Torah Reading: Shemot (Exodus 1:
1 These are the names of the sons of Isra’el who came into Egypt with Ya‘akov; each man came with his household: 2 Re’uven, Shim‘on, Levi, Y’hudah, 3 Yissakhar, Z’vulun, Binyamin, 4 Dan, Naftali, Gad and Asher. 5 All told, there were seventy descendants of Ya‘akov; Yosef was already in Egypt.
6 Yosef died, as did all his brothers and all that generation. 7 The descendants of Isra’el were fruitful, increased abundantly, multiplied and grew very powerful; the land became filled with them.
8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt. He knew nothing about Yosef 9 but said to his people, “Look, the descendants of Isra’el have become a people too numerous and powerful for us. 10 Come, let’s use wisdom in dealing with them. Otherwise, they’ll continue to multiply; and in the event of war they might ally themselves with our enemies, fight against us and leave the land altogether.”
11 So they put slavemasters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built for Pharaoh the storage cities of Pitom and Ra‘amses. 12 But the more the Egyptians oppressed them, the more they multiplied and expanded, until the Egyptians came to dread the people of Isra’el 13 and worked them relentlessly, 14 making their lives bitter with hard labor — digging clay, making bricks, all kinds of field work; and in all this toil they were shown no mercy.
15 Moreover, the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shifrah and the other Pu‘ah. 16 “When you attend the Hebrew women and see them giving birth,” he said, “if it’s a boy, kill him; but if it’s a girl, let her live.” 17 However, the midwives were God-fearing women, so they didn’t do as the king of Egypt ordered but let the boys live.
)• Judah Touro (1854)
The 19th of Tevet the yahrtzeit (anniversary of the passing) of American Jewish philanthropist Judah Touro (1775-1854).
Daily Quote:
If you wait until you find the meaning of life, will there be enough life left to live meaningfully?[The Lubavitcher Rebbe]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shemot, 5th Portion Exodus 3:16-4:17 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 3
16Go and assemble the elders of Israel, and say to them, 'The Lord God of your forefathers has appeared to me, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, "I have surely remembered you and what is being done to you in Egypt." ' טזלֵ֣ךְ וְאָֽסַפְתָּ֞ אֶת־זִקְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֤ אֲלֵהֶם֙ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֤י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶם֙ נִרְאָ֣ה אֵלַ֔י אֱלֹהֵ֧י אַבְרָהָ֛ם יִצְחָ֥ק וְיַֽעֲקֹ֖ב לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֤ד פָּקַ֨דְתִּי֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְאֶת־הֶֽעָשׂ֥וּי לָכֶ֖ם בְּמִצְרָֽיִם:
the elders of Israel: Those devoted to study, for if you say [that it means] ordinary elderly men, how was it possible for him to gather [all] the elderly men of [a nation of] six hundred thousand? [from Yoma 28b] את זקני ישראל: מיוחדים לישיבה. ואם תאמר זקנים סתם, היאך אפשר לו לאסוף זקנים של ששים רבוא:
17And I said, 'I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt, to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, to a land flowing with milk and honey.' יזוָֽאֹמַ֗ר אַֽעֲלֶ֣ה אֶתְכֶם֘ מֵֽעֳנִ֣י מִצְרַ֒יִם֒ אֶל־אֶ֤רֶץ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי֙ וְהַ֣חִתִּ֔י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י וְהַֽחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִ֑י אֶל־אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָֽשׁ:
18And they will hearken to your voice, and you shall come, you and the elders of Israel, to the king of Egypt, and you shall say to him, 'The Lord God of the Hebrews has happened upon us, and now, let us go for a three days' journey in the desert and offer up sacrifices to the Lord, our God.' יחוְשָֽׁמְע֖וּ לְקֹלֶ֑ךָ וּבָאתָ֡ אַתָּה֩ וְזִקְנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶל־מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֗יִם וַֽאֲמַרְתֶּ֤ם אֵלָיו֙ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֤י הָֽעִבְרִיִּים֙ נִקְרָ֣ה עָלֵ֔ינוּ וְעַתָּ֗ה נֵֽלֲכָה־נָּ֞א דֶּ֣רֶךְ שְׁל֤שֶׁת יָמִים֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְנִזְבְּחָ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ:
And they will hearken to your voice: As soon as you say this expression [“I have surely remembered you…," פָּקֹד פָּקַדְךְתִּי אֶתְכֶם] to them, they will hearken to your voice, for this password was transmitted to them from Jacob and from Joseph, that with this expression they will be redeemed. Jacob said to them, “and God will surely remember יִפְקֹד) (פָּקֹד you (Gen. 50:24). Joseph said to them, “God will surely remember (פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד) you” (Gen. 50:25). — [from Exod. Rabbah 3:11] ושמעו לקלך: מאליהם, מכיון שתאמר להם לשון זה ישמעו לקולך, שכבר סימן זה מסור בידם מיעקב ומיוסף שבלשון זה הם נגאלים. יעקב אמר (בראשית נ כב) וא-להים פקוד יפקוד אתכם, יוסף אמר להם (בראשית נ כה) פקוד יפקוד א-להים אתכם:
(God of the Hebrews: Heb. הָעִבְרִיִים The “yud” is superfluous. It alludes to the ten plagues. — [From an old Rashi]) העבריים אלהי: (יו"ד יתירה רמז למכות (ברשי ישן
has happened upon us: Heb. נִקְרָה, an expression of an occurrence (מִקְרֶה), and similarly, “God happened (וַיִקָר)” (Num. 23:4), “and I will be met by Him there (וְאָנֹכִי אִקָרֵה כֹּה)” (Num. 23:15). נקרה עלינו: לשון מקרה וכן (במדבר כג ד) ויקר א-להים, (שם טו) ואנכי אקרה כה, אהא נקרה מאתו הלום:
19However, I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except through a mighty hand. יטוַֽאֲנִ֣י יָדַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֠י לֹֽא־יִתֵּ֥ן אֶתְכֶ֛ם מֶ֥לֶךְ מִצְרַ֖יִם לַֽהֲלֹ֑ךְ וְלֹ֖א בְּיָ֥ד חֲזָקָֽה:
the king of Egypt will not permit you to go: if I do not show him My mighty hand; i.e., as long as I do not show him My mighty hand, he will not let you go. לא יתן אתכם מלך מצרים להלך: אם אין אני מראה לו ידי החזקה, כלומר כל עוד שאין אני מודיעו ידי החזקה לא יתן אתכם להלוך:
will not permit: Heb. לֹא-יִךְתֵּן, [lit., will not give. In this case, however, Onkelos renders:] לֹא יִֹשְבּוֹק, will not permit, similar to “Therefore, I did not let you (לֹא-נְתַךְתִּי)” (Gen. 20:6); but God did not let him (וְלֹא-נְתָנוֹ) harm me” (Gen. 31:7), but they all are expressions of giving. [They are basically expressions of giving, in these cases, giving permission.] Others explain וְלֹא בְּיָד חִזָקָה - and not because his hand is mighty, for as soon as I stretch forth My hand and smite the Egyptians, etc.” The Targum renders it: “and not because his strength is mighty.” This was told to me in the name of Rabbi Jacob the son of Rabbi Menachem. לא יתן: לא ישבוק, כמו (בראשית כ ו) על כן לא נתתיך, (שם לא ז) ולא נתנו א-להים להרע עמדי, וכולן לשון נתינה הם. ויש מפרשים ולא ביד חזקה ולא בשביל שידו חזקה, כי מאז אשלח את ידי והכיתי את מצרים וגו', ומתרגמין אותו ולא מן קדם דחיליה תקיף, משמו של רבי יעקב ברבי מנחם נאמר לי:
20And I will stretch forth My hand and smite the Egyptians with all My miracles that I will wreak in their midst, and afterwards he will send you out. כוְשָֽׁלַחְתִּ֤י אֶת־יָדִי֙ וְהִכֵּיתִ֣י אֶת־מִצְרַ֔יִם בְּכֹל֙ נִפְלְאתָ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶעשֶׂ֖ה בְּקִרְבּ֑וֹ וְאַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֖ן יְשַׁלַּ֥ח אֶתְכֶֽם:
21And I will put this people's favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, and it will come to pass that when you go, you will not go empty handed. כאוְנָֽתַתִּ֛י אֶת־חֵ֥ן הָֽעָם־הַזֶּ֖ה בְּעֵינֵ֣י מִצְרָ֑יִם וְהָיָה֙ כִּ֣י תֵֽלֵכ֔וּן לֹ֥א תֵֽלְכ֖וּ רֵיקָֽם:
22Each woman shall borrow from her neighbor and from the dweller in her house silver and gold objects and garments, and you shall put [them] on your sons and on your daughters, and you shall empty out Egypt." כבוְשָֽׁאֲלָ֨ה אִשָּׁ֤ה מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ֙ וּמִגָּרַ֣ת בֵּיתָ֔הּ כְּלֵי־כֶ֛סֶף וּכְלֵ֥י זָהָ֖ב וּשְׂמָלֹ֑ת וְשַׂמְתֶּ֗ם עַל־בְּנֵיכֶם֙ וְעַל־בְּנֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם וְנִצַּלְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־מִצְרָֽיִם:
and from the dweller in her house: From the one who lives with her in the same house. ומגרת ביתה: מאותה שהיא גרה אתה בבית:
and you shall empty out: Heb. וְנִצַּלְךְתֶּם, as the Targum renders: וּתְרוּקְנוּן, and you shall empty out. And likewise, and they emptied out (וַיְנצלוּ) Egypt (Exod. 12:36); “and the children of Israel stripped themselves (וַיִתְנַצְלוּ) of their ornaments” (Exod. 33:6). Hence, the nun is a root letter. Menachem, however, classified it in the classification of the “tzaddi” (Machbereth Menachem p. 149) with “Thus, God separated (וַיַצֵל) your father’s livestock” (Gen. 31:9); “that God separated (הִצִיל) from our father” (Gen. 31:16). His words are, however, incorrect, because if the “nun” were not part of the root, since it is vowelized with a “chirik”, the word would not be used in the active sense for the second person masculine plural, but in the passive form for the second person masculine plural, similar to: “and you shall be uprooted (וְנִסַּחְךְתֶּם) from the land” (Deut. 28:63); “and you shall be delivered (וְנִתַךְתֶּם) into the hand of the enemy” (Lev. 26:25); “and you will be beaten (וְנִגַּפְךְתֶּם) before your enemies” (Lev. 26:17); “and you will be melted (וְנִךְתַּכְךְתֶּם) in its midst” (Ezek. 22:21); and say, ‘We are saved (נִצַלְנוּ)’ ” (Jer. 7:10), a passive expression in the first person plural. Every “nun” that is sometimes in the root and [sometimes] is missing, like the “nun” of נוֹגֵף (beats), נוֹשֵׂא (carries), נוֹתֵן (gives), נוֹשֵׁ (bites), when it is used in the active second person plural, is vowelized with a vocalized “schwa,” e.g., “and you shall carry (וּנְשָׂאתֶם) your father” (Gen. 45:19); “and you shall give (וּנְמַלְךְתֶּם) them” (Num. 32:29); “And you shall circumcise (וּנְתַךְתֶּם) the flesh of your foreskin” (Gen. 17:11). Therefore, I say that this [nun], which is vowelized with a “chirik”, is part of the root, and the noun is נִצּוּל, which is a heavy expression [with a “dagesh” in the second letter], like דִבּוּר (speech), כִּפּוּר (atonement), לִמוּד (teaching), and when one speaks in the second person plural, it (the first root letter of the verb) is vowelized with a “chirik”, like: “And you shall speak (וְדִבַּרְךְתֶּם) to the rock” (Num. 20:8); “and expiate (וְכִפַּרְךְתֶּם) the House” (Ezek. 45:20); “And you shall teach (וְלִמַּדְךְתֶּם) them to your sons” (Deut. 11:19). ונצלתם: כתרגומו ותרוקנון. וכן (שמות יב לו) וינצלו את מצרים, (שמות לג ו) ויתנצלו בני ישראל את עדים, והנו"ן בו יסוד. ומנחם חברו במחברת צד"י עם (בראשית לא ט) ויצל א-להים את מקנה אביכם, (שם טז) אשר הציל א-להים מאבינו. ולא יאמנו דבריו, כי אם לא היתה הנו"ן יסוד והיא נקודה בחיר"ק, לא תהא משמשת בלשון ופעלתם אלא בלשון ונפעלתם, כמו (דברים כח סג) ונסחתם מן האדמה, (ויקרא כו כה) ונתתם ביד אויב, (שם יז) ונגפתם לפני אויביכם, (יחזקאל כב כא) ונתכתם בתוכה, (ירמיהו ז י) ואמרתם נצלנו, לשון נפעלנו. וכל נו"ן שהיא באה בתיבה לפרקים ונופלת ממנה, כנו"ן של נוגף, נושא, נותן, נושך, כשהיא מדברת לשון ופעלתם תנקד בשו"א בחטף, כגון (בראשית מה יט) ונשאתם את אביכם, (במדבר לב כט) ונתתם להם את ארץ הגלעד, (בראשית יז יא) ונמלתם את בשר ערלתכם. לכן אני אומר שזאת הנקודה בחיר"ק מן היסוד היא, ויסוד שם דבר נצול, והוא מן הלשונות הכבדים, כמו דבור, כפור, למוד, כשידבר בלשון ופעלתם ינקד בחיר"ק, כמו (במדבר כ ח) ודברתם אל הסלע, (יחזקאל מה כ) וכפרתם את הבית, (דברים יא יט) ולמדתם אותם את בניכם:
Exodus Chapter 4
1Moses answered and said, "Behold they will not believe me, and they will not heed my voice, but they will say, 'The Lord has not appeared to you.' " אוַיַּ֤עַן משֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹא־יַֽאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י כִּ֣י יֹֽאמְר֔וּ לֹֽא־נִרְאָ֥ה אֵלֶ֖יךָ יְהֹוָֽה:
2And the Lord said to him, "What is this in your hand?" And he said, "A staff." בוַיֹּ֧אמֶר אֵלָ֛יו יְהֹוָ֖ה מַה־זֶּ֣ה (כתיב מזה) בְיָדֶ֑ךָ וַיֹּ֖אמֶר מַטֶּֽה:
“What is this in your hand?”: Heb. מַזֶּה, [an unusual spelling. Its usual spelling is מַה זֶה in two words.] It is written as one word to imply the meaning: From this (מִזֶה) in your hand you are liable to be stricken because you have suspected innocent people (Exod. Rabbah 3:12). Its simple meaning is [that God is talking to Moses] as a person who says to his friend, “Do you admit that this before you is a stone?” He answers him, “Yes.” “Well, I will make it into a tree.” מזה בידך: לכך נכתב תיבה אחת, לדרוש מזה שבידך אתה חייב ללקות, שחשדת בכשרים. ופשוטו כאדם שאומר לחברו מודה אתה שזו שלפניך אבן היא. אומר לו הן. אמר לו הריני עושה אותה עץ:
3And He said, "Cast it to the ground," and he cast it to the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses fled from before it. גוַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הַשְׁלִיכֵ֣הוּ אַ֔רְצָה וַיַּשְׁלִכֵ֥הוּ אַ֖רְצָה וַיְהִ֣י לְנָחָ֑שׁ וַיָּ֥נָס משֶׁ֖ה מִפָּנָֽיו:
and it became a serpent-: [This was how] He hinted to him [Moses] that he had spoken ill of Israel (by saying, “They will not believe me,” ) and he had adopted the art of the serpent. — [from Exod. Rabbah 3:12] ויהי לנחש: רמז לו שסיפר לשון הרע על ישראל ותפש אומנותו של נחש:
4And the Lord said to Moses, "Stretch forth your hand and take hold of its tail." So Moses stretched forth his hand and grasped it, and it became a staff in his hand. דוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה שְׁלַח֙ יָֽדְךָ֔ וֶֽאֱחֹ֖ז בִּזְנָב֑וֹ וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח יָדוֹ֙ וַיַּ֣חֲזֶק בּ֔וֹ וַיְהִ֥י לְמַטֶּ֖ה בְּכַפּֽוֹ:
and grasped it-: Heb. וַיַּחֲזִיק בּוֹ. This is an expression of taking hold, and there are many such words in Scripture, e.g., “and the men took hold (וַיַּחִזִיקוּ) of his hand” (Gen. 19:16); “and she grabbed (וְהֶחֱזִיקָה) his private parts” (Deut. 25:11); “and I took hold (וְהֶחֱזַקְךְתִּי) of his jaw” (I Sam. 17:35). Every expression of חִזוּק attached to a “beth” denotes taking hold. ויחזק בו: לשון אחיזה הוא, והרבה יש במקרא (בראשית יט טז) ויחזיקו האנשים בידו, (דברים כה יא) והחזיקה במבושיו, (שמואל א יז לה) והחזקתי בזקנו. כל לשון חזוק הדבוק לבי"ת, לשון אחיזה הוא:
5"In order that they believe that the Lord, the God of their forefathers, has appeared to you, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." הלְמַ֣עַן יַֽאֲמִ֔ינוּ כִּֽי־נִרְאָ֥ה אֵלֶ֛יךָ יְהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹתָ֑ם אֱלֹהֵ֧י אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֖ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹֽב:
6And the Lord said further to him, "Now put your hand into your bosom," and he put his hand into his bosom, and he took it out, and behold, his hand was leprous like snow. ווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה ל֜וֹ ע֗וֹד הָֽבֵא־נָ֤א יָֽדְךָ֙ בְּחֵיקֶ֔ךָ וַיָּבֵ֥א יָד֖וֹ בְּחֵיק֑וֹ וַיּ֣וֹצִאָ֔הּ וְהִנֵּ֥ה יָד֖וֹ מְצֹרַ֥עַת כַּשָּֽׁלֶג:
his hand was leprous like snow: It is usual for tzora'as (leprousy) to be white [as we find:] "If it be a white blemish." (Vayikra 13:4) With this sign, too, He hinted to him that he spoke slanderously when he said, "They will not believe me." It is for this reason that He struck him with tzora'as, just as Miriam was struck for speaking slanderously. מצרעת כשלג: דרך צרעת להיות לבנה (ויקרא יג ד) אם בהרת לבנה היא. אף באות זה רמז שלשון הרע סיפר באומרו (פסוק א) לא יאמינו לי, לפיכך הלקהו בצרעת, כמו שלקתה מרים על לשון הרע:
7And He said, "Put your hand back into your bosom," and he put his hand back into his bosom, and [when] he took it out of his bosom, it had become again like [the rest of] his flesh. זוַיֹּ֗אמֶר הָשֵׁ֤ב יָֽדְךָ֙ אֶל־חֵיקֶ֔ךָ וַיָּ֥שֶׁב יָד֖וֹ אֶל־חֵיק֑וֹ וַיּֽוֹצִאָהּ֙ מֵֽחֵיק֔וֹ וְהִנֵּה־שָׁ֖בָה כִּבְשָׂרֽוֹ:
and [when] he took it out of his bosom: From here, [we learn] that the Divine measure of good comes quicker than the measure of retribution, for in the first instance [verse 6] it does not say, from his bosom. — [from Shab. 97a, Exod. Rabbah 3:13] ויוצאה מחיקו והנה שבה כבשרו: מכאן שמדה טובה ממהרת לבא ממדת פורענות, שהרי בראשונה לא נאמר מחיקו:
8"And it will come to pass, that if they do not believe you, and they do not heed the voice of the first sign, they will believe the voice of the last sign. חוְהָיָה֙ אִם־לֹ֣א יַֽאֲמִ֣ינוּ לָ֔ךְ וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמְע֔וּ לְקֹ֖ל הָאֹ֣ת הָֽרִאשׁ֑וֹן וְהֶֽאֱמִ֔ינוּ לְקֹ֖ל הָאֹ֥ת הָאַֽחֲרֽוֹן:
they will believe the voice of the last sign: When you tell them, “Because of you I was stricken, because I spoke ill of you,” they will believe you, for they have already learned that those who trespass against them are stricken with plagues, such as Pharaoh and Abimelech, [who were punished] because of Sarah. והאמינו לקל האת האחרון: משתאמר להם בשבילכם לקיתי על שספרתי עליכם לשון הרע יאמינו לך, שכבר למדו בכך שהמזדווגין להרע להם לוקים בנגעים, כגון פרעה ואבימלך בשביל שרה:
9And it will come to pass, if they do not believe either of these two signs, and they do not heed your voice, you shall take of the water of the Nile and spill it upon the dry land, and the water that you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry land." טוְהָיָ֡ה אִם־לֹ֣א יַֽאֲמִ֡ינוּ גַּם֩ לִשְׁנֵ֨י הָֽאֹת֜וֹת הָאֵ֗לֶּה וְלֹ֤א יִשְׁמְעוּן֙ לְקֹלֶ֔ךָ וְלָֽקַחְתָּ֙ מִמֵּימֵ֣י הַיְאֹ֔ר וְשָֽׁפַכְתָּ֖ הַיַּבָּשָׁ֑ה וְהָי֤וּ הַמַּ֨יִם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּקַּ֣ח מִן־הַיְאֹ֔ר וְהָי֥וּ לְדָ֖ם בַּיַּבָּֽשֶׁת:
you shall take of the water of the Nile: He hinted to them that with the first plague He exacts retribution upon their deities. (This means that when the Holy One, blessed be He, exacts retribution upon the nations, He first exacts retribution upon their deities, for they [the Egyptians] worshipped the Nile, which afforded them sustenance, and He turned them [the deities, i.e., the Nile] into blood. [From an old Rashi]) ולקחת ממימי היאור: רמז להם שבמכה ראשונה נפרע מאלהותם:
and the water…will become: The word וְהָיוּ, will become, appears twice. [The verse means literally: And will be (וְהָיוּ), meaning that the water that you will take from the Nile will become (וְהָיוּ) blood on dry land.] It seems to me that if it said: “And will be (וְהָיוּ) the water that you will take from the Nile will become (וְהָיוּ) blood on dry land,” I understand [that it means] that in his hand it would turn into blood, and also when it descended to earth, it would remain as it is. But now it [the text] teaches us that it would not become blood until on dry land. והיו המים וגו': והיו והיו שתי פעמים. נראה בעיני, אלו נאמר והיו המים אשר תקח מן היאור לדם ביבשת, שומע אני שבידו הם נהפכים לדם ואף כשירדו לארץ יהיו בהוייתן, אבל עכשיו מלמדנו שלא יהיו דם עד שיהיו ביבשת:
10Moses said to the Lord, "I beseech You, O Lord. I am not a man of words, neither from yesterday nor from the day before yesterday, nor from the time You have spoken to Your servant, for I am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue." יוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֣ה אֶל־יְהֹוָה֘ בִּ֣י אֲדֹנָי֒ לֹא֩ אִ֨ישׁ דְּבָרִ֜ים אָנֹ֗כִי גַּ֤ם מִתְּמוֹל֙ גַּ֣ם מִשִּׁלְשֹׁ֔ם גַּ֛ם מֵאָ֥ז דַּבֶּרְךָ֖ אֶל־עַבְדֶּ֑ךָ כִּ֧י כְבַד־פֶּ֛ה וּכְבַ֥ד לָשׁ֖וֹן אָנֹֽכִי:
neither from yesterday, etc.: We learn [from this] that for a full seven days the Holy One, blessed be He, was enticing Moses in the thorn bush to go on His mission: “from yesterday,” “from the day before yesterday,” “from the time You have spoken” ; thus there are three [days], and the three times גַּם [is mentioned] are inclusive words, adding up to six, and he was presently in the seventh day when he further said to Him, “Send now with whom You would send” (verse 13), until He became angry (verse 14) and complained about him. All this [reluctance] was because he [Moses] did not want to accept a position higher than his brother Aaron, who was his senior and was a prophet, as it is said: “Did I appear to the house of your father when they were in Egypt?” (I Sam. 2:27); [“your father” means Aaron. Similarly,] “and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt” (Ezek. 20:5); “And I said to them, ‘Every man cast away the despicable idols from before his eyes’” (Ezek. 20:7), and that prophecy was said to Aaron. — [from Exod. Rabbah 3:16] גם מתמול וגו': למדנו שכל שבעה ימים היה הקב"ה מפתה את משה בסנה לילך בשליחותו מתמול שלשום מאז דברך הרי שלשה, ושלשה גמין רבויין הם, הרי ששה, והוא היה עומד ביום השביעי כשאמר לו זאת עוד (להלן פסוק יג) שלח נא ביד תשלח, עד שחרה בו וקבל עליו. וכל זה, שלא היה רוצה ליטול גדולה על אהרן אחיו שהיה גדול הימנו ונביא היה, שנאמר (שמואל א ב כז) הנגלה נגליתי אל בית אביך בהיותם במצרים, הוא אהרן. וכן ביחזקאל (כ ה) ואודע להם בארץ מצרים וגו', (שם ז) ואומר אליהם איש שקוצי עיניו השליכו, ואותה נבואה לאהרן נאמרה:
heavy of mouth: I speak with difficulty, and in old French, it is balbu, stammerer. כבד פה: בכבידות אני מדבר, ובלשון לעז בלב"א [גמגמן]:
11But the Lord said to him, "Who gave man a mouth, or who makes [one] dumb or deaf or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? יאוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֵלָ֗יו מִ֣י שָׂ֣ם פֶּה֘ לָֽאָדָם֒ א֚וֹ מִֽי־יָשׂ֣וּם אִלֵּ֔ם א֣וֹ חֵרֵ֔שׁ א֥וֹ פִקֵּ֖חַ א֣וֹ עִוֵּ֑ר הֲלֹ֥א אָֽנֹכִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה:
Who gave man a mouth: Who taught you to speak when you were being judged before Pharaoh concerning the Egyptian [you killed]? מי שם פה וגו': מי למדך לדבר כשהיית נדון לפני פרעה על המצרי:
or who makes [one] dumb: Who made Pharaoh dumb, that he did not exert any effort [to issue his] command to kill you? And [who made] his servants deaf, so that they did not hear his commandment concerning you? And who made the executioners blind, that they did not see when you fled from the [executioner’s] platform and escaped?-[from Tanchuma, Shemoth 10] או מי ישום אלם: מי עשה פרעה אלם שלא נתאמץ במצות הריגתך, ואת משרתיו חרשים, שלא שמעו בצוותו עליך, ולאספקלטורין ההורגים מי עשאם עורים, שלא ראו כשברחת מן הבימה ונמלטת:
Is it not I: Whose name is the Lord (י-ה-ו-ה), [Who] has done all this. הלא אנכי: ששמי ה' עשיתי כל זאת:
12So now, go! I will be with your mouth, and I will instruct you what you shall speak. " יבוְעַתָּ֖ה לֵ֑ךְ וְאָֽנֹכִי֙ אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִם־פִּ֔יךָ וְהֽוֹרֵיתִ֖יךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּדַבֵּֽר:
13But he said, "I beseech You, O Lord, send now [Your message] with whom You would send." יגוַיֹּ֖אמֶר בִּ֣י אֲדֹנָ֑י שְׁלַח־נָ֖א בְּיַד־תִּשְׁלָֽח:
with whom You would send: With whom You are accustomed to sending, and this is Aaron. Another explanation: With someone else, with whom You wish to send, for I am not destined to bring them into the land [of Israel] and to be their redeemer in the future. You have many messengers. ביד תשלח: ביד מי שאתה רגיל לשלוח, והוא אהרן. דבר אחר ביד אחר שתרצה לשלוח, שאין סופי להכניסם לארץ ולהיות גואלם לעתיד, יש לך שלוחים הרבה:
14And the Lord's wrath was kindled against Moses, and He said, "Is there not Aaron your brother, the Levite? I know that he will surely speak, and behold, he is coming forth toward you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart. ידוַיִּֽחַר־אַ֨ף יְהֹוָ֜ה בְּמשֶׁ֗ה וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הֲלֹ֨א אַֽהֲרֹ֤ן אָחִ֨יךָ֙ הַלֵּוִ֔י יָדַ֕עְתִּי כִּֽי־דַבֵּ֥ר יְדַבֵּ֖ר ה֑וּא וְגַ֤ם הִנֵּה־הוּא֙ יֹצֵ֣א לִקְרָאתֶ֔ךָ וְרָֽאֲךָ֖ וְשָׂמַ֥ח בְּלִבּֽוֹ:
wrath was kindled: Rabbi Joshua ben Korchah says: In every [instance that God’s] kindling anger [is mentioned, i.e., that God’s anger was sparked] in the Torah, it is stated [that there was] a consequence [i.e., it was followed by a punishment]. In this [instance, however,] no consequence is stated, and we do not find that a punishment came [to Moses] after this kindling of anger. Rabbi Jose said to him, “Here too you can see a consequence is stated: [namely in the question] ‘Is there not Aaron your brother, the Levite,’ who was destined to be a Levite and not a priest [kohen]. I had said that the priesthood would emanate from you, henceforth it will not be so, but he [Aaron] will be a priest and you the Levite, as it is said: ‘But as for Moses, the man of God-his sons were to be called in the tribe of Levi’ (I Chron. 23:14).” -[from Zev. 102a] ויחר אף: ר' יהושע בן קרחה אומר כל חרון אף שבתורה נאמר בו רושם, וזה לא נאמר בו רושם, ולא מצינו שבא עונש על ידי אותו חרון. אמר לו רבי יוסי אף בזו נאמר בו רושם, הלא אהרן אחיך הלוי, שהיה עתיד להיות לוי ולא כהן, והכהונה הייתי אומר לצאת ממך, מעתה לא יהיה כן, אלא הוא יהיה כהן ואתה הלוי, שנאמר (דברי הימים א' כג כד) ומשה איש הא-להים בניו יקראו על שבט הלוי:
and behold, he is coming forth toward you: when you go to Egypt. הנה הוא יצא לקראתך: כשתלך למצרים:
and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart: Not as you think, that he will resent your attaining a high position. Because of this [Aaron’s goodness and humility], Aaron merited the ornament of the breastplate, which is placed over the heart (Exod. 28:29). — [from Exod. Rabbah 3:17] וראך ושמח בלבו: לא כשאתה סבור שיהא מקפיד עליך שאתה עולה לגדולה. ומשם זכה אהרן לעדי החשן הנתון על הלב:
15You shall speak to him, and you shall put the words into his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will instruct you [both] what you shall do. טווְדִבַּרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֔יו וְשַׂמְתָּ֥ אֶת־הַדְּבָרִ֖ים בְּפִ֑יו וְאָֽנֹכִ֗י אֶֽהְיֶ֤ה עִם־פִּ֨יךָ֙ וְעִם־פִּ֔יהוּ וְהֽוֹרֵיתִ֣י אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֵ֖ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּֽעֲשֽׂוּן:
16And he will speak for you to the people, and it will be that he will be your speaker, and you will be his leader. טזוְדִבֶּר־ה֥וּא לְךָ֖ אֶל־הָעָ֑ם וְהָ֤יָה הוּא֙ יִֽהְיֶה־לְּךָ֣ לְפֶ֔ה וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּֽהְיֶה־לּ֥וֹ לֵֽאלֹהִֽים:
And he will speak for you: Heb לְ On your behalf he will speak to the people. This proves that every instance of לָכֶם, לְ, לִי, לוֹ and לָהֶם used in conjunction with דִבּוּר, speech, all denote “on behalf of.” ודבר הוא לך: בשבילך ידבר אל העם וזה יוכיח על כל לך ולי ולו ולכם ולהם הסמוכים לדבור, שכולם לשון על הם:
will be your speaker: lit., your mouth. [He will be] your interpreter, because you have a speech impediment. — [from targumim] יהיה לך לפה: למליץ, לפי שאתה כבד פה:
leader: Heb. לֵאלֹהִים, as a master and as a prince. לא-להים: לרב ולשר:
17And you shall take this staff in your hand, with which you shall perform the signs." יזוְאֶת־הַמַּטֶּ֥ה הַזֶּ֖ה תִּקַּ֣ח בְּיָדֶ֑ךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־בּ֖וֹ אֶת־הָֽאֹתֹֽת:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 90 - 96
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 90
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 90 - 96
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 90
David found this prayer in its present form-receiving a tradition attributing it to MosesThe Midrash attributes the next eleven psalms to Moses (Rashi).-and incorporated it into the Tehillim. It speaks of the brevity of human life, and inspires man to repent and avoid pride in this world.
1. A prayer by Moses, the man of God. My Lord, You have been a shelter for us in every generation.
2. Before the mountains came into being, before You created the earth and the world-for ever and ever You are Almighty God.
3. You diminish man until he is crushed, and You say, "Return, you children of man.”
4. Indeed, a thousand years are in Your eyes like yesterday that has passed, like a watch of the night.
5. The stream of their life is as but a slumber; in the morning they are like grass that sprouts anew.
6. In the morning it thrives and sprouts anew; in the evening it withers and dries.
7. For we are consumed by Your anger, and destroyed by Your wrath.
8. You have set our wrongdoings before You, our hidden sins before the light of Your countenance.
9. For all our days have vanished in Your wrath; we cause our years to pass like a fleeting sound.
10. The days of our lives number seventy years, and if in great vigor, eighty years; most of them are but travail and futility, passing quickly and flying away.
11. Who can know the intensity of Your anger? Your wrath is commensurate with one's fear of You.
12. Teach us, then, to reckon our days, that we may acquire a wise heart.
13. Relent, O Lord; how long [will Your anger last]? Have compassion upon Your servants.
14. Satiate us in the morning with Your kindness, then we shall sing and rejoice throughout our days.
15. Give us joy corresponding to the days You afflicted us, the years we have seen adversity.
16. Let Your work be revealed to Your servants, and Your splendor be upon their children.
17. May the pleasantness of the Lord our God be upon us; establish for us the work of our hands; establish the work of our hands.
Chapter 91
This psalm inspires the hearts of the people to seek shelter under the wings of the Divine Presence. It also speaks of the four seasons of the year, and their respective ministering powers, instructing those who safeguard their souls to avoid them.
1. You who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Omnipotent:
2. I say of the Lord who is my refuge and my stronghold, my God in whom I trust,
3. that He will save you from the ensnaring trap, from the destructive pestilence.
4. He will cover you with His pinions and you will find refuge under His wings; His truth is a shield and an armor.
5. You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day;
6. the pestilence that prowls in the darkness, nor the destruction that ravages at noon.
7. A thousand may fall at your [left] side, and ten thousand at your right, but it shall not reach you.
8. You need only look with your eyes, and you will see the retribution of the wicked.
9. Because you [have said,] "The Lord is my shelter," and you have made the Most High your haven,
10. no evil will befall you, no plague will come near your tent.
11. For He will instruct His angels in your behalf, to guard you in all your ways.
12. They will carry you in their hands, lest you injure your foot upon a rock.
13. You will tread upon the lion and the viper; you will trample upon the young lion and the serpent.
14. Because he desires Me, I will deliver him; I will fortify him, for he knows My Name.
15. When he calls on Me, I will answer him; I am with him in distress. I will deliver him and honor him.
16. I will satiate him with long life, and show him My deliverance.
Chapter 92
Sung every Shabbat by the Levites in the Holy Temple, this psalm speaks of the World to Come, and comforts the hearts of those crushed by suffering.
1. A psalm, a song for the Shabbat day.
2. It is good to praise the Lord, and to sing to Your Name, O Most High;
3. to proclaim Your kindness in the morning, and Your faithfulness in the nights,
4. with a ten-stringed instrument and lyre, to the melody of a harp.
5. For You, Lord, have gladdened me with Your deeds; I sing for joy at the works of Your hand.
6. How great are Your works, O Lord; how very profound Your thoughts!
7. A brutish man cannot know, a fool cannot comprehend this:
8. When the wicked thrive like grass, and all evildoers flourish-it is in order that they may be destroyed forever.
9. But You, Lord, are exalted forever.
10. Indeed, Your enemies, O Lord, indeed Your enemies shall perish; all evildoers shall be scattered.
11. But You have increased my might like that of a wild ox; I am anointed with fresh oil.
12. My eyes have seen [the downfall of] my watchful enemies; my ears have heard [the doom of] the wicked who rise against me.
13. The righteous will flourish like a palm tree, grow tall like a cedar in Lebanon.
14. Planted in the House of the Lord, they shall blossom in the courtyards of our God.
15. They shall be fruitful even in old age; they shall be full of sap and freshness-
16. to declare that the Lord is just; He is my Strength, and there is no injustice in Him.
Chapter 93
This psalm speaks of the Messianic era, when God will don grandeur-allowing no room for man to boast before Him as did Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and Sennacherib.
1. The Lord is King; He has garbed Himself with grandeur; the Lord has robed Himself, He has girded Himself with strength; He has also established the world firmly that it shall not falter.
2. Your throne stands firm from of old; You have existed forever.
3. The rivers have raised, O Lord, the rivers have raised their voice; the rivers raise their raging waves.
4. More than the sound of many waters, than the mighty breakers of the sea, is the Lord mighty on High.
5. Your testimonies are most trustworthy; Your House will be resplendent in holiness, O Lord, forever.
Chapter 94
An awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer with which every individual can pray for the redemption. It is also an important moral teaching.
1. The Lord is a God of retribution; O God of retribution, reveal Yourself!
2. Judge of the earth, arise; render to the arrogant their recompense.
3. How long shall the wicked, O Lord, how long shall the wicked exult?
4. They continuously speak insolently; all the evildoers act arrogantly.
5. They crush Your people, O Lord, and oppress Your heritage.
6. They kill the widow and the stranger, and murder the orphans.
7. And they say, "The Lord does not see, the God of Jacob does not perceive.”
8. Understand, you senseless among the people; you fools, when will you become wise?
9. Shall He who implants the ear not hear? Shall He who forms the eye not see?
10. Shall He who chastises nations not punish? Shall He who imparts knowledge to man [not know]?
11. The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are naught.
12. Fortunate is the man whom You chastise, O Lord, and instruct him in Your Torah,
13. bestowing upon him tranquillity in times of adversity, until the pit is dug for the wicked.
14. For the Lord will not abandon His people, nor forsake His heritage.
15. For judgment shall again be consonant with justice, and all the upright in heart will pursue it.
16. Who would rise up for me against the wicked ones; who would stand up for me against the evildoers?
17. Had the Lord not been a help to me, my soul would have soon dwelt in the silence [of the grave].
18. When I thought that my foot was slipping, Your kindness, O Lord, supported me.
19. When my [worrisome] thoughts multiply within me, Your consolation delights my soul.
20. Can one in the seat of evil, one who makes iniquity into law, consort with You?
21. They band together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood.
22. The Lord has been my stronghold; my God, the strength of my refuge.
23. He will turn their violence against them and destroy them through their own wickedness; the Lord, our God, will destroy them.
Chapter 95
This psalm speaks of the future, when man will say to his fellow, "Come, let us sing and offer praise to God for the miracles He has performed for us!"
1. Come, let us sing to the Lord; let us raise our voices in jubilation to the Rock of our deliverance.
2. Let us approach Him with thanksgiving; let us raise our voices to Him in song.
3. For the Lord is a great God, and a great King over all supernal beings;
4. in His hands are the depths of the earth, and the heights of the mountains are His.
5. Indeed, the sea is His, for He made it; His hands formed the dry land.
6. Come, let us prostrate ourselves and bow down; let us bend the knee before the Lord, our Maker.
7. For He is our God, and we are the people that He tends, the flock under His [guiding] hand-even this very day, if you would but hearken to His voice!
8. Do not harden your heart as at Merivah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
9. where your fathers tested Me; they tried Me, though they had seen My deeds.
10. For forty years I quarreled with that generation; and I said, "They are a people of erring hearts, they do not know My ways.”
11. So I vowed in My anger that they would not enter My resting place.
Chapter 96
The time will yet come when man will say to his fellow: "Come, let us sing to God!"
1. Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth.
2. Sing to the Lord, bless His Name; proclaim His deliverance from day to day.
3. Recount His glory among the nations, His wonders among all the peoples.
4. For the Lord is great and highly praised; He is awesome above all gods.
5. For all the gods of the nations are naught, but the Lord made the heavens.
6. Majesty and splendor are before Him, might and beauty in His Sanctuary.
7. Render to the Lord, O families of nations, render to the Lord honor and might.
8. Render to the Lord honor due to His Name; bring an offering and come to His courtyards.
9. Bow down to the Lord in resplendent holiness; tremble before Him, all the earth.
10. Proclaim among the nations, "The Lord reigns"; indeed, the world is firmly established that it shall not falter; He will judge the peoples with righteousness.
11. The heavens will rejoice, the earth will exult; the sea and its fullness will roar.
12. The fields and everything therein will jubilate; then all the trees of the forest will sing.
13. Before the Lord [they shall rejoice], for He has come, for He has come to judge the earth; He will judge the world with justice, and the nations with His truth.
---------------------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 12
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 12
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Thursday, Tevet 19, 5776 · December 31, 2015
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Thursday, Tevet 19, 5776 · December 31, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 12
In the previous chapters, the Alter Rebbe defined the terms tzaddik and rasha. The tzaddik, he explained, is one in whom the good qualities of his divine soul vanquish the evil qualities of his animal soul, to the extent of completely eradicating them. A rasha, conversely, is one in whom the evil qualities of his animal soul overcome the good of his divine soul, causing him to sin in thought, speech or action.
In this, the twelfth chapter, the term Beinoni — the “intermediate man” who is neither tzaddik nor rasha — will be defined. The Beinoni, the Alter Rebbe explains, is one whose practical conduct in thought, speech and action is dictated solely by the divine soul; it has the upper hand over the animal soul. The Beinoni accomplishes this by not allowing himself to be dominated in any way by the animal soul, even for the shortest duration, never thinking, speaking and surely not acting in a sinful manner. The garments of the divine soul alone — namely thought, speech and action in Torah and mitzvot — are those used by the Beinoni.
Nevertheless, with respect to the essence of the divine and animal souls, i.e., their respective faculties of intellect and emotion, the divine soul does not dominate the animal soul, and the latter remains powerful enough to arouse desires for physical matters. However, through constant vigilance the Beinoni keeps these desires in check, never permitting them any practical manifestation.
והבינוני הוא שלעולם אין הרע גובר כל כך לכבוש את העיר קטנה
The Beinoni (“intermediate man”) is he in whom the evil of the animal soul never attains enough power to conquer the “small city” (i.e., the body, which is likened to a small city which the divine and animal soul both wish to dominate),
להתלבש בגוף להחטיאו
so as to clothe itself in the body and make it sin.
דהיינו ששלשת לבושי נפש הבהמית, שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה שמצד הקליפה
That is to say, the three “garments” of the animal soul — namely thought, speech and action originating in the kelipah — (i.e., forbidden thought, speech and action, which derive their vitality from kelipah, as explained in previous chapters) are, in the Beinoni, so subdued that they
אין גוברים בו על נפש האלקית להתלבש בגוף
do not prevail within him over the divine soul to the extent of clothing themselves in the body
במוח ובפה ובשאר רמ״ח אברים, להחטיאם ולטמאם חס ושלום
— (neither) in the brain (so that the brain think forbidden thoughts with the animal soul’s garment of thought) nor in the mouth (to speak forbidden words — the garment of speech) nor in any of the other 248 organs (to act in a forbidden manner — the garment of action) — in none of these do the garments of the animal soul clothe themselves to cause them to sin and to defile them, G‑d forbid, (in which case he would be a rasha, not a Beinoni).
רק שלשה לבושי נפש האלקית הם לבדם מתלבשים בגוף, שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה של תרי״ג מצות התורה
Only the three garments of the divine soul, they alone manifest themselves in the body, these being the thought, speech and action related to the 613 commandments of the Torah.
ולא עבר עבירה מימיו ולא יעבור לעולם
The Beinoni has never committed any transgression, nor will he ever transgress;
ולא נקרא עליו שם רשע אפילו שעה אחת ורגע אחד כל ימיו
the name “rasha” has never been applied to him, however temporarily, not even for a moment, throughout his life.
The Rebbe notes: “The question is well known.”; i.e., with regard to the statement that the Beinoni is one who has never transgressed, the following question is commonly raised:
Is it not possible, through repentance and subsequent divine service, that one attain the rank of Beinoni despite his previous sins? After repenting one can rise even to the level of tzaddik; surely, then, the rank of Beinoni is not beyond his reach!
The Rebbe answers this question in the following manner:
When the Alter Rebbe states that the Beinoni has never transgressed, he does not mean that the Beinoni never sinned in his life as a human being, but that in his life as a Beinoni he has no history of sin. The Beinoni’s present spiritual state is such that sin — in the past as well as in the future — has no place in his life. He would not sin even if he were subject to the same temptations and trials which led him to sin in the past. It is therefore true to state that from the perspective of his present statehe has never sinned.
Likewise, the Alter Rebbe’s statement that the Beinoni “will never sin” is to be understood in the same vein. The intention is not that it is impossible for him to sin; he does not, after all, lose his freedom of choice. Rather, as explained above, hispresent state is such that it precludes his sinning in the future, despite the trials that the future may bring.
To be classified as a true Beinoni, one must fulfill these conditions. For if one’s spiritual state precludes his sinning only under present conditions, but he would succumb to sin were he subject to the temptations of the past or those the future may bring, then he is, in potentia, a rasha; he could and would sin, except that the prevailing circumstances are not sufficiently conducive for him to do so.
In the same vein, the Alter Rebbe concludes, “The name ‘rasha’ (referring to one who sins in thought, speech or action) has never (again, in his state of Beinoni) been applied to him, however temporarily…” For the Beinoni has reached a state where sin is precluded under any circumstances, whether of the past or future.
It remains to be understood, however, why such a lofty person is considered merely a Beinoni, not a tzaddik. This matter is now clarified.
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Thursday, Tevet 19, 5776 · December 31, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 321
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
"Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day"—Exodus 16:29.
It is forbidden on Shabbat to travel more than 2,000 cubits (approximately 3000 ft.) out of a city's parameters.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 321
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
"Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day"—Exodus 16:29.
It is forbidden on Shabbat to travel more than 2,000 cubits (approximately 3000 ft.) out of a city's parameters.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
Negative Commandment 321
Translated by Berel Bell
The 321st prohibition is that we are forbidden to travel [even by foot] on Shabbos.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1, "No man may leave his place on the seventh day."
Oral Tradition defines limit of "travel" as 2000 amos2 beyond the city limit; one may not walk even a single amoh more. However, one may walk within 2000 amos from the city limit in any direction.3
The Mechilta says: " 'No man may leave his place,' — this means beyond 2000 amos."
Our Sages said in tractate Eruvin4, "For violating the prohibition of the Shabbos limit, one receives lashes by Biblical ordinance."5
The details of this commandment are discussed in that same tractate.
FOOTNOTES
1.Shmos 16:29.
2.Approximately 3000 ft. In Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Shabbos 27:1), the Rambam rules that walking 2000 amos is prohibited only by Rabbinic law, while the Biblical prohibition is in effect only at 12 mil, or approximately 24,000 amos.
The Rambam himself explains, however, (in responsa 310, quoted in Mishneh Torah, Kapach ed., p. 575) that there is no contradiction between his two works. Sefer Hamitzvos is meant only to give a general description of the mitzvah, so he did not mention the two categories. Mishneh Torah, on the other hand, gives all the relevant halachic details. See also Introduction to Sefer Hamitzvos.
3.In Mishneh Torah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this area is considered within the suburbs of the city (see Num. 35:5).
4.17b.
5.With this quote, the Rambam proves that this mitzvah in included in the count of the 613 mitzvos.
------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 7 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 7 • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Terumot - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
A priest who is ritually impure is forbidden to partake of terumah whether it is ritually pure or ritually impure,1 as [Leviticus 22:4] states: "Any person from the seed of Aaron who is afflicted with tzaraat2or is a zav3 may not partake of consecrated food." Which consecrated food may be eaten by all the descendants of Aaron, both male and female? We must say: terumah.4
[Thus] any impure person who eats terumah that is ritually pure is liable for death at the hand of heaven. Therefore he is given lashes,5 as [ibid.:9] states: "And you shall protect My charge and not bear sin because of it [and die because of it]."
Halacha 2
Impure [priests who have immersed to purify themselves] may not partake ofterumah until the sun sets and three stars appear afterwards8 [on the day the impure person immerses himself], as [implied by ibid.:7]: "And the sun will set and he will become pure"9 - until the sky will become pure of the light - "afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods."
Halacha 3
A priest who is ritually pure who ate terumah that is ritually impure is not liable for lashes, because [the prohibition is the result of] a positive commandment. For the verse states: "Afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods."10 [Implied is that,] after he becomes purified, he may partake of food that is in a state of holiness. Food which is impure, by contrast, he should not eat, even though he becomes purified. A prohibition that stems from a positive commandment11 has the status of a positive commandment.12
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
We may immerse a deaf-mute or intellectually or emotionally unstable [priest] and feed him terumah after nightfall on that day.15 We guard them to make sure that they do not sleep after immersing themselves, because if they sleep, they are [considered] impure for perhaps they had a seminal emission16unless a copper container is made for them.17
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When a woman engages in intimacy, she may immerse herself and partake ofterumah in the evening,20 provided she did not turn over during intimacy.21If she turned over during intimacy she is forbidden to partake of terumah for a duration of three days. For it is impossible that she will not discharge [semen] and become impure,22 as will be explained in the appropriate place.23
Halacha 8
Since the primary obligation of terumah [separated] in the Diaspora is Rabbinic in origin,24 it is forbidden only to a priest who becomes ritually impure because of a discharge from his body: i.e., men who had a seminal emission,zavim,25 zavot,26 niddot,27 and women who give birth.28 All of these individuals may partake [of terumah] after they immersed even if they did not [wait] until nightfall.29 Those who, by contrast, became impure because of contact with a source of ritual impurity - whether contact with a human corpse, a form of impurity which is impossible to purge in the present age30 or contact with [the corpse of] a crawling animal - need not immerse themselves [to partake of] terumah separated in the Diaspora.
Halacha 9
For this reason, a male priest who is a minor who has not yet had a seminal emission or a female of the priestly family who has never experienced menstrual bleeding may partake of [terumah from the Diaspora] at all times without undergoing an inspection, for the presumption that they did not have a discharge that would render them ritually impure applies to them.31
Halacha 10
A priest who is uncircumcised is forbidden to partake of terumah according to Scriptural Law.35 [This concept is derived as follows: Leviticus 22:10] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] terumahand [Exodus 12:45] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] the Paschal sacrifice. Just as with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, the resident worker and the hired worker spoken about refer to those who are uncircumcised and who are forbidden [to partake of] it,36 so too, with regard to terumah, we learn that a resident worker and a hired worker who are uncircumcised are forbidden [to partake of] it. 37 If such a person partakes [of terumah], he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
Although an uncircumcised priest and all those who are impure are forbidden to partake of terumah, their wives and their servants may partake [of it].46
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply to a priest] who has maimed testicles or a severed member. They and their servants may partake of terumah.47 Their wives may not partake of terumah.48 If [such a priest] was not intimate with his wife after suffering these wounds, [his wife] may partake of terumah.49 Similarly, if he married the descendent of converts, she may partake of terumah.50
Halacha 14
When a priest with maimed testicles consecrates the daughter of a priest, she may not partake of terumah.51 [When a priest is] a eunuch who was brought to this state through natural means,52 he, his wife, and his servants may partake of terumah. [When a priest is] a tumtum or an androgynus, their servants may partake of terumah,53 but not their wives.54
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
When an androgynus [of the priestly family] engages in intimacy - whether through anal intercourse57 or vaginal intercourse - with a person who is disqualified from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified from partaking ofterumah as a woman would be.58 His servants also may not partake ofterumah.59
Similarly, if he engages in intimacy with another adrogynus with whom relations would disqualify a woman from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified. Neither he nor his servants may partake of terumah. [The latter law] applies when he engages in intimacy through vaginal intercourse.60 If, however, he is intimate through anal intercourse,61 [the above does not apply], because a male does not disqualify another male from priestly [privileges].62
Halacha 17
When a servant belongs to partners and one of them is a priest, that does not entitle him to partake of terumah.63 [Instead,] this servant is forbidden to partake [of terumah]. Whenever [the ownership of a servant] entitles him to partake of terumah, it also entitles him to partake of the breast and the thigh [of the peace sacrifices].64
Halacha 18
When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel65 - they may partake [of terumah]. Similarly, when the servants of priests purchase servants or the servants of a priest's wife purchase servants, they may partake of terumah, as [intimated by Leviticus 22:11]: "[When a priest] will purchase a soul, the acquisition of his money, [he shall partake of it]." Implied is even an acquisition of an acquisition.66 An acquisition of [a priest] who is permitted to partake of terumah may entitle others to partake [of terumah]. An acquisition who does not partake of terumah may not entitle others to partake [of terumah].67
Halacha 19
When the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel - they may not partake [of terumah].68
Halacha 20
[The following laws apply when] a widow marries a High Priest or a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah - whether the daughter of a priest or an Israelite - marries an ordinary priest69 or [a priest] marries another one of the women with whom marriage is prohibited [by Scriptural Law].70 If she brings servants [to his domain] which are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel [to his domain], those classified as nichsei milog may not partake [ofterumah],71 even though he is required to provide for their sustenance. Those classified as nichsei tzon barzel may partake of terumah, for they are the husband's property. If [a priest] married a shniyah,72 she may partake [ofterumah],73 but her servants who are nichsei milog may not partake [ofterumah].74
Halacha 21
When the daughter of a priest who is a widow is consecrated by a High Priest or one who is divorced is consecrated by an ordinary priest, they may not partake of terumah,75 because they are designated for intimate relations that are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, if they enter the chupah76without being consecrated, they may not partake [of terumah]. For [entering into] the chupah disqualifies them.77
If such a woman is widowed or divorced after consecration [but before marriage], she returns to suitability and may partake of terumah. If, however, she had married, she may not partake of terumah, because she already became a chalalah.78
Halacha 22
When the husband of the daughter of a priest who is himself a priest dies and she falls before yevamim, one of which is a challal,79 she may not partake ofterumah because of her connection to the challal.80 [This applies] even if one of the acceptable [brothers] issued a mamar81 to her, for a maamar does not constitute a complete acquisition of a yevamah.82
Halacha 23
[Although a yavam who is] a priest gives a bill of divorce83to his yevamah, [despite the fact that] she becomes forbidden to him, she still remains connected to him.84 Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah. [She is not disqualified,] because she is designated for relations that are forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, since a bill of divorce disqualifies a yevamah only according to Rabbinic decree.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 136) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 279) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity.
|
| 3. |
This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity.
|
| 4. |
It does not refer to the breast and thigh of the peace offerings, for a woman of the priestly family who marries and is widowed or divorced may not partake of them (Yevamot 74b).
|
| 5. |
If his transgression is observed by witnesses and they issued a warning. Whenever lashes are given on the earthly plane, the transgressor receives atonement and is no longer held liable for death by God.
|
| 6. |
From the fact that Sanhedrin 83a,b emphasizes that an impure priest is not liable for death for partaking of impure terumah, the Rambam concludes that a transgression is involved.
|
| 7. |
Its impurity nullifies its holiness. See Chapter 6, Halachah 6 and notes, however.
|
| 8. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that this is approximately 20 minutes after sunset. This applies inEretz Yisrael. In different latitudes, the duration of this time period varies.
This represents a stringency over other laws where ritual purity is required. In many such instances, as soon as one immerses himself, his purification is completed and no further wait is necessary. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:11.
|
| 9. |
The simple meaning of the verse is that the person's purification process is not completed until the sun sets. The rules of Biblical exegesis, however, leave room for the meaning mentioned by the Rambam.
|
| 10. |
The Rabaz emphasizes that with regard to partaking of the sacrifices, in certain instances, an impure priest must also bring a sacrifice to mark his immersion from impurity.
|
| 11. |
I,e., as in the case at hand, there is no verse that says "Do not eat impure terumah," but from the positive commandment regarding pure terumah, we can conclude that partaking of the impureterumah is prohibited.
|
| 12. |
Hence, its violation is not punishable by lashes.
|
| 13. |
Which would render him ritually impure.
|
| 14. |
For he does not become ritually impure until the semen actually emerges and in this way, he could swallow the terumah first (Niddah 40a).
|
| 15. |
These individuals are not responsible for their conduct. Nevertheless, their priesthood is intact. Hence, we immerse them to purify them and then enable them to partake of terumah.
|
| 16. |
I.e., because of the doubt, we considered them impure.
|
| 17. |
Which would allow a seminal emission to be detected. Were the container to be made of cloth, the semen could be absorbed (Radbaz).
|
| 18. |
The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "warmth."
|
| 19. |
See the gloss of the Radbaz who states that the Rambam's wording implies that this ruling applies only when one rides bareback [see Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 23:7)]. He also explains why it applies only to camel-riders and not those who ride on other animals.
|
| 20. |
I.e., intimate relations cause both the man and the woman to become impure. To emerge from that impurity, they must each immerse in the mikvah and wait until nightfall (see Leviticus 15:18).
|
| 21. |
Intimate relations can cause a woman to become impure for two reasons:
a) as stated above, the very act of intimacy brings about ritual impurity;
b) she comes in contact with semen and touching semen makes one ritually impure (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 5:9).
As long as the semen is in the woman's vagina, it is not considered to have touched her, because it is touching her body internally, not externally. If, however, it flows outside her vagina and touches her externally, she does become impure. According to the Rambam, if the woman does not turn over in intimate relations, the semen will remain in her vagina and not flow outside. Hence, after immersing herself and waiting until nightfall, she may partake of terumah. If, however, she turned over in the midst of intimacy, the semen will flow out. Moreover, it is possible that it will not flow out immediately, but will do so over the course of the coming days. Now, semen is considered to remain viable until the third day after intimacy. Hence for three days, the woman must consider the possibility that the semen flowed out from her body and made her impure. Hence, she cannot immerse herself in the mikvah to regain ritual purity until three days have passed.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even if the woman did not turn over during intimacy, as soon as she arises from bed, it is possible that semen will flow out from her vagina and touch her body. He quotes Niddah 41b in support of his explanation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh suggest that the Rambam had a different text of that Talmudic passage and they validate his ruling.
|
| 22. |
Because of it touching her body.
|
| 23. |
Ibid.:11. There the Rambam states that the intent is not that semen remains viable for three full days, but that it can remain viable until the third day after relations.
|
| 24. |
As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, according to Scriptural Law, the requirement to separateterumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. The early Sages ordained that it should be observed in certain neighboring countries.
|
| 25. |
This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity.
|
| 26. |
Women who become impure because they experienced menstrual bleeding at times other than her ordinary cycle.
|
| 27. |
Women who become impure because they experienced ordinary menstrual bleeding.
|
| 28. |
Who becomes impure as explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 10. Since the obligation to separateterumah in these lands is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages were lenient regarding the restrictions incumbent on those who partake of terumah.
|
| 29. |
In contrast to terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law when such a wait is necessary, as stated in Halachah 2. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and refers to Bechorot27a in support of his position. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different explanations of that passage that support the Rambam's interpretation.
|
| 30. |
For to purge the impurity resulting from contact with a human corpse, it is necessary to have the ashes from a Red Heifer sprinkled upon one's body and those ashes are not available in the present age.
|
| 31. |
Once a male or a female attains majority, by contrast, we assume that they have become impure and they must immerse themselves before partaking of terumah (Radbaz).
|
| 32. |
Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity.
|
| 33. |
For his impurity is also a result of a physical condition (ibid.).
|
| 34. |
For a person afflicted by tzara'at does not become ritually impure until a priest declares him so (Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 9:2). With regard to the establishment of a priest's lineage, see the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 2.
The Radbaz adds that the reason the impurity of tzara'at is not observed in the present age is that we have no priests whose lineage is established to declare people ritually impure. The physical conditions for the impurity may exist in the present age.
|
| 35. |
The Radbaz writes that this prohibition applies even if he is uncircumcised with the Torah's permission, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision, in which instance, caution is shown before circumcising him.
|
| 36. |
See Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:7.
|
| 37. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 135) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 282) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There is, however, a slight difficulty with this classification. The Rambam maintains that any commandment that is derived through one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis does not have the status of a Scriptural command, nor is such a prohibition punishable by lashes (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) and as the Rambam states here, there is no direct commandment prohibiting an uncircumcised person from partaking of terumah. Instead, it is derived by our Sages (Yevamot 70a) through an association of verses (gezeirah shaveh). Hence, seemingly, it should not be placed in that category. The Rambam notes this difficulty when discussing this mitzvah in Sefer HaMitzvot and states that since our Sages mentioned that this mitzvah was of Scriptural origin, he considered it as having that status.
|
| 38. |
I.e., one was originally circumcised, but underwent an operation so that it would appear that he was not circumcised. In the Hellenist and Roman periods, there were Jews who underwent such operations so that they would resemble non-Jews.
|
| 39. |
For according to Scriptural Law, his original circumcision was effective and he can never revert to being uncircumcised.
|
| 40. |
The Radbaz writes that the intent is not that he is forbidden to partake of terumah until he is circumcised again. Instead, the intent is that he is advised to undergo the operation and not to partake of terumah until he does so. The Sefer HaMitzvot and the Sefer HaChinuch (loc. cit.), however, say that such an individual is prohibited by the Rabbis from partaking of terumah.
|
| 41. |
Although it is necessary to draw a drop of blood from such a person's organ (Hilchot Milah 1:11), it cannot be said that such a person is uncircumcised. Hence, he is permitted to partake of terumah(Radbaz).
|
| 42. |
A child whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus his gender cannot be determined.
|
| 43. |
Since his gender is undetermined, we do not know whether or not he must be circumcised.
|
| 44. |
A person with both male and female sexual organs.
|
| 45. |
Although there are many unresolved questions about such a person's status vis-à-vis gender, there is no difficulty in him partaking of terumah for both males and females of the priestly family are permitted to partake of it.
|
| 46. |
They are prohibited from partaking of terumah due to outside factors. Their membership in the priestly family is, however, intact. Hence, their wives and servants may partake of terumah(Radbaz).
|
| 47. |
Although their wounds prevent such priests from serving at the Altar, they are still members of the priestly family. Hence, they and their servants may partake of terumah.
|
| 48. |
As stated in Deuteronomy 23:2 and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 16, a person with such wounds is forbidden to marry a natural born Jewess. Hence, if a priest is intimate with his wife after suffering such wounds, she becomes a zonah and a chalalah and hence, is forbidden to partake ofterumah.
|
| 49. |
Since they were not intimate, she has not become a chalalah and may partake of terumah. TheKessef Mishneh states that this refers to an instance where the couple were married and then he suffered this wound. If, however, a priest suffers such a wound and then consecrates a woman, she may not partake of terumah. See the notes to the following halachah.
|
| 50. |
Ordinarily, a priest cannot marry a convert or the descendant of a convert. In this instance, however, because of his injury, the full measure of the holiness of the priesthood does not rest upon him and he may marry such a woman (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:1). Once he marries such a woman, she is entitled to partake of terumah, because she is the wife of a priest.
|
| 51. |
Since this woman is prepared to engage in intimate relations that are forbidden to her, our Sages prohibited her from partaking of terumah even though she had not actually engaged in such relations. Moreover, she is no longer permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of her being a member of the priestly family, because she was consecrated, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
|
| 52. |
See Hilchot Ishut 2:14 for a more precise definition of the term used by the Rambam. As stated inHilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:9, such a person is permitted to marry a native-born Jewess. Hence, there is no difficulty with the wife of a priest with such a condition partaking of terumah.
|
| 53. |
For in this context, there is no difference between them and the servants of an ordinary priest.
|
| 54. |
For there is an unresolved doubt if their marriages are acceptable. Needless to say, if a tumtumundergoes an operation and it is determined that he is a male, his wife may partake of terumaheven if he consecrated her before the operation.
|
| 55. |
These individuals are considered as not being responsible for their actions and their acquisitions are not valid. Hence, the servants they purchase by themselves are not their property according to Scriptural Law and may not partake of terumah.
|
| 56. |
Because the acquisitions are binding and they have become the property of a priest.
|
| 57. |
The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy."
|
| 58. |
For such relations would cause a woman to be considered as a chalalah. Since there is an unresolved question regarding the gender of an androgynus, we are stringent and consider the possibility that he is a female. And a female is disqualified from terumah if she engages in intimacy that would render her a chalalah regardless of whether it is vaginal or anal intercourse (Radbaz).
|
| 59. |
For their right to partake of terumah is dependent on that of their owner.
|
| 60. |
For such relations would render a woman a chalahah and, because of the unresolved question regarding the status of the androgynus, we apply that stringency to him as well.
|
| 61. |
The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy."
|
| 62. |
A male priest does not become a chalal because he entered into a forbidden sexual relationship.
The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's ruling, noting that, seemingly, the person should be disqualified from partaking of terumah based on the same rationale as the first clause of the halachah: i.e., that the androgynus also has a feminine dimension and that feminine dimension will be disqualified through anal intercourse. Hence, they ask: Why does the Rambam only view this relationship as intimacy between males and hence, not able to disqualify theandrogynus? Why not see it as a relation between a male and a female? Among the explanations given is that since both of the androgynies are engaging in relations as males, it is not appropriate to deem one a male and one a female.
|
| 63. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (the conclusion of tractate Terumot) states that for a servant to partake ofterumah, he must belong to priests entirely. If an Israelite has even a one-hundredth share in the ownership of the servant, he may not partake of terumah.
|
| 64. |
Which may be eaten by all the members of the priest's household.
|
| 65. |
When a woman marries, her husband receives the right to benefit from her property. As explained in Hilchot Ishut, ch. 16, there are two arrangements under which a husband is allowed to benefit from his wife's property:
nichsei milog - in this instance, in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the property reverts to the ownership of the woman according to its value at that time, regardless of the profit or loss she suffers;
nichsei tzon barzel - in this instance, the property is evaluated at the time of marriage; in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the woman receives that amount, regardless of the worth of the property at that time.
Servants can be classified in either of these categories. In both instances, they have the right to partake of terumah. With regard to servants who are nichsei tzon barzel, they are the husband's (the priest's) acquisitions, for it is as if he acquired them when he accepted financial responsibility for their worth. With regard to those who are nichsei milog, they are "the acquisition of his acquisition," i.e., property belonging to his wife whom he has acquired. See Halachah 20.
|
| 66. |
I.e., servants acquired by servants who were acquired by the priest. The inference is derived based on the fact that the verse contains to derivatives of the word koneh - "acquire."
|
| 67. |
When the wife of a priest is not entitled to partake of terumah (see Halachot 20-22), her servants may also not partake of terumah.
|
| 68. |
The servants who are nichsei tzon barzel certainly may not partake of terumah for they are now the property of an Israelite. Even the servants who are nichsei milog may not partake of terumah, for at this time, their owner - the Israelite's wife - is disqualified from partaking of terumah.
|
| 69. |
These three types of relationships are forbidden, the first two by Scriptural Law, the latter by Rabbinic Law. Thus the woman will become a chalalah and hence, forbidden to partake ofterumah. Since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.
|
| 70. |
I.e., a woman who is forbidden to him because of one of the prohibitions that apply to all Jews, even non-priests. Nevertheless, if he engages in relations with that woman, she becomes a zonahand thus prohibited against partaking of terumah. In this instance as well, since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.
|
| 71. |
For they are the woman's poperty, it is just that they are "on loan" to her husband, as it were.
|
| 72. |
A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.
|
| 73. |
For according to Scriptural Law, she is the priest's wife and relations with him do not disqualify her, neither as a zonah or a chalalah.
|
| 74. |
Seemingly, since such a woman has the right to partake of terumah, her servants should also be so entitled. The Radbaz explains that since her marriage is not sanctioned by Rabbinic Law, her husband is under no obligation to sustain her. Hence, her servants do not receive the right to partake of terumah. Those servants that are nichsei tzon barzel are permitted to partake ofterumah according to all authorities, for they are her husband's acquisitions as explained above.
|
| 75. |
I.e., were it not for the reason stated by the Rambam, they would be permitted to partake ofterumah by virtue of their membership in the Priestly family.
|
| 76. |
Entering the chupah means entering a private place with her husband. This is the act that constitutes the beginning of the second phase of the marriage relationship, nissuin.
|
| 77. |
Even though a woman enters the chupah without consecration, that act causes her to be considered as designated for intimate relations that are forbidden.
|
| 78. |
Through intimate relations with her husband.
|
| 79. |
I.e., her husband, the priest, had several brothers, one of whom was born from a relationship forbidden to the priesthood, and thus had the status of a challal.
|
| 80. |
Since she could be married by the challal, she is disqualified even though she is a member of the priestly family.
|
| 81. |
A maamar is a Rabbinic institution in which a yevam declares his intention to marry his brother's childless widow by consecrating her through giving her money (Hilchot Yibbum 2:1).
|
| 82. |
If another brother would perform yibbum with the widow, he would become her husband despite the maamar given by his brother. Thus the connection to the yevam who is a challal is still intact.
|
| 83. |
I.e., instead of performing chalitzah which would absolve the connection between him and hisyevamah, he gave her a bill of divorce. According to Scriptural Law, the bill of divorce is not effective at all. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it disqualifies the woman from carrying out yibbum with any of the brothers (Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 5:1).
|
| 84. |
For according to Scriptural Law, their connection is still intact.
|
| 85. |
And thus became forbidden to a priest by Rabbinic decree.
|
| 86. |
A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.
|
| 87. |
Because she is a member of the priestly family. In contrast to the women mentioned in Halachah 21, these women are designated for relations that are forbidden only by Rabbinic decree. Hence, they are not disqualified.
Were the yevamah to be the daughter of an Israelite, she would not be permitted to partake ofterumah despite the fact that she is bound to a priest through the obligation of yibbum (Radbaz).
|
| 88. |
A women whose female sexual characteristics are underdeveloped.
|
| 89. |
Although the priest may divorce her because she cannot have children, until he does so, he may be intimate with her. Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah.
|
--------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Eighteen, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Nineteen, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shabbat - Chapter Eighteen
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Eighteen, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Nineteen, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Shabbat - Chapter Eighteen
Halacha 1
A person who transfers an article from a private domain into the public domain, or from the public domain into the private domain is not liable,1 unless he transfers an amount that will be beneficial [to accomplish a purpose].2 The following are the minimum amounts for which one is liable for transferring:3
Halacha 2
[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] wine is a quarter of a revi'it;7 if it has congealed, a k'zayit. For the milk of a kosher animal, a gulp.8 For non-kosher milk, enough to apply to one eye. For a woman's milk and egg-white, enough to put in an ointment. For oil, enough to anoint the the small toe of a newborn infant.
Halacha 3
[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] straw from grain is a cow's mouthful.14 Straw from beans, a camel's mouthful.15 If, however, one transfers bean straw with the expressed purpose of feeding it to a cow, one is liable for transferring a cow's mouthful.16 Eating that involves difficulty is still considered to be eating. Straws from the ears of grain,17 a lamb's mouthful.18 Grass, a kid's mouthful.19
Leaves of garlic and leaves of onion20 when fresh are considered to be human food. Hence, their measure is the size of a dried fig. When they are dry, their measure is a kid's mouthful.
[Should one take out a combination of these substances,] their amounts should not be combined to hold one liable according to the more stringent measure. They should, however, be combined to hold one liable according to the more lenient measure. What is implied? When a person takes out both straw from grain and straw from beans, if the amount he takes out is enough to fill a cow's mouth, he is not liable.21 If it is enough to fill a camel's mouth, he is liable.22 The same applies regarding all similar dimensions of the Sabbath laws.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] spices is the amount necessary to spice an egg. [Different] spices can be combined [to make up this measure].28
Pepper,29 even the slightest amount. Pine sap,30 even the slightest amount.31A substance with a pleasant fragrance, even the slightest amount.32 A substance with an unpleasant fragrance, even the slightest amount.33Perfumes, even the slightest amount. Fine purpled dye,34 even the slightest amount. Rosebuds, one.
Pieces from utensils made from hard metal35 - e.g., bronze or iron - even the slightest amount. [Chips] from the stones of the altar, or from the earth of the altar,36 [pieces] of decayed scrolls or their wrapping cloths,37 even the slightest amount, for [these articles] are [required to be] entombed.38
Halacha 6
A person who transfers seeds of garden plants41 that are not fit for human consumption42 is liable for [transferring] a measure that is almost the size of a dried fig.43 [A person is liable for transferring] two cucumber seeds, two gourd seeds, and five Egyptian bean seeds.44
[A person who] transfers coarse bran [is liable for transferring a quantity] fit to place on the opening of the crucible of a gold refiner.45 [The measure for which a person is liable for transferring] fine bran [depends on his intent]: If [he intends to use the bran as] food [for humans], the measure is the size of a dried fig. As food for animals, a kid's mouthful. For paint, enough to paint a small cloth.
The buds of shrubs46 and carobs that have not yet become sweet, the size of a dried fig. After they become sweet, a mouthful of a kid. In contrast, luf,47mustard, turmos,48and all other foods that are pickled, whether they have become sweet or not, [the measure for which one is liable is] the size of a dried fig.49
Halacha 7
[When a person] transfers seeds50 to eat, [he is liable for transferring] five. [If his intent] is to use them as fuel, they are considered to be wood.51 For counting,52 two, for sowing, two.
[Similarly, the measure for which a person is liable for transferring] hyssop [depends on his intent]. If [his intent] is for human consumption, he is liable for [an amount equal to] the size of a dried fig. For animal consumption, a kid's mouthful. For fuel, the measure of wood; for sprinkling,53 the measure acceptable for sprinkling.
Halacha 8
[A person who] transfers nut shells, pomegranate shells, isatis,54 pu'ah,55 and other dyes [is liable for transferring a quantity] that is sufficient to dye a small garment - e.g.,56 the hairnet young girls place on their heads.
Similarly, one who transfers urine that is forty days old,57 Alexandrian niter, soap, cimonia, ashlag,58 and all other cleansing agents [is liable for transferring] the amount necessary to wash a small garment - e.g., the hairnet young girls place on their heads.
A person who transfers herbs that are soaking [is liable for transferring] an amount sufficient to dye a sample for a weaver.
Halacha 9
A person who transfers ink on a quill [is liable for transferring] a measure sufficient to write two letters.59 If, however, a person removes [the dried concentrate used to make] ink or ink in an inkwell, a larger amount is necessary [for him to be liable], i.e., the amount necessary for a person to dip a pen in and write two letters.
If [a person transfers] enough [ink] to write one letter in an inkwell and enough [ink] to write one letter on a quill or enough dry ink to write one letter and enough ink to write one letter on a quill, there is a doubt whether he is liable or not.60
[When a person takes out enough ink to write] two letters and writes them as he is walking, he is liable. Writing them is considered to be placing them down.61 [When a person takes out enough ink to write] one letter and writes and then takes out [enough ink to write] a second letter and writes it, he is not liable.62 For [the ink for] the first letter is lacking.63
Halacha 10
[A person who transfers] eye paint, whether for medicinal64 or cosmetic purposes, [is liable for transferring an amount sufficient] to paint one eye.65 In places where [a woman] would not apply eye paint to less than two eyes as a cosmetic practice,66 a person who takes out eye paint for cosmetic purposes is not liable unless he takes out a quantity sufficient to paint two eyes.
Halacha 11
[A person who transfers] red clay71 [is liable for transferring an amount] sufficient to make a seal for a letter.72Clay, enough to make the opening of a crucible.73
Manure or fine sand, enough to fertilize a leek. Coarse sand, enough to mix with a full trowel of lime.74 Firm clay,75 enough to make the opening of a goldsmith's crucible. Hair, enough to mix with clay to make the opening of a goldsmith's crucible.76 Lime, enough to apply to a girl's smallest finger.77 Dust or ash, enough to cover the blood of a small bird.78 A pebble, enough for an animal to feel if it was thrown at it79 - i.e., the weight of ten zuzim. A shard, enough to contain a revi'it.
Halacha 12
[A person who transfers] rope [is liable for transferring an amount] sufficient to make a handle for a container. Reeds,80 enough to make a hook to hang a sifter or a sieve.81 Palm leaves, enough to make a handle for an Egyptian basket. Palm bast, enough to use as a stopper for a small pitcher of wine.82Unprocessed wool, enough to make a ball the size of a nut.
Bone, enough to make a spoon. Glass, to sharpen the point of a weaver's needle or to cut two threads at once.83
Halacha 13
[A person] is liable for transferring two hairs from the tail of a horse or of a cow.84 If he transfers one bristle from a pig's [back],85 he is liable. Fibers from a date palm, two. The bark of the date branches, one.86
From cotton, from silk, camel's wool, rabbit's wool, wool from an animal of the sea, or any other fibers that can be spun, enough to spin a thread four handbreadths long.87
When a person transfers cloth, sack, or leather, the same minimum measurements that apply with regard to the laws of ritual purity also apply with regard to transferring [on the Sabbath]: [The size of] a cloth for which one is liable for transferring] is three [fingerbreadths] by three [fingerbreadths];88sackcloth,89 four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths]; leather, five [handbreadths] by five [handbreadths].90
Halacha 14
When a person transfers an animal hide that was not processed at all and is thus soft, the measure [for which he is liable] is enough to wrap a small weight the size of a shekel. When [it is in the first stages of being processed - i.e.,] salt has been applied to it, but not flour and gall-nut juice, the measure [for which one is liable] is enough to make an amulet.91 If flour has been applied to it, but not gall-nut juice, the measure is enough to write a bill of divorce upon it. If it has been processed entirely, its measure is five [handbreadths] by five [handbreadths].
Halacha 15
[A person who transfers] processed parchment92 [is liable for transferring a piece] sufficient for the passage from Shema to uvish'arecha.93 Duchsustos, enough to write a mezuzah on it.
Paper, enough to write on it two letters for a customs officer's receipt. These two letters are larger than the letters we [usually write]. A person who transfers a customs officer's receipt is liable even though he has already shown it to the customs officer and has been exempted because of it,94 for it will serve forever as proof [of his having paid].
Halacha 16
A person who transfers an animal, a wild beast, or a fowl is liable even if it is alive. A living person, by contrast, is not considered to be a burden.97Nevertheless, if he is bound or sick, a person who transfers him is liable.98
A woman may walk her son if he can pick up one foot and place down the other.99
Halacha 17
A person who transfers a living child with a purse hanging around his neck is liable, because of the purse, for the purse is not considered to be subsidiary to the child.100 If, however, one transfers an adult who is wearing clothes and rings on his hands, one is not liable, for everything is considered to be subsidiary to him. If, by contrast, his garments were folded [and held] on his shoulder,101 a person who carries him is liable.
Halacha 18
[A person who transfers] a live locust of the smallest size [is liable].102 If it is dead, [he is liable for transferring an amount] the size of a dried fig.103 [For transferring] "a bird of the vineyards,"104 [one is liable for transferring] even the smallest amount, regardless of whether it is alive or dead, since it is preserved for medicinal105 purposes.106 The same applies in all similar cases.
The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring [flesh from] a human corpse, [flesh from] the carcass of an animal, or [flesh from] a dead crawling animal107 is the same as the minimum amount of these substances capable of imparting ritual impurity: From a human corpse108 and from an animal carcass,109 the size of an olive. From a crawling animal,110 the size of a lentil.
Halacha 19
If there is exactly an olive-sized portion [of an animal carcass in one place] and a person removes a portion half the size of an olive111 from it, he is liable. [This decision is rendered,] because his actions are effective in reducing [the amount of impure substance to the extent] that the minimum amount that can convey impurity is no longer present.
If, however, he removes a quantity aproximately half the size of an olive from a quantity that is one and a half times the size of an olive, he is not liable.112The same principles apply with regard to other sources of impurity.
Halacha 20
When does [the abovementioned rule,] that a person is liable only when he transfers the minimum of a standard measure of a substance, apply? When the person transfers the substance without any specific intent.113 If, however, a person transfers a [seed] to sow,114 or a substance for medicinal purposes, to show as an example, or the like,115 he is liable for the slightest amount.
Halacha 21
Should a person who stores a substance to use as seed, or to use for medicinal purposes, or a substance to be shown as a sample, [afterwards,] forget the reason for which he stored the substance,116 and remove it117without any specific intent,118 he is liable regardless of its size.119 Another person, by contrast, is not liable [if he transfers this article] unless it is of the prescribed measure.120
If after transferring the article [for the intent he originally had], the person throws it into a storeroom, even if it is [set aside] in a distinct place,121 his original intent is considered to have been nullified. Therefore, if he brings in the article afterwards, he is not liable unless it is of the prescribed measure.
Halacha 22
When an entity is not usually stored away,122 nor is it fit to be stored away123 - e.g., a woman's menstrual discharge - a person who stores it and then transfers it is liable.124 Other people, by contrast, are exempt for [transferring] such an article, for [in general] one is not liable unless one transfers an article that is fit to be stored and that people generally store.
Halacha 23
A person who transfers half125 of the prescribed measure [of a substance] is not liable.126 Similarly, a person who performs half the measure of any of the other [forbidden] labors is not liable.
If a person transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance], places it down, and then returns and transfers the second half, he is liable.127 If, however, he picks up the first half before he places down the second half, it is as if [the first half] were burned,128 and he is not liable.
When a person transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance], places it down, and then returns and transfers the second half, passing it over the first [half without placing it on the ground], he is liable [if the second half] is [held] within three handbreadths of the first half.129 [The rationale is] that transferring is considered equivalent to placing the object down on a substance.
Halacha 24
[When a person] transfers half the prescribed measure [of a substance], and afterwards transfers another half of the prescribed measure [of that substance] to the same domain in a single period of unawareness, he is liable.132
[Different rules apply if] he transfers [the two half-measures] to two different domains. If there is a domain into which one would be liable [for transferring an article interposed] between [the two domains], one is not liable [for transferring these two halves].133 If there is a carmelit between them, they are considered to be a single domain,134 and [the person who transfers the two half-measures] is liable to bring a sin offering.135
Halacha 25
When a person transfers less than the prescribed measure [of a substance], but before he places it down, [the substance] swells in size and reaches the prescribed measure [he is not liable].136 Similarly, one is not liable if one transfers more than the prescribed measure [of a substance], but before he places it down [the substance] diminishes in size and becomes less than the prescribed measure.
Halacha 26
[The following rule applies when] a person transfers a portion [of a food] the size of a dried fig with the intent of eating it,137 but before he places it down it diminishes in size: If he [reconsiders and] decides to use it to sow, or for medicinal purposes,138 he is liable, because of the intent he had at the time he placed it down.139
If a person transfers [a quantity of seeds] smaller than the size of a dried fig with the intent of sowing them, but before he places them down, changes his mind and decides to eat them, he is not liable.140 If [the seeds] swell in size before they are placed down and reach the size of a dried fig before141 he changes his mind [and decides to] eat them, he is liable.142 Even if he had not change his mind, he would still have been liable because of his original intent.
Halacha 27
When a person transfers a portion [of a food] the size of a dried fig with the intent of eating it, it diminishes in size, and then it swells [to the size of a dried fig] again before it is placed down, there is a question [whether he is liable or not]: [Does the fact that in the interim, it was not of sufficient size for its transfer to incur liability cause that liability] to be deferred [forever] or not?143
When a person throws a portion of the food the size of an olive into a house that is impure144 and by doing so, complements the quantity of food145 that was already in the house, causing there to be an amount [of food] the size of an egg [in the impure house], there is a question [whether he is liable or not]: Is he liable for transferring [the portion of] food that is equivalent to the size of an olive, because he completed the measure of food that is significant with regard to the laws of ritual impurity, or is he not liable?146
Halacha 28
A person who transfers less than the standard measure [of a substance] is not liable even though he transfers it in a container. [The rationale is that] the container is subsidiary [to its contents]; [when the person transfers it,] he is concerned not with the container, but with its contents.147
Accordingly, if a person transfers a man who is alive and who is not bound on a bed, he is not liable,148 for the bed is considered to be subsidiary to the man. These principles apply in all similar situations.
A person who transfers a perfumer's box is liable for only a single [sin offering], although it contains many different types [of scents].149 [Similarly,] even if he transfers [several items] in his hand,150 he is liable for only a single sin offering, for [he has performed] a single act of transfer.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
All the authorities agree that a person is not liable until he transfers an amount of a substance large enough to be of benefit to a person, and that it is forbidden to transfer any article regardless of its size. The commentaries question, however, whether transferring less than a beneficial amount is forbidden according to Torah law or whether the prohibition is merely Rabbinic in origin.
Liability for most of the prohibitions of the Torah is associated with a specific measure (שיעור). For example, with regard to the majority of the prohibitions against eating forbidden foods, one is liable only if one eats a k'zayit (a measure of food the size of an olive). Should one eat less than that amount (חצי שיעור), one is considered to have transgressed the Torah's commandment. Nevertheless, one is not liable for punishment. (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 3:6, 7:15.)
The Mishneh LaMelech states that this same principle applies with regard to transferring objects on the Sabbath. Although one is liable only for transferring a beneficial amount, transferring any amount is forbidden by the Torah itself.
Note, however, Totza'ot Chayim (8) and others, who explain that according to the Rambam, there is no concept of חצי שיע ור with regard to the prohibition against work on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, a person is liable only for performing מלאכת מחשבת, "purposeful work." If an activity is not in itself beneficial, it does not serve a purpose. Therefore, it is not forbidden by the Torah on the Sabbath.
Kinat Eliyahu notes that in Halachah 23, the Rambam states that "A person who transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance] is not liable." According to the principles the Rambam states in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the use of the term "is not liable" (פטור) indicates that the prohibition was instituted by our Sages. Significantly, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, loc. cit., and in other places where the Rambam discusses this issue, he uses the term אסור, "forbidden." Thus the use of the term פטור in regard to the Sabbath laws clearly indicates a difference. See alsoS'dei Chemed, Klallim, Ma'areches Chatzi Shiur.
|
| 2. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 9, and notes.
|
| 3. |
In this and in the following halachot, the Rambam proceeds to list the minimum amounts for which one is liable for transferring particular substances. As explained in Halachot 20-21, this applies when one transfers an object without any specific intent. If, however, one intends to use the article one transfers for a specific purpose, one is liable for transferring even a smaller amount.
|
| 4. |
As the Rambam mentions in Chapter 8, Halachah 5, he considers a dried fig to be one-third the size of an egg. (As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, there are differing opinions regarding this measure.) Eating a smaller amount of food would not be significant at all. Therefore, one is not liable.
|
| 5. |
I.e., it is not that one must transfer an amount equal to the size of a dried fig from one particular type of food. Even if one transfers this amount from a combination of different foods, one is liable.
|
| 6. |
For they are not food.
|
| 7. |
Shabbat 8:1 states "wine, enough to mix a cup." In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that a cup refers to the cup over which the grace after meals was recited, which must contain a revi'it. The wines of the Talmudic period were stronger, and it was customary to mix three portions of water to every portion of wine.
|
| 8. |
Tosafot 76b defines this as מלא לוגמיו, "a cheekful." The Maggid Mishneh, however, explains that a smaller measure is intended.
|
| 9. |
The popular translation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.) mentions "river water" instead of "dew." Rav Kapach explains, however, that this is an erroneous translation of the Arabic, and there, too, the Rambam's intent is "dew."
|
| 10. |
Rav Moshe Cohen objects to the fact that the Rambam mentioned a measure that is not spoken of in the Babylonian Talmud. The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam's source is in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 8:1), which he favors in this instance, because there is a difference of opinion on this matter in the Babylonian Talmud.
|
| 11. |
This represents somewhat of a new concept, because generally the Sages followed the principle (Shabbat 78a) that whenever an object has both an uncommon use and a common use, we follow the more lenient measure. For this reason, kosher milk, although just as beneficial as an eyewash as non-kosher milk, is considered to be a food. Accordingly, it is given a more lenient measure.
If so, the fact that honey is considered to be a salve instead of food raises questions. The Talmud, however, explains that since honey is also very commonly used as a salve, there is no difficulty.
|
| 12. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:8), the Rambam interprets this is as sores that come from improper amputations. (Note Rav Kapach's translation, which differs slightly from the standard text.)
|
| 13. |
This is useful for mixing clay for building (Shabbat 78a).
|
| 14. |
This is the most common use for this substance.
|
| 15. |
A larger measure than stated previously. Bean straw is harder than grain straw and is therefore given to camels, who have stronger jaws and larger mouths.
|
| 16. |
This reflects a general principle applicable with regard to the minimum measures for which one is liable for transferring: When a person has an individual desire for an object that makes it beneficial for him, he is liable even though most people would not use that object for that purpose. (See Halachah 20.)
|
| 17. |
This refers to softer straw that need not be chewed as forcefully as the straw from grain mentioned at the beginning of the halachah ( Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat 7:4). Hence, it is suitable for smaller animals with smaller and less-powerful mouths.
|
| 18. |
A lamb's mouthful is equal to the size of a dried fig. Nevertheless, our Sages speak in terms of a lamb so that we will understand the motivating principle for this measure (Tosafot, Shabbat 76a).
|
| 19. |
This is the smallest measure in this halachah.
|
| 20. |
I.e., the leaves that sprout above ground (Tosefot Yom Tov, Shabbat 7:4).
|
| 21. |
Since the cow will not normally eat the bean straw, the amount of straw the person has taken out is not beneficial. Hence, he is not l iable.
|
| 22. |
For the camel will eat the grain straw. Thus, the person has taken out an amount of fodder that will be beneficial.
|
| 23. |
This is the food that requires the least heat to cook (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 8:5).
|
| 24. |
The egg will then cook faster. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 25. |
In the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), he mentions that the pot is already preheated, so that the wood must produce sufficient heat to cook the egg alone, and not to warm the pot as well.
|
| 26. |
In the Talmudic era, it was common for the point of a reed to be sharpened to serve as a pen in a manner similar to a quill.
|
| 27. |
I.e., the amount to cook a portion of an egg, as mentioned in the beginning of the halachah.
|
| 28. |
The rationale is that all spices serve a similar purpose (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 9:5).
|
| 29. |
Rashi (Shabbat 90a) explains that this does not refer to the species of pepper used as a spice (for if so, there is no reason to differentiate between it and other spices), but rather to a different species, which is used as a breath freshener.
|
| 30. |
See the notes on Chapter 5, Halachah 10, regarding our translation of the name of this substance.
|
| 31. |
Rashi (Shabbat 90a) states that this was used as a remedy for headaches. Even the slightest amount was beneficial.
|
| 32. |
For people will appreciate its fragrance.
|
| 33. |
For people will appreciate the removal of an unpleasant odor. Rashi (Shabbat 90a) offers a different interpretation.
|
| 34. |
This also has a pleasant fragrance (Rashi).
|
| 35. |
Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:6), which notes that these metals are mentioned in connection with spices and explains that this refers to parts of a utensil used for crushing spices. Even a small portion of metal is beneficial, because it can be fashioned into a needle or pin.
|
| 36. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:15.
|
| 37. |
See Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:3-4.
|
| 38. |
As mentioned in the sources cited in the previous two notes, we are obligated to show respect for even the slightest piece of any of these articles and entomb them, rather than allow them to be discarded as trash. Accordingly, even the smallest amount is considered significant. Hence, one is liable for transferring it on the Sabbath.
|
| 39. |
For it may be used for cooking, or kindling a fire.
|
| 40. |
Beitzah 39a explains that a flame has no substance. Hence, one is not liable. This applies, however, only when the person carries only a flame and not the coal, or the piece of wood that is burning.
|
| 41. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:7), the Rambam interprets this as referring to carrot seeds, turnip seeds, or onion seeds. (We have used Rav Kapach's translation which differs slightly from the standard text.)
|
| 42. |
Were the seeds fit for human consumption, the minimum measure for which one would be liable would be the size of a dried fig. We assume that the primary reason for which a person would transfer seeds is to serve as food. Since these seeds, by contrast, are not fit for human consumption, they are given a smaller measure.
Rashi (Shabbat 90a) differs and explains that this law applies even to seeds that are fit for human consumption. Although these seeds are also fit to be eaten, a person usually takes them out with the intent of sowing them.
|
| 43. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), where he interprets the Mishnaic phrase, פחות מכגרוגרת in this fashion. Note the Mayim Chayim, which interprets this as referring to a k'zayit.
|
| 44. |
Since these seeds were more valuable than those of most garden vegetables, they were assigned a smaller measure.
|
| 45. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4), the Rambam explains that bran is placed on the opening of the crucible during the smelting process. Rav Kapach explains (based on his experience as a jeweler) that the bran is intended to burn, and in that process to clear away impurities that cloud the smelter's vision.
|
| 46. |
Which grow in vineyards. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shvi'it 7:5).
|
| 47. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pe'ah 6:10), the Rambam defines luf as a sub-species of onion.
|
| 48. |
A species of beans.
|
| 49. |
The commentaries note that although the Rambam's statements are based on the Tosefta, Shabbat 9:8, they are problematic, for there is another Tosefta (Ma'aser Sheni 1:13) that appears to be a direct contradiction. The difficulty is intensified by the fact that the Rambam also quotes the latter Tosefta in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:8. It is possible, however, to explain the contradiction based on the possibility that in our halachah, the word ימתיקו, translated as "become sweet," is a euphemism and means "become bitter." See also Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin1:14 and Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 2:6, where the Rambam mentions similar subjects, and the Responsa of the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1425) and the Merkevet HaMishneh, who offer possible resolutions.
|
| 50. |
Shabbat 90b quotes a similar, but slightly different passage from the Tosefta. We can assume that the Rambam's text of that passage differed from the one in our text of the Talmud.
|
| 51. |
The amount necessary to cook an egg, as mentioned in Halachah 4.
|
| 52. |
The seeds were used as a primitive calculator. Rashi (Shabbat 90b) explains that when transactions were made, a seed was used as a symbol for a gold coin.
|
| 53. |
I.e., to use in the purification process of a metzora or a person who came into contact with a human corpse. (See Leviticus 14:6 and Numbers 19:18.)
|
| 54. |
Isatis is a substance which produces an indigo dye. Similarly, nut shells and pomegranate shells are used to produce dyes.
|
| 55. |
A root that produces a red dye.
|
| 56. |
This represents a difference between the Rambam's interpretation of Shabbat 9:5 and that of other commentaries, including Rashi and Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro. Instead of stating בגד קטן כסבכה, as in the Rambam's version of the Mishnah, the text quoted by the latter authorities states בגד קטן בסבכה, "a small cloth in the hairnet," referring not to the entire hairnet, but to one cloth within it.
|
| 57. |
Note Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 9:37, which states that aged urine is one of the cleansing agents used to determine whether a stain is blood or not.
|
| 58. |
These are also cleansing agents and are mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah (loc. cit.).
|
| 59. |
The Mishnah (Shabbat 8:3) states that one is liable for transferring an amount of ink sufficient to write two letters. The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) states that one is not liable unless one transfers this amount of ink while it is on the pen. Otherwise, there is a doubt (as reflected in the following clause), for it is difficult for all the ink that is in an inkwell to be picked up by a pen.
|
| 60. |
The person is not liable for transferring the quill or the inkwell, for they are considered secondary to the ink. As the Rambam states in Halachah 28, when a person transfers a measure for which he is not liable in a utensil, he is not liable for transferring the utensil, since it is considered secondary to its contents.
|
| 61. |
The hanachah without which one is not liable for transferring.
|
| 62. |
He is not liable for transferring. He is, however, liable for writing.
|
| 63. |
At no one time did he transfer the minimum measure for which he would be held liable, for by the time he transfers the second portion of ink, part of the first portion will have dried. Therefore, he remains exempt (Rashi, Shabbat 80a).
|
| 64. |
כחול, rendered by some translators as "stibium," was reputed to have medicinal properties in addition to its cosmetic qualities. Even if only one of a person's eyes was affected, it would be common for him to apply כחול to that eye alone. Hence, one is liable for transferring the amount necessary to paint one eye.
|
| 65. |
Rashi, Shabbat 80a, relates that modest women would veil their faces entirely, exposing only one eye to enable them to see. They would, however, paint this eye.
|
| 66. |
Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to small villages, where frivolity was not commonplace. Therefore, women would walk outside with their faces uncovered. Hence, if a woman painted her eyes for cosmetic purposes, she would paint both eyes. Note the Ra'avad, who offers a different interpretation of that Talmudic passage.
|
| 67. |
Rashi (Shabbat 78a) interprets this as referring to a phial of mercury that is sealed closed with these substances. Afterwards, a hole is made in the sulfur or tar with a pin through which the mercury can be poured, but through which it will not spill excessively if the b ottle falls on its side. The Meiri interprets the Talmud as referring to making a seal for a jug of wine.
|
| 68. |
The Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to stopping a hole in a wine barrel.
|
| 69. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a board with paste taken into a dovecote on which the fledglings perch and are thus captured. Rashi (Shabbat 80a) interprets this as a board with paste used to catch wild fowl.
|
| 70. |
A coin of the Talmudic period with a width of a handbreadth, approximately 8 cm. according to Shiurei Torah.
|
| 71. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:5), where he emphasizes that the Hebrew אדמה means both "earth" and "red."
|
| 72. |
In the Talmudic period, letters were sealed with clay. This refers to a seal like that of a notary placed on a letter to testify to its authenticity.
|
| 73. |
Rav Kapach notes that in this instance the Rambam does not state "a goldsmith's crucible," for crucibles used for smelting other metals need not be as heat-resistant as those used for gold.
|
| 74. |
Shabbat 80b relates that plaster is mixed with sand in order to strengthen the structure.
|
| 75. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4). Rashi (Shabbat 78b) interprets חרסית as "crushed brick."
|
| 76. |
Shabbat 80b states that hair was mixed with clay when a crucible was fashioned for smelting gold.
|
| 77. |
Shabbat 80b states that lime would be applied to the bodies of young girls, one limb at a time. Rashi states it would make their skin red. Tosafot maintains that it would whiten their skin.
|
| 78. |
As Leviticus 17:13 states that after a bird or a wild animal is slaughtered, its blood must be covered with earth or ashes. (See Hilchot Shechitah, Chapter 14.)
|
| 79. |
For in this way, the pebble will be beneficial in shooing the animal (Shabbat 81a).
|
| 80. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:2), the Rambam gives a more specific definition, mentioning an Arabic term that Rav Kapach identifies as cypress.
|
| 81. |
This is a smaller measure than the amount sufficient to make a handle. Nevertheless, rope would not be used for this purpose, because it is coarse and might damage the utensil (Shabbat 78b).
|
| 82. |
To use as a filter (ibid.).
|
| 83. |
The Mishnah (Shabbat 8:6) mentions sharpening a needle. The Talmud (Shabbat 81a) mentions cutting threads. Apparently, the Rambam considers the two measures to be identical.
|
| 84. |
Rashi, Shabbat 90b, states that these hairs were used by bird hunters.
|
| 85. |
Rashi (ibid.) states these hairs are used in sewing leather.
|
| 86. |
From the Rambam's statements, it appears that his interpretation - a nd perhaps even the wording in his text - of Shabbat 90b was different from Rashi's interpretation of our version of that passage. (See the commentaries of the Meiri and Rabbenu Chanan'el on that passage.)
|
| 87. |
The Rambam's source appears to be the Tosefta, Shabbat 9:3 which states m'lo hasit kafulwhich, as mentioned in Chapter 9, Halachah 10, is equivalent to four handbreadths.
|
| 88. |
See Hilchot Keilim 22:1.)
|
| 89. |
Fabric made from camel's hair and other fibers that are rough and are therefore generally not used to make garments for humans.
|
| 90. |
See Hilchot Keilim 23:3.
|
| 91. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:3), the Rambam interprets this as referring to the wrapping in which the amulet was held, and not to the amulet itself.
|
| 92. |
Although at present, the word k'laf is commonly translated as "parchment," the Rambam is referring to a more specific meaning. In Hilchot Tefillin 1:6-8, he differentiates between three types of parchment, stating:
|
| 93. |
This is the shortest passage of the four passages included in the tefillin. In the head-tefillin, each of these passages is written on a separate piece of parchment.
|
| 94. |
This appears to be the Rambam's interpretation of the statement of the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:2), "One who transfers a customs officer's receipt is liable." Since the Mishnah already stated that a person who transfers a piece of paper large enough to write such a receipt is liable, it goes without saying that a person who transfers an unused receipt is liable. When explicitly telling us that a person is liable for transferring such a receipt, the Mishnah is obviously referring to a receipt that has already been used. See Shabbat 78b.
|
| 95. |
Note Shabbat 78b, 79a which discusses the propriety of maintaining possession of such a promissory note.
|
| 96. |
Since the paper has already been erased, it is no longer fit for writing. Therefore, it is considered to be suitable for other purposes and requires a larger measurement.
|
| 97. |
Shabbat 94a quotes Rabbi Natan as stating, "A living creature carries itself." Although the Sages differ with him, their objections concern animals only, for the latter resist being carried and struggle to free themselves. In contrast, a human being assists in being carried. This is obvious from the fact that it is far easier to carry a living person than the same amount of "dead weight."
It must be emphasized that although there is no prohibition from the Torah against carrying a living person, our Sages forbade this. (See Mishnah Berurah 308:153,154.)
|
| 98. |
For in this instance, the person being carried is unable to assist the one carrying him.
|
| 99. |
I.e., the child must propel himself forward. His mother may not, however, drag him (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:41). Note the Mishnah Berurah 308:154, which states that the principle, "A living being carries itself," does not apply to a child unless he is old enough to take steps by himself.
|
| 100. |
As reflected in Halachah 28, when a person transfers two articles, one of primary importance and one of secondary importance, whether or not he is liable depends on the article of primary importance. If he would be liable for transferring this article by itself, he is liable. If not, he is not liable. The article of secondary importance is of no significance whatsoever.
When does this apply? When the article of secondary importance is subsidiary to the article of primary importance. If they are, as in the example cited in this halachah, two unrelated objects, the person is liable for transferring the article of secondary importance.
|
| 101. |
They are considered to be separate objects, unrelated to the person who is holding them.
|
| 102. |
Shabbat 90b states that locusts are often used as playthings for children. Hence, regardless of the locust's size, one is liable.
The Rambam's ruling is quoted from the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:7), which also mentions two opinions: One that maintains that this applies only to a kosher locust, and that of Rabbi Yehudah, which states that it applies to all locusts, whether kosher or nonkosher. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Yehudah's opinion.
From the fact that the Rambam does not mention whether the locust must be kosher or not in this halachah, the Merkevet HaMishneh concludes that he has reversed his opinion and accepts Rav Yehudah's view. Others differ and maintain that this is clarified by the second clause, which mentions "[an amount] the size of a dried fig" - i.e., the measure applying to food. Just as the second clause applies only to kosher locusts, so too, does the first clause.
|
| 103. |
As mentioned in the previous note, this is the minimum measurement for food.
|
| 104. |
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:21 the Rambam (as does Rabbenu Chanan'el and the Aruch) defines this as a species of kosher locusts. Others define it as a bird.
|
| 105. |
Shabbat 10:1 states that one is liable for transferring even the slightest amount of any substance that is retained for its medicinal purposes.
|
| 106. |
According to Shabbat 90b, partaking of such a creature enhances one's intellectual capacities.
|
| 107. |
Shabbat 93b-94a states that Rabbi Shimon exempts a person from liability in this instance, for in contrast to other situations, the person is not removing the impure object because he desires it itself, but because he desires the place to be free of impurity. Hence, this is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, a labor that is not performed for the same purpose for which the labor was performed in the construction of the Sanctuary. In the construction of the Sanctuary, articles were transfered because they were, themselves, desired. In contrast, in this instance, the person's intent is to remove impurity. Nevertheless, as the Rambam rules in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, one is liable for performing a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.
|
| 108. |
See Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:1-2.
|
| 109. |
See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 1:1.
|
| 110. |
More specifically, this refers to the eight species mentioned in Leviticus 11:29- 30. (See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 4:2.)
|
| 111. |
In this instance, the phrase "half the size of an olive" is not intended to serve as an exact measure. The intent is any measure that will reduce the size of the portion of the animal carcass to less than the size of an olive. The same principles apply to flesh from a human corpse.
|
| 112. |
For an amount large enough to convey ritual impurity still remains intact.
|
| 113. |
Since even the small amount of the substance the person transfers is valuable to him, he has a reason for transferring it. Accordingly, his act is considered to be "purposeful." See the notes to Halachah 1.
|
| 114. |
The commentaries note that Halachah 6 mentions taking seeds for sowing and mentions specific measures. Among the possible resolutions is that there is ordinarily a measure for seeds as well. This halachah, however, specifically focuses on the exceptions to the general rule, and there are indeed individuals who will sow a single seed in a flower pot (Rav Kapach, Kinat Eliyahu).
|
| 115. |
Note the Mishneh LaMelech, who states that with this statement the Rambam does not intend to negate totally the measures he mentioned previously. For example, if a person transfers food, he is not liable unless it is the size of a dried fig. Even if a particular person desires to eat a smaller amount, that intent is not considered significant, since most people would not appreciate such an amount. In this halachah, the Rambam is stating that in certain instances, as in the examples he mentions, there is a particular intent which requires merely a tiny amount of a substance to be accomplished. In such an instance, the person is liable for transferring an object of this small size.
|
| 116. |
Before the commencement of the Sabbath (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat10:1).
|
| 117. |
On the Sabbath (ibid.).
|
| 118. |
I.e., even if he forgot the intent for which he originally stored away the article.
|
| 119. |
By setting the article aside for a specific purpose, the person shows that it is important to him, regardless of its size. Therefore, if he later transfers the article, he is liable (Shabbat 90b, 91a).
|
| 120. |
I.e., the intent a particular individual has for an article is important regarding the measure for which he is liable for transferring that article. It does not affect the status of that article vis-a-visothers.
|
| 121. |
As opposed to being mixed together with the other objects in the storeroom. This might be considered to be a sign that it is being saved for a specific purpose.
|
| 122. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:3), the Rambam interprets this phrase as excluding an article that is commonplace and easily obtainable. Therefore, it is not stored away. [Note Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro and Rashi (Shabbat 75b), who interpret this as excluding an amount of a substance smaller than the prescribed measure.]
|
| 123. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this excludes objects that will spoil if stored.
|
| 124. |
By storing the article in question, the person indicates that he considers it important. Therefore, he is liable for transferring it.
|
| 125. |
The intent is any amount less than the full measure.
|
| 126. |
See the notes on the first halachah of this chapter which discuss whether the prohibition against this activity stems from the Torah itself or is Rabbinic in origin. As mentioned there, according to the principles the Rambam states in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the use of the word פטור indicates that the prohibition was instituted by our Sages.
|
| 127. |
For he has transferred a full measure of the article in question. As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, it is clear from the following halachah that this refers to actions performed in a single period of unawareness.
|
| 128. |
Since a full measure of the entity in question was never transferred into the second domain and placed down there at a single time, the person is not liable.
|
| 129. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, an article held within three handbreadths of a second article is considered as having been placed down on that article, as implied by Chapter 13, Halachah 6. Therefore, the two half-measures of the substance in question are considered to have been placed down in the same place. Hence, the person who placed them down is liable. See the commentary of Rabbenu Chananel to Shabbat 80a.
|
| 130. |
Even if it passes within three handbreadths of the ground, as long as it does not come to rest even momentarily (see Chapter 13, Halachah 16, and notes).
|
| 131. |
As mentioned in the notes on the halachah cited above, it would appear that the object would have to come to rest on a substance four handbreadths by four handbreadths, or come to rest within three handbreadths of the ground.
|
| 132. |
One is liable to bring a sin offering for performing a forbidden labor only if one performed the labor without intent to violate the Torah's commandments. Furthermore, if in the midst of one's performance of a forbidden activity, one becomes conscious of the prohibition involved, even if one loses awareness immediately afterwards and completes the measure of forbidden activity without the desire to violate the law, one is not liable. (See Hilchot Shegagot 6:8.)
|
| 133. |
As long as the two half-measures were taken from the same original domain and placed down together in the same domain, they can be combined. If, however, a totally separate domain interposes between them, the two actions cannot be considered to be complementary.
|
| 134. |
For according to the Torah, a carmelit is considered to be a makom patur. (See the notes on Chapter 14, Halachah 1). Hence, it is not considered to be an interruption between the two domains.
|
| 135. |
The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:11. (See the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh on that halachah.)
|
| 136. |
As explained in Chapter 13, Halachah 5, the forbidden labor of transferring involves removing an article from one domain and placing it down in another domain. A sin offering is not required unless both activities are performed in a forbidden manner.
|
| 137. |
Thus the akirah (removal) of the article is performed when the article is of sufficient size to incur liability (Halachah 1).
|
| 138. |
In which case, he is liable, regardless of the size of the article (Halachah 20).
|
| 139. |
Since at the time of both the removal and the placing down (hanachah) of the substance, its size was sufficient to incur liability according to the intent which the person had in mind, he is liable. The fact that he experienced a change of mind in the interim is not of consequence.
|
| 140. |
For at the time he placed the object down, it was not of sufficient size to incur liability.
|
| 141. |
Based on the following halachah, it is clear that the increase in the seed's size must take place before the person's change of mind.
|
| 142. |
For at the time the article was removed from its original place and it the time it was placed down, it was of sufficient size to incur liability.
|
| 143. |
The question of the Rambam (based on Shabbat 91b) is whether the fact that the object was too small for its transfer to incur liability in the time between its akirah and its hanachah causes these actions to be considered as unconnected or not.
Note the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh on Hilchot Sh'ar Avot HaTum'ah 4:13, which quotes the distinction made by Rav Yitzchak Korcus between that halachah and the present one.
|
| 144. |
Because of the presence of a corpse or the presence of tzara'at.
|
| 145. |
The Maggid Mishneh questions why the Rambam changes the wording used in the source for this teaching (Shabbat, loc. cit.), which mentions food that is terumah and applies this concept to all foods. The Mishneh LaMelech, however, resolves this difficulty, explaining that according to the Rambam's conception of the laws of ritual impurity (see Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 4:1), there is no difference between terumah and other foods.
|
| 146. |
The commentaries cite this passage as a source, teaching that a dried fig is larger than an olive. Ordinarily, a person who transfers an amount of food the size of an olive is not liable. Nevertheless, this instance is different, because of the laws of ritual impurity.
Food cannot impart ritual impurity to other substances unless a portion equivalent to the size of an egg is present. Thus, before the person threw the food into the house, there was not sufficient food there to impart impurity, and the food he threw in completed that measure. Hence, the Rambam (based on Shabbat, loc. cit.) asks whether the fact that the transfer of the food is significant with regard to the laws of ritual impurity is of consequence with regard to the Sabbath laws.
|
| 147. |
Since the container is desired only because of its function as an accessory for its contents, it is not considered to be an entity in its own right. Unless the person has a desire for it itself, he is not liable for transferring it, regardless of its size. (See Shabbat 93b.)
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. XVII, p. 48, Vol. XIX, p. 193) focuses on the homiletic dimensions of this halachah, interpreting it as an indication of how an object's spiritual qualities are of such primacy that they eclipse totally its material dimensions.
|
| 148. |
This ruling depends on the principle stated in Halachah 16: "A living creature carries itself." As mentioned in that halachah, this principle does not apply if the person is bound. Since the person would not be liable for carrying the man, he is also not liable for carrying the bed on which he is lying.
|
| 149. |
Although the box contains several distinct entities, the person is considered to have performed a single forbidden activity. Therefore, he is not liable for a separate sin offering for every article he transfers.
|
| 150. |
With this clause, the Rambam indicates that this ruling is not dependent on the principle (see Chapter 12, Halachah 11) that the contents of a box are considered to be a single entity, but on a different rationale.
|
Shabbat - Chapter Nineteen
Halacha 1
We may not go out [wearing] any weaponry on the Sabbath.1 [The following rules apply should one] go out [wearing weaponry]: If they are objects that are worn as garments - e.g., a coat of mail, a helmet, or iron boots2 - one is not liable. If, however, one goes out [carrying]3 articles that are not worn as garments - e.g., a spear, a sword, a bow, a round shield4 or a triangular shield - he is liable.5
Halacha 2
We may not go out wearing a sandal studded with nails to fasten it.6 Even on festivals, the Sages decreed that we should not go out wearing [such sandals].7
It is permitted to go out wearing a belt with pieces of gold and silver imbedded into it as kings wear, for this is a piece of jewelry, and it is permitted [to wear] all jewelry. [This license is granted] provided [the belt] does not hang loosely, lest it fall in the public domain and one go and bring it.8
Halacha 3
A ring that has a seal9 is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a man, but not for a woman. A ring without a seal, by contrast, is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a woman,10 but not for a man. Accordingly, a woman who goes out wearing a ring that has a seal and a man who goes out wearing a ring without a seal are liable.11
Why are they liable? They did not transfer them in an ordinary manner12 - i.e., it is not an ordinary practice for a man to wear a ring on his finger that is not appropriate for him, nor for a woman to wear a ring on her finger that is not appropriate for her. [Nevertheless,] there are times when a man gives his ring to his wife to hide at home and she places it on her finger while she is walking. Similarly, there are times when a woman gives her ring to her husband to take to a jeweler to fix, and he places it on his finger while he is walking to the jeweler's store. Therefore, [although the rings are not appropriate for the individuals mentioned above, because they do occasionally wear such rings,] they are considered to have transferred them in an ordinary manner. Accordingly, they are liable.
Halacha 4
Although a ring that does not have a seal is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a woman, a woman should not go out wearing such a ring, lest she take it off in the public domain and show it to her friends, as women often do.13If, however, she went out wearing such a ring, she is not liable.14
A man, by contrast, may go out wearing a ring that has a seal, for it is considered to be a piece of jewelry for him and it is not usual practice for a man to show off [his jewelry to others].15 It has, [nevertheless,] become accepted practice for people to go out without wearing any rings at all.
Halacha 5
A woman who goes out [wearing] a pin with an eye is liable,16 while a man is not liable.17 A man who goes out [wearing] a pin without an eye is liable,18while a woman is not liable, for this is considered to be a piece of jewelry for her.19 She is prohibited against wearing it only because of a decree lest she [take it off and] show it to her friends.
The [following] general principles apply: Whenever a person goes out wearing an item that is not considered to be jewelry for him, and it is not [worn as] a garment, he is liable if he transfers it in an ordinary manner.
Whenever a man goes out wearing a piece of jewelry that hangs loosely and could easily fall and thus cause him to bring it through the public domain, and similarly, whenever a woman goes out wearing a piece of jewelry that she is likely to take off and show [to her friends], they are not liable.
Whenever an adornment that is not likely to fall, nor is it likely to be shown to others, [a woman] is permitted to go out [wearing] it. Therefore, she may go out [wearing] a bracelet that is placed on the forearm or [a garter that is placed on] the thigh if it clings tightly to the flesh and will not slip off.20 These rules apply in other similar situations.
Halacha 6
A woman should not go out with woolen strands, linen strands, or straps attached to her head lest she remove them when she immerses herself21 and carry them in the public domain.
She should not go out [wearing] a frontlet on her forehead,22 nor with bangles of gold that hang from the frontlet on her cheeks if they are not sewn together.23 Nor may [she go out wearing] a crown of gold on her head,24 nor with the ankle chains worn by maidens so that they will not take long strides and thus destroy [the signs of] their virginity.
It is forbidden to go out [wearing] any of these articles lest they fall and one carry them by hand.
Halacha 7
A woman should not go out [wearing] a necklace,25 a nose ring,26 a flask of perfume27 attached to her forearm, a small round pouch28 in which balsam oil29 is placed, referred to as a cochellet.30
Nor should she wear a wig that will give the appearance that she has a full head of hair,31 nor a woolen pad that goes around her face,32 nor a false tooth, nor a golden crown that she places over a black tooth or a red blemish that she has on her teeth. She may go out with a silver tooth, because this is not obvious.
All these prohibitions were instituted lest {the article fall and [the woman] carry it in her hand or}33 lest she remove it and show it to a friend.
Halacha 8
Whenever the Sages forbade wearing an item in the public domain, it is forbidden to go out [wearing] that item even in a courtyard for which there is no eruv.34 An exception is made with regard to a face pad and a wig; permission is granted to go out [wearing] them to a courtyard where there is no eruv so that [the woman] would not appear unattractive to her husband.
A woman who goes out [carrying] an empty flask with no perfume is liable.
Halacha 9
A woman may go out [wearing] strands of hair that are attached to her head.35Water passes through them and they are therefore not considered to be an interposing substance were she to immerse herself. [Consequently,] she will not remove them. Hence, there is no necessity to prohibit [wearing them lest she remove them] and carry them into the public domain.
This applies regardless of whether [the strands of hair were taken from] the woman's own tresses, those of another woman, or from an animal.36 An elderly woman should not, however, go out [wearing strands of hair from] a young woman, for they are becoming to her, [and we fear that] she might remove them and show them to a friend. A young woman, by contrast, may go out [wearing] strands of hair from an elderly woman.37
Any woven hair-covering may be worn.
Halacha 10
A woman may go out [wearing] strands38 [tied around] her neck, because she does not tie them tightly,39 and they are therefore not considered to be an interposing substance [with regard to ritual immersion]. If, however, they are colored, she may not go out wearing them, lest she show them to a friend.
A woman may go out wearing a golden diadem, since these are worn only by dignified woman who are not accustomed to removing [their jewelry] and showing them to their friends.40 A woman may also go out [wearing] a frontlet on her forehead with bangles of gold [that hang from the frontlet], provided they are sewn into her head-covering so that they do not fall.41 The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 11
A women may go out with wadding in her ear42 provided it is attached to her ear, with wadding in her sandal43 provided it is attached to her sandal, and with wadding for her menstrual discharge44 even though it is not attached. [The latter rule applies] even if it has a handle. Since it is repulsive, even if it falls, she would not carry it.
Halacha 12
She may go out with pepper, a grain of salt, or any other substance that is placed in the mouth [to prevent] bad breath. She should not, however, place these substances in her mouth on the Sabbath itself.45
Women may go out [wearing] slivers of wood in their ears,46 or with bells47 on their necks or garments, and with a cloak fastened with a make-shift button.48
Indeed, a woman may fasten her cloak in this manner using a stone or a nut49on the Sabbath and go out, provided she does not [use this leniency as] a ruse and use a nut for this purpose in order to bring it to her young son. Similarly, she should not fasten her cloak in this manner using a coin,50 for it is forbidden to carry it. If her cloak was fastened [using a coin],51 she may go out wearing it.
Halacha 13
A man may go out to the public domain with a sliver of wood in his teeth52 or in his sandal. If, however, it falls, he should not put it back. [He may go out with] wadding or a sponge over a wound,53 provided he does not wind a cord or a string over them. [The latter restriction applies] because he considers the cord or the string as important and they do not assist [the healing of] the wound.54
[He may go out with] a garlic peel or an onion peel on a wound, and with a bandage on a wound. He may open and close [the bandage] on the Sabbath. [He may go out with] a compress, a plaster, or a dressing on a wound. [Similarly, one may go out with] a sela55 on a footsore, a locust's egg,56 a fox's tooth,57 a nail from a gallows,58 and any other entity that is hung on a person's body to [bring] a cure, provided that physicians say that it is effective.59
Halacha 14
[A woman] may go out with a tekumah60 stone or with the weight of a tekumahstone61, which was weighed [and carried] with the intent that it serve as a remedy. This applies not only to a pregnant woman, but to all women, [as a safeguard] lest they become pregnant and miscarry.
One may go out [wearing] an amulet that has proven its efficacy. What is an amulet that has proven its efficacy? [An amulet] that has cured three individuals62 or that was prepared by an individual who cured three people with other amulets. If a person goes out wearing an amulet that has not proved its efficacy, he is not liable.63 [The rationale:] he carried it out as a garment.64Similarly, a person who goes out [wearing] tefillin is not liable.65
Halacha 15
A person who has a wound on his foot may go out [wearing] one sandal on his healthy foot. If, however, a person does not have a wound on his foot, he may not go out [wearing] a single sandal.66
A child67 should not go out [wearing] the sandals of an adult.68 He may, however, go out [wearing] the cloak of an adult. A woman should not go out [on the Sabbath], [wearing] a loose-fitting sandal,69 nor [wearing] a new sandal that she did not wear for even a short period of time before [the commencement of the Sabbath].70
Halacha 16
[A man] may go out [wearing] tufts of flax or a woolen wig worn by men with sores on their heads.73 When does this apply? When he colored them with oil and wound them,74 or he went out [wearing] them [at least] momentarily75before the commencement of the Sabbath. If, however, he did not perform a deed [that indicated his desire to use these articles], nor did he go out [wearing] them before the Sabbath, it is forbidden for him to go out [wearing] them.
Halacha 17
We may go out [wearing] coarse sackcloth, tent-cloth,76a thick woolen blanket,77 or a coarse wrap78 [as protection] against rain.79 We may not, however, go out [wearing] a chest, a container, or a mat, [as protection] against the rain.80
When a pillow and a blanket are soft and thin as garments are, one may go out [wearing] them as a wrap on one's head on the Sabbath. When they are firm, they are considered to be burdens and it is forbidden.
Halacha 18
We may go out with bells woven81 into our clothes.82 A servant83 may go out [wearing] a clay seal84 around his neck,85 but not with a metal seal, lest it fall and he carry it.
[The following rules apply when] a person wraps himself in a tallit86 and folds it, either [holding the folds] in his hand, or [placing them] on his shoulder: If his intent is that [the ends of the garment] should not tear or become soiled, it is forbidden.87 If his intent is for the sake of fashion, since this is the style in which people of his locale wear their clothes, it is permitted.
Halacha 19
A person who goes out [to the public domain] with a garment that is folded and placed on his shoulders is liable. He may, however, go out with a wrap [folded] around his shoulders even though a thread is not tied to his fingers.88
Whenever a wrap does not cover [a person's] head and the majority of his body,89 he is forbidden to go out [wearing it]. A cloth that is worn as a head covering90 that is short and not wide should be tied below one's shoulders. Thus, it will serve as a belt and one will be permitted to go out [wearing] it.
Halacha 20
It is permitted to wrap oneself in a tallit91 that has unwoven strands92 at its edges, even though they are long and do not enhance the appearance of thetallit, because they are considered to be subsidiary to it. The person [wearing the tallit] does not care whether they exist or not.93
Based on the above, a person who goes out [wearing] a tallit whose tzitzit are not halachically acceptable is liable. For these strands are important to him and he is concerned with completing what they are lacking, so that they can be considered to be tzitzit.94
When, however, the tzitzit are halachically acceptable, it is permitted to go out [wearing this garment] during the day and during the night.95 Tzitzit that are halachically acceptable are not considered to be a burden, but rather to be an article that enhances the garment and beautifies it. Were the strands of tzitzitthat are halachically acceptable to be considered a burden, one would be liable [for wearing such a garment] even on the Sabbath day, since a positive commandment [whose negation] is not [punishable by] karet does not supersede the Sabbath [prohibitions].96
Halacha 21
A tailor should not go out on the Sabbath with a needle stuck into his clothes, nor a carpenter with a sliver of wood behind his ear,97 nor a weaver with wool in his ear, nor a carder of flax with a string around his neck, nor a money-changer with a dinar in his ear, nor a dyer with a sample in his ear.
If one [of these individuals] goes out [wearing such an article], he is not liable. Although this is the usual practice for artisans of this craft, [he is not liable,] because he is not considered to have transferred the article in an ordinary manner.98
Halacha 22
A zav99 who goes out with his receptacle is liable, for this is the only way this receptacle is transferred. [He is liable] although he has no need to take out [the receptacle] itself; [he needs it] only to prevent his clothes from being soiled.100 For a person who performs a labor is liable even when he has no need for the actual labor he performed.101
Halacha 23
What should a man102 do when he finds tefillin in the public domain on the Sabbath?103 He should wear them in the ordinary fashion, placing the headtefillin on his head and the arm tefillin on his arm, enter a home and remove them there. Afterwards, he should go out, return, put on a second pair, [return to the home,] remove them, and [continue this pattern] until he brings in all [thetefillin].
If there were many pairs of tefillin and there was not enough time to bring them in during the time by wearing them as garments, he should remain [watching] them until [after] nightfall, and bring them in on Saturday night.104 In a time of oppressive decrees,105 when one might fear to linger and watch them until the evening because of the gentiles, he should cover them where they are located, leave them, and proceed [on his way].
Halacha 24
Should he be afraid to wait until after nightfall because of thieves, he should take the entire group at once and carry them less than four cubits at a time, or he should give them to a colleague [standing within four cubits], who in turn will give them to another colleague106 until they reach the courtyard at the extremity of the city.107
When does the above apply? When they are found together with their straps that are tied with the knots with which tefillin are tied, since then they are surely tefillin. If, however, their straps are not tied, one should not pay attention to them.108
Halacha 25
Halacha 26
On Friday, shortly before nightfall, a tailor should not go carrying a needle in his hand,112 nor should a scribe [go out carrying] his pen, lest he forget and transfer it on the Sabbath.
A person is obligated to check his clothes on Friday before nightfall, lest he forget something in them and [inadvertently] transfer it on the Sabbath.
It is permissible to go out wearing tefillin on Friday shortly before sunset. Since a person is obligated to touch his tefillin at all times,113 there is no possibility that he will forget them. If a person forgets and goes out to the public domain [wearing] tefillin,114 [when] he remembers the tefillin on his head, he should cover his head115 until he reaches his home or the house of study.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
I.e., this prohibition applies to all weaponry. As the Rambam continues, there are instances where carrying such weaponry violates a Torah prohibition, and other instances where the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.
This chapter represents a turning point in the structure of this text. From the middle of Chapter 12 onward, the Rambam has delineated the various factors involved in the forbidden labor of transferring articles from one domain to another. In this halachah, he begins speaking of the Rabbinic safeguards associated with this forbidden labor.
|
| 2. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:2).
|
| 3. |
Even when hanging from one's garments - e.g., a sword in a scabbard attached to one's belt.
|
| 4. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4). Rashi (Shabbat 63a) renders this term as "a mace."
|
| 5. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on Shabbat 63a, which mentions a difference of opinion between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer. Our Sages rule that one is liable, while Rabbi Eliezer differs and states that one is not liable for carrying weapons, for they are ornaments, like jewelry.
Our Sages support their position by quoting Isaiah's (2:4) prophecy of the Era of the Redemption, "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares.... Nation shall not lift up sword against nation...." Since weaponry will be nullified in that era of ultimate fulfillment, it is a sign that it is not a true and genuine ornament.
The Lechem Mishneh (in his gloss on Hilchot Teshuvah 8:7) notes that there is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's ruling. The Talmud associates the opinion of the Sages (which the Rambam accepts) with the conception that Mashiach's coming will initiate a miraculous world order, and Rabbi Eliezer's ruling with the opinion of Shemuel that "there is no difference between the present era and the Messianic era except [for the emancipation from] the dominion of [gentile] powers." InHilchot Teshuvah 9:2, and more explicitly in Hilchot Melachim 12:1-2, the Rambam explains Shmuel's position, stating:
Nevertheless, this approach does not necessarily contradict the Rambam's rulings here. The Rambam also maintains that war will be nullified in the Messianic era, as he writes (loc. cit. 12:5): "In that era, there will be neither famine nor war, neither envy nor competition." Nevertheless, its nullification will not come because of miracles that defy the natural order, but because of the reasons he continues to mention in that halachah - that "good will flow in abundance" and "'the world will be filled with the knowledge of God' (Isaiah 11:9)."
|
| 6. |
The Ritba (in his gloss on Shabbat 60a) states that these nails were used to fasten the soles of the sandals to the upper portion.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 6:2 (based on Shabbat, loc. cit., and Beitzah 14b)], the Rambam explains that in an era of religious oppression, many Jews gathered together for prayer and study in a hidden place. When they heard a noise outside, they suspected that they had been discovered by their enemies and panicked. In the confusion, hundreds were crushed by these nailed sandals.
|
| 7. |
Since these are days of public assembly, our Sages felt that wearing these sandals would arouse disturbing memories of the abovementioned incident.
There is a question whether the prohibitions against wearing such sandals apply at present despite the fact that our nailed sandals are made differently from those of Talmudic times. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi quotes this prohibition in his Halachot. Since he mentions only those laws that are relevant in the post-Talmudic era, this inclusion would seem to imply that the prohibition should be followed now as well. Rabbenu Asher differs. Significantly, Rav Yosef Karo does not mention this prohibition in his Shulchan Aruch, nor does the Ramah refer to it in his gloss on that text.
|
| 8. |
This reason, that perhaps an article will fall and be carried in the public domain, is mentioned several times throughout this chapter and is relevant to both men and women.
|
| 9. |
As reflected by Esther 3:10 and other sources, in Biblical and Talmudic times men wore signet rings, using the seal to authorize their approval of documents.
|
| 10. |
The commentaries draw attention to a problematic statement in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:1), where he states that a ring without a seal is somewhat like, but not exactly, a piece of jewelry for women.
|
| 11. |
Since these rings are not considered to be jewelry for these individuals, they are considered to be carrying them in the public domain.
|
| 12. |
As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 12-14, a person is liable for transferring an article only when he does so in an ordinary fashion.
|
| 13. |
This point is mentioned several times in this chapter as a rationale for restrictions governing women's wearing jewelry in the public domain.
|
| 14. |
Although all Talmudic authorities prohibit women from wearing jewelry in public on the Sabbath, from the era of the Geonim onward, and particularly in the Ashkenazic community, it has become customary for women to do so. Among the rationales offered by the Rabbis (Tosafot, Shabbat64b; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 303:18) for this leniency are:
a) Today, there is no concept of a true public domain, for there are no places through which 600,000 people pass at one time. Since the restrictions against carrying in a carmelit are only safeguards against carrying in a public domain, it would be improper to impose a safeguard against carrying in a carmelit, for a safeguard is not instituted to protect a safeguard.
[There are several difficulties with this rationale: Firstly, many Rishonim (including the Rambam) do not accept this principle. Furthermore, today many large metropolises are a public domain according to all views.]
b) The socio-economic climate of the age has changed. In the Talmudic period, most women did not have jewelry, nor did they see their friends that often, nor did they have private places in which to socialize. Therefore, there was reason for the concern that jewelry would be taken off and displayed in the public domain. When the above mentioned conditions changed, this suspicion no longer applied, and there was no reason for this stringency.
|
| 15. |
Indeed, our Sages never imposed any restrictions on men's carrying in the public domain for this reason.
|
| 16. |
Since it has an eye, it is used as a needle for sewing, and therefore is not considered an ornament. Women are liable for transferring them on the Sabbath, because they frequently sew, and often carry needles by sticking them in their clothes. Hence, they are considered to have carried the needle in an ordinary manner.
|
| 17. |
With the exception of a tailor, a man is not liable for carrying a needle stuck in his clothes on the Sabbath, since this is not the ordinary way in which these items are carried.
Our explanation in this and the previous note follows the interpretation of Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son (Birkat Avraham 16). It must be emphasized that the Rambam's rulings in Halachah 21 present a difficulty to this explanation. Rav Kapach offers a resolution to this difficulty by explaining that Halachah 20 refers to a needle which is a symbol of the tailor's trade. Wearing it is not considered to be transferring an article in the ordinary manner. In contrast, the present halachah refers to a functional needle that is carried in a craftsman's garment from time to time.
Significantly, Rashi and other Rishonim interpret Shabbat 62a, the source for this halachah, differently. Their views are given greater emphasis by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim301:8).
|
| 18. |
Since it is not a piece of jewelry for him.
|
| 19. |
Shabbat 60a relates that ordinarily these pins would have a gold plate attached to them. The pointed end of the pin would be stuck into her head-covering, and the plate would hang down over her forehead.
|
| 20. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4). As mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 303:15), there are authorities who forbid the wearing of forearm bracelets.
|
| 21. |
These threads are tied to the woman's hair. Accordingly, they would be considered to be a חציצה, "intervening substance," and would have to be removed before immersion (see Hilchot Mikvaot 1:12, 2:5). The suspicion is that afterwards, they would be carried in the public domain.
|
| 22. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 6:1 (based on Shabbat 57b), the Rambam describes this as a gold plate extending on the forehead from ear to ear.
|
| 23. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit. (according to Rav Kapach's translation), which is based on Shabbat 57b], the Rambam adds "and are sewn into her head-covering." Since a woman is not likely to remove her head-covering entirely when her jewelry is sewn into it, we do not suspect that she will take it off and show it to her friends in the public domain. (See Halachah 10.)
This interpretation (which resolves the question the Ra'avad raises in his gloss on this halachah and which reflects the interpretation of our Sages, Shabbat 57b) presents difficulties, because of the Rambam's final clause, "It is forbidden to go out [wearing] any of these articles, lest they fall and one carry them by hand." Note the commentaries of the Merkevet HaMishneh and the Seder HaMishneh, who address themselves to this difficulty.
|
| 24. |
A golden crown engraved with an impression of the city of Jerusalem.
|
| 25. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:1), the Rambam interprets this as a necklace with golden beads. Rashi (Shabbat 57b, 59b) interprets this as referring to a golden choker necklace. (See the notes on Halachah 4 regarding the Rabbinic opinions regarding wearing jewelry at present.)
|
| 26. |
Significantly, even in Talmudic times earrings were permitted. Rashi explains that this leniency was granted because earrings are difficult to remove. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 303:8) offers a different rationale: that a woman's head covering would cover her ears as well. Hence, there is no need to worry about her showing the earrings to her friends.
|
| 27. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:3), the Rambam mentions that musk would usually be carried.
|
| 28. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions that this pouch was also attractive, being made of gold or silver.
|
| 29. |
Balsam oil is renowned for its pleasant fragrance.
|
| 30. |
Significantly, our text of the Mishnah states kovellet, replacing the כ with a ב. The meaning of the term, however, does not change.
|
| 31. |
This refers to attractive hair glued to a thin surface and placed on a woman's head (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:5).
Needless to say, in addition to the more inclusive leniencies involving jewelry in general, the nature of wigs and false teeth are different today. Therefore, there is no difficulty in wearing these items in the public domain.
|
| 32. |
This pad was placed on a woman's forehead beneath the frontlet of gold (Shabbat 57b) in a manner similar to the woolen pad that the High Priest would wear under his forehead plate (Chulin 138a). Apparently this pad was also attractive and could serve as an ornament in its own right.
|
| 33. |
This clause is set off by braces, because based on manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah and early printings, it appears to be a printer's addition and not part of the Rambam's original text. According to the Rambam, this suspicion is not relevant with regard to these particular articles.
|
| 34. |
Although the prohibition against carrying in such a courtyard is Rabbinic in origin and there is no possibility of transgressing a Torah prohibition, our Sages imposed the restrictions against carrying there as well. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is not considered as instituting "a safeguard for a safeguard." Were women allowed to wear these adornments in a courtyard, they would most likely inadvertently proceed into the public domain while wearing them.
The Maggid Mishneh also explains that according to the Rambam, there appears to be no prohibition against women wearing such articles at home. We do not suspect that they will inadvertently go outside while wearing them. Other Rishonim (the Ramban and the Rashba) differ and prohibit wearing ornaments even in one's home. As mentioned above, however, at present it is customary to adopt a more lenient approach regarding the entire issue of wearing jewelry.
|
| 35. |
In contrast to the strands of wool or linen mentioned in Halachah 6. As the Rambam continues to explain, the reasons the Sages forbade wearing strands from other fabrics do not apply in this instance.
|
| 36. |
See Shabbat 64b for an explanation why it is necessary to mention all three instances.
|
| 37. |
Based on an alternate interpretation [or perhaps an alternate version] of Shabbat 64b, Rabbenu Asher and others differ and also forbid a young woman from wearing strands of hair from an elderly woman.
|
| 38. |
Even of wool and linen. As the Rambam continues to explain, the reasons why it was forbidden to wear strands of these fabrics tied to one's hair do not apply in this instance.
|
| 39. |
It is, however, forbidden for a woman to wear a choker necklace (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 40. |
This ruling serves as the basis for some of the lenient opinions mentioned in the notes on Halachah 4, which allow women to wear jewelry in the public domain at present. All our women are dignified and are not accustomed to removing their jewelry and showing it to their friends.
|
| 41. |
See Halachah 6 and notes.
|
| 42. |
To absorb the fluids it produces (Rashi, Shabbat 64b).
|
| 43. |
To make walking more comfortable (ibid.).
|
| 44. |
As reflected by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:13), this applies only when the woman's intent is that the blood from the discharge will not cause her discomfort when it dries. If her intent is to prevent the discharge from soiling her clothes, it is forbidden. See Halachah 22.
|
| 45. |
I.e., if a woman had such a substance in her mouth before the Sabbath, she may continue holding it in her mouth on the Sabbath. She may not, however, place these substances in her mouth on the Sabbath itself, nor may she return such a substance to her mouth if it falls out.
Based on Chapter 21, Halachah 24, it appears that the restrictions on placing a substance in one's mouth on the Sabbath to prevent bad breath apply only when one will continue carrying those substances in one's mouth outside.
|
| 46. |
So that the holes in their pierced ears will not close (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 6:6).
|
| 47. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid. Rashi (Shabbat65a) and others translate רעולות as "veiled." See the notes on Halachah 18, which discuss the laws regarding wearing bells on the Sabbath.
|
| 48. |
Jewish women living in Media would wear a coat with a strap in one of its upper corners. They would place a stone, nut, coin, or the like under the cloak to serve as a makeshift button. The strap would be looped around this button to fasten the cloak closed (Rashi, loc. cit.).
|
| 49. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 303:22) emphasizes that a stone must be set aside for this purpose before the commencement of the Sabbath. Otherwise, it is muktzeh and is forbidden to be moved.
|
| 50. |
Even if a coin was set aside for this purpose before the Sabbath, it is still considered to bemuktzeh (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 51. |
Before the commencement of the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 52. |
A toothpick.
|
| 53. |
We are permitted to wear any entity that heals the body on the Sabbath. Such articles are not considered to be a burden, but a garment or jewelry. In Chapter 21, Halachot 26-27, the Rambam discusses whether it is permissible to place wadding or bandages on a wound on the Sabbath.
|
| 54. |
These restrictions do not apply to a rag, because it is inconsequential. Since a cord or a string is considered somewhat important, it is not considered to be subsidiary to the bandage. Hence, the person is considered to be carrying them in the public domain.
|
| 55. |
A coin from the Talmudic period.
|
| 56. |
A cure for weak thighs (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:10).
|
| 57. |
A cure for both insomnia and hyperactivity (ibid.).
|
| 58. |
A cure for continuous high fever (ibid.).
|
| 59. |
This halachah is very problematic for the Rambam. As explained at length in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, Chapter 11, the Rambam maintains that all occult arts and superstitious practices are not only prohibited, but are absolute nonsense. It would appear that the latter cures mentioned are surely not practical medical advice, but rather a charm stemming from folklore (and perhaps pagan folklore). Indeed, for the latter reason, Rabbi Meir (according to the Rambam's text ofShabbat 6:10, our version states "the Sages") forbids the use of these practices even during the week.
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1436) compounds our difficulty in understanding the Rambam's view, citing the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4), which states:
The Radbaz, therefore, maintains that the Rambam is describing a situation where these articles are worn as pendants. Hence, they can be considered equivalent to pieces of jewelry. (See the following halachah with regard to an amulet that has not proved its efficacy.) If, however, they are carried by hand, it is forbidden to go out to the public domain with them on the Sabbath. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:27) does not make such a stipulation and quotes the Rambam's words in this halachah without emendation.
|
| 60. |
A stone worn by a woman to prevent a miscarriage (Rashi, Shabbat 66b).
|
| 61. |
A weight equivalent to that of the tekumah stone, which is purported to have a similar positive effect (ibid.).
|
| 62. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that, in contrast to Rashi's view, according to the Rambam, an amulet that healed one person three times is not considered to have proved its efficacy.
|
| 63. |
At the outset, however, one is forbidden to go out wearing such an amulet.
|
| 64. |
I.e., the amulet is considered to be an ornament, like a piece of jewelry.
|
| 65. |
There is no obligation to wear tefillin on the Sabbath, and we are therefore forbidden to wear them in most circumstances. (See Halachah 23 with regard to the exceptions.) Nevertheless, since they are worn as a garment, a person is not liable for wearing them.
|
| 66. |
Rashi (Shabbat 60a) gives two rationales for this ruling:
a) The Jerusalem Talmud states that a person who wears only one shoe will be suspected of carrying the other in his cloak.
b) Wearing one shoe may arouse the attention of others and cause them to mock him. We fear that in such a situation the person will remove the sandal that he is wearing and carry it.
It is questionable whether the Rambam accepts the latter rationale. Although Rashi suggests that it applies with regard to several of the items mentioned in the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention it - neither in this chapter nor in his Commentary on the Mishnah.
|
| 67. |
This is the simple interpretation of the word קטן. Note, however, the commentary of Rashi onShabbat 141b, where he interprets the term as referring to a small adult. Since the obligation of a child is Rabbinic in origin, the Sages would not enforce any further safeguards on his conduct.
|
| 68. |
The rationale is that the sandal may fall off and the child might carry it in the public domain.
|
| 69. |
Rashi interprets the Talmud (loc. cit.) as referring to a torn sandal.
|
| 70. |
Lest the sandal prove uncomfortable and the woman carry it.
|
| 71. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:8). Shabbat66b offers three different Aramaic interpretations of this term. These interpretations, in turn, are understood differently by the later commentaries.
In the above source, the Rambam states that since it is uncomfortable to walk in wooden shoes, they are not considered to be garments.
|
| 72. |
For he did not transfer them in an ordinary manner (Merkevet HaMishneh).
|
| 73. |
This reflects a fusion of the interpretation by Rav Hai Gaon (and Tosafot) of Shabbat 50a, which understands these substances to be makeshift wigs to cover baldness, and that of Rashi, who explains that these terms refer to wool that is placed on wounds.
|
| 74. |
I.e., he performed a deed that indicates that he desires to use the wool as a wig.
|
| 75. |
If he wore the wool as a wig once before the Sabbath, this indicates that he is willing to use it for this purpose. Otherwise, since most people would not wear a wig of this nature, it is forbidden to wear it on the Sabbath because it is muktzeh (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:62).
|
| 76. |
The source for this halachah is Nedarim 55b. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 7:3), the Rambam defines this term as "coarsely woven material that is not sown."
|
| 77. |
Our translation is taken from Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Oholot 11:3).
|
| 78. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 7:3), the Rambam defines this term as "a wrap made from an extremely coarse and thick fabric... used for protection from rain."
|
| 79. |
Although these are not proper garments, since they resemble clothing and are useful in protecting one against the rain, they may be worn.
|
| 80. |
In this instance, although the person is seeking protection from the rain, since these are not garments, he is considered to be carrying a burden (Rashi Nedarim, loc. cit.).
|
| 81. |
If, however, the bells are not woven into the garment, there are restrictions against wearing them, lest they become severed and the person carry them in the public domain. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:21, Mishnah Berurah 301:80.)
|
| 82. |
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 301:23), who states that this leniency applies only to bells whose clappers have been removed. Otherwise, it is forbidden to wear them, for jingling a bell is forbidden on the Sabbath.
|
| 83. |
This refers to an eved Cana'ani - i.e., a servant who has been circumcised and has been immersed in the mikveh, and who has accepted the observance of the Torah's laws. Such a servant is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot incumbent on a woman (Chaggigah 4a). (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11, 13:18.)
|
| 84. |
A seal of identification, indicating to whom he belongs. The seal is permitted because it resembles a piece of jewelry. In contrast to a metal seal, the servant is allowed to go out wearing a clay seal, since were it to fall, it would break and would be worthless.
|
| 85. |
But not hanging from his clothes (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 86. |
The intent here is not necessarily a prayer shawl, but also a garment worn for mundane purposes as well. We have, nevertheless, merely transliterated the Hebrew term rather than translate it as "garment," to indicate the type of clothing that is under discussion. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:31) specifically states that this restriction does not apply to contemporary garments, because they are of a different type.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:36 and the Mishnah Berurah 301:117 emphasize that even the garments worn at present should not be lifted up extremely high.
|
| 87. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not state that the person is liable, for the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 88. |
Rashi (Shabbat 147a) explains that tying the string around one's finger will prevent the wrap from falling. We do not fear that the wrap will fall and the person will carry it in the public domain.
The commentaries explain that in contrast to the garment mentioned in the first clause, since it is customary to wear a wrap folded, there is no difficulty in wearing it in this manner on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, in light of the final clause, they require that the wrap be large enough to cover one's head and the majority of one's body.
Although there are more stringent opinions, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:37 and the Mishnah Berurah 301:115 permit the wearing of scarfs that are not this large if it is accepted practice in a community to wear such garments.
|
| 89. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh explain that this clause refers to a passage fromShabbat 147b which describes a wrap worn by women after a bath.
|
| 90. |
Our translation is based on Rashi, Shabbat 147b. Rav Kapach suggests a different version of that text. Since this cloth is not large enough to cover the person's head and the majority of his body, the only way it may be worn is when one ties it as a belt.
|
| 91. |
This does not refer to a tallit used for prayer, but rather to an ordinary shawl that resembles such a garment.
|
| 92. |
See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 29:1).
|
| 93. |
Since they are of no consequence to the person whatsoever, they have no halachic importance either. It is as if they did not exist at all. If, however, the person was disturbed by their presence, it would be forbidden.
|
| 94. |
Since the tzitzit are important to the person, they are not considered to be subsidiary to the garment. Hence, wearing a garment to which they are attached is considered to be carrying a burden.
|
| 95. |
The Rambam elaborates slightly in this instance to negate the opinion of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, who maintains that it is forbidden to wear tzitzit on Friday night. He explains that since one does not fulfill a mitzvah by wearing tzitzit at night, and yet the tzitzit are important, wearing a garment to which they are attached is equivalent to carrying a burden on the Sabbath.
The Rambam does not accept this rationale, explaining that since the tzitzit are halachically acceptable, they are considered to be an adornment of the garment even when a mitzvah is not fulfilled by wearing them. In one of his responsa, the Rambam deals with this issue at length.
In this context, note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:45, which states that this applies to a man, but not to a woman. For a woman, tzitzit are always considered a burden on the Sabbath. Note, however, the Mishnah Berurah, which cites differing views.
|
| 96. |
The commentaries note a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements. Although there are only two positive commandments whose observance supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions - circumcision and the offering of the Paschal sacrifice - it is because of a specific divine decree and not because of the fact that they are punishable by karet that these mitzvot supersede the Sabbath laws.
|
| 97. |
Used by a carpenter to see if the different pieces of wood are level (Rashi, Shabbat 11b). This and all the other items mentioned are symbols that the various artisans would wear so that people could identify their professions.
|
| 98. |
I.e., since it is not the ordinary practice for most people to carry an article in this fashion, the fact that certain people do carry in this manner is not significant.
It must be noted that this ruling (which follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Shabbat 11b) appears to contradict the explanation given by Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son, to Halachah 5. (See the notes on that halachah.)
|
| 99. |
A man with a discharge from his sexual organ resembling that resulting from venereal disease. (See Leviticus, chapter 15; Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah, chapter 2.)
|
| 100. |
As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 11, it is forbidden to wear an article merely to prevent one's clothes from being soiled.
|
| 101. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.
|
| 102. |
We have used the word "man" in consideration of the ruling of the Magen Avraham 301:53, who states that for a woman, tefillin are always considered to be a burden. (See the Mishnah Berurah301:158, which cites a differing opinion.
|
| 103. |
Halachah 14 states that a person who wears tefillin is not liable - i.e., since tefillin are worn as a garment, he is exempt. Nevertheless, the Rabbis forbade wearing tefillin, because there is no mitzvah to do so on the Sabbath. They did not, however, apply this prohibition in this instance out of reverence for the sacred articles. Were the tefillin to be left there, they might be treated with disrespect.
The Sha'agat Aryeh (Responsum 41) questions the Rambam's ruling, because - as reflected byHilchot Tefillin 4:11 - the Rambam maintains that there is a prohibition from the Torah against putting on tefillin when there is no obligation to do so. He resolves that difficulty by stating that the prohibition applies only when one puts them on at an improper time, with the intent of fulfilling a mitzvah. If that is not one's intent, there is no prohibition.
|
| 104. |
Since he will not have time to bring them in until after nightfall, it is preferable to stay there and protect them all rather than bring them in one pair at a time. When, by contrast, there is a possibility of bringing them in before nightfall, the Sages were willing to allow him to leave the remainder of the tefillin unattended briefly, so that he could complete the task earlier.
|
| 105. |
Shabbat 130a relates that the Romans made the wearing of tefillin punishable by death.
|
| 106. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 17, which explains this leniency applies even with regard to one's personal concerns. Surely, it applies with regard to matters associated with a mitzvah.
|
| 107. |
There, a person in the courtyard should remove the tefillin from the body of the person who was carrying them while he is still walking outside the courtyard. Thus, one person will have performed the akirah (the removal of the article from its original place) and another the hanachah[the placement of the article (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:52)].
|
| 108. |
For the possibility exists that they are merely an amulet (Eruvin 97a).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's conception of that Talmudic passage and maintains that there is no question concerning the identity of the tefillin, for we do not suspect that a person would make an amulet that resembles tefillin. The difficulty is that if the knots of the tefillin are not tied, it is forbidden to tie them on the Sabbath. Thus, it will be impossible to wear the tefillin on the Sabbath.
The difference between these two views is that, according to the Ra'avad, if one finds tefillinwithout straps, one is obligated to remain watching them until after nightfall. The Rambam, by contrast, would allow a person to leave them.
The Maggid Mishneh cites a responsum purported to be written by the Rambam to the scholars of Lunil concerning tzitzit, which indicates that he accepted the Ra'avad's position. When citing the law regarding tefillin, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:42) quotes the Rambam's view. The Magen Avraham 301:53 states that even if the Rambam's view would have applied in previous generations, it is not relevant at present, for amulets are not commonly made in the form of tefillin. Therefore, he suggests following the Ra'avad's ruling.
|
| 109. |
Since a Torah scroll is not usually worn as a covering, the person is not allowed to cover himself with it under ordinary circumstances. Rather, he must linger and protect the scroll until after nightfall.
|
| 110. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:54 states that one should cover the scroll to protect it. It is questionable why the Rambam makes such a statement with regard to tefillin (Halachah 23), but does not do so in this instance.
|
| 111. |
Although a Torah scroll is not usually worn, and indeed, doing so is not respectful to the scroll, this leniency is granted lest the scroll become ruined.
The Or Sameach questions why the person cannot carry the scroll less than four cubits at a time, as mentioned in the previous halachah. He explains that the problem is transferring the scroll from the public domain to the home. In Chapter 13, Halachah 9, the Rambam states that one should throw an article that one is carrying from the public domain into a courtyard in an abnormal manner. This would be disrespectful to the Torah scroll. Therefore, it is preferable to wear the scroll. With regard to the propriety of wearing parchment as a garment, the Or Sameach cites the use of similar substances, as mentioned in Halachah 17. See also the suggestion of Shulchan Aruch HaRav mentioned in Note 107.
|
| 112. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites Shabbat 11b, which, as the Rambam states in Halachah 21, rules that a tailor is not liable for carrying his needle stuck into his clothes. Therefore, forbidding a tailor from wearing his needle on Friday afternoon would be a "safeguard to a safeguard," a Rabbinic decree enforced to insure the observance of another Rabbinic decree. Therefore, the prohibition is directed only at carrying a needle in one's hand.
|
| 113. |
See Hilchot Tefillin 4:14, which states that the holiness of tefillin surpasses that of the tzitz, the frontlet worn by the High Priest. Hence, they are worthy of such constant attention.
|
| 114. |
Compare to Hilchot Tefillin 4:12, which mentions similar concepts.
|
| 115. |
The commentaries state that this is necessary lest others receive the impression that it is permissible to wear tefillin on the Sabbath.
|
Shabbat - Chapter Twenty
Halacha 1
It is forbidden to transfer a burden on an animal on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states, "[On the seventh day, you shall cease activity,] and thus your ox and your donkey may rest."1 This includes [not only] an ox and a donkey, but all animals, beasts, and fowl.2
Halacha 2
Behold, there is [also] an explicit prohibition in the Torah [against working with an animal] as [Exodus 20:10] states: "Do not do any work on the Sabbath. [This includes] you, your son, your daughter, your servant, your maidservant and your beast."5
[This means that one should not perform forbidden labors such as] plowing and the like [together with an animal]. Since this is a prohibition which is punishable by death, [its violation does not incur] lashes.6
Halacha 3
It is forbidden for a Jew to lend or hire a large animal to a gentile so that the latter may perform work with it on the Sabbath, since [the Jew] is commanded to have his animal rest.7
Halacha 4
It is permitted to sell a gentile a horse, since a horse is used only for human transportation13 and not for transporting burdens.14 [Hence, there is no forbidden labor involved, because] "a living entity carries itself."15
Just as it is forbidden to sell [such an animal] to a gentile, so too is it forbidden to sell it to a Jew who, we suspect, might sell it to a gentile.16
One may, however, sell [a gentile] a cow for the purpose of slaughter, [provided] he slaughters it in the seller's presence. One should not, however, sell [any animal], even an ox fattened for slaughter, without an explicit condition, lest the purchaser delay and work with it [on the Sabbath in the interim].17
Halacha 5
In a place where the accepted custom is to sell a small animal18 to gentiles, one may make such a sale. In a place where the accepted custom is not to make such sales, one should not.19
In all places, however, a large non-domesticated animal should not be sold [to a gentile], just as a large domesticated animal should not be sold unless one does so via a broker.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] a person is on a journey and night falls on Friday, [but] he is not accompanied by a gentile to whom he could give his purse:20 If he has an animal with him,21 he should place his purse on [the animal] while it is walking, and when [the animal] desires to stand, he should remove [the purse] from it, so that it will not stand still while carrying [the purse]. [In this manner,] neither the removal of an article from its place, nor placing it down in a new position will have been performed [by the animal].22
It is forbidden for him to direct the animal, even with his voice alone, as long as the purse is on it, so that he will not be considered to be directing his animal on the Sabbath.23 Our Sages decreed24 that one should not place a purse on an animal on the Sabbath unless one is not accompanied by a gentile.25
Halacha 7
Although the person is also accompanied by a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, and a minor26, he should place his purse on the donkey rather than give to one of these individuals, for they are humans and are members of the Jewish people.27
If he is accompanied by a deaf-mute and a mentally incompetent individual, and does not have an animal with him, he should give it to the mentally incompetent individual.28 If [he is accompanied by] a mentally incompetent individual and a minor, he should give it29 to the mentally incompetent individual.30 If [he is accompanied by] a deaf-mute and a minor, he may give it to whomever he desires.31
Halacha 8
It is permitted to lead an animal in the public domain with its reins and its bridle,36 provided the bridle and reins are appropriate for it37 - for example, a horse with a neck-ring, a camel with a rope tied to its mouth, a female camel with an iron bit,38 and a dog with a muzzle.
If, however, one took out an animal with a bridle that is insufficient - e.g., one tied a rope in the mouth of a horse - or with a bridle that is excessive, for it would be controlled with a lesser one, - for example one took out a donkey with a horse's neck-ring, or a cat with a muzzle, it is considered to be a burden.39 For any excessive or insufficient restraint is considered to be a burden.40
Halacha 9
A person should not tie camels together and lead them. [Moreover,] even when they were tied together on Friday, he should not lead them on the Sabbath. One may, however, gather the ropes [of many camels] in one's hand,41 provided none of the ropes extends more than a handbreadth outside one's hand42 and the rope leading from [each] camel's mouth to one's hand is at least a handbreadth above the earth.43
Why is one prohibited from leading camels that are tied to each other? Because it appears as if he is leading them to the marketplace where animals are sold or used for sport.44 For this reason, a person should not go out [leading] an animal wearing a bell around its neck, even if its clapper is plugged [so that] it does not produce a sound.45
Halacha 10
An animal should not go out with a bell [attached to] its coverings,46 a seal47[attached to] its neck, a seal [attached to] its coverings,48 a strap on its foot,49or a ladder on its neck.50
Halacha 11
Chickens56 may not go out with cords,57 nor with straps on their feet.58 Rams may not go out with a small wagon under their fat tail.59 Ewes may not go out with [chips of] wood that are placed in their nostrils so that they sneeze and dislodge the worms in their brains.60
A calf may not go out with a small yoke [that is placed] on its neck to break [its nature] and accustom it [to bearing a yoke so that later it will wear a larger yoke for] plowing. An animal may not go out with a muzzle placed in its mouth so that it will neither bite nor eat. A cow may not go out with a hedgehog skin on its teats so that crawling animals61 will not suck from it when it sleeps,62nor may it go out with a strap between its horns, regardless of whether it is placed there as an ornament or as a restraint.63
When a goat's horns are pierced, it may go out with a rope tied to its horns on the Sabbath. If the rope is tied to [the goat's] beard, it is forbidden, lest it tear off and the person carry it in his hands in the public domain. The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 12
Rams may go out with a wide strap tied against their genitals so that they will not copulate with females, with a hard piece of leather strapped over their hearts so that they will not be attacked by wolves,64 and with an embroidered cloth that is placed on them to make them more attractive.65
Ewes may go out with their fat tail tied to their backs, [exposing them] so that rams will copulate with them, or tied downward so that rams will not copulate with them. They may go out covered with a cloth so that their wool will remain clean.66
Halacha 13
A donkey should not go out [wearing] a saddle even when it is tied upon it on Friday.69 A horse may not go out wearing a foxtail70 or with a scarlet thread between its eyes.71
An animal should not go out with a feeding bag [attached] to its mouth, nor with metal shoes,72 nor with an amulet that has not proven its efficacy for an animal.73 An animal may, however, go out with a bandage placed on a wound,74 with plates placed on a broken bone,75 or with a placenta that is hanging from it.
We may plug up a bell hanging around its neck76 and allow [an animal] to stroll with it in a courtyard.77 Similarly, one may place78 a saddlecloth on a donkey79 and allow it to stroll in a courtyard. One may not, however, attach a feeding bag to [an animal] on the Sabbath [even when it will not go beyond a courtyard].80
Halacha 14
Just as a person is commanded that his animals rest on the Sabbath, so too, he is commanded that his servants and maidservants rest. Although they have the power of thought, and act according to their own volition, [their master] is obligated to watch over them and prevent them from performing [forbidden] labor on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states: "Thus your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner may find repose."81
The servants and maidservants whom we are commanded to have rest [on the Sabbath] are servants that have been circumcised and have immersed themselves [in the mikveh], so that they be granted the status of servants who have accepted the mitzvot that servants are obligated to observe.82 By contrast, servants who have not been circumcised and have not immersed themselves, but have merely accepted [the observance of] the seven [universal] laws commanded to the descendants of Noach,83 are considered equivalent to "resident aliens" and are permitted to perform [forbidden] labors for their own sake84 in public as the Jews may during the week. [The status of] a resident alien is granted only in the era when the Jubilee year is observed.85
[One might ask:] Since a resident alien may perform [forbidden] labors on his own behalf on the Sabbath, and a convert is considered equivalent to a native-born Jew in all matters, who is referred to with [the term הגר] in the phrase, "and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner [הגר] may find repose"?86
This refers to a resident alien who is an employee of a Jew, like "the son of [his] maidservant." Such a resident alien may not perform [forbidden] labors on behalf of his Jewish master on the Sabbath.87He may, however, perform [such labors] on his own behalf. Moreover, even if this foreigner is a servant [belonging to a Jewish master], [this foreigner] may perform [labors] for his own sake [on the Sabbath].88
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
We have translated the verse as it appears in the Torah. The standard printed texts of theMishneh Torah include several words that are not included in the original verse.
|
| 2. |
Bava Kama 54b explains that although the verse mentions only an ox and a donkey, the obligation to rest refers to all animals. "The Torah referred to common circumstances" - i.e., since these animals are generally those used for work, they were the ones mentioned specifically.
|
| 3. |
I.e., the positive commandment of resting on the Sabbath also implies not having one's beasts perform labor.
|
| 4. |
See Halachah 6 and notes.
|
| 5. |
This is the prohibition against working on the Sabbath mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
|
| 6. |
This principle (which has its source in Makkot 13b and which the Rambam quotes in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) generally means that if a person transgresses a prohibition punishable by death, but for certain reasons that punishment cannot be administered, he should not be lashed instead. The rationale is that the only punishment which the Torah prescribed for this transgression is execution. There is no source in the Torah which prescribes a lesser punishment.
Nevertheless, within the context of this principle is also the concept that if a certain dimension of a prohibition involves capital punishment, the punishment of lashes is not given to a person who violates another act that is included in this prohibition, but is not punishable by death.
To apply these concepts to the case at hand: Working with an animal is the subject of a Torah prohibition. When a person works with an animal, however, he is not punished by lashes as are others who violate Torah prohibitions. Why? Because there are certain instances when working with an animal is punishable by death - i.e., when the activity is performed by a man and the animal together - for example, plowing. Therefore, even when the labor a person has the animal perform does not cause that person to incur the death sentence - for example, leading it while it is carrying a burden - he is not punished by lashes.
This is the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh. The Ramban (in his gloss on Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 14), however, interprets the Rambam's words to mean that the Torah's prohibition against working with an animal applies only to activities like plowing when the activity is performed by the man and the beast together. The only prohibition stemming from the Torah against having an animal carry a burden is the prohibition derived from the positive commandment mentioned in Halachah 1. Both these interpretations and their implications are discussed at length by the later commentaries.
|
| 7. |
Although the Jew is not making the animal work himself, he is not fulfilling the Torah's command that his animal rest.
|
| 8. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:3), the Rambam emphasizes that there is no difference in this instance whether the gentile is an idolater or not.
Based on the rulings of the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 151:4) states that it is customary not to enforce this prohibition in the present age. The Siftei Cohen 151:12 states that the socio-economic conditions under which our people live have changed, and substantial losses would be sustained if the prohibition were observed. Furthermore, the reason for the prohibition is no longer applicable, for it is uncommon for a Jew to lend or hire his animals to a gentile.
|
| 9. |
The Kessef Mishneh and others note that Avodah Zarah 15a mentions another reason for this prohibition: A Jew who sells an animal to a gentile on Friday afternoon may be required to assist him in training it to follow its new master. This activity may be prolonged past the commencement of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since this is an infrequent possibility, and the Jew is not performing this task entirely by himself, the Rambam does not mention this matter here. (Significantly, however, he does mention it in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Pesachim, loc. cit.)
|
| 10. |
Note the parallel in Hilchot Avadim 8:1. Significantly, in that halachah, the Rambam states that if the gentile demands a price greater than this figure, the Jew has no further obligation.
|
| 11. |
And is unfit for most labor. Since, however, there are tasks that it can perform, the prohibition is not nullified (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
|
| 12. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam emphasizes that the Jewish owner must not be present while the broker is making the sale.
|
| 13. |
Note the differences between this ruling and the Rambam's statements in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:3). The Rambam interprets that Mishnah to be referring to a specific type of horse that is used for transporting birds and not humans. Nevertheless, even according to the Commentary on the Mishnah, ordinary horses are primarily used for human transport.
|
| 14. |
Note the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 151), which states that even though it is now customary to perform other tasks with horses, since our Sages did not apply the prohibition to them originally, the scope of their decree need not be extended in the present age. See the notes on the previous halachah.
|
| 15. |
See the explanation of this principle in Chapter 18, Halachah 16.
|
| 16. |
Note the parallel in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 9:8.
|
| 17. |
The Lechem Mishneh and others question if this prohibition applies when one sells an animal to a gentile butcher as well. Even if the butcher does not slaughter the animal in one's presence, it is clear that he did not purchase it for the sake of labor.
|
| 18. |
E.g., a sheep or a goat.
|
| 19. |
The Siftei Cohen (based on Rashi, Avodah Zarah 14b) explains that the reason for the prohibition is our suspicion that the gentile may sodomize the animal, and there is no relation to the Sabbath prohibitions at all.
Work is generally not performed with a small animal, nor would it be proper to forbid the sale of a small animal lest one sell a large animal. The sale of a large animal is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Accordingly, instituting another prohibition because of it would be improper, since the Rabbis did not "institute a safeguard for a safeguard."
Note, however, the Sefer HaKovetz, which differs and maintains that the prohibition against selling a small animal is a safeguard for the prohibition against selling a larger one. Were this not so, the Rambam would not have mentioned the prohibition against selling a small animal in these halachot.
|
| 20. |
Although we are forbidden to ask a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on our behalf on the Sabbath, as explained in Chapter 6, leniency is granted in this case. We suspect that if the person was required to abandon his money on the Sabbath, he would disobey the law and carry it himself instead. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 22, and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat24:1.)
|
| 21. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:4, which states that this ruling applies only when the animal belongs to him, for the verse mentioned at the beginning of the chapter states "and thus your ox and your donkey may rest." When the animal belongs to another individual, it is preferable to have the animal carry the purse. Although we are forbidden to perform a forbidden labor with an animal (Halachah 2), that prohibition can be avoided by making sure the animal does not perform theakirah or the hanachah. There is also a Rabbinic prohibition against working with an animal that belongs to another person. That prohibition is, however, less severe than the prohibition against asking a gentile to perform labor on one's behalf.
|
| 22. |
The Mishnah Berurah 266:7 explains that the prohibition against working with an animal also mentions the term melachah. Accordingly, it is the same activities that a man is prohibited from performing on the Sabbath that are forbidden to be done with an animal.
As mentioned previously, the forbidden labor of transferring involves akirah, removing the article from its previous position, and hanachah, placing the article down in a new position. When a person - or an animal - who is carrying an article begins walking, he is considered to have performed an akirah, and when he stops he is considered to have performed a hanachah. (See Chapter 13, Halachah 8.)
Accordingly, were a person to place a burden on an animal while it is at rest and remove it from him after the animal has come to rest again, he would be considered as having performed labor with the animal, for the animal will have performed both the akirah and the hanachah.
If, however, one follows the course of action suggested by the Rambam, the animal will have performed neither of these acts. Since the article was placed upon the animal after it began to walk, it is not considered to have performed the akirah. Similarly, if the article was removed from the animal before it halted, it is not considered to have performed the hanachah.
|
| 23. |
The Rashba and others question the Rambam's ruling in this instance, arguing that since the animal does not perform the akirah and the hanachah (as explained above), what difference does it make whether one leads the animal or not? There is no possibility of the animal's performing a forbidden labor.
The Rambam, however, maintains that leading an animal carrying a burden is also forbidden. Otherwise, the license granted a person would be too extensive (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 24. |
Shabbat 17b.
|
| 25. |
As the Rambam states in Chapter 6, Halachah 16, we are not commanded to see that a gentile rests on the Sabbath, while we do have such an obligation with regard to our animals.
(See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 266:6, which state that the above rules also apply when a person is accompanied by a gentile whom he does not trust.)
|
| 26. |
These three types of individuals are often mentioned together in the Talmudic literature. They are all considered to be lacking the intellectual capacity to control their conduct. Hence, they are not obligated to observe the mitzvot.
|
| 27. |
Rashi (Shabbat 153a) adds that if one of these individuals were allowed to carry the purse, one might err and think that an ordinary Jew is also allowed to carry.
|
| 28. |
The deaf-mute has a minimal amount of understanding, and thus, were he to carry an article on the Sabbath, the potential for making an error and thinking that all are allowed to carry is greater (ibid.).
|
| 29. |
The Rashba, the Ramban, Rav Moshe Cohen, and others differ with the Rambam and maintain that one should should give the individual the purse while he is walking, and should remove the purse from him before he stands (as explained in the previous halachah), so that the individual carrying the purse will perform neither the akirah nor the hanachah. They maintain that although a mentally incompetent individual (and similarly, the others mentioned) are not obligated to observe the mitzvot, it is forbidden to "feed him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27.) Similarly, in this instance it is forbidden to give these individuals an article and tell them to carry it. See also Chapter 24, Halachah 11, and notes.
This opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:6) and accepted by the later authorities. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether the above law applies if one gives the article to one of these individuals before the commencement of the Sabbath. On the one hand, it is obvious that one's intent is to have the individual carry the article on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since one gives the article to him before the commencement of the Sabbath, one is not considered to be "feeding him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See the glosses of the Ramah and the Magen Avraham on that law.)
|
| 30. |
Since the child will ultimately become obligated to perform mitzvot, it is preferable that he not violate them in his childhood.
|
| 31. |
Shabbat 153b explains that on the one hand, it is preferable to give it to the child, because when the deaf-mute carries, the impression will be created that an adult may carry on the Sabbath. Conversely, however, there is a disadvantage in giving it to the child, for he will ultimately mature and become obligated to observe the mitzvot.
The Be'ur Halachah 266 emphasizes that when the minor is one's own son, it is definitely preferable to give the purse to the deaf-mute, for a person is obligated to train his children in the observance of the mitzvot.
|
| 32. |
As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 15 and 19, a person is permitted to carry within a space of four cubits. Thus, each time he stops, the four cubits in which he is allowed to carry become redefined, and in this manner he can carry the article several miles on the Sabbath. (See also Chapter 13, Halachah 10, and Chapter 6, Halachah 22.)
It must be emphasized that transferring the article less than four cubits at a time is permitted only when carrying the article in the public domain, but not with regard to transferring the article into the private domain. This must be accomplished by throwing the article in an irregular manner (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:12; Mishnah Berurah 266:17).
Significantly, in contrast to Chapter 13, Halachah 9, the Rambam does not say that the person should run without stopping until he arrives home. It is possible to differentiate between the two instances by explaining that the present halachah refers to an instance when the person had stopped after the commencement of the Sabbath, while the halachah cited refers to an instance when the person had continued walking.
|
| 33. |
The leniencies granted to allow a person to maintain possession of his own property do not apply to a lost object that he discovered, since he will not suffer a loss by leaving it. Nevertheless, once a person has already taken possession of the lost object, it is considered to be his own property.
|
| 34. |
I.e., if there is a danger, because of thieves or the like.
|
| 35. |
According to the Rambam, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 22, there is no prohibition against carrying an article less than four cubits at a time. Most authorities, however, differ with him on this issue and maintain that this is a leniency that is permitted only in rare instances. Hence, in the case of a lost article when a person will not suffer a loss, the leniency is not granted. It is the opinion of these authorities that is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:7).
|
| 36. |
The bridle and reins are not considered muktzeh, because the person had the intent of using them before the Sabbath. One must, however, be careful not to lean on the animal when putting the bridle and the reins on it, for it is forbidden to make use of a live animal (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:1 and commentaries).
|
| 37. |
This halachah revolves around the following principle: A restraint that is necessary to control an animal is not considered to be a burden and may be borne by the animal on the Sabbath.
|
| 38. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:1), the Rambam writes that female camels are more powerful than males and need stronger restraints. The rope used to tie a male camel is, however, apparently different from that mentioned later in the halachah in regard to a horse.
|
| 39. |
A person who leads an animal into the public domain with such a restraint is thus considered as having violated the prohibition against having an animal work on the Sabbath.
|
| 40. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions "a very excessive restraint" - i.e., we are not expected to measure exactly the strength of the animal and the restraint. As long as the restraint is more or less appropriate for the animal, it is not considered to be a burden.
|
| 41. |
The Tur (Orach Chayim 305) appears to differ and to allow one to lead merely one camel at a time.
|
| 42. |
If the rope extends longer, it might appear that one is carrying the rope and not using it as a restraint for the animal (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:3).
|
| 43. |
If the rope hangs lower, it does not appear to be a restraint for the animal, but rather an unnecessary burden (Rashi, Shabbat 54b).
|
| 44. |
Shabbat 54a states that a person leading a group of camels appears as if he is going to a חנגא. The Rambam, based on the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el, interprets that term as having both the meanings mentioned above. It appears to refer to a country-fair that was an occasion for both commerce and celebration for the populace at large.
|
| 45. |
A bell will make the animal look more attractive (Rashi, Shabbat 54b). Alternatively, a bell's sound will invite the attention of prospective customers. An onlooker may not realize that the bell has been plugged (Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat 5:4).
|
| 46. |
Rashi and Tosafot (Shabbat 58a) states that the reason stated in the previous halachah - that one appears to be taking them to a fair - applies in this instance as well.
|
| 47. |
Identifying it as belonging to its master.
|
| 48. |
This prohibition applies even if the seal is woven into the animal's covering (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:15; Mishnah Berurah 305:45).
From the context here, it would appear that the reason for the prohibition is that the seal is considered to be an unnecessary burden. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.), which states that the prohibition was instituted lest the seal fall and the owner pick it up and carry it.
|
| 49. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:4, based on Shabbat 54b), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a leather strap tied around the hoof of an animal that has been wounded.
|
| 50. |
This refers to wooden restraint placed on the animal's neck to prevent it from being able to turn its head backwards. Such a restraint would be placed on an animal to deter it from chewing on a wound on its back (ibid.).
|
| 51. |
Shabbat 53a states that a donkey is always cold, and hence, a saddle-cloth is necessary, even in the summer, to keep it warm. Accordingly, the saddle-cloth is considered to be a garment and not a burden.
The saddlecloth must be tied to the animal, lest it fall and its owner carry it on the Sabbath. It must be tied before the Sabbath, because there is no way that it can be tied on the Sabbath itself without leaning on the animal, which is a forbidden act. Our Sages prohibited a person who violated their decree and tied the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath from taking out his donkey on that day (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2).
Other commentaries explain that if the saddle-cloth was not tied to the animal on Friday, we can assume that it does not suffer from cold so seriously. Hence, it is forbidden for it to wear the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath.
|
| 52. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3), the Rambam states that the patch is used as a sign of identification or for superstitious reasons. Note Rashi (Shabbat 54a), who translates מטוטלת as a "small cushion" rather than as a patch.
|
| 53. |
Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's commentary.
|
| 54. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 55. |
I.e., one of its back feet to one of its front legs, so that it can walk on only three legs (ibid.). In both these instances, the animal is able to walk, but cannot walk fast.
|
| 56. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:4), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies to both male and female chickens.
|
| 57. |
Attached to their feet for the purpose of identification (ibid., based on Shabbat 54b).
|
| 58. |
The Rambam (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to straps that hang loosely from a chicken's feet. He does not explain their purpose. Others (based on Shabbat 54b) explain that these straps served as a restraint.
|
| 59. |
The Rambam (loc. cit.) explains that this refers to a unique species of rams. When they are fattened, all the fat collects in the fat tail, which swells in size. Because of its size, the ram is unable to lift it easily. Therefore, a small wagon is constructed and attached to them to support their tails and prevent them from dragging on the ground and becoming bruised and cut. The Rambam states that he was familiar with such a species of rams.
|
| 60. |
The Rambam (ibid.) states that this refers to chips from the yachnun tree. Based on Shabbat 54b, he explains that these chips were not necessary for rams. Since they butt each other frequently, this would dislodge the worms from their heads.
|
| 61. |
Significantly, Shabbat 54b singles out the species yalei, which Tosafot (based on Bava Batra 4a) identifies as the hedgehog itself. The Biblical name for this species anaka (Leviticus 11:30)resembles the word yenikah, "sucking," and refers to this species' tendency to suck milk.
|
| 62. |
The sharp prickles of the hedgehog skin will annoy the crawling animals and prevent them from sucking the cow's milk (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit., based on Shabbat 54b).
|
| 63. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit. (based on Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah had a neighbor who let his cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar did not rebuke him for this act, and hence the responsibility for this transgression was considered his. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 5:4) relates that as penance, Rabbi Elazar fasted until his teeth became black.
|
| 64. |
Shabbat 53b offers both these interpretations for the word לבובין in the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2. The Rambam interprets them as not being mutually exclusive and hence cites both of them as halachah. See also the following note.
|
| 65. |
Shabbat (loc. cit.) also offers this as an interpretation of the term לבובין. The Ra'avad, however, objects to this particular interpretation, explaining that, as obvious from the ruling in the previous halachah regarding a strap tied between a cow's horns, any article placed on an animal for the purpose of ornamentation is considered to be a burden and forbidden.
The Maggid Mishneh (in his notes on the following halachah) offers an explanation that can resolve this difficulty. An ornament that an animal wears during the week is also permitted on the Sabbath. The ornaments that are forbidden are those that are placed on the animal for the Sabbath day alone.
Note also an original interpretation offered by the Or Sameach, which explains that ornamentation that makes an animal attractive in the eyes of humans is forbidden. The cloth mentioned in this halachah is, by contrast, intended to make the animal attractive in the eyes of the other animals. Some support for this thesis can be derived from comparison to the other articles mentioned in this halachah.
|
| 66. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:2), the Rambam states that these coverings are placed over ewes and not over rams, because ewes' wool is softer than that of rams.
|
| 67. |
This may be done to change the goats' hormonal balance so that they will conceive faster.
|
| 68. |
Rabbenu Yonah explains that the goats' teats were tied for this purpose on the Sabbath and not during the week. During the week, they would be milked in the morning and in the evening, and there was little chance of sufficient pressure building up to cause the milk to ooze out. On the Sabbath, by contrast, they could not be milked from sunset until after nightfall on the next day, and the possibility existed that extra milk would ooze out.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 305:6) follows the interpretation of Rashi, who explains that these ties are not bound tightly and the possibility exists that they will fall and that the owner will carry them in the public domain.
|
| 69. |
Although a donkey may go out wearing a saddlecloth, as stated in Halachah 10, a saddle itself is considered a burden.
|
| 70. |
Rashi (Shabbat 53a) explains that this was used as a talisman to ward off the evil eye.
|
| 71. |
Because it is an unnecessary ornament and therefore considered a burden. See the notes on the previous halachah.
|
| 72. |
Note the Mishnah Berurah 305:41, which states that this restriction does not apply to iron horseshoes that are permanently affixed to the animal's feet.
|
| 73. |
Even if an amulet has proven its efficacy for a human, as long as it has not proven its efficacy for an animal, we are in doubt of its usefulness. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:21 states that a human being has angels and spiritual forces that will assist his recovery, and an animal lacks these. Therefore, the amulet used by a human need not be as powerful.
|
| 74. |
Chapter 19, Halachah 13 grants a person license to go out with a bandage on a wound. The same concept applies regarding an animal.
|
| 75. |
So that it will set in place and heal (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 76. |
The bell must be plugged, since it is forbidden to ring bells on the Sabbath as stated in Chapter 23, Halachah 4.
|
| 77. |
In this and the following instance, the leniency is granted in a courtyard, but not in the public domain.
|
| 78. |
The saddle cloth may not be tied, since by doing so one would be making use of an animal. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:8 and the notes on Halachah 10.)
|
| 79. |
This leniency applies only to a donkey that chronically suffers from cold, as explained in the notes on Halachah 10, and not to a horse or other similar species (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 80. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:10) mentions that, in a courtyard, a feeding bag may be attached to calves and ponies which do not have long necks and find it uncomfortable to eat by themselves.
|
| 81. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, explaining that since the servants are themselves obligated to observe the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, of what purpose is the prohibition imposed on their master? The Maggid Mishneh and Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1525) explain that the servants may be lax in their observance. Therefore, an additional command is given to their master.
|
| 82. |
In Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14;9, the Rambam explains that a Cana'anite servant goes through a process similar to that of conversion when purchased by a Jewish master. This process includes circumcision, immersion in the mikveh, and the acceptance of mitzvot. Once this process is completed, the servant is bound to observe all the mitzvot that are incumbent upon Jewish women.
|
| 83. |
These seven universal laws include the prohibitions against the worship of false gods, cursing God, killing, stealing, incest and adultery, eating a limb torn from a living animal and the obligation to set up courts of law to judge civil matters. The Rambam explains these laws in Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 9 and 10.
A servant may temporarily refuse to accept the mitzvot incumbent upon Jewish servants. In this instance, he does not undergo the process of circumcision and immersion and is given twelve months to decide whether to accept Jewish observance or not. If he refuses, he must be sold (Hilchot Avadim 8:12).
In the interim, this servant must accept the observance of these seven universal laws. If not, he should be killed immediately (see Hilchot Avadim 1:6 and commentaries).
|
| 84. |
But not for the sake of a Jew. In Chapter 6, it was explained that there is a Rabbinic prohibition preventing a Jew from instructing a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on his behalf. This halachah emphasizes that when a gentile is the Jew's servant, the Jew is violating a positive commandment of the Torah itself by having the gentile work for him on the Sabbath. See notes 87 and 88 below.
|
| 85. |
As explained in Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:9, there are many mitzvot whose observance is dependent on the observance of the yovel, the Jubilee year. The observance of the Jubilee year itself is dependent on the proportion of the Jewish people living in Eretz Yisrael. Only when the majority of our people live in the holy land is this mitzvah observed.
|
| 86. |
The intent of this question is not directly obvious in a translated text. The Hebrew word גר has two meanings in Halachic terminology: a convert - גר צדק - and a resident alien - גר תושב. Since, as the Rambam indicates, the verse does not appear to refer to either of these individuals, what is the intent of the word גר in that verse?
|
| 87. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that this positive mitzvah prohibits not only one's servant or one's hired hand, but any gentile who has accepted the observance of these seven universal laws, from working on one's behalf on the Sabbath. For as soon as the gentile agrees to perform the forbidden labor on behalf of a Jew, he is considered as the Jew's hired hand.
The question may arise: Concerning whom is the Rambam speaking in Chapter 6 when he states that asking a gentile to work on our behalf is prohibited merely by virtue of Rabbinic decree? A gentile who has not accepted the observance of any mitzvot at all.
|
| 88. |
Thus, according to the Rambam, the verse quoted above contains two prohibitions: one requiring one to watch that any servants who have accepted the mitzvot observe the Sabbath laws, and another, prohibiting us from benefiting from any work done on our behalf by a gentile who has not accepted these mitzvot.
|
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Tevet 19, 5776 · 31 December 2015
"Today's Day"
Sunday Tevet 19 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 90-96.
Tanya: Ch. 12 The "intermediate (p. 47)...throughout his life.
Chabad chassidim have a tradition from generations, instituted by the Alter Rebbe, that every day we study a parsha of Chumash of that week's sedra with Rashi. This was done by the Rebbe'im, too.----------------------------• Daily Thought:
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Tevet 19, 5776 · 31 December 2015
"Today's Day"
Sunday Tevet 19 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 90-96.
Tanya: Ch. 12 The "intermediate (p. 47)...throughout his life.
Chabad chassidim have a tradition from generations, instituted by the Alter Rebbe, that every day we study a parsha of Chumash of that week's sedra with Rashi. This was done by the Rebbe'im, too.----------------------------• Daily Thought:
The Convenient Mind
The mind will always find the answer most convenient for the mind.
A philosopher will find an answer that favors philosophers. A scientist will find an answer that favors science. A spiritual seeker will find an answer that satisfies his need to seek spirituality. Even the greatest mind will rest only where there remains room to be a mind.
That is why a simple good deed can carry the mind to a place it could never reach on its own—beyond its very need to exist.
Do truth, and you will find truth.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment