Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1812)
The founder of Chabad Chassidism, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812), passed away on the eve of the 24th of Tevet, at approximately 10:30 pm, shortly after reciting theHavdalah prayer marking the end of the Shabbat. The Rebbe was in the village of Peyena,fleeing Napoleon's armies, which had swept through the Rebbe's hometown of Liadi three months earlier in their advance towards Moscow. He was in his 68th year at the time of his passing, and was succeeded by his son, Rabbi DovBer of Lubavitch.
Links: A brief biography; The Ascent of the Tzaddik; The Physical World According to Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi; 28 Teachings; more on Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi
• Safed Earthquake (1837)
A devastating earthquake struck northern Israel, killing four thousand Jews in Safed and between 700 to 1000 Jews in Tiberias. Many of the survivors migrated to Hebron, rejuvenating the developing Chabad community established there 10 years earlier by the second Rebbe of Chabad, Rabbi DovBer of Lubavitch.
Link: A Safed website
• Mt. Sinai Hospital (1852)
One of the first hospitals in America under Jewish direction, Mount Sinai Hospital, was founded in New York on this date in 1852.
Link: Health, Illness and Healing
Daily Quote:
From the time that G-d said to our father Abraham, "Go from your land..." and "Abraham went on, journeying southward", began the process of "birurim" -- of extracting the sparks of holiness that are scattered throughout the universe and buried within the material existence... By the decree of Divine providence, a person wanders about in his travels to those places where the sparks that are to be extracted by him await their redemption...[Rabbi Sholom DovBer of Lubavitch (1860-1920)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Va'eira, 3rd Portion Exodus 6:29-7:7 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class
• Exodus Chapter 6
29that the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "I am the Lord. Speak to Pharaoh everything that I speak to you." כטוַיְדַבֵּ֧ר יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹ֖ר אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה דַּבֵּ֗ר אֶל־פַּרְעֹה֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם אֵ֛ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י דֹּבֵ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ:
that the Lord spoke: This is the very same speech stated above, “Come, speak to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt” (verse 11), but since [Scripture] interrupted the topic in order to trace their [Moses’ and Aaron’s] lineage, it returned to it [the statement, in order] to resume with it. וידבר ה': הוא הדבור עצמו האמור למעלה (פסוק יא) בא דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים, אלא מתוך שהפסיק הענין כדי ליחסם, חזר הענין עליו להתחיל בו:
I am the Lord: I have the power to send you and [also] to fulfill the words of My mission. אני ה': כדאי אני לשלחך ולקיים דברי שליחותי:
30But Moses said before the Lord, "Behold, I am of closed lips; so how will Pharaoh hearken to me?" לוַיֹּ֥אמֶר משֶׁ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה הֵ֤ן אֲנִי֙ עֲרַ֣ל שְׂפָתַ֔יִם וְאֵ֕יךְ יִשְׁמַ֥ע אֵלַ֖י פַּרְעֹֽה:
But Moses said before the Lord: This is the statement [that Moses] stated above: “Behold, the children of Israel did not hearken to me” (verse 12). Scripture repeats it here because it had interrupted the topic [for the reasons given above], and this is customary, similar to a person who says, “Let us return to the earlier [topic].” ויאמר משה לפני ה': היא האמירה שאמר למעלה (פסוק יב) הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, ושנה הכתוב כאן כיון שהפסיק הענין, וכך היא השיטה כאדם האומר נחזור על הראשונות:
Exodus Chapter 7
1The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker. אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה רְאֵ֛ה נְתַתִּ֥יךָ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לְפַרְעֹ֑ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֖יךָ יִֽהְיֶ֥ה נְבִיאֶֽךָ:
I have made you a lord over Pharaoh: Heb. אֱלֹהִים, a judge and a chastiser, to chastise him with plagues and torments. — [from Onkelos and Tanchuma, Va’era 9] נתתיך א-להים לפרעה: שופט ורודה לרדותו במכות ויסורין:
will be your speaker: Heb. נְבִיאֶ, as the Targum renders: מְתוּרְגְמָנָ, your interpreter. Every expression of נְבוּאָה (prophecy) denotes a man who publicly announces to the people words of reproof. It is derived from the root of “I create the speech (נִיב) of the lips” (Isa. 57:19); “speaks (יָנוּב) wisdom” (Prov. 10:31); “And he (Samuel) finished prophesying (מֵהִתְנַבוּת) ” (I Sam. 10:13). In Old French this is called predi(je) ir, advocate. — [based on Onkelos] יהיה נביאך: כתרגומו מתורגמנך, וכן כל לשון נבואה אדם המכריז ומשמיע לעם דברי תוכחות, והוא מגזרת (ישעיה נז יט) ניב שפתים, (משלי י לא) ינוב חכמה, ויכל מהתנבות דשמואל (א' י יג). ובלעז קוראין לו פרקייר"א [מליץ ומטיף]:
2You shall speak all that I command you, and Aaron, your brother, shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel out of his land. באַתָּ֣ה תְדַבֵּ֔ר אֵ֖ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֲצַוֶּ֑ךָּ וְאַֽהֲרֹ֤ן אָחִ֨יךָ֙ יְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְשִׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵֽאַרְצֽוֹ:
You shall speak: once every message, as you have heard it from My mouth, and Aaron, your brother, will interpret it and explain it in Pharaoh’s ears. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 10] אתה תדבר: פעם אחת כל שליחות ושליחות כפי ששמעתו מפי, ואהרן אחיך ימליצנו ויטעימנו באזני פרעה:
3But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will increase My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. גוַֽאֲנִ֥י אַקְשֶׁ֖ה אֶת־לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֧י אֶת־אֹֽתֹתַ֛י וְאֶת־מֽוֹפְתַ֖י בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
But I will harden: Since he [Pharaoh] behaved wickedly and defied Me, and I know full well that there is no delight among the nations to make a wholehearted attempt to repent, it is better for Me that his heart be hardened, so that [I can] increase My signs and My wonders in him, and you will recognize My mighty deeds, and so is the custom of the Holy One, blessed be He. He brings retribution on the nations so that Israel should hear and fear, as it is said: “I have cut off nations; their towers have become desolate… I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, you will accept reproof’” (Zeph. 3:6, 7). Nevertheless, in the first five plagues, it does not say, “And the Lord strengthened Pharaoh’s heart,” but “Pharaoh’s heart remained steadfast.” -[from Exod. Rabbah 13:3, 11:6; Tanchuma Buber, Va’era 22; Yeb. 63a] ואני אקשה: מאחר שהרשיע והתריס כנגדי, וגלוי לפני שאין נחת רוח באומות עובדי עבודה זרה לתת לב שלם לשוב, טוב לי שיתקשה לבו למען הרבות בו אותותי ותכירו אתם את גבורותי. וכן מדתו של הקב"ה מביא פורענות על האומות עובדי עבודה זרה כדי שישמעו ישראל וייראו, שנאמר (צפניה ג ו) הכרתי גוים נשמו פנותם וגו', (שם ז) אמרתי אך תיראי אותי תקחי מוסר, ואף על פי כן בחמש מכות הראשונות לא נאמר ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה, אלא ויחזק לב פרעה:
4But Pharaoh will not hearken to you, and I will lay My hand upon the Egyptians, and I will take My legions, My people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt with great judgments. דוְלֹא־יִשְׁמַ֤ע אֲלֵכֶם֙ פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְנָֽתַתִּ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וְהֽוֹצֵאתִ֨י אֶת־צִבְאֹתַ֜י אֶת־עַמִּ֤י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בִּשְׁפָטִ֖ים גְּדֹלִֽים:
5And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I stretch forth My hand over Egypt, and I will take the children of Israel out of their midst." הוְיָֽדְע֤וּ מִצְרַ֨יִם֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה בִּנְטֹתִ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י עַל־מִצְרָ֑יִם וְהֽוֹצֵאתִ֥י אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִתּוֹכָֽם:
My hand: A real hand, to strike them. את ידי: יד ממש להכות בהם:
6Moses and Aaron did; as the Lord commanded them, so they did. ווַיַּ֥עַשׂ משֶׁ֖ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֑ן כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֹתָ֖ם כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ:
7And Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron was eighty three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh.
זוּמשֶׁה֙ בֶּן־שְׁמֹנִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה וְאַ֣הֲרֹ֔ן בֶּן־שָׁל֥שׁ וּשְׁמֹנִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה בְּדַבְּרָ֖ם אֶל־פַּרְעֹֽה:
---------------------
Chumash: Va'eira, 3rd Portion Exodus 6:29-7:7 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class
• Exodus Chapter 6
29that the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "I am the Lord. Speak to Pharaoh everything that I speak to you." כטוַיְדַבֵּ֧ר יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹ֖ר אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה דַּבֵּ֗ר אֶל־פַּרְעֹה֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם אֵ֛ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י דֹּבֵ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ:
that the Lord spoke: This is the very same speech stated above, “Come, speak to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt” (verse 11), but since [Scripture] interrupted the topic in order to trace their [Moses’ and Aaron’s] lineage, it returned to it [the statement, in order] to resume with it. וידבר ה': הוא הדבור עצמו האמור למעלה (פסוק יא) בא דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים, אלא מתוך שהפסיק הענין כדי ליחסם, חזר הענין עליו להתחיל בו:
I am the Lord: I have the power to send you and [also] to fulfill the words of My mission. אני ה': כדאי אני לשלחך ולקיים דברי שליחותי:
30But Moses said before the Lord, "Behold, I am of closed lips; so how will Pharaoh hearken to me?" לוַיֹּ֥אמֶר משֶׁ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה הֵ֤ן אֲנִי֙ עֲרַ֣ל שְׂפָתַ֔יִם וְאֵ֕יךְ יִשְׁמַ֥ע אֵלַ֖י פַּרְעֹֽה:
But Moses said before the Lord: This is the statement [that Moses] stated above: “Behold, the children of Israel did not hearken to me” (verse 12). Scripture repeats it here because it had interrupted the topic [for the reasons given above], and this is customary, similar to a person who says, “Let us return to the earlier [topic].” ויאמר משה לפני ה': היא האמירה שאמר למעלה (פסוק יב) הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, ושנה הכתוב כאן כיון שהפסיק הענין, וכך היא השיטה כאדם האומר נחזור על הראשונות:
Exodus Chapter 7
1The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker. אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה רְאֵ֛ה נְתַתִּ֥יךָ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לְפַרְעֹ֑ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֖יךָ יִֽהְיֶ֥ה נְבִיאֶֽךָ:
I have made you a lord over Pharaoh: Heb. אֱלֹהִים, a judge and a chastiser, to chastise him with plagues and torments. — [from Onkelos and Tanchuma, Va’era 9] נתתיך א-להים לפרעה: שופט ורודה לרדותו במכות ויסורין:
will be your speaker: Heb. נְבִיאֶ, as the Targum renders: מְתוּרְגְמָנָ, your interpreter. Every expression of נְבוּאָה (prophecy) denotes a man who publicly announces to the people words of reproof. It is derived from the root of “I create the speech (נִיב) of the lips” (Isa. 57:19); “speaks (יָנוּב) wisdom” (Prov. 10:31); “And he (Samuel) finished prophesying (מֵהִתְנַבוּת) ” (I Sam. 10:13). In Old French this is called predi(je) ir, advocate. — [based on Onkelos] יהיה נביאך: כתרגומו מתורגמנך, וכן כל לשון נבואה אדם המכריז ומשמיע לעם דברי תוכחות, והוא מגזרת (ישעיה נז יט) ניב שפתים, (משלי י לא) ינוב חכמה, ויכל מהתנבות דשמואל (א' י יג). ובלעז קוראין לו פרקייר"א [מליץ ומטיף]:
2You shall speak all that I command you, and Aaron, your brother, shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel out of his land. באַתָּ֣ה תְדַבֵּ֔ר אֵ֖ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֲצַוֶּ֑ךָּ וְאַֽהֲרֹ֤ן אָחִ֨יךָ֙ יְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְשִׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵֽאַרְצֽוֹ:
You shall speak: once every message, as you have heard it from My mouth, and Aaron, your brother, will interpret it and explain it in Pharaoh’s ears. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 10] אתה תדבר: פעם אחת כל שליחות ושליחות כפי ששמעתו מפי, ואהרן אחיך ימליצנו ויטעימנו באזני פרעה:
3But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will increase My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. גוַֽאֲנִ֥י אַקְשֶׁ֖ה אֶת־לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֧י אֶת־אֹֽתֹתַ֛י וְאֶת־מֽוֹפְתַ֖י בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
But I will harden: Since he [Pharaoh] behaved wickedly and defied Me, and I know full well that there is no delight among the nations to make a wholehearted attempt to repent, it is better for Me that his heart be hardened, so that [I can] increase My signs and My wonders in him, and you will recognize My mighty deeds, and so is the custom of the Holy One, blessed be He. He brings retribution on the nations so that Israel should hear and fear, as it is said: “I have cut off nations; their towers have become desolate… I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, you will accept reproof’” (Zeph. 3:6, 7). Nevertheless, in the first five plagues, it does not say, “And the Lord strengthened Pharaoh’s heart,” but “Pharaoh’s heart remained steadfast.” -[from Exod. Rabbah 13:3, 11:6; Tanchuma Buber, Va’era 22; Yeb. 63a] ואני אקשה: מאחר שהרשיע והתריס כנגדי, וגלוי לפני שאין נחת רוח באומות עובדי עבודה זרה לתת לב שלם לשוב, טוב לי שיתקשה לבו למען הרבות בו אותותי ותכירו אתם את גבורותי. וכן מדתו של הקב"ה מביא פורענות על האומות עובדי עבודה זרה כדי שישמעו ישראל וייראו, שנאמר (צפניה ג ו) הכרתי גוים נשמו פנותם וגו', (שם ז) אמרתי אך תיראי אותי תקחי מוסר, ואף על פי כן בחמש מכות הראשונות לא נאמר ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה, אלא ויחזק לב פרעה:
4But Pharaoh will not hearken to you, and I will lay My hand upon the Egyptians, and I will take My legions, My people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt with great judgments. דוְלֹא־יִשְׁמַ֤ע אֲלֵכֶם֙ פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְנָֽתַתִּ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וְהֽוֹצֵאתִ֨י אֶת־צִבְאֹתַ֜י אֶת־עַמִּ֤י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בִּשְׁפָטִ֖ים גְּדֹלִֽים:
5And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I stretch forth My hand over Egypt, and I will take the children of Israel out of their midst." הוְיָֽדְע֤וּ מִצְרַ֨יִם֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה בִּנְטֹתִ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י עַל־מִצְרָ֑יִם וְהֽוֹצֵאתִ֥י אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִתּוֹכָֽם:
My hand: A real hand, to strike them. את ידי: יד ממש להכות בהם:
6Moses and Aaron did; as the Lord commanded them, so they did. ווַיַּ֥עַשׂ משֶׁ֖ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֑ן כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֹתָ֖ם כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ:
7And Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron was eighty three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh.
זוּמשֶׁה֙ בֶּן־שְׁמֹנִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה וְאַ֣הֲרֹ֔ן בֶּן־שָׁל֥שׁ וּשְׁמֹנִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה בְּדַבְּרָ֖ם אֶל־פַּרְעֹֽה:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 113 - 118
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 113
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 113
This psalm recounts some of the wonders of the exodus from Egypt.
1. Praise the Lord! Offer praise, you servants of the Lord; praise the Name of the Lord.
2. May the Name of the Lord be blessed from now and to all eternity.
3. From the rising of the sun to its setting, the Name of the Lord is praised.
4. The Lord is high above all nations; His glory transcends the heavens.
5. Who is like the Lord our God, Who dwells on high
6. [yet] looks down so low upon heaven and earth!
7. He raises the poor from the dust, lifts the destitute from the dunghill,
8. to seat them with nobles, with the nobles of His people.
9. He transforms the barren woman into a household, into a joyful mother of children. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 114
This psalm explains why the tribe of Judah merited kingship.
1. When Israel went out of Egypt, the House of Jacob from a people of a foreign tongue,
2. Judah became His holy [nation], Israel, His domain.
3. The sea saw and fled, the Jordan turned backward.
4. The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like young sheep.
5. What is the matter with you, O sea, that you flee; Jordan, that you turn backward;
6. mountains, that you skip like rams; hills, like young sheep?
7. [We do so] before the Master, the Creator of the earth, before the God of Jacob,
8. Who turns the rock into a pool of water, the flintstone into a water fountain.
Chapter 115
A prayer that God bring this long exile to an end, for the sake of His Name-that it not be desecrated.
1. Not for our sake, Lord, not for our sake, but for the sake of Your Name bestow glory, because of Your kindness and Your truth.
2. Why should the nations say, "Where, now, is their God?”
3. Indeed, our God is in heaven; whatever He desires, He does.
4. Their idols are of silver and gold, the product of human hands.
5. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
6. they have ears, but cannot hear; they have a nose, but cannot smell;
7. their hands cannot touch; their feet cannot walk; they can make no sound in their throat.
8. Those who make them will become like them-all who put their trust in them.
9. Israel, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
10. House of Aaron, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
11. You who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
12. The Lord who is ever mindful of us, may He bless: May He bless the House of Israel; may He bless the House of Aaron;
13. may He bless those who fear the Lord, the small with the great.
14. May the Lord increase [blessing] upon you, upon you and upon your children.
15. You are blessed by the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
16. The heavens are the Lord's heavens, but the earth He gave to the children of man.
17. The dead cannot praise the Lord, nor any who descend into the silence [of the grave].
18. But we will bless the Lord from now to eternity. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 116
This psalm contains magnificent praises to God. It also describes David's love for God, in light of all the miracles He performed for him. David does not know how to repay God, declaring it impossible to pay back for all God has done for him.
1. I would love if the Lord would listen to my voice, to my supplications;
2. if He would turn His ear to me on the days when I call.
3. The pangs of death encompassed me and the misery of the grave came upon me; I encounter trouble and sorrow.
4. I invoke the Name of the Lord, "Lord, I implore you, deliver my soul!”
5. The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is compassionate.
6. The Lord watches over the simpletons; I was brought low, and He saved me.
7. Return, my soul, to your tranquility, for the Lord has bestowed goodness upon you.
8. For You have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling.
9. I shall walk before the Lord in the lands of the living.
10. I had faith even when I declared, "I am greatly afflicted";
11. [even when] I said in my haste, "All men are deceitful.”
12. How can I repay the Lord for all His beneficences to me?
13. I will raise the cup of deliverance and proclaim the Name of the Lord.
14. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His people.
15. Grievous in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His pious ones.
16. I thank you, Lord, that since I am Your servant, I am Your servant the son of Your maidservant, You have loosened my bonds.
17. To You I will bring an offering of thanksgiving, and proclaim the Name of the Lord.
18. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His people,
19. in the courtyards of the House of the Lord, in the midst of Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 117
This psalm of two verses alludes to the Messianic era, when the Children of Israel will enjoy their former glory. All will praise God, in fulfillment of the verse, "All will then call in the Name of God."
1. Praise the Lord, all you nations; extol Him, all you peoples.
2. For His kindness was mighty over us, and the truth of the Lord is everlasting. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 118
This psalm describes David's immense trust in God. It also contains many praises to God, Who has fulfilled that which He has promised us.
1. Offer praise to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. Let Israel declare that His kindness is everlasting.
3. Let the House of Aaron declare that His kindness is everlasting.
4. Let those who fear the Lord declare that His kindness is everlasting.
5. From out of distress I called to God; with abounding relief, God answered me.
6. The Lord is with me, I do not fear-what can man do to me?
7. The Lord is with me among my helpers, and I will see [the downfall of] my enemies.
8. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in man.
9. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in nobles.
10. All the nations surrounded me, but in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
11. They surrounded me, they encompassed me, but in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
12. They surrounded me like bees, yet they shall be extinguished like fiery thorns; in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
13. You [my foes] repeatedly pushed me to fall, but the Lord helped me.
14. God is my strength and song, and He has been a help to me.
15. The sound of rejoicing and deliverance reverberates in the tents of the righteous, "The right hand of the Lord performs deeds of valor.
16. The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord performs deeds of valor!”
17. I shall not die, but I shall live and recount the deeds of God.
18. God has indeed chastised me, but He did not give me up to death.
19. Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter them and praise God.
20. This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous will enter it.
21. I offer thanks to You, for You have answered me, and You have been my deliverance.
22. The stone which the builders scorned has become the chief cornerstone.
23. From the Lord has this come about; it is wondrous in our eyes.
24. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us be glad and rejoice on it.
25. We implore You, Lord, deliver us. We implore You, Lord, grant us success.
26. Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord; we bless you from the House of the Lord.
27. The Lord is a benevolent God and He has given us light; bind the festival offering with cords until [you bring it to] the horns of the altar.
28. You are my God and I will praise You, my God-and I will exalt You.
29. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
---------------------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 13
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 13
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
• Tuesday, Tevet 24, 5776 · January 5, 2016
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
• Tuesday, Tevet 24, 5776 · January 5, 2016
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 13
In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe described the spiritual profile of the Beinoni. In the Beinoni’s heart, said the Alter Rebbe, evil desires may often arise, but his divine soul constantly prevents such desires from finding expression in actual thought, speech or action. On the contrary, these three soul-garments are the exclusive domain of the divine soul and are utilized by the Beinoni only for thought, speech and action of Torah study and the fulfillment of the mitzvot.
ובזה יובן לשון מאמר רז״ל: בינונים זה וזה שופטן פירוש: יצר טוב ויצר הרע
Accordingly, we may understand the comment of our Sages1 that “Beinonim are judged by both [their good and evil inclinations]” — both “judge” him and dictate his conduct. As Scriptural support for this contention, theTalmud cites:
דכתיב: כי יעמוד לימין אביון להושיע משופטי נפשו
For it is written:2 “He —the Almighty — stands at the right hand of the poor man, to save him from them that judge his soul.” The plural “them that judge” indicates the presence of two judges within the person, the evil inclination and the good.
We thus find that the Beinoni’s inclinations are described as his “judges”. Now, were the term Beinoni to be understood in its simple, literal sense of one who has an equal history of good deeds and bad, it should more properly be said that “theBeinoni is ruled by both [inclinations]”. For one to sin, his evil inclination must rule him; for him to do good his good inclination must rule. The Beinoni who supposedly does both, must be ruled (and not merely “judged”) by both.
However, according to the explanation of the term Beinoni given in the previous chapter, it is clear that, indeed, theBeinoni is merely judged by both inclinations, not ruled by both, as shall be explained presently.
ולא אמרו: זה וזה מושלים, חס ושלום
Note that [our Sages] did not say, “He is ruled by both the good inclination and the evil,” G‑d forbid,
כי כשיש איזו שליטה וממשלה ליצר הרע בעיר קטנה, אפילו לפי שעה קלה
because where the evil nature gains any rule and dominion, albeit momentarily, over the “small city,” i.e., whenever the evil rules one’s body (likened to a city which both the good inclination and the evil seek to conquer),
נקרא רשע באותה שעה
one is deemed “wicked” (rasha) at such times.
אלא היצר הרע אינו רק, על דרך משל, כמו שופט ודיין האומר דעתו במשפט
Rather, the evil inclination in the Beinoni is no more than, for example, a magistrate or judge who expresses his opinion on a point of law,
ואף על פי כן יכול להיות שלא יהיה פסק הלכה כך למעשה, מפני שיש עוד שופט ודיין החולק עליו
yet in fact his decision is not necessarily final, for there is another magistrate or judge who disagrees with him.
וצריך להכריע ביניהם, והלכה כדברי המכריע
It then becomes necessary, in order to formulate a binding decision, to arbitrate between the two, and the final verdict will rest with the arbitrator.
כך היצר הרע אומר דעתו בחלל השמאלי שבלב
Similarly, in the battle between the evil inclination and the good: The evil inclination states its opinion in the left part of the [Beinoni’s] heart, i.e., it creates an evil desire in his heart and demands that he act accordingly, thus rendering “judgment” as to his future conduct.
ומהלב עולה למוח להרהר בו
From the heart [the desire] ascends to the mind for contemplation. This ascent is automatic; whenever a desire is awakened in the heart, the brain will contemplate it.
ומיד חולק עליו השופט השני, שהוא הנפש האלקית שבמוח
Immediately upon its ascent to the brain it is challenged by the second “judge”, the divine soul [residing] in the brain,
המתפשט בחלל הימני שבלב, מקום משכן היצר הטוב
which extends into the right part of the heart where the good inclination abides (i.e., reveals itself).
The good inclination is actually the voice of the divine soul’s emotional attributes, and is hence active in the right part of the heart; see ch. 9. The good inclination thus battles the evil, ensuring that the latter’s passion not be realized, for the “opinion” of the good inclination is that all of the body’s faculties and organs be utilized only for matters of holiness.
והלכה כדברי המכריע, הוא הקב״ה, העוזרו להיצר טוב
The final verdict rests with the arbitrator — the Holy One, blessed be He, who comes to the aid of the good inclination, enabling it to prevail over the evil inclination.
כמאמר רז״ל: אלמלא הקב״ה עוזרו אין יכול לו
As our Sages say,3 “[Man’s evil inclination gathers strength daily,…and] if the Almighty did not help him(i.e., help his good inclination) he could not overcome it (his evil inclination).”
והעזר היא ההארה שמאיר אור ה׳ על נפש האלקית
The help that G‑d grants him is the glow of divine light that illuminates his divine soul,
להיות לה יתרון ושליטה על סכלות הכסיל ויצר הרע, כיתרון האור מן החושך, כנ״ל
that it may gain superiority and mastery over the folly of the “fool”, the evil inclination, [a dominion] paralleling the superiority of light over darkness, as stated above, in ch. 12.
Just as a little light banishes much darkness, so is the abounding folly and darkness of one’s evil inclination driven away by dint of the little light of holiness emanating from his divine soul. It is this ray of divine illumination that constitutes G‑d’s assistance to the divine soul.4
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to resolve the contradiction and answer the question noted in the opening words of theTanya:
The Talmud states that a Jew is charged with an oath to regard himself as wicked, whereas elsewhere, the Mishnahdeclares: “Be not wicked in your own estimation.” Also: “If a person considers himself wicked, he will be grieved at heart and depressed, and will not be able to serve G‑d joyfully and with a contented heart.”
He now explains that the meaning of the oath — which literally reads, “Be in your own eyes like a rasha” — is that one regard himself not as an actual rasha, but as like one, having traits similar to those of a rasha. This means that he must consider himself a Beinoni, who possesses the same evil in his soul as does a rasha and can desire evil just as a rasha does.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Berachot 61b. |
| 2. | Tehillim 109:31. |
| 3. | Kiddushin 30b. |
| 4. | It was stated in the previous chapter that man’s mind innately rules his heart. Why, then, should he need special divine assistance in curbing his appetites? The Rebbe answers: This divine assistance is necessary whenever the conflict between the two souls does not involve a struggle of mind vs. heart; e.g., (1) when the divine soul wishes to prevent sinful thoughts from arising in the mind, or (2) when the emotivefaculties of the divine soul seek to overpower those of the animal soul (without recourse to contemplation and meditation). But now the question may be reversed: Why in ch. 12 does the Alter Rebbe use the argument of the mind’s natural supremacy over the heart to point out the divine soul’s supremacy over the animal soul? To this the Rebbe answers: In ch. 12, the Alter Rebbe speaks of the state of the Beinoni after prayer, when the effect of his meditation on G‑dliness during prayer still lingers in his mind. At such time his mind is suffused with G‑dliness to the point where the animal soul cannot so much as voice an opinion there. Thus, any struggle between the souls at that time would be a case of mind vs. heart, where the natural supremacy of the mind could confer victory on the divine soul. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Tuesday, Tevet 24, 5776 · January 5, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 320
Working on Shabbat
"You shall not do any manner of work"—Exodus 20:10.
We are forbidden from performing work on Shabbat.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 320
Working on Shabbat
"You shall not do any manner of work"—Exodus 20:10.
We are forbidden from performing work on Shabbat.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Working on Shabbat
Negative Commandment 320
Translated by Berel Bell
The 320th prohibition is that we are forbidden to do melachah1 on Shabbos.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2, ["It is Shabbos to the L‑rd, your G‑d;] do not do any melachah."
If the act was intentional, but the court has insufficient proof, Scripture3 specifies the punishment as kores.4 If the act was intentional, and there is sufficient proof,5 the punishment is execution by s'kilah.6 If the act was unintentional, he must bring a sin-offering.7
The details of this commandment are discussed in the tractate Shabbos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Although melachah is commonly translated as "work," it actually indicates any one of 39 specific activities singled out by Torah tradition. Included among the 39 are such actions as writing, carrying outside, and tying a knot, even though they do not correspond to the English word "work."
2.Shmos 20:1. Devarim 5:14.
3.Ex. 31:14.
4.See Principle 14, where the Rambam defines kores as losing one's portion in the World to Come (unless the person does teshuvah before death). See also Hilchos Teshuvah, Chapter 8, Halachah. 1.
5.Literally, "the testimony was accepted." This phrase includes such requirements as prior warning of the defendant (hasra'a), testimony of at least 2 witnesses, etc. See N352.
6.Commonly translated as "stoning," it actually consisted of being thrown from a high platform. Only if the person did not die from the fall were actual stones used. See P229.
7.See P69. This offering is called a "fixed sin-offering" to distinguish it from the offering of adjustable value. See P72.
------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 12
• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Terumot - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
It is forbidden to cause the terumah of Eretz Yisrael to contract ritual impurity,1as [is the rule with regard to] other sacred articles.2 One should not bring it to a state of ritual impurity,3 nor should one spoil it. Instead, he should partake of pure [terumah] and kindle impure terumah.
It is permitted to cause terumah from the Diaspora to become impure, even with impurity mandated by Scriptural Law. Although it is only ritually impure4because of the impurity stemming from the Diaspora which is a Rabbinic decree,5 [this leniency is granted] because the obligation to separate [suchterumah] is also of Rabbinic origin. For this reason, a woman may separatechallah6 while in the niddah state in the Diaspora, for she is cautioned only against eating it, not against touching it, as we explained.
Halacha 2
If a doubt arose whether terumah became impure, it should not be eaten,7 nor should it be burnt.8 Instead, one should place it aside until it becomes definitely impure, [at which time,] it should be burnt. There are situations in which doubt has arisen that mandate that terumah should be burnt as will be explained with regard to [the laws of] ritual purity and impurity.9
Halacha 3
When a question arises whether a jug of wine has become ritually impure, one should not do anything with it. One should not move it from its place, nor reveal it. Instead, he should leave it in its place until it definitely becomes impure and must be burnt.10 We are not concerned that perhaps it will be eaten.
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when] a jug [of wine that is terumah which is pure] is broken in an upper vat and the lower vat [contains ordinary wine that is] impure.11 If it is possible for a person to save a revi'it of wine in a state of purity,12 he should do so.13 If not, he should save [the wine] with his hands without washing them even though he imparts ritual impurity [to theterumah],14 as will be explained [in the laws pertaining to] ritual purity.15
Halacha 5
When does the above apply? To a jug of wine, [and then] provided that the contents of the lower vat are less than 100 times the amount [that falls in], in which instance, the terumah wine will mix with the ordinary wine and everything will be disqualified.16 If, however, the lower vat contained 100 times the amount of the jug and thus [the wine that descends] will be nullified because [the mixture] is 101 times the original17 or the jug contains oil, he should allow it to descend and become impure instead of making it impure with his own hands. [The rationale is that] the entire quantity is fit to use as fuel and there will be no great loss.18
Similarly, if a jug of oil is spilling,19 if it is possible for one to save a revi'it of oil in a state of purity, he should do so. If not, he should save it while ritually impure.20 Since the jug is broken, he is not adjured against saving it in a state of ritual impurity, because he is agitated.21
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply when] one was traveling from place to place, carrying loaves that are terumah, and a gentile tells him: "Give me one of them. If not, I will touch all of them and make them ritually impure."22 He should place one of them on a rock,23 but he should not place it in his hand so that he will not be a direct cause of the terumah becoming ritually impure.
Halacha 7
[The following laws apply with regard to] chilbah and vetch that are terumah. Since they are not fit for human consumption,24 it is permitted to carry out all the actions [connected with their preparation] in a state of ritual impurity. One must be careful only when placing them in the water to soak. For if one placed them in the water to soak while ritually impure, one will have made them ritually impure directly.25 Once one has soaked them, however, one need not be concerned with ritual impurity at the time one crushes the vetch26 or when one feeds them to an animal. For this reason, one may give chilbah and vetch that are terumah to a priest who is a common person.27
Halacha 8
We do not entrust terumah to a priest who is an unlearned person, because he is easygoing about it and may partake of it.28 We may, however, entrust [terumah] to an unlearned Israelite if it is stored in an earthenware container sealed with a wrapper,29 provided it is not produce that is already made fit to contract ritual impurity. [This is] a decree lest it be moved by his wife while she is in the nidah state.30
Halacha 9
We do not separate terumah from olives in a state of ritual purity for an unlearned person.31 We may, however, prepare ordinary olives for him in a state of ritual purity.32 [This leniency was granted] so that the operator of the vat could earn his livelihood.33
How should this process be carried out?34 He should separate an amount of produce sufficient for terumah and place it in a utensil that cannot contract ritual impurity, e.g., a stone utensil. When the unlearned person comes to take the ordinary produce and the terumah, we tell him: "Be careful not to touch theterumah.35Otherwise, the produce will become tevel again."36
Halacha 10
When an Israelite performs the tasks associated with the preparation of his produce while ritually impure, we should not harvest grapes with him. Needless to say, we should not tread the grapes with him,37 because theterumah will be made ritually impure.38 One may, however, carry barrels to39and from the vat for him.40
Halacha 11
When olives and grapes have become ritually impure, we may squeeze them and separate terumah [from the oil or wine].41 If [grapes or the olives] became impure after they themselves were designated as terumah, they should be squeezed [using] less than an egg-sized portion at a time.42 In such an instance, the liquid that flows from them is permitted to be drunk by the priests. Indeed, it would be fit to be used for libations on the altar. [The rationale is that] the liquid is considered as set aside within the fruit.43 The reason that [our Sages] spoke of less than an egg-sized portion44 is that this is a decree lest one use more than an egg-sized portion and the liquid become impure because of [contact with] the egg-sized portion.45
If the produce was impure to the third degree, one may tread upon it in the vat and the liquid produced from it can be used for pure terumah.46 [The rationale is that] ritual impurity of the third degree does not bring about ritual impurity of the fourth degree with regard to terumah, as will be explained with regard to the concept of ritual purity.47
Halacha 12
When a loaf of bread that is terumah becomes impure, it should be discarded among the firewood48 until one uses it for fuel. Similarly, if oil [that is terumah] becomes impure, it should be placed in a repugnant container until it is used as fuel so that it will not create a stumbling block for others, [lest] they partake of it.
Halacha 13
When wine that is terumah is left uncovered, since it is forbidden to drink it,51it should be poured out. Similarly, figs, grapes, marrow, squash, watermelon, and cucumbers that are terumah that were discovered to be perforated are forbidden to be eaten because of the mortal danger involved.52 What should be done with them? They should be discarded in the sea or buried.
Halacha 14
When a dough was kneaded with water that was left uncovered,53 it should be burnt even though it is terumah.54
15 It is forbidden for a priest to take terumah or any other of the presents given to him until they were separated by the owners [of the produce], as [implied by the verses, Numbers 18:12]: "The first [of the produce] which they will give to God I have given to you" and [ibid.:19]: "...that the children of Israel will offer up to God are given to you." [Implied is that] the children of Israel must offer it up and then [the priests] can acquire it.
[The priests] should not take [these presents] after they have been set aside except with the knowledge of the owners. For the owners have the right to give them to any priest that they desire, as [ibid. 5:10] states: "A person's sacraments will belong to him."55 [Nevertheless,] if [a priest]56 takes them without the owner's knowledge, he acquires them. For all that belongs to the owner is the right to apportion them and that right is not financially significant.
Halacha 16
When terumah was given to a priest and he found other entities in it, it is forbidden for him [to take them]. This is comparable to theft, for perhaps other people placed them [in the terumah] to take them [afterwards].57
Halacha 17
An Israelite is not required to trouble himself with terumah and bring it from the granary until a city or from a desert until a settled area. Instead, the priests should go out to the granaries and the Israelites should give them their portions there. If they did not go out [to collect the terumah, the owner] should separate it and leave it in the granary. Our Sages ordained that if there are beasts or animals who would eat it there and it is not protected from them, [the owner] should take the trouble of dealing with it and bringing it to the city. He may collect a wage for bringing it [to the city] from the priest. [This is done,] because if he separated it and left it for the animals and beasts, God's name would be desecrated.58
Halacha 18
It is forbidden for the priests and the Levites59 to assist [farmers] in the granaries in order to receive the agricultural presents given them.60 Whoever renders such assistance desecrates the holiness of God's name. Concerning such people is applied [the malediction, Malachi 2:8]: "You have defiled the covenant of Levi." It is forbidden for an Israelite to allow [a priest] to help him. Instead, he should grant them their portion with honor.
Halacha 19
When a person gives terumah to a priest on the condition that he returns it,61he has fulfilled his obligation to give.62 It is, however, forbidden to do so, for [the priest] is considered like one who helps in the granaries.63 Similarly, it is forbidden for [the priests] to seize the terumot and the tithes. It is even forbidden for them to make a verbal request for them. Instead, they should take them with honor, for they are eating and drinking from the table of God.64These presents are given to Him and He apportioned them to them, as [Numbers 18:8] states: "Behold I have given to you the safeguard of Myterumah."65
Halacha 20
A person should not give terumah to the watchman of his vat, nor a firstborn animal to the watchman of his flock, nor the presents [given when an animal is slaughtered]66 to the shepherd of his animals. If he gave them [to these individuals], he desecrated [their honor] unless he gave them their wages for watching first.67
Halacha 21
When does the above apply? When the owner desired to give [the presents] to one of two priests or [tithes] to one of two Levites gratis and his colleague told him: "Here is this and give to that one." If, however, an owner told a priest or a Levite: "Here is this portion. [Give me something in exchange] for my privilege to give it to whom I want," this is forbidden.71 Similarly, it is forbidden to sell terumah as merchandise even though he purchases it from a priest and sells it to a priest.72
Halacha 22
There are ten individuals to whom terumah is not given in the granaries even though they may partake of it or grant others the right to partake of it:73
a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally unstable person, or a child who does not know how to spread out his hands to recite the priestly blessing,74these [are not given terumah], because they lack sufficient knowledge;
a servant, lest passersby in the field [see him taking terumah] and give testimony that he is a priest;
an uncircumcised person and a ritually impure person,77 because they are abhorrent;
a woman [married to a priest], lest she be divorced78 and [to prevent her from] entering into seclusion [with someone in the granary];79 and
a person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him;80 he was penalized in that [terumah] would not be allocated to him in the granaries until he divorces her.
In all the above instances, [terumah] may be sent to their homes and allocated to them as is the law regarding other sacramental foods dependent on the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael] with the exception of a person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him, an uncircumcised person81 and a ritually impure person, to whom [terumah] is not sent at all.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
I.e., to cause it to contract ritual impurity directly.
|
| 2. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:2. The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol considers this as one of the 613 mitzvot. The Rambam does not, however.
|
| 3. |
To bring about a situation where it is likely that the terumah will contract impurity.
|
| 4. |
One might still think that causing it to become impure would be forbidden, because although it is impure by Rabbinic decree, it is not impure according to Scriptural Law, and it is forbidden to spread ritual impurity.
|
| 5. |
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Tumat Meit 11:1-2, our Sages decreed that everyone living in the Diaspora is considered as if he became impure because of contact with a human corpse. Now impurity of Rabbinic origin is less severe than impurity of Scriptural origin. Nevertheless, since the obligation to separate this terumah is only Rabbinic in origin, our Sages did not forbid making it incur Scriptural impurity.
|
| 6. |
Which is bound by the same rules as terumah.
|
| 7. |
Lest it have become impure and it is forbidden to partake of impure terumah.
|
| 8. |
Lest it not be impure and the person would be destroying terumah unnecessarily.
|
| 9. |
See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 13:13.
|
| 10. |
The Rambam is ruling according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel in Terumot 8:8. Other opinions in the mishnah maintain that the terumah should be protected that it does not become impure and still others maintain that it should be left in a place where it is likely to become impure so that we will not have to wait for the mandate to destroy it.
|
| 11. |
And thus we are concerned that the pure terumah will flow into the vat of impure wine. In such a situation, an ordinary person will not be able to partake of it, because of the terumah that has become mixed with it. And a priest will not be able to partake of it, because the wine that isterumah has become impure. Thus it will not be useful at all.
|
| 12. |
When both his hands and the articles he uses are ritually pure [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:10)].
|
| 13. |
Even though by doing so, he will cause the wine which is terumah to mix with the impure wine and thus the entire mixture will become unfit for use. It is, nevertheless, desirable for him to do this, because in this way, he will be saving at least a revi'it of wine that is pure terumah.
|
| 14. |
Even though he will make the wine ritually impure in this manner, it will become ritually impure anyway. (Moreover, the ritual impurity that he will impart to it will be only Rabbinic in origin; see also the notes to the following halachah.) And in this way, he will prevent the terumah from mixing with the ordinary produce and disqualifying it.
|
| 15. |
See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:8,10; 9:5.
|
| 16. |
For, as stated above, an ordinary person will not be able to partake of it because of the terumahand even a priest will not be able to partake of it because the terumah will have become impure.
|
| 17. |
See Chapter 13, Halachah 1.
|
| 18. |
I.e., even though the oil that is terumah becomes impure and mixed with the contents of the lower vat, the person will not suffer the loss of the entire mixture, because it can be used as fuel.
|
| 19. |
To the earth and thus will be spoiled entirely.
|
| 20. |
From a comparison to the wording used in Halachah 4, the Or Sameach rules that with regard to wine, one is permitted to save the wine only if merely his hands are ritually impure. If his entire person is ritually impure, he is forbidden to do so. In this instance, by contrast, the person may save the oil even if his person is ritually impure.
The difference between the two instances can be explained as follows. With regard to wine, what the person is doing is saving the ordinary wine, not the terumah, because there is no use for impure wine. Hence, he is permitted to do so only if he does not impart ritual impurity of Scriptural origin to the terumah. With regard to the oil, he is saving the oil that is terumah - for impure oil can be used as fuel. Hence, he is allowed to do so even if he will be making it ritually impure.
|
| 21. |
Over the possible loss of his money.
|
| 22. |
For according to Rabbinic decree, a gentile is considered as ritually impure and can convey that impurity to other objects. See Hilchot Tumat Meit 1:13-14.
|
| 23. |
So that the gentile can take it. If one of the loaves is ritually impure, he should leave that loaf for the gentile.
|
| 24. |
Under ordinary circumstances. Nevertheless, they are eaten by humans from time to time. Otherwise, there would be no obligation to separate terumah from them. See Chapter 2, Halachah 8, and Chapter 11, Halachah 9.
|
| 25. |
And that is forbidden. Even though the person will be causing the produce to contract ritual impurity later, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:3), the Rambam explains that this stage of preparation is singled out because it is when the produce comes in contact with the water that it becomes fit to contract ritual impurity.
|
| 26. |
To remove their coatings.
|
| 27. |
As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 2, it is forbidden to give terumah that is ritually pure to a priest who is a common person, for we fear that he will be ritually impure and yet will not be aware of his state. In this instance, however, there is no difficulty for we are not concerned with this terumahbecoming ritually impure.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this ruling is a minority opinion in the Mishnah (Challah 4:9) and the majority of the Sages rule that it is forbidden to give such terumah to an unlearned priest. Why then, he asks, does the Rambam accept the minority view. (Significantly, in his own Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the majority opinion is accepted.)
|
| 28. |
I.e., he knows that he is a priest and that terumah should be eaten by priests. He does not consider himself impure and does not understand why he should not be allowed to partake of theterumah. Even if it is sealed with a wrapper, we fear that he will break open the wrapper and partake of the terumah (Radbaz).
|
| 29. |
Since it is sealed closed, the Israelite will realize that there are questions of ritual purity involved and will not dare to touch it.
|
| 30. |
A woman in such a state can cause an article to become impure by moving it even though she does not touch it. See Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 8:2-3. Nevertheless, both the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's ruling, for seemingly, since the produce has not become fit to contract ritual impurity, why would the woman's moving it cause the produce to contract impurity?
|
| 31. |
Quite often the owner of the produce would be an unlearned person whom we assume is not precise in his observance of the laws of ritual purity. Nevertheless, he would often employ workers or hire a vat owner who was precise in his observance so that his produce would comply with the laws of ritual purity. The first clause is speaking about a situation where the owner of the produce had already put olives in the press and squeezed the oil from them before asking the person precise in his observance to separate terumah. Since the olives became subject to contract ritual impurity because of the oil, we assume that they became ritually impure through contact with an impure person. Hence, if the person who was precise in his observance would separate terumah, there is a probability that it is impure, but people will think that it is pure, because of the reputation of the person who is precise in his observance. Hence, he is forbidden to separate terumah from it.
|
| 32. |
I.e., a person who is precise in his observance may perform the entire process, crushing the olives for their oil and separating terumah .
|
| 33. |
I.e., since the owner of the produce is not precise in his observance of ritual purity, it would be preferable not to separate terumah for him under any circumstances. Nevertheless, leniency was granted so that the owner of the vat could earn his livelihood.
|
| 34. |
I.e., after preparing the oil and separating the terumah, what precautions should he take that the owner of the produce does not cause the terumah to contract ritual impurity?
|
| 35. |
I.e., he is permitted to touch the utensil, but not the terumah itself.
|
| 36. |
Although this is not true, he is given this warning so that he will be careful not to touch theterumah. We are confident that he will heed the warning, because even the unlearned people were careful in the observance of the prohibition against partaking of tevel (see Hilchot Ma'aser 9:1).
|
| 37. |
In the first instance, the grapes being picked are considered fit to contract ritual impurity only by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 11:1). In the second instance, the wine is already starting to flow and the impurity is of Scriptural origin. Hence, the Rambam uses the expression: "Needless to say."
|
| 38. |
I.e., the wine will be ritually impure, and thus the terumah separated from it will be ritually impure and of no value. Hence, performing these tasks is forbidden, because one is aiding a Jew in the performance of a transgression. For it is forbidden to cause produce from which terumah has not been separated to become impure [Avodah Zarah 55a; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:9)].
|
| 39. |
For these barrels are empty.
|
| 40. |
For the wine has already been rendered impure.
|
| 41. |
I.e., and the wine or oil is considered as ritually pure. The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation in which the olives or grapes had become impure with a person who himself had come in contact with a source of ritual impurity. Thus the grapes and olives are considered as ritually impure to the second degree. Making the grapes and the olives impure does not make the wine and the oil impure, because something that is impure to the second degree does not convey impurity to ordinary produce (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 11:2). Hence once this wine and oil has been squeezed out, terumah that is ritually pure can be separated from it. The Radbaz emphasizes that in this instance as well, we are speaking about using less than an egg-sized portion of produce at a time as will be explained.
|
| 42. |
Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 9:2 explains that as long as the impure produce is less than an egg-sized portion, the fact that it comes in contact with the liquids is not significant.
|
| 43. |
Thus touching the fruit is not considered as touching the liquids (ibid.).
|
| 44. |
And not an egg-sized portion itself.
|
| 45. |
For with regard to terumah, impurity of the second degree can impart impurity of the third degree (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 11:3).
|
| 46. |
Even though it came into contact with the olives or grapes that were impure.
|
| 47. |
Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah, loc. cit.:2
|
| 48. |
I.e., if it is placed in the woodpile, people will not regard it as food and they will not partake of it. The point of this entire halachah is to emphasize appropriate safeguards so that people will not partake of impure terumah. Needless to say, it is desirable to burn the impure terumah immediately. The point of this halachah is to provide guidelines should one desire to save it to use as fuel.
|
| 49. |
So that they will no longer be fit to be used to make flour.
|
| 50. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that wine that is terumah that became impure could also be used for its fragrance. Nevertheless, our Sages did not desire that such wine be set aside for this purpose, lest one partake of it unknowingly.
|
| 51. |
Lest a poisonous snake have drank from the wine and deposited its venom there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:4); see also Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 11:7-8)].
|
| 52. |
Here also we fear that the produce was perforated by a poisonous snake who deposited its venom there (ibid. 12:2).
|
| 53. |
And is thus forbidden for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah (ibid. 11:15).
|
| 54. |
Even though one will be wasting terumah, we show concern for the danger that could be involved.
|
| 55. |
I.e., though he may not make use of them, the right to give them away is his.
|
| 56. |
The Radbaz states that this applies even to an unlearned priest. Although terumah should not be given to such a priest lest he cause it to become impure, if he takes it, we do not expropriate it from him.
|
| 57. |
I.e., we suspect that a person understood that the terumah was set aside, not to be used, and deposited other articles there for safekeeping.
|
| 58. |
For terumah is referred to as "sanctified," allowing it to be destroyed in this manner desecrates God's name (Radbaz).
|
| 59. |
To whom the tithes are given.
|
| 60. |
This applies to the presents required by Scriptural Law. They may, however, render assistance in order to receive those mandated by Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Bikkurim 5:13).
|
| 61. |
And then the terumah would belong to the Israelite who - although he could not partake of it - could sell it to a priest.
|
| 62. |
For such a present is a valid transfer of property. See Hilchot Lulav 8:10; Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:9.
|
| 63. |
I.e., he is performing a favor for the owner in return for his terumah.
|
| 64. |
Since the presents are God's, as it were, they should be treated with honor.
|
| 65. |
I.e., the verse implies that terumah belongs to God and that He grants it to the priests.
|
| 66. |
See Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 9.
|
| 67. |
If he gives them the presents first, it would appear that he is bargaining with them to reduce their wages. This would be similar to a priest assisting in the granary which is forbidden.
|
| 68. |
The Radbaz emphasizes that such statements may be made only by an Israelite. A priest is forbidden to do so, for this is similar to helping in the granaries.
|
| 69. |
A silver coin of the Talmudic period.
|
| 70. |
Since the owner has the right to do what he wants with the presents, he is permitted to receive gifts for them as well.
|
| 71. |
For such an arrangement looks like the person is selling the terumah.
|
| 72. |
For it was granted to the priests for consumption and not for commercial purposes.
|
| 73. |
I.e., their wives and servants may partake of it.
|
| 74. |
Our translation is taken from the Kessef Mishneh. Although Hilchot Tefilah 15:4 states that a priest should not bless the people until he is old enough to grow a beard, that can be interpreted as meaning that he should not bless the people alone. With other priests, however, he may bless them.
|
| 75. |
A person with a massive of flesh covering his sexual organs that prevents his gender from being known.
|
| 76. |
A person with both masculine and feminine sexual organs.
|
| 77. |
They are forbidden to partake of terumah, but they could be taking for their wives, children, or servants.
|
| 78. |
And thus become forbidden to partake of terumah.
|
| 79. |
For these are not places frequented by multitudes of people. Yevamot 99b mentions these two rationales as separate views. The Rambam, however, does not see them as mutually exclusive and combines them both.
|
| 80. |
Rashi (Yevamot, loc. cit.) interprets this as meaning a woman whom the priest is forbidden to marry.
|
| 81. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that Yevamot, loc. cit., does not place an uncircumcised person in this category if his failure to circumcise himself comes as a result of forces beyond his control, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that passage.
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Three, Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Four, Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Five
• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download
• Eruvin - Chapter Three
• 3 Chapters: Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Three, Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Four, Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Five
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Eruvin - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
[The following rules apply when] there is a window between two courtyards: If the window is four handbreadths by four handbreadths1 or larger and it is within ten handbreadths of the ground - whether it is [almost] entirely above ten handbreadths and only a [small] portion is within ten handbreadths, or it is [almost] entirely within ten handbreadths and only a [small] portion is above ten handbreadths - [an option is granted to] the inhabitants of the courtyards.2
If they desire to join in a single eruv, they may. This causes [the entire area] to be considered a single courtyard, and carrying is permitted from one [courtyard] to the other.3 If they desire, they may make two eruvim, each for [the inhabitants of their respective courtyards]. [It is then forbidden] to carry from one courtyard to the other.]
If the windows are smaller than four [handbreadths by four handbreadths] or the entire window is above ten handbreadths from the ground,4 they may make two eruvim, each for [the inhabitants of the respective courtyard].
Halacha 2
When does the above apply? To a window between two courtyards. When, by contrast, the window lies between two houses,5 [they are permitted to make an eruv] even if the window is above ten handbreadths from the ground.6
Similarly, when there is a window between a house and a loft, if the inhabitants desire to establish a single eruv they may, even if there is not a ladder [leading to the window], provided [the window] is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths]. If the window is round and it can circumscribe a square that is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths], it is considered as if it were square.
Halacha 3
When there is a wall or a mound of hay that is less than ten handbreadths high7 between two courtyards, they must make a single eruv and may not make two eruvim. If [the wall or the mound] is ten or more handbreadths high, they must make two eruvim, each for the respective courtyard.
If there is a ladder8 on either side of the wall,9 it is considered to be an entrance, and if they desire, they may establish a single eruv. Even if the ladder is standing upright, next to the wall, and it is impossible to ascend it without moving its lower portion away from the wall, it permits [them to participate in a single eruv]. [Moreover,] even if the top of the ladder does not reach the top of the wall, if there are less than three handbreadths between them,10 it permits them to participate in a single eruv if they desire.
Halacha 4
If the wall is four [handbreadths] wide and a ladder is positioned on either side of the wall, they may make a single eruv, if they desire.11 If the wall is not four [handbreadths] wide, and there are less than three handbreadths between the [two] ladders, they may make a single eruv.12 If there are more than three handbreadths between [the ladders], they must make two eruvim.13
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when] one builds a bench14 above a bench at the side of a wall [separating two courtyards]: If the lower bench is four handbreadths [high], [we consider it as if the height of the wall] were reduced.15 If the lower [bench] is not four handbreadths [high], but there are less than three handbreadths between it and the upper [bench], [we consider it as if the height of the wall] were reduced.
[In such situations,] if [the inhabitants of the courtyards] desire, they may make a single eruv. Similar [principles apply] regarding wooden steps placed close to a wall.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] there is a high wall separating two courtyards, and a projection16 protrudes from the middle of the wall: If less than ten cubits remain from the projection to the top of the wall, one may lean a ladder in front of the projection,17 and [this grants the inhabitants] the option of making a single eruv. If, however, one stands the ladder [against the wall] at the side of the projection, [we do] not [consider it as if the height of the wall were] reduced.18
If the wall is nineteen handbreadths high, [it is sufficient] to have a projection protrude for the inhabitants to have the option of making a single eruv. For there are less than ten handbreadths from the earth to the projection, and less than ten handbreadths from the projection to the top of the wall.19
Were the wall to be twenty handbreadths high, two projections are required for the inhabitants to have the option of establishing a single eruv. [Moreover, the projections] may not be parallel to each other:20 [In this way,] there will be less than ten handbreadths between the lower projection and the ground, and less than ten handbreadths between the upper projection and the top of the wall.
Halacha 7
If a date palm is chopped down and inclined from the earth to the top of a wall, the inhabitants have the option of establishing a single eruv.21 It is not necessary for them to make it a permanent part of the structure. Similarly, the [very] weight of a ladder22 causes it to be considered as having been placed permanently; it is not necessary to affix it to the structure.
If [the divider] separating two courtyards is made of straw,23 [the inhabitants] may not make a single eruv although there are ladders on either side. A person will not ascend the ladder, because nothing is supporting it.24 If the ladders are in the center, [leaning on a firm support,] and there is straw on either side, [the inhabitants] have the option of making two eruvim.25
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] a wall is ten handbreadths high, and [the inhabitants] desire [to tear down a portion of the wall] to reduce itsheight so that they will be able to establish a single eruv. They have the option of establishing a single eruv, provided the portion whose height they reduce is [at least] four handbreadths long.30
If [the inhabitants of one of the adjoining courtyards] tear down a portion [of their side] of the wall so that it is less than ten [handbreadths high], they are granted [permission to use] the shorter portion of the wall.31 The remainder of the wall that is high is divided between [the inhabitants of] both courtyards.
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a high wall between [two] courtyards is breached: If the breach is ten cubits [wide] or less, they [still may] establish two eruvin.32 They do, however, have the option of establishing a single eruv, because [the breach] can be considered to be an opening. If [the breach] is more than ten [cubits wide], their only option is to establish a single eruv; they may not establish two eruvin.33
Halacha 11
If the breach is less than ten [cubits wide], and one [desires to] make it more than ten cubits, it is necessary to hollow out34a portion of the wall ten handbreadths high.35 [When this is done, the only option remaining is to] establish a single eruv.
At the outset, if one desires to open a breach larger than ten [cubits] in the wall, it is necessary that the height of the breach be equivalent to that of [an ordinary] person.36
Halacha 12
When there is a trench at least ten handbreadths deep and at least four handbreadths wide between two courtyards, it is necessary for [the inhabitants] to establish two eruvin.37 If its dimensions are less than this, [the inhabitants] must establish a single eruv; [they] do not [have the option of] establishing two eruvin.38
If the depth of the trench is reduced by [adding] earth or pebbles, [the inhabitants] must establish a single eruv; [they] do not [have the option of] establishing two eruvin.39 For it can be assumed that the earth and the stones were intended to become a permanent part of the trench.40 If, by contrast, one reduced [the depth of the trench] by adding straw or hay, the reduction is not [significant] unless one intends41 that they become a permanent part [of the trench].
Halacha 13
Similarly, if one reduces the width [of the trench] with a board or with reeds42by placing them across the entire length of the trench, [the inhabitants] must establish a single eruv; [they] do not [have the option of] establishing twoeruvin.
Any entity that may be carried on the Sabbath43 - e.g., a basket or a cup - is not considered to reduce its depth, unless one affixes it to the earth [firmly], in such a manner that one must dig with a spade to dislodge it.
Halacha 14
When one places a board that is [at least] four handbreadths wide across the trench, [the board is considered to be an entrance]. [Therefore, the inhabitants] may establish a single eruv. They also have the option of establishing two eruvin.
Similar [rules apply when] two balconies are positioned opposite each other [across the public domain], and a board is extended from one balcony to the other.44 [The inhabitants] may establish a single eruv. They also have the option of establishing two eruvin, each one for his own balcony.
If the two balconies are on the same side [of the public domain], but are not at the same height - instead, one is higher than the other [the following rules apply]: If they are within three handbreadths of each other, they are considered to be a single balcony45 and [the inhabitants] may establish only a single eruv. If they are more than three [handbreadths] apart, they must establish two eruvin,46 each one for his own balcony.
Halacha 15
[The following rule applies when] between two courtyards, there is a wall four handbreadths wide,47 which is ten handbreadths high from one courtyard, and at ground level48 at the second courtyard: The width of the wall is granted to the inhabitants of the courtyard at which it is at ground level, and it is considered to be an extension of their courtyard. [The rationale is] that since it is easily accessible to the inhabitants [of this courtyard], and more difficult to use for [the inhabitants of the other], it is granted to those for whom it is easily accessible.
Similarly, if there is a trench between the two courtyards that is ten handbreadths deep for the courtyard on one side and at ground level for the courtyard on the other side, the width of the trench is granted to the inhabitants of the courtyard at which it is at ground level. [The rationale is] that since it is easily accessible to the inhabitants [of this courtyard], and more difficult to use for [the inhabitants of the other], it is granted to those for whom it is easily accessible.
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply when] there is a wall between two courtyards that is lower than the upper courtyard, but higher than the lower courtyard:49 [During the week,] the inhabitants of the upper courtyard may make use of the breadth of the wall by lowering articles to it, and the inhabitants of the lower courtyard may make use of it by throwing articles onto it.
On the Sabbath, the inhabitants of both courtyards are forbidden to use the wall unless they establish a single eruv. If they do not establish an eruv, it is forbidden to bring articles that were left on the breadth of this wall into the homes,50 nor may one bring articles from the homes to the breadth of the wall.
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply when there is] a ruin that is a private domain between two houses: If [the inhabitants of] both houses can use the ruin by throwing objects into it,51 each one causes the other to be forbidden to use it [unless they establish an eruv].
If it is easy for [the inhabitants of] one [of the houses] to use [the ruin], while [the inhabitants of] the other may not throw articles into it [easily], because it is deeper than [their domain], it is granted to those who can use it [more] easily.52 They may use it by throwing articles into it.
Halacha 18
All the following are considered to be [parts of] a single private domain:53 all the roofs of the city - despite the fact that some are high and some are low - all the courtyards, all the enclosures that were enclosed for purposes other than dwelling and are each less in area than that required to sow two se'ah,54the breadths of all the walls, and all the lanes [in which one may carry because] either a post or a beam has been erected.
One may carry articles left in one [of these areas] at the commencement of the Sabbath to another without an eruv. One may not, however, transfer articles left in the homes to these areas unless an eruv is made.
Halacha 19
What is implied? When an article was left in a courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath, whether the inhabitants of the courtyards established an eruv for themselves or whether they failed to do so, it is permitted to take the article from the courtyard to the roof or to the top of the wall. Afterwards, it may be taken from the roof to another roof adjacent to it, even if [the second roof] is higher or lower than it.
From the second roof, it may be taken to another courtyard, and from the other courtyard to a third roof in a third courtyard. From this courtyard, it may be taken to a lane, and from the lane to a fourth roof. Indeed, one may carry throughout the entire city through the courtyards and roofs, through the enclosed areas and roofs, or through the courtyards and the enclosed areas, or through [any combination] of these three types of areas, provided one does not bring this article into any of the houses [in the city].55 [The latter is forbidden] unless all [the inhabitants of] these different areas join together in a single eruv.
Halacha 20
[Conversely,] if an article was located in a house at the beginning of the Sabbath, and it was later taken out to a courtyard,56 it may not be taken to another courtyard, to another roof, to the top of a wall, or to an enclosed area unless the inhabitants of all the areas through which the article passes join together in a single eruv.
Halacha 21
When a cistern is located between two courtyards,57 it is forbidden to draw water from it on the Sabbath unless a partition ten handbreadths high has been erected58 so that everyone would be drawing water from his own property.
Where should the partition be erected? If the partition is above the water, it is necessary that at least one handbreadth of the partition descend into the water.59 If the partition was constructed within the water, it must project a handbreadth outside the water, so that one domain will be distinct from the other.
Halacha 22
Similarly, if a beam four handbreadths wide60 has been placed over the mouth of the cistern, one may fill [his bucket] from this side of the beam, and the other may fill [his bucket] from the other side of the beam. Although the water is not divided below [the beam], it is considered as if one portion [of the cistern] were separated from the other. This is a leniency enacted by the Sages with regard to water.
Halacha 23
When a well lies in the midst of a path61 between the walls of two courtyards, [the inhabitants of] both courtyards may draw water from it; there is no necessity for them to extend projections to the well.62 [This ruling applies] even though the well is more than four handbreadths from each of the walls. [The rationale is] that [the presence of] a colleague's [domain] does not cause a person to be forbidden to carry [when he is lifting an entity] through the air.63
Halacha 24
[The following rules apply when the wall of] a small courtyard is broken down, opening [the courtyard] entirely to a large courtyard before the commencement of the Sabbath:64 The inhabitants of the large courtyard may establish an eruv for themselves and they are permitted to carry, for portions of their wall still remain [standing] on each side.65
The inhabitants of the small courtyard, by contrast, are forbidden to remove articles from their homes to the courtyard until they establish a single eruvtogether with the inhabitants of the larger courtyard. [The governing principle is that] the dwellings of the larger courtyard are considered to be [part of] the smaller courtyard, while the dwellings of the smaller courtyard are not considered to be [part of] the larger courtyard.66
Halacha 25
When two courtyards have established a single eruv together through a shared opening or window, and that opening or window was closed on the Sabbath,67 [the inhabitants of] each of the courtyards may carry within [their own courtyard].68 Since [carrying] was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for the entire Sabbath.
Similarly, if [the inhabitants of] two courtyards have each established a separate eruv and the wall between them fell on the Sabbath, [the inhabitants of each courtyard] are still permitted [to carry] within their original area.69 They may each take articles from their homes and carry them to the point where they could originally.
[The rationale is that] since [carrying] was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for the entire Sabbath.70 Although the number of people [within the courtyard] was increased, an increase of people on the Sabbath itself does not cause carrying to be forbidden.
[In the instance mentioned in the first clause, if after the opening or window was closed on the Sabbath,]71 the window was opened inadvertently, or an entrance was made, or gentiles made [an opening] on their own volition, it is again permitted [to carry from one to the other].
Similarly, if two ships were tied to each other and an eruv was established between them, it becomes forbidden to carry from one to the other if the connection between them is severed.72 [This ruling applies] even if they are surrounded by a partition. If the connection was reestablished inadvertently, it is again permitted [to carry from one to the other].
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As reflected by the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Tum'at Meit 7:1, this is the minimum size that a human being can squeeze through. For this reason, it is necessary that it be at least four handbreadths on each side; a total area of 16 square handbreadths is not sufficient (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:5; Mishnah Berurah 372:30). (See also the following halachah.)
|
| 2. |
Since the window is of sufficient size and it is close to the ground, the inhabitants of the courtyards are granted the option of considering it an entrance. If this option is taken, it causes the two courtyards to be considered a single entity.
|
| 3. |
The Mishnah Berurah 372:27 emphasizes that this ruling applies only when the courtyards did not join together in a shituf to permit carrying in the entire lane.
|
| 4. |
The window cannot be considered to be an entrance. Hence, the courtyards are considered to be separate.
|
| 5. |
This refers to an instance when an eruv was not established in the courtyard. Were that the case, it would be possible to transfer articles from house to house through the window, even without a separate eruv.
|
| 6. |
Eruvin 76b explains that a house is considered as if it is full, and thus it is as if there were less than ten handbreadths between the window and the ground.
|
| 7. |
A divider that is less than ten handbreadths high is not significant. Therefore, the entire area is considered to be a single domain, and all the inhabitants must join in one eruv.
|
| 8. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:8) states that the ladder must be at least four handbreadths wide and have four rungs. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not include these restrictions.
|
| 9. |
How close the ladders must be to each other is explained in the following halachah.
|
| 10. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, when there is a distance of less than three handbreadths between two entities, it is considered as though they were adjacent.
|
| 11. |
Since the wall is more than four handbreadths wide, it is possible to walk from one ladder to the other ladder on the wall.
|
| 12. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, it is considered as though the ladders were adjacent.
|
| 13. |
Because the ladders are distant from each other, the two courtyards are considered to be separate entities.
|
| 14. |
Our translation is based on Eruvin 77b, the apparent source for the halachah.
|
| 15. |
Since one can climb over the wall easily by ascending onto the bench, the wall is no longer considered an absolute division between the courtyards, and it is possible to establish an eruv, joining both courtyards.
This is the conception of the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:9,11) follows the view of Rabbenu Asher which is more stringent and which maintains that a bench does not create the option of fusing the two courtyards into a single entity. The only leniency which is permitted is that the inhabitants of the courtyard where the bench is located may use the top of the wall.
|
| 16. |
The projection must be at least four handbreadths by four handbreadths (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 372:12).
|
| 17. |
In this way, the inhabitants can easily cross over the wall by climbing from the ground to the projection and from the projection to the top of the wall.
|
| 18. |
When the ladder is leaning on the projection, they are considered to be a single unit. When, by contrast, the ladder is leaning against the wall, even if it is in within three handbreadths of the projection, they are not considered to be a single unit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:15; Mishnah Berurah 372:98-99).
|
| 19. |
Thus, they can climb over the wall easily in this fashion.
|
| 20. |
In this way, a ladder can be extended from one projection to another. Also, these projections must lie within ten handbreadths of each other. Thus, the people can climb from the earth to the first projection, from the first projection to the second, and from the second to the top of the wall.
In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:12) follows the view of Rabbenu Asher which is more stringent and which maintains that the projections do not create the option of fusing the two courtyards into a single entity. The only leniency which is permitted is that the inhabitants of the courtyard where the projections are located may use the top of the wall.
|
| 21. |
I.e., the date palm is considered to be a ladder, enabling people to climb across the wall.
|
| 22. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes that Eruvin 78a mentions a Babylonian ladder, for these ladders were large and heavy. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this concept is intimated by the Rambam's words "the [very] weight of the ladder...." These rules do not apply to a light ladder that is easily carried from place to place.
|
| 23. |
Our additions to the text are based on the commentary of the Meiri on Eruvin, loc. cit. A similar approach is also reflected in the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh on this halachah. Rashi offers a different interpretation of that Talmudic passage, and his understanding is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:13).
|
| 24. |
I.e., the straw divider will not support the weight of a person climbing on the ladder.
|
| 25. |
They also have the option of establishing a single eruv, if they so desire. Certain commentaries suggest amending the text of the Mishneh Torah to include this concept.
|
| 26. |
As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the Sages specified certain activities as forbidden as a safeguard to the observance of the Sabbath prohibitions. Each of the forbidden activities is referred to as a sh'vut. See also Hilchot Shabbat 21:6 which prohibits climbing trees.
|
| 27. |
For when a mitzvah is involved, we are not bound by the prohibitions in the category of sh'vutduring beyn hash'mashot (Hilchot Shabbat 24:10), and that is when the eruv takes effect (Chapter 1, Halachah 21). Since the eruv was acceptable beyn hash'mashot, it is acceptable for the entire Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:18).
|
| 28. |
A tree that is worshiped. The Torah prohibits deriving any benefit from such a tree. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3.
|
| 29. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:15) notes that Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Eruvin78b) reverses the rulings and permits the establishment of a single eruv if an asherah is used as a ladder, but not if an ordinary tree is used for that purpose. The later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit.; Mishnah Berurah 372:116) favor the Rambam's interpretation.
|
| 30. |
If the portion of the wall that was torn down is at least four handbreadths wide, it can be considered to be an opening.
|
| 31. |
The interpretation of the passage in Eruvin 77a, the source for this halachah, is a matter of dispute among the commentaries. Our translation is based on the Lechem Mishneh's gloss on theMishneh Torah.
|
| 32. |
For the breach is not large enough to nullify the importance of the entire divider, provided the entire wall has not been destroyed.
|
| 33. |
An opening of that size causes the entire divider to be considered as having no significance. It is as if there were only one courtyard. (See Hilchot Shabbat 16:16.)
|
| 34. |
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 78b. The Ra'avad and others conceive of this passage in a different light. It is their view that is cited in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim372:14).
|
| 35. |
This is sufficient, even though there is a portion of the wall that is higher than ten handbreadths.
|
| 36. |
Our translation is based on the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh. Others explain this to mean the full height of the wall.
Making a breach of this height indicates that one desires to pass freely from one courtyard to another. If the breach is not this high, one might think that the opening was made solely for the purpose of transferring articles (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 37. |
For a trench of this size is not easy to cross and hence is considered to be a divider, and each of the courtyards a distinct entity. (See Hilchot Shabbat 14:23.)
|
| 38. |
A trench of this size can be crossed easily. Therefore, the entire area is considered to be a single courtyard.
|
| 39. |
This refers to a situation in which the depth of the trench is reduced across its entire length. If one reduces the portion in one area alone, that portion is considered to be an entrance from one courtyard to the other, and the inhabitants have the option of establishing either one or two eruvin(Mishnah Berurah 372:122).
|
| 40. |
Inside a dwelling, by contrast, different concepts apply. (See Hilchot Sukkah 4:13. Note, however,Hilchot Tum'at Meit 7:6.)
|
| 41. |
According to Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:19, one must make an explicit statement, specifying one's intent. The Mishnah Berurah 372:121 cites that view, but also quotes an opinion that maintains that it is sufficient to have such thoughts in one's heart.
|
| 42. |
The width of the board or the reeds themselves is not significant; what is important is that they cause the width of the trench to be reduced (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 43. |
I.e., which is not forbidden to be carried, because of the prohibitions of muktzeh.
|
| 44. |
Based on the rulings of the Rashba, the Maggid Mishneh states that the same rules apply if there are less than four handbreadths between the two balconies, for it is easy to step from one balcony to the other as mentioned in Halachah 12. The Maggid Mishneh allows only one eruv to be established. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 373:1) gives the people the option of establishing one or two.
|
| 45. |
Because of the principle of l'vud.
|
| 46. |
They do not have the option of extending a board from one balcony to the other, because: a) as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 16:20, an entrance is not made in a corner; b) since the balconies are at different heights, a person will be afraid to walk from one to the other.
|
| 47. |
If it is less than four handbreadths wide, it is a makom patur, and may be used freely by the inhabitants of both courtyards, as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 14:7.
|
| 48. |
Rashi (Eruvin 77a), the Maggid Mishneh, and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:6) explain that this does not mean precisely ground level, but rather less than ten handbreadths high. Similar concepts apply regarding the trench mentioned in the second clause of the halachah.
|
| 49. |
This describes a situation in which both courtyards are situated on an incline.
|
| 50. |
The inhabitants of both courtyards may, however, transfer articles that had been left in their courtyards to the wall as reflected by Halachot 18 and 19 (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 51. |
I.e., there is not an entrance on either side of the ruin, but the inhabitants can throw articles into the ruin through its windows.
|
| 52. |
This follows the principle stated in Halachah 15. The inhabitants of the other house may not use the ruin at all unless they establish an eruv.
|
| 53. |
Our Sages decreed that although a walled city is a private domain, an eruv is necessary before one may carry freely within. They, nevertheless, restricted the scope of that decree to carrying articles from the houses outside, and from the areas outside the houses to the houses. The rationale for this leniency is that one does not usually leave articles outside. Hence, the Sages did not include this possibility in their original decree (Rashi, Eruvin 89a).
|
| 54. |
See Hilchot Shabbat 16:1 for more particulars.
|
| 55. |
Eruvin 91a gives several examples of how these principles were applied by the Sages.
|
| 56. |
The rule that follows applies even when an eruv was established in this particular courtyard, and it was permitted to bring the article there from the house.
|
| 57. |
Which did not establish an eruv together. Note the accompanying diagram.
|
| 58. |
Separating a portion of the cistern for each individual courtyard. Although there is no prohibition from the Torah against drawing water from such a cistern, the Sages forbade using the cistern, just as they forbade using other property that is jointly owned.
|
| 59. |
A partition that is suspended in the air is not normally acceptable. In this instance, however, additional leniency is granted, because the entire concept of forbidding carrying within water is Rabbinic in origin. (See also Hilchot Shabbat 15:13.)
|
| 60. |
This width is required so that one person will not be drawing water from his colleague's side of the cistern. Eruvin 86b states that the Sages estimated that a bucket would not travel more than four handbreadths under water.
|
| 61. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes that the word "path" implies a private walk and not a public thoroughfare. See Hilchot Shabbat 15:9. With this, he counters the objections of the Ra'avad, who maintains that it is necessary for the well to be surrounded by a partition ten handbreadths high in order to draw water from it.
|
| 62. |
See Hilchot Shabbat 15:14, where such projections are required.
|
| 63. |
I.e., the inhabitants are not carrying the water from the well, but lifting it up through windows that open to the path.
Some commentaries interpret the Rambam's wording as extending the application of this ruling even to an instance where there is an opening from the courtyards to the path. Other authorities (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh; Tur, Orach Chayim 376), by contrast, maintain that if there are entrances from the courtyards to the path, a projection is required. The difference between these two approaches is reflected in the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 376:2).
|
| 64. |
If, however, the wall is broken on the Sabbath itself, the inhabitants of the smaller courtyard may continue to carry since they were permitted to do so at the commencement of the Sabbath (the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 9:2).
|
| 65. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 374:3) states that portions of the wall of the small courtyard must jut into the large courtyard. If that is not the case, it is permitted to carry in the small courtyard as well. From the Rambam's wording and the drawings attributed to him that accompany his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 9:2), it does not appear that he considers this to be a necessity.
|
| 66. |
See also similar statements in Hilchot Tefillah 8:7 and Hilchot Kilayim 7:19.
|
| 67. |
This refers to a situation in which the window or the opening was buried under an avalanche or the like and could not be opened without violating the Sabbath laws (Rashi, Eruvin 93b).
|
| 68. |
The Ra'avad extends the leniency even further and maintains that the inhabitants of the courtyards may also pass articles from one courtyard to the other - e.g., by passing them over the wall. His opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 374:1).
|
| 69. |
We do not say that the entire area should now be considered a single courtyard, and since aneruv was not established before the Sabbath, carrying is forbidden.
|
| 70. |
When citing this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:2) makes a point of emphasizing that if the wall between a courtyard and a public domain or a carmelit falls on the Sabbath, carrying is no longer permitted within the courtyard.
|
| 71. |
In this instance, as well, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:1) mentions a further leniency. If an eruv has been established for an entire year between two courtyards, the opening between them was closed during the week (and thus at the commencement of the Sabbath it was not permitted to carry from one to the other), if an opening were made on the Sabbath, it would be permitted to carry from one to the other.
|
| 72. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on his interpretation of Eruvin 101b. Other authorities have different conceptions of that Talmudic passage.
|
Eruvin - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
When the inhabitants of a courtyard eat at the same table1 - even though they have their own individual dwellings - they are not required to establish an eruv; they are considered to be the inhabitants of a single household.
Just as the presence of a person's wife, the members of his household, or his servants does not cause him to be forbidden [to carry], nor does their presence make an eruv necessary, so too, these individuals are considered to be the members of a single household, for they all eat at the same table.2
Halacha 2
Similarly, if [the inhabitants of this courtyard] must establish an eruv together with the inhabitants of another courtyard, they are required to bring only one loaf to the place where the eruv is established.3
Similarly, if the eruv is established in their [house], they do not have to contribute to the eruv, just as the house in which an eruv is placed does not have to contribute a loaf of bread. [The rationale for both these laws is] that all these dwellings are considered to be a single dwelling.
Halacha 3
Similarly, the inhabitants of a courtyard who established an eruv together are considered to be [the members of] a single household.4 If it is necessary for them to establish an eruv together with the inhabitants of another courtyard, they are required to bring only one loaf to the place where the eruv is established. Similarly, if the eruv is established in their [house], they do not have to contribute a loaf of bread.
Halacha 4
When five people collect an eruv5 [for one courtyard] with the intent of bringing it to the place where an eruv will be established [together with the inhabitants of another courtyard],6 it is not necessary for all five to bring the bread there. Moreover, all th at is necessary is to bring a single loaf of bread. Since theeruv was collected, all [the inhabitants of the courtyard] are considered to be the members of a single household.
Halacha 5
When a father and his son, or a teacher and his student7are dwelling in the same courtyard, it is not necessary for them to establish an eruv; they are considered to be a single household. Although at times they eat at a single table and at times they do not eat [together], they are considered to be a single household.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply to] brothers, each of whom has a house of his own, and who do not eat at their father's table, and to wives and servants who do not eat at their husband's or master's table at all times, but rather they [occasionally] eat at his table in payment for the work they do for him,8 or as an expression of his favor for a specific amount of time, such as a person who enjoys a colleague's hospitality for a week or a month.9
If there are no other people dwelling together with them in the courtyard, they are not required to establish an eruv. If they establish an eruv with [the inhabitants of] another courtyard, a single eruv suffices for them. If the eruv is established in [one of] their [homes], they are not required to contribute a loaf of bread.
If there are other people living in the courtyard together with them, each of them is required to contribute a loaf of bread [for the eruv] like the other inhabitants of the courtyard. [The rationale is that] they do not eat at one table at all times.
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when] five groups spend the Sabbath together in a single large hall: If a partition that reaches the ceiling10 separates each of the groups [from the others], it is as if each group has a room of its own, or is in a loft of its own. In such an instance, every group must contribute a loaf of bread. If, however, the partition does not reach the ceiling, a single loaf11of bread is sufficient for all of them. For they are all considered to be the members of a single household.
Halacha 8
When a person owns one [of the following] structures12 - a gatehouse that people frequently walk through, an exedra,13a porch, a barn, a shed for straw, a shed for wood, or a storehouse - in a courtyard belonging to a colleague, he does not cause [his colleague] to be forbidden to carry. [Our Sages decreed that the presence of a person causes carrying] to be forbidden unless an eruvis established, only when the person possesses a dwelling in the courtyard in which he will [ordinarily] eat [a meal of] bread. The [possession of a] place to sleep, by contrast, does not cause carrying to be forbidden.
For this reason, even if a person decided to eat his meals consistently in a gatehouse or an exedra, his presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden, because this is not considered a dwelling.14
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] there are ten dwellings, one within the other:15 [The inhabitants of] the innermost dwelling and the one before it are required to provide the eruv. The eight outer dwellings, by contrast, are not required to contribute to the eruv. [The rationale is that] since many people walk through them, they are regarded as a gatehouse. [As mentioned above,] a person who lives in a gatehouse [does not cause others to be forbidden to carry].16
[The person living in] the ninth [house] does not have many people passing through his property - only one. Therefore, his presence causes [carrying] to be forbidden unless he contributes to the eruv.
Halacha 10
[The following rulings apply in the situation to be described:] There are two courtyards [each containing several houses] and three houses [in between them]. The houses have entrances to each other, and [the outer two houses]17 have entrances to the courtyards.
The inhabitants of one courtyard brought their eruv through the house that had an entrance for them and placed it in the middle house. Similarly, the inhabitants of the other courtyard brought their eruv through the house that had an entrance for them and placed it in the middle house.
[The inhabitants of] these three houses do not have to contribute a loaf of bread [to the eruv [for the following reasons]: The middle house is the house in which the eruv was placed. The two houses on its side are each considered to be a gatehouse for the inhabitants of the courtyard.
Halacha 11
[Different rules apply, however, if the situation changes. For example,] there are two courtyards [each containing several houses] and two houses [in between them] with entrances to each other. [The inhabitants of one courtyard] bring their eruv through the house that is open to them and place it in the second house, which is adjacent to the other courtyard.
[The inhabitants of the other courtyard also] bring their eruv through the entrance that is open to them and place it in the other house [which is adjacent to the other courtyard]. In such a situation, [the inhabitants of] neither [of the courtyards are considered to have] established an eruv. For each of them has placed his eruv in the gatehouse of another courtyard.18
Halacha 12
Although one of the inhabitants of a courtyard is in the midst of his death throes,19 even when [it is obvious] that he will not survive the day, his presence causes the other inhabitants of the courtyard to be forbidden [to carry] until they grant him [by proxy]20 a share in a loaf of bread and include him in the eruv.
Similarly, when a minor [owns a house in the courtyard], although he is incapable of eating an amount of food the size of an olive, his presence causes [carrying] to be forbidden until [the inhabitants of the courtyard] include him in the eruv. [The presence of] a guest, by contrast, does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden, as explained above.21
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] one of the inhabitants of a courtyard leaves his home and spends the Sabbath in another courtyard, even in a courtyard adjacent [to the one in which his home is located]: If he had no thought of returning to his home on the Sabbath, he does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden.22
Halacha 14
When the owner of a courtyard rents houses in the courtyard to others and [stipulates that] he may [continue] to leave articles or types of merchandise in each of these homes, [the presence of the renters] does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. Since he still has authority in each of the houses, everyone is considered to be his guest.25
When does the above apply? When he left an article that may not be carried26on the Sabbath - e.g., tevel27 or slabs of metal,28 in these homes. When, by contrast, he leaves articles that may be carried in each of the homes, [the presence of the renters] causes [carrying] to be forbidden unless they establish an eruv. For it is possible that he will remove them [on the Sabbath], and then he will be left without any authority [in these dwellings].
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a courtyard forgot and did not establish an eruv. They may not remove articles from their homes to the courtyard, nor from the courtyard to their homes. However, concerning articles that were left in the courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath:29[the inhabitants] may carry such articles throughout the courtyard and all its extensions.30
[The following rules apply when] there is a porch31 or an upper storey [that opens out to a courtyard],32 and the inhabitants of the courtyard have established an eruv for themselves and the inhabitants of the porch have established an eruv for themselves:33 Regarding articles that were left in their homes at the beginning of the Sabbath, the inhabitants of the porch or the upper storey are permitted to carry them throughout the porch and all of its extensions or throughout the upper storey and all of its extensions. The inhabitants of the courtyard may carry within the courtyard and all its extensions, [but they are forbidden to carry from the courtyard to the upper storey or the porch, or from the upper storey or the porch to the courtyard unless an eruv is established].
Similarly, if one person lives in the courtyard, and another person lives in the upper storey, and they forgot to establish an eruv, the owner of the upper storey may carry within the upper storey and all of its extensions, and the owner of the courtyard may carry within the courtyard and all of its extensions. [They may not, however, carry from one domain to the other without an eruv].
Halacha 16
What is implied? When there is a rock or a mound within the courtyard that is less than ten handbreadths high, it is considered to be [important to] both the courtyard and the porch, and [the inhabitants of] both are forbidden to bring articles there from their homes.
If [the rock or the mound] is ten handbreadths high and is less than four handbreadths removed from the porch, it is considered to be an extension of the porch, for they are of similar [height]. Therefore, the inhabitants of the porch may carry on it.
If it is four or more handbreadths removed from the porch, even when it is ten [handbreadths high] it is considered to be an extension of both the courtyard and the porch, since both can use it by throwing [objects onto it]. Therefore, [the inhabitants of] both are forbidden to bring articles there from their homes until they establish an eruv.
When there is a pillar four [or more] handbreadths wide in front of the porch [it is considered to be a divider]. [Therefore, the presence of] the porch does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden within the courtyard, for a separation has been made between [one domain and the other].
Halacha 17
When projections protrude from the walls [of the courtyard], all those that are below ten handbreadths high are considered to be extensions of the courtyard, and may be used by the inhabitants of the courtyard. All those that are within ten handbreadths of the upper storey may be used by the inhabitants of the upper storey.
The remainder, those that are located more than ten handbreadths above the ground and more than ten handbreadths below the upper storey, are forbidden to them both. Neither may use them for articles from the homes unless aneruv is established.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply to] a cistern located in [such] a courtyard: If it is filled with produce that was tevel - and hence is forbidden to be carried on the Sabbath - or with objects of a similar kind, it and the enclosure around it,34 are regarded like a rock or a mound in a courtyard.35 If [the enclosure] is ten handbreadths high and close to the porch, it is considered to be an extension of the porch.
If, by contrast, it is filled with water,36 neither the inhabitants of the courtyard nor the inhabitants of the porch may bring [water] to their homes from it unless they establish an eruv.
Halacha 19
[The following rules apply when] there are two courtyards, one lying behind the other, and the inhabitants of the inner courtyard enter and exit by passing through the outer courtyard: When [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard have established an eruv, but [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard have not, [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard may carry [within their domain], but [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard may not.37
When [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard have established an eruv, but [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard have not, [the inhabitants of] both are forbidden to carry; [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard because they did not establish an eruv, and the inhabitants of the outer courtyard because the people who pass through [their domain] did not establish an eruv [even within their own domain].38
If [the inhabitants of] both domains have established separate eruvin,39 they may each carry within their own domain; they may not carry from one [domain] to the other.
Halacha 20
[If the inhabitants of both domains have established separate eruvin,] but one of the inhabitants of the outer courtyard forgot to join in the eruv [in his domain], the inhabitants of the inner courtyard are still permitted to carry.40
When, by contrast, one of the inhabitants of the inner courtyard forgot to join in the eruv [in his domain], [not only are the inhabitants of the inner courtyard forbidden to carry, the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard are also forbidden to do so. [This restriction is instituted] because the inhabitants of the inner courtyard whose eruv is not acceptable pass through their [domain].
Halacha 21
[The following rules apply when] both courtyards establish a single eruv: If theeruv is placed in the outer courtyard, and one of the inhabitants - whether an inhabitant of the outer courtyard or of the inner courtyard - forgets to join in theeruv, [all] the inhabitants of both courtyards are forbidden [to carry]41 unless he subordinates [the ownership of] his domain to them. [This is possible for, as we explained,42 one may subordinate the ownership of a domain in one courtyard to [people dwelling in] another.
[Different rules apply when] the eruv is placed in the inner courtyard: If one of the inhabitants of the outer courtyard did not join in the eruv, [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard are forbidden to carry. [The inhabitants of] the inner courtyard, by contrast, are permitted to carry within their own [domain].43 If one of the inhabitants of the inner courtyard did not join in the eruv, [all the inhabitants of] both [courtyards] are forbidden [to carry]44 unless he subordinates [the ownership of] his domain to them.
Halacha 22
If [only] one person45 was dwelling in one [of these] courtyards and [only] one person was dwelling in the other, there is no need for them to establish aneruv;46 each one is permitted to carry in his courtyard.
If, however, a gentile dwells in the inner courtyard, even though he is merely a single [household], he is considered as many individuals, and [his presence] causes [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard to be forbidden to carry until his domain is rented.47
Halacha 23
[The following laws apply when there are] three courtyards with entrances to each other, and there are many people dwelling in each courtyard: When [the inhabitants of] the two outer courtyards have established an eruv together with [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard,48 [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard are permitted to carry within the outer courtyards, and [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyards are permitted to carry within the inner courtyard, but the inhabitants of the two outer courtyards may not carry in the other outer courtyard unless all three join in a single eruv.
If a single individual dwells in each courtyard, there is no need for them to establish an eruv, although many individuals pass through the outer courtyard.49 [The rationale is that] each of these individuals is permitted to carry in his own domain. If, however, there are two individuals living in the inner courtyard [different rules apply]. Since [these individuals] are forbidden to carry in their own domain until they establish an eruv, they cause the single individuals in the middle and in the outer domains to be forbidden [to carry] unless the two inhabitants of the inner domain establish an eruv.
This is the governing principle: When a person who is forbidden to carry in his own domain passes through another domain, his passage causes carrying to be forbidden there. When, by contrast, the person may carry in his own domain, his passage through another domain does not cause carrying to be forbidden there.
Halacha 24
[The following rules apply when] there are two balconies positioned over a body of water, and one is positioned above the other: Although [the inhabitants of] each of them have constructed a partition ten handbreadths high descending [to the water],50 if the two balconies are within ten handbreadths of each other,51 it is forbidden for [their inhabitants] to draw water unless they establish a single eruv. [The rationale is that, because of their closeness] they are considered to be a single balcony.52
If the distance between the upper balcony and the lower balcony is more than ten handbreadths, and [the inhabitants of] each have established separateeruvin, they are both permitted to draw [water].
Halacha 25
If [the inhabitants of] the upper [balcony] did not make a partition, but the inhabitants of the lower [balcony] did, even [the inhabitants of] the lower balcony are forbidden to draw [water]. [The rationale is that] the buckets of the upper [balcony], which are forbidden, pass through their domain.53
If [the inhabitants of] the upper [balcony] have made a partition, but [the inhabitants of] the lower [balcony] have not, [the inhabitants of] the upper balcony are permitted to draw water,54 but [the inhabitants of] the lower balcony are forbidden.55
If the inhabitants of the lower [balcony] joined together with [the inhabitants of] the upper [balcony] in the construction of the partition, [the inhabitants of] both are forbidden to draw water56 until they establish a single eruv.
Halacha 26
[The following rules apply to a building] with three storeys, one above the other; the upper and the lower storeys belong to one individual, and the middle storey belongs to another: One may not lower articles from the top storey to the bottom storey through the middle storey.57 For we may not pass articles from one domain to another domain via a third domain. One may, however, lower articles from the top [storey] to the lower [storey] [if] they do not [pass] through the middle [storey].58
Halacha 27
[The following rules apply when] two buildings face each other and there is a courtyard below them into which water is poured.59 They should not pour water into the courtyard unless they join together in a single eruv.
If [the inhabitants of one building]60 dig a pit in the courtyard into which to pour water, while [the inhabitants of the other building] do not, those who dig the pit may pour water into it. The others are forbidden to pour water into the courtyard unless they join together in a single eruv.
If [the inhabitants of both buildings] each dig a pit, each may pour water into the pit they have dug, even though they did not establish an eruv.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's wording is not to be understood literally; if people eat in the same room, even if they eat at different tables - indeed, even if they eat their own food - they are not required to establish an eruv. These concepts are also reflected in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:7) and quoted as halachah by the Ramah (Orach Chayim370:4).
The most common application of this concept today would be a hotel or a bungalow colony, where many people eat in the same dining room, and yet have their own private rooms or dwellings.
|
| 2. |
This highlights the principle that it is the place where a person eats, and not where he sleeps, that is most significant in defining his place of residence.
|
| 3. |
In Chapter 1, Halachah 15, the Rambam states that every household participating in the eruv is required to contribute a loaf of bread. Nevertheless, in this instance, since all the inhabitants of the courtyard are considered to be members of a single household, only one loaf is required.
|
| 4. |
Although they eat in separate places, joining together in the eruv causes them to be considered as if they share the same table.
|
| 5. |
I.e., they collected loaves of bread from each household in the courtyard.
|
| 6. |
The Shem Yosef explains that this latter phrase represents the new concept contributed in this halachah, as opposed to the previous one. Although the eruv was originally collected for the purpose of establishing an eruv with the inhabitants of another courtyard, the collection itself causes the inhabitants to be considered members of a single household.
|
| 7. |
Although the Rambam uses a singular term, the same law applies to many sons or many students.
|
| 8. |
The Rambam's comparison of these individuals to hired workers reflects his interpretation of the expression במקבלי פרס in Eruvin 73a. The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation, and his view is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 370:5- 6).
|
| 9. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's intent is not that the presence of a guest causes carrying to be forbidden when there are others living in the same courtyard. For as explained at the beginning of Chapter 2, and in Halachah 12 of this chapter, a guest's presence makes no difference in this context. Rather, the point of the comparison above is to emphasize the intermediate status of these individuals. On one hand, like guests, they are at times considered to be members of the person's household. On the other hand, since they have their own dwellings and often eat there, there is reason to consider them as having separate households.
|
| 10. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites the Rashba, who explains that it is sufficient for the partitions to reach within three handbreadths of the ceiling, since, based on the principle of l'vud, when they are that close it is considered as if they reached the ceiling itself. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim370:3) quotes this ruling.
|
| 11. |
I.e., they must make an eruv. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) differs and (following the interpretation of Tosafot, Eruvin 72a and Rabbenu Asher) does not require an eruv at all unless they want to join with others outside the hall.
The Shulchan Aruch, however, emphasizes that we are speaking about temporary partitions, either curtains or pieces of wood. If the partitions are permanent, they are considered as having separate dwellings, and an eruv is required.
|
| 12. |
All these structures have one thing in common - they are not ordinary dwellings where a person will eat his meals on a regular basis.
|
| 13. |
A Greek structure with two or three walls and a roof with a sky-light.
|
| 14. |
For these structures are not fit to serve as dwellings. In contrast, were a person to eat continually in a barn, a wood shed, or a shed for straw, these are considered to be dwellings, and an eruv is necessary (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 370:1; see Chapter 1, Halachah 16).
|
| 15. |
I.e., to get to the inner dwellings, one must pass through the outer ones.
|
| 16. |
The Mishnah Berurah 370:52 extends this principle and applies it to people renting separate rooms in a single home. If the rooms lead through each other, the inhabitants of the outer rooms do not have to contribute to the eruv.
|
| 17. |
But not the middle house. See the accompanying diagram.
|
| 18. |
And an eruv that was placed in a gatehouse is not acceptable, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 16.
|
| 19. |
This reflects a general principle in Torah law. Until a person actually stops breathing, he is considered to be alive. There is no difference in his status regarding any of the Torah's laws.
|
| 20. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.
|
| 21. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
|
| 22. |
The rationale is that a dwelling without an owner is not considered to be a dwelling (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 371:1; Mishnah Berurah 371:1).
|
| 23. |
For it is unlikely that a Jew will return to his home on the Sabbath. Moreover, even if he did so, we apply the principle that since carrying was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for the entire Sabbath (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 24. |
The Maggid Mishneh mentions a more lenient view, which states that if the gentile spends the Sabbath at a place that is more than a day's journey from home, the inhabitants are allowed to carry, because it is impossible for him to arrive on the Sabbath. This ruling is quoted by theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 371:1).
The Ramah grants a further leniency and permits the inhabitants to carry when the gentile stays in another courtyard in the same city. If the gentile returns to his home on the Sabbath, the Turei Zahav 371:2 permits the inhabitants to continue to carry. The Mishnah Berurah 371:8, by contrast, rules that this is forbidden.
|
| 25. |
Note the ruling of the Ramah (Orach Chayim 370:2), which states that this decision applies only when there are no other inhabitants in the courtyard besides the owner and the persons to whom he rented dwellings, or the eruv was brought into the house of the owner.
|
| 26. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) adds that this applies also when the articles are too heavy to be lifted on the Sabbath.
|
| 27. |
Produce from which terumah and the tithes have not been separated. These tithes may not be separated on the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat 23:9,14), nor is it permitted to carry such produce on the Sabbath (loc. cit. 25:19).
|
| 28. |
Since this metal has not been fashioned into a useful article, it is forbidden to be carried on the Sabbath (loc. cit.:6).
|
| 29. |
See the Be'ur Halachah 372, which explains there are authorities who differ with regard to whether one is permitted to carry an article within a courtyard when an eruv has not been established - if that article hads been placed in one of the homes at the commencement of the Sabbath, but was inadvertently taken from the home and placed in the courtyard. Although the Rambam would appear to forbid carrying the article, Rashi (Shabbat 130b) and Tosafot (Eruvin 91b) maintain that carrying it is permitted within the courtyard.
|
| 30. |
See Chapter 3, Halachah 19.
|
| 31. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:3), the Rambam describes a porch as an intermediate level, at least ten handbreadths high, through which stairs lead to the courtyard.
|
| 32. |
I.e., the inhabitants of the porch or the upper storey descend through a stairwell into the courtyard, and from the courtyard they proceed to the public domain. The Rabbis consider the stairwell equivalent to an entrance. Hence, they liken the situation to one in which two courtyards are positioned adjacent to each other with an entrance between them.
|
| 33. |
I.e., unless an eruv is established, the inhabitants of these domains are forbidden to carry within the others' domains and within the property shared by both.
|
| 34. |
See Hilchot Shabbat 15:9.
|
| 35. |
I.e., since the cistern is filled with objects that are forbidden to be carried, it is not given any special importance, and instead is considered like any other large, distinct object in the courtyard.
|
| 36. |
It is, by nature, fit to be used by the inhabitants of both domains. Therefore, neither is entitled to do so, unless they establish an eruv.
|
| 37. |
The rationale for these rulings is obvious; the concept is mentioned primarily to show the contrast with the subsequent clauses of the halachah. Unlike the inhabitants of the inner courtyard, who can reach their own dwelling only by passing through the outer courtyard, there is no reason for the inhabitants of the outer courtyard to pass through the inner one.
|
| 38. |
This ruling reflects the principle stated in Halachah 23, that when people are forbidden to carry within their own domain, they cause carrying to be forbidden in the domain through which they pass. Had the inhabitants of the inner courtyard established an eruv for themselves, they would not cause carrying to be forbidden in the outer courtyard, as reflected in the following clause.
|
| 39. |
Similarly, if the single courtyard belongs to a single individual, or the owners are considered to be members of a single household - e.g., a father and his children, their presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden in the outer courtyard (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 40. |
For their eruv is still intact and there is no necessity for the inhabitants of the outer courtyard to pass through the inner one.
|
| 41. |
The eruv is not acceptable for the inner courtyard, because it is not located within the courtyard itself, and it is not acceptable for the outer courtyard, because one of the inhabitants of the courtyard did not participate.
|
| 42. |
Chapter 2, Halachah 5.
|
| 43. |
For all the inhabitants of this courtyard have joined together in a single eruv. Although they had desired to join together with the inhabitants of the outer courtyard, the failure for this desire to be fulfilled does not cause them to forfeit their initial advantage as a domain joined by an eruv. (SeeEruvin 75b.)
|
| 44. |
In this instance, the inhabitants of the inner courtyard are forbidden to carry because one of their number has failed to join in the eruv. This in turn causes carrying to be forbidden in the outer courtyard, as explained above.
|
| 45. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:10), the Rambam explains that this can refer to members of an extended household - e.g., a father and his children.
|
| 46. |
Needless to say, to carry from one courtyard to the next, an eruv is necessary.
|
| 47. |
Our Sages explained that gentiles are less private about the details of their personal dwellings than the Jews. Thus many people will know of the gentile's presence and the fact that his domain was not rented, but they may not know that only one Jew lives in the outer courtyard. Therefore, they might not realize that this is an exception, and generally, when one courtyard leads to another, an eruv is required (Eruvin 75b). Although when one Jew lives in a courtyard together with a gentile, he is generally not required to rent his domain (Chapter 2, Halachah 9), an exception is made in this instance.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 382:17) mentions this as a singular opinion, and the Mishnah Berurah 382:59 states that it is not shared by most authorities. Some have noted that the Rambam himself uses a plural form of the word "rent," and they interpret this as referring to an instance where two Jews live in the outer courtyard.
|
| 48. |
I.e., the inhabitants of the inner courtyard have established two eruvin, one with each of the outer courtyards.
|
| 49. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that these two clauses refer to different situations. The first clause refers to a situation in which all three courtyards have entrances to the public domain, while this clause refers to a situation where only the outermost courtyard has an entrance to the public domain, and the inhabitants of this courtyard must pass through it.
Based on the Hagahot Maimoniot, Merkevet HaMishneh explains that the fundamental aspect of this ruling is the interpretation of Rabbi Shimeon's statements that the inhabitants of the middle courtyard are permitted to carry in either of the outer courtyards (Eruvin 45b, 48b). Although these statements were made regarding a situation in which only one courtyard opened up to the public domain, one can extrapolate that the same ruling would apply when all three open to the public domain.
|
| 50. |
See Hilchot Shabbat 15:15, which interprets this law as referring to a balcony with a hole in its floor, from which water is drawn and through which it is poured. The partition need not extend the full distance from the balcony to the water. As long as it extends either ten handbreadths below the balcony or ten handbreadths above the water, drawing water and pouring water through the hole in the balcony are permitted.
|
| 51. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:8), the Rambam explains this as referring to two balconies positioned one on top of the other. Each balcony has a hole in it, and these holes are also aligned one on top of the other.
|
| 52. |
The Ra'avad states that, based on Eruvin 88a, this ruling would appear to apply only when the two balconies are not directly above each other. The Ra'avad's position is shared by Rashi and the Rashba, while the Rambam's interpretation appears to be shared by Rabbenu Chanan'el. Although the Maggid Mishneh attempts to justify the Rambam's position, most authorities (including the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 355:5) follow the Ra'avad's view.
|
| 53. |
I.e., the Rambam applies the principle stated in Halachah 23 - about people passing from one domain to another - to the buckets used to draw water that pass from domain to domain. In this instance, as well, the Ra'avad, Rashi, and others interpret Eruvin (loc. cit.), the source for this halachah, differently, and their interpretation is cited in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).
|
| 54. |
The fact that their buckets pass through the area of the lower domain is of no consequence.
|
| 55. |
For they have no partition.
|
| 56. |
Since they both have a share in the partition, they are considered as full partners in a single domain. Hence, it is necessary that they be joined together in an eruv.
|
| 57. |
I.e., through a hole in the building.
|
| 58. |
E.g, from a porch to a porch.
|
| 59. |
As evident from Hilchot Shabbat 15:16-17, this refers to a courtyard larger than four cubits by four cubits. It is forbidden to pour water into a smaller courtyard unless one digs a pit, as reflected in the second clause of this halachah.
|
| 60. |
The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:11).
|
Eruvin - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a lane join in a business partnership with regard to a particular food - i.e., they have bought wine, oil, honey, or the like [for sale]:1 They need not establish another shituf for the sake [of carrying on] the Sabbath. Instead, they may rely on the partnership they have established for business reasons.
[When does this leniency apply?] When their business partnership involves one type of produce, and [this produce] is stored in a single container. But if their partnership is such that one possesses wine and the other oil,2 or they both possess wine but hold it in two different containers, they are required to establish another shituf for the sake of the Sabbath.
Halacha 2
If one of the inhabitants of a lane asks another for wine or oil before the Sabbath, and the latter refuses to give it to him, the shituf is nullified.3 [The rationale is that this individual] revealed that his intent was that they are not all to be considered partners who do not object to each other's [use of the combined resources].
When one of the inhabitants of a lane who usually participates in a shituf fails to do so,4 the inhabitants of the lane may enter his home and take [his share for] the shituf against his will. If one of the inhabitants of a lane refuses5 to join with the others in the shituf, he may be compelled to do so.6
Halacha 3
When one of the inhabitants of a lane owns a storeroom of wine, oil, or the like, he may grant a small share to all the inhabitants of the lane and establish a shituf on their behalf. The shituf is acceptable even though he did not separate or designate [the wine he granted them, but rather left it] mixed together [with the remainder] in the storeroom.
Halacha 4
[When the inhabitants of] a courtyard that has two entrances, each leading to a different lane, establish a shituf with one of [the lanes] and not the other,7[they] are forbidden to bring articles to and from the second lane.
Therefore, if a person [sets aside food for a shituf], grants a portion to all the inhabitants of the lane, and establishes a shituf on their behalf, he must notify the inhabitants of that courtyard. For they must make a conscious decision to join the shituf, since this is not [necessarily] to their benefit,8 because it is possible that they desire to join in a shituf with [the inhabitants of] the other lane, and not with this one.
Halacha 5
A person's wife may participate in an eruv on his behalf without his knowledge, provided he does not [intend to cause] his neighbors to be forbidden [to carry].9 If he does [intend to cause] them to be forbidden [to carry], however, she may not join an eruv on his behalf, nor may she join ashituf on his behalf unless he consents.
What is meant by "[intend to cause] them to be forbidden [to carry]"? That he says, "I will not join in an eruv or a shituf with them."
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when a courtyard opens up to two lanes and] the inhabitants of the courtyard have established a shituf with [the inhabitants of] one of the lanes: If they had originally established the shituf with one type of produce, even if the produce in the shituf was consumed entirely, one may establish a second shituf and grant them a portion; there is no need to inform them a second time.10
If they have established the shituf with two types11 of produce,12 and the amount of food was reduced [from the minimum required],13 one may add to it and grant the others a share; there is no need to inform them. If [the produce] was consumed entirely, one may [establish a second shituf and] grant them a portion; it is, however, necessary to inform them.14
If the number of inhabitants within the courtyard is increased, one may grant [the newcomers] a portion in the shituf, but one must notify them.15
Halacha 7
If the inhabitants of this courtyard have established a shituf with the inhabitants of this lane from one entrance, and have established another shitufwith the inhabitants of the other lane from the other entrance, they are permitted [to carry to and from] both [of these lanes]16, and [the inhabitants of] both [lanes] are permitted [to carry within the courtyard]. [The inhabitants of] both lanes are, however, forbidden [to carry] from one [lane] to the other.17
If [the inhabitants of the courtyard] have not established a shituf with either of them, they cause [the inhabitants of] both to be forbidden [to carry].18
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of] this courtyard usually [pass] through one entrance [into one lane], but do not usually [pass] through a second entrance [into another lane]: They cause carrying to be forbidden [in the lane to which] the entrance through which they usually [pass opens].19They do not cause carrying to be forbidden [in the lane to which] the entrance through which they do not usually [pass opens].20
If [the inhabitants of this courtyard] have established a shituf with [only] the lane through which they do not usually [pass], [the inhabitants of] the other lane are allowed [to carry];21 they do not have to establish a shituf with [the inhabitants of this courtyard].
Halacha 9
[A leniency is granted in the following situation.] The inhabitants of the lane [through] which [the inhabitants of] this courtyard usually pass established ashituf by themselves. [The inhabitants of the courtyard] did not joined in thisshituf, nor have they joined in a shituf with the inhabitants of the lane [through] which they do not usually pass. The inhabitants of the latter lane [also] did not established a shituf for themselves.
Since [the inhabitants of the courtyard] have not joined in a shituf at all, they are considered part of the lane [through] which they do not usually pass. Since both these groups of individuals have not established a shituf, they are classed together, so that they will not cause [the inhabitants of] the lane who established the shituf to be forbidden [to carry].22
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a courtyard has an entrance to a lane and another entrance to a valley or to an area enclosed for purposes other than habitation, which is larger than the area [needed] to sow two se'ah:23 Since it is forbidden to transfer articles from the courtyard to that enclosed area, [the inhabitants of the courtyard] rely only on the entrance to the lane. Therefore, they cause the inhabitants of the lane to be forbidden [to carry] unless they join together with them in a shituf.
If, however, the enclosed area is the size of the area [needed] to sow twose'ah or less, its presence does not cause the inhabitants of the lane to be forbidden [to carry]. Since carrying is permitted within the entire enclosed area, [the inhabitants of the courtyard] rely on the entrance that is exclusively theirs.24
Halacha 11
When one of the inhabitants of a lane goes away and spends the Sabbath in another place, [the fact that he owns a domain in the lane] does not cause carrying to be forbidden.25
Similarly, if one of the inhabitants of a lane builds a pillar that is four handbreadths wide [or more] before his entrance, [the fact that he owns a domain in the lane] does not cause carrying to be forbidden. For he has separated himself from [the other inhabitants], and has made his domain a distinct entity.26
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a lane have joined together in a shituf, but several of the inhabitants forgot and did not join: [Those who forgot] should subordinate the ownership of their domain to those who joined in the shituf. The laws governing the subordination of the ownership of their domain are the same as the laws governing the subordination of the ownership of a domain when one or more of the inhabitants of a courtyard forgot to join in an eruv.27
We have already explained28 that a person and [all] the members of his household who are dependent on him for meals are considered to be a single entity with regard to the establishment of an eruv for a courtyard and a shituffor a lane.
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of] all the courtyards established eruvin for each of the courtyards, and afterwards they all joined in a shituf for the lane: When one of the inhabitants of a lane forgot to join in theeruv with the other inhabitants of his courtyard, he does not lose any [privileges]. For all of them have joined together in a shituf, and it is on theshituf that they rely.
The only reason it was required to establish an eruv within the courtyards, together with the shituf, is so that the children will not forget the law of theeruv.29 [And in this instance, that requirement has been met,] for eruvin were established in the courtyards.
If, however, one of the inhabitants of the lane forgot to join in the shituf, carrying is forbidden in the lane.30 The inhabitants of the courtyards, however, may carry in their [respective] courtyards. [When a shituf is not established,] the relationship between courtyards and a lane is parallel to that between homes and a courtyard.31
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of all the courtyards] have joined in a shituf, but all have forgotten to establish eruvin for their respective courtyards: If they do not stint on sharing their bread,32 they may rely on theshituf for one Sabbath alone. This leniency is granted, however, only because of the difficulty [of their immediate circumstance].33
Halacha 15
When eruvin have been established between the courtyards and the homes [of a lane], but a shituf has not been established, carrying [an article] more than four cubits [within the lane] is forbidden, as [would be the law] within acarmelit.
[The rationale is that] since eruvin were established between the courtyards and the homes, the lane is considered as though it opened only to homes, and not to courtyards. Therefore, we are not allowed to carry within its area at all.34
If the inhabitants of the courtyards have not established eruvin, they may carry articles left in the [lane] at the commencement of the Sabbath throughout its entire area, as is the law regarding a courtyard in which an eruv was not established.35
Halacha 16
The laws that the inhabitants of a lane must follow with regard to a gentile36 or a Sadducee37 who dwells in one of the courtyards of a lane are the same as must be followed by the inhabitants of the courtyard. They must rent the gentile's domain within the courtyard from him or from one of the members of his household, and the Sadducee must subordinate the ownership of his domain.
Halacha 17
When a gentile living in a lane has an opening40 from his courtyard to a valley, his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden within the lane [although his courtyard also opens to the lane].41 Even if this entrance is small - merely four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] - and the gentile leads his camels and his wagons out through the other entrance, his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. For he is concerned only with the entrance that is distinctly his own - i.e., [the one leading to] the valley.
Similarly, if he has an entrance leading to an area that was enclosed for purposes other than habitation, [and that entrance] is larger than the area needed to sow two se'ah [of grain], it is regarded like an entrance to a valley, and his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. If, however, the enclosed area was the size needed to sow two se'ah of grain or less, [the gentile] is not concerned with [this area],42 and his presence causes [carrying] to be forbidden,43 unless [his domain] is rented from him.
Halacha 18
[The following rule applies when] there is a lane that has gentiles living [in the courtyards] on one side and Jews living [in the courtyards] on the other side, and there are windows that open from each of the courtyards in which the Jews [live] to the other: Although they established eruvin via the windows, and thus are joined together as the members of a single household - and are, therefore, permitted to transfer [articles] to and from [one courtyard to another] via the windows - they are, nevertheless, forbidden to use the lane via its entrances44 unless they rent the domains from the gentiles. For the principle that [because of an eruv] the many become considered a single entity does not apply when there are gentiles involved.45
Halacha 19
How is a shituf established in a city?46 Every courtyard should establish aneruv for itself, so that the children will not forget [the laws of eruvin]. Afterwards, all the inhabitants of the city join together in a shituf in the same way as a shituf is established in a lane.
If the city had once been the property of a single individual, even if later it became the property of many individuals, it is possible for all [the inhabitants] to join in a single shituf and [be permitted] to carry throughout the entire city.47Similarly, although a city is owned by many, if it has only one entrance, all [the inhabitants] may join in a single shituf.48
Halacha 20
If, by contrast, [a city] was originally built as the property of many individuals,49 and it has two openings used for entrance and egress, the entire [city] may not be included in the eruv. [This applies even if the city later] becomes the private property of one individual. Instead, one area - even one house in one courtyard - is set aside,50 and a shituf is established in the remainder [of the city].
All the individuals who participate in the shituf are permitted [to carry] throughout the entire city with the exception of the place that was set aside. If there are many people [living in] the place [that was set aside], they are permitted to carry in that place if they make a shituf for themselves. They are, however, forbidden to carry throughout the remainder of the city.
Halacha 21
This was instituted to make a distinction, so that [the inhabitants know that theeruv made carrying possible in this large city through which many people pass.51 [For they will see] the place that was set aside, which did not join in the shituf, in which carrying is forbidden. [Each group of individuals, the inhabitants of the city and the inhabitants of the area that was set aside] will have their separate [area].
Halacha 22
When a city belonging to many individuals has one entrance and has a ladder52 [that could be used to enter or depart] at another place [in its wall], it [is possible to include] the entire [city] in the eruv; no portion need be set aside. For a ladder in the wall is not considered to be an entrance.53
The houses that are set aside [and are not included in the shituf] need not face the city. Even if they face the outside area, and their back is towards the city, they may be [designated as the houses that are] set aside, and then aneruv may be established throughout the remainder [of the city].54
Halacha 23
Halacha 24
When all the inhabitants of a city with the exception of the inhabitants of a single lane join together in a shituf, [the presence of these individuals] causes [carrying] to be forbidden for all. [The inhabitants] should61 build a pillar62 at the entrance to the lane, so that [carrying] is not forbidden.
For this reason, a shituf is not established in half a city.63 Either the entire city joins in the shituf or [separate shitufim are made], each lane for itself. Each lane should build a pillar at its entrance to keep its domain distinct from the others, so that it will not cause [the inhabitants of] the other lanes to be forbidden [to carry].
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
A shituf established by the inhabitants of a lane is mentioned because it can be established with other types of food besides bread. In contrast, an eruv for a courtyard may be established only with bread (Chapter 1, Halachah 8). The Rashba (as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh) states that the same principle would apply if the inhabitants of a courtyard established a business partnership for the sale of bread.
|
| 2. |
The Tur (Orach Chayim 366) states that even if the partnership involves several types of produce, as long as it is stored in a single container, the inhabitants may rely on it for the sake of the Sabbath. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 386:3) quotes this ruling.
|
| 3. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on Eruvin 68a. In his commentary on that passage, Rashi explains that this refers to the food set aside for the shituf. If the person asks for some of this food and it is not given to him, the eruv is nullified.
Although this does not appear to be the Rambam's intent, the Kessef Mishneh explains that his words can be interpreted in this manner. [And in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 366:5), Rav Yosef Karo rules according to his explanation in the Kessef Mishneh]. The Ra'avad goes further and explains that this law applies only when one person has granted others a share in his produce for the purpose of establishing a shituf. If, afterwards, he refuses to allow one of the members of the lane to take from the shituf, the shituf is nullified.
|
| 4. |
With the intent of nullifying the shituf.
|
| 5. |
I.e., in contrast to the previous law, this person was not a regular participant in the shituf.
|
| 6. |
I.e., the communal court may compel him to join the shituf. Nevertheless, in contrast to the previous law, the matter may not be dealt with by the inhabitants of the lane themselves (Maggid Mishneh). This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 367:1).
The Noda BiY'hudah (Vol. II, Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 39) points to Hilchot Sh'chenim 5:12 (quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 162:1), which appears to contradict this interpretation, for it states that the members of the lane may compel each other to build a pole or a beam for a courtyard. The Noda BiY'hudah explains, however, that there is a difference between the structure of a courtyard (i.e., the pole or the beam) and participation in an eruv.
|
| 7. |
According to most authorities, the inhabitants of such a courtyard have the right to establish ashituf with the inhabitants of both lanes, if they desire. If they chose this option, they may bring articles to and from both lanes. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that the Rambam accepts this view, as well.
There are opinions (see Rabbenu Yehonatan) that maintain that Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi differs with this view, and maintains that in such a situation, the inhabitants of the courtyard may join in ashituf with the inhabitants of only one lane. Some maintain that the Rambam also accepts this view. This is surely the opinion of the Ra'avad, who objects to the Rambam's ruling here.
This interpretation cannot be justified in light of the Rambam's ruling in Halachah 7. Accordingly,Merkevet HaMishneh offers a different interpretation of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, as is explained in the following note.
|
| 8. |
In Chapter 1, Halachah 20, the Rambam states: "A person need not inform the inhabitants of a lane or a courtyard that he has granted them [a portion of food] and established an eruv for them, for these deeds are to their benefit, and a person may grant a colleague benefit without the latter's knowledge."
The rationale behind that ruling is that it is surely to the benefit of the inhabitants of a courtyard to be able to bring articles to and from areas outside their courtyard. In this instance, however, the establishment of a shituf is not necessarily to the benefit of the inhabitants of that courtyard, and they must therefore be notified beforehand.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the shituf is not necessarily to their benefit, because they have another alternative to transfer articles to and from the courtyard from outside. Hence, it is possible that the inhabitants of the courtyard do not desire to join in the shituf with this lane, lest doing so increase the amount of human traffic in their courtyard.
According to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, the question facing the inhabitants of this courtyard is: If they do not join in a shituf with either of the lanes, they are allowed to transfer articles left in the courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath to and from both the lanes. Should they join in a shituf with only one of the lanes, although their opportunities are greatly increased with regard to transferring articles to and from the lane with which they established the shituf, they lose the opportunity to transfer articles to and from the other lane. Perhaps they would desire to maintain the situation as it was originally rather than forfeit this opportunity.
|
| 9. |
In this ruling, the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 80a (the source for this halachah) parallels that of Rabbenu Chanan'el. Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others offer a directly opposite interpretation of that passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 367:1) follows the latter view.
The Ra'avad's objection to the Rambam's ruling revolves around the interpretation of the passage cited above, which begins:
According to the Rambam, the law Rabbi Zeira cites as support is not entirely analogous to the situation regarding which he was asked. A Jew's wife may establish an eruv without his knowledge, but not against his will. A gentile's wife, by contrast, may rent out his domain even when he has already refused (Sefer HaKovetz).
|
| 10. |
Since they agreed to join in the shituf previously, we assume that they desire to continue the arrangement (Levush, Orach Chayim 368:1).
|
| 11. |
Rashi (Eruvin 80b) explains that this refers to establishing the second shituf with a different type of produce, rather than establishing the first eruv with two types of produce. His approach is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 368:1).
|
| 12. |
Note Chapter 1, Halachah 11, where the Rambam states that a shituf can be established using two types of produce. The Ra'avad objects both there and here.
|
| 13. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
|
| 14. |
Merkevet HaMishneh explains that, even according to the Rambam, using two types of produce for a shituf is undesirable. Therefore, if the shituf must be established anew, it is necessary to check whether the inhabitants of the lane consent.
|
| 15. |
For perhaps they would desire to establish the shituf with the inhabitants of the other lane.
|
| 16. |
See the notes on Halachah 4.
|
| 17. |
Unless they join together in a shituf.
|
| 18. |
Since there is a courtyard in their lane that has not joined in the shituf, all the inhabitants of the lane are forbidden to carry.
|
| 19. |
Unless they join in a shituf.
|
| 20. |
Even when they do not join in a shituf.
|
| 21. |
Provided they establish an eruv for themselves.
|
| 22. |
Based on the principles stated in the previous halachah, it would seem that the fact that the inhabitants of this courtyard have not joined in the shituf of the lane through which they usually pass would cause carrying to be forbidden in this lane. Nevertheless, since the inhabitants of this courtyard have another alternative, they are considered part of the courtyard through which they do not usually pass. The rationale is that through this decision, one group of people (the inhabitants of the lane who established a shituf) benefits (for their shituf is considered acceptable), and another group (the inhabitants of the courtyard in question) does not lose (for they are forbidden to carry regardless) [Eruvin 49a].
|
| 23. |
As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 16:3, this is an area of 5000 square cubits. The Sages forbade carrying in such an area, even when it is surrounded by a proper partition (loc. cit.:1-2).
|
| 24. |
I.e., we assume that the entrance that is more important to them is the entrance to the enclosed area and not the entrance to the lane. Hence, the fact that they have an entrance to the lane is of no significance.
|
| 25. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.
|
| 26. |
See also Halachah 24 and Chapter 4, Halachah 16.
|
| 27. |
See Chapter 2, Halachot 1-5.
|
| 28. |
Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
|
| 29. |
I.e., an eruv established within a courtyard will be seen by the children, and they will know that it is only because of this eruv that the restrictions against carrying are relaxed. If, however, there is only a shituf in the lane, it is unlikely to be noticed by the children, and they will not know about the restrictions established by our Sages (Eruvin 73b). (See, however, the notes on the following halachah.)
|
| 30. |
For the shituf requires the participation of all the inhabitants of the lane.
|
| 31. |
See Halachah 15.
|
| 32. |
I.e., if one person will give a colleague bread - other than the bread of the shituf - when asked (Ra'avad, Maggid Mishneh, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Eruvin 6:8).
|
| 33. |
Rav Moshe HaCohen notes an apparent contradiction between this halachah and Chapter 1, Halachah 19, which states that if a shituf was established with bread, there is no need for eruvinwithin the courtyards, because the children will be aware of the collection of loaves of bread. He maintains that this leniency may be accepted at all times. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim387:1) accepts this view.
The Ramah mentions an even greater leniency. He maintains that we may rely on the shitufalthough eruvin were not established, even when the shituf was established with wine or other foods. His rationale is that in Talmudic times, the shituf was established by one member of each courtyard, who acted on behalf of all the inhabitants. At present, however, all the inhabitants of the lane contribute individually to the shituf.
This rationale is not accepted by the later authorities; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 387:1 and theMishnah Berurah 387:12 suggest following the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch.
|
| 34. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on his conception [Hilchot Shabbat 17:8; Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:8)] that a lane must have several courtyards and several houses open to it.
The Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, and others object to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it follows the opinion of Rav (Shabbat 131a). Nevertheless, the halachah ultimately follows the view of Shmuel (Eruvin 74a), who maintains that the lane and the courtyards are considered to be a single entity. According to this view, when a shituf has not been established, there is no difference whether or not eruvin have been established within the courtyards. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 388:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 388:4 rule according to this view.
The Mishnah Berurah adds that the stringency suggested by the Rambam applies only when the open side of the lane is adjusted with a pole or a beam. If, however, the open side is adjusted with a frame of an entrance, even the Rambam would agree that one is permitted to carry articles that were left in the lane at the beginning of the Sabbath.
|
| 35. |
See Chapter 3, Halachot 18-19.
|
| 36. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
|
| 37. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 16.
|
| 38. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.
|
| 39. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
|
| 40. |
We have translated the Hebrew פתח as "opening," rather than "entrance," in light of the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 389:1) that a window is sufficient.
|
| 41. |
As reflected by Halachah 10, when a person has one entrance that is semi-private and another that is more public, the entrance that is more private is considered to be the one he will prefer. Since the gentile has an alternative of this nature, his presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden within the lane.
|
| 42. |
Because of its small size.
|
| 43. |
Significantly, these laws are directly opposite to those applying to a Jew, as mentioned in Halachah 10.
|
| 44. |
I.e., one might think that since they are joined together as a single entity, the leniency mentioned in the final clause of Halachah 16 would apply. This, however, is not the case, as the Rambam proceeds to state.
|
| 45. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.
|
| 46. |
This refers to a city surrounded by a wall that has gates, for in this way it is a private domain according to the Torah (Maggid Mishneh). Other authorities - and these are the views accepted by many today - accept the possibility of a city's being encompassed by an eruv consisting of wires or string that forms an imaginary wall. The acceptability of such an enclosure is discussed in Hilchot Shabbat 16:16 and notes.
|
| 47. |
I.e., in contrast to the situation mentioned in the following halachah, there is no need to set a certain area outside the eruv.
|
| 48. |
Since the city has only one entrance, it does not resemble a public domain, and the chance that people will develop a misconception is far less. Hence, no additional measure is necessary (Mishnah Berurah 292:5).
|
| 49. |
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 59a,b. The Rashba and the Ritba offer similar, but slightly different interpretations of the passage. Significantly, Rashi interprets the Hebrew עיר של רבים as referring to a city populated by more than 600,000. His view is cited inShulchan Aruch HaRav 392:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 392:7 as an explanation for the reason that this law is not practiced at present.
|
| 50. |
For the reasons explained in the following halachah.
|
| 51. |
Since the city resembles a public domain, allowing people to carry might create a misconception. Unless a portion of the city were set aside, it is possible that some might entirely lose awareness of the prohibition against carrying.
|
| 52. |
Or even several ladders (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 392:2).
|
| 53. |
Although at times a ladder is considered to be an entrance (e.g., Chapter 3, Halachah 2), this instance is judged by different criteria.
|
| 54. |
These individuals are less likely to be upset about being excluded from the eruv of the city. (SeeEruvin 60a.)
|
| 55. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.
|
| 56. |
The Maggid Mishneh (cited also by the Mishnah Berurah 392:34) notes that the Rambam's wording implies that if only a portion of the inhabitants of a city join in the shituf, we do not automatically assume that a person would prefer to be part of them. Perhaps he would prefer to be associated with those who were not included.
|
| 57. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
|
| 58. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.
|
| 59. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 9; Chapter 4, Halachah 13; and Halachah 16 of the present chapter.
|
| 60. |
Today, when eruvin are made in cities where Jews and gentiles live together, the gentiles' domains are usually rented through an arrangement negotiated with the municipal authorities. Since these authorities have a certain dimension of control over all land under their jurisdiction, and can enter all homes with a court order, they are entitled to rent the domain for all the gentiles living in this area.
|
| 61. |
Merkevet HaMishneh explains that the Rambam's wording implies that the inhabitants must either join in the shituf or erect a pillar.
|
| 62. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 16; and Halachah 11 of the present chapter.
|
| 63. |
The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss on Halachah 19) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim392:5) interpret this to be referring to a city that is surrounded by a wall with gates.
The Rambam's intent is interpreted to mean that if the pillar is erected in the middle of the public domain, it is not sufficient to divide one part of the city from the other.
If the city is not surrounded by a wall, it is not a private domain according to Torah law. It is possible to enclose a portion by using a Halachic conception of an enclosure, a tzurat hapetach, "a frame of an entrance," but the entire city may not be enclosed in this manner.
|
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• Tuesday, Tevet 24, 5776 · 05 January 2016
"Today's Day"
Friday Tevet 24 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 113-118.
Tanya: Ch. 13. Therewith will (p. 53)...as stated above. (p. 53).
On this day the Alter Rebbe passed away in the village Piena on Saturday night of parshat Sh'mot 5573 (1813). He is interred in the city of Haditz.
My grandfather (R. Shmuel) asked the Tzemach Tzedek: What did Grandfather (the Alter Rebbe) intend with the "ways of Chassidus" and what did he intend with Chassidus?
The Tzemach Tzedek answered: The "ways of Chassidus" are that all Chassidim are to be like one family, with affection, as Torah teaches. Chassidus is vitality. Chassidus is to bring life and illumination into everything, to shed light even on the undesirable - to become aware of one's own evil exactly as it is, in order to correct it.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• Tuesday, Tevet 24, 5776 · 05 January 2016
"Today's Day"
Friday Tevet 24 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 113-118.
Tanya: Ch. 13. Therewith will (p. 53)...as stated above. (p. 53).
On this day the Alter Rebbe passed away in the village Piena on Saturday night of parshat Sh'mot 5573 (1813). He is interred in the city of Haditz.
My grandfather (R. Shmuel) asked the Tzemach Tzedek: What did Grandfather (the Alter Rebbe) intend with the "ways of Chassidus" and what did he intend with Chassidus?
The Tzemach Tzedek answered: The "ways of Chassidus" are that all Chassidim are to be like one family, with affection, as Torah teaches. Chassidus is vitality. Chassidus is to bring life and illumination into everything, to shed light even on the undesirable - to become aware of one's own evil exactly as it is, in order to correct it.
---------------------
• Daily Thought:
• Daily Thought:
To Love
To love is to sigh at another’s sorrow, to rejoice at another’s good fortune.
To love is the deepest of all pleasures.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment