the other city, it is always forbidden to send a letter with a gentile90 unless one establishes a fixed price [beforehand].
Halacha 21
It is permissible for a gentile carrying his possessions to bring them into the Jew's house on the Sabbath.91 It is even permissible for [the Jew] to tell [the gentile], "Place them in this corner."92
One may invite a gentile to visit on the Sabbath and serve food93 for him to eat.94 If he took the food outside [the Jew's] home, there is no difficulty, for one is not obligated to see that he observes the Sabbath.95
Similarly, one may serve food to a dog in one's courtyard. If he takes it outside, there is no difficulty.
Halacha 22
When a person is carrying money while traveling on a journey and the Sabbath commences, he should give his wallet to a gentile to carry for him. On Saturday night, he may take it back from him. This is permitted even though he did not pay the gentile for his services96 and even though he gave it to him after nightfall.97
These leniencies are granted because a person becomes distraught over his money and cannot bear to discard it. If we do not allow him [to have a gentile carry it for him] - a matter forbidden merely by Rabbinic decree - we fear that he will come to carry it himself98and thus transgress one of the Torah's prohibitions.99
Halacha 23
[The following rules apply when] a Jew performs a [forbidden] labor on the Sabbath: If he willingly transgressed, it is forbidden for him to benefit from this labor forever.102 Other Jews103 may, however, benefit from this labor immediately after the conclusion of the Sabbath,104 as [can be inferred fromExodus 31:14]: "And you shall observe the Sabbath, for it is holy." [Our Sages105 commented,] "It is holy, but the fruits of labor performed on it are not holy."106
What is implied? When a Jew cooks [food] on the Sabbath in willful violation [of the Sabbath laws], other Jews may partake of it Saturday night. He, however, is forbidden to partake of it forever. If he cooked it without knowing of the prohibition he was violating, both he107 and others may eat it immediately after the conclusion of the Sabbath.108 The same principles apply in other similar situations.
Halacha 24
When produce was taken outside a city's Sabbath limits and then brought back without the knowledge of the prohibition involved, one may partake of it on the Sabbath, since nothing was done to the fruits themselves, and their state did not change. If they were brought back in willful violation of the prohibition involved,109 one may not partake of them until after the conclusion of the Sabbath.110
Halacha 25
When a person hires a worker to watch a cow or a baby, he should not pay him a wage for the Sabbath day.111 Therefore, [the worker] is not responsible for what happens on the Sabbath.112If a worker was hired on a weekly or annual basis, he is given full payment.113 Therefore, [the worker] is responsible for what happens on the Sabbath. [In the latter instance,] the worker should not say, "Pay me for the Sabbath," but rather, "Pay me for the year," or "Pay me for the ten days."114
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:5-6), which states that it is forbidden even to hint to a gentile that one desires that he perform a forbidden labor on one's behalf. This ruling is accepted by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 307:22). Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 307:7 and the Mishnah Berurah 307:76 allow one to make an indirect hint in certain situations.
|
| 2. |
On the contrary, a gentile who observes the Sabbath is liable for death (Sanhedrin 58b, Hilchot Melachim 10:9).
|
| 3. |
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:1-2) mention another reason for the prohibition against conveying such instructions on the Sabbath itself, so that one should not talk about mundane matters on the Sabbath.
[On the basis of this rationale, we can understand the lenient opinions mentioned in note 1. Since the prohibition against instructing a gentile to perform work stems from the prohibition against speaking of mundane matters, there is room for leniency if the instruction is conveyed without speech.]
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 243:1 also mentions an opinion that maintains that a gentile performing a labor on behalf of a Jew on the Sabbath is considered as the Jews's agent. Hence, the Jew is held responsible for the work.
|
| 4. |
Examples of the principles mentioned in this halachah are given in Halachot 3-8.
|
| 5. |
I.e., even without receiving specific instructions from a Jew.
|
| 6. |
The entire Jewish people, not only the person for whom the forbidden labor was performed, are prohibited from benefiting from it (Maggid Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch 325:10).
|
| 7. |
See Halachah 8.
|
| 8. |
The Rambam's mention of this principle is significant. In the interpretation of Shabbat 24:3 - the Mishnah that serves as the basis for Halachah 8 - there are authorities (e.g., Rabbenu Nissim) who explain that the prohibition against benefiting from forbidden labors performed by a gentile in public on the Sabbath applies only in the specific context mentioned in that Mishnah: a grave, coffin, or flutes for mourning a deceased person.
A prohibition was instituted in these instances alone, for it is improper that a person's final resting be associated with the performance of labor on the Sabbath. In contrast, when a Sabbath prohibition is performed on behalf of a living person, one may benefit from it after the Sabbath.
From the Rambam's statements in this halachah, it is obvious that he does not allow such leniency. Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 325:21 and the Mishnah Berurah 325:73, which explain that if the situation requires it, Rabbenu Nissim's opinion can be relied on.
|
| 9. |
With this addition, the Rambam implies that if the gentile performs the forbidden labor for his own sake and with the intention that it also benefit a Jew, it is forbidden. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 276:2.)
|
| 10. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:1) states that one may also benefit from a lamp kindled by a gentile on behalf of a person who is ill.
|
| 11. |
The Ramah (loc. cit.) states that if a gentile lights a lamp or a fire in a Jew's house on his own accord, the Jew is not required to leave his home. Although he should try not to benefit from the light, the fact that he receives benefit against his will is not of significance.
|
| 12. |
Shabbat 122a gives a classic example of this halachah. Rabban Gamliel and several other Sages descended from a ship on a ramp made by a gentile on the Sabbath.
|
| 13. |
Note the contrast between this pair of examples and the following pair, as explained in the following halachah.
|
| 14. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 325:10) states that this prohibition applies only when one is drawing from a well in a private domain into the public domain, for this involves the transgression of a Torah prohibition. More leniency is allowed when water is drawn from a well in a private domain to a carmelit, for then merely a Rabbinic prohibition is involved. In such an instance, anyone other than the person for whom the water was drawn may benefit from it.
The Ramah (loc. cit.) mentions a more lenient perspective, which states that whenever it is possible for a Jew to accomplish an objective without performing a forbidden labor, he may benefit from a forbidden labor that a gentile performed for the Jew's sake, which made the objective easier to accomplish. For example, since a Jew could have descended to a well to drink water, he is allowed to drink water that a gentile brought from the well for him.
|
| 15. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 325:11) explain that one may not give this grass to the animal or even lead him directly toward it, because the grass is muktzeh.
|
| 16. |
Not only for him, but for other Jews as well (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:10).
|
| 17. |
For then we may be certain that the gentile did not make an increase for the Jew's sake.
|
| 18. |
Once a lamp is lit or a ramp is laid down, many people can benefit from it. No additional effort is required on their behalf.
|
| 19. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 276:2) state that, even in such circumstances, if the gentile uses the light for the performance of a specific activity, it is clear that he kindled it for his own purposes. Hence, it is permitted for other Jews to benefit from it afterwards.
|
| 20. |
The commentaries use this situation to exemplify the following principle: It is prohibited to benefit from the performance of a forbidden labor when it was performed for the sake of both a gentile and a Jew. (Note the Rambam's use of the expression "for his own sake alone" in Halachah 2).
Other commentaries (see Rashi, Shabbat 122a) offer different explanations for this ruling.
|
| 21. |
Although the situation may arouse fear, we are still forbidden to instruct a gentile specifically to perform a forbidden labor.
|
| 22. |
Furthermore, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 7, one may say, "The person who extinguishes the fire will not suffer a loss," encouraging the gentile to do so.
From this law, Tosafot (Shabbat 122a) explains that a Jew is not obligated to prevent a gentile from carrying out a forbidden activity that benefits the Jew's property, if the gentile does so on his own initiative. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 325:13) accepts this principle, provided that the gentile does not do this on a continuous basis.
|
| 23. |
With this expression, the Rambam (quoting Shabbat 16:6) contrasts a gentile with one's children - even minors - and one's servants - even gentiles - for whom one is responsible that they rest on the Sabbath, as mentioned in Exodus 20:10.
|
| 24. |
Even though a Jew did not instruct a gentile to perform any of these activities, since they were performed on behalf of a Jew in public, they may never be used on his behalf.
|
| 25. |
The Ra'avad objects to requiring one to wait when the product of the gentile's efforts is to be used for the sake of an individual other than the one for which they were originally intended. He explains that in Halachah 8, the Rambam states that this requirement was instituted, lest the person who benefits from the gentile's efforts instruct him to perform a forbidden labor. Needless to say, this does not apply in the situation under discussion, a burial.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 325:14) follows the Rambam's ruling. Although the rationale suggested by the Ra'avad is justifiable in this instance, the Rabbis did not accept it, in order to maintain a uniform policy regarding forbidden labor performed by a gentile on the Sabbath.
|
| 26. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 23:4), the Rambam explains that if the flutes were brought from outside the city, they were brought from a public domain to a private domain. Hence, a transgression was involved, and it is necessary to wait for the time to pass that it would take to bring them after the conclusion of the Sabbath. We must, however, wait longer than the minimal amount of time it takes to bring them from outside the wall inside the wall, because of the suspicion mentioned by the Rambam. See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 2:10.
Significantly, Rashi (Shabbat 151a) and others interpret this Mishnah as relating to the prohibition against bringing objects from beyond the Sabbath boundary. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 325:15-16) mentions both of these views.
|
| 27. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 325:22 and the Mishnah Berurah 325:76 explain this as referring to the Sabbath boundary - i.e., 2000 cubits.
|
| 28. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:15) emphasizes that a more lenient ruling is given if the gentile did not bring the flutes through the public domain, and traveled via a carmelit instead. Since the gentile violated a Rabbinic prohibition and not a prohibition of the Torah itself, the flutes are permitted to be used immediately on Saturday night.
|
| 29. |
This can lead to both a more lenient and a more stringent ruling. If the place was within the Sabbath limits, one is required to wait less time. If the place is beyond the Sabbath limits, one is required to wait longer (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 325:22 and the Mishnah Berurah 325:77).
|
| 30. |
This addition was made on the basis of the Mishnah Berurah 326:38, which explains that the ruling depends, not on the proportion of the population of the city at large, but on that of the bathers. Since they are the ones who use the bath, the bath is considered as being heated for them.
|
| 31. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:5-6, the source for his halachah), the Rambam expounds on the principle stated in the following halachah to explain why it is necessary to wait until the water could have heated.
|
| 32. |
In this instance, it is considered as if the baths were heated for the sake of both the Jews and the gentiles, as explained in the notes to Halachah 4.
|
| 33. |
The punishment given for the violation of Rabbinic prohibitions.
|
| 34. |
Although Rabbenu Yerucham forbids ever benefiting from such work, the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 307:20) accepts the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 35. |
This appears to differ from Rashi's interpretation (Beitzah 24b), which explains (with regard to the festivals) that the reason that one is required to wait until the time it takes to perform the forbidden labor after the festival passes is "so that one will not benefit from a [forbidden] labor performed on a festival." Seemingly, he would accept the same rationale with regard to the Sabbath.
|
| 36. |
The Rambam derives this principle from Eruvin 67b, which mentions that one is permitted to instruct a gentile to bring hot water to wash a child after circumcision, provided he does not have to pass through the public domain. The Rambam maintains that one can extrapolate from this instance to other similar cases. Although Tosafot, Gittin 8b, differs, the Rambam's opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Orach (Orach Chayim 307:5) as well as the later Ashkenazic authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 307:12, Mishnah Berurah 307:23).
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 276:2) states that there are authorities who allow one to instruct a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on the Sabbath so that a mitzvah can be performed. Although he does not accept this opinion, he allows for leniency in circumstances of great necessity.
|
| 37. |
In Chapter 21, Halachah 1, the Rambam defines sh'vut as an activity forbidden by the Sages because it resembles a forbidden labor or because it might lead to the performance of a forbidden labor.
The rationale behind this leniency is the principle that a Rabbinic prohibition is not instituted to support another Rabbinic prohibition. Since the activity in question is merely a Rabbinic prohibition, and the prohibition against instructing a gentile to perform a forbidden activity on the Sabbath is Rabbinic in origin, the two Rabbinic prohibitions should not be associated.
|
| 38. |
In contrast to the situations mentioned in Chapter 2, here the Rambam is not speaking of a situation where the person is dangerously ill or even when there is a danger threatening one of the limbs of his body. Instead, the intent is situations that involve minor discomfort. Although a Jew himself is forbidden to perform certain activities that would relieve this uneasiness, a gentile is allowed to do so.
|
| 39. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit., cites as an example of this principle, merchandise that would spoil if left in the rain. [See the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:19) and commentaries.]
4 0. See Hilchot Milah 2:9. Significantly, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 331:7 and the Mishnah Berurah331:22 rely on the leniency mentioned by the Ramah cited in note 36 in this instance. Since the circumcision itself involves carrying out a forbidden labor on the Sabbath, other labors that are necessary for the mitzvah to be performed may be carried out by a gentile even when instructed by a Jew.
|
| 40. |
As stated above, Eruvin 67b mentions this instance with regard to circumcision. As explained above, the Rambam extends the leniency beyond the specific instance and applies it to other similar circumstances.
|
| 41. |
Carrying in courtyards with an eruv is discussed in Chapters 16 and 17.
|
| 42. |
The Magen Avraham 306:19-20 cites other authorities who state that a Jew should not complete the sale on the Sabbath. Even according to the Rambam, it appears that one is forbidden to give the gentile money on the Sabbath.
|
| 43. |
From the fact that this law is cited in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 306:11), it is clear that it applies in the present era as well.
|
| 44. |
In contrast to the Ramban, the Rambam does not consider the settlement of Eretz Yisrael as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There is, however, no question of the great importance he attaches to this activity. (See Hilchot Melachim, 5:9-12. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:3-4.)
|
| 45. |
In Hilchot Terumah 1:2-3, the Rambam defines Syria as the lands outside Eretz Yisraelconquered by King David. Generally, lands conquered by the entire Jewish people are included in Eretz Yisrael. In this instance, however, although David was a king and his wars were approved by the Sanhedrin, these lands did not become part of Eretz Yisrael, because he had not completed the conquest of all the lands of the Canaanite nations at that time. Nevertheless, because of the communal nature of his conquest, the Rabbis ordained that certain of the laws applicable within Eretz Yisrael should also apply there. Compare also to Hilchot Avodat Kochavim10:3.
|
| 46. |
Since the gentile contractor has established a set price for his work, it does not matter when he performs the labor involved. Accordingly, he is considered as working for himself and not on behalf of the Jew.
The Rashba emphasizes that this leniency applies only when the gentile performs the task in question on his own premises. If he does so on premises belonging to a Jew, it is forbidden for him to work on the Sabbath even when the price is set beforehand. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 244:5, 252:2) quotes the Rashba's view.
|
| 47. |
The Jew may not, however, explicitly tell the gentile to perform a forbidden labor on the Sabbath even if he is hired on a contractual basis (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit. 252:2).
|
| 48. |
The Rambam's decision is based on Mo'ed Katan 12a, which mentions a person hired on a weekly, monthly, or yearly basis - i.e., rather than receive a wage on an hourly basis, he is contracted to perform a particular task which his employer will present him from time to time.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this issue, maintaining that although a person who is hired on a weekly basis is not required to work on the Sabbath, the Jew receives a direct benefit from the fact that he does. Therefore, this is forbidden.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 244:5) accepts the Rambam's view. The Turei Zahav 244:5 emphasizes, however, that this ruling may be accepted only when the employer does not mind if the gentile does not work at any specific time. If he requires him to work a set number of hours, this is not acceptable.
(To explain the concept in contemporary terms: An employee who receives a weekly salary for a specific time commitment is not covered by this leniency. In contrast, an outside professional who is hired on a retainer basis is, for he is not bound by a time commitment to the employer.)
The Noda BiY'hudah (Orach Chayim, Vol. II, Responsum 38) explains the difference between the Rambam's and the Ra'avad's view as follows: In the case of a contractor, the gentile is the one who benefits from his working on the Sabbath. Although he is not obligated to work then, by doing so he earns a fee that he would not have received otherwise.
In contrast, when an employee is paid on a retainer basis, he receives no benefit from working on the Sabbath, for he receives the same wage regardless. Therefore, the Ra'avad considers this to be forbidden. The Rambam, however, permits this, since the employer receives no additional profit from the task being completed on the Sabbath. Were it not to be completed then, it would have been completed on the following day.
|
| 49. |
The Ramah (loc. cit.) emphasizes that if the gentile is hired as a jack of all trades, it is forbidden for him to work on the Sabbath. In such an instance, the Jew has a distinct benefit from his working on the Sabbath, since there will surely be other work for him to do on the following day.
|
| 50. |
In such an instance, the wage the gentile receives for the work performed on the Sabbath is distinct. Hence, it is forbidden.
|
| 51. |
This restriction applies both to the leniency allowing a gentile to work as a contractor and to that which allows him to work on a retainer basis.
|
| 52. |
The Magen Avraham 244:2 states that this wording implies that if several individuals know that the task is being performed for the sake of a Jew, but the matter is not public knowledge, there is no prohibition involved.
|
| 53. |
It is of no importance to us whether people see the work being performed or not. What is significant is that they know that this work is being performed for the sake of a Jew (Rabbenu Yerucham).
|
| 54. |
"Public knowledge" refers to matters known within the Jewish community. As reflected by the following halachah, if the matter is known to gentiles but not to Jews, there is no difficulty.
|
| 55. |
See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 7:25, which states "People at large do not know the difference between a contractor and a hired worker. Hence, it is forbidden."
Note also the Be'ur Halachah 244, which questions whether a gentile is permitted to perform work on behalf of a Jew if it is common custom for these tasks to be performed by a contractor. In such a situation, it is unlikely that an observer would assume that the gentile was hired to work on a daily basis. Neverthess, as mentioned in the Mishnah Berurah 244:7, the Noda BiY'hudah(Orach Chayim, Vol. I, Responsum 12), and Shulchan Aruch HaRav 244:8, the common custom is to allow such work to be performed.
|
| 56. |
From the wording the Rambam uses, one might infer that this restriction applies to a private individual. In contrast, if a community at large employs a gentile, it can be assumed that they hired him in a permitted manner. On this basis, there are opinions which allow a gentile contractor to perform services for the community on the Sabbath (Magen Avraham 244:8).
|
| 57. |
I.e., either the city in which the Jew contracting the gentile lives or another city populated by Jews.
|
| 58. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 244:3), which states that if a gentile builds a house for a Jew on the Sabbath, it is proper not to enter it.
|
| 59. |
Since these arrangements are commonplace, an observer will not think that the gentile was employed as a hired worker.
|
| 60. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 243:1) gives as examples a bathhouse or an oven. As explained in the following note, the inclusion of an enterprise in this category is dependent on the business practices common in that locale.
|
| 61. |
I.e., since the gentile will operate the enterprise on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to rent him the enterprise even on an annual or monthly basis.
As the Rambam mentions in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 1:8, the source for this halachah), the determination of which enterprises are included in this category is dependent on the local business practices. If it is commonplace for an enterprise to be rented out on an annual or monthly basis, an onlooker will not suppose that the gentile operating the enterprise is working for the Jew as a hired hand. (See also Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:2.)
|
| 62. |
Similarly, if it is publicized throughout the community that the enterprise has been hired to the gentile, there is no prohibition. (See Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit..)
|
| 63. |
One may not, however, lend a utensil to a gentile on the Sabbath itself. Similarly, when a utensil is lent on Friday, the gentile must have time to bring it out of the Jew's premises before the commencement of the Sabbath [Halachah 19, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 246:2)].
|
| 64. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:1) states that if a Jew receives payment for the Sabbath day, he must arrange to be paid on a weekly or monthly basis. It is forbidden to receive payment for the Sabbath as a distinct entity.
|
| 65. |
The Ra'avad, based on his interpretation of Shabbat 19a, states that it is forbidden to rent an article to a gentile on Friday, since it will appear that one is receiving a wage for the Sabbath. TheMaggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's decision, explaining that according to the Rambam, the passage the Ra'avad cites follows the opinion of the School of Shammai, which is not accepted as halachah.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 246:1) mentions both opinions, and the Ramah states that it is customary to follow the Ra'avad's ruling.
|
| 66. |
Note the application of this principle in the first halachot of Chapter 3.
|
| 67. |
See Chapter 20, Halachah 1, which includes fowl, fish, and all other living beings in this prohibition.
|
| 68. |
Exodus 20:10 states "You shall not perform any labor, neither you, your son, your daughter, your servant, your maid-servant, or your beast." See also Exodus 23:12 and other sources. The nature of this p rohibition is discussed in Chapter 20.
|
| 69. |
In such a situation, although the Jew does not work on the Sabbath, if he benefited from his gentile partner's activity, the latter would be considered to be acting as his agent unless they make a stipulation clarifying the matter at the outset.
|
| 70. |
"At the outset" means when the partnership was originally established. If such an agreement was not made at that time, and the Jew made such an offer to the gentile afterwards, there are difficulties, for it appears that the Jew is paying the gentile for working on the Sabbath by working one day in the middle of the week.
|
| 71. |
This leniency is not granted merely after the fact. On the contrary, it is a perfectly acceptable course of action according to Jewish law (Ba'er Heteiv 245:1).
|
| 72. |
Rabbenu Nissim emphasizes that the need for such a stipulation applies only in situations where one of the partners works one day and the other another day. If during the week both work together, the fact that the gentile works on the Sabbath does not cause the profits of that day to be forbidden for the Jew. The gentile knows that the Jew will not work on the Sabbath, nor will he work any more during the week. Therefore, the activity the gentile is performing is motivated by his own benefit. The fact that he gives a share to the Jew as well is of no consequence. The Ramah accepts this ruling (Orach Chayim 245:1).
|
| 73. |
Avodah Zarah 22a does not make a final ruling in this situation, and the Rambam follows the more stringent position. (Note a similar ruling, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 10:14.)
In contrast, Rabbenu Asher states that in such a situation, if the gentile willingly gives the Jew a share of the Sabbath profits, the Jew is allowed to keep it. The Ramah (loc. cit.) states that after the fact, one may rely on this ruling. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 245:2 rules more stringently and states that one may rely on Rabbenu Asher's opinion only in the case of a major loss.
|
| 74. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 245:3) describes the procedure to follow when a Jew and gentile partner did not make such an agreement at the beginning of the partnership, and the Jew desires to do so afterwards.
|
| 75. |
Significantly, the Magen Avraham 245:1 differentiates between a field that requires work seven days a week and certain business establishments that do not require active effort on the part of their owner. For example, partners may own an oven and rent it out to others.
In the first instance, when the gentile works on the Sabbath, he appears to be working as the agent of the Jew. In the latter instance, by contrast, since there is no work required on the Sabbath, the gentile partner appears to be acting in his own interest by renting the establishment to others. Therefore, the Jew is allowed to receive a share of the profits.
|
| 76. |
This expression implies a ruling made by the Rambam that is not based on a previous Rabbinic source.
|
| 77. |
Thus, retroactively the Jew renounces his portion in the gentile's activity. Hence, the gentile is no longer considered to be acting as his agent (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 245:6).
|
| 78. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 245:1) accepts the Rambam's ruling. As mentioned, in a case of severe loss, the Ramah allows leniency in accordance with the opinion of Rabbenu Asher mentioned in note 74.
|
| 79. |
In this instance, the Jew is not obligated to perform work at all. Hence, no one will say that the gentile is working as the Jew's agent (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:4). Furthermore, the gentile is not obligated to work on the Sabbath. Should he choose to do so, it is his own independent decision, which is not at all related to the Jew (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 245:16).
|
| 80. |
The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 245) cites a responsum of Rav Sherirah Gaon. (See alsoTeshuvat HaGeonim, Responsum 43.)
|
| 81. |
Or to fix, improve, or work on in any way.
|
| 82. |
Once a set price is established, there is no difficulty with the gentile's working on the utensil on the Sabbath. Since the same price would be paid whether the work is done on Saturday or another day, the gentile is considered to be working for himself if he decides to work on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, even though basis of the contractual arrangement is correct, this is forbidden, since the article was given to the gentile directly before the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 83. |
I.e., before the commencement of the Sabbath. Were the gentile to take the article from the Jew's home on the Sabbath, it would appear that he was working for him, as the Rambam states at the conclusion of this halachah.
|
| 84. |
As mentioned in Chapter 23, Halachah 12, these business transactions are forbidden on the Sabbath.
|
| 85. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 247:1) emphasizes that one may not specify that the gentile should convey the article on the Sabbath.
|
| 86. |
We have translated both the words and as "city," since in other sources (see Hilchot Megillah,Chapter 1) we find them both used by the Rambam with that meaning. (More particularly, refers to a small city, while to a large metropolis.)
The Kessef Mishneh, however, interprets as referring to a province, and thus explains the halachah as referring to an instance where the person charged with conveying the letter travels from his city to another place.
|
| 87. |
I.e., a post office. Since the post office charges fixed prices for its services, there is no difficulty in having it convey mail on the Sabbath. Accordingly, there is no difficulty at present in sending mail before the Sabbath. On the Sabbath itself, however, it is forbidden to send mail, even by means of the post office.
|
| 88. |
I.e., this gentile does not bring the letter to its destination, but merely brings it to the post office. Nevertheless, since a fee has not been established for his services in bringing the letter to the post office, there must be enough time for him to do so before the commencement of the Sabbath. Otherwise, it would appear that he is acting as the Jew's agent.
|
| 89. |
The Rambam is referring to an instance where the gentile bringing the letter to the post office does not know the location of the post office. Nevertheless, since there is a post office in the city, there is no difficulty if there is time to reach the farthest point in the city before the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 90. |
For the gentile will be performing work on the Jew's behalf on the Sabbath. This ruling is based on Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's interpretation of Shabbat 19a. Rashi and the Tur (Orach Chayim247) offer a different interpretation of that source, which allows one to send a letter with a gentile even when a fixed fee was not set, provided one sent it with him on Thursday or earlier.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 247:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Ramah follows that of the Tur.
|
| 91. |
Even though the gentile charges the Jew with watching his possessions, there is no prohibition (Maggid Mishneh). Similarly, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 307:22) mentions that a gentile may bring a Jew grain as payment for debts on the Sabbath.
|
| 92. |
Since this activity is being performed by the gentile for his own interests on his own volition, there is no prohibition against giving him instructions. A Jew may tell a gentile to perform labor for the gentile's own sake on the Sabbath (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 93. |
In contrast, this is forbidden on a festival. In the latter instance, the possibility exists that for the sake of the gentile one may add to the food that one is cooking. Although one is permitted to cook for the sake of Jews on a festival, one may not do so for the sake of a gentile. In contrast, no cooking whatsoever is permitted on the Sabbath. Hence, there is no need for concern (Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:13).
|
| 94. |
One may not, however, give a gentile food with the intent that he take it out. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 325:1 and commentaries.)
|
| 95. |
The Mechilta, Parashat Bo, Chapter 9, derives this from the verse, "Six days shall you perform your work, and on the seventh day you shall rest." The mitzvah of resting on the seventh day concerns only "your work," and not that of a gentile. 97. As the Rambam writes in Chapter 21, Halachah 36, on the Sabbath a person is allowed to provide food only for animals that are dependent on him for their sustenance. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 324:11 and commentaries which question whether this also applies to a stray dog or not.)
|
| 96. |
Were the gentile to be paid a fixed fee, there would be no difficulty, because he would be carrying the wallet to earn the fee and not on behalf of the Jew.
|
| 97. |
As mentioned in Halachot 19 and 20, a gentile must generally remove any objects he has been given to take from a Jew's domain before the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 98. |
From the Rambam's statements, it appears that it is preferable for a person to have a gentile carry his wallet for him than for him to carry it himself less than four cubits at time. This and other related matters are discussed in Chapter 20, Halachot 6-7, and commentary.
|
| 99. |
We find several instances where the Sages relaxed the prohibitions they imposed for fear that as a result a person would lose control, and ignore Torah law entirely. Similarly, in this instance, they felt it preferable to allow a person to instruct a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on his behalf - a Rabbinic prohibition, so that he would not come to carry the wallet himself in the public domain - a prohibition of the Torah.
On the basis of this principle. The Sefer HaTerumah offers a further leniency. A person who is pursued by gentiles may take his money and hide it. The Rashba and others do not, however, agree to this extension.
|
| 100. |
Since this is money that did not belong to him originally, the person is less concerned about it. Hence, the Sages granted less leniency.
|
| 101. |
Many other authorities do not allow the finder to carry the object discovered at all. The Rambam's view is discussed in the notes on Chapter 20, Halachah 7.
|
| 102. |
This is also a Rabbinic prohibition. (See Shabbat 38a and also Ketubot 34a, which mentions three different opinions of the Sages on this matter.) The Rambam follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, which is the intermediate view. The person may, however, benefit from the sale of the proceeds of such labor (Mishnah Berurah 218:4).
|
| 103. |
Even a person for whom this labor was performed may benefit from it. Although this is forbidden with regard to other prohibitions, in this instance the Sages did not feel that such a restriction was necessary. It is unlikely that one Jew would ask another to violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf, nor is likely that the person of whom such a request was made would agree (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 218:1, Mishnah Berurah 218:5).
|
| 104. |
When a gentile performs a forbidden labor on behalf of a Jew (Halachah 8) and when food is left to warm in a forbidden fashion (Chapter 3, Halachah 9), a Jew is forbidden to benefit from these activities until enough time passes on Saturday night for the activity to have been performed. Nevertheless, these restrictions are punitive in nature, instituted so that one would not perform either of these forbidden activities. In contrast, as mentioned in the previous note, we do not suspect that one Jew will transgress the Sabbath laws on behalf of another individual. Hence, these restrictions were not applied under these circumstances.
|
| 105. |
Ketubot 34a.
|
| 106. |
The Hebrew, translated as "holy," also means "consecrated." Consecrated articles may not be used for mundane purposes.
|
| 107. |
Since the transgression was not willfully performed, the person is not prohibited from benefiting from his act.
|
| 108. |
The fruits of the forbidden activity are forbidden until Saturday night, lest one willfully perform a transgression and seek license to benefit from his activity on the grounds that the transgression was performed inadvertently.
This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah (Shabbat 38a, Ketubot, loc. cit.). Tosafot, however, quotes the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who allows one to benefit on the Sabbath itself from a forbidden activity performed without a willful desire to transgress. The Mishnah Berurah 318:7 mentions opinions that allow one to rely on Tosafot's opinion in a situation of necessity. This leniency is not, however, accepted by all authorities.
In regard to deriving benefit from the performance of an activity on the Sabbath which was forbidden by the Sages, see also Chapter 23, Halachah 8.
|
| 109. |
If they were brought back by a gentile, a deaf mute, a mentally incapable person, or a child, they are permitted, for these individuals are not obligated to keep the Sabbath prohibitions.
|
| 110. |
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's opinion, noting that although there is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Mishnah about the matter (see Eruvin 41b), Rav Pappa, one of the later Sages of the Talmud, adopted a more lenient opinion, allowing one to benefit from the produce if it was brought to its original place, even if this was done willfully. Significantly, the Rambam also quotes Rav Pappa's opinion in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 5:10. The Maggid Mishneh, however, supports the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the laws of the Sabbath are more stringent than those of the festivals in this context. (See also the distinction between the Sabbath and holidays made by the Tzafenat Paneach.)
The Maggid Mishneh also mentions an opinion of the Rashba which is more stringent than both the Rambam and the Ra'avad.
|
| 111. |
When a worker is paid for serving as a watchman on a daily basis, he may not take a wage for watching on the Sabbath. Although watching a cow or a child is not a forbidden activity, it is forbidden to receive payment for the Sabbath as a separate and independent entity.
|
| 112. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 306:8, which states that although he does not have the responsibilities of a paid watchman on the Sabbath, he still has the responsibilities of an unpaid watchman.
|
| 113. |
I.e., the payment he receives can include recompense for the services rendered on the Sabbath, as long as the number of days he works is not considered individually, but rather he receives payment for a month's work as a lump sum.
|
| 114. |
I.e., he hires himself out for a ten day period. Each of these days may not be considered as an individual entity as above.
Alternatively, the Mishnah Berurah 306:18 explains that "Pay me for the ten days" can be interpreted as referring to a situation in which a worker accepted a monthly contract and left the job after working ten days. Since he worked on a monthly basis, he is entitled to payment for all ten days he worked, including the Sabbath. This, however, is a delicate manner, and the exact wording of the contract between an employer and employee should be checked with a Rabbinic authority to prevent any problems from arising in this regard.
It must be emphasized that the same principles also apply with regard to the rental of homes, or money lent at interest to a gentile. One may not receive payment for the Sabbath individually. Instead, one must receive payment on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis. Thus, problems may arise if interest is compounded daily and the Sabbath is included as one of the days. (SeeShulchan Aruch HaRav 306:9.)
|
Shabbat - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
With regard to the [forbidden] labors for which one is liable to be executed by stoning or to receive karet if one transgresses willingly, or for which one is obligated to bring a sin offering if one commits the transgression unknowingly, there are primary categories and [their] derivatives.
The sum of all the primary categories of [forbidden] labor are forty minus one. They include:
| 1) plowing,
2) sowing,
3) reaping,
4) collecting sheaves,
5) threshing,
6) winnowing,
7) separating,
8) grinding,
9) sifting,
10) kneading,
11) baking,
12) shearing,
13) whitening,
14) beating,
15) dyeing,
16) spinning,
17) making heddles,
18) mounting the warp,
19) weaving,
|
20) undoing woven fabric,
21) tying,
22) untying,
23) sewing,
24) tearing,
25) building,
26) demolishing,
27) beating with a hammer,
28) trapping,
29) slaughtering,
30) skinning,
31) processing [hides],
32) removing hair,
33) cutting [leather],
34) writing,
35) erasing,
36) ruling lines,
37) kindling a flame,
38) extinguishing a flame,
39) transferring from one domain to another.
|
Commentary Halacha 1
With regard to the [forbidden] labors for which one is liable to be executed by stoning - when a forbidden labor is performed in the presence of witnesses who administer a warning (Chapter 1, Halachah 1)
or to receive karet if one transgresses willingly - when a forbidden labor is performed when witnesses are not present (ibid.)
or for which one is obligated to bring a sin offering if one commits the transgression unknowingly, - i.e., one intended to perform the forbidden labor, but was not aware that doing so was breaking the Sabbath laws.
there are primary categories and [their] derivatives. - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:2), the Rambam explains that the primary categories are so defined because "they were part of the work of the Sanctuary, which is termed melachah [the term used for the Torah for forbidden labor]." The Rambam clarifies the definition of what constitutes a primary category and what constitutes a derivative in Halachot 2-6.
See Yereim (249) who notes that the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 7:2) derives the existence of thirty nine categories of work from the exegesis of Exodus 38:2. There is a question if this difference in sources creates a difference in law as well. See also the preface to Eglei Tal, which questions whether the definition of the categories of forbidden labor are taken from the activities necessary for the offering of the sacrifices in the Sanctuary, or merely the activities necessary for construction of the Sanctuary. (In this context, see Rashi, Shabbat 73a, which states that the forbidden labor of baking was not practiced in the Sanctuary although one of the offerings was the showbread which was baked each week.)
The sum of all the primary categories of [forbidden] labor are forty minus one. - The commentaries question why the Rambam (and his source, Shabbat 7:2, use this expression, rather than merely stating "thirty-nine." Some draw attention to the parallel found in the Mishnah's description of the number of lashes given a transgressor (Makkot 3:10). Others explain that this expression indicates that there is a fortieth activity - the spiritual service of prayer and study - which must be performed on the Sabbath day.
They include: plowing - This and the ten labors that follow are described as sidura d'pat, the manner in which bread is baked. They were necessary to prepare the herbs used as dyes for the curtains of the Sanctuary. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.)
sowing, - Significantly, plowing is mentioned before sowing in the Mishnah. Shabbat 73b explains that this was done to teach that if the earth is hard, and it is necessary to re-plow the land after the first plowing, one is liable for the second plowing as well. The Rambam, however, follows the usual order of activities. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.)
reaping - As explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 3, this refers to reaping with a utensil. Severing produce by hand is considered merely a derivative. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.)
collecting sheaves - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions that the reapers usually gather the grain in small sheaves. Others follow who collect these sheaves into larger bundles. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.)
According to one opinion in Shabbat 96b, there is an explicit reference to the prohibition of this labor on the Sabbath. Numbers, ch. 15, relates that a person was executed for collecting wood on the Sabbath. As the Rambam states Chapter 21, Halachah 11, this labor includes only the collection of produce. Gathering other substances - e.g., salt - is not included. It is, however, forbidden by Rabbinic decree.
threshing - applying pressure to grain to extract the kernel from its husk. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 7.)
winnowing - casting the mixture of kernels and husks to the wind. The wind will blow away the chaff, while the kernels that are heavier will fall to the ground.
separating - separating stones and the like from the kernels of grain. This is usually done by hand.
grinding - crushing the kernels into flour. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 15.)
sifting - the flour with a sifter. Shabbat 74a (see also Chapter 8, Halachah 11) notes that the three labors - winnowing, separating, and sifting - are similar. Nevertheless, because they represent three different activities performed in the construction of the Sanctuary, each one is considered a separate primary category of forbidden labor.
kneading - mixing the flour with water to create a dough. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 16.)
baking - This also includes cooking, roasting, or the like. In the construction of the Sanctuary, cooking was necessary for the preparation of dyes. (See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.)
shearing - This and the following twelve labors are necessary for the preparation of fabric. Shearing involves removing hair or wool from an animal, whether dead or alive. (See Chapter 9, Halachah 7.)
whitening - After the wool is removed from the animal, it is washed to remove dirt. (See Chapter 9, Halachah 10.)
beating - Unlike Rashi and others who interpret as combing the wool, in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah he translates the word into an Arabic term meaning "beat it with a stick." This activity is necessary as a preliminary stage of the preparation of flax to be spun into linen. (See Chapter 9, Halachah 12.)
dyeing - for most of the fabrics used in the curtains and roof-coverings of the Sanctuary were dyed. (See Chapter 9, Halachah 13.)
spinning - intertwining the fibers to make thread. (See Chapter 9, Halachah 15.)
making heddles - The Hebrew, literally means "house of string." In the weaving process, it refers to the following practice: Weaving involves passing the threads of the woof over and under each of the consecutive threads of the warp. In order to facilitate this process, two frames are made, each possessing many threads with a loop (referred to as a "heddle") in the middle of these threads. The threads of the warp are passed through these loops, one from one frame, and the next from the other, consecutively. When this is completed, the weaver lifts the two frames alternately. As he raises one up, he passes the woof through. In this manner, he is able to thread the woof through the entire warp at one time. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 7:2;Keilim 21:1.)
mounting the warp - See Chapter 9, Halachah 17-18, where the Rambam describes how a loom is set up. First, the threads of the warp are extended to the desired length and width. They are then attached to a rod on either side, and held taut. This is the activity referred to by this term.
weaving - passing the threads of the woof between the threads of the warp. (See Chapter 9, loc. cit.)
undoing woven fabric - See Chapter 9, Halachah 20.
tying - This refers to a permanent knot whose tying requires professional expertise. (See Chapter 10, Halachah 1.) In the construction of the Sanctuary, the chilazon which were used for dye were caught with nets that had to be tied (Shabbat 74b).
untying - This also includes untying only such knots. (See Chapter 10, Halachah 7.)
sewing - at least two stitches. (See Chapter 10, Halachah 9.)
tearing - in order to sew. Otherwise, one is not liable. (See Chapter 10, Halachah 10.) If a hole was found in one of the curtains of the Sanctuary, it was cut open and sewn close (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:4).
building - any structure; similarly, leveling the ground is included in this category. (See Chapter 10, Halachah 12.) The Kiryat Sefer gives as an example, the placement of the boards of the Sanctuary in their sockets.
demolishing - Here also the intent must be a constructive one: demolishing in order to rebuild. (See Chapter 10, Halachah 15.)
beating with a hammer - The Kiryat Sefer points to the fashioning of themenorah in the Sanctuary.
A craftsman finishing the fashioning of a utensil concludes his work by giving several taps with a hammer to smooth the utensil's surface. Thus, this labor also includes all activities performed to apply the finishing touch to an object - e.g., polishing and shining. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit., and Chapter 10, Halachah 16.)
trapping - The Mishnah mentions the following seven categories as activities necessary to write a scroll. Leather hides were used to cover the roof of the Sanctuary. (See also Chapter 10, Halachah 19.)
slaughtering - Although this term is usually used to refer to ritual slaughter, the intent here is taking a life through any means. (See Chapter 11, Halachah 1.)
skinning - the hide of an animal to use for leather. (See Chapter 11, Halachah 5.)
processing [hides] - into leather. (See Chapter 11, loc. cit.) Significantly, the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:2) also includes salting the hides as a separate category of labor. Shabbat 75b, however, includes this activity in the category of processing hides and includes ruling parchment as the thirty-ninth category of labor.
removing hair - For leather or parchment, smooth skin is required. (See also Chapter 11, Halachah 5, 6.)
cutting [leather] - This refers to making an exact cut, so that the leather can be used for a purpose. Cutting indiscriminately is a destructive activity. Hence, one is not held liable. (See Chapter 11, Halachah 7.)
writing - two letters. This activity was necessary in the Sanctuary, for a mark was made on the boards so that the same boards could be matched to each other each time they were attached together. (See Chapter 11, Halachah 9.)
erasing - For if the builders of the Sanctuary erred in making a sign, they would erase it and write another in its place. In this instance as well, one is held liable only when one erases with the intent of writing two letters in this place. (See Chapter 11, loc. cit.)
ruling lines - For proper writing is possible only on ruled lines. (See Chapter 11, Halachah 17.) In the Sanctuary, this labor was performed to prepare the hides to be cut.
kindling a flame - This was necessary to cook the dyes. As the Rambam explains in Chapter 12, Halachah 1, one is liable for kindling a flame only when when desires to cook with it, use it for light, or desires ash. Otherwise, it is considered a destructive activity.
extinguishing a flame - Here also, one's intent must be constructive - e.g., to use the charcoal produced. In the Sanctuary, this was necessary to produce an even flame for the fashioning of the metal utensils (See Chapter 12, Halachah 2.)
transferring from one domain to another. - All the materials necessary for the construction of the Sanctuary were brought from the private domain to the public domain (Shabbat 96b). This forbidden labor is discussed in great length. (See Chapters 12-19.)
Halacha 2
All of these [forbidden] labors and all analogous activities are referred to as primary categories of labor. What is meant by an "analogous activity"? Plowing, digging, or making a groove [in the ground] are all considered to be primary categories of work. For each one involves digging in the ground and they all reflect a single activity.1
Halacha 3
Similarly, one who sows seeds, plants trees, extends trees,2 grafts [branches to] trees,3 or prunes trees:4 All of these [activities] are considered a single primary category of [forbidden] labor, [for] they share a commonality, since all these activities have a single intent:5 to cause [a plant] to grow.
Halacha 4
Similarly, a person who reaps grain or legumes, one who harvests grapes, dates, olives, or figs: All these [activities] are considered a single primary category of [forbidden] labor, [for] they share a commonality, since all these activities have a single intent:6 to remove produce from [the plant] on which it grows. [The same principle applies] with regard to other forbidden categories of labor.
Halacha 5
A derivative is a labor that resembles one of these categories of [forbidden] labor.7 What is implied? A person who cuts a vegetable into small pieces to cook is liable,8 for this activity resembles grinding. When a person grinds, he takes one [large] entity, and divides it into smaller parts. Anyone who performs an activity that resembles this is [performing] a derivative of the labor of grinding. Similarly, a person who takes a strip of metal and pulverizes it to use the powder9 acts as goldsmiths do;10 he is [performing] a derivative of the labor of grinding.
Halacha 6
Similarly, one who takes milk and inserts a [piece of intestine] in it so that it curdles is liable for [performing] a derivative of separating,11 for he separates the curds from the whey.
If one made cheese from it, one is liable for [performing a derivative of building]. Whenever one collects separate entities and bonds them together so that they form a single mass, [the activity] resembles building.
Similarly, each of the primary categories of [forbidden] labor [mentioned above] possesses derivatives,12 which are determined according to the principles explained above. From the nature of the [forbidden] labor performed on the Sabbath, one can determine in which category of [forbidden] labor it should be included, or which [forbidden] labor it is a derivative of.
Halacha 7
A person who willingly, as a conscious act of defiance, performs an activity that constitutes one of the primary categories of [forbidden] labor or one of the derivatives [of these categories] is liable for karet.13 If witnesses come, he should be stoned [to death].14 If [he performs such an activity] without being conscious of the transgression, he must bring a sin offering of a fixed nature.
If so, what is the difference between the primary categories of [forbidden] labor and the derivatives?15 There is no difference except with regard to sacrifices. When a person, without being conscious of the transgression involved, performs many activities, each of which constitutes a different primary category [of forbidden labor] in one period of lack of awareness,16 he is obligated to bring a sin offering for every such category17 [of forbidden labor].18
If he performs an activity that constitutes a primary category [of forbidden labor] and its derivatives in one period of lack of awareness, he is obligated to bring merely one sin offering.19
Halacha 8
What is implied? If a person plows, sows, and reaps on the Sabbath in a single period of lack of awareness, he is required to bring three sin offerings. Even if he performs all thirty-nine [forbidden] labors without knowing of the prohibition involved - e.g., he forgot that it is forbidden to perform these labors on the Sabbath - he is obligated to bring one sin offering for each and every [forbidden] labor.20
In contrast, if he ground [grain], cut a vegetable, and pulverized a strip of metal during a single period of lack of awareness, he is required to bring only one sin offering [for each Sabbath],21 for he performed only a single primary [forbidden] labor and its derivatives. The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 9
When a person performs many labors corresponding to a single category of labor in one period of lack of awareness, he is obligated to bring only one sin offering.22
What is implied? When a person sowed, planted, extended, grafted, and pruned in a single period of lack of awareness, he is obligated to bring only a single sin offering, for all of these [activities] are included in the same primary category of labor. The same applies in all similar situations.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
In this and the following two halachot, the Rambam emphasizes how other activities that are analogous to the thirty-nine mentioned in the previous halachah are not considered as solely derivatives of the primary category of labor; they have the same status as the primary categories themselves. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:2) and in Halachah 9 of this chapter, he uses the term - "labors corresponding to a single category of labor" to describe such activities. This phrase is also used by the Mishnah, Shabbat 7:1 (although interpreted differently by other authorities).
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Moshe Kohen as objecting to the Rambam's statements, for the Mishnah specifically states that there are thirty-nine such categories of forbidden labor, while according to the Rambam there would be far more. He thus considers all these other activities as derivatives.
The Maggid Mishneh does not see such a difficulty, explaining that, as the Rambam illustrates in the examples he cites in this and the following halachot, the activity being performed is basically the same as the primary category of labor. Thus it is not proper for such an activity to be called a derivative. Similarly, since these activities are identical in nature to the existing categories, it is not proper to consider them as being an additional category with regard to the total sum.
Kalkalat Shabbat adds that the activities that the Rambam mentions as analogous to the primary categories of labor are not counted as additional categories because they were not necessary for the construction of the Sanctuary.
|
| 2. |
One of the methods of agriculture common in the Talmudic period was to plant vines - and in certain instances, trees - by taking a branch from an existing vine or tree and, without severing it from its source, burying it in the ground. In this manner, it would sprout roots, and ultimately a new plant would grow from this base.
|
| 3. |
Taking branches from one tree and grafting them to another so that they will grow.
|
| 4. |
As the Rambam states in Chapter 8, Halachah 2, pruning a tree is beneficial in causing it to grow. He also explains this concept in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Sh'vi'it 4:5, "One cuts off [branches] at a specific place to improve the tree."
The Eglei Tal and others note that the Rambam (Hilchot Shemitah 1:3, based on Mo'ed Katan 3a) considers pruning merely a derivative of planting with regard to the concept of forbidden labor in the Sabbatical year, while in the present context it is considered in the same status as planting itself.
The Eglei Tal resolves this difficulty on the basis of the principle that with regard to the Sabbath, it is, "thoughtful work," that the Torah forbade. This principle does not apply with regard to the prohibitions against working the land in the Sabbatical year.
Accordingly, since the activities of planting and pruning are very different, pruning is considered only a derivative with regard to the Sabbatical year. With regard to the Sabbath labors, however, intent is of fundamental importance. Since the intent of both activities is the same - to enable the plant to grow - they are both given equal status.
|
| 5. |
With this statement, the Rambam explains the difference between the sets of activities mentioned in the previous halachah, and those mentioned in this halachah. Plowing, digging, and making a groove are very similar activities, but they differ in their objectives. The activities mentioned in this halachah, by contrast, do not resemble each other; nevertheless, they share the same intent.
|
| 6. |
The activities mentioned in this halachah differ from those mentioned in the previous halachah in that each of the activities in this halachah involves a different type of produce. Hence, it is necessary to emphasize that they are all considered in the same status.
|
| 7. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:2), the Rambam explains that a derivative is an activity that produces a result similar to that produced by one of the forbidden labors, but differs both in the intent and the nature of the activity.
|
| 8. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 18. As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, for the activity to be forbidden as a derivative of grinding, one must have the intent to cook it.
|
| 9. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 15.
|
| 10. |
This phrase emphasizes that to be liable, one's intent in pulverizing the metal must be for a useful purpose. If one's intent is merely destructive in nature, one is not liable.
|
| 11. |
Note the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 7:2), which states that with regard to both this activity and making cheese, one is liable for performing a derivative of kneading.
|
| 12. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) states that one of the determinants of a primary category of forbidden labor is that it has derivatives. Perhaps it is to emphasize this point that the Rambam mentions derivatives for each of the thirty-nine categories of labor in the succeeding chapters. Even when the derivatives are not explicitly mentioned in the Talmud, he uses logic to define activities that fall in these categories. (See Merkevet HaMishneh.)
|
| 13. |
The Rambam is restating the principles stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, in terms of the concepts of primary categories of forbidden labor and their derivatives.
|
| 14. |
As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, a person is executed for the performance of a forbidden labor only if witnesses warn him of the nature of the prohibition beforehand.
|
| 15. |
The Rambam's question is: Since one incurs the same liabilities regardless of whether one performs an activity that itself constitutes a forbidden category of labor or merely a derivative, of what importance is the definition of such categories?
|
| 16. |
A person is obligated to bring a sin offering if he was unaware that the forbidden labor he performed involved a transgression, despite the fact that he performed it several times. Even if the period in which he is not conscious of the transgression lasts several weeks, he is obligated for only a single offering for each category of forbidden labor. (See Shabbat 7:1 and Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 7.)
|
| 17. |
Since each category of forbidden labor involves a different subject of which he was unaware, he is required to bring a different sin offering for it.
|
| 18. |
As explained in the above- mentioned sources, a person is liable for the above only when he knows the day on which the Sabbath should be observed and is aware of the prohibition against work, but does not know of the prohibition involved in the performance of a (or several) forbidden labor(s). If, however, a person forgets the day on which the Sabbath should be observed, he is required to bring merely a single sin offering for each Sabbath he violated, regardless of how many forbidden labors he performed that day. Furthermore, a person who was totally unaware of the prohibition against working on the Sabbath is required to bring only one sin offering. This single sacrifice atones for all the Sabbaths that he did not observe.
|
| 19. |
For it is the lack of knowledge of a single category of labor that is involved. All of the violations stem from the lack of awareness of a single matter. The same ruling applies if one performs several derivatives of the same category of labor (Hilchot Shegagot 7:5). If, however, one performed derivatives of two different categories of labor, one is required to bring two sin offerings (loc. cit.:6).
|
| 20. |
In his gloss to Hilchot Shegagot 7:3, the Kessef Mishneh quotes a responsum from the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham, which focuses on the following question: If the person is unaware of the entire concept of forbidden labor, how can we say that he is aware of the concept of Sabbath in general? Seemingly, he should be obligated for only a single sin offering. [I.e., when a person is aware of the concept of the Sabbath, but is unaware of a (or several) particular labor(s), every labor is considered an entity that requires his attention. Hence, a sacrifice is required for each labor. When, however, the entire concept of the Sabbath is unknown to him, there is but one matter of which he is unaware. Hence, only one sacrifice is necessary.]
Among the resolutions offered are that the person knew of the positive commandments associated with the Sabbath or that he knew of the prohibition associated with going beyond the Sabbath limits. Alternatively, he knew of the prohibition against forbidden labor, but did not know which labors where forbidden. From the Rambam's wording itself, another resolution can be offered: The person knew that the labors were forbidden, but did not know that they were punishable by karet.
|
| 21. |
The bracketed addition is based on Hilchot Shegagot 7:8-9, which explains that in these circumstances, one is required to bring a sin offering for every Sabbath on which one transgressed.
|
| 22. |
As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 2, this refers to activities that so closely resemble the activities that constitute the primary categories of labor that they are also considered to be primary labors. Despite their having this distinction, since only a single category of forbidden labor is involved, only one sacrifice is required.
|
Shabbat - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
A person who plows even the slightest amount [of earth] is liable.1 One who weeds around the roots of trees, cuts off grasses, or prunes shoots to beautify the land2 - these are derivatives of plowing. One is liable for performing even the slightest amount of these activities.
Similarly, one who levels the surface of a field - e.g., one who lowers a mound and flattens it or fills a vale - is liable for [performing a derivative of] plowing.3[One is liable for performing] the slightest amount of these activities. Similarly, one who levels cavities [in the ground] to even the slightest degree is liable.
Halacha 2
A person who sows even the slightest amount is liable.4 A person who prunes a tree so that it grows performs an activity resembling sowing.5 In contrast, watering plants and trees on the Sabbath is considered merely a derivative of sowing.6 One is liable for even the slightest amount. Similarly, one who soaks the seeds of wheat, barley, and the like in water [performs] a derivative of sowing7 and is liable for even the slightest amount.
Halacha 3
One who reaps an amount the size of a dried fig is liable.8 Plucking [fruit] is considered a derivative of reaping.9 Similarly, any person who removes produce from where it is growing is liable for reaping. Therefore, a person who removes grass growing from a rock, a parasite plant that grows on shrubs, or grasses that grow on a barrel is liable, for this is the place where they grow.10
In contrast, a person who removes [fruit from a plant growing] in a flower pot that is not perforated is not liable, for this is not the [ordinary] place from which it grows.11 If, however, the flower pot has a hole the size of a small root, [the plant] is considered as growing in the ground12 and a person who picks fruit from it is liable.
Halacha 4
Whenever reaping from a plant causes it to grow larger - e.g., cattle-grass or beets - a person who harvests it without knowing of the prohibition involved is liable for two sin offerings: one because he [performed the labor of] reaping, and one because he [performed the labor of] planting.13 Similarly, a person who prunes [a tree] and desires to use [the branches he prunes] is liable for reaping and planting.
[The following rules apply to] a clod of earth on which grass is growing: If one lifted it from the earth and placed it on staves, one is liable for uprooting. If it was supported by staves and one placed it on the earth, one is liable for planting.14
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply to] one who uproots chicory or who prunes moist shoots:17 If he intends to use them as food [for human beings], the minimum measure [for which one is held liable for reaping] is the size of a dried fig.18 If he intends to use them as animal [fodder], the minimum measure is the amount necessary to fill the mouth of a young kid.19 If he intends to use them for kindling, the minimum measure is the amount necessary to cook an egg.20
[Similar measures apply with regard to the forbidden labor of] collecting food:21If [one's intent is to use it] as [food for human beings], the minimum measure [for which one is held liable] is the size of a dried fig. [If one's intent is] for animal [fodder], the minimum measure is the amount necessary to fill the mouth of a young kid. [If one's intent is] for kindling, the minimum measure is the amount necessary to cook an egg.
Whenever the term "an egg" is used, the intent is an average-size chicken egg.22 Whenever the term "the amount necessary to cook an egg" is used, the intent is the amount necessary to cook a portion of an egg the size of a dried fig. A dried fig is one-third the size of an egg.23
[The forbidden labor of] collecting food applies only with regard to [collecting] the earth's produce.24
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
A person who threshes [an amount of grain the size of] a dried fig is liable. [The forbidden labor of] threshing applies only with regard to the earth's produce.27
Extracting produce from its shell28 is a derivative of threshing; [a person who performs this activity] is liable. The same applies in all similar situations. Similarly, a person who milks an animal is liable for extracting food.29
By the same token, a person who wounds an animal that has a hide30is liable for extracting,31 provided he requires the blood32that flows from the wound. If, however, his intent is merely to wound [the animal], he is not liable, because his activity is destructive in nature.33 One is not liable unless one extracts a quantity of blood or milk equivalent to the size of a dried fig.34
Halacha 8
When does the above apply? When one wounds an animal, a wild beast, a fowl, or the like. If one wounds a fellow man, by contrast, one is liable although one's intent is to injure, for [this activity generates] pleasure.35 It causes one's feelings to cool and one's anger to subside. Therefore, it is considered "constructive" in nature. Accordingly, even if one does not require the blood that one extracts, one is liable.36
Halacha 9
The eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah37 have hides whose status is analogous to those of animals, beasts, and fowl with regard to the Sabbath laws.38 Other small creatures and crawling animals are not considered to have a hide [whose status is significant with regard to the Sabbath laws]. Therefore, one who wounds them is not liable.39
One who wounds an animal, beast, fowl, or one of the above-mentioned eight creeping animals is liable whether he caused an open wound from which they bled or he made a bruise that caused internal bleeding.
Halacha 10
A person who squeezes fruit to extract its juice is liable for extracting. One is not liable until he extracts an amount of juice equivalent to the size of a dried fig. From the Torah itself, one is liable for pressing only grapes and olives.40
It is, [however,] permitted to squeeze a cluster of grapes directly into food, since a liquid that is absorbed into food is considered as food. Thus, one is considered to be extracting food from food.41 Nevertheless, if one squeezes these liquids into a vessel that does not contain food,42 this is considered pressing and one is liable.
Halacha 11
A person who winnows or separates [an amount of food the size of] a dried fig is liable.46 Causing milk to curdle is a derivative [of the category] of separating.
Similarly, a person who separates the dregs from liquids is liable for having performed a derivative of separating or a derivative of sifting.47 [The particular category of forbidden labor is not defined,] because the labors of winnowing, separating, and sifting resemble each other.48 [If so,] why were they reckoned as three [separate categories? Because every labor that was performed in the Sanctuary is counted as a separate category.
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
A person who separates unwanted matter from food is liable,54 even if he does so using only one hand.55 A person who separates turmos beans from their shucks is liable, for the shucks sweeten them when they are cooked together. Therefore, one is considered to be taking unwanted matter from food and is held liable.56
A person who separates food from unwanted matter by hand and sets it aside [to serve] at a later time,57 even later on [the Sabbath] itself, is considered to have separated for the purpose of storage and is held liable.
If there were two types of food mixed together before a person, he may separate one from the other and place it aside to eat immediately. If he separated [one from the other] and set it aside [to serve] at a later time, even later on [the Sabbath] itself, he is liable - for example, one separated food in the morning to eat in the late afternoon.58
Halacha 14
A person who filters the dregs from wine, oil, water, or other liquids, using a utensil appropriate for this purpose59 is liable,60 provided he removes the dregs from an amount of liquid equivalent to the size of a dried fig. One may, however, filter wine61 that has no dregs, or clear water, with a handkerchief or with an Egyptian basket62 so they will become crystal clear.63
We may pour water over wine dregs64 so they will become clear.65 [Similarly,] we may place a raw egg in a mustard strainer so that it becomes clear.66
When one has mixed mustard on Friday, one may stir it by hand or with a utensil to make it fit to drink [on the Sabbath].67 Similarly, while wine is in the process of fermentation, one may pour out a barrel of wine together with the dregs over handkerchiefs, for the dregs have not been finely separated from the wine and they are still considered a single mixture.68 The same applies to mustard and all similar substances.69
Halacha 15
A person who grinds [an amount of grain the size of] a dried fig is liable. One who crushes spices or herbs in a mortar is performing the labor of grinding and is held liable.70
A person who cuts a vegetable that has been detached from its source [into small pieces] performs a derivative of the labor of grinding.71
Similarly, a person who saws wood in order to benefit from the sawdust, and similarly, one who files a piece of metal is liable72for filing even the slightest amount.73 A person who chops wood is not liable [for grinding] until he produces enough chips to cook an amount of egg the size of a dried fig.74
Halacha 16
A person who sifts [an amount of flour the size of] a dried fig is liable.75
A person who kneads [dough76 the size of] a dried fig is liable. Mixing earth [for use as cement] is a derivative of kneading. What is the minimum amount for which one is liable? The amount necessary to make a crucible for a goldsmith.77 The activity of mixing cement cannot be performed with ash, coarse sand, bran, or the like.78
A person who places sesame seeds, flax seeds, or the like in water is liable for kneading,79 because they become attached to each other.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Since one can plant a seed in even the tiniest hole, even the smallest amount of plowing is considered significant (Shabbat 103a).
|
| 2. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 12:2. Note Rashi and others, who offer different interpretations.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam emphasizes that if one's intent when performing these activities is to gather the growths one is cutting, one is liable for reaping. If one's intent is to improve the tree so that it will grow better, one is liable for sowing, as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 3. |
Note Shabbat 73b, which states that the Rambam's statements apply when these activities are performed outside. A person who performs these activities inside a house is liable for building. See Chapter 10, Halachah 12.
|
| 4. |
One is liable for sowing even the tiniest seed, since from it, a l arge plant can grow.
|
| 5. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 3, and notes.
|
| 6. |
Since watering does not involve a seed, plant, or tree itself (as do all of the activities mentioned in Chapter 7, Halachah 2), it is considered merely a derivative of sowing.
|
| 7. |
In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that the source for his statements is Zevachim 94b, which mentions that one is liable for soaking seeds so they sprout. Others point to Shabbat 17b, which states that one is liable for soaking vetch, a type of bean fed to cattle.
|
| 8. |
Reaping is important because it provides food for us to eat. Since an amount smaller than a dried fig is not considered a significant measure of food, one is not held liable for reaping until one reaps that amount.
|
| 9. |
Plucking the fruit is considered merely as a derivative, because in contrast to reaping, which is done with a utensil, plucking is done by hand (Lechem Mishneh).
|
| 10. |
I.e., since these plants grow naturally in these places, one is held liable for removing them.
|
| 11. |
Such plants grow naturally in the ground. By planting them in a flower pot, one separates them from their normal place of growth. Hence, they are no longer considered to be connected to their source, and according to the Torah there is no prohibition against picking fruit from such a plant. There is, however, a Rabbinic prohibition involved. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 336:7- 8.)
|
| 12. |
It is able to receive nurture from the earth through the hole. (See Rashi, Shabbat 107b.) The above applies only in homes with earth floors where there is no interruption (except air) between the flower pot and the earth. See Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchasah, p. 326.
The difference between a flower pot that is perforated and one that is not perforated is relevant in many different contexts within Torah law. (See Hilchot Kilayim 1:2, 5:16; Hilchot Mechirah 3:16, and other sources.)
|
| 13. |
Although the person performed merely one activity, since this activity produces effects that parallel those accomplished by two separate forbidden labors, he is liable to bring a sin offering for each.
|
| 14. |
Significantly, Rashi (Shabbat 81b) and others maintain that one is not held liable in this instance. Although such activity is forbidden by Rabbinic decree, since the connection between the flower pot and the ground was never interrupted, one is not considered to have uprooted the plant (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 336:12).
|
| 15. |
Since they remain attached to the tree, they are governed by the same rules as other fruit.
Tosafot (Shabbat 150b) maintains that this ruling applies only when the stems attaching the fruit to the tree are still fresh. If they have also dried out, one is not held liable for picking the fruit. (SeeBe'ur Halachah 336.)
|
| 16. |
See Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 2:4-5.
|
| 17. |
Although the latter are most frequently used as fodder for animals, at times they are cooked and eaten by human beings. (See Sh'vi'it 7:5 and the Rambam's Commentary.)
|
| 18. |
As evident from the laws that follow, this is the minimum measure for which one is liable for all forbidden labors associated with food. Eating a lesser amount is not significant.
The Nodeh BiY'hudah (Orach Chayim, Vol. II, Responsum 34) notes that Shabbat 103a states that this measure applies when one gathers these substances in a field belonging to a colleague. When gathering in one's own field, by contrast, one is liable for even the slightest amount, since in doing so, one clears one's field, a derivative of the labor of plowing.
The Noda BiY'hudah explains that the Talmudic passage does not contradict the Rambam's decision. As mentioned in the previous halachot, one can be liable for transgressing two different forbidden labors when performing a single activity. Thus, as soon as one gathers any of these substances, one is liable for plowing. Should one one gather the amounts mentioned by the Rambam in this halachah, one is also liable for reaping.
|
| 19. |
Based on Shabbat 76a, it appears that a mouthful of a kid is slightly less than the size of a dried fig.
|
| 20. |
This is the smallest amount of kindling wood that will be useful for a person.
|
| 21. |
Although collecting food is a forbidden labor in its own right, the Rambam mentions it within the context of this halachah, because the measures for which one is held liable correspond exactly to those mentioned with regard to the previous law.
|
| 22. |
In contemporary measure, the size of an egg is determined as 57.6 cubic centimeters by Shiurei Torah and 100 cubic centimeters by Chazon Ish.
|
| 23. |
The Ra'avad states that this measure is not exact, and the actual amount is slightly larger. The difference between their opinions is based on the interpretation of Eruvin 80b and 82b. Similarly, their understanding of those passages affects their determination of many different significant measures in Torah law, for example, כדי אכילת פרס (the measure of time associated with the mitzvot and prohibitions connected with eating). The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 368:3) mentions both opinions.
|
| 24. |
Thus excluding salt or similar substances (Shabbat 73b). (Note the Kessef Mishneh's comments regarding the proper text of that Talmudic passage.) As the Rambam states in Chapter 21, Halachah 11, there is, however, a Rabbinic prohibition against gathering salt.
The Hagahot Maimoniot (21:8) state that just as sheaves are collected in a field - the place where produce grows - similarly, all activities that are derivatives of this forbidden labor must take place in or near the field or orchards in which the produce grows. The Tur (Orach Chayim 240) and others also accept this ruling. From Chapter 21, Halachah 11, it appears that the Rambam also follows this approach.
|
| 25. |
Rav Moshe Kohen mentions that a person is liable only when he collects the fruit near the grooves of trees where they grow. Nevertheless, this opinion is not accepted outright by the later authorities. (See the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 340:15 and the Mishnah Berurah 340:38.)
|
| 26. |
The commentaries have not cited a direct source for the laws stated in this halachah [although there is a parallel in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 7:2)]. Some cite this as an example of the Rambam's use of his own powers of deduction to determine derivatives for forbidden labors, so that every category of forbidden labor will be associated with derivatives.
|
| 27. |
Rav Moshe Kohen questions this statement, for the derivatives of a forbidden labor must resemble the forbidden labor itself. Thus it is difficult to understand how the Rambam can make such a statement and also state that one is liable for extracting food or for milking an animal.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Rivash (Responsa 121) state that an animal that lives on the land (as opposed to fish and other creatures that live in the sea) can be considered as produce of the earth, because it derives its life from the earth's produce.
The Rambam's son, Rabbenu Avraham, however, does not accept the basic premise of the question and explains that a derivative of a forbidden labor can differ drastically from the forbidden labor itself. Accordingly, even though threshing applies only with regard to produce, its derivatives can involve animals (Birkat Avraham, Responsum 18).
|
| 28. |
This applies to extracting kernels of grain from their husks or legumes from its pods. Nevertheless, the Eglei Tal allows one to remove the shells of onion and garlic, and Sh'vitat HaShabbat permits the removal of the hard shells of nuts.
|
| 29. |
The Rambam's opinion is also accepted by Rashi (Shabbat 95a) and other authorities. Rabbenu Tam and other Rishonim agree that milking is forbidden according to Torah law, but consider it a derivative of other categories of labor. The Ramban (Shabbat 145) considers this merely a Rabbinic prohibition.
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 305:20), which states that one may tell a gentile to milk an animal. This leniency is permitted because the animal will suffer pain if it is not milked. Other leniencies are also granted on the basis of the Rambam's statements in Halachah 10.
The question of milking animals attracted much attention in the early years of agricultural development in Eretz Yisrael, when the question arose regarding milking herds of animals when a gentile was not available. (See K'tzot HaShulchan, Vol. VI, p. 34 ff. and other sources.)
|
| 30. |
This concept is defined in Halachah 9.
|
| 31. |
Although it is universally accepted that one is liable for drawing blood from an animal, the Rishonim differ under which category of forbidden work this prohibition falls. Rashi, Shabbat 107a, mentions an opinion that extracting blood falls into the category of dyeing. Tosafot, Shabbat 75a, Ketubot 6b, offers a different interpretation, explaining that it is included in the category of slaughtering.
|
| 32. |
To use as a remedy or as food for a dog or other animal (Shabbat 106a; the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 14:1).
|
| 33. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 17.
|
| 34. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the minimum measures for liquids differ than those of foods. The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's decision, explaining that since he considers these activities as derivatives of threshing, the minimum amount for which one is liable is the same as for threshing. It must be emphasized that according to the opinions of Rashi and Tosafot (see note 31), one is liable for extracting a quantity of blood smaller than the size of a dried fig.
|
| 35. |
This ruling depends on the Rambam's decision, Chapter 1, Halachah 7, where he states that one is liable for performing a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Although the person is performing the forbidden labor for reasons very different from those that were involved in the construction of the Sanctuary, he is held liable because he is fulfilling his intent.
|
| 36. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, based on his interpretation (which parallels that of Rashi) of Shabbat 105b. The Rambam, however, interprets this passage differently. (See theMaggid Mishneh.)
|
| 37. |
Leviticus 11:29,30 mentions that the carcasses of these animals convey ritual impurity. There are various different opinions regarding the meanings of the Hebrew names for the species mentioned there. The Living Torah offers the following interpretation: the weasel, the mouse, the ferret, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole.
|
| 38. |
The hides of these animals are tougher than the flesh beneath them. Therefore, there is a possibility that a wound will cause internal bleeding and that the blood will never be reabsorbed by the body.
|
| 39. |
The Rambam states that one is not liable for wounding other creeping animals even if one causes them to bleed. This decision is not accepted by most authorities (see Rashi and others, Chulin46b), who maintain that one is not liable for causing these creatures to bleed internally. If, however, one causes external bleeding, one is liable.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 316:8) accepts the opinion of the other authorities. This decision depends on the difference of opinion mentioned in note 31 as to the category of forbidden labor of which causing bleeding is a derivative. As mentioned, the Rambam considers this activity a derivative of the labor of threshing, and threshing involves removing a substance from a hard shell. Since the hides of the other crawling animals are not tough, causing them to bleed cannot be considered a derivative of this labor. According to the opinion that bleeding is a derivative of slaughtering, however, one is liable for making any animal bleed, regardless of the nature of its hide (Ziv HaMishneh).
The question whether one may kill creeping animals that are dangerous is discussed in Chapter 10, Halachah 25 and notes.
|
| 40. |
Rashi, Shabbat 143b, explains that the reason is that the primary purpose which grapes and olives are grown is for these liquids. With regard to other fruits, by contrast, it is not as common to use them for juice. From his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:1), it appears that the Rambam also accepts this rationale.
(Rabbenu Nissim gives another reason: The juices of other fruits are not considered as liquids, but as food. See Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 1:4. The Pri Megadim and others consider these as two separate rationales.)
Note Chapter 21, Halachah 12, which states that there is a Rabbinic prohibition against squeezing other fruits that are frequently used for juice (Shabbat 144b gives as examples, berries and pomegranates). If, however, it is not common to use a fruit for juice, there is no prohibition at all against squeezing juice from it. Note also the discussion in the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 320) regarding squeezing lemons to make lemonade.
|
| 41. |
Rabbenu Chanan'el does not accept this leniency and maintains that one is liable. In a responsum, Rabbenu Asher states that a person who observes this stringency will be blessed (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 320).
|
| 42. |
It is prohibited to do this even if one ultimately intends to mix these beverages into food. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch Harav 320:6, which states that since one ultimately intends to mix the liquid into food, the prohibition is merely Rabbinic in nature.
|
| 43. |
The Maggid Mishneh maintains that this law applies only on a festival, but not on the Sabbath. Since the animal may not be slaughtered on the Sabbath, it is not considered as "food." Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 505) quotes this law with regard to the laws of festivals and not with regard to the Sabbath laws.
|
| 44. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 14. Based on this leniency, there are authorities who allow one to suck the juice from grapes and other fruits. Other authorities forbid this. (See Ramah, Orach Chayim320:1.)
|
| 45. |
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 320:21 states that a person who milks an animal and lets the milk flow from the animal to the ground is not liable, for this is not the normal manner in which an animal is milked. This can be interpreted as the implication of the Rambam's words: "One is liable only when one milks into a container."
|
| 46. |
With regard to separation, this can also be interpreted as separating the unwanted matter (whether more or less than the size of a dried fig) to produce an amount of food the size of a dried fig (Minchat Chinuch). The Yeshu'ot Ya'akov 319:1 differs and maintains that both the food and the unwanted matter are counted when reckoning the amount equal to the dried fig.
|
| 47. |
See Halachah 14 and also Chapter 21, Halachah 17, for more particulars regarding the separation of dregs from liquids.
|
| 48. |
See the Eglei Tal, who questions whether these three activities can be combined. Thus, if one winnowed an amount of grain one third the size of a dried fig, and one separated and sifted the same amount, is one liable for a sin offering under such circumstances or not?
|
| 49. |
Primarily, the forbidden labor of separating involves separating unwanted matter from food. In the Sanctuary, it involved separating unwanted matter - pebbles and the like - from the herbs used for the dyes. Nevertheless, if one uses a utensil that is made for the purpose of separation, one is liable even when separating food from unwanted matter.
See also the Turei Zahav 319:12 who states that the prohibition against separation applies, not only to the separation of unwanted matter from food, but also to the separation of unwanted matter from substances other than food. This opinion is accepted by the later authorities.
|
| 50. |
In this instance, since one does not wish to partake of the other food, it is considered unwanted matter, and it is forbidden to separate the food one desires from it. When, however, one separates one portion of one type of food from another portion of the same food, one is never considered to be separating (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 319:4-5; Mishnah Berurah 319:15).
|
| 51. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Keilim 16:3. Rashi translates this as a sieve. His interpretation is accepted by most authorities.
|
| 52. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit:1.
|
| 53. |
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 319:1) explains that "immediately" means "for the purpose of the meal that one is attending." If one separates the food for use at a later time, one is liable, as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 54. |
As mentioned in the notes on the previous halachah, this is the primary form of the labor of separating.
|
| 55. |
The word "one" is not found in the authoritative Yemenite manuscripts. It is, however, included in the quotation of this halachah in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 319:4). The Mishnah Berurah319:17 notes that some texts of the Shulchan Aruch also do not include it.
According to those versions that do include it, the intent is that using only one hand is not considered an abnormal way of performing this labor.
|
| 56. |
As explained in the notes on Chapter 3, Halachah 12, the turmos beans are very bitter and must be cooked seven times before they are edible. The shucks help absorb some of this bitterness. Hence, they are not considered as unwanted matter. (See Rashi, Shabbat 74a.)
|
| 57. |
One is not held liable for separating food in the process of eating, for the Torah's intent was surely not to prevent a person from eating in the normal manner. Separating food and setting it aside to be used later is not necessary to allow one to eat normally. Hence, it is considered in the category of this forbidden labor (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 1-2).
|
| 58. |
The Rambam's intent should not be misinterpreted: even if one decides to eat the food set aside at a second meal served earlier in the day, one is also held liable. It was merely common custom to eat two meals during the daytime on the Sabbath - one in the morning and one in the evening. (See Magen Avraham 319:6.)
|
| 59. |
The Rambam's words literally mean "their filter." The Shulchan Aruch 319:10 states "filter," seemingly implying all filters, even one not specifically made for that liquid.
|
| 60. |
See Halachah 11.
|
| 61. |
One must, however, do so in a manner slightly different from the way one filters these liquids during the week, as the Rambam states in Chapter 21, Halachah 17.
|
| 62. |
A basket made of woven palm branches.
|
| 63. |
The Rashba and other authorities differ with the Rambam, based on their interpretation of Shabbat139b. According to the Rashba, one may filter even cloudy wine with a handkerchief or other strainer of this nature, since this is not the normal manner in which this activity is performed.
According to the Rambam, although one would not be liable for straining the wine in this manner, it would still be forbidden by Rabbinic decree. The only filtering that is permitted is filtering wine that is already fit to be drunk, so that it will become crystal clear. One might ask: Of what value is such an act? The answer is that precisely because most people would not consider this activity of value, and only the most spoiled individuals would require it, is it permitted. (According to the Rashba, such beverages may even be filtered with an ordinary filter.) Though the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 319:10) mentions the Rambam's view, the Rashba's ruling is favored.
|
| 64. |
The dregs were placed in a strainer on Friday, and one desires to pour the water over them on the Sabbath day (Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro, Shabbat 20:2).
|
| 65. |
To remove any residue of wine that might be left in the dregs (ibid.).
|
| 66. |
The intent is to mix the egg with mustard lying at the bottom of the strainer that has already been strained before the Sabbath (Shabbat 134a). In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 20:2), the Rambam states that when raw eggs are mixed with coarse foods, they cause the lighter matter to rise above the heavier, coarse matter. Thus, by mixing the egg with the mustard, one will cause it to undergo a further process of refinement. Nevertheless, this is not included in the forbidden labor of separating.
It must be noted that the Tur (Orach Chayim 319) explains that the problem in question in this instance is that the egg yolk will pass through the strainer, while the albumen will not. Nevertheless, this is not considered a derivative of the forbidden labor of separating. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 319:15) follows this interpretation.
|
| 67. |
Since the mustard is already strained and is fit to be used, there is no difficulty in stirring it further. (See also Chapter 22, Halachah 12.)
|
| 68. |
Rashi, Shabbat 139b, explains that this straining process will not be very effective. Hence, it is permitted. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 319:14 focuses on the Rambam's words and explains that since the wine and the dregs are considered a single mixture, the forbidden labor of separation does not apply. The concept of separation applies when the desired entity and the dregs are distinct, and this is not true until the wine has completed the fermentation process.
|
| 69. |
I.e., although it is forbidden to strain mustard using a strainer on the Sabbath, one may strain it through a handkerchief (Or Sameach).
|
| 70. |
Indeed, in the construction of the Sanctuary, it was herbs that were crushed for use as dyes.
|
| 71. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 5, Chapter 21, Halachah 18. In those halachot, the Rambam adds the expression "to cook it," implying that one is not liable for cutting vegetables one intends to eat raw. When the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 321:12) quotes this law, it omits the above term, leading to the conclusion that one is liable even for cutting vegetables that one desires to eat raw. For this reason, in his gloss the Ramah clarifies that one is liable only when one cuts the vegetables and then stores them for later use, if one partakes of them immediately, one is not liable.
|
| 72. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 5.
|
| 73. |
Because any amount of the dust he desires will be useful for him. This is evident from Chapter 18, Halachah 5.
|
| 74. |
Since he intends to use the wood for kindling, he must have enough wood to perform an an activity of at least minimal importance. (See Chapter 18, Halachah 4.)
|
| 75. |
The Rambam does not mention derivatives for this category of forbidden labor, because, as mentioned in Halachah 11, sifting resembles the categories of separating and winnowing, and it is not clear which of these categories of forbidden labor the derivatives of these activities fall under.
|
| 76. |
This addition follows the opinion of the Minchat Chinuch. The Eglei Tal differs, maintaining that for a person to be liable, the flour used for the dough must be this size before water is added.
|
| 77. |
This measure is derived from Chapter 18, Halachah 11.
|
| 78. |
The forbidden labor of kneading involves adding water to a collection of granular substances - e.g., flour or cement - and mixing them until they cling together as a single mass. Since the substances mentioned in this clause of the halachah do not adhere to each other, one can never be held liable for performing this forbidden labor with them. As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 21, Halachot 33-34, this opinion is not accepted by all authorities.
There is another difference of opinion among the Sages and later Rabbis pertinent to this matter. Rabbi Yosse bar Yehudah (Shabbat 155b) mentions that kneading involves actually mixing the dough with one's hands. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that one is liable for kneading as soon as one pours water into flour. This opinion is accepted by some authorities (Sefer HaTerumot) and is referred to in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 321:16).
|
| 79. |
As mentioned in Halachah 2, if a person places seeds into water so they sprout, he is liable for performing a derivative of sowing. (See Mishnah Berurah 336:51 which states that this applies only when one has the intent that they sprout. A person who soaks seeds so that they soften is not liable.) If one pours water over the seeds mentioned in this halachah, one is liable for kneading.
|
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Sunday, Tevet 15, 5776 · December 2015
"Today's Day"
Wednesday Tevet 15 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vay'chi, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: Ch. 10. Behold, when a person (p. 39)...as is hatred. (p. 41).
(An emendation of the text of Torah Or appears here, meaningful only in Hebrew. Translator)
Hearken and hear Israel,1 this is the time marked for the redemption by Mashiach. The sufferings befalling us are the birth-pangs of Mashiach. Israel will be redeemed only through teshuva.2 Have no faith in the false prophets who assure you of glories and salvation after the War.3 Remember the word of G-d, "Cursed is the man who puts his trust in man, who places his reliance for help in mortals, and turns his heart from G-d" (Yirmiyahu 17:5). Return Israel unto the Eternal your G-d;4 prepare yourself and your family to go forth and receive Mashiach, whose coming is imminent.
FOOTNOTES
1. Devarim 27:9.
2. Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit I:1.
3. Note that this was during the early 1940's.
4. Hoshei'a 14:2.---------------------• Daily Thought:
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Sunday, Tevet 15, 5776 · December 2015
"Today's Day"
Wednesday Tevet 15 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vay'chi, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: Ch. 10. Behold, when a person (p. 39)...as is hatred. (p. 41).
(An emendation of the text of Torah Or appears here, meaningful only in Hebrew. Translator)
Hearken and hear Israel,1 this is the time marked for the redemption by Mashiach. The sufferings befalling us are the birth-pangs of Mashiach. Israel will be redeemed only through teshuva.2 Have no faith in the false prophets who assure you of glories and salvation after the War.3 Remember the word of G-d, "Cursed is the man who puts his trust in man, who places his reliance for help in mortals, and turns his heart from G-d" (Yirmiyahu 17:5). Return Israel unto the Eternal your G-d;4 prepare yourself and your family to go forth and receive Mashiach, whose coming is imminent.
FOOTNOTES
1. Devarim 27:9.
2. Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit I:1.
3. Note that this was during the early 1940's.
4. Hoshei'a 14:2.---------------------• Daily Thought:
Be a Mentsch
There is a way to live divinely by just being a mentsch.
A mentsch is someone who respects the needs and wishes of others—especially the desires of those in his care.
In the care of each of us is entrusted a divine soul. She has a terrible allergy to all those messy deeds that darken her world, and desires only those beautiful deeds that will bring in more light.
And you, being a mentsch, could you stand in her way?
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment