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. (ii) 18 The king of Egypt summoned the midwives and demanded of them, “Why have you done this and let the boys live?” 19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “It’s because the Hebrew women aren’t like the Egyptian women — they go into labor and give birth before the midwife arrives.” 20 Therefore God prospered the midwives, and the people continued to multiply and grow very powerful. 21 Indeed, because the midwives feared God, he made them founders of families. 22 Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: “Every boy that is born, throw in the river; but let all the girls live.”
2:1 A man from the family of Levi took a woman also descended from Levi as his wife. 2 When she conceived and had a son, upon seeing what a fine child he was, she hid him for three months. 3 When she could no longer hide him, she took a papyrus basket, coated it with clay and tar, put the child in it and placed it among the reeds on the riverbank. 4 His sister stood at a distance to see what would happen to him.
5 The daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe in the river while her maids-in-attendance walked along the riverside. Spotting the basket among the reeds, she sent her slave-girl to get it. 6 She opened it and looked inside, and there in front of her was a crying baby boy! Moved with pity, she said, “This must be one of the Hebrews’ children.” 7 At this point, his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Would you like me to go and find you one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?” 8 Pharaoh’s daughter answered, “Yes, go.” So the girl went and called the baby’s own mother. 9 Pharaoh’s daughter told her, “Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will pay you for doing it.” So the woman took the child and nursed it. 10 Then, when the child had grown some, she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter; and she began to raise him as her son. She called him Moshe [pull out], explaining, “Because I pulled him out of the water.”
(iii) 11 One day, when Moshe was a grown man, he went out to visit his kinsmen; and he watched them struggling at forced labor. He saw an Egyptian strike a Hebrew, one of his kinsmen. 12 He looked this way and that; and when he saw that no one was around, he killed the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand. 13 The next day, he went out and saw two Hebrew men fighting with each other. To the one in the wrong he said, “Why are you hitting your companion?” 14 He retorted, “Who appointed you ruler and judge over us? Do you intend to kill me the way you killed the Egyptian?” Moshe became frightened. “Clearly,” he thought, “the matter has become known.” 15 When Pharaoh heard of it, he tried to have Moshe put to death. But Moshe fled from Pharaoh to live in the land of Midyan.
One day, as he was sitting by a well, 16 the seven daughters of the priest of Midyan came to draw water. They had filled the troughs to water their father’s sheep, 17 when the shepherds came and tried to drive them away. But Moshe got up and defended them; then he watered their sheep. 18 When they came to Re‘u’el their father, he said, “How come you’re back so soon today?” 19 They answered, “An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds; more than that, he drew water for us and watered the sheep.” 20 He asked his daughters, “Where is he? Why did you leave the man there? Invite him to have something to eat.”
21 Moshe was glad to stay on with the man, and he gave Moshe his daughter Tzipporah in marriage. 22 She gave birth to a son, and he named him Gershom [foreigner there], for he said, “I have been a foreigner in a foreign land.”
23 Sometime during those many years the king of Egypt died, but the people of Isra’el still groaned under the yoke of slavery, and they cried out, and their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. 24 God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Avraham, Yitz’chak and Ya‘akov. 25 God saw the people of Isra’el, and God acknowledged them.
3:1 (iv) Now Moshe was tending the sheep of Yitro his father-in-law, the priest of Midyan. Leading the flock to the far side of the desert, he came to the mountain of God, to Horev. 2 The angel of Adonai appeared to him in a fire blazing from the middle of a bush. He looked and saw that although the bush was flaming with fire, yet the bush was not being burned up. 3 Moshe said, “I’m going to go over and see this amazing sight and find out why the bush isn’t being burned up.” 4 When Adonai saw that he had gone over to see, God called to him from the middle of the bush, “Moshe! Moshe!” He answered, “Here I am.” 5 He said, “Don’t come any closer! Take your sandals off your feet, because the place where you are standing is holy ground. 6 I am the God of your father,” he continued, “the God of Avraham, the God of Yitz’chak and the God of Ya‘akov.” Moshe covered his face, because he was afraid to look at God. 7 Adonai said, “I have seen how my people are being oppressed in Egypt and heard their cry for release from their slavemasters, because I know their pain. 8 I have come down to rescue them from the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that country to a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey, the place of the Kena‘ani, Hitti, Emori, P’rizi, Hivi and Y’vusi. 9 Yes, the cry of the people of Isra’el has come to me, and I have seen how terribly the Egyptians oppress them. 10 Therefore, now, come; and I will send you to Pharaoh; so that you can lead my people, the descendants of Isra’el, out of Egypt.”
11 Moshe said to God, “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh and lead the people of Isra’el out of Egypt?” 12 He replied, “I will surely be with you. Your sign that I have sent you will be that when you have led the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.”
13 Moshe said to God, “Look, when I appear before the people of Isra’el and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you’; and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what am I to tell them?” 14 God said to Moshe, “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be],” and added, “Here is what to say to the people of Isra’el: ‘Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.’” 15 God said further to Moshe, “Say this to the people of Isra’el: ‘Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [Adonai], the God of your fathers, the God of Avraham, the God of Yitz’chak and the God of Ya‘akov, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation. (v) 16 Go, gather the leaders of Isra’el together, and say to them, ‘Adonai, the God of your fathers, the God of Avraham, Yitz’chak and Ya‘akov, has appeared to me and said, “I have been paying close attention to you and have seen what is being done to you in Egypt; 17 and I have said that I will lead you up out of the misery of Egypt to the land of the Kena‘ani, Hitti, Emori, P’rizi, Hivi and Y’vusi, to a land flowing with milk and honey.”’ 18 They will heed what you say. Then you will come, you and the leaders of Isra’el, before the king of Egypt; and you will tell him, ‘Adonai, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Now, please, let us go three days’ journey into the desert; so that we can sacrifice to Adonai our God.’ 19 I know that the king of Egypt will not let you leave unless he is forced to do so. 20 But I will reach out my hand and strike Egypt with all my wonders that I will do there. After that, he will let you go. 21 Moreover, I will make the Egyptians so well-disposed toward this people that when you go, you won’t go empty-handed. 22 Rather, all the women will ask their neighbors and house guests for silver and gold jewelry and clothing, with which you will dress your own sons and daughters. In this way you will plunder the Egyptians.”
4:1 Moshe replied, “But I’m certain they won’t believe me, and they won’t listen to what I say, because they’ll say, ‘Adonai did not appear to you.’” 2 Adonai answered him, “What is that in your hand?” and he said, “A staff.” 3 He said, “Throw it on the ground!” and he threw it on the ground. It turned into a snake, and Moshe recoiled from it. 4 Then Adonai said to Moshe, “Put your hand out and take it by the tail.” He reached out with his hand and took hold of it, and it became a staff in his hand. 5 “This is so that they will believe that Adonai, the God of their fathers, the God of Avraham, the God of Yitz’chak and the God of Ya‘akov, has appeared to you!”
6 Furthermore Adonai said to him, “Now put your hand inside your coat.” He put his hand in his coat; and when he took it out his hand was leprous, as white as snow. 7 Then God said, “Now put your hand back in your coat.” He put his hand back in his coat; and when he took it out, it was as healthy as the rest of his body. 8 “If they won’t believe you or heed the evidence of the first sign, they will be convinced by the second. 9 But if they aren’t persuaded even by both these signs and still won’t listen to what you say, then take some water from the river, and pour it on the ground. The water you take from the river will turn into blood on the dry land.”
10 Moshe said to Adonai, “Oh, Adonai, I’m a terrible speaker. I always have been, and I’m no better now, even after you’ve spoken to your servant! My words come slowly, my tongue moves slowly.” 11 Adonai answered him, “Who gives a person a mouth? Who makes a person dumb or deaf, keen-sighted or blind? Isn’t it I, Adonai? 12 Now, therefore, go; and I will be with your mouth and will teach you what to say.”
13 But he replied, “Please, Lord, send someone else — anyone you want!” 14 At this, Adonai’s anger blazed up against Moshe; he said, “Don’t you have a brother, Aharon the Levi? I know that he’s a good speaker. In fact, here he is now, coming out to meet you; and he’ll be happy to see you. 15 You will speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and his, teaching you both what to do. 16 Thus he will be your spokesman to the people, in effect; for you, he will be a mouth; and for him, you will be like God. 17 Now take this staff in your hand, because you need it to perform the signs.”
(vi) 18 Moshe left, returned to Yitro his father-in-law and said to him, “I beg you to let me go and return to my kinsmen in Egypt, to see if they are still alive.” Yitro said to Moshe, “Go in peace.” 19 Adonai said to Moshe in Midyan, “Go on back to Egypt, because all the men who wanted to kill you are dead.” 20 So Moshe took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey, and started out for Egypt. Moshe took God’s staff in his hand. 21 Adonai said to Moshe, “When you get back to Egypt, make sure that you do before Pharaoh every one of the wonders I have enabled you to do. Nevertheless, I am going to make him hardhearted, and he will refuse to let the people go. 22 Then you are to tell Pharaoh: ‘Adonai says, “Isra’el is my firstborn son. 23 I have told you to let my son go in order to worship me, but you have refused to let him go. Well, then, I will kill your firstborn son!”’”
24 At a lodging-place on the way, Adonai met Moshe and would have killed him, 25 had not Tzipporah taken a flintstone and cut off the foreskin of her son. She threw it at his feet, saying, “What a bloody bridegroom you are for me!” 26 But then, God let Moshe be. She added, “A bloody bridegroom because of the circumcision!”
27 Adonai said to Aharon, “Go into the desert to meet Moshe.” He went, met him at the mountain of God and kissed him. 28 Moshe told him everything Adonai had said in sending him, including all the signs he had ordered him to perform. 29 Then Moshe and Aharon went and gathered together all the leaders of the people of Isra’el. 30 Aharon said everything Adonai had told Moshe, who then performed the signs for the people to see. 31 The people believed; when they heard that Adonai had remembered the people of Isra’el and seen how they were oppressed, they bowed their heads and worshipped.
5:1 (vii) After that, Moshe and Aharon came and said to Pharaoh, “Here is what Adonai, the God of Isra’el, says: ‘Let my people go, so that they can celebrate a festival in the desert to honor me.’” 2 But Pharaoh replied, “Who is Adonai, that I should obey when he says to let Isra’el go? I don’t know Adonai, and I also won’t let Isra’el go.” 3 They said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please let us go three days’ journey into the desert, so that we can sacrifice to Adonai our God. Otherwise, he may strike us with a plague or with the sword.” 4 The king of Egypt answered them, “Moshe and Aharon, what do you mean by taking the people away from their work? Get back to your labor! 5 Look!” Pharaoh added, “the population of the land has grown, yet you are trying to have them stop working!”
6 That same day Pharaoh ordered the slavemasters and the people’s foremen, 7 “You are no longer to provide straw for the bricks the people are making, as you did before. Let them go and gather straw for themselves. 8 But you will require them to produce the same quantity of bricks as before, don’t reduce it, because they’re lazing around. This is why they’re crying, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’ 9 Give these people harder work to do. That will keep them too busy to pay attention to speeches full of lies.”
10 The people’s slavemasters went out, their foremen too, and said to the people, “Here is what Pharaoh says: ‘I will no longer give you straw. 11 You go, yourselves, and get straw wherever you can find it. But your output is not to be reduced.’” 12 So the people were dispersed throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble for straw. 13 The slavemasters kept pressing them. “Keep working! Make your daily quota, just as when straw was provided.” 14 The foremen of the people of Isra’el, whom Pharaoh’s slavemasters had appointed to be over them, were flogged and asked, “Why haven’t you fulfilled your quota of bricks yesterday and today, as you did formerly?”
15 Then the foremen of the people of Isra’el came and complained to Pharaoh: “Why are you treating your servants this way? 16 No straw is given to your servants, yet they keep telling us to make bricks. And now your servants are being flogged, but the fault lies with your own people.” 17 “Lazy!” he retorted, “You’re just lazy! That’s why you say, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to Adonai.’ 18 Get going now, and get back to work! No straw will be given to you, and you will still deliver the full amount of bricks.” 19 When they said, “You are not to reduce your daily production quota of bricks,” the foremen of the people of Isra’el could see that they were in deep trouble.
20 As they were leaving Pharaoh, they encountered Moshe and Aharon standing by the road; 21 and they said to them, “May Adonai look at you and judge accordingly, because you have made us utterly abhorrent in the view of Pharaoh and his servants, and you have put a sword in their hands to kill us!” (Maftir) 22 Moshe returned to Adonai and said, “Adonai, why have you treated this people so terribly? What has been the value of sending me? 23 For ever since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has dealt terribly with this people! And you haven’t rescued your people at all!”
6:1 Adonai said to Moshe, “Now you will see what I am going to do to Pharaoh. With a mighty hand he will send them off; with force he will drive them from the land!”
)
Haftarah: (Isaiah 27:
Today in Jewish History:
6 The time is coming when Ya‘akov will take root;
Isra’el will bud and flower,
and fill the whole world with a harvest.
7 [Adonai] will not strike Isra’el,
as he did others who struck Isra’el;
he will not kill them,
as he did the others.
8 Your controversy with her is fully resolved
by sending her [into exile].
He removes her with a rough gust of wind
on a day when it’s blowing from the east.
9 So the iniquity of Ya‘akov is atoned for by this,
and removing his sin produces this result:
he chops up all the altar stones like chalk —
sacred poles and sun-pillars stand no more.
10 For the fortified city is alone,
abandoned and deserted, like the desert.
Calves graze and lie down there,
stripping its branches bare.
11 When its harvest dries up, it is broken off;
women come and set it on fire.
For this is a people without understanding.
Therefore he who made them will not pity them,
he who formed them will show them no mercy.
12 On that day Adonai will beat out the grain
between the Euphrates River and the Vadi of Egypt;
and you will be gathered, one by one,
people of Isra’el!
13 On that day a great shofar will sound.
Those lost in the land of Ashur will come,
also those scattered through the land of Egypt;
and they will worship Adonai
on the holy mountain in Yerushalayim.
29:22 Therefore, here are the words of Adonai, who redeemed Avraham, concerning the house of Ya‘akov:
“Ya‘akov will no longer be ashamed,
no longer will his face grow pale.
23 When his descendants see the work of my hands
among them, they will consecrate my name.
Yes, they will consecrate the Holy one of Ya‘akov
and stand in awe of the God of Isra’el.
)• Shimon Born (1567 BCE)
Shimon, the second son of Jacob and Leah and the progenitor of the Israelite tribe of Shimon, was born on Tevet 21 (according to another opinion, on Tevet 28), of the year 2194 from creation (1567 BCE), nine years after Jacob's arrival in Charan.
Link: More on Shimon
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shemot, 7th Portion Exodus 5:1-6:1 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 5
1And afterwards, Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, "So said the Lord God of Israel, 'Send out My people, and let them sacrifice to Me in the desert.' " אוְאַחַ֗ר בָּ֚אוּ משֶׁ֣ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן וַיֹּֽאמְר֖וּ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל שַׁלַּח֙ אֶת־עַמִּ֔י וְיָחֹ֥גּוּ לִ֖י בַּמִּדְבָּֽר:
And afterwards, Moses and Aaron came: But the elders slipped away one by one from following Moses and Aaron, until they had all slipped away before they arrived at the palace. [They did so] because they were afraid to go, and at Sinai, He punished them, [as it is written:] “And Moses shall draw near alone, but they shall not draw near” (Exod. 24:2). He sent them back. — [from Exodus Rabbah 5:14; Tanchuma, Shemoth 24] ואחר באו משה ואהרן וגו': אבל הזקנים נשמטו אחד אחד מאחר משה ואהרן, עד שנשמטו כולם קודם שהגיעו לפלטין, לפי שיראו ללכת, ובסיני נפרע להם (כד ב) ונגש משה לבדו והם לא יגשו, החזירם לאחוריהם:
2And Pharaoh said, "Who is the Lord that I should heed His voice to let Israel out? I do not know the Lord, neither will I let Israel out." בוַיֹּ֣אמֶר פַּרְעֹ֔ה מִ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶשְׁמַ֣ע בְּקֹל֔וֹ לְשַׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לֹ֤א יָדַ֨עְתִּי֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֔ה וְגַ֥ם אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֹ֥א אֲשַׁלֵּֽחַ:
3And they said, "The God of the Hebrews has happened upon us. Now let us go on a three day journey in the desert and sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest He strike us with a plague or with the sword." גוַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ אֱלֹהֵ֥י הָֽעִבְרִ֖ים נִקְרָ֣א עָלֵ֑ינוּ נֵ֣לֲכָה נָּ֡א דֶּ֩רֶךְ֩ שְׁל֨שֶׁת יָמִ֜ים בַּמִּדְבָּ֗ר וְנִזְבְּחָה֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֔ינוּ פֶּן־יִפְגָּעֵ֔נוּ בַּדֶּ֖בֶר א֥וֹ בֶחָֽרֶב:
lest He strike us: Heb. פֶּן יִפְגָעֵנוּ. They should have said, “ פֶּן יִפְגָעֲ, lest He strike you,” but they imparted honor to the throne [and out of respect said this]. The word פְּגִיעָה denotes a fatal encounter. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 2] פן יפגענו: פן יפגעך היו צריכים לומר, אלא שחלקו כבוד למלכות. פגיעה זו לשון מקרה מות היא:
4But the king of Egypt said to them, "Why, Moses and Aaron, do you disturb the people from their work? Go to your own labors." דוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם לָ֚מָּה משֶׁ֣ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן תַּפְרִ֥יעוּ אֶת־הָעָ֖ם מִמַּֽעֲשָׂ֑יו לְכ֖וּ לְסִבְלֹֽתֵיכֶֽם:
do you disturb the people from their work: Heb. ךְתַּפְרִיעוּ, [meaning] you separate [them] and take them away from their work, because they listen to you and expect to rest from their work. Similarly, “Avoid it (פְּרָעֵהוּ), do not pass through it” (Prov. 4:15); [i.e.,] distance it. Similarly, “And you have avoided (וַךְתִּפְרְעוּ) all my advice” (Prov. 1: 25); “that it was (פָרֻעַ) ” (Exod. 32:25), [i.e.,] distanced and despised. תפריעו את העם ממעשיו: תבדילו ותרחיקו אותם ממלאכתם, ששומעין לכם וסבורים לנוח מן המלאכה. וכן (משלי ד טו) פרעהו אל תעבר בו, רחקהו. וכן (שם א כה) ותפרעו כל עצתי, (שמות לב כה) כי פרוע הוא, נרחק ונתעב:
Go to your own labors: “Go to your work that you have to do in your houses.” But [he could not have been referring to the Egyptian bondage, because Moses and Aaron were from the tribe of Levi and] the labor of the Egyptian bondage was not incumbent upon the tribe of Levi. You should know [that this is true] for behold, Moses and Aaron were coming and going without permission. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 6; Tanchuma Buber, Va’era 4] לכו לסבלתיכם: לכו למלאכתכם שיש לכם לעשות בבתיכם. אבל מלאכת שעבוד מצרים לא היתה על שבטו של לוי, ותדע לך שהרי משה ואהרן יוצאים ובאים שלא ברשות:
5And Pharaoh said, "Behold, now the people of the land are many, and you are stopping them from their labors." הוַיֹּ֣אמֶר פַּרְעֹ֔ה הֵֽן־רַבִּ֥ים עַתָּ֖ה עַ֣ם הָאָ֑רֶץ וְהִשְׁבַּתֶּ֥ם אֹתָ֖ם מִסִּבְלֹתָֽם:
Behold, now the people of the land are many: Those who are required to work, and you stop them from their labors. This is a great loss. הן רבים עתה עם הארץ: שהעבודה מוטלת עליהם ואתם משביתים אותם מסבלותם, הפסד גדול הוא זה:
6So, on that day, Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters of the people and their officers, saying, ווַיְצַ֥ו פַּרְעֹ֖ה בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֑וּא אֶת־הַנֹּֽגְשִׂ֣ים בָּעָ֔ם וְאֶת־שֹֽׁטְרָ֖יו לֵאמֹֽר:
the taskmasters: They were Egyptians, and the officers were Israelites. The taskmaster was appointed over many officers, and the officer was appointed to drive the workers. הנגשים: מצריים היו, והשוטרים היו ישראלים, הנוגש ממונה על כמה שוטרים, והשוטר ממונה לרדות בעושי המלאכה:
7"You shall not continue to give stubble to the people to make the bricks like yesterday and the day before yesterday. Let them go and gather stubble for themselves. זלֹ֣א תֹֽאסִפ֞וּן לָתֵ֨ת תֶּ֧בֶן לָעָ֛ם לִלְבֹּ֥ן הַלְּבֵנִ֖ים כִּתְמ֣וֹל שִׁלְשֹׁ֑ם הֵ֚ם יֵֽלְכ֔וּ וְקֽשְׁשׁ֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם תֶּֽבֶן:
stubble: Heb. ךְתֶּבֶן, estoble in Old French. They would knead it with the clay. תבן: אשטובל"א [קש] היו גובלין אותו עם הטיט:
bricks: Heb. לְּבֵנִים, tivles in Old French, [tuiles in modern French, tiles] made from clay and dried in the sun; some people fire them in a kiln. לבנים: טיולי"ש בלעז [רעפים] שעושים מטיט ומייבשין אותן בחמה, ויש ששורפין אותן בכבשן:
like yesterday and the day before yesterday: As you have been doing until now. כתמול שלשם: כאשר הייתם עושים עד הנה:
and gather: Heb. וְקשְׁשׁוּ, and they shall gather. וקששו: ולקטו:
8But the number of bricks they have been making yesterday and the day before yesterday you shall impose upon them; you shall not reduce it, for they are lax. Therefore they cry out, saying, 'Let us go and sacrifice to our God.' חוְאֶת־מַתְכֹּ֨נֶת הַלְּבֵנִ֜ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֵם֩ עֹשִׂ֨ים תְּמ֤וֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם֙ תָּשִׂ֣ימוּ עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם לֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּֽי־נִרְפִּ֣ים הֵ֔ם עַל־כֵּ֗ן הֵ֤ם צֹֽעֲקִים֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר נֵֽלְכָ֖ה נִזְבְּחָ֥ה לֵֽאלֹהֵֽינוּ:
But the number of bricks: The sum of the number of bricks which each one made daily when they were given stubble, that sum you shall levy upon them now too, in order that the labor may fall heavy upon them. ואת מתכנת הלבנים: סכום חשבון הלבנים שהיה כל אחד עושה ליום כשהיה התבן נתן להם, אותו סכום תשימו עליהם גם עתה, למען תכבד העבודה עליהם:
for they are lax: from the work. Therefore, their hearts turn to idleness, and they cry out, saying, “Let us go, etc.” כי נרפים: מן העבודה הם, לכך לבם פונה אל הבטלה וצועקים לאמר נלכה וגו':
for they are lax: [The words], מַתְכֹּנֶת [and] וְתֹכֶן לְבֵנִים (verse 18) [mean the number of bricks, as in] “and to Him are deeds counted (נִתְפְּנוּ ” (I Sam. 2:3); “and the counted (הַמְתֻכָּן) money” (II Kings 12:12). All are terms denoting a quantity. מתכנת: ותוכן לבנים (פסוק יט), ולו נתכנו עלילות (שמואל א' ב ג), את הכסף המתוכן (מלכים ב' יב יב), כולם לשון חשבון הם:
lax: Heb. נִרְפִּים The work is neglected in their hands and abandoned by them, and they are withdrawing themselves from it, retres in Old French, [meaning] withdrawn, removed. נרפים: המלאכה רפויה בידם ועזובה מהם והם נרפים ממנה, רטריי"ש בלע"ז [אחיזתם רופפת]:
9Let the labor fall heavy upon the men and let them work at it, and let them not talk about false matters." טתִּכְבַּ֧ד הָֽעֲבֹדָ֛ה עַל־הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים וְיַֽעֲשׂוּ־בָ֑הּ וְאַל־יִשְׁע֖וּ בְּדִבְרֵי־שָֽׁקֶר:
and let them not talk about false matters: Heb. וְאַל יִשְׁעוּ בְּדִבְרֵי שֶׁקֶר. Let them not constantly think and talk about matters of no substance, saying, “Let us go, let us sacrifice.” Similar to it is, “and I shall constantly engage (וְאֶשְׁעָה) in Your statutes” (Ps. 119:117). “For an example and for a byword (וְלִשְׁנִינָה)” (Deut. 28:37) is rendered [by Onkelos] as וּלְשׁוֹעִין. “And [the servant] told” (Gen. 24:66) is rendered וְאִשְׁךְתָּעֵי. It is, however, impossible to say that יִשְׁעוּ is [related to the] expression of “and the Lord turned (וַיִשַׁע) to Abel” (Gen. 424); “But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn (לֹא שָׁעָה) ” (Gen. 4:5); and to explain אַַַַַל יִשְׁעוּ as “and let them not turn.” If this were the case, Scripture should have written: וְאַל יִשְׁעוּ אֶל דִבְרֵי שָׁקֶר or שָׁקֶר לְדִבְרֵי, for that is the construction in all similar cases, e.g., “and shall turn (יִשְׁעֶה) to (עַל) His Maker" (Isa. 17:7); "and he shall not turn (וְלֹא יִשְׁעֶה) to (אֶל) the altars” (Isa. 17:8); “and they did not turn (וְלֹא ֹשָעו) to (עַל) the Holy One of Israel” (Isa. 31:1). I have not found the prefix “beth” immediately following them; after an expression of speech, however, concerning one who is engaged in speaking of a matter, the prefix “beth” is appropriate, e. g., “who talk about you (בְּ)” ; (Ezek. 33:30); “Miriam and Aaron talked about Moses (בְּמשֶׁה) ” (Num. 12: 1); “the angel who spoke with me (בִּי) ” (Zech. 4:1); “to speak of them (בָּם)” (Deut. 11:19); “And I shall speak of Your testimonies (בְעֵדֹתֶי) ” (Ps. 119:46). Here too, אַל יִשְׁעוּ בְּדִבְרֵי שָׁקֶר means: Let them not engage in speaking of words of vanity and nonsense. ואל ישעו בדברי שקר: ואל יהגו וידברו תמיד בדברי רוח לאמר נלכה נזבחה. ודומה לו (תהילים קיט קיז) ואשעה בחקיך תמיד, (דברים כח לז) למשל ולשנינה, מתרגמינן ולשועין, (בראשית כד סו) ויספר ואשתעי. ואי אפשר לומר ישעו לשון (בראשית ד ד) וישע ה' אל הבל וגו', (שם ה) ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה, ולפרש אל ישעו אל יפנו, שאם כן היה לו לכתוב ואל ישעו אל דברי שקר או לדברי שקר, כי כן גזרת כולם (ישעי' יז ז) ישעה האדם על עושהו, (שם לא א) ולא שעו על קדוש ישראל, (שם יז ח) ולא ישעה אל המזבחות, ולא מצאתי שמוש של בי"ת סמוכה לאחריהם, אבל אחר לשון דבור, במתעסק לדבר בדבר נופל לשון שמוש בי"ת, כגון (יחזקאל לג ל) הנדברים בך, (במדבר יב א) ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה, (זכריה ד א) המלאך הדובר בי, (דברים יא יט) לדבר בם, (תהילים קיט מו) ואדברה בעדותיך, אף כאן אל ישעו בדברי שקר אל יהיו נדברים בדברי שוא והבאי:
10So the taskmasters of the people and their officers came out and spoke to the people, saying, "So said Pharaoh, 'I am not giving you stubble. יוַיֵּ֨צְא֜וּ נֹֽגְשֵׂ֤י הָעָם֙ וְשֹׁ֣טְרָ֔יו וַיֹּֽאמְר֥וּ אֶל־הָעָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר פַּרְעֹ֔ה אֵינֶ֛נִּי נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶ֖ם תֶּֽבֶן:
11You go take for yourselves stubble from wherever you find [it], because nothing will be reduced from your work.' " יאאַתֶּ֗ם לְכ֨וּ קְח֤וּ לָכֶם֙ תֶּ֔בֶן מֵֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר תִּמְצָ֑אוּ כִּ֣י אֵ֥ין נִגְרָ֛ע מֵֽעֲבֹֽדַתְכֶ֖ם דָּבָֽר:
You go take for yourselves stubble: And you must go with alacrity. אתם לכו קחו לכם תבן: וצריכים אתם לילך בזריזות:
because nothing will be reduced from your work: from the entire amount of bricks that you were making daily, when you were given stubble prepared from the king’s house. כי אין נגרע מעבדתכם דבר: מכל סכום לבנים שהייתם עושים ליום בהיות התבן ניתן לכם מזומן מבית המלך:
12So the people scattered throughout the entire land of Egypt, to gather a gleaning for stubble. יבוַיָּ֥פֶץ הָעָ֖ם בְּכָל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם לְקשֵׁ֥שׁ קַ֖שׁ לַתֶּֽבֶן:
to gather a gleaning for stubble: Heb. לְקשֵׁשׁ קַֹש, to gather a gathering, to collect a collection for the stubble [needed] for the clay. לקשש קש לתבן: לאסוף אסיפה, ללקוט לקט לצורך תבן הטיט:
a gleaning: Heb., קַֹש an expression of collecting. Since it is a substance that scatters and requires collecting, it is called קַֹש in other places [also]. קש לקשש קש לתבן: לשון לקוט. על שם שדבר המתפזר הוא וצריך לקוששו, קרוי קש בשאר מקומות.
13And the taskmasters were pressing [them], saying, "Finish your work, the requirement of each day in its day, just as when there was stubble." יגוְהַנֹּֽגְשִׂ֖ים אָצִ֣ים לֵאמֹ֑ר כַּלּ֤וּ מַֽעֲשֵׂיכֶם֙ דְּבַר־י֣וֹם בְּיוֹמ֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר בִּֽהְי֥וֹת הַתֶּֽבֶן:
were pressing [them]: Heb אָצִים, pressing-[from Targumim] אצים: דוחקים:
the requirement of each day in its day: The quota of each day complete in its [i.e., on the same day, as you did when the stubble was prepared. — [from Onkelos] דבר יום ביומו: חשבון של כל יום כלו ביומו, כאשר עשיתם בהיות התבן מוכן:
14And the officers of the children of Israel whom Pharaoh's taskmasters had appointed over them were beaten, saying, "Why have you not completed your quota to make bricks like the day before yesterday, neither yesterday nor today?" ידוַיֻּכּ֗וּ שֹֽׁטְרֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁר־שָׂ֣מוּ עֲלֵהֶ֔ם נֹֽגְשֵׂ֥י פַרְעֹ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר מַדּ֡וּעַ לֹא֩ כִלִּיתֶ֨ם חָקְכֶ֤ם לִלְבֹּן֙ כִּתְמ֣וֹל שִׁלְשֹׁ֔ם גַּם־תְּמ֖וֹל גַּם־הַיּֽוֹם:
And the officers of the children of Israel… were beaten: The officers were Israelites, and they had pity on their fellows, [and did] not press them. They would turn the bricks over to the taskmasters, who were Egyptians, and when something was missing form the [required] amount, they [the Egyptians] would flog them [the officers] because they did not press the workers. Therefore those officers merited to become the Sanhedrin, and some of the spirit that was upon Moses was taken and placed upon them, as it is said: “Gather to Me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), of those about whom you know the good that they did in Egypt, “that they are the elders of the people and its officers” (ibid.). — [from Tanchuma, Beha’alothecha 13 and Sifrei, Beha’alothecha 92] ויכו שטרי בני ישראל: השוטרים ישראלים היו וחסים על חבריהם מלדחקם, וכשהיו משלימים הלבנים לנוגשים שהם מצריים, והיה חסר מן הסכום, היו מלקין אותם על שלא דחקו את עושי המלאכה, לפיכך זכו אותם שוטרים להיות סנהדרין, ונאצל מן הרוח אשר על משה, והושם עליהם, שנאמר (במדבר יא טז) אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אשר ידעת, מאותן שידעת הטובה שעשו במצרים, כי הם זקני העם ושוטריו:
And the officers of the children of Israel… were beaten: [I. e.,] those whom Pharaoh’s taskmasters had appointed as officers over them-saying, “Why, etc.” Why were they beaten? Because they [the Egyptian taskmasters] said to them [the officers], “Why have you not completed either yesterday or today the fixed quota set upon you to make bricks, as [you did] the ‘third yesterday’?” This is the day before yesterday, which was when they had been given stubble. ויכו שטרי בני ישראל: אשר שמו נוגשי פרעה אותם לשוטרים עליהם לאמר מדוע וגו'. למה ויכו, שהיו אומרים להם מדוע לא כליתם גם תמול גם היום חק הקצוב עליכם ללבון כתמול השלישי שהוא יום שלפני אתמול, והוא היה בהיות התבן נתן להם:
were beaten: Heb. וַיֻכּוּ They were the object of an action. [The word is in the “hoph’al” conjugation, the recipient of the “hiph’il.”] They were beaten by others; the taskmasters beat them. ויכו: לשון ויופעלו, הוכו מיד אחרים, הנוגשים הכום:
15So the officers of the children of Israel came and cried out to Pharaoh, saying, "Why do you do this to your servants? טווַיָּבֹ֗אוּ שֹֽׁטְרֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיִּצְעֲק֥וּ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר לָ֧מָּה תַֽעֲשֶׂ֦ה כֹ֖ה לַֽעֲבָדֶֽיךָ:
16Stubble is not given to your servants, but they tell us, 'Make bricks,' and behold, your servants are beaten, and your people are sinning." טזתֶּ֗בֶן אֵ֤ין נִתָּן֙ לַֽעֲבָדֶ֔יךָ וּלְבֵנִ֛ים אֹֽמְרִ֥ים לָ֖נוּ עֲשׂ֑וּ וְהִנֵּ֧ה עֲבָדֶ֛יךָ מֻכִּ֖ים וְחָטָ֥את עַמֶּֽךָ:
but they tell us, ‘Make bricks’: The taskmasters [tell us]: “Make bricks, as many as the original number.” ולבנים אמרים לנו עשו: כמנין הראשון:
and your people are sinning: Heb. וְחָטָאתעַמֶ. If it were vowelized with a “pattach” (חַטָאת), I would say that it is connected, [i.e., in the construct state, and so it means:] and this thing is the sin of your people. However, since it is [vowelized with] a “kamatz” (חָטָאת), it is a noun [in the absolute state], and this is its meaning: and this thing brings sin upon your people, as if it were written: לְעַמֶ וְחַָטָאת, like “when they came to Beth-lehem (בֵּיתלָחֶם) ” (Ruth 1:19), which is the equivalent of לְבֵיתלָחֶם, and similarly with many [others]. וחטאת עמך: אלו היה נקוד פת"ח הייתי אומר שהוא דבוק, ודבר זה חטאת עמך הוא, עכשיו שהוא קמ"ץ, שם דבר הוא. וכך פירושו ודבר זה מביא חטאת על עמך, כאלו כתוב וחטאת לעמך, כמו (רות א יט) כבאנה בית לחם, שהוא כמו לבית לחם וכן הרבה:
17But he said, "You are lax, just lax. Therefore, you say, 'Let us go, let us sacrifice to the Lord.' יזוַיֹּ֛אמֶר נִרְפִּ֥ים אַתֶּ֖ם נִרְפִּ֑ים עַל־כֵּן֙ אַתֶּ֣ם אֹֽמְרִ֔ים נֵֽלְכָ֖ה נִזְבְּחָ֥ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
18And now, go and work, but you will not be given stubble. Nevertheless, the [same] number of bricks you must give." יחוְעַתָּה֙ לְכ֣וּ עִבְד֔וּ וְתֶ֖בֶן לֹֽא־יִנָּתֵ֣ן לָכֶ֑ם וְתֹ֥כֶן לְבֵנִ֖ים תִּתֵּֽנוּ:
Nevertheless the [same] number of bricks: Heb. וְתֹכֶן לְבֵנִים, the count of the bricks, and similarly, " הַכֶּסֶף הַמְתֻכָּן, the counted money” (II Kings 12:12), as is stated in that section, “and packed and counted the money” (II Kings 12:11). — [from Onkelos] ותכן לבנים: חשבון הלבנים, וכן (מלכים ב יב יב) את הכסף המתוכן, המנוי, כמו שאמר בענין (שם יא) ויצורו וימנו את הכסף:
19The officers of the children of Israel saw them in distress, saying, "Do not reduce [the number] of your bricks, the requirement of each day in its day." יטוַיִּרְא֞וּ שֹֽׁטְרֵ֧י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל אֹתָ֖ם בְּרָ֣ע לֵאמֹ֑ר לֹֽא־תִגְרְע֥וּ מִלִּבְנֵיכֶ֖ם דְּבַר־י֥וֹם בְּיוֹמֽוֹ:
The officers of the children of Israel saw: their fellows who were driven by them. ויראו שטרי בני ישראל: את חבריהם הנרדים על ידם:
in distress: They saw them in the distress and trouble that befell them when they had to make the work heavy upon them, saying, “Do not reduce, etc.” ברע: ראו אותם ברעה וצרה המוצאת אותם בהכבידם העבודה עליהם לאמר לא תגרעו וגו':
20They met Moses and Aaron standing before them when they came out from Pharaoh's presence. כוַיִּפְגְּעוּ֙ אֶת־משֶׁ֣ה וְאֶת־אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן נִצָּבִ֖ים לִקְרָאתָ֑ם בְּצֵאתָ֖ם מֵאֵ֥ת פַּרְעֹֽה:
They met: Men of Israel [met] Moses and Aaron, etc. Our Rabbis expounded: Every [instance of] נִצִים, quarreling, and נִ צָּבִים, standing, is a reference to Dathan and Abiram, about whom it is said: “came out and stood upright” (Num. 16:27). — [from Ned. 64b] ויפגעו: אנשים מישראל את משה ואת אהרן וגו'. ורבותינו דרשו כל נצים ונצבים דתן ואבירם היו, שנאמר בהם יצאו נצבים:
21And they said to them, "May the Lord look upon you and judge, for you have brought us into foul odor in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants, to place a sword into their hand[s] to kill us." כאוַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם יֵ֧רֶא יְהֹוָ֛ה עֲלֵיכֶ֖ם וְיִשְׁפֹּ֑ט אֲשֶׁ֧ר הִבְאַשְׁתֶּ֣ם אֶת־רֵיחֵ֗נוּ בְּעֵינֵ֤י פַרְעֹה֙ וּבְעֵינֵ֣י עֲבָדָ֔יו לָֽתֶת־חֶ֥רֶב בְּיָדָ֖ם לְהָרְגֵֽנוּ:
22So Moses returned to the Lord and said, "O Lord! Why have You harmed this people? Why have You sent me? כבוַיָּ֧שָׁב משֶׁ֛ה אֶל־יְהֹוָ֖ה וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֗י לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֨תָה֙ לָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה שְׁלַחְתָּֽנִי:
Why have You harmed this people?: And if You ask, “What is it to you?” [I answer,] “I am complaining that You have sent me.” -[from Tanchuma, Va’era 6] למה הרעתה לעם הזה: ואם תאמר מה איכפת לך, קובל אני על ששלחתני:
23Since I have come to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has harmed this people, and You have not saved Your people." כגוּמֵאָ֞ז בָּ֤אתִי אֶל־פַּרְעֹה֙ לְדַבֵּ֣ר בִּשְׁמֶ֔ךָ הֵרַ֖ע לָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֑ה וְהַצֵּ֥ל לֹֽא־הִצַּ֖לְתָּ אֶת־עַמֶּֽךָ:
he has harmed this people: Heb. הֵרַע, a causative expression. He brought much harm upon them, and the targum renders: אַבְאֵשׁ הרע: לשון הפעיל הוא, הרבה רעה עליהם. ותרגומו אבאיש:
Exodus Chapter 6
1And the Lord said to Moses, "Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh, for with a mighty hand he will send them out, and with a mighty hand he will drive them out of his land." אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה עַתָּ֣ה תִרְאֶ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֖ה לְפַרְעֹ֑ה כִּ֣י בְיָ֤ד חֲזָקָה֙ יְשַׁלְּחֵ֔ם וּבְיָ֣ד חֲזָקָ֔ה יְגָֽרְשֵׁ֖ם מֵֽאַרְצֽוֹ:
Now you will see, etc.: You have questioned My ways [of running the world, which is] unlike Abraham, to whom I said, “For in Isaac will be called your seed” (Gen. 21:12), and afterwards I said to him, “Bring him up there for a burnt offering” (Gen. 22:2), yet he did not question Me. Therefore, now you will see. What is done to Pharaoh you will see, but not what is done to the kings of the seven nations when I bring them [the children of Israel] into the land [of Israel]. — [from Sanh. 111a] עתה תראה וגו': הרהרת על מדותי, לא כאברהם שאמרתי לו (בראשית כא יב) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, ואחר כך אמרתי לו (שם כב ב) העלהו לעולה, ולא הרהר אחרי, לפיכך עתה תראה. העשוי לפרעה תראה, ולא העשוי למלכי שבעה אומות, כשאביאם לארץ:
for with a mighty hand he will let them go: Because of My mighty hand, which will overpower Pharaoh, he will let them go. כי ביד חזקה ישלחם: מפני ידי החזקה שתחזק עליו ישלחם:
and with a mighty hand he will drive them out of his land: Against Israel’s will he will drive them out, and they will not have time to make provisions for themselves, and so He says, “And the Egyptians pressed the people strongly, etc.” (Exod. 12:33). וביד חזקה יגרשם מארצו: על כרחם של ישראל יגרשם, ולא יספיקו לעשות להם צידה. וכן הוא אומר (שמות יב לג) ותחזק מצרים על העם למהר לשלחם וגו':
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 104 - 105
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 104
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 104 - 105
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 104
This psalm tells of the beauty of creation, describing that which was created on each of the six days of creation. It proclaims the awesomeness of God Who sustains it all-from the horns of the wild ox to the eggs of the louse.
1. My soul, bless the Lord! Lord my God, You are greatly exalted; You have garbed Yourself with majesty and splendor.
2. You enwrap [Yourself] with light as with a garment; You spread the heavens as a curtain.
3. He roofs His heavens with water; He makes the clouds His chariot, He moves [them] on the wings of the wind.
4. He makes the winds His messengers, the blazing fire His servants.
5. He established the earth on its foundations, that it shall never falter.
6. The depths covered it as a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.
7. At Your exhortation they fled; at the sound of Your thunder they rushed away.
8. They ascended mountains, they flowed down valleys, to the place which You have assigned for them.
9. You set a boundary which they may not cross, so that they should not return to engulf the earth.
10. He sends forth springs into streams; they flow between the mountains.
11. They give drink to all the beasts of the field; the wild animals quench their thirst.
12. The birds of the heavens dwell beside them; they raise their voice from among the foliage.
13. He irrigates the mountains from His clouds above; the earth is satiated from the fruit of Your works.
14. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and vegetation requiring the labor of man to bring forth food from the earth;
15. and wine that gladdens man's heart, oil that makes the face shine, and bread that sustains man's heart.
16. The trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17. wherein birds build their nests; the stork has her home in the cypress.
18. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the rabbits.
19. He made the moon to calculate the festivals; the sun knows its time of setting.
20. You bring on darkness and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep forth.
21. The young lions roar for prey, and seek their food from God.
22. When the sun rises, they return and lie down in their dens.
23. Then man goes out to his work, to his labor until evening.
24. How manifold are Your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions.
25. This sea, vast and wide, where there are countless creeping creatures, living things small and great;
26. there ships travel, there is the Leviathan that You created to frolic therein.
27. They all look expectantly to You to give them their food at the proper time.
28. When You give it to them, they gather it; when You open Your hand, they are satiated with goodness.
29. When You conceal Your countenance, they are terrified; when You take back their spirit, they perish and return to their dust.
30. When You will send forth Your spirit they will be created anew, and You will renew the face of the earth.
31. May the glory of the Lord be forever; may the Lord find delight in His works.
32. He looks at the earth, and it trembles; He touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praise to my God with my [entire] being.
34. May my prayer be pleasant to Him; I will rejoice in the Lord.
35. May sinners cease from the earth, and the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!
Chapter 105
When David brought the Holy Ark up to the City of David, he composed this psalm and sang it before the Ark. He recounts all the miracles that God performed for the Jews in Egypt: sending before them Joseph, who was imprisoned, only to be liberated by God, eventually attaining the status of one who could imprison the princes of Egypt without consulting Pharaoh.
1. Offer praise to the Lord, proclaim His Name; make His deeds known among the nations.
2. Sing to Him, chant praises to Him, speak of all His wonders.
3. Glory in His holy Name; may the heart of those who seek the Lord rejoice.
4. Search for the Lord and His might; seek His countenance always.
5. Remember the wonders that He has wrought, His miracles, and the judgements of His mouth.
6. O descendants of Abraham His servant, children of Jacob, His chosen ones:
7. He is the Lord our God; His judgements extend over the entire earth.
8. He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He has commanded to a thousand generations;
9. the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac.
10. He established it for Jacob as a statute, for Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11. stating, "To you I shall give the land of Canaan"-the portion of your inheritance,
12. when they were but few, very few, and strangers in it.
13. They wandered from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people.
14. He permitted no one to wrong them, and admonished kings for their sake:
15. "Do not touch My anointed ones, and do not harm My prophets.”
16. He called for a famine upon the land; He broke every source of bread.
17. He sent a man before them; Joseph was sold as a slave.
18. They afflicted his foot with chains, his soul was put into iron;
19. until the time that His words came, the decree of the Lord purified him.
20. The king sent [word] and released him, the ruler of nations set him free.
21. He appointed him master of his house and ruler of all his possessions,
22. to imprison his princes at will, and to enlighten his elders.
23. Thus Israel came to Egypt, and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham (Egypt).
24. He multiplied His nation greatly, and made it mightier than its adversaries.
25. He turned their hearts to hate His nation, to conspire against His servants.
26. He sent Moses, His servant; Aaron, whom He had chosen.
27. They placed among them the words of His signs, miracles in the land of Ham.
28. He sent darkness and made it dark, and they did not defy His word.
29. He transformed their waters to blood, and killed their fish.
30. Their land swarmed with frogs in the chambers of their kings.
31. He spoke, and hordes of wild beasts came, and lice throughout their borders.
32. He turned their rains to hail, flaming fire in their land;
33. it struck their vine and fig tree, it broke the trees of their borders.
34. He spoke, and grasshoppers came, locusts without number;
35. and it consumed all grass in their land, it ate the fruit of their soil.
36. Then He smote every firstborn in their land, the first of all their potency.
37. And He took them out with silver and gold, and none among His tribes stumbled.
38. Egypt rejoiced at their leaving, for the fear [of Israel] had fallen upon them.
39. He spread out a cloud for shelter, and a fire to illuminate the night.
40. [Israel] asked, and He brought quail, and with the bread of heaven He satisfied them.
41. He opened a rock and waters flowed; they streamed through dry places like a river,
42. for He remembered His holy word to Abraham His servant.
43. And He brought out His nation with joy, His chosen ones with song.
44. He gave them the lands of nations, they inherited the toil of peoples,
45. so that they might keep His statutes and observe His laws. Praise the Lord!
---------------------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 12
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 12
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Shabbat, Tevet 21, 5776 · January 2, 2016
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Shabbat, Tevet 21, 5776 · January 2, 2016
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 12
רק מפני שלא לו לבדו משפט המלוכה והממשלה בעיר, אינו יכול להוציא תאותו מכח אל הפועל להתלבש באברי הגוף
Yet, because the evil of the animal soul has not the sole authority and dominion over the “city”, for the good of the divine soul (situated in the brain) has its say as well, it is unable to implement this desire by clothing itself in the limbs of the body,
במעשה דבור ומחשבה ממש
[to engage] in deed, speech, or actual thought —
להעמיק מחשבתו בתענוגי עולם הזה, איך למלאת תאות לבו
“actual” thought meaning: to concentrate his attention on worldly pleasures [with a view to] devising means of satisfying the lust of his heart,
The Beinoni’s desire for worldly pleasures will cause thoughts of such matters to rise from the heart to his mind; these thoughts are beyond his control, beyond the sphere of dominance of his divine soul. He can, however, control his “actual” — i.e., conscious and wilfull — thought, so that immediately he becomes aware of the forbidden thoughts he dismisses them from his mind, not permitting himself to dwell on them, nor to think how to implement them (as the Alter Rebbe will state at greater length further in this chapter).
Returning now to his statement that the divine soul of the Beinoni keeps the desires of his animal soul in check, preventing their expression in deed, speech and actual thought, the Alter Rebbe explains why this is possible.
כי המוח שליט על הלב כמו שכתוב ברעיא מהימנא פרשת פנחס בתולדתו וטבע יצירתו
because the brain rules over the heart (as it is written in Ra‘aya Mehemna, Parshat Pinchas1) by virtue of its innately created nature.
שכך נוצר האדם בתולדתו, שכל אדם יכול ברצונו שבמוחו להתאפק ולמשול ברוח תאותו שבלבו
For man was so created from birth, that every person may, with the power of the will in his brain — i.e., the will created of his mind’s understanding — restrain himself and control the drive of his heart’s lust,
שלא למלאת משאלות לבו במעשה דבור ומחשבה
preventing his heart’s desires from finding expression in deed, word and thought, when the mind understands the evil inherent in such deed, word or thought,
ולהסיח דעתו לגמרי מתאות לבו אל ההפך לגמרי
and [he can, if his mind will it] divert his attention completely from that which his heart craves [and turn his attention] to the exactly opposite direction.
This principle of mind over heart holds true even where the restraint of one’s desires is dictated by simple logic, without motives of holiness; the demands of the mind’s logic are, alone, sufficiently powerful to steer one’s attention in a direction diametrically opposite to that which his heart craves.
ובפרט אל צד הקדושה
If this is true whatever his motives, it is true particularly in the direction of holiness.
When, motivated by the knowledge that his lustful thoughts are sinful, and thoughts of Torah and mitzvot good and praiseworthy, one seeks to divert his attention from the former to the latter, so that both his goal and his motives are holy, his mind’s will is particularly effective in mastering his heart and thoughts.
כדכתיב: וראיתי שיש יתרון לחכמה מן הסכלות, כיתרון האור מן החושך
[For] thus is it written:2 “Then I saw that wisdom surpasses folly as light surpasses darkness.”
Clearly, the use of analogy indicates that a difficult and unfamiliar idea is to be clarified by comparison with a simple, familiar one. However, nothing seems to be gained by equating wisdom and folly with light and darkness; both are equally comprehensible.
Even assuming that the reference here is to a deeper aspect of “wisdom”, namely holiness (as in Ecclesiastes‘ depiction of man’s inclination for good as “a poor and wise child”3), and that “folly” refers to evil (as in his portrayal of the evil inclination as “an old and foolish king”), there is still no need for analogy. Clearly, holiness is vastly superior to evil.
Rather, the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain, the analogy is used here to illustrate how wisdom is superior to folly: The superiority of light over darkness is manifest in the ability of a tiny ray of light to banish a great deal of darkness. Furthermore, the light need not battle darkness to banish it; the darkness disappears as a matter of course with the appearance of light. In the same way is the wisdom of holiness superior to the folly of evil. A mere ray of holiness suffices to banish — as a matter of course — a great deal of evil folly.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
פירוש: כמו שהאור יש לו יתרון ושליטה וממשלה על החושך
This [analogy] means that just as light has superiority, power and dominion over darkness,
שמעט אור גשמי דוחה הרבה מן החשך, שנדחה ממנו מאליו וממילא
so that a little physical light banishes a great deal of darkness, which is displaced automatically and inevitably, without any effort on the part of the light,
כך נדחה ממילא סכלות הרבה של קליפה וסיטרא אחרא שבחלל השמאלי
so is there driven away, automatically, much foolishness of the kelipah and sitra achra of the animal soul located in the left part of the heart,
כמאמר רז״ל: אלא אם כן נכנס בו רוח שטות וכו׳
(as indeed our Sages say,4 “A man does not sin unless a spirit of folly enters him”).
מפני החכמה שבנפש האלקית שבמוח
Thus our Sages described the desires of the animal soul as “folly”. Hence they are automatically banished by the wisdom of the divine soul that is in the brain,
אשר רצונה למשול לבדה בעיר ולהתלבש בשלשה לבושיה הנ״ל בכל הגוף כולו כנ״ל
which desires to rule alone over the “city” — the body — and to pervade the entire body by means of its aforementioned5 three garments,
שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה של תרי״ג מצות התורה כנ״ל
namely thought, speech and action connected with the 613 mitzvot of the Torah, as discussed above.6
In the Beinoni, this desire of the divine soul in the brain — that it alone pervade his thought, speech and action, and hence his entire body — controls the lustful desires which the animal soul arouses in his heart. Moreover, it prevents their actual expression because of the natural supremacy of mind over heart and of holiness over evil.
But if the divine soul of the Beinoni indeed dominates his every area of practical expression, alone dictating his every thought, word and deed, why is he not considered a tzaddik?
The Alter Rebbe explains:
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Zohar III, p. 224a. The doctrine of the inherent supremacy of “intellect over emotion” is one of the basic, though not original, tenets of ChaBaD. Cf. Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim III, 8. |
| 2. | Kohelet 2:13. |
| 3. | Kohelet 4:13. |
| 4. | Sotah 3a. |
| 5. | Ch. 4. |
| 6. | Ch. 9. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Shabbat, Tevet 21, 5776 · January 2, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 155
Sanctifying the Shabbat
"Remember the Shabbat to keep it holy"—Exodus 20:8.
We are commanded to honor the Shabbat when it enters and when it leaves by pronouncing words that proclaim the greatness and holiness of the day, and its distinctness from the weekdays that precede and follow it. This mitzvah – commonly known askiddush and havdalah – is performed over a cup of wine.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 155
Sanctifying the Shabbat
"Remember the Shabbat to keep it holy"—Exodus 20:8.
We are commanded to honor the Shabbat when it enters and when it leaves by pronouncing words that proclaim the greatness and holiness of the day, and its distinctness from the weekdays that precede and follow it. This mitzvah – commonly known askiddush and havdalah – is performed over a cup of wine.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Sanctifying the Shabbat
Positive Commandment 155
Translated by Berel Bell
The 155th mitzvah is that we are commanded to make a verbal declaration when Shabbos enters and when it leaves. We must mention the greatness and exalted character of this day, and how it is distinct from the other days of the week which precede it and follow it.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statementex1 (exalted be He), "Remember the Shabbos day to sanctify it." This means that one should commemorate it through mentioning its holiness and greatness. This is the mitzvah of Kiddush.
The Mechilta says the following: " 'Remember the Shabbos day to sanctify it,' — this means one should sanctify it through reciting a blessing." The Sages said explicitly,2 "Remember [Kiddush] over wine."
The Sages also said,3 "Sanctify it when it enters and when it leaves," [the phrase, "when it leaves"] referring to Havdalah, which is also part of our commandment to remember Shabbos.
The details of this commandment are explained in the end of tractate Pesachim4, and in many places in Berachos5 and Shabbos6.
FOOTNOTES
1.Shmos 20:8.
2.Pesachim 106a.
3.See Kapach, 5731, note 71, that the apparent source is Sh'iltos D'Rav Achai, parshas Zos HaBerachah.
4.. 106a.
5.. 51b.
6.. 150b.
------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 9 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 9 • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Terumot - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
A woman may partake of terumah until her bill of divorce reaches her hand or the hand of her agent whom she appointed to receive it.1
Whenever there is a doubt whether or not a woman was divorced, she may not partake of terumah.2 When a woman appoints an agent to receive her bill of divorce, she is forbidden to partake of terumah immediately.3 If she said: "Receive the bill of divorce for me in this-and-this place," she is not forbidden [to partake of terumah] until the agent reaches that place.4
Halacha 2
[The inhabitants of] a city under siege, [the voyagers on] a ship in danger of sinking at sea, and a suspect to be judged [for a crime worthy of capital punishment] are presumed to be alive.8 Needless to say, this applies to one who goes on a caravan journey.9
[In the following instances,] however: a city was captured by besieging forces, a ship was lost at sea, or a person was going out to be executed by a gentile court,10 a person dragged by a wild beast, one upon whom a landslide fell, or one carried away by a river, we regard the individuals with the stringencies appropriate to both the living and the dead.11 Therefore if among the women were the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite12 or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest,13 they may not partake [of terumah].
Halacha 3
If a woman left her husband while he was in his death throes in another country, she may not partake of terumah, whether she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. [The rationale is that] most people in their death throes die.16
If one witness testifies that [a woman's husband] has died and one testifies that he has not died, she may not partake [of terumah].17
Halacha 4
[When a man is married to two wives and] one of the wives tells the other that their husband died, since [the other wife] cannot marry by virtue of this testimony,18 she may continue to partake of terumah19 on the presumption that her husband is alive until a person upon whose testimony is sufficient to enable her to marry testifies concerning her. [The same ruling applies] if such testimony is given by any of the five women whose testimony is not accepted if they say that her husband died.20
Halacha 5
When [a priest] frees his servant, from the time he transfers21 his bill of emancipation22 to him, he disqualifies him from partaking of terumah. Whenever a servant is given his freedom, but his bill of emancipation is withheld as will be explained in Hilchot Avadim,23 he is, nonetheless, forbidden to partake of terumah.
Halacha 6
There is a doubt [whether the transfer of the ownership of a servant is effective in the following situation]. A person composed a legal document transferring his property - which included servants - to another person. He [did not give the document to that person directly, but instead] gave it to another person on his behalf.24 The recipient [of the present] remained silent and afterwards, protested. There is a doubt whether his protests reflected his initial disposition25 and thus [the servants] have never left the initial domain or whether his protest after his initial silence is [interpreted as] a renunciation of his initial position.26 Therefore, [the servants] may not partake of terumah. [This applies] whether the second master27 was an Israelite and the first master, a priest or the first master was an Israelite and the second, a priest.28
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
When an Israelite receives a cow from a priest for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated so that its increase in value will be split,31 he may not feed itterumah even though the priest has a share in its increase in value. If, by contrast, a priest receives a cow from an Israelite for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated, he may feed it terumah. [The rationale is that] although the Israelite has a share in its increase in value, its body belongs to the priest, because he has [accepted responsibility] for its value.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
It appears to me35 that if a priest sold his cow to an Israelite and took payment, he can no longer feed it terumah even though the purchaser has not drawn it into his domain as of yet. [The rationale is that] according to Scriptural Law, the transfer of money completes a transaction, as will be explained inHilchot Mekach UMemcar.36 [Conversely,] if an Israelite sold a cow to a priest, he should not feed it terumah until he draws it into his domain37 even though he already made payment.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This latter point requires qualification as the Rambam proceeds to state.
|
| 2. |
For a Scriptural prohibition is involved and we follow the general principle: Whenever there is a question regarding a point of Scriptural Law, we rule stringently. Hence, even though her husband is liable to provide her with her sustenance in such a situation (Hilchot Ishut 5:13), he may not give her terumah.
|
| 3. |
This is a corollary to the point mentioned beforehand. Since a woman is forbidden to partake ofterumah whenever there is a doubt that she was divorced, she is forbidden as soon as she appoints her agent, for at any time, he may receive her bill of divorce. Even though the matter is not entirely in the agent's hands, for the bill of divorce must be given on the husband's initiative, we follow the presumption that the agent will fulfill the mission with which he is charged (Radbaz).
|
| 4. |
For the bill of divorce is not effective if given elsewhere (Hilchot Gerushin 9:34).
|
| 5. |
For in this instance, the agent is acting in place of the husband and the divorce is not completed until he gives the woman the bill of divorce (ibid. 6:5).
|
| 6. |
Such an arrangement was often made when a couple were childless so that if the husband died the woman would be free of the obligation of yibbum.
|
| 7. |
For we fear that he might die at any moment. Hence, from the previous hour onward, she would have partaken of terumah without having the right to do so.
|
| 8. |
And if they are priests, their wives may continue partaking of terumah.
|
| 9. |
We are speaking about a caravan journey through the desert. Although there is a certain amount of danger to the travelers, we operate under the presumption that they are alive until we receive information otherwise.
|
| 10. |
The officers of a gentile court are likely to accept bribes. Hence, the fact that one was sentenced to death is not necessarily proof that he died.
|
| 11. |
In these situations, there is a high likelihood - but no definite proof that the person died. Hence, his wife must assume that he is dead and accept all the stringencies that state would apply. At the same time, she cannot act on the assumption that he is dead and remarry. The Rambam continues explaining the implications of this status vis-à-vis terumah.
|
| 12. |
She must presume her husband is alive and may not partake of terumah for that reason.
|
| 13. |
She must presume her husband is dead and may not partake of terumah for that reason.
|
| 14. |
A person sentenced to be executed may be given a reprieve from execution if a redeeming factor is found for him (Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1). Nevertheless, once he has already been brought to the place of execution, it is very unlikely that this will happen (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 15. |
I.e., if she is the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. If she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may partake of terumah.
|
| 16. |
Hence, the daughter of the Israelite may not partake of terumah. On the other hand, not all die. Hence, since a daughter of the priest married to an Israelite was not partaking of terumahbeforehand, this is not considered sufficient reason to allow her to do so (Radbaz).
|
| 17. |
Although a woman is not given permission to remarry in such an instance (Hilchot Gerushin12:18), she is still not permitted to partake of terumah.
|
| 18. |
Hilchot Gerushin 12:16 states that, if no one contradicts the testimony, whenever a witness testifies that a woman's husband died, his or her word is accepted with the exception of five women: another wife of that man, a woman who is her husband's yevamah, the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, and her husband's daughter from another wife. In all these instances, we fear that there is enmity between these women and the man's wife and they will testify falsely so that she will marry another man and hence, be forced to accept a divorce from her husband.
|
| 19. |
The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's ruling and maintains that even though the woman is not allowed to remarry, she should not be allowed to partake of terumah. For perhaps these women are telling the truth. The Radbaz supports the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 20. |
Hilchot Gerushin 12:16 states that, if no one contradicts the testimony, whenever a witness testifies that a woman's husband died, his or her word is accepted with the exception of five women: another wife of that man, a woman who is her husband's yevamah, the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, and her husband's daughter from another wife. In all these instances, we fear that there is enmity between these women and the man's wife and they will testify falsely so that she will marry another man and hence, be forced to accept a divorce from her husband.
|
| 21. |
The Rambam's wording allows for the interpretation that this ruling applies whether he gives the bill of emancipation to the servant or to another person on behalf of the servant (see Hilchot Avadim6:1).
|
| 22. |
The formal legal contract freeing him from slavery.
|
| 23. |
As stated in Hilchot Avadim 5:4, et al, there are certain situations where a servant is deserving of his freedom. Nevertheless, he does not receive the status of a freed servant until he receives his bill of emancipation. Even so, he is forbidden to partake of terumah from the time he becomes worthy of freedom.
|
| 24. |
In such a situation, we say that since generally, it is considered desirable to receive a gift, the intended recipient acquires the property unless he lodges an objection at the time he hears about the gift. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2.
|
| 25. |
I.e., that he never desired to receive the present and thus it never left the domain of its initial owner (ibid.:3).
|
| 26. |
And thus, he is considered to have acquired the property - and the servants - and then to have renounced ownership of it and them.
|
| 27. |
The recipient of the present.
|
| 28. |
For in either situation, there is a possibility that their present owner is an Israelite.
|
| 29. |
Because the rental does not interrupt the priests's ownership. The Israelite must, however, transfer ownership of the terumah to the priest before feeding it to the animal.
|
| 30. |
There are, however, contexts where rental is considered equivalent to purchase. See Hilchot Sechirut 7:1.
|
| 31. |
This was a popular arrangement in the Talmudic era. The owner of livestock would give it to a shepherd to fatten. The shepherd would have it evaluated and accept responsibility for its value although he did not actually pay the priest anything. Afterwards, when it has been fattened, the value which the shepherd accepted responsibility for is returned to the owner and the two share the profits equally. See Hilchot Shluchin VeShutafim 8:1-4 and Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 8:12 for more details concerning this arrangement.
|
| 32. |
And thus the law mentioned in the first clause of Halachah 7 applies.
|
| 33. |
A type of legume used as animal fodder.
|
| 34. |
Even a priest may not feed his doves terumah, for terumah may only be given to domesticated animals. Nevertheless, everyone, even Israelites, need not take precautions against an animal eating vetch that is terumah on its own initiative. The Radbaz explains that the rationale is that the obligation to separate terumah from vetch is merely Rabbinic in origin. Implied is that if the obligation was Scriptural in origin, one could not take such leniency. It must be noted, however, that not all authorities consider the obligation to separate terumah from vetch as Rabbinic.
|
| 35. |
This introduction precedes a law which the Rambam derived through his own process of deduction without an explicit source in the previous Rabbinic literature.
|
| 36. |
Hilchot Mechirah 3:1. There it is explained that the Rabbis required the purchaser to draw the article into his possession for the transaction to be completed.
|
| 37. |
And thus completes the transaction.
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Four, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Five, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Six • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Four
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Four, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Five, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Six • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Four
Halacha 1
There are activities that are forbidden on the Sabbath despite the fact that they do not resemble the [forbidden] labors, nor will they lead to [the performance of] the [forbidden] labors.1
Why then are [these activities] forbidden? Because it is written [Isaiah 58:13], "If you restrain your feet, because of the Sabbath, and [refrain] from pursuing your desires on My holy day..." and it is written [ibid.], " And you shall honor it [by refraining] from following your [ordinary] ways, attending to your wants, and speaking about [mundane] matters."
Therefore, it is forbidden for a person to go2 and tend to his [mundane] concerns on the Sabbath, or even to speak about them3 - e.g., to discuss with a partner which merchandise should be sold on the morrow or which should be bought, how this building should be constructed, or which merchandise should be taken to a particular place. Speaking about all matters of this like is included in the prohibition [against] "...speaking about [mundane] matters."
It is speaking that is forbidden. Thinking [about such matters] is permitted.4
Halacha 2
It is forbidden for a person to check his gardens and fields on the Sabbath to see what they require or to see how their fruit is growing, for this involves going to "pursue your desires."5
Halacha 3
When does the above apply? When one goes to the end of the Sabbath boundary to wait until nightfall to perform an activity that is forbidden on the Sabbath itself. It is, however, permitted to [go to the boundary and] wait until nightfall in order to perform a task that is permitted on the Sabbath.
What is implied? We may not go to the boundary and wait until nightfall in order to bring produce that is still attached to the ground or to hire workers. One may, however, go and wait until nightfall in order to guard one's produce, since it is permitted to guard [produce] on the Sabbath.8
Similarly, one may go and wait until nightfall in order to bring an animal or fruit that has already been detached. For one calls to an animal and it will come even if it is outside the [Sabbath] boundary,9 and had there been enclosures, one would have been able to bring the detached produce on the Sabbath.
Halacha 4
It is permitted for a person to tell a worker whom he sees [on the Sabbath], "Stand near me in the evening."12 One may not, however, tell him, "Be prepared for me in the evening," since by doing so," the person is attending to his wants on the Sabbath.
It is forbidden to run and jump on the Sabbath, as [Isaiah, loc. cit.] states, "[Refraining] from following your [ordinary] ways" - i.e., the manner in which you walk on the Sabbath should not resemble the manner in which you walk during the week. A person may, however, descend to a cistern, pit, or cave, even if they are 100 cubits deep, climb down to drink and then climb up.
It is forbidden to speak extensively about idle matters, as it is written [ibid.], "...speaking about [mundane] matters" - i.e., the manner in which you speak on the Sabbath should not resemble the manner in which you speak during the week.13
Halacha 5
It is permitted to run on the Sabbath for matters involved with a mitzvah14 - e.g., to run to the synagogue or the house of study.
We are permitted to calculate accounts associated with a mitzvah,15 to make measurements concerning a mitzvah - e.g., to measure a mikveh to see if it contains [the required] quantity,16 or a cloth to see if it is [large enough to] contract ritual impurity.17
Charity may be pledged to the poor.18 We may go to synagogues and houses of study - and even to theaters and halls of gentiles - to take care19 of matters of public interest on the Sabbath.
One may speak about arranging a marriage for a girl, or arranging study - whether the study of Torah or the study of a profession20 - for a boy.21 We may visit the sick and comfort mourners.22 A person who goes to visit a sick person should say, "It is the Sabbath [when it is forbidden] to plead;23 healing will come soon."24
One may go to the end of the Sabbath boundary to wait until nightfall to take care of the needs of a bride or to take care of the needs of a deceased person [- e.g.], to bring a coffin or shrouds.
[When involved in these matters,] one may tell [a colleague,] "Go to.... If you don't find [the required object] there, bring it from...." "If you can't find it at one hundred, bring it [even] at two hundred." [This is permitted] as long as one does not mention the [maximum] sum he is willing to pay.25
[The rationale for] all these and similar [leniencies] is that [they concern] a mitzvah. And the [verse from which the prohibitions against mundane activity is derived] states, "pursuing your desires." "Your desires" are forbidden; God's desires are permitted.
Halacha 6
One may set out on a ship on the Mediterranean Sea on Friday for the sake of the fulfillment of a mitzvah.26 One [must] make an agreement with [the captain] to halt [the journey] on the Sabbath. If, [however,] he does not halt [the journey, it is of no consequence].27
We may nullify28 vows on the Sabbath, both vows that must be nullified for the sake of the Sabbath and vows whose nullification is not related to the Sabbath.29 One may ask a wise man to absolve [a person] of a vow if this is necessary for the sake of the Sabbath.30This is possible despite the fact that the person had the opportunity to have [himself] absolved [of the vow] before the Sabbath. [This license is granted] because all of the above matters concern a mitzvah.
Halacha 7
Punishments may not be administered [by the court] on the Sabbath. Although [administering] punishment fulfills a positive command [of the Torah], the observance of a positive commandment does not supersede [the observance of] the Sabbath [laws].
What is implied? A person who was sentenced to be lashed or executed by [the court] should not be lashed or executed on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 35:3] states: "Do not kindle a fire in all of your dwellings on the Sabbath."31 This [verse serves as] a warning to the court not to [execute a person by] burning on the Sabbath. The same principle applies regarding other punishments [administered by the court].32
Halacha 8
A person is permitted to guard his produce on the Sabbath regardless of whether it is detached from the earth or not. If another person comes to take it, or an animal or a wild beast comes to eat it, he may shout at them and beat them to drive them away.
[One might ask:] This involves tending to one's own concerns. Why is it permitted? Because33 one is prohibited only against acquiring new property that one does not possess, earning a wage, making a profit, or seeking to accrue [new] benefits. It is, however, permitted for a person to protect the interests that he already possesses. To what can this be compared? To locking one's house [to prevent] thieves [from entering].
Halacha 9
A person who protects his grains from birds or who protects his cucumbers and squash from beasts should not clap his hands and dance as he does during the week. [This is] a decree, [instituted] lest one pick up a pebble and throw it four cubits in the public domain.34
Halacha 10
All the actions that are forbidden as [part of the category of] sh'vut are not forbidden beyn hash'mashot,35[between sunset and the appearance of the stars].36 They are forbidden only on the Sabbath itself, and they are permitted during beyn hash'mashot,37 provided that [the activity] is necessary because of a mitzvah or a pressing matter.38
What is implied? During beyn hash'mashot it is permitted to climb a tree39 or to swim across water40 to bring a lulav or a shofar. Similarly, one may take aneruv that one has made down from a tree or out from a carmelit.41
Similarly, if one is concerned, anxious, and pressed concerning a matter, [an activity forbidden as] a sh'vut is permitted during beyn hash'mashot. If, however, the matter is not pressing, nor does it concern a mitzvah, it is forbidden. Therefore, one may not tithe produce that definitely has not been tithed,42 although the prohibition against tithing produce on the Sabbath was instituted as a sh'vut.43 One may, however, tithe produce of which one is unsure whether or not it has been tithed.44
Halacha 11
When a minor performs an activity on the Sabbath that is forbidden as ash'vut - e.g., he plucks from [a plant growing in] a flower pot that does not have a hole, or he carries in a carmelit - the court is not obligated to prevent him from doing so. Similarly, if his father allows him to act in this manner, [the father] need not be rebuked.45
Halacha 12
The Sages forbade the carrying of certain objects on the Sabbath in the same manner as [one carries] during the week. Why was this prohibition instituted?46 [Our Sages] said: If the prophets warned that the manner in which a person walks on the Sabbath should not resemble the manner in which he walks during the week, and similarly, one's conversation on the Sabbath should not resemble one's conversation during the week, as it is written, "[refraining from]... speaking about [mundane] matters," surely the manner in which one carries on the Sabbath should not resemble the manner in which one carries during the week.
In this manner, no one will regard [the Sabbath] as an ordinary weekday and lift up and repair articles, [carrying them] from room to room, or from house to house, or set aside stones and the like. [These restrictions are necessary] for since the person is idle and sitting at home, [it is likely that] he will seek something with which to occupy himself. Thus, he will not have ceased activity and will have negated the motivating principle for the Torah's commandment [Deuteronomy 5:14], "Thus... will rest."47
Halacha 13
Furthermore, when one searches for and carries articles that are used for a forbidden activity, it is possible that one will use them and thus be motivated to perform a [forbidden] labor.
[Another reason for this prohibition is] that there are some people who are not craftsmen and are always idle - e.g., tourists and those that stand on the street corners. These individuals never perform labor. Were they to be allowed to walk, talk, and carry as they do during the week, the result would be that their cessation of activity on [the Sabbath] would not be discernible. For this reason, [our Sages instituted] refraining from such activities,48 for the cessation of such activities is universally applicable.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As stated in Chapter 21, Halachah 1, these two reasons are the source for the prohibitions placed in the category of sh'vut.
|
| 2. |
This restriction stems from the fact that the verse mentions, "Restraining your feet."
|
| 3. |
Rabbenu Asher, in his gloss on Shabbat 150a, associates this prohibition with discussing matters that are forbidden to be performed on the Sabbath itself. This thrust is reflected in the decisions ofShulchan Aruch HaRav 307:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 307:1.
The Rambam mentions these principles in Halachah 3. In this context, it can be noted that all the examples the Rambam gives in this halachah reflect activities forbidden on the Sabbath.
|
| 4. |
For the verse specifically mentions speech, thus excluding thought from the prohibition. Nevertheless, as the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 306:8) emphasizes, "It is a mitzvah not to think of these matters at all. Instead, one's attitude should be that all of one's work has been completed."
|
| 5. |
According to the later authorities, this prohibition applies only when it is obvious that one's intent is to take care of one's own needs. If, however, it appears that one is merely taking a pleasure stroll, there is no prohibition (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 306:2; Mishnah Berurah 306:1). See, however, the notes on the following halachah.
|
| 6. |
2000 cubits from one's place at the commencement of the Sabbath. (See Chapter 27, where this concept is discussed at length.)
The Maggid Mishneh states that by mentioning "the end of the Sabbath boundary," the Rambam alludes to a concept stated by Tosafot (Shabbat 150a) - i.e., that if one's field is within the Sabbath boundary, there is no difficulty and one may walk to it on the Sabbath so that one can begin work on Saturday night. If the field is at the end of the Sabbath boundary, it is obvious that one is walking to proceed to one's field. When the field is within the Sabbath limits, by contrast, it is not obvious that one's intent is to perform forbidden labor.
Although the Shulchan Aruch 307:9 quotes this law, the Magen Avraham 307:13 questions the rationale, for the verse from Isaiah quoted above appears to prohibit walking to facilitate the performance of any activity forbidden on the Sabbath, regardless of the appearance created.
|
| 7. |
As explained in the following halachah, this refers to a task that is prohibited on the Sabbath itself.
|
| 8. |
See Halachah 8.
|
| 9. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 306:1), which states that this refers only to an animal that is able to walk on its own. If the animal is too young to walk on its own, it is forbidden to go and wait for it, since even if there were houses, one would be forbidden to carry the animal, because of the prohibition of muktzeh.
|
| 10. |
One may not, however, say, "I am riding," for riding is forbidden on the Sabbath (Mishnah Berurah307:30).
|
| 11. |
Similarly, he may ask the colleague to accompany him (Maggid Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 307:8).
|
| 12. |
Although both the employer and the employee understand the implication, since the employer is not making a direct statement - but merely an allusion - this is permitted. The Maggid Mishnehassociates this with the concept mentioned at the conclusion of the first halachah: speaking about forbidden matters is prohibited, but not thought. Since no forbidden matters are discussed, the fact that they are implied is of no consequence.
|
| 13. |
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 307:1) mentions that a person who enjoys talking about news and matters of this nature may engage in such discussions on the Sabbath, since this brings him pleasure. Needless to say, Torah scholars are encouraged to direct their attention to loftier matters (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 307:2).
|
| 14. |
The Maggid Mishneh equates activities which involve a mitzvah with matters of communal interest. He emphasizes that it is only the prohibitions against involvement with mundane matters that are relaxed because of the performance of a mitzvah. Other prohibitions - e.g., telling a gentile to perform a forbidden activity, or performing an act that resembles or that may lead to the performance of a forbidden labor (i.e., shvut) - are never relaxed, even for the sake of a mitzvah .
As the Rambam mentions (Chapter 6, Halachot 9-10), the prohibition against instructing a gentile to perform an act that is forbidden as a sh'vut is relaxed when a mitzvah is involved, but only when the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:5) mentions an opinion permitting us to instruct a gentile to perform a forbidden act for matters of serious communal need, and also a more stringent opinion, that even forbids giving a gentile such instructions. The Ramah also notes a more lenient approach that allows one to tell a gentile to perform a task forbidden by the Torah. In practice, the Rambam's view, as interpreted by the Maggid Mishneh, is accepted by most authorities except in cases where a great loss is involved. In those instances, the leniency mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch is accepted.
|
| 15. |
The Magen Avraham 306:10 gives as an example, calculating the cost of a feast associated with a mitzvah.
|
| 16. |
A mikveh must contain 40 seah to be halachically acceptable.
|
| 17. |
As mentioned in Hilchot Keilim, Chapter 22, a piece of cloth is susceptible to contracting ritual impurity only if it is of a specific size. There are different sizes, depending on the type of cloth.
|
| 18. |
Or for the benefit of a synagogue or other charitable cause.
|
| 19. |
From the discussion of this matter by the later Rabbis, it appears that this phrase has two meanings: a) to examine and inspect a situation where the communal interest is involved; b) to plan out a course of action to deal with questions of this nature, and even to execute that plan, provided the only prohibition being violated is involvement in mundane affairs - for example, to speak to the gentile communal authorities.
|
| 20. |
For earning one's livelihood is a mitzvah of great esteem. (See also Hilchot Matnot Ani'im 10:18 and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avot 4:5.)
|
| 21. |
The details of financial arrangements involved in the marriage or the instructions should not, however, be discussed on the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 306:6).
|
| 22. |
See Shabbat 12b, which states that permission to visit the sick and comfort mourners on the Sabbath was granted "with difficulty," because it runs contrary to the mood of pleasure that should characterize the Sabbath (Rashi). Significantly, the treatment of this subject in Shulchan Aruch HaRav 287:1-3 appears to reflect a different emphasis from that of the Rambam.
|
| 23. |
In this context, note one of the Rambam's responsa (208), which emphasizes the importance of refraining from reciting any prayers containing requests whether of a communal or an individual nature on the Sabbath or on festivals.
|
| 24. |
As the Rambam writes in Hilchot Eivel 14:6, one of the fundamental aspects of the mitzvah of visiting the sick is to arouse divine mercy on their behalf. Nevertheless, since it is forbidden to plead on the Sabbath, one makes a statement that acknowledges God's kindness. The phrase cited by the Rambam is also used as the basis of the Mi Sheberach prayers recited for a sick person in the synagogue on the Sabbath.
|
| 25. |
Our translation is based on the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh, which is quoted by theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 306:3).
|
| 26. |
As the Rambam mentions in Chapter 30, Halachah 13, generally one is not allowed to set out on a sea journey less than three days before the Sabbath so that one will have already acclimated oneself to the travails of sea travel by the Sabbath. Nevertheless, because of the person's involvement in the performance of a mitzvah, this restriction is waived.
|
| 27. |
The later authorities maintain that particularly because a mitzvah is involved, if the gentile does not agree to halt the journey at the outset, one need not refrain from traveling with him (Mishnah Berurah 248:2).
|
| 28. |
The Torah gives a husband and a father the right to nullify vows made by his wife and daughter. (See Numbers, Chapter 30.)
|
| 29. |
The reason that all vows may be nullified on the Sabbath is that a vow can be nullified by a husband or father only on the day that he hears it. Therefore, if he were not able to nullify it on the Sabbath, he would never be able to nullify it in the future. To preserve this right, our Sages did not forbid nullifying vows on the Sabbath (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 30. |
In this instance, only the vows that are necessary to be absolved for the sake of the Sabbath may be absolved on the Sabbath, since there is nothing preventing one from absolving the other vows on the following day (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 31. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 322) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 114) count this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Note the Magen Avraham 339:3, which questions the Rambam's statements, asking why lashes that do not involve the violation of the Sabbath laws ares included in this prohibition. He explains that it is inevitable that the administration of lashes will result in bleeding.
Alternatively, the commandment teaches us that no cases of this nature may be judged on the Sabbath. The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 114) favors this answer, for it also resolves another problem: Why is this restriction given the status of a separate mitzvah? Since the principle that the observance of a positive commandment does not supersede the observance of the Sabbath laws is already known, why is it necessary for the Torah to give us this commandment?
|
| 32. |
In his gloss on the Mishneh Torah, Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that there is a principle that a person who refrains from performing a positive commandment should be beaten until he agrees to perform it. Since these blows are not given as punishment, but rather as a prod to motivate the person to observe the commandments, they may be administered on the Sabbath.
|
| 33. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that this explanation is an original thought developed by the Rambam.
|
| 34. |
The Tzafenat Paneach notes that when considering the minimum size of a pebble one is liable for carrying, Shabbat 81a mentions two opinions: a pebble large enough to throw at an animal and a pebble large enough to throw at a bird. He questions why in Chapter 18, Halachah 11, the Rambam follows the opinion that requires a pebble large enough to throw at an animal, when in this halachah the Rambam mentions a purpose to be served by a pebble large enough to scare away a bird.
In resolution, the Tzafenat Paneach explains that a pebble large enough to scare away a bird can serve a purpose as mentioned in this halachah. Nevertheless, as stated in Shabbat 79a, a person will not take the trouble of carrying an article that is tiny. Hence, the minimum measure for which one is liable for carrying must be more substantial.
|
| 35. |
Note the Mishnah Berurah 342:1, which states that this applies only when a person has not accepted the Sabbath. If, however, the person or the community in which he is living has accepted the Sabbath, these activities are forbidden even if a mitzvah is involved.
|
| 36. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 4, which states that, "There is a doubt whether beyn hash'mashot is considered as part of the day or as part of the night." Although, as mentioned there, we act stringently regarding the observance of Torah prohibitions during this time, certain leniencies are granted regarding Rabbinic prohibitions, as the Rambam explains.
|
| 37. |
See S'deh Chemed (K'lalim, Pe'at HaSadeh 2:2) and others, who question whether or not the leniencies mentioned by the Rambam apply both beyn hash'mashot on Friday and beyn hash'mashot on Saturday. There is room to differentiate between them, because during beyn hash'mashot on Friday, the prohibition against these activities has not yet taken effect. On Saturday evening, by contrast, since the prohibitions have been in effect throughout the Sabbath, one might think that they need not be relaxed until the Sabbath has definitely concluded. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 342:1 rules that one may follow the more lenient view. See also the Be'ur Halachah342 who mentions this issue.
|
| 38. |
Significantly, most manuscript copies of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 3:3) state that the prohibitions in the category of sh'vut do not apply during beyn hash'mashot, without mentioning the qualification that the matter must be pressing or involve a mitzvah. In one of his responsa (Birkat Avraham, Responsum 14), Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son, explains that the Rambam changed his perspective when composing the Mishneh Torah and adopted a more stringent view than he had originally held.
|
| 39. |
This is forbidden as a sh'vut, as stated in Chapter 21, Halachah 6.
|
| 40. |
This is forbidden as a sh'vut, as stated in Chapter 23, Halachah 5.
|
| 41. |
This refers to an eruv t'chumim (which allows a person to extend his Sabbath boundary), as stated in Hilchot Eruvin 6:9-10. Hilchot Eruvin 6:13, the Rambam states that during beyn hash'mashot, only an eruv chatzerot (which allows a person to carry in an enclosed area) may be made, but not an eruv t'chumim). The present ruling does not, however, represent a change of opinion. It is referring to an instance where the eruv was made before the commencement of the Sabbath, and the person merely desired to move it on the Sabbth.
|
| 42. |
Note the Birkat Avraham, loc. cit.,, which states that, even though tithing is itself a mitzvah, there is no obligation to tithe at a particular time. Here, the intent is that carrying out the activity beyn hash'mashot will allow the performance of a mitzvah that could not otherwise be performed. If that is true regarding tithing produce that definitely has not been tithed - e.g., to provide one with food for the Sabbath - one may separate tithes beyn hash'mashot.
|
| 43. |
As mentioned in Chapter 23, Halachot 9 and 14.
|
| 44. |
See Chapter 23, Halachah 15. Although tithing this produce involves a shvut and there is no mitzvah involved, this tithing is permitted, because the prohibition against using the produce is not that severe.
|
| 45. |
The Rambam's rulings here have aroused the attention of the commentaries. To understand his perspective, it is worthy to quote Chapter 12, Halachah 7:
Relevant concepts are also reflected in the Rambam's rulings, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27- 28:
According to the Rambam, the court is never obligated to restrain a child from performing a prohibited act, regardless of whether it originates from the Torah itself, or from Rabbinic decree. The child's father, however, is obligated to educate him. If the father fails to do so, the court should rebuke the father if he allows his child to violate prohibitions that stem from the Torah. If, however, the prohibitions stem from Rabbinic law, the court is not obligated to rebuke the father.
This explanation of the Rambam's approach is based on the statements of Rav Yosef Karo in theKessef Mishneh and on his rulings in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 343:1). The Ramah (based on Tosafot, Shabbat 121a) introduces a different perspective: that when a child has reached an age when it is fit to educate him in the performance of the mitzvot, the obligation to educate him falls on the court as well. Therefore, they are obligated to restrain him from transgressing Jewish law.
|
| 46. |
In this and in the following halachah, the Rambam sets the conceptual basis for the prohibitions described as muktzeh. The particular laws that result from these principles are described in the following two chapters.
|
| 47. |
See the notes on the beginning of Chapter 21, which use this halachah as a support for the principle that the positive commandment to rest on the Sabbath is more than just a restatement of the negative commandment not to perform forbidden labor.
|
| 48. |
Walking, talking, and carrying.
|
| 49. |
The three reasons mentioned by the Rambam are the product of his own original thought. The Ra'avad notes that the Talmud (Shabbat 124b) mentions a further reason: lest one come to carry articles from one domain to another.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam did not intend to negate the reason mentioned by the Talmud. Nevertheless, as Shabbat 123b mentions, the prohibition originally instituted was partially relaxed. The reasons why it was not relaxed entirely are stated by the Rambam.
|
| 50. |
The Rambam's wording implies that it is forbidden for a person to carry an article unless his act is purposeful. (See Chapter 25, Halachah 3 regarding which purposes are acceptable.) One may not carry a utensil, even one that is used for a permitted activity, without a purpose. (See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh on that halachah.)
|
Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Five
Halacha 1
There are utensils that are used for permitted purposes - i.e., a utensil that may be used on the Sabbath for the same purpose for which it is used during the week - e.g., a cup to drink from, a bowl to eat from, a knife to cut meat or bread, a hatchet to crack open nuts,1 and the like.
Halacha 2
There are utensils that are used for forbidden purposes - i.e., a utensil that is forbidden to be used on the Sabbath for the same purpose that it is [ordinarily] used - e.g., a grinder, a mill, and the like - for it is forbidden to crush or grind on the Sabbath.
Halacha 3
All utensils used for purposes that are permitted may be carried on the Sabbath, whether they are made of wood, earthenware, stone, or metal. [They may be moved] for the sake of the utensil, for the use of the place [it occupies], or to use it [for a purpose that is permitted].2
All utensils used for purposes that are forbidden, whether they are made of wood, earthenware, stone, or metal may be moved [with certain restrictions]. [Such a utensil may be moved] for the use of the place [it occupies], or to use it [for a purpose that is permitted]. It is, however, forbidden [to move it] for its own sake.3
Halacha 4
What is implied? One may move a wooden bowl to eat from it, to sit in the place [where it is located], or so that it will not be stolen. The latter is [what is meant by the expression] "for the sake of [the utensil] itself."
Similarly, [a utensil] may be taken out of the sun so that it will not become parched and break. It may also be removed from the rain so that it will not become saturated with water and deteriorate. These are considered "for the sake of [the utensil] itself" and are permitted, since the tasks performed with this utensil are permitted.
Halacha 5
Similarly, one may move a mill or a grinder4 in order to crack nuts open on it5or to climb up to a couch on it. This is [what is meant by the expression] "to use it [for a purpose that is permitted]."
[Similarly, one may move it] to sit in the place where it is located. One may not, however, move it so that it will not break, so that it will not be stolen, or the like.
Halacha 6
Any entity that is not a utensil - e.g., stones, money, rods, beams, and the like - is forbidden to be carried.6 [Nevertheless,] even a large stone or a large beam that requires ten people to carry it, if it is deemed a utensil7 it may be carried.8
Halacha 7
It is permitted to carry a utensil to perform tasks other than those for which it is intended to be used. What is implied? One may take a hammer to crack nuts, a hatchet to cut a dried fig, a saw to cut cheese, a rake to collect dried figs, a winnowing shovel or a pitchfork to feed a child, a spindle or a weaver's shuttle to pierce with, a sack-maker's needle to pick a lock,13 or a mill-stone to sit on.14 The same principle applies in other similar situations.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
Whenever a person is careful [not to use] a utensil lest its value depreciate - e.g., utensils that are set aside as merchandise,18 or very expensive utensils of which one is extremely careful lest they spoil - carrying it is forbidden on the Sabbath.19 This [category] is referred to as muktzeh [lest] financial loss [be caused].
[Included in this category are] a large saw, the knife-like point of a plow, a butcher's knife, a leather-worker's knife, a carpenter's plane, a perfume-maker's mortar,20 and the like.
Halacha 10
All utensils that were set aside because of [an association with] a prohibited [activity] are forbidden to be carried. For example, it is forbidden [to move] a lamp that was kindled for the Sabbath,21 a candelabra upon which a lamp was placed, or a table on which money was lying.22
[Moreover,] even if the candle is extinguished or if the money falls, [the prohibition remains intact]. Whenever an article is forbidden to be carried beyn hash'mashot [on Friday], it remains forbidden to be carried throughout the entire Sabbath23, even though the factor that caused it to become forbidden is no longer present.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
The doors of any utensil28 that may be carried on the Sabbath - e.g., the doors of a box, a chest, or a cabinet - may themselves be carried [on the Sabbath], regardless of whether they were removed on the Sabbath or before the Sabbath.29
Similarly, whenever a utensil that can be carried on the Sabbath breaks, whether before the Sabbath or on the Sabbath,30 its broken pieces may be carried on the Sabbath, provided these pieces can be used for a purpose that resembles the purpose for which they could be used [originally].31
What is implied? The broken pieces of a kneading trough can be used to cover the opening of a jug. Broken pieces of glass can be used to cover the opening of a flask. The same rules apply in other similar situations. If, by contrast, the broken pieces are unfit for any purposeful use, it is forbidden to carry them.32
Halacha 13
All the covers of utensils may be carried on the Sabbath, provided they, themselves, are considered to be utensils.33
[The following rules apply regarding] utensils that are attached to the ground - e.g., a barrel imbedded in the earth:34 If its cover has a handle, it may be carried. If not, it may not be carried. Similarly, the coverings of cisterns and ditches should not be carried35 unless they have a handle.36 The covering of an oven [by contrast] may be carried, even though it does not have a handle.37
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when] there are two entities, one permitted to be carried and one forbidden to be carried - one adjacent to the other, one on top of the other, or one within the other - and when one is moved the other will also be moved:38 If a person requires the article that is permitted [to be carried], he may move it, even though the forbidden article is drawn after it. If he requires to move the forbidden article, he should not move it by moving the permitted article.
Halacha 15
What is implied? When a fig39 is buried in straw40 or a cake is lying upon coals, one may pierce them with a spindle or a weaver's shuttle and remove them, even though the straw or the coals41 will be moved on the Sabbath when one removes them.
Similarly, if a turnip or a radish42 is buried in [loose] earth and a portion of its leaves is protruding,43 one may pull out [the vegetables] on the Sabbath, even though the earth is dislodged. Conversely, however, if a loaf of bread or a child is [located] on a stone or beam, one may not carry the stone or beam because of the child or the loaf of bread.44 Similar rules apply in other analogous situations.
Halacha 16
A person may pick up his son if [the son] yearns for [his father],45 despite the fact that the son is holding a stone.46This, however, is not [permitted] if [the son] is holding a dinar,47 lest it fall and the father [pick it up and] carry it.48
When a basket has a hole and a stone has been used to plug the hole,49 [the basket] may be carried, because the stone is considered as its wall.
[The following rules apply when] a basket is filled with fruit and a stone [is discovered] among the fruit:50 If the fruit is soft - e.g., grapes or berries - the basket may be carried as it is.51 If one spills out the fruit, it would be spoiled by the earth, and [our Sages] did not [apply] their decree in an instance where a loss would be caused.52
Halacha 17
When a person forgets a stone on the opening of a jug, he may tilt the jug to the side [so that the stone] falls.53 If the jug with the stone upon it is standing among other jugs,54 it should be lifted to another place, and then tilted to the side [so that the stone] falls. Similarly, if one forgets money on a pillow that one needs, one may shake the pillow [so that the money] falls.55 If one needs [to use] the place where the pillow [is located], one may remove the pillow [although] the money is upon it.
Halacha 18
[The following rule applies to] a stone that is placed in an earthenware59bucket [as a weight]:60 If it does not fall out when one draws water [with the bucket], it is considered part of the bucket and one is permitted to draw water with it. If not, one may not draw water with it.61 A garment that is [hanging] on a reed62 may be slipped off the reed.63
Halacha 19
It is forbidden to carry produce that is forbidden to eat - e.g., produce that has not been tithed, even if the obligation to tithe is only Rabbinic,64 produce separated as the first tithe, from which terumat [ma'aser] has not been separated,65terumah that has contracted ritual impurity,66 produce separated as the second tithe67 or produce that has been consecrated68 and has not been redeemed.
Halacha 20
An Israelite is allowed to carry terumah, even though it is not appropriate for him. One may carry terumah that has contracted ritual impurity together withterumah that is pure, or together with ordinary produce, if both of them are contained in a single receptacle.71
When does the above apply? When the pure terumah is below [the impure],72and the [terumah consists of] produce that would be soiled by the ground. Thus, if the container were overturned, it would be spoiled. If, by contrast, the produce is nuts, almonds, or the like, one must overturn the container, take the terumah and the ordinary produce, and leave the impure [terumah].
If one requires the place where the container is located, one may take all the produce at once, regardless of whether the pure [terumah] is located at the top or at the bottom.
Halacha 21
[The following rules apply when] a person has in mind [to sit on] a row of stones73 before the commencement of the Sabbath: If he prepares them,74 he is permitted to sit on them on the morrow; if not, that is forbidden.75
When a person gathers the branches of a date palm [to use as kindling] wood, but changes his mind on Friday and decides to use them to sit on [in place of mats], he is allowed to carry them.76 Similarly, if he actually sat upon them77before the commencement of the Sabbath, it is permitted to carry them.
Halacha 22
One may not move straw that is on a bed with one's hands;78one may, however, move it with one's body.79 [Moreover,] if it is [useful as] animal fodder, one is permitted to carry it [by hand]. Similarly, if a pillow or a sheet is placed upon it, it is considered as if one had sat on it before the commencement of the Sabbath,80 and one may move it by hand.
Halacha 23
It is forbidden to negate the possibility of using a utensil, since this is comparable to destroying [it]. What is implied? A person should not place a receptacle below a lamp on the Sabbath to receive any oil that drips. For the oil in the lamp is forbidden to be carried, and when it falls into the receptacle it will cause the receptacle that had been permitted to become forbidden.84 The same applies in all analogous situations.
For this reason, a receptacle may not be placed below a chicken to receive the eggs it lays.85 One may, however, cover [the eggs] with an [overturned] utensil.86 Similarly, one may use an overturned utensil to cover any article that is forbidden to be carried, for by doing so one has not negated its use.87Should one desire to take [the overturned article], one may.
Halacha 24
One may place a receptacle under dripping water88 to collect it.89 If the receptacle becomes full, one may pour out the water and return [the receptacle to its place] without hesitation.90
[The above applies] only when the dripping water is fit to use for bathing.91 If the water is not fit [for washing], one should not place a receptacle there.92[Nevertheless, after the fact,] should one have placed a receptacle there, one may carry it together with the repulsive water it contains.93 [The reason for the restriction against placing the receptacle there is] that we do not create a repulsive situation94 at the outset.95
Halacha 25
Should a barrel containing [wine or oil] that is tevel,96 be broken [on the Sabbath], one may bring a receptacle and place it under [the barrel]. [By doing so, one is not considered to have nullified the possibility of using the receptacle,] since were one to transgress and separate [the terumah and tithes as required], the produce would be permitted for use.97.
A receptacle may be placed below a candle to collect the sparks that fall, for [the sparks] have no substance. In such an instance, it is permissible to move the receptacle.98
When a beam breaks, we should not support it with a bench or a bed post99unless there is ample space [between the beams] and one can remove [the bench or the bed post] whenever one desires,100 so that one will not nullify a utensil from the possibility of being used.
One may spread a mat over stones or over a beehive on the Sabbath in the summer, [as protection] from the sun, and in the rainy season, [as protection] from the rain, provided that one has no intention of snaring [the bees].101 [By doing so, one is not considered to have nullified the possibility of using the receptacle] because one may remove [the mat] whenever one desires.
Halacha 26
[The following rules apply when] an animal falls into a cistern or into a water conduit [from which it cannot ascend on its own]: If one can supply it with its needs while it is there, one should do so until Saturday night. If not, one may bring cushions and blankets and place them beneath it. If this [enables the animal] to ascend, there is no difficulty. Although one is nullifying the possibility of using a utensil - for one is throwing it into a cistern [filled with] water105 - [our Sages did] not institute a decree [in this instance], because of the suffering [the] animal endures.
[Regardless of the circumstances,] it is forbidden to lift the animal up by hand.106 Similarly, one may not lift up an animal, beast, or fowl in a courtyard.107 One may, however, push them until they enter.
One may support108 calves and ponies as they walk. One may not, however, hold a chicken that fled [as one directs] it [to return to its coop]. [This prohibition was instituted] because [the chicken tries] to free itself from [the person's] hand, and [in the process, causes] its wings to be torn off.109 One may, however, push it until it enters [its coop].
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
In many manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah, the text reads "a hammer to crack open nuts." A blacksmith's hammer is considered as a utensil that is used for purposes that are forbidden (see Halachah 7). Nevertheless, a hammer specifically used to crack nuts is placed in a different category. The need to make this distinction is avoided by our version of the text which refers to a hatchet.
|
| 2. |
As mentioned in the conclusion of the previous chapter, the Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's statements as meaning that we are not allowed to carry a utensil for no purpose at all, even one that is generally used for a permitted purpose. This law is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 308:4).
|
| 3. |
There are, however, several leniencies suggested by the later authorities - e.g., using such a utensil for a permitted purpose and then placing it down where one desires (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:12; Mishnah Berurah 308:16). Alternatively, one may move it with one's feet or in a manner that is considered irregular (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:15).
|
| 4. |
I.e., utensils that are used for a forbidden purpose, as mentioned in Halachah 2.
|
| 5. |
After one picks up such a utensil and uses it for a permitted purpose, one may continue carrying it and place it wherever one desires (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 6. |
They may not be moved at all, even if one desires to use them for a purpose that is permitted, or one requires the place that they are occupying (Ramah, Orach Chayim 308:7).
|
| 7. |
I.e., as indicated in the subsequent halachot, if a person set aside or prepared a stone or board for a specific purpose, it is considered a utensil and may be moved on the Sabbath.
|
| 8. |
No matter how large a utensil is, it is permitted to be carried it on the Sabbath if one would ordinarily carry such a utensil during the week (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:2). (See, however, Chapter 26, Halachah 11, and notes.)
|
| 9. |
Shabbat 122b differentiates between the doors of a chest - which are permitted to be carried if removed on the Sabbath (see Halachah 12) - and the doors of a house, which are not. The Rambam explains that the reason for this distinction is that, even though the doors of a house are considered utensils, it is unlikely that before the Sabbath commenced, one considered using them on the Sabbath. Therefore, they are considered muktzeh, as is explained in Halachah 9 and notes.
Rashi, by contrast, maintains that these doors are not utensils, and that is the reason it is forbidden to carry them.
|
| 10. |
The Rambam uses the word "even" both here and in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat17:1). It would appear that his intent is that it is taken for granted that doors that were removed before the Sabbath and were not prepared to be used for another purpose may not be used on the Sabbath. Even doors that were removed on the Sabbath and had been used as doors on this Sabbath may not be carried if they are removed.
|
| 11. |
See the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311), which mentions certain leniencies regarding moving a corpse if one fears that it will begin to decompose.
|
| 12. |
Yevamot 80b states that a child born after only eight months will surely die. Therefore, even while he is still living, it is forbidden to carry him on the Sabbath.
Tosafot, Shabbat 135a, states that this ruling is no longer followed, since at present it is impossible to determine exactly when a child was conceived. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the length of time the mother was pregnant. Furthermore, the advances in medical technology have enabled us to save the lives of many babies who would surely not have survived in previous generations. At present, it is a mitzvah to attempt to save the lives of all premature babies, even if doing so involves performing a forbidden labor on the Sabbath.
|
| 13. |
Our translation of the above terms is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 17:2).
|
| 14. |
Significantly, this is the only one of the examples given by the Rambam that is not mentioned in the Mishnah (op. cit.). The Rabbis cite Eruvin 102b or Shabbat 124b as possible sources.
|
| 15. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam uses this statement as proof that there is no prohibition against removing a splinter on the Sabbath.
|
| 16. |
Because it is no longer useful as a utensil (Shabbat 123a). Thus it resembles a stone which cannot be carried on the Sabbath. See Halachah 12.
|
| 17. |
Since there are times when it is preserved in this state for the purpose of removing thorns and the like (Rashi, Shabbat, loc. cit.).
|
| 18. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:3, which states that not all utensils that are set aside as merchandise are intended solely for that purpose. Many storekeepers consider making personal use of the wares in their shops. In such an instance, one would be allowed to move the article on the Sabbath.
|
| 19. |
The word muktzeh means "set aside." Since a person would ordinarily have no thought of using such a utensil on the Sabbath, it is placed in this category. Even if he changes his mind afterwards and decides to use it on the Sabbath, this is forbidden. Since at the commencement of the Sabbath it was not his intent to use it, it may not be moved for the entire day.
The commentaries compare this law regarding merchandise to Chapter 26, Halachah 14, which states that food, even when set aside to be sold, is never considered muktzeh.
|
| 20. |
All these utensils are used for professional purposes that are forbidden on the Sabbath. Since they are delicate instruments, their owners will not use them for other purposes, lest they become damaged.
|
| 21. |
For these same reasons, it is forbidden to use the oil in the lamp, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 12.
It must be emphasized that, because the articles mentioned in this halachah were involved with the performance of a forbidden activity on the Sabbath itself, the prohibitions governing it are more severe than those applying to an article used for a forbidden labor. It is forbidden to move the articles mentioned in this halachah, even when it is necessary to use the place where they are located or one desires to use them for a permitted purpose.
|
| 22. |
As evident from Halachah 17, the present halachah refers to an instance when money was intentionally placed on the table. If it was forgotten there, more lenient rules apply.
|
| 23. |
Rashi, Beitzah 26b, derives this concept from Exodus 16:5, "On Friday, they will prepare what they have brought," which implies that the Sabbath preparations are completed on Friday, before the Sabbath's commencement. An article that is not prepared for use at that time may not be used throughout the Sabbath.
|
| 24. |
Kerosene produces an unpleasant odor. Therefore, even a metal lamp that uses it for fuel is considered repulsive.
|
| 25. |
This halachah grants permission to carry the repulsive article for other purposes. One is allowed to remove an article that contains filth from a room regardless, as stated in the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 279:6, 308:34-35).
|
| 26. |
Although one would generally not think of using such a utensil because it is repulsive, since its use is not totally out of the question, it is not forbidden as muktzeh. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 308:35), however, this leniency does not apply to a chamber pot. It is considered as too repulsive to use for other purposes.
|
| 27. |
Note the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, which states that it appears that such entities may be moved only when one desires to use them for a purpose and not when one merely desires to use the place in which they are being kept. The Mishnah Beruah 279:19, however, differs and also permits moving the article when one desires to use its place.
|
| 28. |
Compare to Halachah 6.
|
| 29. |
The Merkevet HaMishneh notes that in this clause the Rambam mentions "before the Sabbath" after "on the Sabbath," because it is the greater inclusion. Since the doors were not fixed before the Sabbath, one might think that they are no longer considered part of a utensil, and hence it would be forbidden to carry them on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since they are fit to be attached to their original utensil, they may be moved.
In the following clause, the Rambam mentions "on the Sabbath" after "before the Sabbath," because it is the greater inclusion, as explained in the following note.
|
| 30. |
When an article breaks on the Sabbath and it is no longer fit to be used for its original purpose, there is a difficulty. There is a difference of opinion among the Sages whether an object that isnolad - i.e., "comes into existence initially" on the Sabbath - is permitted or not. Since it was on the Sabbath that it first became possible to use the broken pieces of the utensils for this new purpose, it is possible to consider them as nolad (Magen Avraham 308:14).
The prevailing view is that objects that are nolad are permitted to be moved on the Sabbath. They are, however, forbidden to be moved on a festival. Accordingly, if an article breaks on a festival, it would be forbidden to move its broken pieces even if they were fit to be used for a constructive (other than one resembling the article's original) purpose Shulchan Aruch HaRav308:24].
It must, however, be noted that the Magen Avraham's conception is not accepted by all authorities. Many maintain that since these pieces were always fit for use - either as part of the larger utensil or in their own right - they should not be considered nolad (Be'ur Halachah 308).
|
| 31. |
Our translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah, even though there appears to be a printing error. To explain: In the Mishnah (Shabbat 17:5), there is a difference of opinion between the Sages. The first opinion of the Mishnah states that the broken pieces of a utensil may be carried provided they can be used for any constructive purpose. Rabbi Yehudah differs and maintains that the broken pieces may be carried only when they can be used for a purpose that resembles the intent for which they had originally been used.
Although the wording of the standard printed text follows Rabbi Yehudah's opinion, the examples he gives and the continuation of the halachah follow the other view. Significantly, many manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah state "provided the pieces can be used for a constructive purpose."
Although the Baal Halachot Gedolot and other sages of the early generations follow Rabbi Yehudah's opinion, in the later generations almost all the authorities accept the other view.
|
| 32. |
For they are no longer a utensil, and hence may not be carried, as stated in Halachah 6. Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 308:6), who mentions that if the broken pieces of the utensil present a danger, they may be moved.
|
| 33. |
With the latter clause, the Rambam excludes objects that were never used as the coverings of utensils before the Sabbath, nor were they prepared for to be used for this purpose. Furthermore, if it is not common practice to use an object for this purpose - e.g., a stone - it may not be moved on the Sabbath despite the fact that it was used as a covering several times during the week (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:36).
(See also Rashi (Shabbat 126b), who states that we may carry a cover only when it is fit to be used as a utensil in its own right. His opinion is not shared by other authorities.)
|
| 34. |
According to the Maggid Mishneh, this refers to a utensil that is buried entirely within the ground and does not protrude at all. Since it is built in this manner, the Sages apply the laws governing pits and vats to it, lest people be unable to distinguish between them. If, however, a utensil that is attached to the ground projects from the ground, its cover does not require a handle, as will be explained (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:10).
|
| 35. |
This refers to covers that are not attached with a hinge, as is obvious from Chapter 10, Halachah 14.
|
| 36. |
By mentioning this law in this context, it would appear that the Rambam considers the rationale for the prohibition to be that without handles, the cover is not considered a utensil (Rav David Arameah).
Other authorities explain that when a cover lacks handles, its removal or placement resembles building. If, however, the cover has a handle, it is clearly distinguished as a separate entity that is intended to be handled (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:37; Mishnah Berurah 308:42). The Rambam touches on the latter prohibition, albeit in a slightly different manner, in Chapter 22, Halachah 25.
|
| 37. |
In Talmudic times, an oven was a separate utensil whose base was attached to the ground, but which protruded from the ground entirely. Therefore, it could not be confused with a pit or a vat (Maggid Mishneh). As the structure of ovens has changed throughout the ages, there has also been a variation in the laws governing their covers.
|
| 38. |
Based on Tosafot, Shabbat 43b, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311:8) describes these laws with the term טלטול מן הצד, "carrying in an indirect manner."
|
| 39. |
An article that is permitted to be carried.
|
| 40. |
An article that is forbidden to be carried, because it is used for construction. More precisely, the term פגה refers to an unripe fig that is placed in the straw to ripen.
|
| 41. |
The commentaries question whether or not this refers to an instance where the coals are burning. Were the coals to be burning, there is the possibility that by removing the cake, one will extinguish the upper coals and cause the lower coals to burn. The Maggid Mishneh quotes Rashi (Eruvin 77a) as explaining that the coals have already been extinguished.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the wording chosen by the Rambam differs slightly from that of the Talmud. The Talmud states "a cake buried in coals," while the Rambam speaks of a cake "lying on coals." Therefore, he maintains that the law stated by the Rambam applies even when the coals are burning.
Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son (Birkat Avraham, Responsum 9), also shares that opinion, explaining that it is not absolutely necessary that the person will cause the coals to move, and this is not his intention. Therefore, there is no prohibition involved, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 5. (See also Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 7.) Significantly, however, when Rav Yosef Karo mentions these laws in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311:9), he cites the example of the fig and the straw, but omits mention of the cake and the coals entirely.
|
| 42. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311:8) emphasizes that this refers to an instance where the vegetables were placed in the earth for storage purposes and they had not yet become rooted there. Were they to have taken root in the earth, it would be forbidden to remove them.
|
| 43. |
If, however, a portion of its leaves is not protruding, it is not permitted to pierce them with a spindle and remove them. By doing so, one would appear to be creating a pit in the earth.
This is the opinion of the Maggid Mishneh. The Magen Avraham 311:21, however, mentions the opinion of the Tosafot, Shabbat 50b, from which it appears that this leniency would be allowed.
|
| 44. |
This is an example of the second principle mentioned in the previous halachah, that one may not carry a forbidden object because of a permitted object lying upon it. Note Chapter 26, Halachah 21, which mentions that exceptions to this principle are made to save a corpse from the heat or from a fire.
|
| 45. |
The bracketed additions were made on the basis of Shabbat 141b.
|
| 46. |
Shabbat 141b explains that this refers to a situation where the son might become sick if his father does not pick him up. If there is no danger of the child's becoming sick, the father is forbidden to pick him up (Magen Avraham 309:1).
|
| 47. |
A coin of the Talmudic period.
|
| 48. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 309:2 mentions that it is even forbidden to hold the child by the hand that is not holding the coin.
|
| 49. |
The Magen Avraham 309:3 states that this refers to an instance where one firmly attached the stone in the hole, making it a permanent part of the basket. Otherwise, carrying the stone in the basket is forbidden.
Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 21:1), where the Rambam interprets this law and the one that follows as a single concept (as the Ra'avad does in his notes). According to that understanding, the leniency of using the stone as part of a container is permitted only when the basket contains fruit that will spoil if the container is overturned. Thus, the Rambam's decision here reflects a change of mind in favor of a more lenient ruling.
|
| 50. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 309:3) mentions the converse of this principle. When the fruits are firm and will not be spoiled if the basket is overturned and they are spilled to the earth, the basket should be overturned before it is carried.
|
| 51. |
As mentioned above, the Ra'avad objects to this decision, based on his interpretation of Shabbat142a. The Maggid Mishneh states that according to the text of the Talmud we have, the Ra'avad's interpretation must be accepted. It is, however, possible that the Rambam's text of the Talmud had a different version of this passage. Both the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 309:3) follow the Rambam's approach.
|
| 52. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) also mentions that if one needs to use the place where the basket with the stone is placed, one may move it without overturning it, even though it contains fruit that will not be spoiled. (See Halachot 17 and 20).
|
| 53. |
Shabbat 142b emphasizes that we are required to tilt the jug only when it is moved for the sake of its wine. If one moves it to use the place where it is located, there is no need to dislodge the stones. This ruling is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 309:5).
|
| 54. |
Were he to tilt the jug there, the falling stone might break other jugs.
|
| 55. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 309:6 and the Mishnah Berurah 309:14 emphasize that if one's intent is only that the money should not be stolen, it is forbidden to shake it from the pillow.
|
| 56. |
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 309:4) states that the following restrictions apply only when one places a forbidden article on an article of one's own, and not when one places a forbidden article on an article belonging to a colleague. For a person cannot cause an article belonging to a colleague to become forbidden.
|
| 57. |
Note the Magen Avraham 309:6, which states that the word "intentionally" must be interpreted to mean "for a useful purpose." If, however, a person put down an article on another object intentionally, but with no particular purpose in mind, it is considered as if he forgot it there.
|
| 58. |
Since the article is forbidden beyn hash'mashot, the time of the commencement of the Sabbath, it remains forbidden for the entire Sabbath.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 309:4) also mentions the opinion of Tosafot, who maintain that a base for a forbidden object is created only when one's intent was that the forbidden object remain on the base for the entire Sabbath. If one intended to shake it off the base, or have it transferred by a gentile over the course of the Sabbath, it is not considered a base.
Although the Rambam's opinion is accepted by the later authorities, the more lenient view may be followed if there is a possibility that a loss will be caused - e.g., a lamp falls on a table (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 309:7).
|
| 59. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 17:6) andHilchot Keilim 20:1. Rashi and others render the Hebrew קרויה as a "gourd."
|
| 60. |
I.e., since the bucket is made of earthenware, it is not necessarily heavy enough to sink. Therefore, the stone is used as a weight.
|
| 61. |
In such an instance, the bucket itself becomes forbidden, because it serves as a base for a forbidden object (Mishnah Berurah 309:8).
|
| 62. |
This refers to a reed that was not altered to serve as a hanger. It is not considered a utensil and is therefore deemed muktzeh.
|
| 63. |
The intent is that one must hold the garment that is not muktzeh, and not the reed that is (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:16). The Mishnah Berurah 308:64 mentions that one must remove the garment without moving the reed. It is questionable, however, whether the Rambam would agree to that stringency, for this appears to resemble the other instances of טלטול מן הצד, "carrying in an indirect manner," described above.
|
| 64. |
I.e., produce other than grain, wine, or olive oil.
|
| 65. |
After the tithes have been given to the Levites, they are required to separate a tenth of the produce that they have been given. This produce is given to the priests and is governed by same laws as terumah. (See Numbers 18:25-32.)
|
| 66. |
Once terumah has contracted ritual impurity, the priests are forbidden to partake of it and it must be burnt.
|
| 67. |
The produce separated as the second tithe must be eaten in Jerusalem. When a person lives far from Jerusalem, produce that has been separated as the second tithe can be redeemed by exchanging it for money (Deuteronomy 14:24-27).
|
| 68. |
With the exception of the first fruits (bikkurim), produce is not offered in the Temple. If a person consecrates produce, his intent is that it be sold, and the proceeds given to the Temple.
|
| 69. |
Produce purchased from an individual on whom we cannot depend to have separated tithes.
|
| 70. |
When one redeems the second tithe or consecrated property, it is necessary to add a fifth of its value to the sum. (One pays 125%.) Nevertheless, as long as one has given the value of the produce, it is considered to have been redeemed, and the additional fifth is considered a debt. Note a parallel in Hilchot Eruvin 1:15.
It must, however, be noted that in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 5:12, the Rambam writes that the sacred dimension of the second tithe is considered to have departed from the produce after it has been redeemed, even though one has not paid the additional fifth. Nevertheless, one should not partake of this produce, even on the Sabbath, unless one pays that fifth.
In contrast, in Hilchot Arachin 7:3, the Rambam writes that one is permitted to partake of consecrated produce after it has been redeemed, despite the fact that one has not paid the additional fifth.
|
| 71. |
The presence of an article that is forbidden to be carried does not cause the entire container to become forbidden.
|
| 72. |
Our translation follows the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah. The Kessef Mishnehmentions that the version of this halachah in the texts of the Mishneh Torah commonly available in his time read: "When does the above apply? When the impure [terumah] was below...." He, however, prefers the version found in our standard texts, because it parallels the text of Shabbat141b. Significantly, Rav Kapach notes that both versions appear in ancient manuscripts.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that if the pure terumah is above, one should remove the pureterumah by hand, and then leave the remainder.
|
| 73. |
That were not cemented in place. Hence, there is a possibility that one will move them when one sits down.
The Magen Avraham 308:41 emphasizes that if one will not move the stones when sitting, there is no prohibition. Moreover, the Magen Avraham emphasizes that the prohibition against muktzehpertains only to carrying objects with one's hands, and not to moving it with one's body. (See the following halachah.) Therefore, the intent in both clauses of this halachah is to carry the stones or the branches in order to sit on them.
|
| 74. |
I.e., performed a deed preparing them.
|
| 75. |
Although the Ramah (Orach Chayim 308:21) desires to equate the row of stones with the date branches, the Magen Avraham (loc. cit.) justifies the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 76. |
In contrast to the previous law, thought is sufficient to change the status of the date branches. This leniency is granted because date branches are often used to sit on. It was the person's thought to use the branches for kindling that caused them to be forbidden. Hence, his thought itself is sufficient to remove that prohibition.
By contrast, a row of stones is generally used for construction and not as a seat. Therefore, one must perform a deed that indicates one's desire to use the row to sit upon. Consequently, in the present era, when it is no longer customary to sit on date branches, in this instance as well one must perform a deed to indicate one's intent (Magen Avraham 306:40).
|
| 77. |
The person did not intend to use them as a mat in the future when he sat upon them. Nevertheless, since date branches are commonly used for that purpose, that is sufficient to cause them to be considered as a useful object (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:51).
|
| 78. |
In the Talmudic era, straw was generally used for the purpose of kindling. Therefore, it is classified as muktzeh. The Magen Avraham 308:53 notes that in his era, straw was used most commonly for animal fodder. Therefore it should not be classified as muktzeh.
|
| 79. |
For the prohibition against moving muktzeh applies only when one moves it with one's hands.
|
| 80. |
I.e., placing the pillow or sheet on it is a clear indication that one intends to use it as a mattress. Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:15 and the Mishneh Berurah 311:31, which state that if one puts straw on a bed with the intention of sleeping on it, one may spread it out by hand.
|
| 81. |
The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 308:35), which states that unless the person sets aside a corner of the house for the earth, it is considered part of the floor of the house. This implies that the person emptied out the container, for otherwise the earth would remain a distinct entity.
|
| 82. |
This act indicates that the person plans to use the earth on the Sabbath. Therefore it is considered a designated article (מוכן). (See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 2:18.)
|
| 83. |
In the ages prior to household plumbing, earth was necessary to cover urine, feces, and other wastes.
|
| 84. |
This law has already been explained in Chapter 5, Halachah 13. Were one to place the receptacle there before the commencement of the Sabbath, it would be permitted.
|
| 85. |
According to most authorities, nolad, an article that first comes into existence on the Sabbath, is not forbidden. Nevertheless, an egg laid on the Sabbath is forbidden to be moved. This is a decree enacted as a safeguard, lest one move an egg laid on a festival, as explained in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 1:1).
|
| 86. |
One must, however, be careful not to move the forbidden article when covering it (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 310:6; note the gloss of the Ra'avad to this halachah).
|
| 87. |
Although there is an opinion in Shabbat 43a that states that one may carry an article only for the sake of an object that may itself be carried, this opinion is not accepted as halachah (Maggid Mishneh). (Note, however, the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh on Chapter 26, Halachah 22.)
|
| 88. |
I.e., water dripping from a leaking roof or the like.
|
| 89. |
There is no prohibition against carrying rainwater. Thus, in placing the receptacle there one does not nullify the possibility of using the receptacle later (Mishnah Berurah 338:30).
|
| 90. |
This pattern may be repeated any number of times.
|
| 91. |
Water with which one bathes need not be as clean as water that one drinks. Nevertheless, one will not bathe with water that is soiled. Although the Tur (Orach Chayim 338) differs with the Rambam and does not require the water to be clear, the Rambam's view is accepted by theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 338:8) and the later authorities.
|
| 92. |
The reason for the prohibition against placing a receptacle to collect the water is that one is invalidating the utensil for future use. The commentaries question this decision, noting that ultimately, when the receptacle becomes full, one is permitted to move it because it is repulsive. They explain that this restriction was instituted because, at the outset, it is forbidden to cause an article to become repulsive (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 339:9, Be'ur Halachah 339).
|
| 93. |
These leniencies are granted only within a person's permanent dwelling, as reflected in theShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:34.
|
| 94. |
Literally, "a chamber pot."
|
| 95. |
Leniency is granted if there is a possibility of loss involved (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit. 308:37).
|
| 96. |
Produce from Eretz Yisrael from which the agricultural requirements (terumah and the tithes) have not been separated. Until these requirements are separated, the produce is not fit to eat and it is considered as muktzeh as explained in Halachah 19.
|
| 97. |
See Chapter 23, Halachah 15.
|
| 98. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 13.
|
| 99. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:7) emphasizes that one may use these utensils only to prevent the beam from falling further. It is forbidden to raise the beam to its original position, because that would be considered as if one were building.
|
| 100. |
Unless there is ample space, we fear that the pressure will be so great that it will be impossible to remove them later. Therefore, one will have nullified all future possibilities of using them (Shabbat43a).
|
| 101. |
Based on Chapter 1, Halachah 6, one must add that the person must place down the mat in a manner that will not inevitably cause the bees to be snared (פסיק רישא). Were that to be the case, the person who places down the mat would be liable for snaring.
|
| 102. |
Which are muktzeh like all animals and fowl.
|
| 103. |
Although one is forbidden to carry the basket while the chicks are in it, one is not considered to have invalidated the possibility of using the receptacle, because one may move it after the chicks descend.
|
| 104. |
If, however, the chicks are in the basket throughout beyn hash'mashot on Friday, the basket becomes muktzeh (Mishnah Berurah 308:148).
|
| 105. |
Rashi and the Rashba (Shabbat 128b) explain the problem differently from the Rambam: that while the animal is standing on the cushions, it is impossible to move them. This interpretation is difficult, because one may move them after the animal departs,. According to the Rambam's interpretation, by contrast, there is no difficulty, because once the cushions are wet, they cannot be used. The Rambam's interpretation is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 305:19).
|
| 106. |
Although the prohibition against carrying an animal by hand is also Rabbinic in origin, it is more severe. Therefore, our Sages did not nullify it despite the suffering caused to the animal.
There are authorities who are more lenient and maintain that even the latter prohibition is waived because of the animal's suffering. The later authorities rule that one may rely on this decision in a situation where a great loss will be incurred. Moreover, they add that all agree that one may instruct a gentile to lift the animal from the cistern. This is preferable to placing the cushions and blankets there (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:26; Mishnah Berurah 305:70).
|
| 107. |
Needless to say, this is forbidden in the public domain, because it is forbidden to carry an animal there (Shabbat, loc. cit).
|
| 108. |
I.e., hold them by the necks or shoulders and direct them (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit. 308:40).
|
| 109. |
This is the Rambam's interpretation of Shabbat (loc. cit.). Rashi and the Ra'avad offer a different rationale for the prohibition against lifting a chicken: that the chicken will lift up its legs from the ground, causing one to carry it. This interpretation is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).
|
Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Six
Halacha 1
All the utensils used for weaving, including the cords and the reeds, may be carried [according to the rules governing] other utensils that are used for forbidden tasks.1 An exception is made regarding the upper weaver's beam and the lower weaver's beam. They may not be carried, because they are [usually] fixed [within the loam].2
Similarly, the pillars [of the loam] may not be moved, lest one fill the hole [in the earth created when they are removed]. It is permitted to move the other utensils of a weaver.3
Halacha 2
Brooms made of date branches and the like, which are used to sweep the ground, are considered utensils that are used for a permitted purpose, since sweeping is permitted on the Sabbath.4
Bricks that remain after a building [was completed] are considered utensils that are used for a permitted purpose, for they are fit to recline upon,5, as is obvious from the fact that they are filed and adjusted for this purpose.6 If, however, one collects them, [it is evident] that they have been set aside [for building], and it is forbidden to carry them.7
Halacha 3
A small shard may be carried, even in the public domain.8[This leniency is granted] because it is fit to be used in a courtyard to cover the opening of a small utensil.9 [When] the stopper of a barrel has been cut off, both it and its broken pieces are permitted to be carried. If one threw it into a garbage dump10 before the commencement of the Sabbath,11 carrying it is forbidden.
When a utensil has been broken [but not shattered into pieces], one should not remove a shard from it to use to cover [another utensil] or to use as a support.
Halacha 4
It is permitted to bring three rounded12 stones into a lavatory to clean oneself.13 Of what size may they be? A fistful.14A clod of earth, by contrast, which is likely to crumble, is forbidden to be taken to clean oneself.15
It is permitted to take these stones up to a roof [so that one will be able] to clean oneself with them.16 When rain descends upon them and they sink in the mud, they may be taken if there is a distinct mark [showing their location].17
[When] a stone has filth on it, one can be certain that it is used to clean oneself. Therefore, carrying it is permitted it even though it is large.18
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
The remnants of mats that have become tattered are considered utensils that may be used for a permitted purpose, for they are fit to be used to cover filth.23 In contrast, the remnants of clothes24 that are less than three [thumbbreadths] by three [thumbbreadths],25 and have become tattered may not be carried, for they are not fit - neither for the poor nor for the rich.26
Halacha 7
A ladder leading to a loft is forbidden to be carried [on the Sabbath], since it is not considered to be a utensil.29 [A ladder leading] to a dovecote [by contrast, is not considered muktzeh30 and] is permitted to be tilted. One should not, however, carry it from one dovecote to another, lest one follow one's ordinary course of conduct and come to snare [the doves].
[The following rule governs the use of] a rod that is used to harvest olives:31When it is categorized as a utensil,32 it is considered to be a utensil that is used for a forbidden purpose. [The following rule governs the use of] a reed that is adjusted by a homeowner to open and lock [his door]:33 When it is categorized as a utensil,34 it is considered to be a utensil that is used for a permitted purpose.
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply to] a door35 that once had a hinge - though at present it does not have a hinge36 - which is prepared to close a yard,37 but which drags on the ground when it is opened and closed: If the door is attached to and hanging on the wall, it may be used to close the space and may be locked.38 If not, it may not be used to close the space. If the door is [suspended] above the ground, it may be used to close the space.39 The same rules apply to a [partition made from] brambles or a mat that drags on the floor.
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply to] a door that is made from a single piece of wood and which is placed in [a doorway] to close it and removed [to open it]. If [the doorway] does not have a base at the bottom that resembles a doorstep that would indicate that [the door] is a utensil that is used for [opening and] closing, [the door] may not be used to close [the doorway].40 If [the doorway] has a doorstep, one may use [the door].41
Similarly, a bolt that has a bulb at its end that indicates that it is a utensil used to bolt a door, and is not merely an ordinary beam, may be used to bolt a door on the Sabbath.42
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply to] a bolt that does not have a bulb at its end: If it is tied to the door and suspended from it, we may use it to bolt the door on the Sabbath.43 [This ruling] also applies when it is carried together with the rope attaching it to the door.44
If, by contrast, the rope attaching it is fixed permanently to the door and the bolt is removed like a beam, placed in a corner, and then reattached when one desires, its use as a bolt is forbidden [on the Sabbath].45 This is forbidden because [the bolt] is not considered to be a utensil, nor is there any indication [that it is being used as a utensil], for it is not attached to the door, nor is it connected to a rope.46
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
We may remove a shoe from a shoemaker's block on the Sabbath.51 We may release a clothes press belonging to an ordinary person on the Sabbath. We may not, however, set the press in place.52 A press belonging to a launderer should not be touched at all; it is set aside not to be used, because of the financial loss [that might be incurred through its improper use].53
Similarly, unprocessed rolls of wool may not be carried,54 because [their owner] objects [to their use for purposes other than spinning fabric].55Therefore, if they have been set aside for a particular purpose,56 it is permitted to use them. Unprocessed hides - regardless of whether they belong to a private person or to a [leather] craftsman - may be carried,57 because [their owner] does not object to their [use].58
Halacha 13
All filth - e.g., feces, vomit, excrement, and the like - that is located in a courtyard where [people] are dwelling may be removed to a dung heap or to a latrine.59 Such entities are referred to as a chamber pot.60 If it is located in another courtyard, it should be covered by a utensil so that a child will not become soiled by it.
One may step on spittle that is lying on the ground without taking any notice of it.61 One may carry a warming-pan because of its ash. [This leniency is granted] despite the fact that it contains chips of wood,62 because it is equivalent to a chamber pot.
At the outset, we may not bring about the creation of a repulsive entity63 on the Sabbath. If, however, [such an entity] comes about as a natural process, or one transgresses and creates it, it may be removed.
Halacha 14
It is permitted to partake of oil that flows from beneath the beam of an olive press on the Sabbath64 and from dates and almonds that are prepared to be sold.65 One may even begin to take grain from a storehouse66 or from a grain pile on the Sabbath, for food never becomes muktzeh on the Sabbath at all. On the contrary, all [types of food] are [always] prepared for use.67
[There is, however, one] exception: figs and raisins that have been set aside to dry. Since they pass through an intermediate stage when they become repulsive and are unfit to eat,68 they are considered muktzeh and are forbidden [to be carried] on the Sabbath.69
A barrel [of wine] or a watermelon that was opened may be carried and stored away, even though it is no longer fit to eat.70 Similarly, an amulet that has not proven its efficacy may be moved, although one is forbidden to go out [into the public domain] wearing it.71
The oil that remains in a lamp or in a bowl that was kindled on a particular Sabbath may not be used on that Sabbath. It is muktzeh because of the forbidden [labor with which it was associated beyn hash'mashot].72
Halacha 15
Although taking [produce] from a storehouse of grain or of barrels of wine is permitted, it is forbidden to begin73 to empty [the storehouse]74 unless this is being done for a purpose associated with a mitzvah - e.g., emptying it to host guests or to establish a hall of study.
[In the latter situations,] how should the storehouse be emptied? Every person should take [out] four or five75 containers until it has been completely [cleared].76 We may not sweep the floor of the storehouse, as has been explained.77
[Even when one is forbidden to empty the storehouse,] one may enter and leave and create a path with one's feet by entering and leaving.
Halacha 16
Any substance that is fit to be used as food for an animal, beast, or fowl that is commonly found may be carried on the Sabbath. What is implied? One may carry dry turmos beans78 because they are food for goats. Fresh [turmosbeans,] by contrast, may not [be carried].79 [One may carry] chatzav80because it is food for deer, mustard seed because it is food for doves,81and bones because they are food for dogs.
Similarly, we may carry all the shells and seeds [of produce] that are fit to serve as animal fodder. Concerning those that are not fit to be eaten: One should eat the food and throw [the shells or seeds] behind one's back;82carrying them is forbidden.
Halacha 17
We may not carry broken pieces of glass even though they are edible by ostriches,86 nor bundles of twigs from a vine even though they are edible by elephants, nor luf,87 even though it is edible by ravens. [These restrictions were instituted] because these and similar [species] are not commonly found among most people.88
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply to] bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of twigs: If they were prepared89 to be used as animal fodder, one may carry them. If not, one may not carry them.
Halacha 19
We may not rake food that was placed before an ox that is being fattened for slaughter. [This applies regardless of whether the food has been placed] in a feeding trough that is a [separate] utensil92 or in an earthen feeding trough. [Similarly,] one may not shift [the food] to the side so that [it does not become mixed with] feces. [These restrictions are] decrees, [instituted] lest one level grooves [in the floor].93
One may take food that had been placed before a donkey and place it before an ox.94 One may not, by contrast, take food that had been placed before an ox and place it before a donkey. [This restriction was instituted] because the food that is before an ox becomes soiled by its spittle95 and is not fit to be eaten by another animal.96
Leaves that produce a foul and repulsive odor and are not eaten by animals may not be carried. For similar reasons, carrying the hook on which fish are hung is forbidden.97 By contrast, the hook on which meat is hung is permitted to be carried. The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 20
Although carrying a corpse on the Sabbath is forbidden, one may anoint it and wash it, provided one does not move any of its limbs.98 We may slip out a pillow from underneath it99 so that it will be lying on the ground100 to enable it to remain without decomposing.
We may bring a utensil that will cool [a corpse] or a metal utensil and place it on the belly [of the corpse] so that [the corpse] will not swell. We may stop up [the corpse's] orifices so that air will not enter them. We may tie its jaw - not so that it will close101 - but so that it will not [open] further. We may not close [a corpse's] eyes on the Sabbath.102
Halacha 21
When a corpse is lying in the sun, we may place a loaf of bread103 or a baby on it and carry it [into the shade]. Similarly, if a fire breaks out in a courtyard where a corpse is lying, we may place a loaf of bread or a baby on it104 and carry it [out from the fire].105
Indeed, even if a loaf of bread or a baby are not available, one may save a corpse from a fire. [This leniency is granted] lest one extinguish the fire out of apprehension that the corpse not be consumed [by the flames].
[The leniency of carrying an entity with] a loaf of bread or a baby upon it is granted only in the case of a corpse, because a person is distraught over the corpse [of his loved ones].106
Halacha 22
[The following procedure should be adhered to when] a corpse is lying in the sun and there is no place to carry it, or [the people] do not desire to move it from its place: Two people should come and sit, one on either side [of the corpse]. If it is [too] warm for them [to sit on the ground], they may both bring couches and sit on them. If it is [too] warm for them [to sit in the sun], they may both bring mats and spread them over the couches.107
[Afterwards,] they both may [depart], overturn their couches, and remove them [leaving the mats suspended over the corpse]. In this manner, the covering is created on its own accord, [as it were], for the two mats are next to each other and their two ends are located on the ground on either side of the corpse.
Halacha 23
When a corpse has decomposed108 in a house [to the extent that it produces a foul odor] and thus is being disgraced in the eyes of the living, and their honor is being compromised because of it, carrying it109 into a carmelit is permitted.110
[This leniency was granted because] the honor of the creatures is great enough to supersede [the observance of] a negative commandment of the Torah, namely: "Do not swerve right or left from the words they tell you" [Deuteronomy 17:11].111
If [the people in the home] have an alternative place to go, they may not remove the corpse. Instead, the corpse should be left in its place and they should depart.112
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
I.e., the object may be carried to perform a permitted task or because the place in which it is lying is needed (Chapter 25, Halachah 3).
|
| 2. |
The Maggid Mishneh writes that, for this reason, it is as though they are not considered to be utensils.
|
| 3. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 3, and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 15:2, which mention the use of a weaver's rope.
|
| 4. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 3, which states that one may sweep a floor on the Sabbath only if it is paved. Since sweeping is permitted in that instance, however, it is considered a permitted activity.
Nevertheless, according to the Ramah (Orach Chayim 337:2), who forbids sweeping with these brooms even on a paved floor, a broom would be considered a utensil used for a forbidden purpose. The notes on that halachah mention the views of the later authorities.
|
| 5. |
Rashi, Shabbat 124b, states "to sit upon."
|
| 6. |
For this reason, a more lenient ruling is given than with regard to the row of stones mentioned in Chapter 25, Halachah 21, where one must indicate one's desire to use them on the Sabbath. (See Mishnah Berurah 306:73.)
|
| 7. |
Since they are not considered to be utensils. (See Chapter 25, Halachah 6.)
|
| 8. |
Although there is no utensil to cover there, since it is fit to cover a utensil one may take it to use for another purpose (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 306:7). Needless to say, one may carry it only less than four cubits.
|
| 9. |
As the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) emphasize, this leniency applies only to the broken pieces of a utensil. Since it was originally considered a utensil, it remains in this category as long as it can serve a useful purpose. In contrast, a stone is not considered a utensil, even though it is fit to cover another utensil, unless it is designated for this purpose.
|
| 10. |
Although it is useful, since its owner discarded it before the commencement of the Sabbath, there was no intent of using it at the time the Sabbath commenced. Therefore, it becomes forbidden. (See Ramah, Orach Chayim 308:7.)
|
| 11. |
If, however, it is discarded on the Sabbath itself, its use is permitted, since at the time of the commencement of the Sabbath it was still deemed to be a useful article (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 12. |
Our translation is taken from the dictionary of Rabbi Tanchum of Jerusalem. The Maggid Mishneh renders the term מקורזלות as "sharp."
|
| 13. |
Although stones are not considered to be utensils and therefore may not ordinarily be carried, an exception is made in order to allow a person to take care of his basic hygienic needs.
Because of the advances in civilization, the situations described in this and the following halachah are no longer common practice. Nevertheless, the motivating principle behind these laws - that our Sages allowed certain leniencies for the sake of human dignity and hygiene - is pertinent at all times.
In this context, it is worthy to note the difference of opinion mentioned by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 312:1): According to one opinion, it is permitted to carry these stones only in one's own courtyard; i.e., only the prohibition against carrying stones is lifted. A second opinion, however, maintains that the prohibition against bringing an article from a carmelit into the private domain is also lifted in this instance. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 312:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 312:8 favor the latter view.
|
| 14. |
I.e., the size of all three together may not exceed a fistful (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 15. |
Rashi (Shabbat 81a) relates that since the earth is likely to crumble - and then it will no longer be useful for this purpose - the prohibition against carrying it was never lifted.
|
| 16. |
Rashi (loc. cit.) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 312:1) explain that carrying the stones might entail extraordinary difficulty, which is normally forbidden on the Sabbath. An exception is made in this instance, however, for the reasons mentioned above.
|
| 17. |
There is no concern that one might be performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of grinding, nor of the forbidden labor of demolishing.
|
| 18. |
As a corollary to this principle, the Mishnah Berurah 312:6 mentions that it is permitted to carry toilet paper. Although paper is generally considered to be muktzeh, since the purpose for which this paper is used is clearly designated, it is not placed in this category. The Mishnah Berurah, however, emphasizes that tearing the paper on the Sabbath is forbidden.
|
| 19. |
Since a shard is sharp and might tear one's membranes (Rashi, Shabbat 82a).
|
| 20. |
Because in this instance the shard is smooth and will not tear one's membranes. Since the shard comes from a useful article, it is not muktzeh, as the stones are.
|
| 21. |
Since the grass is useful as animal fodder, it is not considered muktzeh. Therefore, using it is preferable to using the stone. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 312:6), which states that one may use grasses that are still attached to the ground, provided one does not uproot them.
|
| 22. |
If the grasses are firm, there is a possibility that their sharp edges will perforate one's membranes (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:5).
|
| 23. |
The Ramban states that if they were discarded before the commencement of the Sabbath, they are considered to be muktzeh. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim308:12).
|
| 24. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites the Ra'avad who states that this refers to the remnants of a tallit used for prayer, which are inappropriate to be used to clean filth. The Rambam, however, interprets this as referring to the remnants of all garments. Although the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:13) quotes both views, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:41 favors the Rambam's opinion, explaining that even though smaller pieces of cloth are fit to be used to clean filth, this does not cause them to be considered to be a כלי, "useful article," unless they are explicitly designated for this purpose. Therefore, they are placed in the category of muktzeh like stones.
|
| 25. |
The minimum size of a piece of cloth that is susceptible to ritual impurity (Hilchot Keilim 22:20).
|
| 26. |
Hilchot Keilim (op. cit.) mentions that a cloth three thumbbreadths by three thumbbreadths is fit only for the poor. A rich person, by contrast, will not consider a cloth valuable until it is a minimum of three handbreadths by three handbreadths. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:41 and the Mishnah Berurah 308:52 also apply these concepts with regard to our present halachah.
|
| 27. |
See Chapter 25, Halachah 12.
|
| 28. |
And thus perform a forbidden labor. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 308:16) applies this concept to other articles - e.g., a bench that has one leg broken off.
|
| 29. |
Hence, moving it at all is forbidden. (See Hilchot Eruvin 3:7, from which one can derive the following: A ladder leading to a loft is usually left there permanently. Therefore, it is a heavy structure that is not considered to be a כלי, a utensil, but rather a permanent part of the building's structure.)
|
| 30. |
Since it is usually moved from dovecote to dovecote, it is light and is therefore considered to be a כלי. Accordingly, if there were no room for suspicion that one would snare doves, one would be allowed to move it.
The Maggid Mishneh draws attention to Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 5:4, which states that the only reason the Sages permitted moving such a ladder on a holiday was to allow for festive joy (i.e., to permit one to bring doves to slaughter). Therefore, on the Sabbath, when slaughtering is forbidden, there is no reason to allow one to move such a ladder. A household ladder, by contrast, may be moved (Mishnah Berurah 308:78).
|
| 31. |
The Rambam describes the construction and use of such a rod in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 17:3).
|
| 32. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:1), which states that for a reed to be "categorized as a utensil," it is not sufficient merely to think about using it for that purpose; one must actually adapt the article to fit the purpose for which it is intended to be used.
|
| 33. |
I.e., it is used as a door stop. Thus, it resembles slightly the bolt mentioned in the following halachah.
|
| 34. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:1) mentions two perspectives on this matter. Rashi states that one must prepare the reed for use as a utensil that can be employed for other purposes. Otherwise, using it as a door stop will be considered to be building. Rabbenu Tam explains that as long as the reed is prepared for use as a door stop, it is sufficient.
Although in this halachah, the Rambam's perspective appears to follow that of Rashi, in his gloss to Chapter 23, Halachah 13, the Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam follows the position of Rabbenu Tam. The later authorities agree that one may rely on Rabbenu Tam's view (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 313:2; Mishnah Berurah 313:7).
|
| 35. |
Rashi and others explain that the difficulty with the doors mentioned in this halachah is that since they do not meet all the criteria of ordinary doors, closing an opening with them resembles building. The Rambam, by contrast, appears to maintain that the difficulty is whether doors of this nature are considered to be כלים, useful articles, or not. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim313:3) follows Rashi's view.
|
| 36. |
If the board used as a door lacks any sign of a hinge, it is not considered a כלי, a useful article, and carrying it is forbidden. In this instance, since it has the mark of a hinge, it was obviously used as a door in the past. Therefore, if it meets either of the other conditions mentioned by the Rambam, it may be moved on the Sabbath.
|
| 37. |
Our translation is based on Rashi (Eruvin 101a) and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.). More precisely, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 10:8), the Rambam defines the Hebrew term מוקצה as "a distinct place that is not used for any purpose, nor is it required by its owner - e.g., a barn or stable."
The Shulchan Aruch emphasizes that the ruling concerning moving the partition used as a door is dependent on the fact that this enclosure is used infrequently. If an entrance that is frequently used were closed with such a partition, it would be considered as having been set aside for this purpose. However, since this is not the case, there is reason for the restrictions mentioned.
|
| 38. |
According to the Rambam, the fact that they were attached to the wall before the Sabbath indicates that they were intended to be used as a door. According to Rashi, it is sufficient to indicate that one is not building on the Sabbath.
|
| 39. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam's wording appears to indicate that two criteria must be met: The partition used as a door must have at least the remnant of a hinge, and it must either be attached to the wall or be suspended above the ground. He objects to this conception, explaining that based on Eruvin 101a, it would appear that if a partition is suspended above the ground, it is considered to be a door even if it never had a hinge.
The Maggid Mishneh states, however, that it is possible that the Rambam also shares this conception. (Merkevet HaMishneh postulates that he surely does. Otherwise, the Rambam's words would be redundant, since it is impossible for a door to be suspended above the ground unless it hangs from the wall or is attached by a hinge.) The Maggid Mishneh's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:3).
|
| 40. |
As in the previous halachah, Rashi and others explain that the reason the prohibition was instituted is that this door does not resemble an ordinary door. Hence, one appears to be building when closing it. The Rambam, by contrast, explains that the prohibition stems from the fact that the door is not prepared to serve as a כלי, a useful article. Therefore, moving it is forbidden, as explained in the previous chapter.
|
| 41. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:4), which states that even if the entrance has a doorstep, since it is uncommon to use a door made of a single piece of wood, such a door may not be used on the Sabbath. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues, this prohibition applies even when the door has a hinge.
The Magen Avraham 313:8 and other later authorities, however, maintain that one may rely on the Rambam's opinion if a door is used frequently as an entrance and an exit. This is surely true in the present age, when it is very common for doors to be made from a single piece of wood.
|
| 42. |
Eruvin 10:10 relates that there was a synagogue in Tiberias that had such a bolt. Its congregants refrained from using it on the Sabbath until Rabban Gamliel and the elders ruled that using it was permitted.
In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit:1) is more stringent and requires the bolt to be tied to the door even when it has a bulb at the end. (See the following halachah and notes.)
|
| 43. |
For the fact that it is tied to the door clearly indicates that it has been set aside for a purpose.
|
| 44. |
This refers to an instance where the bolt is attached to a rope that is, in turn, attached to the door. If the bolt is removed by detaching the rope from the door and carrying the bolt and the rope together, the presence of the rope serves as an indication that the bolt has been set aside to be used for a significant purpose. Therefore, there is no prohibition involved. If, as in the following clause, the bolt is detached from the rope, there is nothing to indicate that it is a useful article. Hence, it is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's interpretation of the Hebrew ניטל באגדו. Instead, he offers a different explanation: that the rope with which the beam is attached to the door with a knot that is strong enough to hold the beam when it is removed. This is the interpretation that Rav Yosef Karo follows in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:1).
|
| 45. |
It was permitted to use such a bolt in the Temple, because none of the Rabbinic prohibitions in the category of sh'vut were in effect there. Outside of the Temple, using such a bolt was prohibited for the reasons mentioned by the Rambam (or according to others, because this resembles building, Eruvin 102a).
|
| 46. |
Rav Moshe Cohen of Lunil and others question the distinction between this halachah and Chapter 22, Halachah 30, which mentions a piece of wood that is used to close a window. TheMaggid Mishneh explains that in that instance, leniency was granted only when the piece of wood is prepared for that purpose. In the present halachah, by contrast, nothing has been done to indicate that the bolt is set aside for purposeful use.
It must be emphasized that the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) takes a different perspective and maintains that the restrictions were instituted lest it appear that one is building when using such a door. According to this perspective, unless the conditions mentioned above are met, it is forbidden to use this bolt, even if it was prepared for this purpose before the Sabbath.
|
| 47. |
This applies even when one has not lit this candelabrum at the commencement of the particular Sabbath in question. Had the candelabrum been lit at that time, carrying it would have been forbidden, as reflected by Chapter 25, Halachah 23.
|
| 48. |
See Chapter 22, Halachah 26.
|
| 49. |
The Kessef Mishneh questions the phrase "because of its weight," for seemingly Shabbat 46a considers that as another rationale for stringency, not at all dependent on the fact that the candelabrum has grooves. Indeed, these rationales offered by two separate sages seem to be mutually exclusive. He and other commentators attempt to resolve this difficulty. Rav Kapach notes that many authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah omit this problematic phrase.
|
| 50. |
In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 279:7), Rav Yosef Karo follows the reasoning he mentions in his Kessef Mishneh and forbids the use of all candelabra with grooves, whether large or small.
|
| 51. |
A new shoe will most likely be firmly fixed on the shoemaker's block, and removing it would necessitate moving the block. This is, nevertheless, permitted, because the shoemaker's block is considered to be a utensil that is used for a forbidden intent. Accordingly, it may be moved when one desires to use the space it takes up - in this instance, the space within the shoe where one puts one's foot [Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 308:14)].
|
| 52. |
Rashi (Shabbat 141a) explains that putting clothes in a press is forbidden, because it appears to be an activity performed for the sake of the weekdays that follow, and not for sake of the Sabbath itself.
|
| 53. |
Rashi (loc. cit.) offers a different rationale for this prohibition: that setting up a professional press resembles building and opening it resembles the labor of demolishing. The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 302:4) quotes Rashi's view.
|
| 54. |
Shabbat 49a,b mentions the use of such wool for the purpose of insulating food to keep it warm.
|
| 55. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 259:1), which follows the ruling of Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Shabbat 49a), who permits picking up such rolls if they are used as insulation, unless they are explicitly set aside for sale. Although these rolls are generally used for spinning wool, since they are not very valuable, the fact that they are employed for the purpose of insulation is sufficient for them to be considered to have been set aside for that purpose (Mishnah Berurah 259:6).
|
| 56. |
Note the Magen Avraham 259:2, which states that they must be set aside to be used for this purpose - e.g., insulation - forever. It is not sufficient that one decide to use them for this purpose on merely one Sabbath.
|
| 57. |
These are likely to be used as mats to sit on (Shabbat, loc. cit.).
|
| 58. |
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 308:25) mentions an opinion that states that this leniency applies only to cow hides, but not to sheep hides. The later authorities, however, do not accept this view (Mishnah Berurah 308:107).
|
| 59. |
It would appear that the Rambam's intent is that although these repulsive entities should be forbidden to be removed since they are not כלים, it is permitted to remove them because of the discomfort their presence causes.
|
| 60. |
I.e., this term is used as an idiom to describe all repulsive entities.
|
| 61. |
Note Chapter 11, Halachah 4, for a more specific definition of the Hebrew wording used.
|
| 62. |
The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling only when the warming-pan has coals that had turned to ash before the commencement of the Sabbath. The Ra'avad offers a different explanation of the leniency, stating that it is granted because the warming-pan is the base for a permitted article (the ash that existed before the commencement of the Sabbath) and a forbidden article (the remainder of the ash and the chips of wood). The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 310:8) quotes the Ra'avad's interpretation.
|
| 63. |
Our translation is based on the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 308:36).
|
| 64. |
Although the oil had not been separated before the commencement of the Sabbath, one is allowed to partake of it on the Sabbath. As mentioned previously, the Rambam follows the view of Rabbi Shimon (Shabbat 19b) who permits the use of nolad (objects that come into existence on the Sabbath).
|
| 65. |
In contrast to utensils that are forbidden in this instance, as mentioned in Chapter 25, Halachah 9.
|
| 66. |
See, however, the following halachah.
|
| 67. |
As examples of this principle, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 310:2) states that one may pick up seeds from the ground which fell before the Sabbath that have not become rooted or eggs that were laid before the Sabbath from beneath a chicken. (See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:18.)
|
| 68. |
I.e., fresh grapes and figs and dried grapes and figs are desirable foods. In the process by which these fruits dry out, they pass through a stage when they become repulsive.
|
| 69. |
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) states that there are two drawbacks to such fruit: a) it is unfit to be eaten; b) the owners intentionally set it aside, not to be used until it became dried. Therefore, the restriction is placed upon it.
|
| 70. |
See Hilchot Rotzeach 11:9, which explains that partaking of such foods is forbidden, because it is possible that a poisonous snake deposited venom there.
|
| 71. |
See Chapter 19, Halachah 14.
|
| 72. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 12 and Chapter 25, Halachah 10.
|
| 73. |
From the use of the word "begin," the Beis Yosef (Orach Chayim 331) derives the following ruling: If one begins emptying the storehouse before the commencement of the Sabbath, one may complete the removal of its contents on the Sabbath, even if one's purpose is not directly associated with a mitzvah.
The Turei Zahav 331:1 objects to this leniency, however, for this appears to be unnecessary work that should not be permitted on the Sabbath.
|
| 74. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 18:1, based on Shabbat 127a), the Rambam explains the reason that this restriction was instituted. It is very likely that there are grooves or cavities in the floor of a storeroom, and a person would be tempted to level the floor if he were allowed to empty the entire room. The Turei Zahav 333:1 explains that the prohibition was instituted to prevent a person from exerting himself excessively.
Significantly, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 331:1 quotes both rationales, indicating that they are not mutually exclusive.
|
| 75. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that this number is not intended as a limitation. Indeed, every person may take out as many containers as he needs at one time.
It must be emphasized that this interpretation is dependent on a version of Shabbat 126b-127a that is not accepted by many other authorities, including the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim333:1).
|
| 76. |
I.e., a single individual is not allowed to clear out the entire storehouse. Instead, each individual - or a substitute for him - must clear out the area he needs. Although one person may remove as many containers as he can carry at one time, he may not, however, return to take more (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.). See also the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim333:3).
|
| 77. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 2.
|
| 78. |
See the notes on Chapter 3, Halachah 12, for a more specific definition of the type of bean referred to.
|
| 79. |
Because they are very bitter, they are not eaten at all (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 80. |
A shrub whose roots penetrate deeply into the ground.
|
| 81. |
The Maggid Mishneh objects to the mention of mustard seed. Although it is used as food for doves, it is also commonly used to prepare food for humans. There is a general principle that whenever a substance is considered to be food both for animals and for humans, it is considered to be set aside for use for humans and not for animals. The Kessef Mishneh, however, justifies the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 82. |
A person should throw the shells - and similarly, any other waste left after eating - over his shoulder so that he will not create a repulsive situation on the table before him. For, as mentioned above (Halachah 13), at the outset creating a repulsive situation is forbidden (Maggid Mishneh). Significantly, this point is not emphasized by the later authorities.
|
| 83. |
Or dogs (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:31).
|
| 84. |
According to most authorities, although meat must be salted to remove the blood before cooking, there is no prohibition against eating uncooked unsalted meat. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 67:2.) Nevertheless, according to the Rambam (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 6:12), it is necessary to salt raw meat before one eats it. From the juxtaposition of these two rulings, Rav Kapach derives that, according to the Rambam, it is permitted to salt meat on the Sabbath to remove its blood.
|
| 85. |
For it is unfit for both human and animal consumption.
|
| 86. |
Rav Kapach explains that the intent is not that the broken glass is actually considered to be food by the ostriches. Instead, the intent is that ostriches have strong digestive organs, which will not be torn by the glass. As such, the glass will assist them in the process of digestion, because it will help shred the other food that they have consumed.
|
| 87. |
A wild vegetable of the onion family (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 18:1).
|
| 88. |
Nevertheless, a person who owns a species of animal that is rarely found may carry whatever food is necessary for it, even though it is not usually consumed by other animals (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:29).
|
| 89. |
Preparation is necessary, because we assume that these substances would ordinarily be used for kindling (Maggid Mishneh). Note the Magen Avraham 308:53, which states that straw is usually employed at present as a mattress or for animal fodder. Hence, it is permitted to be carried even though it was not prepared before the Sabbath.
|
| 90. |
At times these substances are used for kindling, at times for animal fodder, and at times for other purposes that serve humans.
|
| 91. |
Since these substances are less likely to be used for kindling, everything depends on the person's intent when he brought them home. Note the Magen Avraham 321:1, which states that if one brings them home without any specific intent, they are considered to be animal fodder. (See also Chapter 21, Halachah 19.)
|
| 92. |
This is forbidden, lest one follow the same practice in an earthen feeding trough.
|
| 93. |
Note the Mishneh Berurah 324:41, which gives another reason for the prohibition against shifting food to the side: Some of the straw has surely become repulsive and is no longer fit to be carried.
|
| 94. |
For an ox will not hesitate to eat food from before a donkey.
|
| 95. |
Because oxen chew their cud.
|
| 96. |
The Mishnah Berurah 324:37 emphasizes that the intent is that an animal of another species will not eat food that is soiled with the spittle of an ox. One ox will, however, eat food that is soiled with the spittle of another ox.
|
| 97. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that, in contrast to a meat hook, a fish hook is not a proper utensil and will be discarded after use. Hence, it may not be carried on the Sabbath. Rav Kapach objects to this interpretation, noting that if this explanation were correct, it would have been more appropriate to state this halachah in Chapter 25, which differentiates between entities that are considered utensils and those that are not.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 310:1) states that it is permitted to carry a fish hook, because it is not considered too repulsive to move.
|
| 98. |
All the leniencies mentioned in this halachah are intended to inhibit the process of the corpse's decomposition.
|
| 99. |
Moving the pillow, and not the corpse, by hand. Although the corpse will also be moved, this is of no consequence.
|
| 100. |
If a corpse is covered by blankets or sheets, it is possible that they will serve as insulator and keep heat from diffusing, thus causing the corpse to decompose more quickly.
|
| 101. |
For this would involve moving a limb (Rashi, Shabbat 151b).
|
| 102. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:13 and the Mishnah Berurah 311:22 relate that, based on the Zohar, it has become customary to close a corpse's eyes and straighten its limbs on the Sabbath, for the failure to do so will lead to danger.
|
| 103. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311:4), which mentions an opinion that allows a corpse to be carried if it is dressed in the clothes it wore while it was alive. Shulchan Aruch HaRav311:10 accepts this ruling; the Mishnah Berurah 311:16, by contrast, does not.
|
| 104. |
Thus, it is as if the corpse were merely a medium to enable one to carry the bread or the baby.
|
| 105. |
This refers to carrying a corpse within a private domain. (See also Halachah 23 and notes.)
|
| 106. |
If a baby or a loaf of bread is not available, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311:1) allows one to move a corpse by shifting it from one bed to another. The Ramah (loc. cit.:2) offers another alternative - to have a gentile carry the corpse.
|
| 107. |
Spreading the mats constitutes the construction of a temporary tent. This is permitted only because of the discomfort suffered by a living person, and not for the sake of preserving the corpse. Therefore, it is necessary to undertake all the stages in this process, so that it will not be obvious that this is being done for the sake of the corpse (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:11; Mishnah Berurah 311:19).
|
| 108. |
Or will shortly reach that state (Ramah, Orach Chayim 311:2).
|
| 109. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not mention carrying the corpse with a baby or a loaf of bread on it, as in Halachah 21. The commentaries differ on whether this is necessary. The Rashba maintains that it is desirable to place another article on the corpse, so that one will be carrying the corpse for the sake of a permitted article.
The Ramban, by contrast, explains that since one is carrying the corpse into a carmelit and violating a Rabbinic prohibition associated with a forbidden labor, it is preferable to minimize the violation of that prohibition by not carrying another article. Although the prohibition against carrying an entity (the corpse) that is muktzeh will be violated in a more serious way, it is preferable to violate that prohibition (which is associated with a sh'vut) than the prohibition against carrying into a carmelit, which has its source in the forbidden labor of transferring articles.
Although the Rashba's view is accepted by the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:2;Mishnah Berurah 311:9), one may rely on the Ramban's view if there is not another useful article available, and carry the corpse out without anything else.
|
| 110. |
The corpse may be carried into a carmelit, but not into a public domain (Shulchan Aruch HaRav311:5; Mishnah Berurah 311:10).
The Tur allows carrying a corpse even into the public domain; since one does not intend to use the corpse, carrying it is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and the prohibition against performing such an activity is waived in this instance. The Rambam would surely not accept this premise, for he maintains that one is liable according to the Torah for performing a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Even the later Ashkenazic authorities who accept the basic principle of the Tur do not accept this leniency.
|
| 111. |
See Hilchot Mamrim 1:2, which interprets this as a commandment prohibiting us from transgressing a directive instituted by the Rabbis. All the Rabbinic commandments have their source in this mitzvah from the Torah. See also Hilchot Kilayim 10:29.
|
| 112. |
The commentaries emphasize that this ruling indicates that according to the Rambam, the main source for leniency is the regard for the honor of the living, that they are forced to remain in a house permeated by the odor of a decaying corpse.
[It is possible to explain that according to the view of the Ramah cited in Note 106, the honor of the corpse is also considered, and removing it is allowed even if the people in the home have an alternative place to spend the Sabbath (Mishnah Berurah 311:7)].
|
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Shabbat, Tevet 21, 5776 · 02 January 2016
"Today's Day"
Tuesday Tevet 21 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 104-105.
Tanya: Yet, because the (p. 47)...as explained earlier. (p. 49).
The Rebbe, R. Yosef Yitzchak, once met a watercarrier carrying full buckets and remarked: When one encounters water there is an appropriate maxim of the Baal Shem Tov that he should say, namely: "When encountering water one should say that the Baal Shem says that it is a sign of blessing."---------------------• Daily Thought:
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Shabbat, Tevet 21, 5776 · 02 January 2016
"Today's Day"
Tuesday Tevet 21 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 104-105.
Tanya: Yet, because the (p. 47)...as explained earlier. (p. 49).
The Rebbe, R. Yosef Yitzchak, once met a watercarrier carrying full buckets and remarked: When one encounters water there is an appropriate maxim of the Baal Shem Tov that he should say, namely: "When encountering water one should say that the Baal Shem says that it is a sign of blessing."---------------------• Daily Thought:
A Real Fool
To live with the truth, you must be a fool. Because the truth is infinite, and we are all fools before the infinite.
What kind of fool?
A fool who does good with simple sincerity
and disregard for worldly opinion.
Learn from this world we live in:
The world is a fool—only that it is a mindless, stupid fool.
You be a fool who reaches beyond the mind.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment